Home/BlogDecember of 2022 finished the year with a global tropospheric temperature anomaly of +0.05 deg. C above the 1991-2020 average, which was down from the November value of +0.17 deg. C.
The average anomaly for the year was +0.174 deg. C, making 2022 the 7th warmest year of the 44+ year global satellite record, which started in late 1978. Continuing La Nina conditions in the Pacific Ocean have helped to reduce global-average temperatures for the last two years. The 10 warmest years were:
- #1 2016 +0.389
- #2 2020 +0.358
- #3 1998 +0.347
- #4 2019 +0.304
- #5 2017 +0.267
- #6 2010 +0.193
- #7 2022 +0.174
- #8 2021 +0.138
- #9 2015 +0.138
- #10 2018 +0.090
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 continues at +0.13 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 24 months are:
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2021 | Jan | +0.13 | +0.34 | -0.09 | -0.08 | +0.36 | +0.50 | -0.52 |
| 2021 | Feb | +0.20 | +0.32 | +0.08 | -0.14 | -0.65 | +0.07 | -0.27 |
| 2021 | Mar | -0.00 | +0.13 | -0.13 | -0.28 | +0.60 | -0.78 | -0.79 |
| 2021 | Apr | -0.05 | +0.06 | -0.15 | -0.27 | -0.01 | +0.02 | +0.29 |
| 2021 | May | +0.08 | +0.14 | +0.03 | +0.07 | -0.41 | -0.04 | +0.02 |
| 2021 | Jun | -0.01 | +0.31 | -0.32 | -0.14 | +1.44 | +0.64 | -0.76 |
| 2021 | Jul | +0.20 | +0.34 | +0.07 | +0.13 | +0.58 | +0.43 | +0.80 |
| 2021 | Aug | +0.17 | +0.27 | +0.08 | +0.07 | +0.33 | +0.83 | -0.02 |
| 2021 | Sep | +0.26 | +0.19 | +0.33 | +0.09 | +0.67 | +0.02 | +0.37 |
| 2021 | Oct | +0.37 | +0.46 | +0.28 | +0.33 | +0.84 | +0.64 | +0.07 |
| 2021 | Nov | +0.09 | +0.12 | +0.06 | +0.14 | +0.50 | -0.42 | -0.29 |
| 2021 | Dec | +0.21 | +0.27 | +0.15 | +0.04 | +1.63 | +0.01 | -0.06 |
| 2022 | Jan | +0.03 | +0.06 | -0.00 | -0.23 | -0.13 | +0.68 | +0.10 |
| 2022 | Feb | -0.00 | +0.01 | -0.02 | -0.24 | -0.04 | -0.30 | -0.50 |
| 2022 | Mar | +0.15 | +0.27 | +0.02 | -0.07 | +0.22 | +0.74 | +0.02 |
| 2022 | Apr | +0.26 | +0.35 | +0.18 | -0.04 | -0.26 | +0.45 | +0.61 |
| 2022 | May | +0.17 | +0.25 | +0.10 | +0.01 | +0.59 | +0.23 | +0.19 |
| 2022 | Jun | +0.06 | +0.08 | +0.04 | -0.36 | +0.46 | +0.33 | +0.11 |
| 2022 | Jul | +0.36 | +0.37 | +0.35 | +0.13 | +0.84 | +0.56 | +0.65 |
| 2022 | Aug | +0.28 | +0.32 | +0.24 | -0.03 | +0.60 | +0.50 | -0.00 |
| 2022 | Sep | +0.24 | +0.43 | +0.06 | +0.03 | +0.88 | +0.69 | -0.28 |
| 2022 | Oct | +0.32 | +0.43 | +0.21 | +0.04 | +0.16 | +0.93 | +0.04 |
| 2022 | Nov | +0.17 | +0.21 | +0.12 | -0.16 | -0.51 | +0.51 | -0.56 |
| 2022 | Dec | +0.05 | +0.13 | -0.03 | -0.35 | -0.21 | +0.80 | -0.38 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for December, 2022 should be available within the next several 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
Let the madness begin
I know the climate is complicated, but they have been telling us that CO2 is the cause of recent warming for a long time, and seem to have a singular focus on this one element. In my view that is ridiculous. But if it were true and the CO2 has gone up every year for 100 years, shouldn’t this be the warmest year on record?
Further if CO2 were a significant,or as it is portrayed the number 1 cause of warming then in the past (millions of years ag0) when CO2 was in the 1000’s ppm we would have never cooled off. Instead we have had several ice ages since.
The lack of basic critical thinking is remarkable. What caused the MAunder minimum? What caused the Roman warming period? Not anthropogenic CO2. That obviously means there are factors that are just dismissed in favor of a CO2 narrative.
The correlation (although not necessarily causation) of sunspots to temperature cycles is clear. I am seriously concerned about Global Cooling, now that is a real problem! But since the CO2 crowd is convinced CO2 is the main driver we can easily fix global cooling by simply burning hydrocarbons and cutting down trees!
“I know the climate is complicated, but they have been telling us that CO2 is the cause of recent warming for a long time, and seem to have a singular focus on this one element. In my view that is ridiculous.
if you find your opponents view ridiculus
chances are you cant read properly
1. CO2 is but one cause. the rest are listed in ipcc reports
2. the focus has not been singular, the marketing did its job by focusing n the one factor we can control
3. your view that X is ridiculous is not an argument. its not even a fact
I just made a comment and then read through your website. I now realize my comment was redundant and preaching to the choir in a sense.
You are my climate hero. Common sense and science in one place. What is sad is I am in awe. What a pathetic state of affairs when a man of (climate) science demonstrate humility and intelligence and that is cause for celebration. I wish you continued success and even made a donation.
I’ll be following from afar.
Take Care,
Curt
Some quick random observations.
Equal 13th warmest December.
Interesting that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer, despite it being below average in the US and UK.
The last 8 years have all been in the top ten warmest years. All but one of the top 20 warmest years have come from the 21st century.
cherry-picking a couple of meaningless trends:
Since September 2014 the trend is flat (The pause grows by 2 months)
Since September 2010 the trend is 0.3C / decade.
Oh, and some commentators on WUWT will still be insisting the uncertainty of the monthly UAH anomaly is +/- 1.4C, so it’s impossible to kn ow if temperatures are rising or falling. And the same commentators will be praising Lord Monckton when he discovers the pause now starts in September 2014.
Looking at the data only 7 of the last ten years have been in the top 10 not 8.
Also using your argument since the change of the reference point the rate of increase over a ten year span has dropped from 0.3 to 0.13 which is a significant drop especially as the models all predict the rate of increase should go up not down.
More to the point certain British Media outlets were predicting doom as this was the second warmest UK year on record, I doubt they will bother publishing the full picture and explain the UKs weather was an anomaly in global terms and this was only the seventh warmest on record and shows a significant drop to some of the previous years.
Cherry picking seems to be a favourite past time for both sides of the debate.
Nup – 8 years
1 2016 0.388
2 2020 0.357
[3 1998 0.348]
4 2019 0.303
5 2017 0.264
[6 2010 0.193]
7 2022 0.174
8 2021 0.138
9 2015 0.135
10 2018 0.088
Only two years from earlier.
“Also using your argument since the change of the reference point the rate of increase over a ten year span has dropped from 0.3 to 0.13 which is a significant drop especially as the models all predict the rate of increase should go up not down.”
No the 0.3 rate of change is over the entire ten years. It’s only when you look over the longer period you get the better estimate of 0.13. It’s too early to say if there has been any change in the rate of warming. Some like to look for short periods of no warming and claim it means warming has paused, but looking at a different starting point you could just as easily claim the rate has accelerated.
“this was the second warmest UK year on record”
It was the warmest, not second warmest. Records tend to be mentioned more than non records because they are more newsworthy. But a single record or lack of a record says very little. It’s the underlying trend trend that I consider more important. The ranking of years is just an indication that temperatures are increasing.
You say only seven of the last ten years have been among the warmest? OK, let us do some simple counting. 2015 is #1, 2016 is #2, 2017 is #3, 2018 is #4, 2019 is #5, 2020 is #6, 2020 is # 7, and 2022 is # 8. Those are the last eight years. Ten years ago would start at 2013. And how many other ten year spans can you find below the average increase per decade? That is called cherry picking, and denialists are very good at that. Simple fact, the last eight years rank in the ten warmest on record, and when the next El Nino hits, Katy bar the door.
Well said Bellman. The fact is that due to the ‘blob’ in the Pacific there’s no telling what the climate may do next. I am in agreement with you that pointing cooling at this point is bogus. It’s way too early to know anything. My prediction is that it will flatline for another decade or two embarrassing the climate community.
I agree with your crystal ball – while a straight trend still amazingly fits, it definitely looks like the temperature graph is leveling off, especially considering the CO2 emissions are ever increasing. That’s not the temperature graph of a climate that linearly dependent on CO2 or one subject to positive feed-backs.
Prior to the last 8 years we had a 17 year pause. We were told the warming that started 8 years ago was going to catch us up and then proceed upward from there.
Nope. Instead, we’ve seen a cooling trend take hold that may very well join up with the first pause in the future.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2014.5/trend/plot/uah6/from:2015.5/to/trend/plot/uah6/from:2014.5/to:2015.5/trend
What really happened? In 2014 the PDO went back into its warm phase which combined with the ongoing warm phase of the AMO and led to some short term warming.
The PDO may or may not have returned back into a cool mode and the AMO is due to cycle into its cool mode within a few years. Most likely, we will not warm at all in the next decade except during El Nino events. It will be obvious the warming we did see over the past 30 years was completely natural.
The PDO did NOT go into its warm phase. It’s phase is determined by averages of much longer duration. It simply did what it always does when you have a strong El Nino. The PDO affects ENSO, and ENSO affects the PDO. The PDO has been in its cool mode since the late 90s, with short-lived excursions due to El Nino.
I agree that ENSO and PDO are linked. However, in this case the PDO went up well before (2/2014) any ENSO event got started. In addition, it was during this PDO phase change that cloud thinning detected by CERES occurred.
The PDO was in its warm mode from 1977-2006. It then switched into its cool phase until 2014. We will see where it comes out of the current triple dip La Nina.
The PDO went negative in May 1998, not 2006.
https://psl.noaa.gov/pdo/data/pdo.timeseries.ersstv3b.data
And no – you can’t refer to a 2-3 year excursion into the positives as a positive phase.
The only reason the PDO went negative in 1998 was, as you said earlier, “ENSO affects the PDO”. After the ENSO activity ended the PDO returned to a positive state.
It appears you want the PDO to behave as you want and ignore your own words when they are inconvenient.
Incorrect. The PDO returned to positive only in 2003 and 2005 – two El Nino years. During neutral years it was negative. It seems your final sentence describes you.
2000-12 0.2154
2001-01 0.6658
2001-02 0.3210
2001-03 0.0923
Just wow! You pick the only four positive months in a sea of negatives and claim the PDO was generally positive. You really couldn’t get more deceitful than that, could you.
While there is some chaotic behavior in the PDO and what comprises a positive stage still largely undefined as a cycle. Keep in mind that it is considered to be a multi-decadal indicator thus a climate indicator and influencer.
So depending upon how you set the start and the beginning of a multi-decadal phase of the index is somewhat variable still because it lacks specificity like ENSO of 5 overlapping 3 month seasons.
At a minimum PDO would have to involve multiple seasons much longer in total (at least multi-decadal or 17 years, which would round to multiple decades and as has been defined for climate).
Only after defining that can you specify ‘official’ phases.
We’ll see how much AMO influences global surface temperatures in the near future:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1alycZI-rbKOXsiBKiRDpwI3L1T2LIoPb/view
And this is valid for the LT as well:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iwpr93SyDEb7OWC18JU3cu8AyHphGoLJ/view
*
By the way, using the detrended AMO is one more of these typical manipulations.
The detrended AMO’s only useful purpose is to show that inside of the undetrended AMO, there is a cycle.
Actually the undetrended AMO has a cycle too. At least 1.
Thanks for the comparison to GISS. Clearly shows the amount of manipulation in the GISS data.
GISS is not “surface temperature”
It is heavily adjusted urban warming non-data.
spike55 says:
GISS is not ”surface temperature”
It is heavily adjusted urban warming non-data.
———————————
GISS certainly is an outlier. One might attribute that to the James Hansen influence. Having worked for a number of years on large models there are tremendous opportunities for bias to creep in. The number of parameters in these large models is huge and huge swings in outcome of the models can be produced by simply mildly aggressively selecting parameter values within the range of uncertainty allowing for totally unconscious bias to creep in.
I respect James Hansen as an intelligent researcher and a man of integrity but believe his passions lead him to outputs that may well be beyond the pale. But its difficult to criticize him because he doesn’t go outside of the envelope and there is a statistical possibility he could be right. This isn’t Hansen’s fault. Its just the way it is with big models, especially models that can’t replicate the past. Ignorance can be cured by it takes primary research.
On the same vein but from a different perspective. All the surface records are outside of the control of the civil service. Huge amounts of data are provided by authoritarian regimes such as Russia and China that would love to sow disinformation to discombobulate the West. There is that risk to. Just another reason I prefer satellite temperature measurements.
Because the AMO has narrow-band cycles longer than the duration of the satellite record, the fitting of a linear trend to the latter is an exercise of unintelligent junk science.
Because the AMO has narrow-band cycles longer than the satellite record, fitting a linear trend to the latter is merely an arbitrary exercise of junk science. Global temperature variation is not a simple noise process.
” Actually the undetrended AMO has a cycle too. At least 1. ”
As usual, Blindsley Hood replies dumb and irrelevant things.
1. It is absolutely evident that the undetrended AMO contains a cycle, you idiot. If it didn’t, the detrended AMO wouldn’t too.
2. What I said is that you can’t compare detrended data to data containing a trend; you have to detrend that data too, Blindsley Hood.
Richard M
” Thanks for the comparison to GISS. Clearly shows the amount of manipulation in the GISS data. ”
Typical stoopid comment made by a polemicist.
Why don’t you write about the amount of manipulation in Had-CRUT?
Would you like to see the data processed by Japan’s Met Agency and then say also ‘ Clearly shows the amount of manipulation in the JMA data’, genius Richard M?
sky
” Because the AMO has narrow-band cycles longer than the satellite record, fitting a linear trend to the latter is merely an arbitrary exercise of junk science. Global temperature variation is not a simple noise process. ”
Why don’t you use your brain and compare the two graphs I posted, sky?
GISS is not an outlier.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1428121
Sure they are Nate. There are a lot of outlier datasets that have very poor controls over the collection and submission of data. If you want to bundle them all up as a common problem. . . .you would probably be just about right on the mark.
What a trivial manipulation!
You start your trend periods with the highest values, hence the trends over them can’t be positive.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1999/to/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2017/trend/plot/uah6/from:2017/to/trend
Still cooler now than in 2016.
Are you going to continue to compare ONI -1 to ONI +2.5 ?
Actually, I use natural cycles as the starting points of my trends. The goal is to discover if the cycles have any influence. The result shows the influence is very strong. You don’t like it because of that.
1997 was when the AMO completed its phase change. 2014 was when the PDO changed and CERES saw a period of cloud thinning. This tells us the true story of climate change.
“My” trends … interesting Freudian slip.
When do you think you might address my most recent comment about 1998 vs 2006?
“My trends” means my graph. Are you always this irrational?
Coolistas are all snuggled in bed with visions of imminent glaciation dancing in their heads…
Worth remembering that +0.05C today would have been +0.17C when the 1981-2010 base period was being used.
Well, let’s compare global sea surface anomalies to the 1981-2010 average.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Yeah it’s funny how La Nina will do that.
You mean sea surface temperatures have been between 0.2 and 0.1C warmer than they where a couple of decades ago?
The SSTs jumped up when CERES detected an increase in absorbed solar energy. No one should be surprised and it doesn’t support any kind of AGW claims.
Could someone link to where that data (not just that graph) is sourced, or, perhaps shown with a longer-back timescale than just three months?
Ren doesn’t believe in sourcing his graphs.
Sren F
Most SST data going up to ‘right now’ is in NetCDF format (.nc files).
The best monthly SST data available in text form is HadISST (SST + sea ice):
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
This is a 1 degree data set.
It has currently data till Oct 2022.
*
Here is a comparison of HadISST1 SST to UAH 6.0 ocean for Jan 1979 – Oct 2022:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lYv80u2gnI1FC-5Byc4eYkeDJ5QMaffs/view
The linear estimates for that period, in C / decade:
– Had: 0.10 +- 0.003
– UAH: 0.12 +- 0.006
I see, thanks! And those actual CDAS-data linked to as graphed above (.nc supposedly)?
Sren F you would be best to ask Levi. He usually answers emails quite quickly.
[email protected]
Indeed, I did and experienced that some years ago, thinking I’d dive into it later/now, but then a backup harddisk with the mail-response turned unresponsive. Too embarrased to ask again, but guess anybody could always encourage Levi to just provide it at the tidbits-site itself.
I hope it doesn’t cool down, even as I think, based on cyclical climate trends, the next decade will have a cooling trend.
The only reason for wanting the anomaly to go down is to shut up the global warming activism that is bent on taking away access to cheap reliable plentiful energy from fossil fuel.
Otherwise, as shown with Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods, humans flourish when it is warm.
Humans didnt flourish after Medieval times??
Did he say that Nate? I think it can be implied that the reason he hopes it doesn’t cool down is we are in the best of times of the last 40 generations. . . .which happens to take one back to the Medieval times.
His claim that humans flourish only when it is warmer is not supported.
The Renaissance, the Age of Elightenment, and the start of the Industrial Revolution occurred during the cooler LIA period.
this is a regional phenomena and it primarily is a reflection of war booty and an elite class that dedicated itself to learning. They probably had student draft deferments in place at the time.
To say it was a reflection of the plight of the less fortunate may be an over reach. What evidence do you have of that? the so-called Islamic Golden Age is regarded to be the 8th to 14th centuries before Europe started winning the wars and the beginnings of colonial expansion. Warfare and expansionist policies are spurred by shortages of resources.
Of course these are Eurocentric trends. Our knowledge of the LIA effects are also quite Eurocentric.
Not according to Akasofu’s work that links in eastern Asia as well which also has written records of climate indicators.
He’s your guru then?
Guru? You believe in those things?
No his paper is well documented much to the chagrin of the noise from the peanut gallery.
Lets be honest, it is not because his work is better than all others.
His opinion is an outlier in climate science. Thus you think he is has it right, while ignoring the much larger body of published work that disagrees with his opinion.
Nate you don’t understand science.\
Science cannot prove the LIA was non-existent in eastern Asia. Science cannot prove negatives it can only make claims which can be shown to be no supportable.
So when Aksasofu put together a dataset of variation of the freeze dates and melt dates he showed a significant change of climate to a cooler state in time with the LIA. All one can do about that is ignore it. Is ignoring observations what you think science is comprised of?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1429853
Nate says from his link: ”It is an exponential recovery to equilibrium, and lasts a few years at most.”
—————————
Thats pretty ignorant of you. The Maunder Minimum lasted 70 years and so did the recovery seen in instrument records of the day.
Tambora may not have registered either way as the Dalton Minimum nadir preceded Tambora and recovered in about as much time as it took to fall.
The industrial revolution has resulted in about 1 degree warming in 150 years. And we have 1 degree warming supposedly in the bank due to claims it is from CO2 or some kind of solar grand maximum depending upon who you ask.
The question I have is the 1 degree in the bank or did we just spend it? What I figure though is if we just spent it will will take, in the absence of other factors a 150 years of cooling to lose it if this is an 800 year or so cycle.
What I do know is the 1 degree that is supposedly ”in the bank” doesn’t come from observation but comes from theory. A theory built on the back of observation actually not corresponding to theory since the theory was first made into a prediction. We came up with a new theory for that! Deep ocean warming. Previously ocean warming was only considered to take 7 to 10 years in the original models. No bones about that. It was acknowledged as an uncertainty. Today lots of stuff is acknowledged as uncertainty. A ready made literal bag full of excuses for dire predictions like if we don’t act in ten years it will be too late. These excuses will certainly be coming out of the bag as we move forward and they will say: Yeah we acknowledged that as an uncertainty as they move the doomsday clock forward another 10 years.
Heck Erhlich is still pounding the drum for his theory that failed 45 years ago. He will do that until he is in the grave. He built his life on it! https://earth.stanford.edu/news/science-behind-extinction
They all see a future. Like how Arrhenius rose from the grave!
“Maunder Minimum lasted 70 years and so did the recovery seen in instrument records of the day.”
Oh? Show us that.
Check the CET
Ur dreamin. If the data don’t fit your belief just imagine it..
“The question I have is the 1 degree in the bank or did we just spend it?”
Who knows where you are going with this off topic gobbledegook.
Nate with no argument resorts to obfuscation again.
Made already.
Literally nothing out of the ordinary is happening at all
I agree. Vacuous remarks are quite mundane.
Nate, no glaciation for thousands of years. However, we may very well have peaked the recovery from the Little Ice Age and have another 100-200 years of a warmer, more benign climate to enjoy.
You mean the ‘recovery’ from the centuries ago LIA, that accelerated 40 y ago?
Yes, global temperatures accelerated aright in tune with natural cycles and created a small up turn. Yawn.
Which ones are those? And have they produced 1 C warming trends in the past?
Got any thermometer data from the last 10K years? Of course not. You want to compare proxies to thermometers. You realize how stupid that makes you look?
You are the one making the claim that cycles explain current upturn in instrumental record?
“global temperatures accelerated aright in tune with natural cycles and created a small up turn.”
I asked YOU to show me what cycles are those and what amplitude do they have.
Now you call me stupid for asking YOU “to compare proxies to thermometers.”
or to provide anything at all to support your hypothesis.
That is pretty stupid Richard M!
to not be a climate moron one must understand natural climate change.
Yes we know there is a recovery from the LIA and we also know that such recoveries only last as long as natural climate cycles that turn the direction of climate. We also know that climate cycles exist on multiple time scales so it is almost meaningless to say “that accelerated 40 y ago?”
One can say the same thing about the LIA recovery in 1900-1940 it accelerated over 40 years. Climate is always changing at variable rates.
What climate change has not done is reflect a change in lockstep with CO2 emissions because of the acceleration from 1900 to 1940. So it can be conclusively considered there are climate change variables that are NOT due to increasing co2. Figuring out how much that is remains an ongoing project.
“there are climate change variables that are NOT due to increasing co2.”
Yep aerosols, from volcanoes and anthro pollution.
Nate says:
”You mean the recovery from the centuries ago LIA, that accelerated 40 y ago?”
I don’t know about anybody else but no thats not what I mean by that.
We can see natural change occurring on many times scales in the past. In fact the longer you make the time scales the longer the cycles seem to get and the shorter ones disappear due to poor sampling.
As to the acceleration of 40 years goes, it looks a lot like the acceleration seen about 100 years ago. And since the LIA recovery began over 300 years ago all we know is none of the previous warming events were likely due to increasing anthropogenic emissions.
If you actually read Dr. Syun Akasofu’s paper on that you would know that and maybe you wouldn’t be in here ignorantly trying establish unfounded claims about the variability of the drivers of climate change in a feeble and despicable attempt to discredit them.
What qualifies as ‘more benign’?
These?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/27/big-falls-in-crop-yields-across-europe-feared-due-to-heatwaves
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dramatic-nasa-satellite-images-show-lake-mead-water-levels-receded-200-rcna39803
Lake Mead has fallen because of continued over use. Linking to a cherry picked propaganda articles is always humorous. Globally, the trend in crop yields continues to increase.
“Globally, the trend in crop yields continues to increase.”
Uhhh because of many other factors that you cannot disentangle from temperature.
The 2nd link showed that warmth hurt crop yields in Europe.
We know that different crops work well in different climate zones. I don’t see how moving climate zones is a net help to agriculture.
A more logical case can be made that climate stability is good for economic stability.
“Lake Mead has fallen because of continued over use.”
So two decades of the severest Western US drought indicators on record has nothing to do with it, and can be safely ignored?
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/time-series/109/pdsi/all/11/1895-2022?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
The most intense droughts in the USA occurred in the thirties, in the dustbowl years
The Dust Bowl was in the Great Plains, not the West. And was human-enabled by agricultural practices which plowed up vast swaths of deep rooted grasses which dried soils and allowed them to blow away.
As usual Nate is in here pounding the table for his favorite constituency to shake a few more dollars loose.
The Palmer Drought Severity Index is another black box model that has a checkered record in its applicability to regions beyond the region it was originally developed for. It works best where all water availability is provided ‘naturally’. For instance if an area has a fast growing population and that population puts stress on man-made facilities that were put in place to encourage development as is the case for the southwestern part of the Country the PDSI would have you believe in in unprecedented drought. . . .which of course satisfies the agendas of special interests.
The West is a story of water shortage and smart water policies that has since the seventies morphed into stupid water policies.
If you want to be informed on this topic one should watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eg0aPRuZu8&t=1174s
Fact is the current drought in the west isn’t much different than previous droughts when measured by stream flows which doesn’t take into account that unlike the region that the PDSI was calculated upon the west has been populated due to smart water policies in the face of drought.
Globally we have been in an LIA recovery now for 300 years. If we look at ice core data we can see that warming occurs a lot faster than cooling. The cooling part of the LIA was closer to 500 years declining from about 1200ad to 1700ad. It is hard to say as all this gets muddled up due to short term cycles in the southwest that is well correlated with ENSO patterns with cool water offshore the west coast being represented by La Ninas bringing temporary drought.
Fortunately advances in science and DNA work is creating a golden age of research into ecologically related fields that are rapidly revealing history and climates of the past.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lost-cities-of-the-amazon-discovered-from-the-air-180980142/
Here it is revealed cities comprised of upward of a million inhabitants living and farming in the Amazon 2000 years ago long before Europeans arriving and declines in the populations in the same time scale as the Anasazi and Vikings in Greenland centuries back precolumbian along with the Amazon not being a rainforest then but instead dominated by large savannahs.
As said by Syun Akasofu a generation ago. . . .to understand climate change one must first understand natural climate change.
” another black box model that has a checkered record”
Bill predictably pontificates piles of BS.
Its not a ‘black box model’ at all. It uses “readily available temperature and precipitation data to estimate relative dryness.”
What was the LIA recovery climate variable Nate?
How about the 1910 – 1940 warming. Do you have a model to show how that warming occurred?
Nice change of subject there. And ???
The available facts are that we have BOTH more water consumers AND unprecedented drought indices out West.
Only one of us is expressing certainty that one of these, the drought factor, can be ignored, as a cause of the dangerously low levels of Lake Meade and Lake Powell,
Nate says:
The available facts are that we have BOTH more water consumers AND unprecedented drought indices out West.
Only one of us is expressing certainty that one of these, the drought factor, can be ignored, as a cause of the dangerously low levels of Lake Meade and Lake Powell,
————————–
We definitely have more water consumers. However, saying we have unprecedented drought is only the case if precipitation has been at record lows and it hasn’t. I would venture that there are places in the world experiencing record droughts but their are traditional definitions of what the southwest is to make in not unprecedented.
Certainly, the drought is severe enough to rival the worst droughts on the very short record of the southwest.
It is also possible to redefine what drought is to claim an unprecedented drought especially when you find the opportunity to put modeled data in as measured data. Like they do with all the surface temperature records.
It would also be possible to redefine what the southwest is by changing its boundaries or exporting water over a watershed divide which is another thing we do.
One might even be able to move stream flow measuring equipment around to moderately change the results.
Its like adjusting one weather station by another when both have been moved and changed their equipment.
In the case of managing longterm data sets it is incredibly difficult to assure quality as standards are always changing when standards exist at all. Thats the big problem with academia doing the science as they obey no standards. And fraud and intent isn’t necessary. Folks are all the time striving for better standards but one seldom knows which way that pushes the data.
So simple examples are the best way to judge change in long range data. Do it the way they did it previously. Even that is difficult the folks measuring sunspots actually have two systems. One deemed the most accurate and another deemed the most consistent. . . .and they aren’t even sure how consistent absolutely the most consistent one.
So while you do cartwheels over the indexes yo daddy pushes your direction. I am an auditor and experienced in these matters so I look at little deeper.
What I am focusing on is stream flows of the Colorado watershed stream flows above Lake Powell despite some of those stream flows being sent over the watershed divide in Colorado and perhaps Utah as well.
These are extremely low rivaling the lowest readings on record. But not good enough to proclaim as unprecedented to satisfy your policy agenda. Auditors actually have such declarations removed on a regular basis by those with policy agenda which is the institution that we happen to be auditing. If they want it in there they will have to prove it is true beyond a reasonable doubt or they will earn themselves a qualified opinion.
So I am in here for the fun of it doing it to you.
With regards to the validity of the PDSI its an interesting index but it has not been widely accepted as being accurate without full test of the system for every watershed or region in which it is employed. Short of demonstrating accuracy repeatedly at a minimum each important parameter needs validation and I doubt you can find any kind of examination of that. . . .or at a minimum I haven’t found one.
Thats again a lot of pontification.
But no matter, its abundantly clear that you choose to ignore the drought data because it doesnt fit your political narrative.
Well yeah the only political narrative I have is that before you regulate me have a plan, have an achievable objective, and provide evidence that when done with the plan and the objective achieved it makes us all better off, and above all maintain 100% transparency through the entire process. Gangs of scientists, bureaucrats, and social media providers attacking the other side should be illegal.
That rules out absolute power to make 5-year plans.
And it didn’t go unnoticed that you didn’t address a single point I made.
“you didnt address a single point I made.”
False
“Its not a black box model at all. It uses ‘readily available temperature and precipitation data to estimate relative dryness.'”
Nate, reliable science says that the last century has been unusually wet in the west. Dryer weather is a return to normal. Climate does change all by itself, and that fact cannot be separated from the various claims made about climate change.
Nate says:
”Its not a black box model at all. It uses readily available temperature and precipitation data to estimate relative dryness.”
Sure it is. It might not be in the midwest plains states where it was created where farms dominate the landscape. But temperatures, humidity changes, and precipitation would have to modeled (and they are black box models) for the southwest as there are vast areas of the Colorado River watershed that is completely undeveloped and 100 years ago had practically no population.
And in a 100 years CO2 has increased by almost 40%. Doubled CO2 is estimated at 1 degree from CO2 and 2 degrees from watervapor.
Further water vapor accounts for around 60% of the greenhouse effect. So water vapor would have to increase at a rate faster than CO2 to keep up. Do you think an increase in water vapor of 50% would have some effect on soil moisture content? Do you have the code and calculations and data for the southwest over the past 100 years. If you don’t it is a black box model. Plus for the southwest you have to consider anthropogenic water vapor that doesn’t come from emissions but comes from cities and agriculture. The agriculture and cities would not be there but for the dumping of the entire colorado river water shed into and over the crops and cities.
“temperatures, humidity changes, and precipitation would have to modeled”
More creative writing to support your political biases.
All three of these are OBSERVABLES.
Tim S,
“Dryer weather is a return to normal.”
Possibly so.
But the T rise is beyond the normal of last few millenia. And T rise, with no other change, leads to drying.
40 y ago, models and paleo evidence showed that the Western US would become drier, and more drought prone, with the predicted GW to come.
Thus far, the GW has happened and the drying Western US has happened.
Lets see going forward.
Nate, you have confused your political talking points and misstated the science. All hysterical claims about climate, center around a warmer earth holding more water in the atmosphere. Instead of revealing the real cause for predictions about more rain (if true), which is a colder upper atmosphere, they blame a warmer and wetter surface. Which is it?
Tim S says:
Nate, reliable science says that the last century has been unusually wet in the west. Dryer weather is a return to normal. Climate does change all by itself, and that fact cannot be separated from the various claims made about climate change.
————————–
Correct. Hopefully its only a return to the 1930’s and is temporary. Drought since the 1930’s was successfully mitigated by building water infrastructure and limiting loss of fresh water to the ocean.
There are impacts from that. The ecosystem damage at the mouth of the Colorado River in Mexico is extensive. Problems have occurred on the Klamath River where Klamath River water diverted to southern Oregon farmers results in poor flows for salmon at the mouth of the river and fewer salmon in the upper reaches of the river.
In my view politics is taking the wrong approach. They now are planning on taking down the Klamath river dams. What they need to do is build more and better infrastructure as still huge amounts of water are unnecessarily lost to the ocean during storms.
What we have accomplished is amazing. The mistakes largely pale in comparison. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t work to correct mistakes. We constantly need to find better ways to do it. But not putting the civil service in charge of finding those answers drains the pool of money and throws the debate into the ‘every cat for himself’ room where special interests dominate. . . .and a lot of them have a C3 in their corporate designation.
Bill says:
”As said by Syun Akasofu a generation ago. . . .to understand climate change one must first understand natural climate change.”
Nate replies:
” another black box model that has a checkered record”
Bill predictably pontificates piles of BS.
———————————
Nate sees no need to understand natural climate change so he focuses on trying dispute the lack of transparency of the real states of science.
Climate science is not ignoring natural climate change. That is just another denialist meme.
Stop lying Nate. I didn’t say climate science was ignoring natural climate change. I said: Climate science needs to understand natural climate change in order to understand anthropogenic climate change.
The models still do not replicate the past climate. Until they do they are not correctly treating natural climate change and thus they are not properly predicting future climate.
“All hysterical claims about climate, center around a warmer earth holding more water in the atmosphere”
True that a warmer atmosphere holds more water. But the Earths deserts are generated by its general circulation pattern, which creates high pressure latitude zones. This general circulation is driven by tropical latent heat and convection. The desertification effect could be enhanced in a warmer world.
The Earth is not so simple.
Nobody said it was simple Nate. The call is for better and more research into these issues so that models can accurately replicate the past and predict the future. And from a political perspective, the civil service needs to be reinstated as the gate keeper and fund and approve such work based upon a body of standards that strives to only allow work that is openly reviewable by the public in a process that is 100% transparent to the public.
In that vein its my opinion the civil service had it right originally whereby the sun had been the primary variable in climate change. That doesn’t mean that we don’t have UHI messing with output, or authoritarian (Russian/Chinese) disinformation campaigns affecting data streams. Nor does it mean that there isn’t some element of climate change that is anthropogenic in nature. Getting to a program that ensure integrity is a program where the folks in charge are independent and face legal consequences for violating the independence standards. That is the civil service model.
In about two weeks the very common short term drought in the US SW appears to have ended. One can only chuckle at the alarmist rhetoric from clueless fools.
California gets it all. Long term record drought and wildfires, then short term record floods.
Apparently these are not mutually exclusive.
Yep that has been the refrain in California since at least when I was about nine years old. In California when it rains, it pours.
Wildfires and floods have been a defining part of California history forever because of the long periods between rainfall and the amount of it when it does fall.
The only thing that has changed is how much human settlement gets in the way. In more modern and fire regulated areas on the outskirts of cities vegetation clearance is more strict than in the forests where the shrubbery is considered to be part of the real estate land value because of its aesthetic values. thus like Australia does today in the outback where wildfire burns everything. That used to be the case in a California of a much smaller population. Now it burns more only because of population increase and backstepping on fire prevention efforts for the purpose of preserving more of those aesthetic values which sells at premium prices in California.
So today we have far fewer fire roads and far fewer controlled burnings of areas of heavy growth. And just like in financial markets where we have private financial institutions to big to fail, we have private utilities too big to fail as litigated responsibilities for fire ignition becomes more hotly pursued. And who ultimately pays the price for that?
“The only thing that has changed is is how much human settlement”
Bill pontificates again.
Wanna bet it doesnt hold water?
Sure enough, the other thing that has changed is the size of fires. 18 of the top 20 largest fires (acreage) have occurred in the last 2 decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_wildfires
Perhaps so. But it has only been in the satellite era where they have consistently measured such stuff. Historically major forest fires weren’t even fought much less measured. Today with satellites one might even be able to go through archives and perhaps find measured but unfought fires that never got measured, except that by the time satellites were recording this stuff visually the population of the west was huge.
The size of fires in my earliest memories having lived in a wild area with extensive fire prevention/size limitation practices already in place in the 1950’s did a whole lot to contain fires. I watched several of these fires as a youth and noted that without exception fires were stopped at fire roads that demarked strategic fire fighting positions and/or the edges of controlled burns.
Those practices began to relax in the 70’s for the reasons I stated above. So don’t be an idiot and just simply believe that todays datasets are in any way comparable over many decades because they clearly are not. But it is well accepted in California that some amount of the extent of wild fires are a direct result of the relaxation of fire prevention practices of earlier decades.
Bill always finds some excuse to ignore inconvenient data. Here its boyhood memories.
Yep living in a chaparral forest next to the coast for the first two decades of my life you learn nothing about what is going on in the forest.
But thats not the real problem with Nate its his selective use of alarmist literature that has no basis in fact. He looks at a list of the largest recorded fires and starts immediately extrapolating stuff from that list without even giving a thought to why what he observed is what he observed. . . .he already know before he looked.
Same problem exists with a lot of politicized and politically motivated datasets. But Nate has never found one. To him they are all pristine and perfectly adequate for him to start drawing conclusions about them. Comes a long a person who lived it and who can remember asking his Grandma why is the mountain behind his home have so many white lines on it. Can’t remember exactly my age but it was around 3rd grade. She told me they were fire roads that the firemen had put in to provide fire breaks and access for fire trucks to fight the fires. Those lines are not on that mountain today.
But all Nate has to do is pickup some literature on this matter and actually do something himself to validate his conclusions from the list he made. But he is too lazy to do that.
There are literally thousands of sources on the internet that explain why and how fire suppression policies have changed over the decades.
From my perspective during the satellite era the west coast was dominated by El Nino in the first two decades. La Nina has dominated over the two subsequent decades. La Nina is strongly associated in California with drought and a lack of rainfall, whereas El Nino the opposite. La Nina also dominated the 60’s and 70’s.
As a college scientist student in the 60’s I conducted numerous field trips into SoCal chaparral forests as I had gravitated toward the natural sciences. Some of the classroom instruction materials were indicating that ecological studies were indicating that fire is a necessary natural ecological tool for the maintenance of the health of these forests. So we made field trips into areas that had not been burnt for decades due to fire suppression efforts and multiple trips into burnt areas at different time intervals after a burn.
What we learned from all this is yes there is a burn/grow natural cycle. Plants that emerge after a burn are different species than before the burn. Apparently the seeds of this post burn growth hibernates for years awaiting its opportunity to emerge. The cycle is apparently caused by the massive overgrowth of certain species of the chaparral forest that shades the post fire species such that perhaps they never experience the surface temperature on the soil necessary to sprout after the over growth reaches a certain thickness.
IMO, in terms of the beauty of the chaparral ecosystem, nothing surpasses that of a spring field trip after a late summer or fall fire, and a wet winter. the variety of plants with good populations is far higher than in the mature forest and likely they are all flowering in the spring. But as the years roll forward the variety diminishes. . . .until the next fire.
This fact and its documentation changed management, according to sources pretty much throughout the western US. Controlled burns were substituted for fire suppression. But that became political as sometimes they would lose control. So over the years agencies burnt less and implemented extensive standards to allow controlled burns which had the expected result, fewer burns.
Also the fire roads slowly disappeared getting over grown themselves. This might be a product of the El Nino years where we had less drought. I don’t know for sure.
Nate says:
”Coolistas are all snuggled in bed with visions of imminent glaciation dancing in their heads”
Well depends upon what you want to call imminent glaciation. Last interglacial took over 100,000 years to descend to the bottom. If thats 12C. That works out to about .0012 degrees per decade.
What you have to do before that is flatten out those 800 year variations in precipitation patterns that resulted in an increase in glaciation that last started about 800 years ago.
Heck having major crop failures from cooling was last experienced frequently as little as 45-50 years ago. Obviously scientists were very worried about that. We have been fortunate over the past several decades. One can only hope it continues as 800 years ago the native Americans in the southwest were undergoing extremely hard times bringing the technology advanced Anasazi culture crashing down.
“crop failures from cooling”
And crop failures from excess warmth, as discussed above.
“Wheat grows best when the temperatures are warm, around from 21 to 24 C/ 70 to 75 F, but are not too hot.”
The issue is when there is a disruption of normal climate for a given region.
You are so gullible Nate.
You are looking at yield changes of 2% against a 5 year average and some predictions of less than a 10% variation against that same short term average. This is not a crop failure its normal crop variation. The primary driver is lack of irrigation water as plants that don’t get watered dry out faster the warmer it is. Heat stress is a need for more water condition. that doesn’t happen due to global warming it happens when you have fewer clouds. The more water vapor in the sky the less heat stress.
Freezes kill off crops to levels exceeding 50% and bankrupt farmers.
Check out this report that talks about record harvests in Europe with virtually all of them occurring in the past decade. You come in here posting pablum for idiots. . . .which makes you an idiot.
https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/cropexplorer/pecad_stories.aspx?regionid=europe&ftype=prodbriefs
Also one should watch this video to learn something about politics surrounding water availability policy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eg0aPRuZu8&t=1174s
Bottom line is that California has always had a water crisis and it has historically not been an issue because of smart water policies and limiting massive losses of fresh storm water just running off into the ocean.
Water storage programs limit flood damage, provide more level supplies of water for growing populations, provide cheap electricity that has paid for the water policies in California, and provided extensive recreational opportunities.
Today Californians are faced with extensive resistance to projects that would ensure more water availability. Excess environmentalism obstructs these projects limiting clean power generation, desalination projects, and new water storage facilities to serve the increasing population.
First two:
“Nov 9 2022 | Hungary Corn: Extreme Weather Reduces Production to Lowest Level in 54 Years
Oct 12 2022 | European Union Corn: Smallest Crop in 15 Years”
agree with what I posted above.
My point was simply that excess heat also can be BAD for agriculture.
Re: water in the West.
So two decades of the severest Western US drought indicators on record has nothing to do with it, and can be safely ignored?
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/time-series/109/pdsi/all/11/1895-2022?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
The PDSI is an insufficient indicator of drought for the southwest.
The problem is it includes water storage. For the location it was developed there is very little man made water infrastructure. In the region it was developed you had abundant year round streams and fluctuations in water storage is far less impactful where water is generally not drawn from storage. In the southwest we only have the populations we have because of manmade water infrastructure that needs to keep up with population levels.
Yes we are having drought in the southwest. Its just not unprecedented. If you want to use a drought index to pound the drum for climate change the only index that makes sense to use is a global index.
If you look here for the region in which the PDSI was developed
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/time-series/105/pdsi/all/11/1895-2022?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
You will see droughts but the worst drought still was in the 1930’s
I don’t know if the ‘dust’ of the ‘dust bowl’ was due to unsustainable farming practices or not, but that had no effect on the fact a major record setting drought as far as the PDSI is concerned was present.
“The PDSI is an insufficient indicator of drought for the southwest.
The problem is it includes water storage. For the location it was developed there is very little man made water infrastructure. In the region it was developed you had abundant year round streams and fluctuations in water storage is far less impactful where water is generally not drawn from storage. ”
Source of this auditor’s pointification?
Look it up Nate. I gave you the sources several months ago when we last discussed this before you ignored it again and started using it again without any disclaimers.
And most record temperature for the region are still in the 1930’s so its not soil moisture either.
“I gave you the sources several months ago when we last discussed this ”
Your recall of facts is demonstrably faulty, Bill. So you just go with stream of consciousness pontification.
“And most record temperature for the region are still in the 1930s so its not soil moisture either.”
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/time-series/109/tavg/24/11/1895-2022?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
Yet another in a long line of Bill posts that fail a fact check.
This is why you are such a moron Nate. Somebody hands you a complex model and instantly you accept it because the results support your political agenda if you have one or you believe it because its important what the perception of social media is of the quality of your virtue signaling.
And your response did not address anything I said except provide a link to a poorly vetted index not developed for the western region but is popular because it suits political agendas and provides abundant opportunities for virtue signalers preening their image on social media.
1) The model does not refute record temperatures.
2) By far most of the west region is the most documented regarding mean temperatures a century ago because it was the last region to have agriculture and population growth. In fact until recently it was cooling in the US.
3) There isn’t any validation of any part of the PDSI specific to the west region. Of what validation would be needed soil moisture is the most sparse in available data from a century ago.
I am all for something like this index to measure stuff in the satellite era. The big problem with these indexes is there is an irresistible urge to improve them so they lose their long term accuracy which is probably the very worst for periods prior to the indexes development because measurement standards are ever changing as well, UHI as but one example. If you are going to use GIS to attribute means to unsampled areas you need to make sure the usage hasn’t changed.
“Somebody hands you a complex model and instantly you accept it because the results support your political agenda ”
On the contrary Bill, the evidence is clear and consistent that when someone shows you DATA, such as this, you instantly reject it if it doesnt support your political agenda.
Yes my political agenda is for the public. I don’t have personal agendas, nor agendas for elitist clubs or anything like that.
So when handed a dataset I don’t reject it. But the auditor hound in my wants to know what the data really represents. I want to know how it was collected. Is it random data. Is it representative data. is it an adequate sample.
And if it contains ‘modeled’ data I want to know the parameters of the model and how the values were arrived at.
I do a lot of public service work both for C3 clients and as a volunteer. I have made a difference. One of my primary objectives are for transparency for all the factors listed above. The government resists greatly because they know their datasets are far from perfect. That raises the questions if they are adequate as nothing is perfect. Hell that is what I was trained to do when I first became an auditor.
I have been the instigator of improvements in a number of datasets embarked upon because of the obvious inferiority of them and money wasted in doing something poorly and continuing to pay to do it poorly.
So don’t give me shit about having a political agenda. I have one but it is the right one.
You OTOH just defend the datasets and models you like and clearly demonstrate to me you have no reasonable basis for doing so beyond your loyalty to authority and perhaps other albiet unspoken for biases. Auditors seldom run into the problem when audits are required as such stonewalling bespeaks to an agenda that is not in the best interest of the public and auditees pay dearly for that resistance as auditors charge by the hour.
“You are looking at yield changes of 2% against a 5 year average and some predictions of less than a 10% variation against that same short term average.”
Nope, I am not. Where do you get such an idea?
Your own source dummy! Don’t you read your own sources? This is the second time in for this monthly report.
”Cereal yields are down about 2% overall, compared with the five-year average, though a handful of crops such as sugar beet and potatoes are doing better than average.”
also it says up to 9% as a prediction for certain crops that haven’t yet been realized.
OK fine. 9% for corn and soybeans. Makes the point that warmer is not necessarily better.
And:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1424576
You cannot possibly be claiming that GW is preventing freezes, (Texas just froze!) and which are in any case, a minor concern for most major crops, other than occasionally oranges in Florida.
Nate, agricultural production over time is an intelligent adaptive process. You and the morons that threaten impending doom don’t include the intelligence/adaptive variables of crop selection and planting time strategies and assume that the folks making the predictions do the strategy and don’t react to climate change.
Thus longterm slow climate change has no impact whatsoever on agricultural production because the farmers adapt.
What has an impact are unexpected and sudden changes in weather. The greenhouse effect by its very nature limits these by providing less extreme temperatures. Compare the extreme temperatures of the moon to the earth. No comparison whatsoever in extreme temperatures and the earth’s extreme temperatures are by far milder than the moon. . . .because of the greenhouse effect. Anybody that buys the garbage you spew is an idiot.
Thats number one.
Number two is high temperatures only ‘stress’ plants. Freezes ‘kills’ them. And having more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reduces stress. Thats why greenhouse farmers supplement CO2 in their grow houses. It reduces their need for water which is the root of the primary stress that comes from warm temperatures.
Finally drought is associated with cool temperatures not warm temperatures. The Anasazi culture is believed to have been destroyed by the drought associated with the LIA. Quite likely also the Amazonian Mayans and of course the Greenland Vikings.
Which culture was destroyed by warming Nate?
“Thus longterm slow climate change has no impact whatsoever on agricultural production because the farmers adapt.”
Sounds like we mostly are in agreement on that.
“https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1423134
However small countries who cannot move their boundaries could suffer if the agricultural basis of their economy is disrupted.
Nate says:
”However small countries who cannot move their boundaries could suffer if the agricultural basis of their economy is disrupted.”
——————————-
Farmers don’t generally adapt by moving. They aren’t locked in a super narrow specialty like yours of only being able to flip hamburgers. ROTFLMAO! Is that all you can think of. . . .what yo daddy told you?
Ok, so once again you convey excessive certainty that just so happens to fit your political narrative in yet another area outside your expertise.
I told you I was an environmental consultant. I work in a lot of fields. . . .literally. Don’t do much farm work but use farm paradigms almost daily because it is so much more advanced than with other natural systems.
Farmers generally don’t move because they would have to sell their lands, move all their equipment, and rebuild many structures. They do many things though. The rotate crops, plan for multiple harvests, change crops, and work hard to estimate when to plant and when it harvest. Its one of the most adaptable businesses in the world. . . .without worrying about where the border is.
The US is an exporter with a global market and lots of capital. Not so in small developing countries with subsistence farming and poverty. Are you up on the research on climate effects on agriculture and economies in these countries?
Nate says:
The US is an exporter with a global market and lots of capital. Not so in small developing countries with subsistence farming and poverty. Are you up on the research on climate effects on agriculture and economies in these countries?
————————-
It costs a lot to move or you are going to hungry when you go to a land where you can’t buy land and are likely to end up in an overcrowded refugee camp.
As subsistence farmers they have land where they are. Sometimes they need help and we do that a lot. If you have agricultural skills sign up here. https://www.peacecorps.gov/volunteer/volunteer-openings/agriculture-volunteer-7401br/
I do tons of volunteer work in my areas of experience. Have logged well over 5,000 hours over the past 40 years but have done only a few trips out of country. People and ecosystems need help here too.
“Freezes kill off crops to levels exceeding 50% and bankrupt farmers.”
What freezes? Nobody is talking about freezes!
We are talking about warming of 1 C relative to previous decades.
People are claiming that such warming is better for agriculture.
But as I point out
“Wheat grows best when the temperatures are warm, around from 21 to 24 C/ 70 to 75 F, but are NOT TOO HOT”
Different crops do best in different ranges of conditions.
Why is this difficult to understand?
I am not talking about freezes due to long term climate change. I am talking about freezes that occurred in the US during the years I was coming of age from the 1950’s into the 70’s due to primarily to multidecadal climate change patterns.
Freezes are a minor concern for oranges in Florida. Nobody has been talking about that, they have been arguing that GW is better for agriculture.
We agree on something. We are living in a golden age.
Throughout the southern hemisphere and the tropics, we see negative anomalies in December.
High SOI values indicate that La Nina is continuing at its best.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
La Nina will be over within 3 months.
Noted.
Are you claiming otherwise?
Oh, my
CMIP6.0 computer models projected the global temperature anomaly should be at 1.35C by the end of 2022, but, alas, were at 0.05C.. Whats a CAGW sycophant to do
Thats what, 6 standard deviations devoid fro reality? Not looking good for Lefties..
The CAGW cheerleaders will get a slight reprice with the coming El Nio cycle starting later this year, but the Pacific PDO is already in its 30-year cool cycle and the Atlantic AMO 30-year cool cycle will likely start around 2025 bringing 30+ years of flat or falling global temperature trends, which will substantially reduce the long-term warming trend which CAGW advocates predicted would currently be around 0.30/decade but is only at 0.13C/decade over the past 43 years..
CAGW is so busted.
Now give 3 reasons why your analysis is deliberately deceptive.
Ah the endless smugglers of the absurd that.
Antonio-san:
Its time to call it day on Leftists CAGW scam, which will go down in history as being the biggest and most expensive swindle in world history
Leftists want to insanely and impossibly replace all fossil fuels with wind and solar by 2050, have Leftist government hacks ration all food and energy, and relegate all of Africa to pre-industrialized poverty for the sake of a contrived CAGW scam that isnt happening?
I dont think so
Every CAGW prediction has been wrong: global warming trends, ECS estimates (1.5C not 3.5~5C), sea level rise (just 10 inches by 2100, not 10 feet) , disappearing Arctic sea ice, collapsing Antarctic land ice mass, increasing trends of severe weather events, ocean acidification, etc.
Just give it up. Come up with another Leftist scam.
Hey, why not try catastrophic anthropogenic global cooling like Leftists tried in in the 70s? Just dust off that old chestnut and see if people will fall for that one again
Samuraisan,
You are playing so many squares at the same time that I may as well link to the overall bingo:
https://climateball.net/the-bingo/
Well played!
Why didn’t you answer my question? Can you really not see your deception in comparing +1.35 to +0.05? I really hope for your sake this was deliberate deception.
The first and even second time you argue that you just didn’t understand what were saying. The third time…I have no choice but to accept that this is willful, deliberate, and premediated disinformation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1358821
And your predictions are woefully incorrect. You predicted that the UAH TLT anomaly would drop to -0.4. We are now in the 3rd consecutive La Nina and we are no where close to that.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-664707
My previous prediction of -0.4C was based on a strong La Nina cycle which we havent had since 2010.
Just give up your silly belief in this silly disconfirmed CAGW scam
Its a bust.
im sure Leftists will come up with a new scam to bilk taxpayers of money and steal power because CAGW has become a laughable joke.
Its amazing this hoax has lasted as long as it did, which is a compliment of Leftists guile and mastery of..disinformation
You’re not getting it. CMIP6’s 1700+ month prediction was far more correct than you’re 4 month prediction.
And I think you have me confused with someone else. I’m not a leftist and I certainly don’t support CAGW. I don’t even know what CAGW is because every time I ask I get a different answer. But the general gist I get from contrarians is that it is a theory that posits that everyone should already be dead or will be dead in the next couple of decades which I’ve never supported.
Samurai:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-779097
“By the middle of next year, the double La Nina cooling will cause UAH6.0 to hit -0.3C or even -0.4C.”
No conditional there – it is an unconditional “WILL”.
bdg…”And your predictions are woefully incorrect. You predicted that the UAH TLT anomaly would drop to -0.4. We are now in the 3rd consecutive La Nina and we are no where close to that”.
***
According to you alarmists, the Arctic should be ice free, coastal cities should be under water, and we should be suffering heat wave after heat wave by now.
Alarmists have warned us children would never see snow again, yet this winter in the Vancouver, Canada area was one of the most brutally cold ever. We had more snow here than I have seen for a long time.
People are still digging out from blizzards in the Buffalo, New York region.
I think you have me confused with someone else. I’ve never predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free, that coastal cities would be under water, that children would never see snow again. Not that it matters because even if I had it still doesn’t change the fact that CMIP6’s prediction was not off by 1.3 C as SAMURAI claimed.
BDGWX-san:
You were right, I was wrong Im sorry
I reevaluated the CMIP6.0 model global temp anomaly projections and found the 30-year warming trend from 1992 (.31C) to 2019 (1.31C~latest model run year available) was actually 0.37/decade (1.31C-1.31C)/27 years= .37C/decade)
Accordingly by December 2022 (30 years) CMIP6.0 actually predicted the 2022 global temp anomaly should have been 1.46C (rounding up) and not 1.36C as I previously stated
Extrapolating this out, CMIP6 models predict the global temperature anomaly will be around 4.35C by 2100, which is seriously devoid from reality..
Such extreme CAGW global warming is utterly absurd, but it is great propaganda to scare little kids into believing the earth is about to end, and a fantastic weapon for Leftist governments to use to steal over a $quadrillion replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar, and grabbing control over every aspect of peoples lives to save the world from Warmageddon, but it s all BS.
UAH 6.0 global temperature anomaly data show that since 1979, the warming trend has only been 0.13C/decade, so weve enjoyed about 0.56C of beneficial warming recovery since 1979, and by 2100, the global temperature anomaly may be around 1.57C
I say lets use up as much cheap and abundant fossil fuels as we like, and slowly build a hydro and Thorium MSR energy grid to supply all the cheap power well everneed forever, and continue using fossil fuels to supply all the fertilizers and all the essential petrochemicals we need to build a prosperous, safe, and flourishing world for us and our children
Samurai,
You’ve packed a lot of disinformation into a single post. It would be impressive if it were deliberate.
Barry-san
Its an immutable FACT the laughable CMIP6 computer models show a 30-year warming trend of 0.37C/decade (and increasing in the future) compared to reality, which is 0.13C/decade.
The damn computer models are off by a factor of THREE!
Its like Leftists building bridges wrongly assuming Pi=9.14159 instead the actual 3.14159, which is why Leftists bridges are all falling down.
In Leftist NEWSPEAK, disinformation is any reality they dont like..
“30-year warming trend of 0.37C/decade”
For which period? And which emission scenario are you looking at?
And is this the land surface or lower tropospheric temperatures?
Why are these details missing from a purported critique of the science?
“reality, which is 0.13C/decade”
This is the output of the lowest trend one can find, and is the lower tropospheric temperatures.
You’re comparing apples to oranges, right?
“Leftists”
Not only is your post full of disinformation, you are full of politics.
Which is why there are no details in your ‘critique’ of the science, only soundbytes.
You’re doing politics, Samurai-san.
So let’s pay heed to what the science says.
CMIP6 models projections begin in 2015. The soonest 30-year land-surface trend projections would end in December 2044. And you’re comparing that trend with the UAH lower troposphere trend from 1979 to 2023.
Your Disinformation 1.
OAGCMs can’t predict annual temperatures because they are not designed to predict weather, so your initial comment that CMIP6 projections of surface temps didn’t predict the lower tropospheric temperature in 2022 is not-even-wrong on at least 2 counts.
Your Disinformation 2.
“CAGW advocates predicted would currently be around 0.30/decade”
Setting aside the politicization of the acronym and the apparent waftiness in your trends (0.30? 0.37?), AR5 gave a near-term projection of an increase of 0.3 to 0.7 for the period 2016 to 1935 relative to the period 1986 to 2005. [IPCC AR5 Chapter 11, p. 955]
CMIP6 model results are not expressed in trends but in absolute change.
Your Disinformation 3.
If one were to try to convert that result into a trend, it would be something like 0.17 C/decade (+/- 0.06). Nothing like the 0.37 C/decade figure you gave, which by the way appears nowhere in the IPCC AR6 or AR% chapter on projections.
Your Disinformation 4 and 5.
Would you care to try again with references? Or will you simply admit you’re regurgitating someone else’s ideas without a clue of the underlying facts?
My bet – you’ll double down on the political rhetoric or wisely shut up.
Somebody called it
https://youtu.be/2V3CfD8TPac
It’s happening again.
2010s average: +0.121
Average of three La Nina years of the 2020s: +0.223
Increasingly less heat in the subsurface Pacific. Very far from El Nino.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202301.gif
oof
not many ECS>2 model runs are going to produce a monthly value that low in Dec 2022
even L&C’s 1.7 is starting to look excessive
could signal major challenges in the long term but fortunately major volcanic cooling events are rare and by the time reglaciation really gets rolling in a couple thousand years the Earth’s surface will be a rigorously controlled combination park/museum
La Nina will certainly not end until spring in the northern hemisphere and may continue.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202301.gif
Yet again, you seem to believe that a snapshot now is some proof of what will happen in the future.
Monthly ONI:
Jan 1951 -0.92
Mar 1951 -0.04
Dec 1964 -0.92
Feb 1965 -0.25
Dec 1971 -1.03
Feb 1972 -0.30
Dec 1983 -0.94
Feb 1984 -0.18
To anybody sensible, anything less than 100 years of climate data is a snapshot. But Alarmists insist it’s 30 years despite literally no evidence for such an arbitrary assumption.
Antonin Twerpy got totally triggered by temperature drop to zero point zero
Seriously? That’s your only contribution here? Try to say something useful.
“But Alarmists insist its 30 years despite literally no evidence for such an arbitrary assumption.”
30 y of data is what meteorologists have been using for decades to determine the climate means for regions.
Such are the surface temperature anomalies in the tropical Pacific now, and they won’t change much until the end of winter in North.
https://i.ibb.co/yncKJJc/gfs-pacific-sat-sstanom-d1.png
that does to seem to be the most common outcome, only a couple La Ninas reversed in the deep winter months and it’s deep enough now that it should take a few Qs to go positive, based on the usual rates of changes
though it’s not certainly not unprecedented (e.g. 1972)
but assuming it doesn’t reverse till MAM the 2020s will already have more La Nina months in the record than any decade since the 1970s, when it briefly appeared we were headed to an icy doom 🙂
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
talldave…”…since the 1970s, when it briefly appeared we were headed to an icy doom…”
***
What worries me is that conditions are right wrt the Sun’s cycle for us to experience another mini ice age like the Little Ice age.
I hope this cooling is just an anomaly but if one solar scientist is correct, were heading into a mini ice age till 2050.
haha yeah that trendline is a little worrying
but it could just be another early 1800s bounce
fortunately either way there’s *probably* enough effect from GHGs to prevent a revival of the River Thames frost fairs in the lifetimes of anyone around today
with luck we’ll bottom out above 1979 temps, warming certainly presents a trivial set of problems relative to cooling
Pffft. Climate contrarians have been predicting imminent cooling for 2 decades and don’t seem to learn anything from being wrong.
Whereas 40 years ago climate modeling predicted general warming of global surface temperatures from then on and got that right.
Happy New Year in Europe:
Thousands of records shattered in historic winter warm spell in Europe.
Swannie chirps in with pathetic sarcasm in an attempt to undermine global cooling.
From the article…
“As temperatures soared 18 to 36 degrees Fahrenheit (10 to 20 Celsius) ….”
Temperatures soared to 10C to 20C. Good grief, we’re all going to die!!! That temperature range is completely normal in Europe for January, depending on location.
The Washington Post is a fake news rag bought off by climate alarmists long ago. Anyone who reads such drivel would claim that heat can flow by its own means from cold to hot.
Gordo can’t reply with data, so he throws something at the wall, asserting that the data must be wrong because the WP posted the article. Another example of his basic denialist lack of interest in facts that bust his anti-science narrative.
swannie…what kind of data is presented with a range from 10C to 20C?
Europe ranges from northern Norway and Sweden down to the Mediterranean. Trying to tell me there is not a range of 10C to 20C between the two?
It’s amazing that Gordo still doesn’t understand climate after all his years of denial. From the article:
That’s not the same as actual temperatures, is it?
Oh, did Gordo also fail to see the twitter graphic too? I expect that the WaPo had nothing to do with that data presentation.
A very stable surface anomaly in the Nino 4 region interacts with a high SOI.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
In two days, Arctic air will descend south over the Great Lakes, and in California cold front will bring more precipitation.
https://i.ibb.co/27KrnJP/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f060.png
Currently a strong snowstorm in South Dakota and Minnesota.
https://i.ibb.co/J7kZ9Yb/Snap-Shot-20230103-172211.jpg
Sioux Falls.
Wow, that’s a much bigger drop than I was expecting. I thought maybe the influence from Tonga-Hunga would still be evident. Possibly T-H has now “left the building”.
Northern Polar Vortex is organizing, finally. But wind speeds remain low. There’s not much historical data on PV unfortunately, as it is a major factor in regulating Earth’s temperature.
The polar vortex will break over North America.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/01/06/1800Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-113.62,61.99,446
Just read that a major storm (Pineapple Express) is headed for California from the Pacific.
There has been no influence from this eruption.
Not any longer, apparently.
Not quite sure, in fact: here is UAH’s grid data for the lower stratosphere in Oct 2022
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kut91328oJEKMjXNwTCBavpxP64x3G9z/view
As far as I have understood a paper linked to by E. Swanson, the very low anomalies in the 60S-82.5S latitudes of the lower stratosphere might well be due to huge quantitites of water vapor blowed up by the Honga Tonga.
Nov and Dec 2022 aren’t published yet, still no data for these months in the grid.
Yet again a rectangular grid which visually places emphasis on the poles at the expense of the equator.
Yet again the ridiculous, opinionated, bossy answer of a person who is always more interested in self-portrayal than in substantive discussion.
Who cares about the difference between the equator and the poles here, you idiot? It’s about displaying the consequences of an event on a grid, and nothing else.
Yet again Blinny fails to acknowledge what all other map/chart specialists simply accept.
P.S. I note that Blinny does not challenge that his presentation visually promotes the poles at the expense of the equator.
“There has been no influence from this eruption.”
That’s an overconfident statement if ever I saw one.
We can check off another prediction
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1267697
Good one haha. I am curious however wondering how it will look with the next El Nio.
entropic must have been on his 4th or 5th pint of Guinness when he made that prediction. Those crazy Irish.
Gordon Robertson
Foiled by a triple dip La Nina.
Would you and/or RLH care to take the same bet this year? At least one UAH monthly anomaly temperature of 0.5C or greater during 2023.
what is the bet
Fairly straightforward. I bet that the UAH monthly anomaly temperature will reach or exceed 0.5C at least once during 2023.
If it does not, I will pay 20 pounds to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. If it does you pay an equivalent amount (25 dollars?) to a charity of your choice.
He was getting his ENSO forecast from Bindiclown
… says the little ankle biting dachshund, ah well ah well!
He can’t forecast anything right, but he is especially blind to La Ninas
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1279572
The chart is becoming too cluttered at the 750×430 size
I think it should be stretched to 1200 pixels width or something
Just curious, Dr Spencer, but in the past you had to make adjustments based on sat drift. Is another adjustment for that reason coming soon? Thanks for your reply.
Wondering what point you are trying to make. If you mean the adjustments circa 2005, they accounted for an error which UAH claimed was within the stated error margin. Alarmists played that up to make it appear as if the satellite records were error prone.
If that’s the thrust of your question, why not look at the amount of fudging of temperature records blatantly performed by NOAA and NASA GISS? Since 1990, NOAA has slashed 90% of its reporting stations, and circa 2015, they admitted to slashing the reporting stations to less than 1500 to cover the entire solid surface.
In lieu of the slashed stations, NOAA, and GISS, who get their data from NOAA, have been using climate models to fabricate temperatures to replace the real stations they have slashed. On top of that, both have gone back in the temperature record and replaced real temperatures with synthesized temperatures to better fit their meme of a linear warming trend since 1850.
The hottest temperatures in the US occurred in the 1930s and the US has not come close since to the number of heat waves experienced during that decade. Yet NOAA and GISS have amended those temperatures to make them cooler.
As usual, Robertson the clueless ignoramus is lying and lying and lying.
Lie Nr 1:
” Since 1990, NOAA has slashed 90% of its reporting stations, and circa 2015, they admitted to slashing the reporting stations to less than 1500 to cover the entire solid surface. ”
Wrong. NOAA has in GHCN daily over 100,000 stations worldwide, and over 25,000 in GHCN V4.
*
Lie Nr 2:
” The hottest temperatures in the US occurred in the 1930s and the US has not come close since to the number of heat waves experienced during that decade. Yet NOAA and GISS have amended those temperatures to make them cooler. ”
Robertson is such a dumb ass that he still did not understand that the 1930’s were the years with the hottest ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM IN THE CONTIGUOUS US states temperatures, what they still are today as can be seen here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sVA3c7j94Cr12tNcfzSQwdNX8gIV9hjq/view
When using anomalies with annual cycle removal like in UAH, the years since 2000 bypass the 1930’s because the winter anomalies are higher in the recent years.
Gordon claimed once before that 1934 used to be the warmest year in the US and that NOAA altered the data in order to force it down the list.
The reality is that it used to be first on Daily Highs until it was beaten into second place by 2012, and is still in second.
But it has never been first on Daily Lows, being second even back then. It is now 18th (not counting 2022).
This is how Gordon continually misinterprets what he sees. His “memory” doesn’t tell him that he is comparing Averages to Maximums.
Not an alarmist, just wondering if there was another adjustment coming at some point with sat drift issues. You sure are jumpy aren’t you. lol
And I’m plenty aware of the surface record debacle.
In a few days, Siberian frost will freeze the European part of Russia.
https://i.ibb.co/FYqk0rV/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-01-03-191350.png
We just had worst blizzard in my lifetime and Ive see some. I still havent shoveled the drifts. Ive burned a whole winters worth getting of firewood and still months to go. Luckily had several trees come down. To all the people who believe the magic gas hoax and vote for democrats, F U !
darwin…it’s becoming abundantly clear there are people working behind the scenes at an international level to replace our democracies with totalitarians who think they know what is best for all of us.
In the UK, they have started trials in Oxford and Cambridge to block people moving between sectors in the city by automobile. The UK is run by a right-wing, Conservative government who has the highest majority ever.
It’s clear that governments like the UK government are collaborating with advisors behind the scenes who remain unidentified. They did the same with the covid hysteria, consulting with unelected officials to deprive citizens of their democratic rights.
We need to get to the bottom of these cabals and deal with them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64158283
The same polar jetstream instability that is giving you unusually cold weather is also giving Europe record high January temperatures.
You’ve been listening to the denialist straw men. The scientists project a long term global warming trend. They also predict more extreme weather, hot and cold.
I grew up in Cambridge. The town centre is a maze of mediaeval narrow streets with colleges either side and no possibility of road widening.. Oxford is the same. Both have been gridlocked ever since the cart was invented. Both are now recognising that the best response to increasing traffic is to try and keep it out of the city centre.
Last time I was home, vehicle traffic in the city centre was limited to taxis and delivery vehicles. The biggest hazard to pedestrians was students on bicycles.
Where is 2014???
At the time, NOAA rated it the hottest year ever, as did NASA GISS. They forgot to tell us they had rated 2014 based on probabilities. NOAA claimed 2014 the hottest year based on a 48% probability and NASA claimed it based on a 38% probability.
That’s why you cannot rely on climate alarmists like NOAA or GISS.
It’s a ranking system. The highest likely figure goes at the top and so on.
So 2014 was rated 48% chance to be the warmest temperature, factoring the uncertainties in the data, and the next in the rank is the year with 35% chance of being warmest, 3rd having 18% chance and so on.
This has been explained to you more than a dozen times. Do you have some ailment that makes you forget things?
That’s the new baseline what is the anomaly using the old 1981-2010 baseline?
What’s the difference? As Mark Twain put, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
That’s not a shot at UAH, I admire them for their integrity. However, as scientists, they are obliged to use statistical methods that are in common use.
Claiming averages with regard to global temperatures has essentially no meaning. The significance of UAH temperature series is the fact they are based on satellite telemetry that covers 95% of the surface, as opposed to no better than 30% for thermometers.
The true significance of the UAH series is how much lower they are than the unvalidated climate models that are running government policy, or the fudged surface series.
Gordo the troll repeats another demonstration of his ignorance.
For a guy who claims to be an EE, I suggest he doesn’t understand the difference between the terms “telemetry” and “measurement”. Also, the MSU/AMSU instruments do not “cover” 95% of the surface area, since there are areas between successive swaths which are not captured and there are “holes” in coverage over both polar regions.
Besides, the orbits typically provide only one measure a day, either on the daylight or night side of the Earth, as the Earth rotates as the orbit moves from day to night side. Furthermore, the repeat time over a location may be more than 2 days.
Of course, Gordo still can’t grasp that the instruments do not provide data for the surface, which is the basis for the other data sets.
Your posts get more incoherent all the time. And more filled with bs every post.
Gordo the BS artist doesn’t like my comments.
Check out the AMSU data from NOAA.
Look how long it takes the center of the scan (nadir) point to return to any one Equatorial Crossing point. It’s about 9 days in the animation. Don’t forget that the off nadir scans are binned into separate grids for each scan angle, which UAH converts to a monthly value for brightness temperature for each channel. This scheme can’t provide daily values, only monthly averages. The whole exercise is based on the same theoretical calculations as that for greenhouse gases, so if you the UAH stuff is great science, then you must also accept the theoretical results for GHG’s.
AZ1971 says: Thats the new baseline what is the anomaly using the old 1981-2010 baseline?
Up thread “Bellman” claimed it would be +0.17 C on the previous baseline.
As a sanity check the trend for UAH is 0.13 C/decade, so by moving the baseline a decade earlier we’d expect it to be around 0.13 C higher than the reported 0.05 C which would be 0.18 C.
AZ1971
Here are the monthly differences in Celsius between the baselines for 1991-2020 and 1981-2010:
Jan: 0.14
Feb: 0.16
Mar: 0.13
Apr: 0.12
Mai: 0.13
Jun: 0.13
Jul: 0.13
Aug: 0.12
Sep: 0.17
Oct: 0.16
Nov: 0.14
Dec: 0.12
Thus all December anomalies wrt 1991-2020 are 0.12 C lower than those wrt 1981-2010.
Don’t heed Robertson’s blah blah: he’s clueless and lies all the time.
bellman…”Worth remembering that +0.05C today would have been +0.17C when the 1981-2010 base period was being used”.
***
It’s equally worth remembering that Roy and John Christy at UAH did not define climate as the 30 year average of weather. If that’s the definition, they are perfectly right to use a 30 year average as the baseline for their temperature data.
Remember that in the 30 years from 1991 to present, we have seen three El Ninos driving up temperatures to unprecedented levels. In 1998, 2010, and 2016, global temperatures were driven artificially high by ENs.
For some reason, the planet has retained heat from those EN episodes. Following the 1998 EN, global temperatures did not return to normal but remained some 0.2C above the average till then. Same with the 2016 EN. Temperatures are only now returning to where they were before the 2016 event.
Therefore, we have been looking at externally induced warming that is not related to anthropogenic sources.
Gee Whiz, Gordo, aren’t El Nino’s actually “natural” cycles? They occur within the atmosphere/ocean climate system, they aren’t “externally induced warming”.
One things for sure, Godo doesn’t understand the basics of climate.
You’re such a wit, Swannie. Has it not occurred to you that all warming comes from the Sun? Solar energy is internal to the system and recycled heat from EN has to be external. Maybe I should have said re-distributed heat.
Of course, that would be lost on someone who thinks heat can be transferred by its own means from cold to hot.
I love it when Gordo posts another failure to edit(?). Surely he intended to write that the Sun’s energy is an external source. I have no clue about his “re-distributed heat” comment, perhaps he is admitting that there is circulation in the atmosphere and oceans. Who knew?
To add insult, he repeats his usual mantra about the 2nd Law of thermo, while he still can’t explain my experimental evidence for the Green Plate Effect. Same old Gordo.
Between 150 and 200 mm of rain per square meter could fall in northern California in three days from January 5.
That would be welcome in the European Alps: some ski stations had last year a snow deficit of ~ 8 meter.
Tell me ren …. what is the difference in rain intensity between mm/m^2 and mm/km^2 ?
AQ,
Awwww. I’m sure that mm/mm^2 is even better. ClimateSpeak for sure. Like measuring temperatures in W/m^2 or something, but even more confusingly pointless and meaningless.
Accidental in Ren’s case, I’m sure.
No, only ren-speak.
No one measures temperatures in W/m^2. W/m^2 is a meaningful unit for what it is intended to measure. Unlike an attempt to measure volume in mm^(-1).
AQ,
Unfortunately, you can’t actually say what it is intended to measure – in climatological terms, can you?
I agree that temperatures are not measured in W/m2 is, nor are they even directly relatable to temperature.
The IPCC disagrees, of course, and contains silly paragraphs like “Temperature Contribution of Forcing Agents” in Chapter 7 of the Sixth Assessment Report, claiming that GSAT (temperatures) to 0.01 C, can be directly derived from ERF measured in W/m2!
Idiotically delusional, wouldn’t you agree?
About as silly as being unable to explain why, if Dr Spencer is correct, in recent times, the globe has heated up to above the present temperature, and then cooled to the present temperature, at least six times! All due to the magical properties of something measured in W/m2, which controls the temperature of the planet – all the way from its original molten surface, to the present.
You really are a clueless clown of the SkyDragon variety, aren’t you?
Go on, tell me what a measurement of 300 W/m2 from the outside of a container would indicate? Does the container hold ice, boiling water, or something else? Do you care?
Forces aren’t accelerations. Yet when an acceleration is the net result of many forces it makes perfect sense to say “the acceleration contribution of each force”.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Forces arent accelerations. Yet when an acceleration is the net result of many forces it makes perfect sense to say “the acceleration contribution of each force”.
Do all witless SkyDragons use W/m2 to measure force or acceleration, or is it just you trying to appear intelligent?
Dodge and weave all you like – it won’t help to change a single fact.
Keep trying to avoid face reality. Reality doesn’t care. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so. It doesn’t care what you think, either.
[laughing at idiot trying to troll – badly]
Wow – serious comprehension issues there.
“the globe has heated up to above the present temperature, and then cooled to the present temperature, at least six times!”
Do climate deniers really not understand that temperature will vary by small amounts from month to month, as it always has, even with climate change?
Are they really that clueless? Or just trolling?
Or both?
I have just looked at UK data for Sheffield and Durham, two datasets which run from the eighteen hundreds. 2022 doesn’t come out as one of the warmest but only around average. Looking at other data sets around the world gives a mixed picture, with some suggesting that recent years have been catastrophically warming.
Chinese results are particularly interesting.
I never trust any data that doesn’t give me the raw information. Even then, I tend to be suspicious.
RLH
20 transferred to the RNLI.
Good man.
Foiled by a triple dip La Nina.
Would you care to take the same bet this year? At least one UAH monthly anomaly temperature of 0.5C or greater during 2023. Loser donates 20 pounds to the RNLI.
He’s a conservative – you might have to explain for him the meaning of “donate”.
RLH and I have had the same bet for two years now and it’s terms are clearly understood by us both.
The Royal National Lifeboat Institution is the charitable organisation which does coastal rescue in the UK. So far the bet has generated 40 pounds for the RNLI from me. Next January I hope it will receive 20 pounds from RLH. (smile emoji).
“He’s a conservative”
You couldn’t be further from the truth.
Edmund Burke was conservative, Richard, and you like him very much.
“in his parliamentary career, Burke was also an acknowledged champion of liberty”
RLH
So you agree that Trump, Desantis, Taylor-(not no Swift)-Green, and co. are a bunch of self-serving liars who are a magnet to the unintelligent and uneducated?
Burke would have had no truck with Trump et al.
Ben Shapiro exists, therefore Andrew Neil is a liberal.
“… in the 20th century, he became widely regarded, especially in the United States, as the philosophical founder of conservatism”
“At least one UAH monthly anomaly temperature of 0.5C or greater during 2023. Loser donates 20 pounds to the RNLI”
OK.
Good man.
Bellman says:
November 2, 2022 at 7:04 AM
“Looks increasingly likely that 2022 will be very close to 2010, meaning it will either be the 6th or 7th warmest year out of 44, with all 8 of the past 8 years being in the top 10.
For the record, my estimate for 2022 is 0.19 +/- 0.04C.”
* #7 2022 +0.174
Very good.
“September 2014 the trend is flat (The pause grows by 2 months)”
” Monckton will be claiming the pause has grown by another month, to 8 years and 1 month, i.e. October 2014 is still the earliest month with non-positive trend.”
October would be 8 years and 2 months but is it the right starting date?
Do not understand how you can move it up to October as the furthest back when you had used September previously and it has become colder?
Fake maths as well as fake claims?
Sorry to be rude but could you explain the discrepancy in your comments a bit better?
Remember the Arctic sea ice extent is similarly flat for 11 years.
Coincidental or confirmation of a pause in the warming?
Remember that people who make such a claim continue to make comparisons to records instead of looking at trends.
Coincidental, or confirmation of an agenda?
Only fools believe that trends predict the future any better than a twelve year old child.
Keep looking at trends, fool.
Have you managed to explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years or so of the Earth cooling to its present temperature, or is that trend an inconvenient truth?
How’s Darwin treating you Mike?
Only fools believe that trends predict the future any better than a twelve year old child.
Keep looking at trends, fool.
Have you managed to explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years or so of the Earth cooling to its present temperature, or is that trend an inconvenient truth?
#1
Haaah, the brainless blathering stalker is here again.
As usual, having nothing actual to say, he urges in saying something utterly irrelevant.
Binny,
Only fools believe that trends predict the future any better than a twelve year old child.
Keep looking at trends, fool.
Have you managed to explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years or so of the Earth cooling to its present temperature, or is that trend an inconvenient truth?
Not so well apparently. Never mind Mike – life will get better.
Will you alarmists ever get it that solar energy is minimal or absent for most of the Arctic year? It doesn’t matter how much CO2 is in the air, it could never warm the atmosphere enough to make up for the loss of solar input.
Ice melts only during a brief windows of Arctic summer, which lasts about 1 month. Even at that, the temperature does not rise enough to melt ice effectively. So, most of the ice is lost due to wind and ocean currents carrying it off into the North Atlantic where it melts.
Where you clowns got the notion that a trace gas in the atmosphere can produce enough heat to melt Arctic ice is the question. The theory is about as dumb and unscientific as they get.
Gordon
When will you get the notion that the moon’s phases are NOT caused by the earth’s shadow?
AQ,
Well, that’s a really cunning way of avoiding the obvious fact that CO2 has no quantifiable effect on surface temperatures! Not.
Or are you silly enough to believe Gavin Schmidt’s nonsense paper about CO2 being some sort of planetary temperature “control knob”?
Gee, how much CO2 was in the atmosphere when the surface was molten? Where did it all come from? Not a lot of SUV’s around at the time. Only joking, I know you you are a passionate SkyDragon cultist. Faith overcomes fact in all cases for SkyDragons.
Carry on.
Just pointing out that as Gordon doesn’t understand basic science understood by 10 year olds he is not exactly qualified to be sharing a scientific opinion.
Not sure what a SkyDragon is – oh dear, where do I acquire such an education. Apparently you can stick capitals in the middle of words now. I thought that was limited to computer nerds.
Well, thats a really cunning way of avoiding the obvious fact that CO2 has no quantifiable effect on surface temperatures! Not.
Or are you silly enough to believe Gavin Schmidts nonsense paper about CO2 being some sort of planetary temperature control knob?
Gee, how much CO2 was in the atmosphere when the surface was molten? Where did it all come from? Not a lot of SUVs around at the time. Only joking, I know you you are a passionate SkyDragon cultist. Faith overcomes fact in all cases for SkyDragons.
Carry on.
Heads up Mike – after selecting the text you want to copy, if you don’t press ctrl-C before pasting it then you end up pasting the last message again. Try to be a bit more careful next time.
AQ,
Well, thats a really cunning way of avoiding the obvious fact that CO2 has no quantifiable effect on surface temperatures! Not.
Or are you silly enough to believe Gavin Schmidts nonsense paper about CO2 being some sort of planetary temperature control knob?
Gee, how much CO2 was in the atmosphere when the surface was molten? Where did it all come from? Not a lot of SUVs around at the time. Only joking, I know you you are a passionate SkyDragon cultist. Faith overcomes fact in all cases for SkyDragons.
Carry on.
;>
Antonin,
I think this is the source of the term “Sky Dragon”:
Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organisation based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI was formed in 2010 around the time they published their first book, titled Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.
In 2013, PSI also began to promote unfounded claims that wind turbines make people sick and that childhood vaccines were one of the largest most evil lies in history.
The two named directors were John OSullivan, of the UK, and a Walter James OBrien.
(reposted)
Well spotted, sb.
When I refer to Dragon cranks, I am of course referring to those who entertain similar beliefs (rather disbeliefs) as the garden-variety cranks of this blog. But since they do not share all the same disbeliefs, I came up with the following nomenclature:
A Sky Dragon crank denies (or minimizes) the greenhouse effect.
A Moon Dragon crank denies that the Moon spins.
This could be extended to other forms of crankery. The only limit is Gordo’s or gb’s imagination. A surprising side effect of that convention is that Mike Flynn keeps mentioning the brand to make sure that he’s our most beloved Sky Dragon crank.
Hope this helps.
An engineer commenting on scientific topics is like a farmer commenting on brain surgery.
angech
” Remember the Arctic sea ice extent is similarly flat for 11 years. ”
Aha. That’s new to me:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17RBeTrCw6bTcvnUOI3Sxvr_-jXx81VvS/view
Trends in Mkm^2/yr for 4 consecutive 11 year periods
– 1979-1989: -0.32 +- 0.08
– 1990-2000: -0.25 +- 0.09
– 2001-2011: -0.98 +- 0.11
– 2012-2022: -0.31 +- 0.15
Under ‘flat’ we seem to understand slightly different things, don’t we?
*
Despite Flynnson’s boring, aggressive and as usual completely irrelevant ‘billion year cooling’ post, Antonin Qwerty is plain right with his comment: not two arbitrarily chosen points in time matter, but the trend between them.
*
Moreover: why are you fixated on Arctic sea ice? What about looking at the Antarctic?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16WB0LUn6XujkDG9FgKYU1IhPZMyfznUH/view
*
Source
https://tinyurl.com/s6d98by4
Binny,
You wrote –
“Despite Flynnsons boring, aggressive and as usual completely irrelevant billion year cooling post, Antonin Qwerty is plain right with his comment: not two arbitrarily chosen points in time matter, but the trend between them.”
Here you go, then –
One point – molten surface. Another, later, point – surface not molten. Colder.
Trend – cooling.
Deny away, dummy.
When do your artfully contrived trends indicate the seas will boil again? Only one point needed, so the task should be easy for a trendsetter like you. Maybe you should start yapping about dachshunds, arrogance and boredom – you silly sauerkrautish reality denier!
Off you go.
This article is about corruption in medicine but I think it’s applicable to the CAGW scam.
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/376/bmj.o702.full.pdf
This article is about the link between climate change and dementia but I think it’s applicable to some here.
https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-disease/jad201388
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1610416059940495363/photo/1
That worked.
In none of three, were we going to the Moon.
Perhaps one could add, Blade Runner, making it, a 1/4 going to stars.
I think most people going to go Venus.
In terms of climate issues, I was thinking about caves in Mars.
Earth has lot of caves some as deep as couple km, it seems Mars should more caves and deeper caves than Earth.
And it seems deeper caves could be flooded with water.
On Earth some caves are made by water, on Mars, caves could make water.
Mars has about 240 ppm of water vapor- in terms global average, but can locations and times there much higher levels- 100 times more.
And seems to me, for caves make water, one needs a higher level at surface than 240 ppm.
And once water is made in cave which at lower elevation {a deep enough cave] the water stays in the cave.
So, googled oldest cave [on earth]:
“We were amazed in 2006, when scientists announced that Jenolan Caves is the worlds oldest cave system yet discovered. In a study published in the June issue of the Australian Journal of Earth Sciences (Vol. 53, 377-405), scientists from CSIRO, the University of Sydney and the Australian Museum showed that Jenolan Caves has been existing and changing for at least 340 million years.”
https://www.jenolancaves.org.au/about/blog/worlds-oldest-caves-never-stop-changing/
It seems caves on Mars [or Moon] could be billions of years old- and rather some, most are very ancient.
Or change topic, ice cores on Mars on going very old too. It entire surface is old [unlike Earth.
Apollo goes the Moon a finds a 4.5 billion rock, all of them are old.
So, I use to think one might possibly find lake in cave on Mars- or something Earth caves**, now I am wondering if some caves just ends with water, and continue for miles filled with water.
And comes down to, does Mars have periods, could as short as 10 years where it has much higher global water vapor than 210 ppm? Say within last 10 million years.
**
“Dragons Breath Cave, located in the Otjozondjupa Region of Namibia, is home to the largest non-subglacial underground lake in the whole world. The actual depth of the lake is not known (although its thought to be at least 430 feet deep), as the cave is around 330 feet below the surface of the earth. The lake was discovered in 1986 when a group of explorers felt a humid breeze coming out of a hole in the cave, which is where Dragons Breath came from.”
https://www.fodors.com/news/photos/10-underground-lakes-around-the-world
querty…”The reality is that it used to be first on Daily Highs until it was beaten into second place by 2012, and is still in second”.
***
First of all, I am being critiqued by someone who gets his nym from the first 6 alphabetical keys on the keyboard.
Secondly, according to UAH, 1998, 2010, and 2016 were warmer than 2012, yet querty picks 2012, which was -0,15C below the baseline as being warmer than 1934.
Did you notice I said NOAA, not UAH? Having reading difficulties?
And I can’t help it if you can’t see the connection between Antonin and Qwerty. It takes two pieces of knowledge and a bit of culture, so I guess you had no hope.
Let’s help the eternally lying ignoramus with a tiny hint, maybe it works despite the rather unusual characters:
Antonín Qweřtý
Bindidon: More clues only make Gordon more confused. I’m sure tumble weed is still all that is occupying his thoughts.
Gordon: You really should expand your experience beyond the “New World”.
querty…”Did you notice I said NOAA, not UAH?”
***
Don’t care who you quoted, I quoted a reliable source (UAH) with strong integrity, not a load of cheating fudgers (NOAA).
Heavy downpours in eastern Australia. La Nina is operating in Australia.
Nup – just showers. 17 days since we last had more than a quarter inch in a day. 2 mm is the worst day in the past five. Only an average of 2.2 mm per day over the past 2.5 months. You must be looking at the reports from earlier last year.
Rainfall: Total Forecast Rainfall
http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDYPME04/20230105_20230112/pme1to8.png
So the vast majority of Australia is forecast to receive less than 50 mm in an entire week. What’s left is NORTHERN Australia, not east. Need me to explain the compass points to you?
“Monthly summary
Australia in December 2022
4 January 2023
Rainfall
For Australia as a whole, December rainfall was 33% above the 19611990 average. However, this national average is composed of significant geographic differences between the tropics and the southern half of Australia.
Rainfall was above or very much above average for most of the Northern Territory, western Queensland and the Cape York Peninsula, the eastern half of the Kimberley and the Gascoyne in Western Australia. For the Northern Territory as a whole, December area-averaged rainfall was the 8th-highest on record (compared with all Decembers since 1900).
Rainfall was below average for parts of the southern half of Australia, including parts of south-west and inland southern Western Australia, eastern New South Wales and south-eastern Queensland, extending into the Central Highlands District, and western and northern Tasmania.
An active pulse of monsoonal activity towards the end of the month brought areas of embedded storms and tropical showers across parts of northern Australia, resulting in some observations of heavy rainfall. Daily rainfall records for December were set at a few stations in the Northern Territory and Western Australia in the Kimberley and Gascoyne at the end of the month. A small handful of stations observed record high rainfall totals for December as a whole in the Northern Territory and in Queensland’s Cape York Peninsula.”
1961-1990
Oh! Breakfast time in Oz?
The visit of this blog’s greatest Ozzie could really be imminent then!
I have not challenged the fact that Australia has been wetter – that is expected for a La Nina. I am challenging the claim that the east of Australia is CURRENTLY getting heavy rain. We are getting showers/light rain, and we have just had a week of sunshine.
And I’m not sure what noting rain in Australia during La Nina is designed to prove anyway.
Bindidon
I’m struggling to think who that might be. Don Bradman died 20 years ago.
BTW – Ozzie is an ostrich – we are Aussies.
Antonin Qwerty
Apologies for being a bit cryptic.
1. ” Im struggling to think who that might be. ”
I meant this blogs greatest one, as he appears to post his genial contributions during the ‘Australian day’, imho :–)
2. I thought that when Oz is the name for Australia, Ozzie would be an acceptable nickname for Australians. Duh.
Oh, you mean Flynnson.
Ozzie and Aussie are pronounced the same, so it only makes a difference in writing.
But Yanks believe ‘Aussie’ is pronounced with an ‘s’ sound, so perhaps ‘Ozzie’ helps them out.
They also believe Melbourne is pronounced Melboorrrne, and Brisbane is pronounced Brisbayne. And the Yanks here probably believe Darwin is pronounced ‘Evolution scam’.
AQ,
You wrote –
“I have not challenged the fact that Australia has been wetter that is expected for a La Nina. I am challenging the claim that the east of Australia is CURRENTLY getting heavy rain. We are getting showers/light rain, and we have just had a week of sunshine.”
Climate is the statistics of historical weather.
Weather is unpredictable. No point arguing about the future, and a bit late arguing after the fact.
If you are trying to troll, you need to up your game.
“If you are trying to troll, you need to up your game.”
Do you have any tips from your lifetime of practice, Flynnstone.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/rainfall/
RLH
As I said – about 4-7 mm per day. That is not heavy rain.
NOW it’s pissing down. Only 36 hours out. Good timing is essential for your comedy.
Somewhere Benjamin Franklin is laughing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64158234
You might like:
https://www.msnbc.com/the-revolution-with-steve-kornacki
*Laughs in Newtspeak.*
McCarthy keeps having humiliating votes, which has been described with this meme
https://youtu.be/gqdNe8u-Jsg
Solar wind
speed: 383.6 km/sec
density: 10.17 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 89
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 149 sfu
Updated 04 Jan 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.95×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +2.5% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.3%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Some small coronal holes on nearside, thermosphere less
energized, Neutral counts high. Less coronal holes are solar
max like condition, thermosphere and neutron counts are not.
No new sunspots coming from far side, yet. Jan could be going
back to sideways- Dec may be just a spike rather than a “start”
to more active solar max.
Despite what appears steep rise in beginning, this could be weak cycle.
I think it’s going take off, but could take a couple months.
Solar wind
speed: 492.4 km/sec
density: 7.41 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 86
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 151 sfu
Updated 05 Jan 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.18×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.2% Elevated
48-hr change: -1.5%
No holes, thermosphere adding, Neutron Counts lowering,
but could be getting quieter- or sideways for Jan
Solar wind
speed: 387.6 km/sec
density: 4.56 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 104
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 172 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.17×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.7% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.0%
Have medium size hole in northern Hemisphere but not near Equator
We got 3182 which could flare X-ray, or cause problems on Earth
“INCREASING CHANCE OF FLARES: There are now 3 sunspots facing Earth with unstable ‘delta-class’ magnetic fields: AR3181, 82 and 83. NOAA forecasters say there is a 40% chance of M-class solar flares and a 20% chance of X-flares on Jan. 8th. Solar flare alerts: SMS Text.
CHANCE OF FLARES TODAY: NOAA forecasters say there is a 20% chance of X-class solar flares today. If it happens, it will probably come from sunspot AR3182,”
https://www.spaceweather.com/
One call that exciting, but it could get less active- don’t see anything coming from farside {yet}.
Updated 08 Jan 2023
Solar wind
speed: 396.4 km/sec
density: 6.25 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 201
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 181 sfu
Updated 10 Jan 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.37×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +2.4% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.7%
Solar wind
speed: 528.3 km/sec
density: 6.25 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 151
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 212 sfu
Updated 13 Jan 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.74×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.8% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.6%
More sunspots coming.
We could really get in solar max, soon
Solar wind
speed: 451.5 km/sec
density: 3.08 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 170
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 228 sfu
Updated 15 Jan 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 16.21×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.3% Elevated
48-hr change: -1.4%
Looks like Jan is just going up.
Is safe to say Neutron counts are going down and down?
I love it that the alarmists are now arguing over fractions of a degree of warming. What happened to the hockey stick? Shouldnt we be in an out of control, exponential acceleration towards the end of the world by now? Or are you finally ready to admit Mann is a fraudster? No, not yet? Oh dear.
Some mega-idiot ignoramuses here name me an alarmist. I love it!
*
What about looking at this famous hockey stick, Harves?
Here is, using the PAGES2K data I downloaded years ago, the hockey stick’s end within a 2000 year period:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QNmA5_rTVCHEOCo87TcPvmuB2GO_jiSV/view
And here is the same end within about a century, compared to
– the surface data since 1891, processed by Japan’s Met Agency, one of the ‘coolest’ temperature data providers
and
– UAH’s lower troposphere data since 1979:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1glV0YjxweCjBdF9cxb4cG8wYhUE74BBS/view
The two charts show the same kind of anomalies – all computed wrt the mean of 1981-2010.
*
Where the heck is your problem?
Source (current revision)
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/pages2k/neukom2019temp/recons/Full_ensemble_median_and_95pct_range.txt
Call you Trottel instead
#1
I was sure that whenever the little ankle-biting dachshund sees a tree, it would think, ‘Oh! Time to get rid of a little pile.’
Selective tree measurements, spliced with white box measurements.
Have little to do with global measurements.
harves…”Or are you finally ready to admit Mann is a fraudster? No, not yet? Oh dear”.
***
I don’t think Mann was intentionally fraudulent, he was simply in way over his head. He had just received his Ph.D at the time he published the paper and it’s the IPCC needs to share the blame for paying so much attention to the paper.
The IPCC acknowledged both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period in their 1990 review. Someone should have noted that Mann’s paper erased both and wondered why. Instead, they were only too happy to receive the accolades, along with Mann.
When it became obvious that the paper had major errors, as revealed by an investigation by the National Academy of Science, and a statistics expert, appointed by the US government, the IPCC backed off immediately, redrawing the hockey stick with plenty of error bars while reinstating the LIA and MWP. Mann’s straight shaft disappeared.
Then the IPCC changed direction again. They have now discredited the LIA because it obviously raises serious questions about their pet theory, that increasing CO2 is warming the atmosphere. If it gets out that the world was 1C to 2C cooler up till 1850, when they began claiming anthropogenic warming, serious people might ask why the world is not re-warming from LIA cooling.
The most egregious error revealed by NAS was the proxy data used for the entire 20th century, pinetree bristlecone. NAS slapped the hands of the authors, and told them, no, no, you can’t do that. NAS essentially eliminated the blade from the hockey stick with their criticism.
That would not happen today since NAS has been taken over by climate alarmists.
“I dont think Mann was intentionally fraudulent, he was simply in way over his head.”
He said splicing proxies was wrong, and then he did it.
Maybe he just brain dead.
The New Pause lengthens: 100 Months with No Warming At All
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
-The cold weather on both sides of the Atlantic last month seems to have had its effect on temperature, which fell sharply compared with November, lengthening the New Pause to 8 years 4 months, as measured by the satellites designed, built and operated by Dr Roy Spencer and Dr John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville-
So 8 and 1/3 years of no increase of global temperature.
Supports my idea that we are done recovering from the Little Ice Age.
Of course it’s just called that, because it was coldest period in thousands of years.
We are in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age. Some the last 3 million year is
an Ice Age, because during last 3 million years has been the coldest period within the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
Rather use the term Ice Age, it can be called an Icehouse global climate. A Icehouse global climate has ice sheets, and we have two well known ice sheet, one in Antarctia and one in Greenland. The Greenland sheet was added within last 3 million years.
Another critical aspect of an Icehouse global climate is a cold ocean. This means the entire Ocean’s average temperature.
The average ocean surface temperature of the ocean is quite high and it’s always been quite high. Average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C and average global land is about 10 C, which give global average temperature of about 15 C. Or roughly there is 70% of surface being ocean and about 30% being land areas.
But entire ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C which is the coldest our ocean has been during the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
It is said that more than 90% of global warming has been warming this
cold ocean. And it hasn’t warmed by much. One could it’s warmed a small amount which in not easy to measure [or barely measurable], but even “barely measurable amount of increase the average of 3.5 C temperature will increase global average air temperature.
In warmest parts recent interglacial periods the average ocean temperature was 4 C or warmer. And had sea levels 4 to 9 meter higher
than present sea levels.
In such warmer conditions the average ocean surface temperature could be 18 to 19 C and land average could well above 10 C, such around 15 C.
But during our Late Cenozoic Ice Age, average ocean surface could been 20 C or more and land being around 18 C.
And in warmest global climates, called greenhouse global climates, ocean surface temperature would always stay above 20 C and there are no ice sheets. And entire ocean stays 8 to 10 C or warmer.
The Third Viscount’s zeal and stubbornness would make any retired Bavarian elementary school teacher jealous.
Lol.
“In 1995, Monckton and his wife opened Monckton’s, a shirt shop in King’s Road, Chelsea.”
Yep, a shirt seller commenting on climate change.
As useful as a farmer commenting on brain surgery.😂
For those who might think the student is making up rubbish:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
“Yep, a shirt seller commenting on climate change”.
***
Over at skepticalscience there is a cartoonist spouting off about climate alarm while passing himself off as a solar scientist. At desmogblog, another alarmist site, a PR specialist, Hoggan, is passing himself off as someone with knowledge of physics. He is unabashedly funded by a convicted felon.
At realclimate, run by NASA GISS chief, Gavin Schmidt, and his buddy, geologist Michael Mann, they pass themselves off as experts on climate, even though Schmidt has a degree in mathematics and has expertise only with programming climate models. It is not obvious to me what expertise Mann may have.
In April 2020, was elected member of the National Academy of Sciences. Along with Antonella Santuccione Chadha, he also received the World Sustainability Award from the MDPI Sustainability Foundation.
In 2022, the American Physical Society recognized him with the Leo Szilard Lectureship Award “for distinguished contributions to the public’s understanding of climate science controversies, and to how our individual and collective actions can mitigate climate change.”
Obviously he has conned everybody – just like Donald Trump.
stupid b…”In April 2020, was elected member of the National Academy of Sciences”.
***
Who was inducted, Monckton?
Mann’s dissertation was “A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system”, essentially looking at natural variability in the climate system.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/31ddd973f46e411e6cd0d570105bc820/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
s,
And why not? Climate is the statistics of historical weather events. Some SkyDragon cultists apparently believe that calculating arithmetical averages is exceptionally difficult – and requires exceptional intellectual prowess!
Boo hoo! Gavin Schmidt is not even a scientist, just a pretentious mathematician and pathetically inept computer program fiddler. Michael Mann has been described as as a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, and I see no reason to disagree.
Maybe your shirt-seller is better equipped to comment on climate science than the aforementioned two fools.
You can’t even describe the GHE in way that accords with observed fact, can you? That’s because you are a delusional SkyDragon cultist who prefers fantasy to fact.
Carry on.
Yes. Gavin only holds a PhD in applied mathematics.
Utterly worthless.
He should take up selling shirts.
stupid b…”Yes. Gavin only holds a PhD in applied mathematics.
Utterly worthless”.
***
You said, wish I had thought of that.
Applied math is applying math to another field, in his case, climate science.
Some here seem perplexed that math can be applied to science at all.
What field did Isaac Newton get his PhD?*
FYI, climate models use lots of complex math equations. Anyone of average intelligence ought to be able to figure out how skills in applied math could be very helpful for that endeavor, which involves a team of people, some no doubt, with relevant science degrees.
*None. But he was a Professor of Mathematics.
I’d sooner trust a farmer on brain surgery than you on anything related to climate change claptrap.
A farmer does learn a lot in the practice of animal husbandry that would sooner qualify him as a brain surgeon than most members of the public.
Yes. I have heard some farmers are excellent dealing with b.s.
They would feel right at home here.
Monckton might not be on the cutting edge of science but he has done his homework regarding climate.
“Monckton might not be on the cutting edge ..”
I did hear that his job at the shop was actually cutting out the material to make the shirts.
Too, I’ve had my fill of know-nothing-experts these past couple of years.
If I were stuck on an Island with you and you needed brain surgery or die, would you let me read the book and give it a try? Or would you insist on letting only an ‘expert’ do it?
Expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about absolutely (expletive deleted) all.
“If I were stuck on an Island with you and you needed brain surgery or die..”
I think I would prefer to die rather than have to listen to the ravings of a skeptic.
“If I were stuck on an Island with you”
Ok, but lets not pretend that resembles the world, where all of us would choose real doctors over pretenders.
Specialization is for insects.
Nate says:
”Ok, but lets not pretend that resembles the world, where all of us would choose real doctors over pretenders.”
—————————
Yes that is absolutely correct. But the only reason why is that licensed doctors have a legal liability to properly treat their patients.
Before that become a requirement the world was full of quacks but the AMA took on the task of ensuring that obligation was fulfilled without a lot of fly by nighters zipping around like vultures.
A little bit of solar, just for fun
I’m somewhat surprised that two measurements of Sun’s activity
– the Sun Spot Number managed by the Belgian SILSO, and
– Canada’s Solar radio flux
which over the long term look rather similar
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1feKmUHJRDy1jDunVXdQ3ndhHMlNG_7Or/view
begin to show different views on Solar Cycle SC25 compared to its predecessor SC24 – from their respective begin till end of 2022.
1. F10.7 till end of 2022
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10QX3O6JIK3RIhUJgiqdhim4yUaG9ZwfR/view
2. SSN till end of 2022
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yu9G_SqfDMF3upJnOh_EmW6RLjHeuA5a/view
*
While the slope of SC25’s red cubic spline in the F10.7 chart still keeps straight, that of SC25’s spline turns CW, possibly showing that the cycle weakens.
*
A month ago, I extended the third order polynomials’ window in both charts till end of 2024, by the way obtaining something like a projection made on the base of the data existing till end of 2022.
3. F10.7 till end of 2024
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jq4WtwwH8vcY3Fdx7vEFGge8niRmqHRn/view
Sounds a bit like McIntosh’s forecast.
4. SSN till end of 2024
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tHfkEFiRqvt8kXgeIciqMR1u8nRrygUT/view
Oooops?! Solar extinction in December 2024 !!!
OMG. Sauve qui peut!
You should send your poly-idiotic charts to McIntosh, tell him you are a big fan of his.
#2
I was sure that whenever the little ankle-biting dachshund sees a tree, it would think, Oh! Time to get rid of a little pile.
Hi Roy,
Any chance you could create two new colums in the data
list. One for Global Lands and one for Global Oceans.
I am interested to be able to compare troposheric temps iver the oceans against the CDAS Global Oceans temp anomaly.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Cheers.
plateaudweller
I hope you discovered in between that what you miss in fact exists since ‘evah’:
https://tinyurl.com/4n4hnjtj
Columns 4 resp. 5
Just figured out that Antonin Querty is either Bob Droege or Barry.
C’mon, Gordo.
Right – because of course only two people live in Australia, you clueless drone.
Bob lives in Cali, Antonin.
If that may console you, Mike Flynn still lives down under.
Flynnstone still lives 4000 km away from me. That puts me just out of range of his stench.
Once did a 4000 km drive from Perth to Darwin. Don’t know two other cities in Oz that distance apart. Did I guess right or does one of you live regionally?
I live in Sydney, by the way, in the beach suburb that is Kings Cross by the sea.
a querty…”Forces arent accelerations. Yet when an acceleration is the net result of many forces it makes perfect sense to say the acceleration contribution of each force”.
***
You should take that up with NASA. One of their coordinators on missions actually claimed that accelerations create forces.
Furthermore, In Principia, Newton offered the disclaimer…’If a force can move a mass…’, then f = ma. That disclaimer is not offered in any modern physics I have encountered, where it is assumed that a force of any magnitude can accelerate a mass of any magnitude.
When discussing non-inertial forces (aka fictitious forces), it is indeed correct to say that the acceleration “creates” the force. But I’m sure non-inertial forces belong to the long list of scientific concepts which you deny.
a querty…”When discussing non-inertial forces (aka fictitious forces), it is indeed correct to say that the acceleration creates the force”.
***
It’s dangerous to think that way in science. When you start giving properties to phenomena they don’t have you can trap yourself into thinking time and space are real, and formulate a dumb theory about space-time.
When you start arbitrarily changing reference frames, you are indulging in human illusion, and you’d better be damned careful. The human mind has difficulty visualizing more than 4 dimensions and even at that, one of the dimensions has no basis in reality. With the 4 dimensions of x,y,z,t. the fourth t, is not real.
When ee deal with 4 dimensions as stated, we need to employ matrices. However, the problem there is that we give up direct observation and must rely on our mathematics to represent reality.
If you watch a dragster accelerate through different stages of motion, acceleration as a phenomenon becomes apparent. However, to measure it, we had to invent time, therefore the human expression of acceleration contains a parameter, time, that has no existence.
Einstein appears to have missed the obvious. In one of his papers on relativity he stated that time is the hands on a clock. He appears to have suffered from a belief that a clock is measuring an independent phenomenon called time when in fact, a clock measures the rotational period of the Earth, which is relatively constant.
When you live by thought-experiment, and much of Einstein’s work was based on thought-experiment, you can get trapped into making some seriously incorrect assumptions about reality.
As I predicted …
“where it is assumed that a force of any magnitude can accelerate a mass of any magnitude.”
So, enlighten us? What net force is required to cause an acceleration of of 1000 kg object?
0.000001 N?
0.0001 N?
0.01 N?
1 N?
100 N?
Where precisely is the dividing line between “a force that can move this mass” and “a force that cannot move this mass?
a querty…”And I cant help it if you cant see the connection between Antonin and Qwerty. It takes two pieces of knowledge and a bit of culture, so I guess you had no hope”.
***
We don’t study culture in engineering, just how to apply the science we learn at an honours level. In fact, we throw cultured people into any pond that can be found locally. If one is not available, we carry our own tank with us and fill it at a local university water source.
As an engineer, you learn to keep a set of dry clothing in your locker.
Another sign of dementia – speaking of the distant past in the present tense.
Cool story. You forgot to mention the engineers’ ‘culture’ of drinking. Apparently it makes them “real men”.
Most engineers at university are in an age range from 19 to 25. Who among us can claim to have been sane in that age range.
Are you admitting to insanity?
It is about time.
Robertson
No real engineer among my former colleagues did ever behave so incredibly ignorant and stubborn like you do here all the time.
You are no engineer.
binny…we are talking about students studying applied science at a university, not locomotive engineers.
So why did you include yourself in that group?
binny…”Sauve qui peut!”
***
What kind of Kraut speaks French???
The kind that defected from West to East Germany
Only ignoramuses ask such dumb questions or give the wrong answer.
” The kind that defected from West to East Germany ”
Hmmmh. Strange…
Only Germans would mention something like that.
Je dirais plus à l’est encore, Binny.
Europeans usually speak two or three languages fluently.
Exactement, Ken. Und ich würde sogar sagen: genau.
ENSO events are (more or less) Jul-Jun events, not Jan-Dec.
Here are UAH Jul-Jun averages for all non-weak La Nina years:
https://tinyurl.com/Non-Weak-La-Ninas
The two higher points (98-99 and 10-11) are the only two that came right off the back of strong El Ninos.
Thanks, interesting.
I concur with Murry Salby that the temperature is undergoing step changes. It is now oscillating about 0.2-0.25C. In 1998 it shot up to a high of 0.6C and then started oscillating between -0.4C and 0.3C. In 2015 it shot up to 0.7C and then started oscillating between 0 and 0.5C.
It seems like the band is getting narrower. From 1988 the band was about 0.8C, from 1998 the band was a little narrower, and now appears a little narrower.
If by “band” you mean standard deviation, it is all over the place:
80s: 0.17
90s: 0.23
00s: 0.14
10s and 20s: 0.19
Or, dividing the 44 years of data into two groups of 22 years:
1979-2000: 0.21
2001-2022: 0.19
Barely any difference.
No, you’re not looking at it correctly. I’m talking about the oscillating pattern it settles into after it spiked up.
You can’t take all data points like it is some linear fit.
It is not clear what you mean or what you want to measure.
How much a time series oscillates at which places is best shown by a low pass filter output over it, e.g. Savitzky-Golay:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fsD_HeiiXKEh8453stja6VWNw8bSEuzN/view
Hmmmh.
Narrowing very, very strong, doesn’t it?
I would ignore the last couple of years of your ‘filtered’ curve– it is more of a prediction than real data.
Nate
As opposed to running means (CTRMs included of course) which all lack data within their working window, Savitzly-Golay filters smooth data from begin till end.
Sorry.
S-G is a projection, not a prediction. There is no actual data in half of its window (the same width as a CTRM).
Linsley Hood shows as usual off with his own inventions.
Savitzky-Golay is not a projection. It is a data smoothing technique whose processing encompasses the entire data it analyzes.
Here is a comparison of S-G to Vaughan Pratt’s CTRM:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aPHcf_yPER_e6wAje3cC0_ji7oSwwDOt/view
*
A projection is what you extrapolate beyond existing data, for example by using a polynomial:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jq4WtwwH8vcY3Fdx7vEFGge8niRmqHRn/view
If you do not recognize how an S-G works….
It is created by fitting a higher order curve (in this case 2nd order, then repeated a few times in order to get a fit to a CTRM of the same width) to the data.
Using it on its own as a single pass causes much low frequency to leak through as can be seen by examining your ‘curves’.
The later half of the window you create using it will vary quite a bit depending on the data you add into the later half of it and the fit you then use. That, unless you recognize that it is subject to that data and its changes, cannot be an extrapolation, purely a projection.
For a true analysis of what the UAH data to date shows, see
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/01/uah-global.jpeg
The UKs annual average temperature topped 10C for the first time in 2022, as last year was confirmed as the countrys warmest on record.
Three points…
1)The UK’s metoffice are a load of alarmists who get fudged data from NOAA and fudge it even more.
2)The UK sits in the Gulf Stream, receiving heated water from the Caribbean.
3)There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics…M. Twain.
A couple of extra hot days during the year could easily skew the average. A while back, it was reported around 2021 that the UK had suffered some record highs. I went looking over the record and found the report to be bs. The high reported was no hotter than temperatures going back decades.
The point is, there are blatant liars in government organizations trying to create fear of record high temperatures. Our agency, once called Environment Canada is now called Environment and Climate Change Canada.
They create climate scenarios that don’t exist. A year ago in November we had flooding here in the province of BC, as we often have each year. That flooding exceeded the damage of other years mainly because a dike the government had been warned was too low, broke.
EC was raving at the mouth about the flooding being caused by climate change. We who read about such matters knew the cause was the La Nina currently still in progress and even EC had literature on their site acknowledging that LNs cause flooding in our part of the country. Since I pointed that out to EC, the reference to LN has been removed.
This year, we had one of the coldest Novembers in history while climate change implies a warming climate. We had no flooding to speak of. So, where did the climate change disappear to?
In the same year of the November flood, we had a heat dome parked over the Pacific NW. It went south as far as Portland, Oregon. On the inside of the dome near Portland it was 40C+ yet a few miles away it was 20C. How the heck does climate change due to a trace gas do that?
Naturally, EC began raving that the heat was a product of climate change. Meantime, NOAA, who is equally alarmist, claimed it was caused by the same LN conditions that caused the flooding in November.
Speaking of raving…
Gordon believes you and I are the same person. That is what qualified as “thinking” for him.
Seriously we are 0.05C above a 40 year average and you want me to be concerned. The driver is the sun. We have insane people in Oxford turning it into a 15 minute city and penalising people for driving out of their zone 100 times in a year. Sheffield will be charging anything above a car 10 a day and larger vehicles 50 a day to come in the inner ring road. Its one big fraud to raise money.
” Seriously we are 0.05C above a 40 year average… ”
Typical nonsense.
You seem to belong to those who post here since years but still don’t understand the difference between a single anomaly and the temperature difference over a period ending with that anomaly.
Dec 2022 is in the LT 0.53 C above the temperature of Dec 1978.
But be happy! You still don’t need to be concerned: 1.2 C per century, that’s hardly anything.
CMIP5 model projections have a 30-year trend of 0.37C/decade vs, UAH 6.0 44-year tens of just 0.13C/decade.
This is hard evidence computer model warming projections and ECS estimates are 3 TIMES higher than reality, which effectively disconfirms the stupid CAGW scam..
Thats the point
That’s a stupid point indeed!
It’s simply ugly to compare surface models with the lower troposphere at 700 hPa aka ~ 4 km altitude.
Did you ever compare GISS land-only with the RATPAC-B balloon time series for the surface?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UuPb709N4zleyWhZrKyiSG0ISyfGZajA/view
And here is a comparison of RATPAC-B to UAH and RSS LT at 700 hPa:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zR6wh8k4vZWYVpkwbnJD7fh4aF5sY_Co/view
The UAH data doesn’t measure the temperature at the surface.
The UAH data is gathered by scans which cross the equator at fixed local times, one on the Sun lit side and the other on the dark side. These data are not like the surface land based station data which historically captured daily high and low temperatures and lately may include hourly measurements. Ocean temperatures have been deduced from the surface water measurements.
The UAH data may also be corrupted by the influence of melting sea-ice, as sea-ice appears warmer than open water. As the Arctic sea-ice extent has declined the past 44 years and the increasing incidence of melt ponds on first year ice has increased, the effect would be a cooling trend included in the MSU/AMSU data.
Not to forget, there are other groups analyzing the data, for example, RSS reports a global trend for their TLT at 0.211 K/decade.
UAH corrupted by melting sea-ice. Sea surface corrupted by heat-island. We officially have our bounds. Maybe RSS has been the “right” data set all along.
See
Examination of space-based bulk atmospheric temperatures
used in climate research
John R. Christy, Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell and Robert Junod
2018
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report
5 (IPCC AR5, 2013) discussed bulk atmospheric temperatures as
indicators of climate variability and change. We examine four satellite datasets producing bulk tropospheric temperatures, based on microwave sounding units (MSUs), all updated since IPCC AR5. All datasets produce high correlations of anomalies versus independent observations from radiosondes (balloons), but differ somewhat in the metric of most interest, the linear trend beginning in 1979. The trend is an indicator of the response of the climate system to rising greenhouse gas concentrations and other forcings, and so is critical to understanding the climate. The satellite results indicate a range of nearglobal (+0.07 to +0.13C decade−1) and tropical (+0.08 to +0.17C decade−1) trends (19792016), and suggestions are presented to account for these differences. We show evidence that MSUs on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations satellites (NOAA-12 and −14, 19902001+) contain spurious warming, especially noticeable in three of the four satellite datasets. Comparisons with radiosonde datasets independently adjusted for inhomogeneities and Reanalyses suggest the actual tropical (20S-20 N) trend is +0.10 0.03C decade−1
. This tropical result is over a factor of two less than the trend projected from the average of the IPCC climate model simulations for this same period (+0.27C decade−1).”
RLH, What’s your point? Quotes from the UAH report:
Since the TMT is contaminated with the cooling trend from the Stratosphere, the trends can’t be directly compared with the simulations.
In other words, they are comparing the TMT with SIMULATED data sets, as they describe on page 6,
swannie…”The UAH data doesnt measure the temperature at the surface”.
***
It is claimed that channel 5 is centred at about 4 km. Everest is at least 8 km high, therefore the sats are measuring at their centre frequency at halfway down Everest.
Are you trying to tell me that channel 5 cannot receive microwaves from O2 right to the surface, if that was desired?
UAH does not use it right to the surface due to spurious microwave frequencies being emitted at the surface. The question arises as to exactly how low they get. It’s a lot lower than 4 km.
I know Binny will chirp in about some formula and how the AMSU receivers are no longer used. The important thing is that Roy, the expert, claims they are used but that two other channels have been added to enable them to isolate the readings into cells.
Interesting that the average comes from a third of the way to the stratosphere, and they are getting two-thirds of the surface trend, don’t you think.
Do you really believe that having SOME contribution from lower latitudes completely overrides the contribution from higher latitudes?
swannie…the shyster…misquotes the UAH report…which actually is using a model to represent radiosonde data to satellite comparisons…
Shyster Swannie wants us to believe his drivel that the sat record is derived from guesses based on models.
Swannie Shyster claims…
” We shall also examine TMT as produced from homogenized radiosonde datasets and Reanalyses
In other words, they are comparing the TMT with SIMULATED data sets, as they describe on page 6,
for the calculation of the satellite temperature through a radiative transfer model
***
whereas the UAH paper claims…
“The IGRA station-by-station, (usually) twice-daily radiosonde data (temperature and humidity) on all reporting levels are vertically interpolated to 61 prescribed pressure levels for the calculation of the satellite temperature through a radiative transfer model…”
Nice try Swannie, but we are onto you after your outright denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
As usual, the ignorant liar Robertson lies again:
” I know Binny will chirp in about some formula and how the AMSU receivers are no longer used. The important thing is that Roy, the expert, claims they are used but that two other channels have been added to enable them to isolate the readings into cells. ”
This is a lie, but Robertson lies everywhere about everything, even about what Newton wrote in his Principia Scientifica.
*
Robertson, I repeat for the umpteenth time:
The LT data published by the UAH team is since 2015 no longer based on direct evaluation of O2 microwave emission.
This is due to the impossibility to provide for correct LT data at grid point level.
For this reason, the LT data is since then constructed out of a mix of MT, TP and LS data, according to the formula
LT = 1.538*MT – 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS
This is easy to prove by comparing the published LT data with a mix of the published MT/TP/LS data, regardless what you compare
– the 27 series
or
– any subset of the grid, even a single grid cell.
Example: the Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
Such comparisons you are not even able to do by yourself, what is a definite proof that you never were an engineer in your whole life.
*
You can tell your lying rubbish as long as you want, Robertson.
You are wrong, and perfectly know that, just as you also perfectly know that you permanently lie about what Isaac Newton wrote.
“RLH, What’s your point?”
That when trying to suggest the bulk temperature of the atmosphere (which is what we are all trying to do isn’t it?) then the same ‘errors’ or ‘uncertainty’ will exist no matter if you are using values derived from 2m thermometers (and quite poor sampling of 70% of the actual surface of the globe) looking upwards or ones derived from higher layers looking downwards.
Have you not heard of Boundary Layers, how they change day and night, over the land and the ocean, and what they mean?
https://wasatchweatherweenies.blogspot.com/2017/10/lessons-in-boundary-layer-meteorology.html
RLH:
“That when trying to suggest the bulk temperature of the atmosphere (which is what we are all trying to do isnt it?)”
No.
Enhanced greenhouses have no effect on the average temperature of the earth-atmosphere system. They increase the surface temperature and cool the upper atmosphere. We are mainly interested in the increasing surface temperatures, not the “bulk temperature”.
As suggested previously, take up making and selling shirts.
Old Gordo is confused as usual. My poorly edited quotes were taken directly from the report and point out that they compare the UAH MT v6 with the radiosonde data and model results by first converting those data sets to simulated MT series.
Indeed, Gordo’s quote says that directly:
Also, as I noted, they don’t apply a similar conversion to those data sets using radiative transfer models based on the RSS, STAR and UWash approaches.
Since Gordo again has nothing to offer, he reverts to vicious ad hominem attacks, as usual. And, he still can’t understand radiation heat transfer which tells us that a body which can emit thermal IR radiation at a wavelength will also absorb at that wavelength, no matter the temperature of the source. That does not violate the 2nd Law and that fact also applies to gasses, including CO2 and the O2 molecule emissions measured by the MSU and AMSU.
“No.”
So you are not interested in the bulk air temperature but instead with only cherry picking the hottest value there is.
SB: Is that day time or night time values and over which surface?
https://wasatchweatherweenies.blogspot.com/2017/10/lessons-in-boundary-layer-meteorology.html
studentb says:
January 5, 2023 at 8:51 PM
RLH:
That when trying to suggest the bulk temperature of the atmosphere (which is what we are all trying to do isnt it?)
No.
Enhanced greenhouses have no effect on the average temperature of the earth-atmosphere system. They increase the surface temperature and cool the upper atmosphere. We are mainly interested in the increasing surface temperatures, not the bulk temperature.
With enhanced greenhouse effect in equalibrium the apparent radiating temperature of the planet doesn’t change as viewed from space, but the net energy in the planet system is increased.
Your a bit thick really aren’t you. The temperature changes, the climate fraud is just another corporate money making scheme.
Wake up and see the corrupt world as it is.
“Seriously we are 0.05C above a 40 year average and you want me to be concerned.”
Europe 2 degrees C warming in 40 y.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/europe/land/36/11/1880-2022?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1980&endtrendyear=2022
Dear Dr. Spencer-san:
I realize you are extremely busy, but it would be most appreciated if you could kindly provide an updated comparative graph between CMIP6.0 projected computer model average global temperature anomalies vs. UAH6.0 values, and weather ballon values in some future post on your blog.
The disparity between climate model projections vs, reality now seem to far exceed 2 standard deviations for over 30 years which seems to mean the CAGW hypothesis has been effectively disconfirmed.
Thank you in advance for your kind consideration in putting this together.
Go to the “Climate Lab Book” website.
Look at the post “Comparing CMIP5 @ observations”
You will find that the fit is much better than you claim.
The heaviest rainfall is now occurring in the California Valley near Sacramento, where the threat of flooding is increasing.
Arctic cyclone hits west coast of US. Large amounts of snow will fall in the mountains and rain in the lowlands in California. More fronts with precipitation will come in from the north.
https://i.ibb.co/4JFT167/pobrane.png
Another cyclone from the north is approaching the US west coast.
https://i.ibb.co/x2yW6YT/mimictpw-alaska-latest.gif
Could last January’s Tonga-Hunga eruption have contributed to 2022 being “the 7th Warmest of 44-Year Satellite Record.
Ya betcha!
Now try explaining that to the cult idiots that believe ice cubes can boil water….
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/sun/nasa-mission-finds-tonga-volcanic-eruption-effects-reached-space
Please point out where in the article it says that the earth was warmed, or even that the water vapour remained up there.
Yeah AQ, I noticed the same thing. But you’ve got to remember, this is NASA-Goddard. They’re not going to allow anything to warm Earth except CO2. They don’t even recognize Sun’s contribution!
Large pressure disturbances and record-setting winds but “there’s nothing to see here, move along”. And the cult idiots will instantly obey.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Which of those effects are not attributable to La Nina?
Both.
Do go on …
???
EXPLAIN
You seem to believe you can get away with unsubstantiated assertions.
You don’t understand “both”?
That’s right – BOTH need substantiation.
I’m not sure you understand what you’re asking, AQ.
Are you asking why “large pressure disturbances and record-setting winds” aren’t caused by La Niña?
Indeed I am. Go for it.
“Large pressure disturbances and record-setting winds require mucho energy.
La Niña ain’t an energy source.
Nor is water vapour. But they both can redirect energy.
Ice cubes can redirect energy, AQ.
You really don’t understand any of this.
I guess they can. What’s your point? You’re supposed to be arguing for why water vapour could be the ONLY explanation, not adding new possibilities. Please explain so that I DO understand.
I’m not arguing any such thing.
You don’t understand ANY of this.
You have strongly (and deliberately) implied that extra water vapour has caused “large pressure disturbances and record-setting winds”. And now you’re going to try to spin your way out of it.
All wrong, AQ.
Misrepresenting me and falsely accusing me, repeatedly, makes you just another braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
And, that makes you easily ignorable.
Apparently you believe you are neither a troll nor anonymous.
And despite calling me ‘ignorable’ you have not yet been able to ignore me.
One of the tactics trolls use is to make a false accusation that triggers me to respond. So, it is always my choice as to whether I will respond or ignore.
Since you have proven yourself to be a troll, I will typically ignore your comments that contain insults, false accusations, or misrepresentations.
Thanks for replying, therefore confirming that my comments have no insults, false accusations, or misrepresentations.
“Could last Januarys Tonga-Hunga eruption have contributed to 2022 being the 7th Warmest of 44-Year Satellite Record.
Ya betcha!”
Except that the global average temperature for Jan-Feb-Mar that year was cooler than the previous 3 months and cooler than the subsequent 3 months.
Simple analysis therefore suggests a cooling effect – if any at all.
I suggest you stick to engineering, or farming, or selling shirts.
The physics would indicate a lag, clearly obvious by March.
Love how people refer to just “the physics” as a blank-filler.
“I assert there could be only one reason for what I observe, and as I need this particular time lag to match my assertion I will also assert the ‘the physics’ supports this time lag … QED”
Heads up – after Pinatubo and El Chichon it took almost a year for the sulphur dioxide to envelope the globe and initiate cooling. Please explain what you know about the physics of water vapour which would cause a lag only 20% as long. Be specific now …
No false accusations allowed, AQ.
You’re welcome to try again. Just drop the troll tactics.
So someone who used troll tactics in his opening comment gets to avoid explaining something he can’t explain be hypocritically demanding that no one else may use his language, is that how it works?
I don’t mind discussing the science, but I no longer waste time with cult idiots.
Youre welcome to try again. Just clean up your comments by ending the troll tactics.
You have no answer – got it. Perhaps don’t make it up on the fly next time.
Well, you had three chances AQ. You just couldn’t handle it.
Better luck next time.
(Hint: Maturity helps.)
Yep – if you had the maturity not to begin a discussion with “cult idiots” then maybe people would not respond in kind, and MAYBE people would treat your claims a little more seriously.
Anyway, barring any evidence to the contrary, we can now state with near certainty that there is no reason water vapour would not be subject to the same 12-month lag as SO2, and as a result there was no warming in 2022 due to the eruption.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1424387
https://climateball.net/but-abc#volcanoes
Enjoy, Clint:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00618-z
Dang, Brandon got something right! Kudos!
Yes, Tonga-Hunga resulted in warming. It was NOT a typical volcano, which results in cooling. The warming was NOT due to radiative issues, but we don’t need to go there now.
What’s important now is that the trolls end up with their feet in their mouths. And, there won’t be any recognition that they were wrong. That’s why they can’t learn.
The abstract, and the paper, clearly state that the warming was due to radiative effects of water vapor. So I must be wrong. Dangit.
Correct Brandon, that’s what your cult claims. Without an understanding of the physics, you must decide if you want to believe it, or not.
(Hint: This is in the category of ice cubes boiling water.)
“The warming was NOT due to radiative issues, but we dont need to go there now.”
Sure we do. You’ve just thumbed up a study that says the warming was due to radiative forcing by water vapour. You’re cherry-picking the bits you like and never-minding the bits you don’t.
The stratospheric polar vortex is blocked over the Bering Sea by the accumulation of ozone in the region.
https://i.ibb.co/S6DbDFm/gfs-t10-nh-f24.png https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/01/06/1300Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-137.76,69.88,406
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUDLiEG9rRg
Roughly Scott say Fear is why people are worried
about climate change.
Scott says many crazy stuff.
But never imagined anyone was afraid of climate climate.
I might agree religious people are motivated by fear, and obviously
fear is used in brainwashing.
Maybe people are afraid of traveling faster than 20 mph.
I think that what people are actually afraid of, and it is dangerous
going faster than 20 mph.
Or 15 C is cold, how can being warmer than 15 C be something to be
afraid of. And most of land averages 10 C, and living in the ocean
could be scary.
–The UK could experience a spike in excess deaths this winter due to cold housing as temperatures plummet and sky-high energy bills force people to turn off their heating, experts and charities fear.
…
There were an estimated 8,500 deaths due to cold homes in the winter of 2019-20, according to analysis by the charity National Energy Action.
The UKHSA advises people to heat homes to at least 18C and keep bedroom windows closed at night.
https://inews.co.uk/news/concerns-higher-deaths-winter-temperatures-plummet-energy-bills-soar-2013300
18 C is too cold for me, and probably kill quite a few older and less healthy people.
–Hywind is being sold to the grid, not to the consumer but to the grid, for $0.25 per kilowatt-hour. Thats about four times the cost of fossil fuel electricity, and guess who is subsidizing the difference?
Yep. The poor UK taxpayer. At $0.25 per kWh, that electricity subsidy is costing the taxpayers just over $26 megabucks per year, about an eighth of a billion dollars over the five years of its existence hell of a deal.
This is the ugly reality of wind and solar. They are hugely subsidized by the taxpayers no matter where they are installed.–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/05/the-wind-power-mirage/
[Plus they can’t provide power when it’s needed. Which is worse
than their high cost per KW hour]
Continues:
“Heres the bottom line:
In the US, the average electricity price to the consumer is on the order of $0.10 per kilowatt-hour.
The Manhattan Institute says that globally, weve subsidized wind/solar/biofuels to the tune of $5 trillion over 20 years.
Our World In Data says that globally, theyve delivered 9.12 petawatt-hours (1015 watt-hours) in 20 yrs.
Thats $0.55 per kilowatt-hour that weve thrown down a rat-hole.”
{and it’s not the worst of it.
When wasting this much money, Space power satellites look really good- 1/2 the price, and get power when you need it. But SPS in future could be cheaper than coal or natural gas.
I wouldn’t recommend SPS, now, if put money in space exploration, instead, it could make SPS cheaper, in less time.\
But for China, SPS, now, might be good idea- because they paying about $400 per ton of Coal, and they going to run out of coal, and they don’t seem to making much progress with nuclear power.
Related:
A potentially revolutionary solar harvester just left the planet
The 110-pound prototype will send back data on three unique energy projects.
By Andrew Paul | Published Jan 4, 2023 1:30 PM
https://www.popsci.com/technology/caltech-solar-energy-power-satellite-prototype-launch/
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
“Following over a decade of research, including two years of testing origami-inspired components, a small prototype satellite designed to harvest solar energy launched yesterday morning aboard SpaceXs most recent Falcon 9 rocket launch in Cape Canaveral, Florida. If its initial experiments are successful, arrays similar to Caltechs Space Solar Power Demonstrator (SSPD) could one day beam essentially endless renewable energy back to Earth via microwave transmitters.”
And:
“Over the next few weeks and months, the roughly 110-pound prototype will send back data on three main projects. The Deployable on-Orbit ultraLight Composite Experiment (DOLCE) will test lightweight, foldable structures that can unfurl to collect sunlight. Meanwhile, ALBA (Italian for dawn), a collection of 32 different varieties of photovoltaic cells, will determine which could work best in the spaces extremely harsh environment. Finally, the Microwave Array for Power-transfer Low-orbit Experiment (MAPLE) will test microwave transmitters that may one day transmit the collected solar power via wireless electricity.”
So apparently some people are worried [terrified] that average global temperature will rise higher about 15 C.
Most of these people are living in a home which is kept at about 20 C.
A lot animals flee the colder seasons, or hibernate [so they don’t get too cold and/or starve from the lack of food].
Almost any life would like to be in temperature that Humans spend money on to keep warmer.
So warmer world is better for all life on Earth. And humans would spend less money heating their homes [and could kept the windows opened, more.] And humans like animals prefer move to warmer regions.
Europe’s average yearly temperature is about 9 C. China is about 8 C.
And India’s average temperature is about 25 C.
People in India are not fleeing because it’s too warm- India is one of most crowded places on Earth. If any Indian wanted colder average temperature, there is colder mountains in India- which are sparsely populated.
trouble posting…testing
Swannie, the 2nd law denier, comes up with even more ign.ora.nce of how sat telemetry works. Although the atmosphere layer monitored uses instruments that are centred mid-troposphere, around 4 km, they are capable of measuring O2 microwave radiation down to the surface.
If you look at the weighting functions, they reveal O2 emi.s.s.ions for channel 5 right to the surface. I don’t expect you to understand how an AMSU receiver works but it is right up my alley. I specialized in microwave at university.
Did they have microwaves when you attended university?
I guess you would have been an expert at reheating food.
Although I only have a block diagram to work with, I am completely aware of how the circuits work. The input has an RF amplifier that feeds a heteordyning mixer. The pur.pose of such a mixer is to receive a broad band of frequencies, then use a local oscillator to beat against those frequencies to produce a much lower intermediate frequency.
The resultant of the mixer output is another broad range of much lower frequencies.
So, if what you claim is correct, that the AMSU units only receive data from 4 km altitude, why would the AMSU units need a broad band of input frequencies?
Sorry about the messed up post, I could not post rest of message due to Internal Error warnings.
Don’t worry. It is so off-topic that nobody cares.
— Both engineers and scientists want to understand the world and both want to solve problems. Engineers worry about how much something costs. Scientists dont worry about the cost; they just want the truth. So, the difference between an engineer and a scientist is that an engineer at least has some common sense.
Theres been a lot of discussion about the differences between scientists and engineers. The boundaries can get blurry and often are non-existent. In the energy power system arena, perhaps to my past professors chagrin, Im afraid the more important boundary might be between academics and practicing engineers. Academics can approach the grid with some detachment while practicing engineers must keep it running 24/7/365. Practicing engineers have skin in the game and typically face consequences for errors and shortcomings, while academics and unfortunately many policy makers are more insulated. This brings to mind Thomas Sowells guidance, It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.–
https://judithcurry.com/2023/01/04/academics-and-the-grid-part-i-i-dont-think-that-study-means-what-you-think-it-means/#more-29590
testing
Problems again with Internal Server errors.
You’ve got it wrong gb. The proper title for an engineer is Bachelor of Applied Science for an undergraduate degree. They also have Master of Applied Science and there is a Ph.D degree in engineering. All of our profs were Ph.Ds and I had at least one teaching assistant (TA) who had a Ph. D in civil engineering.
Before you apply science, you must first learn science.
The bs being spread in here about engineering is not even close. We took the same courses as science student excep.t at the honours level and with a more intense format.
Good to see you replying to yourself to remind yourself of that.
By ‘science’ Robertson actually means denial of science, no matter what the science is about.
That’s why some people on this blog gullibly follow his nonsense.
Indeed – he figures that if he doesn’t understand science then the problem must be with science and not him. Classic Dunning-Kruger.
I even had a conversation a while back on his own field, electrical engineering. He wasn’t aware that the same problem could be considered in either the time domain or the frequency domain. He tried to argue that only he was looking at it the right way, when in fact both ways were equivalent.
Ignoring the two common themes here he has also denied relativity, quantum mechanics, the usefulness of non-inertial forces, bootstrapping (statistics), and the reason for the moon’s phases. Can you think of others? Pretty sure evolution would be in there, but I can’t specifically recall a conversation.
I forgot to mention … the concept of an average.
Antonin Qwerty
” Pretty sure evolution would be in there… ”
Yes, it is, as well as e.g. viruses.
*
His denial of Moon’s rotation goes well beyond confused explanations of the lunar phases, and is worth a lengthy extra note because it even goes as far as outright denial of Newton’s own words, allegedly misrepresented by wrong translations from some ‘old’ Latin.
This despite the fact that this translation was made from the same original text of the third edition (1726):
https://books.google.de/books?id=6EqxPav3vIsC&pg=PA238&redir_esc=y&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false
by several different persons, among them for example
– 1726-29: Andrew Motte, Principia’s first translator;
– 1745-49: the French mathematician, physicist and philosopher Emilie du Châtelet;
– 1872: the German professor Jakob Philipp Wolfers.
*
Being 100 % fluent in both French and German, along with a smattering of English, it was easy for me to convince myself that all three translations from the ‘old’ Latin were perfectly similar and correct.
*
{ Motte’s translation was the best of all because he enriched Newton’s main texts with very helpful, sometimes indispensable additions from his footnotes (all typeset in italic of course) }.
*
It should be evident to us that Newton’s work must have been translated in several other languages, beginning with e.g. … Russian!
*
Sources for Book III, Prop. XVII, Th. XV
– Motte
https://books.google.de/books?id=6EqxPav3vIsC&pg=PA238&redir_esc=y&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false
– Châtelet
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k290387/f39.item
– Wolfers ( 21 (‘Lehrsatz’) on page 399, i.e. 414 in the pdf file)
https://ia902704.us.archive.org/24/items/mathematischepr00newtgoog/mathematischepr00newtgoog.pdf
Ooops?! Even the ASCII character ‘§’ is not printed…
Bindidon, you’re the first to bring up Moon on this new Spencer post. You’re obsessed with your cult’s nonsense.
You’re obsessed, but you’ve got NOTHING. Misinterpreting Newton and quoting ancient astrologers ain’t science. Science is having a viable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Without such a model, you’ve got NOTHING.
"Bindidon, you’re the first to bring up Moon on this new Spencer post."
He usually is. Yet we get the blame for it.
Gentle Graham leaves the “we” indeterminate.
Does it include Gordo?
Does it include Bill too?
"Non-Spinners" get the blame for the moon discussion, as if "Spinners" have no part in it. They’re apparently forced to debate it, against their will.
First person to mention the spin of the moon in each of the last 30 monthly reports (not including those who were merely complaining about the endless drivel without stating an opinion):
DREMT 6
Gordon 5
Bindidon 4
Entropic Man 3
Bill Hunter 3
Norman 3
(no mention) 2
angech 1
Willard 1
svante 1
ClintR 1
Pretty much even between "Spinners" and "Non-Spinners", then.
” Bindidon, you’re the first to bring up Moon on this new Spencer post.
He usually is. Yet we get the blame for it. ”
*
No I didn’t, as you clearly can see: I only replied Antonin Qwerty’s comment about the endlessly lying ignoramus nicknamed Robertson.
It was your deliberate choice, Clint R and Pseudomod, to reply, though there was absolutely no need to do.
I won’t add anything to this. We’ll see how you two behave…
That’s right, Bindidon, it was my choice to reply…and it’s the "Spinners" choice to debate the issue just as much as the "Non-Spinners". No one side is better than the other in this.
DREMT
As you try to gloss over your own contribution by hiding amongst the group.
Not at all. If I started it the most times, I started it the most times. Fair enough. At least one of those times, I was just promoting my song…but I suppose it still counts.
I honestly thought Bindidon had started the debate off far more times than I had. Perhaps he has, when you include the articles outside the monthly reports.
I saw no mention of a song. As I was doing a search for ‘moon’, you probably provided a link without an introduction. In which case your count should be incremented and someone else’s should be reduced. And I should go looking for the post and reply with your standard hackneyed response.
Lol, OK.
” He usually is. Yet we get the blame for it. ”
Aha.
*
Here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1409139
the Pseudomod can see himself being the very first one to comment on the lunar spin.
*
And here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1402831
I did not mention the ‘ball-on-a-string-ist’ with the intention to start that discussion; I just described Clint R as he views himself (” Keep It Simple, Stupid “).
*
And here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/the-warming-that-happens-in-vegas-stays-in-vegas/#comment-1396440
I again did not start that discussion but gave a hint on how Robertson insults even Newton’s best translator.
*
And here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2022-0-32-deg-c/#comment-1392065
we clearly see again who was suddenly talking about the Moon unable to spin…
*
Need some more hints, Pseudomod?
"the Pseudomod can see himself being the very first one to comment on the lunar spin."
I was not the first one to comment on the lunar spin under that article, though.
Your other examples seem to be between you and Gordon. Not sure what hints I’m supposed to be taking from it…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1408116
That is the first mention of the moon issue under last month’s temperature update. It was you, Bindidon! You used the phrase “lunar spin” and not “moon”, which means Antonin would have falsely counted last month’s update as one of mine, instead of yours. So Antonin’s count is most likely wrong, anyway. He needed to search for “lunar” as well, not just “moon”, to see who started the discussion.
Tut, tut.
[GENTLE GRAHAM] If I started it the most times
[ANTONIN] Here are the stats that shows he does.
Yes, apparently so. Although, we’ve just discovered that one of the times Antonin would have put down as me, it should have gone to Bindidon.
Making the stats even between me and Bindidon.
And so Gentle Graham can’t bring himself to correct Pup.
Twas not Binny this time.
Antonin mentioned "the moon’s phases" which is what triggered Bindidon to mention "His denial of Moon’s rotation goes well beyond confused explanations of the lunar phases".
So I guess we can put this month’s down to Antonin rather than Bindidon.
🤦
Wow the non-spinners eke out a narrow margin vs the sheeple.
What’s the problem with that?
C’mon, Bill.
My question was direction to Little Willy…
Willard says:
Cmon, Bill.
—————————
Little Willy must also deny that the moon rotates around the earth. . . .but the jury is out on which side he is on.
"My question was direction to Little Willy…"
I meant, "directed to Little Willy".
"…but the jury is out on which side he is on"
That’s true, Bill. Little Willy argues that "orbital motion" is a mix of rotation and translation. So of the two possible options, he can only really be describing "orbit without spin" as motion like the "moon on the left".
Since I believe the Moon spins, Moon Dragon cranks ought to realize that their inclusion perhaps their criteria is wrong.
Now, we know that Gordo holds that the Moon translates. What about Bill?
Here is what I mean by the “moon on the left”, for anyone that didn’t know:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Little Willy claims that he believes the moon spins, but some of his other statements would put him in the “Non-Spinner” camp. So, as Bill says, the jury is still out…
Here is where Gentle Graham left the field last time:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1421943
Since the Moon Dragon cranks have refuted fair and square with a very simple argument, gaslighting is to be expected, like pretending I do not believe that the Moon spins.
Yes, that discussion was a good example of Little Willy’s abject confusion on the issue, and total failure to understand basic kinematics. Here’s a good video, by the way:
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw
Apart from a mistake at about 0:40, where the narrator says the orbital motion and axial rotation are diametrically opposite, when they are actually in the same direction, the video is a good demonstration of the motions from the “Non-Spinner” POV.
aquerty…”Good to see you replying to yourself to remind yourself of that”.
***
Had you the least amount of comprehension you would have seen I was having trouble posting due to incessant Internal Server error. However, expecting you to read more than a few words before rushing to offer ad homs, insults, and red herring arguments, is a bit much.
Gentle Graham gently gaslights a little more.
The CSA Truther’s video is obviously a dud, which has already been covered elsewhere:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1414051
There’s also a singular tension between what the CSA Truther concludes and his own conclusions:
https://tinyurl.com/dragon-cranks-honey-trap#comment-1405871
After having exchanged for a few of his 77 months of trolling this website, it always ends up the same with Gentle Graham. Either he’s misrepresented or his opponents misunderstand. In the latter case his opponents make no sense.
aquerty….”First person to mention the spin of the moon in each of the last 30 monthly reports…”
***
Why don’t you spend some time learning physics, and science in general, rather than wasting time with mental drivel?
Little Willy is welcome to have his say…but the video speaks for itself. "Let the readers decide".
Gordon
It took me 15 minutes. How many THOUSANDS of hours have you wasted commenting here and on other denial sites?
Excuse me if I laugh at being told that I need to learn physics by a person who believes in the buffet concept of accepting and rejecting physics.
Perhaps if you hadn’t wasted so much time here you would have learned that it is NOT the earth’s shadow which causes the phases of the moon.
BTW Gordon – I like the way you spelled your name here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1424206
Sigmund says you almost nailed it!
I prefer this spelling, AQ:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1424137
dremt…”Thats true, Bill. Little Willy argues that “orbital motion” is a mix of rotation and translation”.
***
Not possible. The Earth translates and rotates on its orbit, and from a viewpoint within the orbit, one would see all sides of the Earth 365 times a year.
C’mon, Bordo.
We’ve just been over this.
I think Little Willy was referring to “orbital motion without axial rotation” when he described it as consisting of both rotation and translation, Gordon. Of the two options, “moon on the left” or “moon on the right”, that could only be the MOTL.
Making Little Willy a secret “Non-Spinner”.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
He won’t tell Bordon that his “The Earth translates and rotates on its orbit” does not cohere with the video he cited in this subthread.
🤷
Gordon sees “translation in a circle, without rotation about an internal axis” as being motion like the MOTL, whereas most people see it as being motion like the MOTR.
Everyone should agree (including “Spinners”, and some do agree), that “rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis”, is motion like the MOTL. It’s one of the four points that remain correct regardless of who’s right overall about the moon issue, namely:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis.
2) “Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL.
3) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
4) “Revolution/orbit” is defined as “rotation about an external axis”.
Funnily enough, there is at least one “Spinner” commenting here who has agreed with each of the four points, although there are none that agree with all four at once.
#4 is a Zombie.
A thoroughly debunked lie that should have died long ago, but is endlessly resurrected by shameless people.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1422948
I will leave these here, in support of point 4), just in case anyone should question it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
“A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
https://www.brightstorm.com/science/physics/circular-motion-and-rotational-mechanics/rotation-and-revolution/
“It is important to understand the difference between rotations and revolutions. When an object turns around an internal axis (like the Earth turns around its axis) it is called a rotation. When an object circles an external axis (like the Earth circles the sun) it is called a revolution.”
…and I will note that sources where “revolution/orbit” is defined as just a path, or trajectory, support the “Non-Spinners” just as much as they support the “Spinners”. After all, I agree completely that an object that is orbiting is moving in a path, or trajectory, around another object.
Notice how easily the LIE
‘Is DEFINED as a rotation’ , morphs into
So what if DEFINITIONs don’t mention rotation at all,
they still ‘support’ our belief.
As an aside, I’m sure readers will notice that "Spinners" seem to think definitions that don’t mention translation at all, still somehow support their belief.
Whilst they have to try desperately hard to rationalize away the existence of definitions that do mention rotation…
There is indeed a switch from an assertion to a conditional, Nate. Gentle Graham almost always argue with a Motte and Bailey. The assertion is the Motte, and the conditional is the Bailey.
But do not forget that his Bailey contains an implicit trick. He defines a revolution by a rotation alone, or as a pure rotation. Without that pure rotation, his 1+1 trick does not work.
Hence why Bordon is wrong in his proof too, incidentally.
Just a reminder that self-appointed authority figure, Tim Folkerts PhD, agrees that movement like the MOTL can be described as consisting of "one motion". Let’s break that down…
There are two separate and independent motions that have always been at the heart of the moon discussion:
1) Orbital motion.
2) Axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis).
Tim has said that the movement of the MOTL can be described as consisting of "one motion". Therefore he concedes that the MOTL can be described as not rotating on its own internal axis, but only orbiting (unless he is saying that the MOTL is not orbiting, but is only rotating on its own internal axis – I think we can reject that option!)
So now it’s up to Tim what kinematics he uses to describe the motion "orbiting". It’s kind of irrelevant…he’s conceded that the MOTL can be described as not rotating on its own axis.
End of story.
Just a reminder that Gentle Graham gently gaslights once more.
A complex motion is one motion. And without that complex motion, Moon Dragon cranks cannot explain or even model the motion of the Moon properly. Which is the point that Mighty Tim keeps making and that Gentle Graham keeps evading,
Here is where he left off the last time:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1421268
Inescapable logic is called "gaslighting" by Little Willy.
"A complex motion is one motion. And without that complex motion, Moon Dragon cranks cannot explain or even model the motion of the Moon properly."
The "one motion" Tim refers to can be as complex as he wishes. Indeed, as I said, he can use whatever kinematics he wishes to describe it.
To portray a point refuted a thousand times as inescapable is indeed gaslighting.
Let us refute it once again.
Let Bordon move around a table while fixing his eyes on its center.
As he walks parallel to the table, he translates. That is, he orbits.
As he looks at the table his head turns. That is, it spins.
One motion. One complex motion. Very, very tough to understand for Moon Dragon cranks.
The *only* argument Gentle Graham clings to is that the orbit could also be described as a rotation. This equivalence *only* works with circular orbits, but whatever. We can grant him that. Mighty Tim did.
What he tries to run away with is that this proves Moon Drwgon cranks right. It does not. All it shows is that Gentle Graham gently gaslights furthermore.
Lol. Little Willy’s attempt to refute the point is by suggesting that the two separate and independent motions, "orbital motion" and "axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis" are one motion!
I’ve never seen anything so desperate and pathetic in all my life.
Poor Gentle Graham. According to his own Holy Madhavi, a complex motion can be described by a series of rotations and translations. Does it mean he is now lulzing at his own Holy Madhavi?
No, it means he is gently gaslighting once again.
You are completely confused, beyond belief. I think it’s deliberate, though. You’re only acting.
Forget about kinematics for the minute, Little Willy. You don’t understand it (or at least, you act like you don’t, in an attempt to confuse the issue as much as possible).
Let’s get back to basics.
There are two separate and independent motions that have always been at the heart of the moon debate:
1) Orbital motion.
2) Axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis).
Tim has said that the movement of the MOTL can be described as consisting of "one motion".
That means he concedes that the MOTL can be described as "not rotating on its own internal axis", and only doing motion 1).
As predicted, Gentle Graham has now reached the gaslighting stage.
At least he now wastes less time reaching it.
His trick is quite simple – he conflates his analytical tools with reality.
What needs to be explained is what the Moon does.
Not his silly GIF.
The Moon.
To do that, we need physics.
Gentle Graham forfeited that point. He prefers to cling to geometry instead. Which is fair, since he sucks less at it than at physics. He does not call Tim Mighty Tim for nothing. Tim spanked him a few times over the years.
BUT EVEN ON GEOMETRY GRAHAM SUCKS TO NO END.
As soon as he conceded the complex motion point he lost. And now he clings to some weird idea that a complex motion *cannot* have independent parts.
Let us hope he never tried a Ferris wheel!
Which of the two possible motions under discussion do you consider to be the "complex motion", Little Willy?
1) Orbital motion.
2) Axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis).
Now watch Little Willy do anything in his power to avoid answering this question.
Gentle Graham is caught between a rock and a hard place.
Either he concedes that his Holy Madhavi indeed defines a complex motion as a series of rotations and translations, or he accepts that the Moon needs to be explained using physics and that his pet GIF was meant for that.
Either way, he will be gaslighting. He has yet to find other ways to tergiversate.
Now watch Little Willy do anything in his power to avoid answering this question…
Gentle Graham *cannot* concede that his own Holy Madhavi defines a complex motion as a series of translations and rotations.
Which is understandable, for she would recognize the 1+1 trick behind his false choice.
A search of the Madhavi document returns no results for the word "complex".
Perhaps Little Willy is again confused by "General Plane Motion". That can be considered as a combination of translation plus rotation. For instance, a translation of the body in a circle plus a rotation about the internal axis of the body. This would still be considered two motions, though, in the context we are discussing. One of the motions would be the "Spinners" concept of "orbit without spin" (the translation in a circle), and the other motion would be the axial rotation (the rotation about the internal axis). To describe that as one single motion would make the distinction between "orbit" and "spin" meaningless. Perhaps that is Little Willy’s intent.
Now watch Little Willy continue to do anything in his power to avoid answering the question I asked him.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
The Moon orbits. It also spins. Two independent motions.
The 1+1 trick assumes that the two motions are dependent.
Thus it concludes that they cannot.
Either Gentle Graham is a genius or he sucks at logic.
My money is on the latter.
> that they cannot
be independent, that is.
So, for those in the back, Gentle Graham posits that the orbit comes with a spin.
Once we realize that this assumption begs some physics, the whole Moon Dragon crank appeal to geometry falls down.
"The Moon orbits. It also spins. Two independent motions."
Yet Tim has conceded that motion like the MOTL (which, of the two options, moves most like our moon) can be described as "one motion". That’s the point that you cannot refute, Little Willy.
Tim then goes on to posit that because the orbit is elliptical, etc etc, it only makes sense to describe the real moon’s movement as consisting of two motions.
He is ignoring the point that you are inadvertently raising, however, which is that the real moon’s movement could still be described as consisting of one single, but complex, motion. "Orbital motion".
…and that’s probably why you avoided answering my question.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
There is no problem in accepting any assumption as long as it is not self-contradictory. That includes the one according the Moon orbits in a way that *includes* eo ipso the spin. That is, that the Moon really moves like a ball on string.
Moon Dragon cranks can posit that or anything else they please, as long as they do something with it.
Do they?
No.
Henceforth Gentle Graham has yet to meet the challenge offered by Mighty Tim.
"That includes the one according the Moon orbits in a way that *includes* eo ipso the spin"
The argument is not that the moon is orbiting in a way that includes the spin. Orbit and spin are two separate things. You still don’t get it, do you?
And so Gentle Graham returns to silly word games.
The 1+1 argument is that once you do a rotation to represent the orbit of the Moon, it *cannot* spin, as adding one rotation to another rotation entails that the Moon would not show the same face to the Earth. Thus the orbit comes with the spin. Just like a ball on the string.
Which only works if one assumes that to rotate around an external axis implies that the axial orientation of the Moon follows along. Just like the CSA Truther trick.
Orbit and spin are not independent.
*This* is the assumption. It is far from being necessary. Without it, the 1+1 argument falls apart.
To support that assumption, Moon Dragon cranks would need to do what they fear most.
Physics.
Cue to gentle Graham trying to argue that his model is better because he is simpler or whatnot.
"The 1+1 argument is that once you do a rotation to represent the orbit of the Moon, it *cannot* spin, as adding one rotation to another rotation entails that the Moon would not show the same face to the Earth. Thus the orbit comes with the spin. Just like a ball on the string."
Mostly wrong, Little Willy. The orbit does not come with the spin. The orbit is one motion, spin is a separate motion. It just so happens, that in the case of the moon, it is only orbiting.
So simple…so impossible for Little Willy to comprehend.
Gentle Graham gaslights once again.
It is easy to notice when he starts cranking up –
Notice the number of negative claims.
Tis no this.
It is NOT that.
And not that either.
No.
No no.
Nonononono.
What a lousy conversationalist, that Gentle Graham.
So simple…so impossible for Little Willy to comprehend.
I’ve used him as an excuse to write out a few comments that might help readers understand the issues better, but it’s getting to the point where he’s outlived his usefulness.
As always, with Little Willy, it will inevitably have to end with a PST. Otherwise he’ll just keep on with the false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults, indefinitely.
Gentle Graham gaslights and gaslights and gaslights.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1186788
Gentle Graham will never learn.
“As an aside, Im sure readers will notice that “Spinners” seem to think definitions that dont mention translation at all, still somehow support their belief.”
Which is a different and debunked issue, and a distraction from whether or not this
“4) ‘Revolution/orbit’ is defined as ‘rotation about an external axis'”
is a LIE. It still is.
Those posting it KNOW that there are no dictionary DEFINITIONS of Orbit that DEFINE it this way.
Yet they keep trying to mislead by posting it.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard says:
Let Bordon move around a table while fixing his eyes on its center.
As he walks parallel to the table, he translates. That is, he orbits.
As he looks at the table his head turns. That is, it spins.
—————————
This is hilarious! Borton’s body is translating while his head spins. LOL!
A complex single motion? ROTFLMAO!
So, Gill, have you found the authoritative translation of the Principia?
Exactly, Bill. You have to laugh, really. Then, eventually, once he’s outlived his usefulness, PST (otherwise he just won’t stop).
No more funny than the claim that our Moon’s orbit and spin is ONE MOTION.
Just a reminder that self-appointed authority figure, DREMT, never accurately states my position.
I correctly state the logical consequences of what you’ve said, Tim.
Gentle Graham gaslights once more.
DREMT, you are playing with words, not with science.
‘Circular motion is a rotation.’
‘A rotation is a revolution.’
‘A revolutions is an orbit.’
‘An orbit is one motion.’
‘A rotation is another motion.’
‘The MOTL is one motion.’
‘An orbit can be an ellispe.’
You mingle different meanings to suit your immediate goals, without looking at a coherent whole.
MOTR is ALSO ‘one motion’. Put your fingertip on the disk and trace your finger in a circle. You get MOTR.
Furthermore, move your finger in an ellipse and you ALSO get a correct orbit with a legitimate orientation for a moon. You simply can’t do that with ‘one motion’ for a rotation (or even some sort of ‘stretched rotation’).
The best, simplest ‘base motion’ is MOTR — the orbit is simply the path of the Center of Mass. There is an ‘added motion’ for the change in orientation relative to the CoM.
I’ll break up my response, as it’s not posting, for some reason.
"DREMT, you are playing with words, not with science."
False accusation.
"You mingle different meanings to suit your immediate goals, without looking at a coherent whole."
False accusation.
"MOTR is ALSO ‘one motion’…"
It can be considered to be one motion, if your way of looking at this issue is that of a "Spinner". Obviously, if you’re a "Non-Spinner", then movement like the MOTR is comprised of two motions. Presumably, you agree that movement like the MOTR can be considered to be two motions, since you agree that movement like the MOTL can be considered to be one motion. Yes?
> you are playing with words, not with science.
To be fair, that’s what Gentle Graham does best.
He sucks at word games, but that’s still what he does best.
Have you seen his music video?
Little Willy, please obsessively bully someone else. It’s getting really boring.
Gentle Graham could stop gaslighting every single commenter to whom he replies on this website except his cohort of sockpuppet trolls for a change.
I’ll behave as I always have done, indefinitely. There’s nothing you can do that will ever change that…
…and no, I don’t "gaslight".
“DREMT, you are playing with words, not with science.”
Yep that sums it up well.
And the overlapping but not equal meanings of words that are synonyms is used to mislead people, as DREMT does, and as Bill tried to do above.
So a word like rotate and revolution overlap, and revolution and orbit overlap, but they are not all equivalent, particularly in different contexts. But DREMT pretends that overlap is equivalence, when convenient to his narrative.
In the context of Astronomy, orbit has a standard meaning, and it does NOT mean rotation around an external axis.
And in Astronomy, it is generally agreed that the Moon is orbiting and rotating on its (tilted) axis. And DREMT agrees that his view of the Moon’s motion doesnt agree with Astronomy’s.
Astronomy’s definition of Orbit and understanding of the Moon’s orbit and spin are, naturally, consistent. If they werent, it would have been revised long ago.
So it really NEVER made sense that Astronomy would define Orbit the way DREMT wants it, while viewing the Moon’s orbit and rotation differently from DREMT.
And of course the evidence is clear they do not.
After having lost another round to Mighty Tim, Gentle Graham gently gaslights a little more.
Readers might appreciate how he’s trying to suggest that the Moon can really be seen as spinning.
Little Willy, as usual, offers his totally biased opinion, whilst we wait for Tim to respond to my question.
You are right back playing with semantics, DREMT.
It really doesn’t matter what can be ‘considered’ to be ‘one motion’ or ‘two motions’. It doesn’t really matter how we can describe two cartoons.
Ultimately what matters is if you can accurately describe real moons in real elliptical orbits. If your theory predicts how a moon moves. Predicts ‘equal area in equal time’. Predicts how fast stars move across the sky as seen from the moon. Predicts libration.
And currently, you are still splitting semantics hairs, but you have never been able to extend your model beyond perfect animated circles.
Tim Folkerts says:
”DREMT, you are playing with words, not with science.”
Good lord Tim! It was spinners who tried to change the definition of rotation to not include orbits. And since there are a large number of robot scientists trying to elevate the form of their science over the substance of the world trying to change definitions of words and not having succeeded. . . .you are just pissed off that folks are pointing out that fact to you.
Tim, instead of making yet more false accusations, could you please answer the question?
Many thanks.
Bill somehow concludes: “It was spinners who tried to change the definition of rotation to not include orbits. ”
Rotations are circles.
Orbits are not circles.
Therefore orbits are not rotations.
It doesn’t get much simpler that that!
DREMT, the question is:
“Does a model accurately predict motions in the actual universe?”
Yours fails for anything but a perfectly circular orbit. If the animation for the “MOTL” was drawn accurately for the real moon in its real orbit, it would not be “one rotation about a central axis” Hence yours fails. It doesn’t matter what word you try to put with that failure; it is still a failure.
No, Tim. The question was:
“Presumably, you agree that movement like the MOTR can be considered to be two motions, since you agree that movement like the MOTL can be considered to be one motion. Yes?”
Please answer.
Many thanks.
Why does it matter what you or I or anyone else “consider” the two motions to be?
Mathematically, any motion can be the sum of multiple separate motions. Mathematically, both the animations can be described by “one operation” (ie a rotation about the center for MOTL and translation about the center for MOTR).
But still that is mathematics and definitions. It gets us no closer to explaining a real moon in a real orbit.
I can accurately explain any orbit using
* a translation of the CoM along an elliptical orbit.
* a rotation about the CoM at a constant rate.
You can accurately explain only perfectly circular obits using
* a rotation about an external axis.
* a second rotation about the CoM at a constant rate.
Why on earth would anyone want to take a model that explains every orbit and go backwards to your model?
Tim…why are you so opposed to just answering the simple question?
Now you have two questions to answer…
DREMT? Why are you so intent on ignoring the true issue, which is the motion of the moon? If you are only interested in describing animated pictures, what’s the point? Why worry about semantics of ‘considered one motion’?
Tim, the issue of whether the moon rotates on its own axis I personally find to be of only secondary importance. Maybe even tertiary importance. For one thing, it’s not actually about the moon at all, anyway. It’s about all orbital motion…but of far more interest to me than even that is how blinded people have become by their education and programming, to the extent that they’re unable to understand even the simplest of things any more, when those things go against the programming.
A great example was your recent inability to comprehend that because you had acknowledged the movement of the MOTL could be described as “one motion”, that necessarily meant it could be described as “not rotating on its own axis”…and thus the appropriate description was “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”. I still find it staggering that you cannot accept this. Simply incredible.
Issues 2) and 3) from my list of four points are kind of interrelated, as in once you accept 2) you should eventually come round to accepting 3). Accepting and understanding why the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames is I think of far more interest and value to science than answering the question itself of “does the moon rotate on its own axis?”
OK, so you now have a full and complete answer to your question. Please could you finally answer mine?
“but of far more interest to me than even that is how blinded people have become by their education and programming, to the extent that theyre unable to understand even the simplest of things any more, when those things go against the programming.”
And what is of interest to me is people who are ACTUALLY unable to understand the simplest things when it goes against uninformed intuition. You and many others seem to fall into this category.
“its not actually about the moon at all, anyway. Its about all orbital motion “
Exactly, which is why your model that ONLY applies to perfectly circular orbits is utterly useless.
“A great example was your recent inability to comprehend that because you had acknowledged the movement of the MOTL could be described as “one motion”, that necessarily meant it could be described as “not rotating on its own axis”.”
This is a self-own. That necessarily means MOTL can be described as not ADDITIONALLY rotating on its own axis. But by all standard definitions of ‘rotation’ and ‘axis’, the MOTL is rotating about that axis.
You seem to be conflating a pure mathematical ‘rotation about an axis’ with a physical ‘rotation on an axle’. A bike petal rotates relative to its physical shaft (ie the petal and shaft turn relative to each other). A bike petal does not rotate relative to it’s mathematical axis (ie a point on the petal that is 2 cm horizontally in front of the axis remains 2 cm horizontally in front of the axis). A petal that gets “frozen” would be the reverse — not rotating on its shaft, but rotating on its axis.
Tim, you are doing it again! I will repost from earlier:
There are two separate and independent motions that have always been at the heart of the moon discussion:
1) Orbital motion.
2) Axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis).
Tim has said that the movement of the MOTL can be described as consisting of "one motion". Therefore he concedes that the MOTL can be described as not rotating on its own internal axis, but only orbiting (unless he is saying that the MOTL is not orbiting, but is only rotating on its own internal axis – I think we can reject that option!)
So now it’s up to Tim what kinematics he uses to describe the motion "orbiting". It’s kind of irrelevant…he’s conceded that the MOTL can be described as not rotating on its own axis.
It’s that simple Tim. None of the contortions, distractions, false accusations, misrepresentations and insults you can possibly come out with will ever refute that logic. It’s done.
Now, please answer my question.
“There are two separate and independent motions that have always been at the heart of the moon discussion:
1) Orbital motion.
2) Axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis).”
Perfect! Lets start with the first motion you state — orbital motion. There are two hypotheses on the table:
1a) Orbital motion is a rotation about a central, external axis.
1b) Orbital motion is a translation about a central, external axis.
1a fails to be able to describe elliptical orbits, since rotations are by definition circles. (If you drop the requirement for a circle, then you have to explain all sorts of other details about how you stretch the orbit but not the moon or how the moon would be oriented).
1b works perfectly to explain elliptical orbits. Including the orientation of the moon throughout the orbit.
Well first of you are not holding your definition of a rotation, as a circle, to the same standard as you are trying to hold an ellipse.
Orbital motion was described as a uniform circular motion in three astronomical systems the Ptolemaic, Coperican, and Tychonic systems before the Keplerian version of the Copernican system was devised. So now you have circular orbits and elliptical orbits. So I suppose you think of some being rotations and some being translations. I would say describing an orbit as a circular motion is archaic unless you can find another argument to support that major difference in the classification of orbital motions.
And here are some counterpoints to all the spinner arguments with supporting sources:
1) ”Elliptical rotation is the motion of a point on an ellipse through some angle about a vector.”
https://tinyurl.com/2znbr677
There you go a definition of an ”elliptical rotation” .
And 2) Can a translating body have angular momentum? ”Yes, a body in translatory motion shell have angular momentum, unless the fixed point about which angular momentum is taken lies on the line of motion of the body. This follows from
|L|=rpsinϕL=0, only when ϕ=0∘orϕ=180∘.”
https://tinyurl.com/bd5fz2h5
You lose as the point about which orbital motion has angular momentum is not on the line motion (by definition of an orbit) and it is approximately equal to Lorb+Lspin and it is NOT equal to Lorb. You can’t split the correct equation up and still have translatory angular momentum. . . .a point you blockheads can’t seem to grok.
Tim dodges the point and evades answering the question for about the fifth time…
Bill states: “Orbital motion was described as a uniform circular motion in three astronomical systems the Ptolemaic, Coperican, and Tychonic systems”
Actually, it was described as a series of circles on circles (‘epicycles’) offset from the earth (the ‘eccentric’).
“I would say describing an orbit as a circular motion is archaic”
So would I. But that is DREMT’s model so far.
“There you go a definition of an “elliptical rotation” .”
Yes, I agree that it can be done — a combination of a rotation about the axis and a stretch away from the axis (so already this is ‘two motions’ and not ‘one motion’ in DREMT’s language). But it brings up all sorts of further issues. For example, does the same rule apply to all parts of the moon? Then the (‘non-rotating’ in DREMT’s language) moon would
a) keep the same face exactly toward the earth
b) stretch out 10% longer if it moved 10% farther away.
Both of these are wrong.
finally “You lose as the point about which orbital motion has angular momentum is not on the line motion (by definition of an orbit) and it is approximately equal to Lorb+Lspin and it is NOT equal to Lorb. ”
You seem to be agreeing with my position here!
1) I have argued there IS orbital angular momentum = rxp. Indeed, this is the theoretical basis for Kepler’s 2nd Law (equal areas).
2) Yes, there is ALSO spin angular momentum. For example, if a merry-go-round horse is bolted to a MGR, the angular momentum is NOT simply r x p (where r and v are measured at the COM), but indeed it is rxp + I(omega) (where I is measured about the COM and omega is the rotation rate of the platform). This is the ‘parallel axis theorem’.
The ONLY way to get the correct angular momentum is to include both the orbital angular momentum and the spin angular momentum.
“You cant split the correct equation up and still have translatory angular momentum”
Well you can. You can either:
1) find the ‘translatory’ angular momentum of the orbit (rxp for the COM) and add the angular momentum for the spin about the COM.
2) find the ‘translatory’ angular momentum for each dm that makes up the object and then integrate over the entire mass.
Choice 1) is usually MUCH easier since there are standard tables for moment of inertia for spheres, bars, rings, etc.
But both are possible and indeed the ‘parallel axis theorem’ proves they are the same [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_axis_theorem]. Something the ‘blockheads’ grokked long before you or I were born.
“…a combination of a rotation about the axis and a stretch away from the axis (so already this is ‘two motions’ and not ‘one motion’ in DREMT’s language)”
No, Tim, the two motions are:
1) Orbital motion.
2) Axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis).
Your problem is your inability to think outside the box of your programming. You don’t seem able to conceive of “one motion” in which the orbit is elliptical and yet the object keeps the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit. So you go into denial about two facts:
1) “Revolution/orbit” has been shown to be defined as a rotation about an external axis, and those defining it that way are perfectly aware that orbits are elliptical.
2) Desmos can be programmed to rotate an object about an external axis in an elliptical pattern.
Instead we get all sorts of hysteria from the usual suspects when those two points are mentioned, varying from false accusations of lying and spreading misinformation to false accusations of appealing to authority, and so on. The reality is that both points are true, and they conflict with your viewpoint, to the extent that your cognitive dissonance leads you to lash out with false accusations.
The three quotes on point 1) that I linked to earlier exist. You cannot simply “rationalize” them away into non-existence. Desmos can be programmed that way. That’s just a fact, that has been demonstrated…and I’m not even talking about the complex demonstration where libration of longitude, etc, was included. I’m talking about the simple demonstration where it was just a basic elliptical rotation about an external axis. It cannot be denied that Desmos has that functionality. You guys have to ask yourselves why that would be the case, if rotation about an external axis could not occur in an ellipse!
Now…for what’s probably the sixth time, can you please answer my question?
“It was spinners who tried to change the definition of rotation to not include orbits. ”
No Bill, YOU have seen, ad nauseum, that WE are using the standard definition. You guys want to use something else, but refuse to say what that is.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1423770
And this is YOU agreeing that the orbit of the MOTR is not a rotation
“I agree that the MOTR could be considered to be curvilinear motion.”
“Tim, the issue of whether the moon rotates on its own axis I personally find to be of only secondary importance.”
Indeed, now that DREMT has come to realize that, after 5 y of beating that dead horse, he has LOST that argument.
He has morphed it into a different, even more pointless, one.
DREMT has morphed the argument into a different, even more pointless, one that is irrelevant to the Moon.
I strongly suggest people not engage with him anymore on this pointless side issue.
Just to add, Tim – you “Spinners” seem to have this idea in your heads that a definition of “revolution/orbit” as being simply a path, or trajectory, supports your position. It doesn’t, any more than it supports the “Non-Spinners”. Of course an orbiting body follows a path, or trajectory, the entire debate is about what orientation the body has whilst following that path (and not spinning)! That clearly cannot be resolved by such definitions…
The “Spinners” need a definition that mentions translation, and the “Non-Spinners” need a definition that mentions rotation about an external axis. It just so happens that we’ve got exactly that!
I wonder if there will be any of that “hysteria” I mentioned by the time I post this…
“The Spinners need a definition that mentions translation and the Non-Spinners need a definition that mentions rotation about an external axis. It just so happens that weve got exactly that!”
The lies will never cease from the shameless TEAM.
“The “Spinners” need a definition [for “orbit”] that mentions translation, and the “Non-Spinners” need a definition that mentions rotation about an external axis. It just so happens that weve got exactly that!”
Except you DON’T have ‘exactly’ that. You can’t just ‘mention’ rotations and then leave ‘rotation’ to mean exactly what you want at any give moment.
We all know what it means to ‘rotate in a circle’, but what ‘exactly’ is a ‘rotation in an ellipse’? How ‘exactly’ does a moon face as it ‘rotates in an ellipse’ with ‘no rotation on its own axis’?
Tim! You’re back. The question was:
“Presumably, you agree that movement like the MOTR can be considered to be two motions, since you agree that movement like the MOTL can be considered to be one motion. Yes?”
Please answer.
Many thanks.
Nate says:
”No Bill, YOU have seen, ad nauseum, that WE are using the standard definition. You guys want to use something else, but refuse to say what that is.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1423770
And this is YOU agreeing that the orbit of the MOTR is not a rotation
”I agree that the MOTR could be considered to be curvilinear motion.””
—————————
All I have seen is you guys deny ad nauseum that an elliptical motion is a rotation and that it is actually 2 motions.
Only a few of you are holding to the single motion non-starter argument.
And I did not agree that the MOTR was not a rotation. If you could read you would plainly see what I said and you don’t need to add any words.
Fact is if you consider the MOTR as a curvilinear translation in the presence of earth’s gravity you would have to have two rotations going on with the second rotation having an independent power source to maintain a rotation on the moon’s axis that ‘canceled’ out the motion of the elliptical rotation.
But there is no problem with any of that in ‘considering’ the MOTR’s as a curvilinear translation and you would only have a big problem with that if you advanced to the engineer level and started creating worlds. Then you would need that power source to maintain opposition to the elliptical rotation of the MOTR and you would be installing something like solar powered gyroscopes to maintain it. Engineers understand this easily. Some physicists have big problems with that apparently.
Tim Folkerts says:
”There you go a definition of an ”elliptical rotation” .”
Yes, I agree that it can be done a combination of a rotation about the axis and a stretch away from the axis (so already this is ‘two motions’ and not ‘one motion’ in DREMTs language). But it brings up all sorts of further issues. For example, does the same rule apply to all parts of the moon? Then the (‘non-rotating’ in DREMTs language) moon would
a) keep the same face exactly toward the earth
b) stretch out 10% longer if it moved 10% farther away.
Both of these are wrong.
——————————-
This is discombobulated.
A rotation is a single motion. An elliptical rotation is no different as it is defined as the source defined it.
”Elliptical rotation is the motion of a point on an ellipse through some angle about a vector.”
It clearly says ”is the motion’. It does not say an elliptical rotation ”is the motions”.
Finally considering this one motion being considered two motions a curvilinear translation plus an axial rotation doesn’t recognize that there is in fact a rotation around an external axis that is approximated as Lorb+Lspin and is not approximated by Lorb.
thus the process of splitting the motion into two is like the dilemma of splitting up siamese twins, they frequently share a single necessary organ. You want to remove the axial rotation and ignore the external axis that disqualifies a translation from having angular momentum. So yeah you can debate endless how to split the twins but you are going to do more than that if you are going to provide all the necessary elements to each twin.
Tim,
These guys are both hopelessly in denial.
They cherry pick phrases from sources, like Wikipedia, which are editable by anyone and self contradictory, and thus unreliable, and pretend these are definitions!
They post that synonyms = definitions!
They claim that orbit is DEFINED as a rotation, without EVER finding a dictionary definition that agrees!
They claim that a rotation can be non-circular without ever showing a legitimate source that agrees, or a DEFINITION of rotation that agrees.
They are unable to even DEFINE rotation, because they know the real definition, eg in Madhavi and every other textbook, DOESNT WORK for them!
They will never debate this issue honestly, because they cannot win if they do.
I believe I predicted some “hysteria”. Seems I was correct, again.
Now…where’s Tim gone with the answer to that question?
Yes DREMT it looks like panic is setting in and they are in denial of the many science and dictionary and thesaurus posts we have made.
Nate says:
”They claim that orbit is DEFINED as a rotation, without EVER finding a dictionary definition that agrees!”
Right here Nate: And it is a dictionary not wikipedia.
”Noun 1. orbital rotation – motion of an object in an orbit around a fixed point; ‘satellites in orbital rotation”’
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/orbital+rotation
One cannot get anymore specific than that.
Nate says:
”They claim that a rotation can be non-circular without ever showing a legitimate source that agrees, or a DEFINITION of rotation that agrees.”
Right here Nate: 1) Elliptical rotation is the motion of a point on an ellipse through some angle about a vector.
https://tinyurl.com/2znbr677 – Science source Cornell University
And you are so desperate to be right now you lying because I posted this just above your post.
Madhavi provides everything else and you have been flopping like a fish out of water since trying to make Madhavi guidance not apply to orbits. But you are now completely out of arguments.
‘They claim that orbit is DEFINED as a rotation, without EVER finding a dictionary definition that agrees!
Right here Nate: And it is a dictionary not wikipedia.
Noun 1. orbital rotation motion of an object in an orbit around a fixed point; satellites in orbital rotation
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/orbital+rotation”
IT is clearly labeled a Thesaurus, Bill.
It is not a DEFINTION of Orbit. You guys have LOST.
Nate says:
They claim that a rotation can be non-circular without ever showing a legitimate source that agrees, or a DEFINITION of rotation that agrees.
Right here Nate: 1) Elliptical rotation is the motion of a point on an ellipse through some angle about a vector.
https://tinyurl.com/2znbr677 Science source Cornell University”
Clearly NOT a DEFINTION of ROTATION, Bill.
You guys are in deep deep denial of reality.
Go troll elsewhere.
The “hysteria” continues, and Tim has “left the building” rather than answer the simple question…
Bill, unable to provide a DEFINTION of rotation from a dictionary or textbook that works for him, he scours the internet for the phrase ‘elliptical rotation’ and finds a single reference to this combo in an obscure math paper.
Now he thinks that finding usage of any two words together on the internet means that the first word is defined in some way by the second word, or some such nonsense.
So lets try this out.
Search for ‘cold heat’
“Cold Heat Soldering Tool – Amazon.com”
So clearly Cold is defined as heat, or is heat is allowed to be cold or some such silliness!
Search for ‘circular triangle’
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/CircularTriangle.html
So interesting. In mathematics two words can be put together to create a new meaning!
But it doesnt change the DEFINTION of either word by itself.
Nate says:
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/orbital+rotation
IT is clearly labeled a Thesaurus, Bill.
It is not a DEFINTION of Orbit. You guys have LOST.
—————————–
It only looks like a label Nate. The freedictionary has it there as a link to the thesaurus. That should be obvious.
”orbital rotation motion of an object in an orbit around a fixed point; satellites in orbital rotation” that is obviously a definition and not synonyms. And at the top of the page they have tabs and it is on the definition tab not the thesaurus tab.
Did you pass English I in college?
——————————
Nate says:
They claim that a rotation can be non-circular without ever showing a legitimate source that agrees, or a DEFINITION of rotation that agrees.
Right here Nate: 1) Elliptical rotation is the motion of a point on an ellipse through some angle about a vector.
https://tinyurl.com/2znbr677 Science source Cornell University
Clearly NOT a DEFINTION of ROTATION, Bill.
—————————
Clearly? What is it in your mind?
Rather than countering our reputable sources Nate you are making a fool of yourself to claim we don’t have support. Why don’t you counter our evidence with evidence that provides definitions of what elliptical rotation and orbital rotation is? LOL! Thats because you have no credible sources on your side! You are just throwing mudballs at the wall in desperation something will stick, by the mud you are throwing is bouncing off the wall like a Waboba Moon Ball.
People are knowingly and repeatedly posting misinformation. These are otherwise known as lies.
Exposing these lies is labeled ‘hysteria’ by those same people.
That is how we recognize trolling.
Tim Folkerts says:
”There you go a definition of an elliptical rotation” .”
Yes, I agree that it can be done a combination of a rotation about the axis and a stretch away from the axis (so already this is ‘two motions’ and not one motion in DREMTs language).
—————————-
Tim appears to attempt to argue that elliptical rotation isn’t a real rotation because itself is made up of a rotation plus a stretch motion.
But Cassini proves this to be incorrect. He found there is no additional energy required to make the perceived stretch. Thus it can not be a repetitive motion. Angular momentum remains constant throughout the orbit as sweeping out equal areas of the ellipse demonstrating where the axis is in relationship to the path. Nate wishes to dispose of the vector from the axis to argue his point that its really a curvilinear translation in possession of angular momentum operating from the moon’s COM. All these ideas are insane. They are desperate! NASA’s notion of this is incorrect and merely stems from how they work taking a satellite into orbit then correcting its attitude. So they employ multiple motions to quickly bring a satellite into the attitude they desire and interestingly despite the spinner effort to single out elliptical rotation from circular rotation, satellites are being placed in circular orbit. LOL!
The desperate grasping at straws continues…
“So interesting. In mathematics two words can be put together to create a new meaning!
But it DOESNT change the DEFINTION of either word by itself.”
This is straightforward Bill.
More examples for the doubtful:
Angular velocity-
Does this mean that, by itself, VELOCITY is defined as ANGULAR?
Minimax-
Does this define a maximum as a minimum?
Nonsense.
Stop mangling sciency words.
Now we have Nate accusing Cornell University of mangling his view of the world.
I am not going to argue with you Nate your dispute here is with Cornell University. I provided their definition of an elliptical rotation as support for my argument.
I provided the free dictionary definition of orbital rotation as support for my argument.
And here you are without any support at all for your positions on orbital and elliptical rotation complaining about my support.
Why don’t you go off and find support for an elliptical curvilinear translation? I have said from the beginning there is nothing at all physical about an orbit that qualifies it as a curvilinear translation.
The entire body of science says a curvilinear translation is a curved path controlled within the path and lacks any axis outside of the path of the particles. Madhavi warns about this and has diagrams to alleviate the confusion regarding characterization of rotations on external axes. Yet you are so inculcated you reject her instructions. I am sure she put that in the material because of experience with confused students.
You go find some support that that is not true then come back here after you find it. . . .or just concede argument. You aren’t winning by bluster. You are only highlighting your foolishness.
Bill,
Your Cornell article is putting two words together, elliptical and rotation, but you have no idea what the purpose of that is.
To claim that it is saying that a rotation can produce an ellipse is poppycock!
You havent bothered to read the article!
Its first line, clearly states:
“A rotation is an example of an isometry, a map that moves points without changing the distances between them.”
This explains it at your level:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/rotation.html
BTW I found this link by searching TRIANGULAR ROTATION.
The second figure shows an example of that.
Note that TRIANGULAR ROTATION doesnt mean a rotation can produce a triangle!
It should be VERY EASY to find definitions of ROTATION that fit your POV, without resorting to indecipherable mathematics journal articles.
Just search Rotation in Geometry Definition.
https://byjus.com/maths/rotation/
“Rotation Definition
Rotation means the circular movement of an object around a centre. It is possible to rotate different shapes by an angle around the centre point. Mathematically, a rotation means a map.”
It’s all very simple, Bill.
1) Look up definition of "revolution/orbit".
2) Does definition mention "translation"? If "yes", then it supports the "Spinners".
3) Does definition mention "rotation"? If "yes", then it supports the "Non-Spinners".
4) Does definition only mention "movement in a path or trajectory"? If "yes", then it doesn’t really have any bearing on the issue. You could say it supports "Spinners" and "Non-Spinners" equally. So it changes nothing.
5) Repeat steps 1 – 4 for the next definition of "revolution/orbit".
Doing so, I’ve found three definitions that support the "Non-Spinners", which I’ve linked to further up-thread. There are more, but I’m happy with the three. On the other hand, I’ve found none that support the "Spinners".
So, that’s that.
The business of no ‘translation’ in the definition of orbit is a ‘problem’ for spinners has been thoroughly debunked.
Once again the Earth and all the planets are orbiting the sun, and they clearly have spin, and thus it is not accurate to say they are translating, yet they satisfy the standard definition of ORBIT. They are following a path through space around a center.
Bill, re: ROTATION.
The MOTL, we have been repeatedly told by DREMT, can be considered to be one motion, which is a ROTATION around an external axis.
How is he so certain? Because he has, from the long ago, referred readers to Madhavi’s definition of rotation.
“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.”
So for him to claim NOW that an elliptical orbit satisfies the definition of rotation, would mean he is saying that Madhavi has been WRONG in her DEFINTION of ROTATION, all this time.
That would be a big surprise. After all he has constantly referred readers to her definition of rotation to harp on the fact that the MOTL simply is a rotation around an external axis.
The point is ORBIT is NOT DEFINED as a rotation as repeatedly claimed by DREMT.
That is FALSE.
Because Madhavi’s definition of rotation is absolutely correct, and agrees with every other textbook. And ORBITS in general are elliptical and cannot satisfy that definition.
Those who are capable of thinking clearly, calmly and logically on the issue will note that "Spinners" think all the planets that are in orbit around the Sun are translating, whilst rotating on their own internal axes, and the "Non-Spinners" think all the planets that are in orbit around the Sun are rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating on their own internal axes. The difference is not in "axial rotation" (rotation about an internal axis), and so the difference must lie with the "orbital motion". So "Spinners" need to support the idea that "orbital motion" is translational, and "Non-Spinners" need to support the idea that "orbital motion" is rotational.
"Non-Spinners" can do that, "Spinners" can’t.
What "Spinners" can do is abandon all logic and reason, and try to claim that definitions of "revolution/orbit" in which it’s said to be just a path, or trajectory, somehow support them!
Reason and logic requires one’s claims to be consistent with each other.
Nates brain explodes and when it comes back on line only half the remaining braincells are firing.
Here Nate claims he found triangular rotation when in fact all he found was a mapping problem of rotating a triangle around a central point.
Whereas elliptical rotation is defined as a particle or object rotating on an elliptical path.
Not the same thing Nate. Why not simply launch a triangular satellite into an elliptical orbit? At least that would be somewhat on topic.
If you are going to have a particle follow a triangular path you will get no argument from me that is a translatory motion and it will possess zero angular momentum.
Face it Nate your argument in the moon discussion isnt going anywhere. I think you need some rest.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
January 10, 2023 at 2:16 PM
Its all very simple, Bill. . . . . . . .
So, thats that.
———————————-
Great argument!
Bill and DREMT are content with their mutually exclusive claims:
“How is he so certain? Because he has, from long ago, referred readers to Madhavis definition of rotation.
“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.”
So for him to claim NOW that an elliptical orbit satisfies the definition of rotation, would mean he is saying that Madhavi has been WRONG in her DEFINTION of ROTATION, all this time.”
They willfully ignore any contradictory facts.
That’s how we recognize trolls who are in deep deep denial.
“all he found was a mapping problem of rotating a triangle around a central point.
Whereas elliptical rotation is defined as a particle or object rotating on an elliptical path.”
Bill finds two words together and GUESSES the definition of this combo.
While the issue has always been what is the DEFINTION of the single word, ROTATION.
He refuses to do an EASY search to find out. We have to do it for him.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/rotation.html
“‘Rotation’ means turning around a center:
The distance from the center to any point on the shape stays the same.
Every point makes a circle around the center:”
He cannot live in a world with this definition apparently.
Oh well, takes some LSD.
A brief history of this debate, for anybody reading who is still following along…
Way back in the mists of time, everybody involved in this debate would treat orbits as being circular, when discussing the moon problem. There would be various people posting GIFS of different objects in orbit, spinning at different rates and in different directions, and the "Spinners" would say "that is rotating x number of times per orbit" and the "Non-Spinners" would say, "no, that is rotating y number of times per orbit". All of the orbits shown would be circular. This is back when "Non-Spinners" were first trying to get across the idea that "orbit without spin" was as per the MOTL, and that "spin" had to be kept separate from that motion. Even then, few people got it, and most of the "Spinners" of the time got "lost in reference frames", falsely declaring that "Non-Spinners" saw the issue wrt a non-inertial reference frame, where "Spinners" saw the issue wrt an inertial reference frame. We still often see that false accusation, even to this very day!
It wasn’t until the idea of "rotation about an external axis" for motion like the MOTL and "translation in a circle" for motion like the MOTR was introduced to the debate that some of these confused "Spinners" started to finally understand what we had been talking about all along. This is where Madhavi, and various other sources and ways of explaining the point, was brought up, and why. It was necessary to try to get people to understand that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" was motion like the MOTL. In other words, that movement like the MOTL could be described as "one motion", and that "axial rotation", the second motion, was then to be kept separate from this first motion. Thus, the issue transcended reference frames, because it was not about defining "axial rotation" wrt a certain reference frame, rather it was simply a question of keeping "axial rotation" separate from the "one motion"…the "orbital motion".
So this introduction of "rotation about an external axis" and "translation in a circle" was all being applied to these circular orbit examples that people kept posting, simply in order to get the point across that motion like the MOTL could be considered to be "one motion", and then "axial rotation" was separate to that "one motion". People just struggled to see it. They still do.
Now it seems like other people, who maybe (or maybe not) are finally able to understand what we have been arguing all along, are so desperate to find any sort of flaw within the "Non-Spinner" argument that they are trying to make a huge fuss about terms that were only introduced to get across a simple point that pig-headed "Spinners" simply could not get through their heads, at the time! The idea really is that movement like the MOTL can be considered to be "one motion", in other words "not rotating on its own axis". This is usually enough for most people to "get it". It doesn’t even really matter how you describe this motion, kinematically. The point is to get across that it’s "one motion". Orbital motion.
So all this fuss now about "rotation has to occur in a circle", etc., is just nuts. It’s just last-ditch, desperate stuff from the "Spinners" to avoid accepting the obvious. They’ve taken years to understand something that a reasonably intelligent child could have understood from the beginning, due to their programming, and now they realize that they look a bit silly, they’re just lashing out with anything they can!
Bill says: “Whereas elliptical rotation is defined as a particle or object rotating on an elliptical path.”
These are two very different things. A particle generally means something with no size and no discernable orientation. A particle can move along a path with no concern about orientation. The point can simply follow the elliptical path.
But an object like a moon is different. The Center of Mass could ‘rotate on an elliptical path’ but what about every other part of that moon. Does the closest point on the moon rotate on some different elliptical path? Does the leading point on the moon rotate on some different elliptical path? How is the moon orientated as it ‘rotates on the elliptical path’?
You can’t just skip these details.
“This is where Madhavi, and various other sources and ways of explaining the point, was brought up, and why. It was necessary to try to get people to understand that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” was motion like the MOTL.”
OMG..
They are saying:
So before I needed Madhavi to be right about rotation.
But NOW I need her to be wrong. So yeah…she’s wrong, now.
Her standard definition of rotation, that all textbooks use?
Yeah…that’s wrong, now.
Does anybody buy this crap?
“So all this fuss now about “rotation has to occur in a circle” …”
The fuss is not that rotation has to be in a circle per se. The fuss is that you ‘non-spinners’ need a self-consistent set of definitions.
The idealized animated MOTL *can* be be accurately described as a (circular) rotation about an external axis. Every point on that moon moves in a circle. Some circles are larger than others, but all are precisely circles and all have precisely the same, constant angular velocity about the earth.
A real moon like ours can NOT be accurately described as a (elliptical) rotation. The center moves in an ellipse. But no other point moves precisely in an ellipse and no other point moves precisely with the same angular velocity about the earth as the center.
But a real moon CAN be accurately described as the center moving on an elliptical path + the moon rotating on its own axis at a steady rate.
And as everyone knows, no matter how clever or intuitive a hypothesis might seem to be, if it doesn’t accurately predict reality, then it must be discarded in favor of a hypothesis that can accurately predict reality.
Too right, Tim.
Now, even though a ball on a string *can* be described as rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, it *can also* be described as a translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
Since translation doesn’t ever entail rotation, Graham’s 1+1 trick fails, and we are left with two valid choices; both are consistent with geometry, but only one makes physical sense in any conceivable orbit/axial tilt scenario.
And it is definitely wrong to apply rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis to the real Moon for reasons endlessly given but ignored or wriggled away from.
Tim Folkerts says:
January 11, 2023 at 1:07 PM
So all this fuss now about rotation has to occur in a circle
The fuss is not that rotation has to be in a circle per se. The fuss is that you non-spinners need a self-consistent set of definitions.
———————————–
Thats not a bad escape from the MOTL dilemma DREMT caught you in since the MOTL is moving in a circle.
But your idea of movement seems to be confounding libration as being a real motion as opposed to a change of perspective re: the elliptical path of the moon.
Now there is a concept I think called nutation (not sure about that) but the moon’s orientation to the orbital axis does change via libration and there is a force to resist that which is the gravity of earth. That theoretically could slightly alter libration.
But in all cases of rotation there are going to be such forces present as only planets and moons stay in closest alignment to the rules of gravity.
Everywhere else in real world rotations you are going to have even greater nutations. Planets and moons have the least as the misalignment is like what (7 degrees?) and the momentum of the moon simply isn’t measurably affected.
this is all addressed here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
So where do you draw the line Tim? As DREMT has pointed out about the only source out there operating on your logic doesn’t explain the logic only declares it as a fact. As you are doing here.
Ultimately DREMT is right. You seem to understand he is right but have committed based upon an appeal to authority that isn’t universally accepted across the broad field of science nor even within the field astronomy. Worse it remains completely unexplained and freely accepts conflicts with other accepted conventions in science like how a curvilinear translation can only have an angular momentum around an axis within the path of the translation. Yet we know it is widely accepted that the angular momentum that results from that condition is only about .0008% of the moons orbital angular momentum.
We have shown multiple examples of elliptical rotation that are both theoretical, mathematically correct and consistent across all established fields of science.
Yet there is a supposed field of study that doesn’t want to accept that consistency and you have NASA publishing the unsupported statement that the moon rotates on its own axis in synchronization with its orbit. No argument, no body of work showing that to be the case, no consistency with the accepted concept of elliptical rotation, yet all the arguments for it in here object to the concept of elliptical rotation.
As DREMT has challenged. It is on you to produce a body of work that that includes an angular momentum and is called an ‘Elliptical translation’. By definition the moon’s orbit cannot be an elliptical translation as such a motion can only possess angular momentum, by definition, around the COM of the moon.
DREMT has already acknowledged this disconnect in science and has said it needs to be corrected.
“We have shown multiple examples of elliptical rotation that are both theoretical, mathematically correct and consistent across all established fields of science.”
No you havent.
You refuse to show a definition of ROTATION that agrees with this, because you have none. We have shown you many that do not agree. You guys cannot refute Madhavi’s definition, and previously were citing it regularly.
Just stop with BS.
Good to see Brandy Guts is finally learning some of the basics that I tried to tell him months ago, but he completely rejected at the time. Maybe he can help Little Willy out in future, who’s still wildly confused.
"Graham’s 1+1 trick fails"
No, Brandy Guts. It’s not a trick, and it does not fail, as I explained to you further upthread. It’s just a simple, obvious fact about rotation. That you can describe the movement of the MOTL as being comprised of two motions, a translation in a circle plus a rotation on an internal axis, does not refute the argument…because the argument strictly involves rotation about an external axis. It’s just something simple that Little Willy failed to understand for years, and so he’s blown it out of all proportion. Anyone with half a brain should understand that I’m correct on that issue. You cannot combine rotation about an external axis, with rotation about an internal axis, and get motion like the MOTL.
What it ultimately all comes down to is whether "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL or the MOTR. The correct answer is…it’s like the MOTL. Nothing can change that. Now, where were we…
…Tim’s back! He can finally answer the question:
“Presumably, you agree that movement like the MOTR can be considered to be two motions, since you agree that movement like the MOTL can be considered to be one motion. Yes?”
Your answer please, Tim.
Nate says:
”the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel
planes along CIRCLES centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). ”
Sorry Nate you are reading in a condition and felt the need to capitalize it to emphasize your out of context quote.
Madhavi is explaining the sample Figure she is referring to and indeed the diagram has the particles moving in circles.
She goes on to say:
”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.”
So would then read into that that curvilinear translations can only be in circles?
You are darned quick to take words of a scientist and expand their intent to your own desire. Then you go forward ignoring examples of scientists saying ”orbital rotation”, and “elliptical rotation” and never ever have you come up with scientist talking about “elliptical translation” which is your Holy Grail.
Finally then you ignore that curvilinear translation can only have angular momentum taken from an axis in the line of the path. Yet there is no dispute over the fact that the elliptical rotation of the moon has angular momentum taken from an axis at the center of the earth.
So fine you aren’t going to address those things and instead you are going to try to hide from those issues behind Madhavi’s skirt like a scared child and impute meaning from Madhavi’s explanations of examples while she never explicitly set any boundaries for rules of rotation.
Spinners keep trying to create a condition out of thin air.
The condition that a body in rotation must be moving in circles is the false condition.
Science has such a term for such movement and it is called ‘pure rotation’.
They have accepted this but continue to suggest any rotation must be a pure rotation or that any impure rotation must entail 2 motions that they have great difficulty describing.
They use vague terms without any published scientific support like ”stretch”, ”libration”, ”tilted axis” or ”translation plus rotation”
Then there is DREMTs question. Now is it possible that the MOTR can have zero angular momentum on its own axis and have angular momentum around the external axis? This does not meet the conditions for rotation on an external axis. Elliptical motion becomes a shadow boxer here when focused on the MOTL vs MOTR.
They want to play off between the two.
The answer is the MOTR would have to have an Lspin that was different than the Lspin that is part of the angular momentum going around the external axis.
They have to accept that or have to completely reject rotation on an external axis and call that a translation in every instance comprised of two motions in the case of the MOTL and a single motion for the MOTR.
The idea that orbital motion is a translation arises purely out of the form of the equation for angular momentum of a uniform sphere rotating on an external axis. It is so confusing for the spinners that their only recourse is to claim the angular momentum of an object rotating on an external axis is in fact linear momentum and they even use a linear momentum formula to calculate it.
What they fail to see is the Lorb term isn’t an independent angular momentum it is only one term of two in the angular momentum formula for a sphere rotating on an external axis. . . .thus a single motion that is pure rotation on an external axis without axial spin on the objects axis has to be the MOTL.
That is not going to change when you move to other forms of single motion rotation.
So the key here for Tim and others is to first answer the question about pure rotation on an external axis posed by DREMT. Leave elliptical motion out of it and establish a primary principle before moving to other possible forms of rotation.
“Madhavi is explaining the sample Figure she is referring to and indeed the diagram has the particles moving in circles.”
Nice try to mislead people again, Bill, but pointless.
Everyone, even DREMT, know this is Madhavi’s DEFINITION of rotation.
The clue is that it is under the BOLD heading:
1.0 Rotation about a Fixed Axis.
You really can’t figure that out? Anyway, the argument is over, and you lost.
fine Nate. I am not going to continue to argue with you while you vacillate from one objection to another. You must first take a position on DREMTs question about the generic moon’s in circular orbit around a planet.
That question is which moon represents orbital motion without axial rotation. Is it the MOTL or the MOTR. Once you commit to that answer we can then proceed to further discussion. Ideally we get everybody to give an answer to identify the nature of the dispute before proceeding. Lets see if the spinners are all on the same page.
So DREMT and I pick the MOTL. Anybody else spinners or nonspinners can chime in. . . .especially Tim and Willard who have demonstrated a potential split in the spinner forces. Everybody has to give a clear thought about what is to rotate on an external axis. In that way we can put folks in the proper category which might comprise of more than spinners and non-spinners.
Gill, Gill,
If you want to collect receipts, you need to read the sub threads in which you comment.
There are already many responses you failed to collect.
Here is one:
Rotation implies a circle.
Ellipses are not circles.
Orbits are not pure rotations.
Collect it, or else I will have to remind you of it.
That or I will ask Bordon to remind you.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Nate denies:
”4) Revolution/orbit is defined as rotation about an external axis”’
is a LIE. It still is.
—————————–
Nope you are just in denial of a rotation around an external axis and you and others just personally desire without any competent study supporting your case to selectively create a subgroup of rotations around an exterior axis as being comprised of two separate motions in all such self-defined cases.
Gill, Gill,
No need to resurrect that sub thread to spit nonsense.
There is no supergroup of rotations that apply to non circles.
General motion is fine.
Sure, you can describe “orbit without spin” as a general plane motion, if you prefer, Little Willy. That also supports the “Non-Spinners”.
“Youve got it wrong gb.”
They *might* have it wrong- I am quoting from a blog post at Climate Etc which is written by: By Planning Engineer (Russell Schussler) at Judith Curry’s blog {Climate Etc}:
https://judithcurry.com/
{ And I liked, Thomas Sowells, quote.
I believe you mentioned Thomas Sowell in some other post, that you made months ago, Gordon. He has written a lot of stuff.}
Oh actually you might saying someone else is wrong:
–This brings to top of mind a joke I once heard at a seminar for new power engineers. A Professor of Electrical Engineering was expounding on the differences between engineers and scientists. He explained:
Both engineers and scientists want to understand the world and both want to solve problems. Engineers worry about how much something costs. Scientists dont worry about the cost; they just want the truth. So, the difference between an engineer and a scientist is that an engineer at least has some common sense.
—
If that is the part that you are referring to.
gb…I was not taking a shot at you, merely correcting your narrative that engineers are only worried about costs. Engineers are as fully qualified as any science student to do science, if required. We all learn to apply the scientific method.
Another low from the north is fast approaching California. The front will again pull a lot of moisture from the south.
https://i.ibb.co/JQgzY6C/pobrane-1.png
Is this a civil war commentary?
Now, *this* is a title:
https://diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2023/01/04/on-the-twelfth-day-of-christmas-wuwt-gave-to-me-another-dreadful-analysis-of-uncertainty/
Oh Noes… Kip Hansen.
Terrible dude discrediting the tide gauge data from ALL gauges whose associated GPS station measuring vertical land movement around the gauge is more than 1 meter away…
Shades of Pat Frank.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/08/propagation-of-nonsense/
At least two more cyclones from the north will reach California in the next few days.
https://i.ibb.co/YRvPGQV/pobrane-2.png
When will La Nina end? Who knows!
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
It probably won’t end, it will just weaken before it strengthens again.
It will end within three months, with a possible El Nino to follow.
We shall see.
Indeed we will. How about you make your own prediction.
Here is my probability distribution:
End Jan
LN 90%, N 10%, EN 0%
End Feb
LN 65%, N 35%, EN 0%
End Mar
LN 35%, N 64%, EN 1%
End Apr
LN 15%, N 80%, EN 5%
End May
LN 5%, N 80%, EN 15%
End Jun
LN 5%, N 70%, EN 25%
And staying with those probabilities for the moment for the rest of the year.
Your now …
Somewhere on this plot.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table
For a prediction to have any value, it must be falsifiable. For example, what definition of “La Niña ending” is being used. There are several.
You could define it to be 30 days with ENSO 3.4 above -0.5C. Or, 60 days above -0.5C
You just need to be clear, unless you’re wanting to be able to wiggle out when you’re wrong.
Antonin Qwerty says:
Indeed we will. How about you make your own prediction.
Here is my probability distribution:
———————
That’s probably a good bet. Statistically there have been only 2 three winter La Ninas in the official record. One was followed by an El Nino and the other by neutral.
A fourth winter La Nina would be unprecedented. Likely there is a gravity issue with excess La Ninas with too much Pacific Ocean water piling up in the west. But it also depends upon the strength of the circulations in the northern and southern oceans.
Calling these probabilities – LN 15%, N 80%, EN 5% – a prediction is a total nonsense, since it predicts all outcomes are possible it predicts absolutely nothing. you will always be right since It cannot be falsified even after the fact.
Something tells me you are not a betting boy, Eboy.
Eben and Hunter
Why does it need to be verifiable? It’s not like I’m going to even remember 3 months from now that I posted this. There is nothing to “wiggle out” of – it is only commentary designed to express what I think is likely to happen. You treat this like a personal contest. Why didn’t you also attack RLH for saying “somewhere on this plot”? For once he provided a reasonable answer, and it is essentially the same as mine.
“it is essentially the same as mine.”
Only if you believe that the ‘average’ of multiple runs means something. How about the min and max of those very same runs?
Why, for instance, do you disregard IOCAS ICM?
Antonin Qwerty says:
”Eben and Hunter
Why does it need to be verifiable?”
I didn’t say it needed to be verifiable. I said it looks good. But there is a small matter of the spring predictability barrier and thus far regarding actually having a good record for picking the odds the record does not support any skill at doing that. Thus we resort to statistical analysis techniques which to be good predictors you do need some real indicator variables to have skill, so it might make a lot more sense to say why you think the odds are the way they should be. I did.
And of course I could extend that reasoning by ripping a page out of the CAGW playbook.
I could surmise that it is possible that if a 4th La Nina winter does occur it would be because of unmeasured global cooling (by the unmeasured planet heat content index that doesn’t exist) and caused coolish Neutrals to measure as mild La Nina due to the use of an out of date base period.
This is something one would expect to happen when a trend reverses and its actually a much stronger argument than simply pointing to a continuing trend as an indicator as did GISS when Hansen said El Nino was the new normal. Hansen was overran his predictions as he was always a believer in a need for an accelerating climate change to achieve the modeling/Charney Report 100 year predictions and to support his El Nino as the new normal claim. But what did he get? Deceleration.
So, Gill.
Have you found back the authoritative translation of the Principia?
“when Hansen said El Nino was the new normal. ”
Bill pontificates, and makes up stuff, again.
Yep the climate morons like to forget the babble of the past. I saw 60 minutes on CBS just a short while ago recycling Paul Ehrlich who in the late 60’s projected a few famines of the cold spells of the 60’s and predicted mass starvation becoming the normal within a couple of decades.
Ehrlich during the interview constantly referred to his ideas as his with which his ”colleagues” agree reminding us of how easy it is to become a complete nutcase if one becomes a member of a ‘think tank’.
Yep you can read about it in a ‘peer’ reviewed study published in ”The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0606291103
Your foul language might make Bordon sad, Gill.
“when Hansen said El Nino was the new normal.”
Hansen (et al) do not say anything like that in the paper you just cited, and pretended you’d corroborated that view.
Is it that you can’t read, or is that the closest you could get to the fabricated view you pedalled?
Let’s quote the paper for comparison:
"…we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998…
Theory does not provide a clear answer about the effect of global warming on El Niños (19, 20). Most climate models yield either a tendency toward a more El Niño-like state or no clear change (22). It has been hypothesized that, during the early Pliocene, when the Earth was 3°C warmer than today, a permanent El Niño condition existed (23). We suggest, on empirical grounds, that a near-term global warming effect is an increased likelihood of strong El Niños…
We make no suggestion about changes of El Niño frequency, and we note that an abnormally warm WEP does not assure a strong El Niño. The origin and nature of El Niños is affected by chaotic ocean and atmosphere variations, the season of the driving anomaly, the state of the thermocline, and other factors, assuring that there will always be great variability of strength among El Niños."
Reminding us yet again you are not a trustworthy interpreter of the science.
Because you are at heart a political animal on this subject.
Barry of course he did!
It was reported widely by the press in interviews with Hansen.
And of course if you look at the link I provided alone or worse combine it with all of Hansen’s predictions he would have to be an idiot to say anything different.
Fact is in a steady trend of warming El Nino will be favored as the base of the index is between 15 to 20 years out of date. . . .thus El Ninos will be more frequent. El Ninos that aren’t real El Nino and are simply by virtue of convention.
So the problem wasn’t Hansen saying that. He would have been right if warming had continued to accelerate as he predicted.
You have to take this all the way back to the Charney Report in the 70’s where it was Hansen’s dire models that established the 3c predictions for a doubling of CO2. Acceleration was part of those models. But despite rising emissions acceleration has not occurred and the jury is still out of whether it has decelerated.
If you want to say that emissions will warm the planet by 2c for each doubling you won’t get a strong argument from me. I don’t personally believe it but I could see the possibility of the climate warming that much over a couple of centuries from a number of potential causes both natural and man made and especially if you want to include our foibles in actually measuring how much stuff is even warming right now much less than a century and a half ago.
“Paul Ehrlich who in the late 60s projected a few famines of the cold spells of the 60s and predicted mass starvation becoming the normal within a couple of decades.”
Bill sprinkles his narrative “a few famines of the cold spells of the 60s” in with facts, while ignoring that Erlichs main concern was population growth.
“Barry of course he did!”
Bill, all you have to do is actually quote Hansen saying the el Nino is the new normal.
I googled for this and found nothing, and the article you cited says nothing like that, predictably.
You failed miserably corroborating the statement with your first attempt.
Either put up or stop lying.
Well I don’t have time to search for it. I just recall it being reported he said it and it fostered a good deal of discussion. If I find time I will look for the actual quote. In the meantime you are welcome to be a denier as much as it pleases you.
Population Bomb
The first sentence set the tone: The battle to feed all of humanity is over. And humanity had lost.
Unlike a denier, Bill, I read the reference you provided and then googled for myself to see if what you said was true. If it was “reported widely by the press”, I couldn’t find it.
I did find a paper that Hansen co-wrote which used the term “new normal”, but it wasn’t about el Nino, and the phrase was in quotes – ie, said by people other than the authors.
Nate thinks you’ve made that up too.
Do let us know when you’ve had a look for it.
Like I said when I find some time. You could provide a link to what you found, it could aid in my search.
Akasofu published a report that suggests that current warming isn’t unusual. Using freeze dates chronicled by the ancients suggests that current temperatures are within the range of natural climate change.
I don’t have much time for research due to other commitments but recently came across a natural indicator that current warming isn’t unusual. Apparently temperatures of the Greek islands in the Aegean Sea are currently warm enough to grow date palms but not warm enough for the trees to set fruit. Also chronicles apparently show that date fruit was produced in those islands back in 250bc.
Science by special interests today would deny that.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Emails/April2022.pdf
That’s the Hansen paper where the words “new normal” appears in quotes, and it does not refer to el Ninos being the new normal.
He didn’t say that. You made it up. Or believed someone else whop made it up. Or misremembered something he actually said.
“You made it up.”
That’s what we have learned to expect from Bill. He doesnt seem to appreciate how he keeps diminishing his credibility with this behavior.
Nate desperately attempts to deflect from the fact that he can’t find a single source of support for the concept of ‘elliptical motion’ being ‘elliptical translation’ and instead has chosen to attack the wide spread use of the terms ‘elliptical rotation’, ‘orbital rotation’, and the MOTL being a single motion.
For Nate, science is whatever Nate wants it to be.
Trying to track down some of James Hansen’s more ridiculous comments is always difficult with the number of internet whitewashers and excuse makers out there. And I don’t say that in disrespect for James Hansen. He has scientific training, is a smart guy, and is not an evil man quite to the contrary he is a sentient and caring person. I respect him for that. He is one of the very few who came out in strong opposition to cap and trade because of how that approach favors the elite class and puts huge new burdens on the less fortunate to better their lives. Despite that we have a total nutcase of a Governor in California that doesn’t care a whit about those impacts. Those are the type of people to be feared. they just plow ahead on a special interests mission and figure they can toss dollars at the impacts and make reparation for their stupidity.
Thanks for the link Barry. I appreciate it.
That definitely isn’t what I was referring to. Thats a 2022 paper. The comment I am referring to is probably at least 15 years ago if not longer.
ren…I predict LN will end when it ends.
The correct answer.
“New images from NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) reveal for the first time galaxies with stellar bars – elongated features of stars stretching from the centers of galaxies into their outer disks – at a time when the universe was a mere 25% of its present age. The finding of so-called barred galaxies, similar to our Milky Way, this early in the universe will require astrophysicists to refine their theories of galaxy evolution.”
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Webb_reveals_Milky_Way_like_galaxies_in_early_universe_999.html
gb…the truth is, astronomers can’t tell anything from the data they acquire. There is a good deal of conjecture in the interpretation.
That’s because visual telescope can make out no detail at such distances. The data is collected from radio-telescopes and all they give you is gas spectra from stars. From that, astronomers guess a good deal as to what the spectra are telling them.
Warning for California of impending heavy precipitation.
According to the historical MEI (Multivariate ENSO Index), the following triple-dip La Ninas occurred since January 1871:
Start Indexsum Months
1892: -54.67 / 40
1908: -52.22 / 41
1973: -48.71 / 36
1954: -40.45 / 31
2020: -39.68 / 30
1915: -38.97 / 31
1998: -37.66 / 36
1873: -36.82 / 33
Indexsum is the sum of all consecutive monthly indices with a value below the La Nina treshold (-0.5)
The current 2020 edition will soon bypass 1954, but it is not very probable that it will reach 1973. The remaining gap is big.
On verra bien!
*
Chart with all superposed 2/3-dip La Ninas since 1871
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
*
Source
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei.ext/table.ext.html
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
Does it mean you see the superdeveloping La Nina yet or no ???
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-936851
#3
I was sure that whenever the little ankle-biting dachshund sees a tree, it would think, Oh! Time to get rid of a little pile.
When you get those moderator keys first thing you need to do is delete all the idiotic posts you yourself left all over this place so I cannot bring them back up again
Idiotic posts?
What about first looking at your own disgusting ‘circular reasoning’ or incompetent Zharkova Youtube trash, dachshund?
Every time you post your subcutaneously aggressive nonsense, you get laughed at louder.
Wipe your face, you’re Foaming at the Mouth
Zharkova comes across as an educated woman who has done some seriously good work. Time shall tell. Meantime, you might get your misogyny checked out.
Can’t figure you out. A couple of years ago you showed up impersonating a woman and now you are taking shots at a very good solar physicist.
Gordon
Please quote any words of his which you believe are misogynistic.
Apparently you believe A is misogynistic if he attacks the science of B, and B happens to be a woman. Rather than A attacking B BECAUSE B is a woman, or A attacking women in general in order to attack B.
When a woman joins this debate and attacks the science of a man, is that misandry?
binny…”I again did not start that discussion but gave a hint on how Robertson insults even Newtons best translator”.
***
I am not the only one who thinks the translation is poor. I just posted about a guy with 5 years of studying Latin who could not make head or tails of Newtons Latin in Principia.
The original translator of Newton in question has been widely critiqued for his interpretation. Personally, I think he translated Newton in places to support his view that the Moon rotates on a local axis.
I have given a scientific reason for my view. Newton claimed the Moon moves with a linear motion that is bent into curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravity. He also knew the Moon kept the same face to the Earth.
Based on his drawings of planetary motion, based themselves on his early calculus, there is no way he could have mistaken curvilinear motion for local rotation.
C’mon, Gordo.
Have you found the authoritative translation yet?
binny…”Being 100 % fluent in both French and German, along with a smattering of English, it was easy for me to convince myself that all three translations from the old Latin were perfectly similar and correct”.
***
Yet a guy with 5 years of Latin could not make head or tails of the Newton Latin.
****************
“{ Mottes translation was the best of all because he enriched Newtons main texts with very helpful, sometimes indispensable additions from his footnotes (all typeset in italic of course) }”.
***
Motte’s translation has been panned as being incorrect in places. That’s why a completely revised translation was produced in the 20th century. I am trying to get a hold of it.
https://telescoper.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/newtons-laws-in-translation/?unapproved=620131&moderation-hash=0b8fecc3c18618650d7c45c9e6767332#comment-620131
“I did five years of Latin at school, but found most of the Principia impenetrable when I tried to read it in the original”.
Psst, Bordo.
Have you found the authoritative translation yet?
No, dullard, my time is used up at the moment doing studies in nuclear physics.
C’mon, Bordo.
At 7:42 PM, you were ranting about Newton’s latin.
At 7:53 PM you were ranting about education.
At 7:57 PM yyou were ranting about freedom and democracy.
At at 8:00 PM you were ranting about names.
And at 7:30 PM you were also ranting about learning physics.
You should ask Gill about time management.
Robertson
You now reach a maximum in ridiculing yourself.
Try to read my comment again:
https://tinyurl.com/mr3drtbw
How can you compare a person having studied 5 years of Latin with three eminent translators of Newton?
As usual, your only source is… a contrarian blog.
where’s your proof that the three so-called eminent translators were no better than the guy with 5 years of Latin? And least he had the honesty to claim he could not decipher Newton’s Latin.
As usual, you behave like an arrogant and ignorant person.
These three ‘so-called’ eminent translators had way, way more knowledge than you could ever accumulate.
*
What are you in comparison to such people?
A little nothing, just like your ‘guy with 5 years of Latin’, who very probably didn’t understand anything of what Newton would have written, even if in English.
binny…”These three so-called eminent translators had way, way more knowledge than you could ever accumulate”.
***
How do you know they were eminent and not just dweebs who translated Old Latin poorly?
After all, they got Newton wrong. He claimed the Moon kept the same face pointed to the Earth while performing linear motion. Earth’s gravity bent the linear motion into an orbit to produce curvilinear motion. He actually said that, I translated it myself.
However, Motte mis-translated it to make it appear as if Newton claimed the the Moon turned on a local axis. Problem is, Motte translated Newton as claiming the Moon ***revolved*** about its axis, which obviously means the axis is Earth.
That’s the only possible translation since Newton knew the Moon moved with only a linear velocity while keeping the same side pointed at Earth. That means gravity bends the linear momentum into an orbit. Since the Moon keeps the same side pointed at Earth, Newton obviously meant the Moon was translating only, with no local rotation.
Robertson
During decades of work as a real engineer, I never met any colleague in any development project who would have been, like you, simply unable to do one of the simplest jobs on Earth.
Namely to accurately compare temperature anomalies computed with respect to the mean of so different reference periods like 1901-2000 and 1991-2020:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365217
*
Even in that trivial activity you utterly failed, and moreover discredited me as a person who would post faked graphs!
And a thorough failure like you dares to denigrate people who perfectly understood Newton’s science?
You are such a plain zero, Robertson!
Bindidon, does your tantrum have anything to do with the fact that you don’t have a viable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”?
Having NOTHING can be quite frustrating, huh?
Looks like you’re speaking from experience, Pup.
Is it because you still haven’t done the Pole Dance Experiment?
binny…”During decades of work as a real engineer…”.
***
I am sure you mean you were an engineer in the sense of a locomotive engineer, or a sanitary engineer, aka janitor, but you don’t write as if you’ve had any university education in applied science.
Robertson
You may write your pseudo-scientific nonsense as long as you want.
You never were an engineer at any time.
Real engineers don’t behave like you, beginning with your pathologic and fanatic denial of any science you don’t understand.
No real engineer on Earth was/is/will ever be dumb enough to think the Moon wouldn’t spin just because we see the same face of it all the time.
Hey, Bordo, I’m listening to this:
https://www.serioustrouble.show/p/reliable-liars#details
For some reason this made me think of you.
little dick, er, I mean willy…a person like you with a half-wit should refrain from witticisms.
How about half-witticisms, Bordo?
Gordo,
Look what Canada is trying to do to Jordan Petersen. They don’t like what he has been saying about transgender, so they are trying to shut him up.
Two things, Troglodyte.
It is not Canada, but a corporation.
It is not to shut him up, for that would be an impossible task.
Cheers.
What Is a Quasi-Public Corporation? A quasi-public corporation is a company in the private sector that is supported by the government with a public mandate to provide a given service. Examples include telegraph and telephone companies, oil and gas, water, and electric light companies, and irrigation companies.
What is a Quasi-Government Agency?
A quasi-government agency is a business entity that provides specific governmental services. Due to their special status, they are not quite a governmental agency but are not private businesses either. Learn what quasi-government agencies are and what services they provide the American government and the public.
https://study.com/learn/lesson/quasi-government-agency.html
Well spotted, gb.
In Canada, things are little different. A professional order is a legal person that works like an association. Its mandate is first and foremost to protect the public from scoundrels like the Son of a Lobster. It is
Unlike a union, psychologists need to be a member of it to practice. A psychologist can decide to form a corporation, a process that is supervised by the order.
You can read about it on the College page.
The recent storms have been blasting the Sierra Nevada mountain range with an incredible amount of snow, with each event being measured in feet. For the entire range, the amount of water locked in the snowpack is above average for the season so far, and in some places, is approaching the average amount for an entire winter season. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the current average snowpack across the range is at a 10-year high.
In the USA, we love our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. In the rest of the world, there is no free speech or any other freedoms unless granted to you by Government; in that sense, they are only privileges. God Bless our Constitution.
stephen…best to hang onto those freedoms. There are forces at work who believe democracy is a waste of time and that governments are better directed by dictators along the lines of China.
That’s what we are fighting right now and if people don’t start speaking up, those forces will take it to mean silence is approval of their dictatorships.
Yep – the forces who don’t believe in democracy were most active in their endeavours exactly two years ago today.
Not hardly Antonin. You are guilty of stinkin thinkin.
Antonin,
By the way, we are a Republic. And the only evil forces on January the 6th were the ones who allowed the murderer of Ashli Babbitt to go unpunished.
Not that again:
https://thebaffler.com/latest/were-a-republic-not-a-democracy-burmila
Hey Gordo,
Did you see what Canada is trying to do to Jordan Petersen? Shut him up because of his transgender comments.
Every nation has a source from which the authority to govern flows.
The UK constitution is unwritten, based on custom and practice. Parliament derives its authority from the Crown, which originally derived from the divine right of kings. It is notable that the oaths of allegiance made by soldiers, politicians, judges etc are to the Crown rather than to the Prime Minister.
Republics such as the US have a written constitution. This defines who may rule, the processes for choosing them and the limitations on them. It is from the Constitution that the President derives the authority to govern, Congress derives the authority to legislate and judges the authority to administer the laws.
I’m not sure whether your enthusiasm for your constitution is still justified. Since Newt Gingrich it has become almost customary for Congress and the Presidency to be controlled by different parties. Congress becomes onstructionist.
Why, in such cirmstances, does Congress no longer recognises the President’s authority to govern? Isn’t such opposition unconstitutional?
Ent, to people of your ilk, government is “god”. To realists, government is a “necessary evil” that must be constantly controlled and reigned in.
The Constitution is necessary in controlling government.
You will never understand because you don’t understand any of this. You actually believe you can pervert reality. But that just makes you a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
Our Founders didn’t think much of your Monarchy or their
They wanted to make Washington a King. He said no.
George Washington
Actually, Troglodyte, judicial review comes from the Brits. It was presumed to be the thing to do. It is an unwritten assumption.
Your Fathers (and grand dad Benjamin) would never have thought that troglodytes would be silly enough to propose originalism as a serious idea.
Recent events in Congress are revealing. It had become clear that the US is now governed by 20 extreme Right Wing Republican conservatives.
Is this really what the Constitution intended?
THAT is exactly the intention of the Constitution!
Those recent events are revealing, but you again failed to understand. It is precisely what the Constitution intended. Adherents to the Constitution are often labeled as right-wing extremists by leftists like you.
I don’t understand it. Why did Benjamin Franklin deliberately design a dysfunctional system?
Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning rod, which saved the lives of many people.
He also talked the gulf stream, or solved a European mystery of why Europe is warmer than, it “should be”.
He was rock star in Europe- or France, which was superpower of Europe/world.
So he should have had the wit to design a functional system of governmenent. Instead he included three parts; executive, legislature and judiciary. Each spends most of its time stopping the others from doing anything.
It’s the dumbest form of government I’ve ever seen.
Why do you think it was Ben Franklin? Mostly Madison and Hamilton, but really the whole bunch.
Who said that democracy was the worst form of govt, except for all the others? Churchill?
Leftists have been slowly dismantling the Constitution since Woodrow Wilson. But this Nation saved your asses twice in the 20th Century, or you’d be singing
Quite right, Troglodyte:
BRING BACK THE 3/5 CLAUSE!!!!!!!!!!!
That Dem Clause, caused the American Civil War
“Benjamin Franklin was an American polymath who was active as a writer, scientist, inventor, statesman, diplomat, printer, publisher, and political philosopher. Among the leading intellectuals of his time, Franklin was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, a drafter and signer of the United States Declaration of Independence, and the first United States Postmaster General.
As a scientist, he was a major figure in the American Enlightenment and the history of physics for his studies of electricity, and for charting and naming the current still known as the Gulf Stream. As an inventor, he is known for the lightning rod, bifocals, and the Franklin stove, among others.
….
From 1785 to 1788, he served as governor of Pennsylvania. He initially owned and dealt in slaves but, by the late 1750s, he began arguing against slavery, became an abolitionist, and promoted education and the integration of African Americans into U.S. society. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
> That Dem clause.
The Dems did not exist at the time, gb.
Madison was a wealthy slave-owner who favored republican government over democratic assembly, btw.
“The Republican Party, also referred to as the GOP (“Grand Old Party”), is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States. The GOP was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists who opposed the KansasNebraska Act, which allowed for the potential expansion of chattel slavery into the western territories”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)
Obviously GOP came later, and when Lincoln was president, his opposition seceded from the duly elected US government.
“The Democratic Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States. Founded in 1828,
…”
“The historical predecessor of the Democratic Party is considered to be the Democratic-Republican Party.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)
Which called it’s itself the Republican Party.
US is republic, and one could also say a Democratic Republic.
Also US government borrowed a lot from the British govt, and same way as French govt borrowed a lot from American govt, and related specifically regarding what all American founders were argued about- it was in the news, French intellectual argued about the news- just we do today.
The French also called themselves a republic [a guess due to it’s colonies]. US stopped being the colonies, and made States- with all the same federal rights.
The Constitution grew out of efforts to reform the Articles of Confederation, an earlier constitution which provided for a loose alliance of states with a weak central government. From May 1787 through September 1787, delegates from twelve of the thirteen states convened in Philadelphia, where they wrote a new constitution. Two alternative plans were developed at the convention. The nationalist majority, soon to be called “Federalists”, put forth the Virginia Plan, a consolidated government based on proportional representation among the states by population. The “old patriots”, later called “Anti-Federalists”, advocated the New Jersey Plan, a purely federal proposal, based on providing each state with equal representation. The Connecticut Compromise allowed for both plans to work together. Other controversies developed regarding slavery and a Bill of Rights in the original document.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Constitution
After proposed compromises of one-half by Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and three-fourths by several New Englanders failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the three-fifths ratio proposed by James Madison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise
–Willard says:
January 9, 2023 at 9:32 PM
After proposed compromises of one-half by Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and three-fourths by several New Englanders failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the three-fifths ratio proposed by James Madison.–
But paragraph continue:
…But this amendment ultimately failed, falling two states short of the unanimous approval required to amend the Articles of Confederation (New Hampshire and New York opposed it).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise
The only relevant is James Madison split the difference to get agreement, but it ultimately failed.
So explains history of the 3/5th number.
It’s definitively, what is meant by “trivial”.
And it doesn’t say anything significant about Benjamin Harrison, or “several New Englanders” or James Madison.
But gives history of 3/5th number, which probably cited, in future arguments/ negotiation in the topic.
And if know anything about politicians, misused by these later politicians.
Instead further down in linked wiki:
“By including three-fifths of slaves (who had no voting rights) in the legislative apportionment, the Three-fifths Compromise provided additional representation in the House of Representatives of slave states compared to the free states. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 seats, but would have had 33 had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 seats out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 seats out of 240, instead of 73. As a result, Southern states had additional influence on the presidency, the speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court until the American Civil War.[15]: 5657 In addition, the Southern states’ insistence on equal numbers of slave and free states, which was maintained until 1850, safeguarded the Southern bloc in the Senate as well as Electoral College votes.”
What is Southern bloc, wiki:
“The Solid South or the Southern bloc was the electoral voting bloc of the states of the Southern United States for issues that were regarded as particularly important to the interests of Democrats in those states. The Southern bloc existed especially between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. During this period, the Democratic Party overwhelmingly controlled southern state legislatures, and most local, state and federal officeholders in the South were Democrats.”
Or as I said:
“That Dem Clause”
Oops, it continues:
“During the late 1800s and early 1900s, Southern Democrats disenfranchised blacks in all Southern states, along with a few non-Southern states doing the same as well. This resulted essentially in a one-party system, in which a candidate’s victory in Democratic primary elections was tantamount to election to the office itself. White primaries were another means that the Democrats used to consolidate their political power, excluding blacks from voting in primaries.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South
It is always hilarious to see people revising history to make it appear that today’s liberals were responsible for past wrongs.
Earlier Bill tried to claim Global Warming was a big political issue in the late 60s.
Grand Solar Minimum update, still in lockstep with SC24,
no poly-idiotic charts here
https://i.postimg.cc/5NwRHWd4/comp12.jpg
Would you please include a comparison to the Maunder minimum, as that’s where it is claimed we are heading.
tony querty…”It took me 15 minutes. How many THOUSANDS of hours have you wasted commenting here and on other denial sites?”
***
You not only waste your time with inane projects, you indulge in red-herring arguments. I asked you to learn some physics and you come back with a smelly fish.
Furthermore, you took a shot at me for mispelling my name. At least I am misspelling my real name, while you hide behind an unimaginative nym. I guess in the outback of Australia you have nothing better to do than harass roos.
I have plenty of physics under my academic belt, thanks all the same. I’d tell you to learn some physics, but apparently you get to choose from ignorance what physics to accept and what not.
You still haven’t figured out the meaning of my name.
And I have never seen a live kangaroo outside a zoo.
It’s interesting how you choose insults which will upset people you are not attacking, such as needlessly referring to Germans as “krauts”.
0 for 3 for you
When the ignoramus Robertson insults people living in Germany ‘krauts’ (including those who aren’t even German), that’s less than nothing compared to his insult against Isaac Newton’s major translator Andrew Motte: he named him last year a ‘cheating son of a bitch’.
The reason for the insult was that Robertson was too stupid to realize that when reading a page in the Principia he went straight from the main text to the footnote, and thus brazenly thought Motte had mistranslated Newton.
That tells us about how disrespectful and reckless Robertson really is.
brandon…”after two weeks, due to dispersion/dilution, water vapour heating started to dominate the top-of-the-atmosphere radiative forcing, leading to a net warming of the climate system”.
***
Same old, same old. They are claiming that heat can be transferred via radiation from a much colder part of the atmosphere to the much warmer surface.
Have any of you heard of and understood the 2nd law of thermodynamics? I will restate it for you as coined by Clausius…heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a warmer body.
Some alarmists today have taken liberties and re-stated the 2nd law, without proof. They have presumed that a certain unverified ‘net energy’ can overrule the 2nd law if it is positive.
The 2nd law is not about net energy, it is about net thermal energy only. However, to get a net heat transfer, we’d need at least two heat sources, yet the alarmists feel it’s ok to mix radiative energy (IR) with heat, to produce a net energy.
Here’s the reasoning. The Earth is radiating energy to the atmosphere while the atmosphere radiates a tiny fraction of that energy back to the surface. The direction of surface to atmosphere is deemed to be positive, because it is much larger, and since it is much larger than energy radiated in the opposite direction ***FROM THE ATMOSPHERE*** (ie. not solar energy) it is always positive. That is claimed as justification (radiation from surface being positive) to claim the 2nd law is not contradicted, since the energy flow is positive.
This reasoning is so amateurish as to be not worth addressing. However, I will persist. The 2nd law is ***ABOUT HEAT TRANSFER***. There is nothing stated in the words of Clausius about electromagnetic energy nor is there a reference in the mathematical equivalent of the 2nd law (entropy) about radiation.
Entropy is expressed as, S = T.integral dq. Nothing in there but heat(q) and temperature T, the latter being required to be constant. Entropy was invented by Clausius as a mathematical expression of the 2nd law. He stated the meaning of entropy as the sum of infinitesimal heat transfers at a temperature T. If a process is reversible, S = 0, if it is irreversible, S > 0.
S > 0 is the key. Entropy does not apply to processes in which heat is transferred from cold to hot. Heat must be transferred hot to cold.
I have tried to make this point till blue in the face. Heat ***IS NOT*** transferred ***as heat energy*** by radiation. It is impossible for heat to move from a hotter body to a cooler body via radiation. The truth is, heat is dissipated in the hotter body, being converted to a totally different energy, EM. If the receiving body is cooler, that EM can be converted back to heat in the cooler body.
One might claim energy is transferred but its not heat. It is electromagnetic energy. Even that’s not correct, since the EM is lost at the cooler target when converted back to heat.
Therefore, so-called heat transfer via radiation is not possible because there are two energy conversions involved.
The process is as follows from hotter source to cooler target…
-heat is converted to EM, and heat is lost in process
-EM moves through space
-EM is converted back to heat at the target provided target is cooler than source.
-heat loss and heat gain are entirely local processes
Alarmists who formulated the theory of a net balance of energy are living more than a century ago. Between 1850 and 1913, scientists believed that heat moved through air and a vacuum as heat rays. If that was the case, they would be able to claim a net balance of energy but its not the case. Heat and EM cannot exist at the same time between a source and a target. There is essentially zero heat energy to measure.
Old Gordo insists on repeating his display of his ignorance of Clausius and his Second Law of thermodynamics. He misses the most basic concept of Clausius’ work, as described in Chapter 12 of his 1875 text, “The Mechanical Theory of Heat”, that being a focus on energy conversion to work by mechanical devices, especially the steam engine. Those devices could also be used to move thermal energy from lower temperatures reservoirs to higher temperatures, but doing so requires the addition of mechanical energy to accomplish that goal, thus the 2nd Law.
His treatment of radiation energy transfer is based on the velocities of the respective radiant energy, as Gordo notes:
That is to say, thermal radiation was an exchange of mass dependent on the velocity of each source, as Clausius describes in his math.
He begins his treatment of exchange between similar bodies considers the energy emitted by each body which is absorbed by the other, thus there is a flow of this mechanical energy from each to the other. He states:
If the two bodies are of equal temperature, the flows are equal and cancel out. If one is cooler than the other, there will be less energy moving from the cooler to the hotter one. But that also implies that there is always a net flow of energy from the higher to lower temperature, which Gordo continues to ignore.
Clausius doesn’t say what happens to the temperatures of the two bodies in the alternate case where the energy flow is specified and the temperatures must be calculated, as in the Green Plate Effect. The result in this situation is that the back radiation from the colder to the hotter will increase the temperature of the hotter source, as compared to a case without the radiation from the colder body, such as for a single body in deep space.
This is one of the better deconstructions of Gordon’s standard mantras I’ve seen. That Clausius quote is clutch, thank you.
Of course cold bodies radiate energy to hot bodies, as well as hot bodies radiating energy to cold bodies…
…and of course heat always flows from hot to cold (unless there is some work being done, somewhere).
That doesn’t actually contradict what Gordon said. Only the phrase "double exchange of heat" stands as the obvious mistake; in more recent parlance, that would be "double exchange of energy".
Nowhere in that quote does Clausius suggest anything about whether or not hot bodies absorb IR radiation from colder bodies, or to what extent.
How does the receiving body know whether incident photons came from a warmer or cooler body than itself?
An object doesn’t know where the arriving photons came from. That’s nonsense.
Photon absorp.tion is determined by compatibility between photon wavelength and the target molecule’s vibrational frequency.
That’s why ice cubes can NOT boil water.
> An object doesnt know where the arriving photons came from. Thats nonsense.
That was more or less the point, C00kie.
> Thats why ice cubes can NOT boil water.
Oop, you changed your mind.
Now Brandon, is that the truth? Did I really change my mind?
The fact that you misrepresent people is because you have NOTHING.
I know you will be trolling here all day, but I won’t be responding. You know the rules.
> Did I really change my mind?
If you stand by this post, then the receiving object knows whether the emitting object is warmer or cooler than itself:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/updated-atmospheric-co2-concentration-forecast-through-2050-and-beyond/#comment-1339555
I made the factually correct statement:
"Nowhere in that quote does Clausius suggest anything about whether or not hot bodies absorb IR radiation from colder bodies, or to what extent."
…and nothing more.
And Graham punts.
…and Brandy Guts falsely accuses.
Graham wishes.
“Nowhere in that quote does Clausius suggest anything about whether IR radiation must follow 2LoT” is a factually correct statement.
Where in the quote does Clausius suggest anything about whether or not hot bodies absorb IR radiation from colder bodies, or to what extent, Brandy Guts?
Only Swanson opined:
"He begins his treatment of exchange between similar bodies considers the energy emitted by each body which is absorbed by the other, thus there is a flow of this mechanical energy from each to the other."
Yet that statement, which you obviously agreed with, is not supported by the quote he provided. Clausius mentions nothing about absorp.tion.
If the cold body is to warm at the expense of the hot body, it must absorb at least some of the energy. Yet Clausius mentions nothing about absorp.tion.
How silly you are, Graham.
Clausius mentions nothing about absorp.tion.
And Graham punts, again.
grammie pups wrote:
Clausius wrote, (1875, chapter XII, section I):
The puppet clown is wrong again. Better luck next time. Maybe you should try doing your homework first. Naa
Clausius mentions nothing about absorp.tion, in the initial quote you gave, which is what we were discussing.
How does Graham imagine radiation from a hot body to a cold one warms the latter if the latter does not absorb it?
For the love of Mary.
I don’t need to imagine anything, Brandy Guts. Swanson produced a quote. From that quote, can it be concluded that Clausius thought warm bodies absorb energy from cooler bodies?
Correct, simple, honest and direct answer: no.
Swanson has now introduced two more quotes. Do they mean that the initial quote Swanson produced now demonstrates that Clausius thought warm bodies absorb energy from cooler bodies?
Correct, simple, honest and direct answer: no.
Is Swanson actually trying to claim an imaginary object (black body) is “proof” that “cold” can raise the temperature of “hot”?
He really is braindead.
> From [the first] quote, can it be concluded that Clausius thought warm bodies absorb energy from cooler bodies?
If not, then we likewise cannot conclude that the cold body absorbs energy from the warm one.
Which is silly, and why Graham keeps ducking the question.
Yes, Brandy Guts, your logic is silly.
It’s your logic, dummy.
Absolutely not, Brandy Guts.
Point to where Clausius said the cold body absorbs radiation from the hot one.
Brandon understands little of the relevant physics. He seems to believe that all objects behave as imaginary black bodies. He can’t even understand how stupid that is.
Photon absorp.tion varies with objects and temperatures. That’s why objects have different colors. It’s also the reason ice cubes can NOT boil water.
These concepts are actually fairly straightforward, but not if you’re a braindead cult idiot.
He didn’t. He did not mention anything about absorp.tion in that quote.
So I don’t assume anything about absorp.tion from that quote.
> He didnt.
FINALLY
> He did not mention anything about absorp.tion in that quote. So I dont assume anything about absorp.tion from that quote.
How else would the cold body get warmer *unless* it absorbed radiation from the hot one?
Sure, you can make the inference, if you wish, that the cold body must be warming because it is absorbing energy from the hotter.
Doesn’t mean you can assume the hot body absorbs energy from the cooler. There is absolutely nothing written in that initial quote to justify making that assumption.
Nothing.
> Sure, you can make the inference, if you wish, that the cold body must be warming because it is absorbing energy from the hotter.
If he meant that the cooler object warmed by some other mechanism than absorbing radiation from the warmer one, don’t you think he would have specified that other thing?
Doesn’t mean you can assume he thought the hot body absorbs energy from the cooler. There is absolutely nothing written in that initial quote to justify making that assumption.
Nothing.
We’ve agreed that Clausius meant that cold absorbs radiant energy from hot. I submit that any honest, rational person would take “simultaneous double exchange” to mean the converse is true unless otherwise qualified, which it isn’t.
You are jumping to conclusions, Brandy Guts. There is a simultaneous double exchange of energy because the cold body is radiating to the hot body, and the hot body is radiating to the cold body. You might be able to infer that the cold body absorbs energy from the hot body, because “the general result…always consists, as is established by experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter”, however there is nothing in that initial quote to suggest that the hotter body absorbs energy from the cooler.
Graham still can’t help but equivocate on whether the cold body absorbs from hot.
Another false accusation.
[Graham] You might be able to infer that the cold body absorbs energy from the hot body
Yes, as in “you might be able to do this but it doesn’t mean you can do that”.
Yes, as in you are waffling on whether Clausius meant that cold absorbs from hot, i.e., equivocating.
Why are you so afraid of the obvious.
No, you have misunderstood…and talking to someone who keeps misunderstanding whilst falsely accusing is rather dull. I get enough of that with talking to your personality double.
Do you or do you not believe that Clausius thought cold objects absorb radiation from warm ones.
As should have been obvious from my previous comments: yes.
[Graham] You might be able to infer
[Also Graham] As should have been obvious
Brandy Guts, when somebody says "you might be able to do x, but that doesn’t mean you can do y", it is commonly understood that x is accepted.
There’s a distinct difference between you might be able to do x and you can do x.
Well, this is worthwhile.
Graham plays dumb again.
Or maybe he’s not playing.
Once again…Brandy Guts, when somebody says "you might be able to do x, but that doesn’t mean you can do y", it is commonly understood that x is accepted. I guess you’re unaware of the convention. Oh well.
Moving on from this complete non-point…did you have anything to actually add about the original thing we were discussing?
[Graham] I dont assume anything about absorp.tion from that quote.
[Also Graham] it is commonly understood that x is accepted
So nothing to add accept childish gotchas that reveal you don’t know the difference between an assumption and an inference?
“…as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely to hot“.
That is not in dispute. Hot and cold bodies exchange energy via radiation, because all bodies above 0 K radiate energy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Noticed how this silly food fight prevented Gentle Graham from answering your question about the photon, BG.
Yes.
Well, you got an answer to that question from somebody else, Brandy Guts. I was making one point, and one point only, as I’m well within my rights to do.
Noticed how Gentle Graham responded to your question by staking an irrelevant negative claim that shifted the focus on himself, BG?
This was my original point, and has been my point throughout:
"Nowhere in that quote does Clausius suggest anything about whether or not hot bodies absorb IR radiation from colder bodies, or to what extent."
I made it at 11:11 AM.
Brandon’s question came at 11:28 AM.
A recap:
Bordon repeats the Sky Dragon Crank Master Argument.
ES shows Bordon a receipt and offers an explainer.
BG thanks ES for that.
Gentle Graham tries to divert the topic on himself by appealing to literalism.
This works for a while, until we all realize that literalism has a short shelf life.
Gentle Graham starts to gaslight gently.
Here we are.
Since Gentle Graham has NOTHING left, why not pay due diligence to the Sky Dragon Crank Master Argument?
I don’t want the discussion to be about me at all, Little Willy. You’re the one who tries to always make it about me. It wouldn’t even surprise me if you were the DREMT impersonator.
Gentle Graham shows that appealing to correctness can indeed be a fallacy!
What was I supposed to write? "The factually correct statement was made:…"?
BG might appreciate how Gentle Graham returns to playing dumb.
Readers might appreciate:
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
"Trolling".
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Nowhere in that quote does Clausius suggest anything about whether or not hot bodies absorb IR radiation from colder bodies”
Not true. Let’s bold the relevant part.
“…not only do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
In modern parlance, we would call this an exchange of energy, rather than heat. And Clausius most definitely suggests this occurrence in that quote. ‘Simultaneous exchange’ is not muddy wording, unless you don’t know the meaning of ‘exchange’.
exchange (n) : an act of giving one thing and receiving another (especially of the same kind) in return.
Clausius expounds further on this in his 4th memoir – again, replace the word ‘heat’ with ‘energy’:
“In the first place, the principle implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.”
Yes, Clausius views the colder and warmer bodies exchanging (heat) energy with each other.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1425372
That’s exactly your argument that I replied to. I even quoted you saying the same thing in my post.
Do you not know what the word “exchange” means?
exchange (n) : an act of giving one thing and receiving another (especially of the same kind) in return.
“Simultaneous double heat exchange”
It means that the warmer and colder body both impart and absorb (heat) energy to/from each other.
Now, unless you have an issue with the English language, what is the problem with understanding the meaning of the word “exchange”?
And Clausius says the same thing elsewhere, remembering that he uses ‘heat’ where we would say ‘energy’:
“In the first place, the principle implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.”
interchange (n) : an exchange
Clausius sees the two bodies at different temperatures exchanging energies with each other. If he though that the warmer body did not receive energy from the cooler one, he would not have described an exchange.
barry, as much as you want “exchange” to imply or mean “absorb”, it does not.
Okay, so now you deny language.
absorb (v) : to take something in
take in (v) : to admit; receive
exchange (n) : an act of giving one thing and receiving another (especially of the same kind) in return
“Simultaneous double heat exchange”
“the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies”
Sorry, you are just denying here. Which is why your counters are pure assertion and absent of argument.
the mutual double exchange is also corroborated by standard physical equations for radiative transfer between bodies.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/black_body_radiation.htm
And all these discuss the exchange of energy between two different bodies resulting in the NET result that heat always flows from hot to cold.
Both things happen simultaneously. As has been said here for some years.
Whereas not one of the people expressing the strange idea that warm bodies do not absorb radiation from cooler bodies has ever produced a single reputable source to corroborate their mangled view, despite the years-long request for such. They’re just making it up.
I’m quite content to let you continue with your denial of the language and the equations of radiative transfer.
barry, if we exchange glances, are we absorbing each other’s glances!?
Don’t be silly.
The Clausius quote doesn’t say what you want it to…
…and I’m not being dragged off topic from this one single point.
“if we exchange glances, are we absorbing each other’s glances”
Yep.
We both receive the information conveyed in those glances when we exchange them.
If you took in my glance but I didn’t notice yours, then it is no exchange.
So it seems you do not know what the word exchange means. At least we’ve got to the bottom of this matter.
I can’t think of an instance where the use of the word “exchange” includes one body not receiving from the other.
I suppose if you try really hard you might come up with something.
But if you have to try that hard to find a counter-example you’ve already lost the point.
Well, now you have another problem, barry. “Received” doesn’t mean “absorbed”, either.
Well, yes it does.
absorb (v) : to take something in
take in (v) : to admit; receive
But you’re quibbling.
Clausius’ meaning is quite clear. He is not saying that the (heat) energy of the cooler object bounces off the the warmer one. He is not saying that the transference is one way.
He says:
“not only do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
It takes some special denial to imagine that Calusius means only one body receives the (heat) energy of the other after reading that.
And one has to be particularly special to read this:
“In the first place, the principle implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it”
and conclude that the warmer body is absorbing no heat (energy) from the cooler one.
Clausius’ language is clearly about a two-way exchange, not about a one-way flow.
But clearly you’re very special. Oh well then.
And after 5 years and scores of requests for proponents to furnish any credible source, like a physics text, substantiating the weird view that radiation from a cooler object can’t be absorbed by a warmer one….
Still nothing.
Plenty of reputable references saying the opposite have been supplied, but not one helping the ‘skeptics’ with their ideological position.
This doesn’t seem to penetrate the certainty of the unskeptical skeptics. That you have nothing to corroborate your views is just conveniently overlooked.
barry, received energy can be either absorbed, transmitted, or reflected. Clausius makes no mention of what happens to any of the energy exchanged, so you should not assume anything about what he means re absorp.tion, which is what you are doing. You might be able to infer that the cold body absorbs energy from the hot body, because “the general result…always consists, as is established by experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter”, however there is nothing in that initial quote to suggest that the hotter body absorbs energy from the cooler. I know this is frustrating for you, but there you go…
…and, once again, I am not going to be led off-topic from this single point.
“there is nothing in that initial quote to suggest that the hotter body absorbs energy from the cooler”
Clausius says just that in 3 different portions of the quotes. Your denial of the meaning of words doesn’t change this.
Furthermore, Clausius is speaking in the context of blackbodies, which are perfect absorbers and neither reflect nor transmit radiation.
5 years on and you (or anyone else proposing this strange notion) still haven’t produced a single reputable physics text, note or paper explaining that warm objects cannot absorb radiation from warm objects.
Either you’ve looked for such a source and failed or you haven’t bothered to check. Either way, your view has no corroboration in the world of physics.
“Clausius says just that in 3 different portions of the quotes. Your denial of the meaning of words doesn’t change this.”
Incorrect, barry. A quick scan of the quote reveals no mention of the word “absorb” or “absorp.tion”. Thus any conclusions about “absorb” or “absorp.tion” must be inferred from the text, and the only valid inference (as discussed with Brandon) is that the cooler body absorbs energy from the warmer. As to whether or not the the warmer body absorbs energy from the cooler body, an honest reading of the text leaves that undetermined…
…and once again, I will not be led off-topic from this single point.
It’s kind of interesting to watch denial of something so straightforward in action.
“this simultaneous double exchange of heat”
“the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation”
“the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.”
The warmer body always receives less heat from the cooler body than it imparts to it.
And these are blackbodies, which by definition absorb all radiation falling on them.
There is no exception for warmer blackbodies receiving radiation from cooler sources anywhere in the physics literature.
Because it’s false.
But hey – finally prove us wrong and provide that missing physical text supporting your view.
I guess by now you know it doesn’t exist.
An honest player would at least address this point. Why are you ignoring it?
barry, we’re just at the stage of repeating ourselves. Readers will already have concluded as they wish. That’s that.
Your false accusations and diversions just reflect badly on you, by the way.
“Readers will already have concluded as they wish”
Yes indeed.
Good, good.
A human doesn’t absorb energy from cooler objects, but a Human can wear dead animal skins to keep it warmer.
Without the dead animal skins, the human would be colder in a cold ice age world. Or human is mammal which generates heat, if it’s in colder environment it can wear clothes so, it doesn’t need to generate as much heat to live.
About 1/2 of the planet Earth is near tropical conditions, and the human is a tropical creature which migrated out of tropical condition
and had develop the technology of clothes [made dead skins of animals and other stuff]. The human hasn’t yet used most of Earth surface to live- Earth’s Ocean. The human travels across ocean and gets food from the ocean, but the ocean has big waves which make hard to live on the ocean.
The human is also exploring space and will live in space. There are many problems living in space. One problem is it’s harder manage heat- in space a human needs spacesuit [or some other artificial environment to live, and must use refrigeration otherwise the human
over heats. Space is not really hot or cold, but the human generates
enough heat to live in a tropical Earth environment. But humans have make technology which generates far more heat than a human body- and that is harder to cool in a space environment. Earth has warm and colder conditions. A car can work in the tropics, but it’s too hot in space.
A human body cools mostly by evaporative cooling and spacesuit also is cooled by evaporative cooling. Evaporative cooling works well on Earth and in space.
Earth tropical ocean heat engine also “works by evaporative cooling.
gb…”A human doesnt absorb energy from cooler objects, but a Human can wear dead animal skins to keep it warmer.
Without the dead animal skins, the human would be colder in a cold ice age world”.
***
As Swenson likes to point out, clothes on a dead body will not make the body warmer. Humans generate heat internally to the point the heat raises body temperature to 37C. If we stop eating, the body temperature will gradually drop till the body is at room temperature.
When you consider that room temperature is 20C, the body is almost as hot again, some 17C above room temperature. You can walk around in a room at room temperature without much clothing on, but go outside where it’s 10C lower, with the same clothing, and you’ll soon be shivering as hypothermia sets in.
We use clothes, not to warm our bodies, but to reduce the amount of heat lost to the environment. Clothes do not warm you, they slow heat loss, enabling the body temperature to remain higher than without clothes, in colder conditions.
“Clothes do not warm you, they slow heat loss, enabling the body temperature to remain higher than without clothes, in colder conditions.”
I think vegan with just clothes on in 15 C air temperature, would eventually, freeze to death.
And what is known, is if insulate a body enough, human body will over heat and die. And one way to kill someone is preventing a human body from cooling from it’s evaporative cooling mechanism.
Such as wrap someone in plastic- or put in someone spacesuit without a cooling mechanism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxcWX8vKvfs
SpaceX Starship Updates, Transporter 6, Stoke Space & A Crazy Future Awaits Compilation
I thought this video was pretty good.
What Musk said was Mars could eventually become like Earth- I disagree. There are number of reasons, it can’t. One is that Mars
has a different amount of Gravity than Earth does.
This “might” be a big problem, or Mars might better for Humans and life because it has a lower gravity. We simply do not know.
But is just one reason Mars is not like Earth.
Another thing is a problem with Earth, is it has a finite amount of cheap energy, and though solar energy is better than Earth in terms of making electrical power for a electrical grid, one has no reason to assume Mars doesn’t have same problem as Earth has- a finite amount cheap energy.
Venus orbit most likely more significant than Mars, but Venus orbit
requires importing stuff. And what it would best at, is importing stuff from Space rocks and all that beyond Mars orbit. And Venus is better than Earth orbit or Mars orbit to go beyond Mars orbit- Venus orbit is best orbital distance [unless want to go even closer to the Sun.
Using Venus orbit is something I call a requirement for Mars settlements.
Both Mars and Venus use, are dependent on humans using artificial gravity.
Musk should test artificial- he do it, very cheaply just by using his Falcon-9 rockets.
This probably better than buying Twitters and cost him 1/50th of cost
and even make him more money, than twitter.
“A human doesn’t absorb energy from cooler objects”
A human absorbs energy from every part of the environment radiating towards them. Radiative absorp.tion, unlike emission, is not dependent on temperature.
DREMT
YOU: “Nowhere in that quote does Clausius suggest anything about whether or not hot bodies absorb IR radiation from colder bodies, or to what extent.”
It does not have to. This fact has been experimentally verified by the host of this blog. Others have also done experiments to validate this fact that a hot object does absorb IR from a colder one.
The equation used in all radiant heat transfer applications clearly demonstrates this to be the case.
If you persist to ignore science then you will be lumped with the three idiots that haunt this blog with endless unscientific posts. The Three are Clint R (the dumbest of the three), Gordon Robertson (dumb enough to get his science from Gary Novak), Swenson who is so mixed up he is unable to think clearly.
I had thought you might be an intelligent and thinking skeptic that knew some real science. Please do not think as these three idiots. Three stupid posters in quite enough. I would like rational skeptics that know science to offer some challenges to accepted dogma, not just made up BS and endless opinions.
Norman, you’re going off-piste from my point almost immediately.
Here is my point:
Swanson is claiming that Clausius states something that he doesn’t, in fact, state.
That’s it. Whether or not hot bodies absorb radiation from colder bodies, and to what extent, is kind of besides the point.
Swanson…was…wrong. That’s it.
Norman, you’ve been in hiding. I almost forgot about you….
Now that you’re back, did you ever find a valid technical reference for your belief that two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface will add so that the surface reaches a temperature of 325K?
You know, that’s the nonsense that results in ice cubes boiling water. That’s the kind of anti-science you believe in.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Grammis pups, the phrase “double exchange of heat” is a quote. Of course, we all know the science has progressed in the past 150 years, but so what? The point is that even 150 years ago, it was OBVIOUS that there was an energy transfer from the colder to the warmer body, at the same time as that in the opposite direction from the warmer to cooler.
Gordo has repeatedly stated that there is no transfer from cooler to warmer body, so this single quote rebuts his error.
Incorrect, Swanson. Gordon maintains that energy from a colder body is not absorbed by the hotter body…
…not that energy isn’t exchanged between the two bodies. As far as I’m aware, he accepts that a colder body radiates energy to a hot body, and a hot body radiates energy to a cool body.
So your quote does not refute Gordon. It doesn’t mention anything about absorp.tion, and it would need to in order to refute him.
You…were…wrong.
grammie pups, Clausius was speaking in the technical language of the day when writing: double exchange of heat. You, a usual, are playing another semantic game claiming that “heat” in that context is not the same as “energy”, i.e., “thermal IR radiant energy”.
You are welcome to translate Clausius’ book using modern terminology, if you want too. Or, you could simply read a modern text on radiation heat transfer. I expect that you won’t undertake any such an effort, instead having fun flipping the meanings of words to suit your denialist world view.
Old Gordo can speak for himself, since this is his favorite reference.
You…were…wrong.
swannie…”claiming that heat in that context is not the same as energy, i.e., thermal IR radiant energy.
***
Heat is energy…thermal energy. Radiation is energy too…electromagnetic energy. When an electron radiates EM it loses kinetic energy, which is heat.
Heat is defined as the kinetic energy of atoms. EM is defined as an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. What would those forms of energy possibly have in common?
This is a no-brainer. When a body is heated, its constituent electrons move en masse to higher kinetic energy orbital level. If you apply too much heat, the electrons will jump right out of the atoms causing the body to melt or break down.
When the body cools, the electrons move, en masse, down to lower kinetic energy levels. Same when they all emit EM.
swannie…”it was OBVIOUS that there was an energy transfer from the colder to the warmer body, at the same time as that in the opposite direction from the warmer to cooler”.
***
It may have been obvious via theory but Bohr stood all those theories on their heads when he revealed that heat is converted to EM when electrons move from a higher level of KE to a lower level. Remember, heat is that KE. It is the energy that represents the level of energy in an atom wrt orbital energy levels and the vibration of atoms in solids.
Sadly the section of the work of Clausius applying to heat radiation require revision and he is not around to do it. Even more sad is the fact that certain modern scientists are still hung up on the anachronism that heat travels through space as rays.
Having said that, the rest of the work of Clausius involving the 1st law (his definition of U), the 2nd law, and entropy, still stands.
> Sadly the section of the work of Clausius applying to heat radiation require revision and he is not around to do it.
Maybe you should let Graham know about that, Gordon. He’s struggling a bit with it.
Another false accusation.
Gordon is saying Clausius is wrong on this point. You’re not.
Wrong on what exact point?
Graham plays dumb AGAIN.
What exact point, Brandy Guts? Be specific, and I can help you out.
WHAT HAVE WE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR THE LAST TWO HOURS, GRAHAM
Not sure, really. You’ve just been nit-picking at various pathetically irrelevant details for the last couple of hours.
Prior to that, the original topic was how the quote from Clausius that Swanson initially provided does not contain anything to suggest Clausius thinks the warmer body absorbs energy from the colder.
Don’t think me and Gordon disagree on that.
> Dont think me and Gordon disagree on that.
Then you agree Clausius meant that hot also absorbs energy radiated by cold.
No, Brandy Guts. That would be a non-sequitur.
[Swanson] it was OBVIOUS that there was an energy transfer from the colder to the warmer body, at the same time as that in the opposite direction from the warmer to cooler
[Gordon] Bohr stood all those theories on their heads […] the work of Clausius applying to heat radiation require revision
Yes. So Gordon thinks the energy from the colder body is not absorbed by the warmer body.
Indeed Graham, but that’s not what is being disputed.
Turns out I was wrong about Gordon’s disagreement with Clausius:
So he apparently does read that passage the same way that you do.
That’s what I thought, from reading Gordon’s arguments over the years.
Indeed, BG.
Bordon, like Gentle Graham, reads *conversely from cold to hot bodies* and both infer that Clausius does not really mean from cold to hot bodies.
“…as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely to hot“.
That is not in dispute. Hot and cold bodies exchange energy via radiation, because all bodies above 0 K radiate energy.
I don’t think Gordon is saying the cold body doesn’t radiate, Little Willy. However, there’s no talking to you, so think what you like.
Gentle Graham does not always infer stuff, but when he does it is to help out a Sky Dragon crank or to gaslight.
More false accusations from a tedious troll.
Gentle Graham could make Bordon say just about anything.
He is still stuck with his *heat transferred via radiation* which, shall we say, does not work literally.
I’m stuck with another easy win.
Bordon claims that the second law is not about net energy.
He also makes the same silly assertion, with a NEVER in caps lock.
And Gentle Graham gently gaslights commenters into thinking Bordon did not assert the orthodox Sky Dragon crank dogma.
Yet more false accusations, from a tedious troll.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
Here we are:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1425863
Yes, what an amazing comment that was, Little Willy. So worth linking to it. Well done.
🤦
Yes, what an amazing emoji that was, Little Willy. So worth posting it. Well done.
Years ago already, I wrote about Clausius’s work dated 1887
https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau
DIE MECHANISCHE WAERMETHEORIE
von R. CLAUSIUS
DRITTE UMGEARBEITETE UND VERVOLLSTAENDIGTE AUFLAGE.
ERSTER BAND.
…
Braunschweig, 1887
…
ABSCHNITT XII.
Die Concentration von Waerme- und Lichtstrahlen und die Grenzen ihrer Wirkung.
1. Gegenstand der Untersuchung.
…
Was ferner die in gewoehnlicher Weise stattfindende Waermestrahlung anbetrifft, so ist es freilich bekannt, dass nicht nur der warme Koerper dem kalten, sondern auch umgekehrt der kalte Koerper dem warmen Waerme zustrahlt, aber das Gesammtresultat dieses gleichzeitig stattfindenden doppelten Waermeaustausches besteht, wie man als erfahrungsmaessig feststehend ansehen kann, immer darin, dass der kaeltere Koerper auf Kosten des waermeren einen Zuwachs an Waerme erfaehrt.
i.e.
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
FIRST VOLUME.
…
SECTION XII.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
…
What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
*
This is the culminating point in Clausius’ work.
But it is permanently discredited by the Pseudo-Skeptics, especially by those who endlessly repeat Clausius’ statements of 1854 – because they fit their narrative.
No, not discredited at all. Scroll up. Read.
Done:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1425221
So, not discredited at all.
All that cut-and-paste from Bin, in two languages no less, and he still can’t understand it!
What Bin misses: “the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.”
IOW, hot can warm cold, but cold can NOT warm hot.
None of the cult idiots can understand this. They’re braindead.
Next thing you see is Bindiclown reposting Ptolemaic system
#4
I was sure that whenever the little ankle-biting dachshund sees a tree, it would think, Oh! Time to get rid of a little pile.
Your replies to my comments get each time dumber and dumber.
binny…re Clausius…”What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one”.
***
How many times do I need to repeat this before it sinks in to certain obtuse minds?
Clausius and other scientists believed that heat was transferred through space as heat rays. All of them can be excused such a belief since the electron was not discovered till the 1890s and Bohr did not relate the interaction of EM and the electron till 1913.
Unfortunately, Clausius had it wrong about heat radiation and heat being transferred between bodies through space via radiation. However, he claimed in the same section you quoted that heat transfer by radiation must obey the 2nd law. Therefore, it was clear to Clausius that any energy can only be transferred from a source of higher potential energy to a target of lower potential energy.
The tragedy is that certain scientist today still think that heat can be transferred through air as heat via radiation. Hence the anachronism about heat radiation and the nonsense about a net balance of energy to bypass the 2nd law..
By continuing to paraphrase the words of Clausius as you do, you express an abysmal ignorance of basic thermodynamics and the quantum theory of Bohr.
Robertson
How many time do I need to repeat that you are this blog’s greatest ignoramus, and are denying everything because you pick things out of contrarian blogs and deliberately ignore real science?
From Clausius to Bohr: Your pseudo-knowledge is simply shameful.
You don’t even understand why Einstein perfectly succeeded in determining the precession of the perihelion of Mercury and Venus, and think a guy like you could ever impress me?
Ha ha ha.
You don’t behave like an engineer, but rather like a retired, opinionated German elementary school teacher.
A secondary low with heavy precipitation reaches California. It will stop over the mountains.
https://i.ibb.co/6NY85Kc/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-01-07-104210.png
One more low is waiting in the Pacific lined up for California. It too will bring heavy precipitation.
https://i.ibb.co/s26KRXS/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-01-07-110610.png
In two days another cold front will reach California, in four days another.
Is the global sea surface temperature dropping because La Nina is strengthening?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Can’t answer your question Ren but I am looking forward to spring. We are 16 days into winter and I am looking forward to longer and warmer days.
Meantime, I am making the best of the present. No point wasting time complaining about winter.
Last January, a large underwater volcano, Tonga-Hunga, erupted. Satellites were able to catch the dramatic explosion into the upper atmosphere. Such an explosion had never been witnessed in the satellite era.
Within weeks, there was an obvious effect on global temperatures. The link to warming was reported all throughout the cult, even from cult headquarters, NASA-Goddard.
Could last January’s Tonga-Hunga eruption have contributed to 2022 being “the 7th Warmest of 44-Year Satellite Record”?
Ya betcha!
Now try explaining that to the cult idiots that believe ice cubes can boil water….
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/sun/nasa-mission-finds-tonga-volcanic-eruption-effects-reached-space
What do you see as the point of copy-pasting your earlier post?
Let me copy-paste mine:
Heads up after Pinatubo and El Chichon it took almost a year for the sulphur dioxide to envelope the globe and initiate cooling. Please explain what you know about the physics of water vapour which would cause a lag only 20% as long. Be specific now
Sorry Ant, but this involves physics. Neither sulfur dioxide nor water vapor caused the warming seen.
You KNOW I never claimed it has anything to do with sulphur dioxide.
And if it wasn’t water vapour, explain this post from you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2022-0-32-deg-c/#comment-1391075
or this one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1358674
It seems every post you’ve made on the subject up to this point has blamed water vapour. Has “the physics” changed since then?
Ant, your failure to understand clear comments is not my problem.
In your first link, I was quoting NASA.
In your second link, I was clearly questioning the water vapor connection.
Quit trying to rewrite my comments, and start trying to understand them.
So at the time of those posts you were unaware of “the physics” which has led to you making this claim FOR THE FIRST TIME.
See Ant, you can pervert, distort, misrepresent to the point you no longer make any sense.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Summary so far:
Clint has up to a day ago suggested that excess water vapour from the eruption has led to warming.
When it was pointed out that there would need to be a lag of close to a year for this to happen (assuming it could happen), he invented another mechanism. However he refuses to share this mechanism, instead calling this “the physics”, of which apparently only he is aware.
Apparently all you have to do is yell “I have a theory that A caused B” and suddenly that theory becomes fact despite not providing a mechanism for that process. And don’t even give the slightest clue as to what this mechanism might be, lest someone start googling to prove them wrong. Who would have known science was so easy.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Apparently all you have to do is yell “I have a theory that A caused B” and suddenly that theory becomes fact despite not providing a mechanism for that process.”
A couple of points. I can’t see any reference to a “theory”, so. I assume you made that bit up.
Second, you are confused about the nature of the universe. Many things are accepted on the basis of experience, without a theory of any sort. Newtons Laws of Motion, for example. The first law. “A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.”
Go on fool, tell me why. What is the theory? What is the mechanism? You are an idiot trying to appear clever, unless you can demonstrate otherwise. You are probably stupid enough to believe in a magical greenhouse effect which you can’t even describe!
Dimwit.
Ant, it’s as Swenson implied — you’re making shit up.
For example, in your first sentence, where did I suggest “that excess water vapour from the eruption has led to warming.”?
You idiots can’t get anything right. You’ve got NOTHING.
So it’s not water vapour, and so until another mechanism is proposed and verified we’ll have to put that nonsense to bed.
Sorry Ant, but just because you don’t understand the science, you don’t get to “put that nonsense to bed”.
We don’t know what causes gravity, but you wouldn’t jump off a 20 story building, would you?
Quit making stuff up.
Pretty sure there’s more than just one data point correlating gravity with falling. As opposed to the two effects you are attempting to associate.
I did not notice cooling in the 1990s, it was a fraction of a degree C. I defy anyone to sense the warming we are screaming about since 1850, of about 1C. Go on, turn up your home thermometer 1C and see if you notice anything.
Remember, when you turn up a thermostatic, the furnace warms the home far more than what you feel from the blowing furnace.
” Could last Januarys Tonga-Hunga eruption have contributed to 2022 being the 7th Warmest of 44-Year Satellite Record?
Ya betcha!
Now try explaining that to the cult idiots that believe ice cubes can boil water… ”
*
For me, the true cult idiots are those who all the time
– are intentionally distorting and misrepresenting what others have written
and
– are guessing about this and that , but not even able to find and present data that matches their vague guess.
Here is a comparison of UAH’s lower stratosphere (LS) to their lower troposphere (LT) for the whole record:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gC_g3NQQi-J2GQMwXX8a04QpOAUk-SUj/view
It confirms what all ‘cult idiots’ know since longer time, namely that while the LT warms, the LS cools.
To avoid the claim that LS’ cooling since 1979 (-0.27 C / decade) would have been due to El Chichn and Pinatubo, let’s cut off till mid 1993:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/170Lzv7S58dfyXGvEKuZJonDlwwYKef40/view
and we see still the same dual behavior. Trends for 1993-2022 in C / decade
– LS: -0.11
– LT: +0.12
*
Cutting the story short: this means that no one should wonder about LT going a bit up when LS goes a bit down.
No, ice cubes can’t boil water, emitted photons don’t care about how their absorbing places, time is affected by speed and gravity, and as Newton explained, Moon rotates about its polar axis.
Best greetings to the Pseudo-Skeptics.
يا بطشا
You actually got some things correct, Bin.
You’re correct, ice cubes can NOT boil water. Congrats. Are you ready to now accept that two fluxes arriving the same surface (F1 and F2) do NOT result in the surface emitting F1 + F2?
Emitted photons do not “care” about their “absorbing places”, as photon absorp.tion is based on wavelength/frequency compatibility.
But, you’ve still got Moon wrong. It clearly is NOT rotating. Newton verified this, and we’ve got the simple model of the ball-on-a-string for his work.
Also, the warming effect from Tonga-Hunga coincides really well with 2023 UAH global anomalies.
Opps, that should be “2022 UAH global anomalies”.
” Also, the warming effect from Tonga-Hunga coincides really well with 2023 UAH global anomalies. ”
Where is your exact source for that? Or are you guessing again?
All what is known to us here is that the lower stratosphere cooled in 2022, as it does all the time.
There was indeed a strong cooling below 60 S between Aug and Nov 2022, as is shown here for Nov:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zPnQOT4wx-K0SuNgK7aFcNhG6MEEGi5V/view
but it had only a very small influence on the global data, the anomalies didn’t even move below -0.4C, nothing unusual at all.
*
Show us a REAL proof that the small LS cooling in 2022 was the cause for the small warming in the LT!
Bin defines “cult idiots”:
— are intentionally distorting and misrepresenting what others have written, and
— are guessing about this and that , but not even able to find and present data that matches their vague guess.
Pretty close Bin. Those are “results”, but the “causes” come from an ignorance of science and accepting what “experts” claim, without questioning.
For example, you accept WITHOUT questioning ancient astrologers claims that Moon is rotating about its axis. Yet, you don’t understand what “orbital motion without axial rotation” would look like. You likely have nightmares about the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string.
And, a cult idiot that can’t learn is a “braindead cult idiot”.
Stop dodging, Clint R.
Show us a REAL proof that the small LS cooling in 2022 was the cause for the small warming in the LT!
If you can’t then we will see that you are trolling once again.
Bin, building straw men is an amateur troll tactic.
I NEVER mentioned “LS cooling”.
Can’t you do any better?
As some have said, more than 90% of global warming is warming our cold ocean.
Higher CO2 levels might warm this cold ocean, but a warmed ocean is what causes global warming.
Or if ocean cools, global temperature lowers, if ocean is warmed global temperatures increase.
How it warms or cools is a complicated matter, but without warmer or cooler ocean you don’t have climate change. Though you have changes
in weather, or global weather.
Global climate is solely about the temperature of our ocean, and our ocean the coldest it’s been in 100 million years.
Or we are in a 33.9 million year icehouse climate [also called one of 5 known Ice Ages, Earth has been known to have.
In last 3 million of this Ice Age, our ocean has been the coldest it’s been in this last 33.9 million years. And in within last 3 million years, Greenland has developed an Ice Sheet.
Or for 30 million years of the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, Greenland didn’t have an Ice Sheet.
Science of Solar Ponds Challenges the Climate Crisis
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/07/science-of-solar-ponds-challenges-the-climate-crisis/
Jim Steele explains solar ponds.
Though not sure he explains his title, though I do think our ocean does act like solar pond. Or I think our ocean is better solar pond than small solar ponds. It’s not that disagree with him… hmm what
comments say:
–jshotsky
January 7, 2023 6:50 am
Outstanding explanation! …–
,,,
Willis Eschenbach
Editor
Reply to
ferdberple
January 7, 2023 10:19 am
Sorry, but that cannot be true. See my post A Matter Of Some Gravity for the proof of that statement.
It doesnot add up
January 7, 2023 12:47 pm
Theres a lot to absorb here.
It deserves careful study and learning.
Well, if some people get it… and not sure why Willis says it can’t true. I guess he would disagree with me, when I say such things as ocean absorbs more than 80% of sunlight is absorbed by the ocean and
ocean a better solar pond, than your typical solar ponds.
But I am more interested in solar ponds on Mars.
brandon…I was having trouble finding the start of posts so I moved your down here.
“How does the receiving body know whether incident photons came from a warmer or cooler body than itself?”
***
It comes down to Bohr’s 1913 theory that stood science on its head. It is all about electron orbital energy levels. Electrons absorb and emit all the EM (your photons) in the universe. Protons in stars likely emit it as well but the identifiable frequencies to which we relate for EM are related to electron emissions.
Electromagnetic energy is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. An electron is a particle that carries a negative charge (electric field) and when the electron moves, the charge created a magnetic field. An electron in an atomic orbital is moving at a very high speed and it can generate an EM quantum of energy when the electron drops to a lower energy level.
Therein lies your answer. The spectra generated by elements are discrete lines and discrete frequencies. In order for an electron to absorb a quantum of EM that quantum needs to have a discrete frequency that corresponds to the absorbing electron’s angular frequency. I liken it to a resonance situation.
The frequency generated by electrons is related to the temperature of the emitting body. If the emitting body temperature is lower than the receiving body temperature, it cannot generate the required frequency to be absorbed by a hotter body.
Hence the 2nd law is intact.
*********************
“This is one of the better deconstructions of Gordons standard mantras Ive seen. That Clausius quote is clutch, thank you”.
***
You are being drawn in by Swannie’s nonsense. He is a 2nd law denier. See below.
Thanks for that rant, Bordon.
Let us see if Gentle Graham will follow you this far, or if he will try to pretend you never defend the Sky Dragon Crank Master Argument with that kind of nonsense.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
First you state that absor.ption can only occur at discrete frequencies.
Then you state that frequency is related to temperature of the emitting body.
If hot cannot absorb from cold because of an incompatibility in frequencies, it stands to reason the opposite is true.
“If hot cannot absorb from cold because of an incompatibility in frequencies, it stands to reason the opposite is true.”
Good point.
swannie…”He [GR]misses the most basic concept of Clausius work, as described in Chapter 12 of his 1875 text, The Mechanical Theory of Heat, that being a focus on energy conversion to work by mechanical devices, especially the steam engine. Those devices could also be used to move thermal energy from lower temperatures reservoirs to higher temperatures, but doing so requires the addition of mechanical energy to accomplish that goal, thus the 2nd Law”.
***
I don’t know how you derive your conclusions. Steam engines of the day ran on burning coal or wood. The product was heat and it was used to heat water till it produced steam. The expanding steam was used to drive pistons, which drove wheels.
Clausius based the 2nd law on a mistake by Carnot, till then the authority on heat engines. Carnot thought there were no losses in a heat engine and Clausius proved him wrong via his explanation of the 2nd law, which involved heat engine theory.
**********************
“as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely to hot;”
***
Unfortunately, Clausius and all scientists of his era believed that heat moved through space as heat rays. They were all wrong as proved by Bohr in 1913.
Your ravings about the green plate experiments, in which you tried to prove that heat was transferred cold to hot via radiation, was proved incorrect. We pointed out to you that the green plate was blocking radiation from the blue plate, hence reducing its ability to dissipate heat in a vacuum. Therefore the BP warmed. Nothing to do with heat being transferred cold to hot.
Old Gordo repeats an earlier claim about the GPE:
Of course, the GP absorbs thermal IR EM from the BP. That’s why it warms in my GP Demo after the GP is raised into position. But, then the GP’s emissions begin to increase and some of that energy is intercepted by the BP. Both plates have similar coatings with high emissivity and are both emitting and absorbing, the result is that the BP’s temperature increases as the back radiation from the GP increases. If the GP were “blocking” the BP’s emissions, why didn’t the surrounding glass of the bell jar produce the same temperature increase, thus precluding any additional “blocking” effect from the GP?
Gordo has refused to provide a description of his hypothetical “blocking” mechanism, based on accepted physics. As a result, all he has is an unproven assertion. Even 150 years ago, Clausius knew that the thermal radiation moved in both directions between bodies, yet, Gordo still hasn’t figured that out.
You wrote-
“If the GP were “blocking” the BPs emissions, why didnt the surrounding glass of the bell jar produce the same temperature increase, thus precluding any additional “blocking” effect from the GP?”
You are aware that glass is transparent to some wavelengths of light, arent you? If an object is transparent to a wavelength, that wavelength will pass without attenuation. Other wavelengths may be absorbed, resulting in lesser or greater temperature increases. John Tyndall’s equipment could reliably indicate temperature variations of on hundred thousandths of a degree. How accurate are your measurements? He was aware of the abso*ption of apparently transparent objects, and used rock salt plates to allow longer wave IR radiation to pass more or less unfettered.
How much IR do your “plates” reflect? You wouldn’t have been silly enough to use something like highly reflective aluminium, would you?
Your sloppy “experiment” is wishful thinking. You have rediscovered reflective insulation, and are amazed – due to your lack of knowledge. If you claim otherwise, try making something hotter using the radiation from something colder – and only that. No cunning internal or external heat sources, at a higher temperature than your coldest objects.
Can’t do it, can you? That’s because you are a SkyDragon fantasist, living in denial of reality.
Carry on trying to show that the Earth has become hotter since its creation.
Idiot.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Flynnson, common glass typically exhibits low transmission in the thermal IR ranges. The emissivity of both plates was about 94%, thus the reflectivity could be no more than 6%. Of course, the BP is heated by an external source, just as the Earth is heated by energy from the Sun.
The point is that radiation heat shields work, even though they may have high emissivity. Reflective insulation is a proven approach to insulating satellites.
ES,
You wrote-
If the GP were blocking the BPs emissions, why didnt the surrounding glass of the bell jar produce the same temperature increase, thus precluding any additional blocking effect from the GP?
You are aware that glass is transparent to some wavelengths of light, arent you? If an object is transparent to a wavelength, that wavelength will pass without attenuation. Other wavelengths may be absorbed, resulting in lesser or greater temperature increases. John Tyndalls equipment could reliably indicate temperature variations of on hundred thousandths of a degree. How accurate are your measurements? He was aware of the abso*ption of apparently transparent objects, and used rock salt plates to allow longer wave IR radiation to pass more or less unfettered.
How much IR do your plates reflect? You wouldnt have been silly enough to use something like highly reflective aluminium, would you?
Your sloppy experiment is wishful thinking. You have rediscovered reflective insulation, and are amazed due to your lack of knowledge. If you claim otherwise, try making something hotter using the radiation from something colder and only that. No cunning internal or external heat sources, at a higher temperature than your coldest objects.
Cant do it, can you? Thats because you are a SkyDragon fantasist, living in denial of reality.
Carry on trying to show that the Earth has become hotter since its creation.
Idiot.
Pretending you measured either the emissivity of the reflectivity of your “plates” just shows your delusional ability to lie with a straight face. Go on, document your “measurements”. Oh, you “worked it out”, did you?
TL,DR, Mike.
swannie…”If the GP were blocking the BPs emissions, why didnt the surrounding glass of the bell jar produce the same temperature increase, thus precluding any additional blocking effect from the GP?”
***
Because you used metal for the GP. EM/IR cannot pass through metal. Heard of a Faraday shield? It’s made of metal and used to shield against EM.
Old Gordo struggles to answer my question, providing another example of his delusional physics. Sure, a Faraday Cage made of wire mesh shields one from RF EMI, but where is his evidence that it would also work for Thermal IR EM radiation for the appropriate temperatures?
Spectroscopic evidence proves that glass exhibits strong absorp_tion and emission characteristics, which is similar to that of my plates, which BTW, are painted. The aluminum below that surface coating would be a reflector if polished, but the thin coating of paint determines the emissivity, not the metal.
Apparently, some idiot wrote –
“How does the receiving body know whether incident photons came from a warmer or cooler body than itself?”
Typical gotcha from a brainless SkyDragon cultist, who refuses to accept reality. He doesn’t want to accept the fact that that his fantasies are not supported by fact.
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.”
You haven’t even got a theory, have you? Just another SkyDragon cultist trying to turn fiction into fact.
Off you go – try and raise the temperature of water, using the photons emitted by ice. Describe your experimental setup, document your results, and then spend the rest of your life whining that Nature thwarted your brilliance due to jealousy!
Some people just refuse to accept reality.
Stop ranting.
Just try to answer a perfectly legitimate question.
Otherwise nick off and go and join ol’ c.tt.n socks.
s,
Feel free to be an idiot. Here’s a perfectly valid question for you – how does water know that ice is colder?
Jeez, you really are delusional aren’t you?
Maybe you could use the awesome power of your incredible intellect (only joking) to convince other SkyDragon nitwits that the Earth has actually heated up over the past four and a half billion years or so, what with the GHE, GHGs, four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight, and the concentrated fantasies of donkeys like you.
Nope. Reality doesn’t seem to agree with you, does it?
Carry on trying to turn fantasy into fact. All you will get is laughter.
Bindidon says:
January 7, 2023 at 3:51 PM
No, ice cubes cant boil water,
–
Interesting.
–
Boiling water is just an ice cube with extra energy.
–
If,
If we were to take a glass room with hollow walls in space
With a saucepan of hot water just below boiling point on an active stove
That cannot get any hotter
In thermal equilibrium
Despite 0 K outside
Pour a couple of 100 tons of ice blocks into the hollow walls.
Voila.
Ice emits enough IR to the room to boil the water
–
Is there a logic flaw?
Even braindead cult idiots could boil water using a saucepan and an active stove.
Well, maybe….
a,
You asked if there was a logic flaw.
Yes, you think you are clever. Bad mistake.
You are as stupid as Tim Folkerts – claiming you can boil water using the radiation from ice. All you need is a heat source above 100 C, with infinite energy output, of course.
Your mental maunderings are not experiments. Try warming even the smallest amount of water using ice. Concentrate the 273 K energy with mirrors, lenses – anything you like. Use the finest IR lenses money can buy.
You still can’t turn fantasy into fact, can you? That’s because you are a delusional SkDragon cultist, who refuses to believe that the Earth cooled in spite of four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight, GHGs, GHE, and the furious chanting of other reality denying cultists!
Go on, try and shoot me down in flames, while I keep laughing at you.
Facts would help, but you don’t accept facts, do you?
“Concentrate the 273 K energy with mirrors, lenses anything you like. Use the finest IR lenses money can buy.”
That shows your fundamental misunderstanding. You *cannot* concentrate thermal radiation to be any more concentrated than the source. If 315 W/m^2 leaves the surface of the ice, then no mirrors or lenses will ever give you move than 315 W/m^2. And you will never boil water with that ice radiation.
As a simple visual analogy, imagine a room where the walls, floor, and ceiling are entirely covered with fluorescent bulbs — a uniform glow coming from everywhere. How would you possibly use a mirror to concentrate that light? You could place a mirror so that it reflects light from its shiny front to a surface but you are necessarily blocking an equal amount of light by the back of the mirror.
“…Tim Folkerts claiming you can boil water using the radiation from ice.”
You just lied, Swenson. Tim has never said that.
Re the moon rotating,
Proud to be included in the list of first mentions with my hero ,Willard.
I provided the right answer to end the controversy a while back.
–
For those who missed out.
–
Bindidon mentioned frames of reference earlier.
The moon rotating is a pure frame of reference problem.
Therefore every one who says it rotates is right.
Everyone who says it does not rotate is right.
– if you stand on it it either i it is stationary with respect to any other observer point you choose or rotating around that observer point.
–
Like that question of whether the dress is blue or black it is the observer who is right and different observers are legally entitled to see different things.
–
So argue on to eternity, Godot.
As Bindidon agrees, the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
Thanks, Doc.
A word of advice. Make sure you distinguish the Moon as a real object and the moon as a name for a circle that composes a silly GIF.
One is ruled by physics. The other is ruled by a geometry that Gentle Graham keeps butchering.
Ta.
Whacky Wee Willy,
The Moon is falling towards the Earth – continuously.
Newton’s First Law – “A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.”
You are obviously too lacking in knowledge to appreciate that Newton’s First Law explains the motion of the Moon as observed.
A donkey like you just continues to deny reality – claiming that something that you can’t describe, quantify, or demonstrate, has developed magical planet heating powers after cooling said planet for four and a half billion years or so.
As bizarre quasi-religious cults go, the cult of the SkyDragon is right up there, promising doom, destruction, and despair to non-believers. I’m obviously a non believer – will the SkDragon strike me dead with a lightning bolt, of just fry, toast, boil or roast me with his fiery CO2 breath?
You really are a gullible SkyDragon cultist, aren’t you? Keep the laughs coming.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Silly Willy,
Don’t blame me for your lack of comprehension.
See if you can borrow the cost of a phone call, and ring someone who cares.
Idiot.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Silly Willy,
Dont blame me for your lack of comprehension.
See if you can borrow the cost of a phone call, and ring someone who cares.
Idiot.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Silly Willy,
Dont blame me for your lack of comprehension.
See if you can borrow the cost of a phone call, and ring someone who cares.
Idiot.
Copy-paste your comment once more, Mike.
Little Willy turns up to do his usual thing. That usual thing won’t be arguing with Bindidon about reference frames, of course.
Gentle Graham gently gaslights a little more.
Witless Wee Willy continues talking in tongues.
Might as well, trying to get a SkyDragon to describe their deified GHE just results in a veritable fountain of gibberish. Whacky Wee Willy resolutely ignores reality, turns his face to the wall, and talks to his hand.
Very persuasive, is Wee Willy. His hand no longer smacks Wee Willy in the face when Wee Willy talks nonsense.
If Willy can just keep his hand from continuously diving into his trousers trying to avoid the outpourings from Willy’s mouth, well . . .
At least when Wee Willy claims he doesn’t understand something, he’s not lying.
What an idiot he is!
What are you braying about, Mike?
Witless Wee Willy continues talking in tongues.
Might as well, trying to get a SkyDragon to describe their deified GHE just results in a veritable fountain of gibberish. Whacky Wee Willy resolutely ignores reality, turns his face to the wall, and talks to his hand.
Very persuasive, is Wee Willy. His hand no longer smacks Wee Willy in the face when Wee Willy talks nonsense.
If Willy can just keep his hand from continuously diving into his trousers trying to avoid the outpourings from Willys mouth, well . . .
At least when Wee Willy claims he doesnt understand something, hes not lying.
What an idiot he is!
What are you braying about, Mike?
The trick in awareness is to remove the observer from the picture. When you look at something through a veil of conditioning, you cannot help but taint what is observed with the conditioning.
Reference frames are the product of a conditioned mind and they serve no purpose when ‘observing’ reality. Reference frames serve only as a tool to bring some clarity to complex situations, normally here relative motion is involved.
Applying reference frames to the Moon problem serves only to complicate the matter out of hand. This is nothing more than a simple problem that becomes obvious when viewed using basic physics.
If you want to be anal and seriously stupid, you can argue that a car driving at 30 kph on a road is actually moving at that speed plus the speed of the Earth in its orbit. We don’t need to bring the speed of the Earth into it, however, since we live on an inertial frame of reference and we are not comparing local motion to the universe.
We can observe the Moon from our frame of reference and work out this problem just fine for the simple reason that the Moon is moving within the same reference frame. It’s moving around the centre of the Earth, to keep it simple.
Based on that observation, we know it keeps the same side pointed to Earth. That’s all you need to know, the rest is obvious. If you stand in the middle a circular track and observe a car running around the track, all you see is one side of the car. That’s all the information you need, the car is obviously not rotating about its COG therefore it is moving with curvilinear motion without local rotation.
C’mon, Bordon.
A frame of reference helps measure stuff. It also helps identify direction, without which distinguishing translation from rotation can become risky. Good luck measuring velocity without any of this.
While absolute rotation is a thing, knowing whether you’re in an inertial frame or not can help you determine if you see something that rotates or if you’re not the one doing the rotating.
Are you sure you ever studied any of this?
Willy,
You wrote –
“Good luck measuring velocity without any of this.”
Your attempted sarcastic zinger is more of a wet squib.
The speed of light has been measured. It is identical in any frame of reference – that is, it is independent of any frame of reference. Here’s a snippet which you could have found for yourself, if you were less stupid (or incompetent) –
“The key premise to special relativity is that the speed of light (called c = 186,000 miles per sec) is constant in all frames of reference, regardless of their motion.”
Now is your opportunity to claim that “A frame of reference helps measure stuff” is other than you trying to appear clever by being vague. Or you can pretend that reality doesn’t apply to idiot SkyDragon cultists like you.
Have you managed to find a description of the greenhouse effect yet?
You can run, but you can’t hide, donkey!
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Boasting about your lack of comprehension is a characteristic of SkyDragon cultists. What is it you don’t understand?
Only joking, of course. You don’t need to answer. I understand perfectly.
What are you braying about, Mike, and which part of “absolute” you do not get?
” As Bindidon agrees, the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. ”
This is not exactly what I mean.
What I mean wrt lunar rotation and reference frames is that Moon’s rotation is independent of reference frames.
It rotates anyway, regardless from where you observe it.
It is typical manipulation of the lunar spin deniers to suggest that Moon’s rotation may well depend on the frame of reference chosen to observe it.
The impression that the Moon is not rotating as seen from Earth is just as much an optical illusion as the three optical librations we can observe.
Bin, you’re spinning on your axis: “It rotates anyway, regardless from where you observe it.”
Wrong. Moon is not rotating as seen from Earth. We always see the same side of it. It is NOT an optical illusion. It is the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string — the same side always faces the inside of its orbit. You must “spin” reality to match your cult beliefs.
Your ancient astrologers got it wrong, and you don’t understand enough science to know any difference. And, you can’t learn.
” Your ancient astrologers got it wrong … ”
Yeah. Especially Newton!
Wrong again Bin.
Newton didn’t get it wrong. You are taking his translated words out of context and putting your interpretation on them. That ain’t science.
You don’t have a model of OMWAR. You can’t answer the simple question about your cult’s imaginary lunar spin axis:
What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Moon’s orbit?
You’ve got NOTHING.
Pup,
Here is the model:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4709
Do the Poll Dance Experiment.
Clint R writes:
” You are taking his translated words out of context and putting your interpretation on them. ”
Out of context? Which context? Can you name it exactly?
*
Sources for Principia Scientifica, Book III, Prop. XVII, Th. XV
1. Newton’s original text in Latin
https://books.google.com/books?id=2wNYAAAAcAAJ&hl=de&pg=PA51&q=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
2. Motte’s translation in English
https://books.google.com/books?id=6EqxPav3vIsC&pg=PA238&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
3. Du Chatelet’s translation in French
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k290387/f39.item
4. Wolfers’ translation in German (on page 399, i.e. 414 in the pdf file, §21 Lehrsatz)
https://ia902704.us.archive.org/24/items/mathematischepr00newtgoog/mathematischepr00newtgoog.pdf
*
All four texts show the same:
” Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h 39′; Venus in about 23h; the Earth in 23h 56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the Moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. ”
*
You, Clint R, together with Robertson and the Pseudomod are the ones who put an own interpretation on Newton’s words, by claiming for example that with ‘revolves’, Newton in reality meant ‘orbits’, what makes no sense.
Jupiter orbits the Sun in 11.86 Earth years, Mars in 687 Earth days, Venus in 225 Earth days.
About what, do you think, does the Sun orbit in 25 1/2 days? About the Milky Way?
*
And when you three can finally no longer can claim this nonsense, you suddenly switch to the other nonsense that in contrast to Jupiter, Mars, Venus, the Earth and the Sun, which always rotate, the Moon only rotates ‘in relation to the fixed stars’, but by some magic not otherwise.
*
One thing is for sure, Clint R. You three will never stop denying.
*
What now concerns your question
” What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Moons orbit? ”
I only can tell you that it makes no sense.
How could a celestial body change its polar axis so dramatically while orbiting?
Earth spin axis inclination for example needs over 20,000 years to move from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Obliquity_of_the_ecliptic_laskar.PNG
This means that per orbit, the inclination is changed by 0.00012 degree.
*
What you don’t understand is that the inclination of Moon’s polar axis wrt the Ecliptic is computed using selenocentric coordinates, and hence is independent of Moon’s orbit.
**
You always tell: ‘You have NOTHING’.
What do you have, Clint R, except your endless ‘braindead cult idiot’ insult?
"the Moon only rotates ‘in relation to the fixed stars’."
Correction: the moon only appears to rotate on its own axis "in relation to the fixed stars".
As we agree, Bindidon, "What I mean wrt lunar rotation and reference frames is that moon’s [lack of] rotation is independent of reference frames."
Although your position is that same sentence without the "[lack of]". That’s the only difference.
The Moon only appears to spin.
Gentle Graham is a genius.
Thank you, Little Willy, but I can’t take credit for referring to "the illusion of the moon’s axial rotation". I stand on the shoulders of giants.
A ball on a string only appears to spin.
Gentle Graham is geniuser and geniuser.
Exactly! A ball on a string appears to rotate on its own internal axis, but in fact it is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball itself.
As Bindidon agrees, a ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis.
And so Gentle Graham repeats the blunder of his favorite guru.
He will gaslight instead of acknowledging the blunder.
Readers might notice the appeal to authority too!
It’s not a blunder, Little Willy. Visualize the moon’s motion, from above and outside of the orbit (same POV as the animation you linked to at 11:29 AM). It appears as though it’s rotating on its own axis. Of course it does! That’s the number one reason why everybody, for so long, has thought that the moon rotates on its own axis…because it looks like it is.
However, appearances can be deceptive…
What you always miss Bin, is “…with respect to the fixed stars.” A ball-on-a-string appears to rotate with respect to the fixed stars. But, that is NOT axial rotation. The ball is NOT actually rotating, and Moon is NOT actually rotating.
And you seem to understand Earth’s axis movement, but you can’t understand Moon’s imaginary axis movement. That’s quite revealing, huh?
Anyway, I enjoyed you long rambling rant. That’s why this is so much fun.
Pup,
Pray tell Roy’s readers –
Do you see the Moon spinning?
Alternatively, you can always report the results of you doing the Pole Dance Experiment.
Bin, since you now admit Earth’s axis doesn’t move much: “Earth spin axis inclination for example needs over 20,000 years to move from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees”. Maybe you’re ready to answer the easy question:
What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Moon’s orbit?
And, I’ll even give you a hint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
I bet you can’t get the right answer. Prove me wrong.
Hey, Pup –
Do you see the Moon spinning?
Alternatively, you can always report the results of you doing the Poll Dance Experiment.
"It is typical manipulation of the lunar spin deniers to suggest that Moon’s rotation may well depend on the frame of reference chosen to observe it."
Well, that’s what angech is saying. You and I disagree with angech.
Obviously that is where Bindidon and I disagree. However, if you changed it to this:
"It doesn’t rotate anyway, regardless from where you observe it".
The principle remains the same.
I would have thought that all went without saying, but here we are…
Obviously Gentle Graham misinterprets the *kind* of claim Binny makes.
Can he resist gaslighting just for one day?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Pseudomod
Recently, in a comment on this blog, Vournas suddenly claimed that the moon (like all moons in the solar system) does not rotate around its polar axis – and this after years of writing the exact opposite on several blogs, including his own one!
Maybe you were naive enough to believe him?
Look at his blog
https://cristos-vournas.com/
You see there
” Earth is on average warmer than Moon not only because of the Earth having 29,53 times faster rotational spin. ” [He means of course 29.53]
*
Anyway, I collected all necessary information out of his blog and put all that into a table you can see in this pdf file:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N4v5M7td7NuT3xsXm9W2KMgm1BXQqegT/view
Have some fun in denying all that too!
I don’t mind at all if Cristos thinks the moon rotates on its own axis, or not. That’s entirely up to him.
That is not the point.
The point is: do you deny all the data carefully collected by Vournas?
And if well: on the base of which scientific results?
Bin, CV was talking about Moon’s day/night. That’s relative to the Sun. He cleared it up later.
You’re sooooo desperate.
Nice find, Binny!
Nice answer, Clint.
” CV was talking about Moons day/night. ”
Really? About all moons’ day/night?
Read the table again, Clint R:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N4v5M7td7NuT3xsXm9W2KMgm1BXQqegT/view
and have a look at all moons, not only at ours.
*
The result of Vournas’ computation for planets’ and moons’ rotational behaviors you see here:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/____impro/1/onewebmedia/i285978589402997373.jpg?etag=%221b68c-5db44839af051%22&sourceContentType=&ignoreAspectRatio&resize=670%2B472&extract=25%2B0%2B629%2B472
Maybe you understand what happens to his computations – and hence to the chart above – when all moons in the solar system, form our Luna till Charon, suddenly stop rotating :–)
*
No, Clint R: I’m not desperate at all.
Bin, something that is not rotating does not have a “rotation rate”.
You’re still confusing motions.
Look at the simple ball-on-a-string. It’s easy to understand. One side always faces the inside of its orbit, just like Moon. We know it is not rotating because the string is not wrapping around it.
Easy peasy.
Do you see the ball spinning, Pup?
Asking for a gentle friend.
Clint has already pre-answered your question, Little Willy:
“A ball-on-a-string appears to rotate [on its own axis]…”
Yes, exactly.
Perhaps Gentle Graham forgot to ask Pup how he sees the fixed stars when he swirls the ball on string…
🙄
🤦
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint R
Don’t forget to tell Vournas that his Planetary Rotational Warming Phenomenon needs an overhaul to disregard all lunar rotations in the solar system…
Another classy refusal on both sides to accept reference frames other than their own.
Get over it.
The argument is dead.
The moon rotates in one reference frame.
It does not rotate in another reference frame.
Both the reference frames that it rotates in and the reference frames it does not rotate on are real.
Instead of calling each other names just accept the science that sometimes both sides can be right and that staying in your own echo chamber is the only way to avoid inconvenient truths.
A thanks to Bindidon for pointing out the problems of rotation for Christos again, better than I did.
Perhaps he might listen this time
Willard uses frames of reference all the time
Willard says: it rotates anyway
but, qualification
January 8, 2023 with respect to the fixed stars
meaning?
It does not rotate in other frames of reference
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team also
January 8, 2023 at 7:05 PM
A ball-on-a-string appears to rotate [on its own axis]
Clint R says:
January 8, 2023 at 4:41 PM
Look at the simple ball-on-a-string.
Bindidon says: denies frames of reference exist other than that the moon is at the centre of the universe
January 8, 2023 at 7:18 AM
What I mean wrt lunar rotation and reference frames is that Moons rotation is independent of reference frames.
It rotates anyway, regardless from where you observe it.
Sorry all, it is a frame of reference problem.
Simple and complete.
It is not a “frame of reference” problem it is a “what’s your version of OMWAR?” problem.
ang, you are confused about “rotation about a center of mass”. If the ball were rotating, the string would wrap around it. The ball is ONLY orbiting, NOT rotating.
Pup, Pup,
You are supposed to tell Gentle Graham how you *see* the fixed stars while you swirl around the ball on a string.
Little Willy is confused again.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Weather in Beijing China:
High 52 Low 24
Me: lancaster ca:
High 52 Low 39
Tomorrow, Beijing:
High 42 Low 20
and then:
41 and 21 , 43 and 30,
and 41 and 30 and it rains and snows
I am not getting any snow, yet. But I get some lightening.
Kyiv city, Ukraine:
26 and 18 and tomorrow it snows:
30 and 22
Anyways Beijing gets wide temperature extremes, and it’s
not a desert {as far as I know].
gb…what would make you want to relocate from a rain forest climate in Canada to a desert climate in California?
At least you won’t fall prey to the adage of no being able to see the forest for the trees. Maybe they’ll claim you can’t see the desert for the sand.
No sand where I live. Just a desert. And desert which if water is added, grows a lot crops. So, water conservative is considered fairly important. It’s going to rain on monday and tuesday but it’s raining more in northern California, so they might say we ended the drought,
Mars gravity:
” 3.70703 m/s (0.378 g) on the equator
3.73493 m/s (0.381 g) on the poles. ”
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/34856/how-does-the-surface-gravity-on-mars-vary-between-the-equator-and-its-poles
I was thinking lunar space elevators.
Not fan of Earth space elevators, but Moon is different.
What about space elevator for Mars?
With the latest ONI out, this third La Nina will be officially classified as weak. (Just)
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/01/oni.jpeg
Not sure what you’re trying to show me there. The determination of the strength of ENSO events is not based on a 12-month running average. You are showing length not strength.
The ‘strength’ is a vertical on that graph.
No – that is the AVERAGE strength. And your average doesn’t break the -1.0 threshold. There has to be three consecutive months which reach that threshold to qualify as moderate. The last 12 months includes the previous La Nina. The last 6 months were -0.9, -0.8, -0.9, -1.0, -1.0, -0.9. You are capturing CONSISTENCY compared to other negative ENSO events, not strength.
In any case, doesn’t a weak La Nina fit better with your agenda? You can claim “… and this is what we got from a weak La Nina – imagine if it wasn’t weak …”
Compare it to previous ‘peaks’.
Yet again, this ridiculous manipulation of an alleged ‘S-G projection’ !
There is NO projection anywhere in your chart, Linsley Hood.
What you show is NOTHING else than the end of the data generated by the Savitzky-Golay filter (whose begin you manifestly omitted because it would have put the alleged ‘projection’ in question, wouldn’t it).
As we all know, your ‘low passes’ are running means which can’t show any data in their evaluation windows, what is true for CTRMs as well.
But Savitzky-Golay is a filter based on an iterative ordinary least squares processing, and hence shows data from begin till end of the processed series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aPHcf_yPER_e6wAje3cC0_ji7oSwwDOt/view
You should stop stubbornly manipulating the blog with your ridiculous claims, and start reading Savitzky’s and Golay’s original paper they wrote in 1964 if I well remember.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitzky%E2%80%93Golay_filter
“There is NO projection anywhere in your chart”
So you expect the line to stay the same in an S-G, no matter what new data is added after today? You would be very wrong on that account. If the new data is high the S-G line will rise also, if the data is low the S-G line will fall. The S-G I show will follow what the High Quality Low Pass filter I also use will show after the new half of the data period has elapsed in the future. Yours will continue to show the leakage that a single pass S-G does, along with exactly the same outcome in the long term.
About time you worked out what an S-G shows.
Read how Savitzky-Golay works: they evaluate data from begin till end.
Thus, when you extend your CTRMs with an alleged ‘S-G prediction’, you not only manipulate the readers, but ridicule yourself.
Final point, Blindsley Hood!
“Thus, when you extend your CTRMs with an alleged ‘S-G prediction'”
added is high or low?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitzky%E2%80%93Golay_filter#/media/File:Lissage_sg3_anim.gif
I deliberately compared the CTRMs with a multi-pass S-G in order to get the best solution I could find. You on the other hand wish to let way too much high frequency through in order to do your plots.
“Read how Savitzky-Golay works:”
I know how it works. It is not precisely accurate at the ends.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/projection
” a calculation or guess about the future based on information that you have “
“A projection is a statistic indicating what a value would be if the assumptions about future trends hold true”
A wise man either uses it to indicate what the center value of the likely range is when new data is added (as I used to do) or a range of possible values if the new data is high or low.
For the ‘No Warming’ ideologues in the northern US:
https://images.ctfassets.net/4ivszygz9914/27e1da91-4306-4521-a746-774557a479aa/ed928f2ae79af524bd89b99537e27f8b/ac5ac3f3-2e3e-47fd-bb0a-40ef17e103c9.jpg
https://images.ctfassets.net/4ivszygz9914/99a0004d-74d9-4046-8e94-affceba22cc3/e9bdb7d12c288a39283fe9595d5786db/fbff9255-bf79-46c6-b1d8-2272b50ee9cc.jpg
Almost all ski areas in the European Alps, which are at an altitude of around 1,000 – 1,500 meters, are missing around half a meter of snow. Above 3,000 meters, the lack of snow is much higher, up to 8 meters.
In Gstaad, Switzerland (the jetsetiest of them all) they bring the ‘white gold’ to the downhill slopes with… helicopters. The others use snow cannons.
*
But since a while, Norway got huge amounts of snow, so I guess the jetset will prefer more snow, and the amount of private jet flights to Karmøy, Sørstokken etc will increase by a lot.
*
We had in North Germoney about 0.5 cm of snow in one day at the end of November and that’s it for now.
Temperature these days: +10 C, +5/+6 C at night.
*
Be careful! Grrrand Coooling Aheaddd!
Maybe this helps a bit:
1987 1 14 -25.3 (C)
1963 1 20 -23.2
1963 1 31 -22.6
1987 1 11 -22.3
1997 1 2 -21.8
1987 1 13 -21.2
2009 1 7 -20.9
1985 1 7 -20.7
1963 1 30 -20.6
1971 1 4 -20.6
2009 1 6 -20.5
1963 1 19 -20.2
1970 1 19 -20.1
1979 1 1 -20.0
1997 1 1 -19.4
1963 1 13 -19.3
1963 1 11 -19.2
2010 1 27 -19.2
1971 1 3 -19.1
1979 1 7 -19.1
These are the 20 lowest temperatures recorded in January at the nearest weather station since… 1960.
They’ll just go to America instead.
“While ski areas in the West close due to too much snow, European resorts shutter with not enough”
https://www.skimag.com/news/it-was-a-busy-holiday-news-cycle-in-the-mountains-what-you-missed/
Ja Her Bindiclown, global warming has just reached catastrophic level of Zero Point Zero
jajaja
https://youtu.be/2V3CfD8TPac
#5
I was sure that whenever the little ankle-biting dachshund sees a tree, it would think, Oh! Time to get rid of a little pile.
Your replies to my comments get each time dumber and dumber, Zharkovanina!
In two days, another stratospheric intrusion from the north along with a rain front will reach northern California.
https://i.ibb.co/z8KP608/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f048.png
Last night was a beautiful full moon, with very clear skies. Sky temperature directly overhead was -56.5°F. Ground temperature was 31.1°F.
The cult idiots believe the sky is heating the ground! That’s why this is so much fun.
Sky = -56.5°F = -49.2°C = 224K
Ground = 31.1°F = -0.5°C = 273K
Remind me.
Why is the sky colder than the ground?
If the ground is transferring heat to the sky why is the sky cold?
If heat is leaving the sky, where does it go, and by what mechanism?
2LOT, nincompoop.
I want to hear ClintRs version of the physics, if he has one.
Okay Ent, I’ll remind you.
This has all been discussed many times, but you can’t understand it. You’re braindead. You actually believe you can twist reality to fit your false beliefs. You believe passenger jets fly backwards!
You’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
Consider yourself reminded.
And the temperature in outer space is?
Doesn’t really have a temperature. Though some will say around 3 K.
Is that higher or lower than
“Sky = -56.5F = -49.2C = 224K”
"Doesn’t really have a temperature" is not higher or lower than 224 K.
“Doesn’t really have a temperature” is your assertion, not reality.
Not just my assertion, personally. Google "space has no temperature".
If “space” includes the matter in it, then it does have a temperature. That is what is meant when it is said that the temperature is 3K.
No, it’s mostly the CMBR that is responsible for the 3 K. In any case, space doesn’t really have a temperature. Makes no real sense to look at it as though it does. Yet it does help the GHE narrative. So, there’s that.
If hot can absorb energy from cold, it makes a difference to compare 224 K do 3 K.
You mean, comparing 224 K to "doesn’t really have a temperature".
Nevertheless, the molecules in space (about 1 per cubic cm interstellar) do have energy.
Gentle Graham found another silly word game he will lose:
https://www.uu.edu/dept/physics/scienceguys/2003July.cfm
aquerty…”Nevertheless, the molecules in space (about 1 per cubic cm interstellar) do have energy”.
***
Yes, and arguably, that may account for a very slight temperature above 0K. However, Big Bangers argue that it is background radiation that represents the heat in the universe which is nertz. Radiation is not heat. The universe is full of radiation from stars yet these dweebs cling to the pseudoscience that the background radiation is evidence of heat left over from the mythical Big Bang explosion.
In your experience, how long does heat linger after an explosion? Several billion years???
Even engineers should be able to understand that the scale of the Big Bang well exceeds the size of their benchtop, Gordon.
And that warming up on a sunny day is evidence that EM is a heat transfer mechanism.
And that if warm cannot absorb radiation from cool, Clint’s IR thermometer wouldn’t be able to register -56.5 F unless its sensor was at least that cold.
Well, my opinion remains unchanged. Space doesn’t really have a temperature. I’ll just write this out again, tomorrow, after a few more people have tried to insist that it does.
Either way you look at it, Graham, objects in space obtain a temperature that is a function of the radiation they receive. Near a star, that temperature will be much higher than halfway between here and Proxima Centauri.
Absolutely.
Looks like Little Willy will save me the bother.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.262.5135.861
https://www.quora.com/How-can-there-be-a-temperature-in-space
“The space is full of radiation, and the radiation can be assigned temperature, measured either by its energy density, or by its spectrum. Even if you are far from any sources of radiation (like stars), you are always in a bath of cosmic microwave background radiation, and this radiation has a near-perfect blackbody spectrum with temperature of about 2.7 K. This it is not the space per se that has temperature, it is radiation always present in the space. If you put a thermometer in space (still far from any stars) and let it some into equilibrium with the radiation, it will show 2.7 K – so it would look as if space itself had that temperature.”
For the ‘skeptics’
if space has no temperature
because it has no (or extremely little) matter
then how can the Earth lose its heat to space?
heat can only be transferred from a warmer to a cooler body. but space has no body (hence no temperature)
how does the Earth’s radiant heat leave the Earth system if it has nowhere to go?
Gentle Graham forgets he’s supposed to raise:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0806/0806.1065.pdf
Well, those are all excellent questions, barry. Let me know when you have figured out the answers.
I know the answers.
I’m curious what ‘skeptics’ think, because I think their answer will scuttle some other things they’ve said WRT the GPE and associated discussions.
is that why you are being cagey about answering?
I don’t know the answers, barry. Please enlighten me.
brandon is confused.
“Even engineers should be able to understand that the scale of the Big Bang well exceeds the size of their benchtop, Gordon.
And that warming up on a sunny day is evidence that EM is a heat transfer mechanism.
And that if warm cannot absorb radiation from cool, Clints IR thermometer wouldnt be able to register -56.5 F unless its sensor was at least that cold”.
***
The BB is a bad hypotheses perpetuated by minds like yours.
Feeling warmth on a sunny day is a product of atoms/molecules in your skin absorbing solar EM and converting it to heat. No heat is transferred from the Sun as heat, the transfer is that of EM, which has no heat properties, since it is comprised of an electric field orthogonal magnetic field.
An IR thermometer converts IR to a temperature that is equivalent to the temperature of a body emitting the same frequency of IR. An IR thermometer measures infrared energy, which is not heat.
Earth doesn’t need a body to radiate to in order to shed radiative energy. Photons don’t need a destination to get going.
I agree, barry. All bodies radiate according to their temperature and emissivity. Was that the answer, then? I still feel very happy to conclude that space doesn’t really have a temperature.
barry is confused about “heat”. Earth emits energy to space. That reduces Earth’s thermal energy, with results in cooling.
The thermodynamic definition of “heat” specifically involves the transfer of energy from “hot” to “cold”.
Then you’ll agree that the green plate freely emits spaceward with nothing to impede its emission.
So where were we?
Sun emits such that 400 W/m2 is received by BP.
The BP radiating area is twice that of the area receiving irradiance. When the sun heats the BP to its maximum temperature, BP radiates out of both sides.
400 W/m2 x 1A = 200 W/m2 x 2A
IOW, a (blackbody) sheet of 1 square meter receiving 400 watts must emit 400 watts. It cannot emit 400 watts from both sides because that is a total of 800 Watts, and energy cannot be created.
Thus GP receives 200 W/m2 from BP.
This heats GP up until it emits 100 W/m2 from each side.
200 W/m2 x 1A = 100 W/m2 x 2A
But we are now left with a deficit.
The BP/GP system is receiving 400 W/m2 energy, but is only emitting 300 W/m2 energy.
BP emitting 200 W/m2 away from the system, GP emitting 100 W/m2 out of the system.
If BP absorbs energy from GP, then both plates heat, as BP warms, so it warms GP further until equilibration is reached with the incoming energy.
In this case, cold has not warmed hot, because BP is ALWAYS warmer than GP, and ALWAYS warming at the same rate as GP.
Or, in Clausius’ own language, BP does not gain heat at the expense of GP. GP actually warms in this scenario, and never cools.
The flow of heat is NEVER from GP to BP, because both plates warm at the same time in the “simultaneous double heat exchange.”
The introduction of the GP causes both plates to warm, because as the GP gains heat from BP, it also slows the rate at which BP loses heat by adding energy to the BP – even as the BP is adding energy to the GP.
This is all in accord with the Clausius quotes above. Specifically, BP never gains heat “at the expense of” GP.
In brief – at no time in the Rabbett’s GP model does heat flow from cold to hot.
barry…why are you bringing up the plates again? Been on your mind, has it?
This plates nonsense has been debunked for years, even before I started here. My guess is barry still believes in it, and needs it to support his GHE nonsense.
What he can’t understand is the flow of energy. Energy going back to the blue plate is always from a lower temperature. That energy flux will NOT be completely absorbed by the blue plate. It will return to the green plate, raising its temperature. In the final state, both plates will be at the same temperature, both emitting 200 W/m^2 to space.
barry has NO understanding of the physics involved. He’s just another braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
Well played, Barry!
Dragon Cranks have nothing else than the plates!
“why are you bringing up the plates again?”
Because the quibble on the ‘temperature of space’ reminded me of another quibble regarding the GPE.
It was said – and I think by you – that the GP can’t emit to space, because space has no temperature/matter.
Which is why I posed the question upthread.
And why, having sorted that point out, I returned to the discussion.
…or maybe it was Clint who made that argument…
“In the final state, both plates will be at the same temperature, both emitting 200 W/m^2 to space.”
Impossible. GP only receives 200 W/m2 from BP. It can’t emit more than that, and GP has area 2 x A.
200 W/m2 x 1A = 100 W/m2 x 2A.
GP can’t emit 200 W/m2 from both sides or it has created energy beyond what it receives from BP.
In order for GP to emit 200 W/m2 on both sides it must receive 400 W/m2 from BP.
But BP is only emitting 200 W/m2 to GP.
You break conservation of energy, Clint.
“The thermodynamic definition of ‘heat’ specifically involves the transfer of energy from ‘hot’ to ‘cold’.”
Not quite. It is the NET transfer of energy from hot to cold.
But for fun, and tipping the hat to that long ago quibble…
How can the Earth transfer energy to space if space isn’t cold? If space has no temperature, how does the transfer occur? What is the “cold” object that Earth is transferring its heat to?
And, here come the false accusations — “You break conservation of energy, Clint.”
Wrong!
400 W/m^2 enters the system and 400 W/m^2 leaves the system. There’s NO violation of conservation of energy. barry just doesn’t understand the science. He has an agenda, and his agenda is more important that reality.
We’ve seen it all before.
Yes you have, Clint.
How does the GP receive 400 W/m2 of energy from the BP?
That is what is required for it to emit 200 w/m2 out of both sides.
200 W/m2 x 2A = 400 W/m2 x 1A
Where does the extra 200 w/m2 come from?
See, now you’re making crap up barry. No one said GP is receiving 400 W/m^2 from BP. That’s your attempt to pervert reality.
First you falsely accuse, then when corrected, you start making things up.
You have NO interest in learning because you have no interest in reality.
You’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
(And, that is not an insult — it’s reality.)
You can’t explain where the extra energy comes from?
You have agreed that BP emits 200 W/m2 from both sides, receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun on one side.
400 W/m2 x 1A = 200 W/m2 x 2A
So
If GP receives 200 W/m2 from BP, the same math applies.
GP emits 100 W/m2 from both sides, receiving 200 W/m2 from BP on one side
200 W/m2 x 1A = 100 W/m2 x 2A
(A = area)
If you disagree with this, point out the deficiency in the math.
Specifically, explain why you accept splitting the W/m2 received over 2 sides for the BP, but not for the GP.
Otherwise, you’re adding 200 W/m2 to GP that isn’t there.
There is NO “extra energy”, barry. You’re on that kick and you can’t get off it. There is NO extra energy. Period.
Your mind is closed to the facts. You have no interest in learning. You’ll just keep claiming there’s “extra energy” somewhere. You’re braindead.
Here’s a little puzzler for you — With the plates together, they are both emitting 200 W/m^2 to space. Is there any “extra energy’ there?
You’re so obsessed with your cult beliefs you can’t think for yourself.
Idiot.
Once again you can’t deal with the problem as put and attempt to deflect to something else. Same old BS.
“It was said – and I think by you – that the GP can’t emit to space, because space has no temperature/matter.”
No, barry…I never said that the GP can’t emit to space.
My opinion that space doesn’t really have any temperature hasn’t changed…and that’s the only point I wanted to make. Have fun arguing the plates again.
barry makes more false accusations because he has NOTHING, and can’t learn.
Same old BS.
It’s pretty watertight, Clint. No wonder you’ve dodged the point.
In short, you are positing that GP, despite receiving half the energy that BP receives, is nevertheless the same temperature as the BP, and emits IR at the same rate.
I’d have difficulty explaining that, too!
Space doesn’t really have a temperature, by the way. Just thought I’d reiterate that.
rlh…”And the temperature in outer space is?”
***
A better question might be…what is the source of any such heat? Big Bangers think the 4K temperature claimed from the BB is left over heat from an event that happened several billion years ago.
I mean, how long does heat hang around after an explosion?
I was just interested in the ‘sky’ with and without an atmosphere.
The average downwelling IR from the atmosphere is 333 W/m2, equivalent to 276.83 K, 3.68 C, 38.62 F. Clint’s IR thermometer gets a much lower reading from clear sky because such devices are specifically designed to read in a “window” region of the spectrum where there is little emission from GHGs.
As mentioned above, in interstellar space the effective radiative temperature is about 3 K, near enough to zero to consider it negligible. At our distance from the Sun we receive 1,360 W/m2 from it. A perfect blackbody the shape of a flat plate face-on to the Sun would therefore experience a net input of 680 W/m2, equivalent to 330.92 K, 57.77 C, 135.99 F. Which is rather hot.
However, the Earth is not a flat blackbody plate, it is a sphere, so we have to divide 1,360 by 2 to account for geometry of the lit hemisphere, another 2 to account for the unlit hemisphere, and then multiply by 0.7 to account for albedo, giving 238 W/m2, 254.53 K, -18.62 C, -1.51 F. This is what the planet “sees” from its position in the vacuum, and can be interpreted as the average temperature of the sky without an atmosphere.
Sorry Brandon, but that’s all messed up. The IR thermometer reads the flux it receives. Your “dangerous” CO2 15μ photon doesn’t even count. Its WDL temperature is BELOW the range of the thermometer, which only reads down to about 68°F. WDL of a 15μ photon is -112°F (-80°C).
The rest of your nonsense is just your cult’s bilge about a “perfect” black body, which has NO significance to Earth.
I enjoy your creativity, however. It’s much better than that other worthless troll that you seem to idolize.
Please don’t stop.
(Got a solution to the imaginary lunar axis problem yet?)
Another typo…
Should be “…which only reads down to about -68°F”.
As in minus 68°F!
Way at the beginning of this thread Clint wrote:
> Sky = -56.5F = -49.2C = 224K
> Ground = 31.1F = -0.5C = 273K
Datasheet for a handheld IR thermometer gun:
https://dam-assets.fluke.com/s3fs-public/3085001_6250_ENG_A_W.PDF
Now let’s have a look at the IR spectrum of the sky looking up from the ground on a clear 30 F day in the mid latitudes:
https://i.imgur.com/sBnY4WX.png
From 8 to 14 m, call the average temperature the IR thermometer reads:
200 K, -73 C, -100 F. This is over 40 F cooler than Clint’s reading, so let’s compare apples to apples:
Total flux for the full spectrum is 211 W/m2, corresponding to temperatures:
247 K, -26 C, -15 F or 85 F warmer than what the simulated IR thermometer reads.
The 15 m band averages in the 270 K range, -3 C, 26 F, cooler than the ground as we’d expect, by about 6 F. Who knows how Clint gets -112 F.
He should be asking himself how the sensor can detect a photon emitted from a -57 F sky if the sensor itself isn’t at least that cold.
The solution to the (OT) lunar axis problem is that a ball on a string *continues* to rotate when the string is cut.
Brandon, I explained the -112F, above. That’s the WDL temp for 15&mu.
An IR thermometer can measure cold temperatures due to design and external energy. That’s NOT a violation of 2LoT. It’s similar to an elevator. An elevator can not go up by itself. It requires design and energy to counter gravity.
And your answer to the imaginary lunar axis problem is incorrect. The problem has NOTHING to do with the ball-on-a-string.
Clint,
Teh Goggle doesn’t give any sensible results for “WDL temperature”. Please explain what it is and how you’ve calculated it.
Your design argument is magic, same always when you invoke it. For such a sensor to be designed to absorb photons from objects colder that itself, engineers would have to use Sky Dragon Crank fizzicks that warm cannot absorb photons from cold. They of course don’t, they use the physics of the real universe where warm can indeed absorb photons from cold.
If a ball on a string doesn’t model the motions of the Moon, you should not be using it.
Brandon, WDL refers to Wien’s Displacement Law which is often used to correlate emitted photon wavelengths to emission temperature.
Sorry, but design is not magic. Elevators work. Cars, airplanes, air conditioners, food blenders, TVs, cell phones, table saws, all work. Not magic. All based on proper design using physics and energy.
An inexpensive handheld IR thermometer is designed to capture photons. It uses a properly doped semiconductor p-n junction. It requires energy.
And I never said the ball-on-a-string was a model of “motions of the Moon”. You STILL can’t understand the simple model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Your inability to understand and to learn is hampered by your immaturity. Avoid nonsense like “teh” and “Sky Dragon Crank fizzicks”. That’s a start to maturing.
> Wiens Displacement Law
Ah. I didn’t think you believed in blackbodies, Clint.
How you’re using WDL to compute the “temperature” of a 15 micron photon is anybody’s guess. You should read up on “brightness temperature”, which is what I used in my calculations above … and which incidentally Dr. Spencer uses to calculate atmospheric temperature from satellite returns.
> All based on proper design using physics and energy.
Nowhere is it written in physics or engineering texts that a warmer body cannot absorb photons from a cooler one. How could engineers “properly design” to a principle that exists only in the minds of cranks on the Internet?
> And I never said the ball-on-a-string was a model of motions of the Moon.
C’mon C00ky. The only way “orbital motion without axial rotation” can be true of the Moon is if and only if its motions are modeled as a ball on a string. (Hint, its rotational axis is not perpendicular to the plane of its orbit, and its orbit is eccentric, not perfectly round.)
From the standpoint of physics, modeling a ball on a string that way is wrong because, as I stated previously, it *continues* spinning on its own axis once the string is cut.
"The only way “orbital motion without axial rotation” can be true of the Moon is if and only if its motions are modeled as a ball on a string."
Brandy Guts appears to agree that a ball on a string can be described as "not rotating on its own internal axis", one minute…
"From the standpoint of physics, modeling a ball on a string that way is wrong because, as I stated previously, it *continues* spinning on its own axis once the string is cut."
…then, all of a sudden, he’s back to thinking the ball on a string is definitely rotating on its own internal axis, the next.
"Spinners": they just can’t make up their minds.
Graham points to a contradiction that isn’t, then glosses over *again* why the real Moon doesn’t follow his simple geometric model.
"Spinners": they just can’t make up their minds.
Graham confuses picking the more sensible of two options for the application at hand with being indecisive.
You couldn’t make this up.
Brandy Guts makes it up.
“Can be described” != “can *only* be described”, Graham.
Indeed.
And so Graham cops to his gaslighting without really doing so.
Brandy Guts, it’s all very well you conceding (finally) that the ball on a string “can be” described as not rotating on its own axis, but you have to actually take a position, one way or the other, eventually. Is it rotating on its own axis, or not?
Can be described != can *only* be described, Graham.
Good to see you finally concede that it “can be” described as not rotating on its own axis, anyway. Baby steps. You didn’t even acknowledge that, in the past.
Graham clings to a tiny victory as if it makes up for his years of trolling this website with a false dichotomy.
Yay! Tiny victory!
(He really is scarily similar to Little Willy in terms of personality, writing style, propensity for false accusations and misrepresentations, etc)
And he clings a little more.
Rightly so.
A victory that defeats his 1+1 argument to boot, BG.
Incorrect, as usual.
The “1 + 1” argument is irrefutable, so long as you accept that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL. The argument goes:
“Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL.
So, if you add rotation about an internal axis to the above motion, at any rate and in either direction, you no longer have motion like the MOTL.
Or, to put it another way, you cannot add rotation about an internal axis to rotation about an external axis and get motion like the MOTL. 1 + 1 does not equal 1.
People try to refute it by saying, I can break the movement of the MOTL into two motions, therefore you must be wrong.
However, if you are breaking the movement of the MOTL into two motions, those two motions will actually be:
1) Translation in a circle.
2) Rotation about an internal axis.
So, it does not refute the argument. Translation in a circle is not the same as rotation about an external axis.
Graham’s equivocation on the word “rotation” continues.
The false accusations continue.
“I mean, how long does heat hang around after an explosion?”
The energy last forever. 1st Law.
ent…” Why is the sky colder than the ground?
If the ground is transferring heat to the sky why is the sky cold?
If heat is leaving the sky, where does it go, and by what mechanism?
***
You have to be careful not to confuse heat with infrared energy. Heat is a property of atoms/molecules, and the higher you get in the atmosphere these less atoms/molecules you find. Ergo, the lower the heat level hence the temperatures.
The ground is not transferring heat to the sky, it is transferring electromagnetic energy to the sky. When that EM is absorbed by cooler atoms/molecules, heat is produced in them.
Heat is not leaving the sky. Atom/molecules that emit EM, cool immediately since heat is lost as the EM is radiated.
The mechanism was explained by Bohr in 1913. Electrons in gases like CO2 absorb a tiny amount of surface radiation and rise to higher orbital energy levels. That represents a gain in kinetic energy, which is heat. When the electrons drop back to their normal level, they emit EM and the KE, hence heat, is lost.
The frequency of the emitted EM is too low to excite electrons in atoms/molecules of the surface, therefore it is rejected. Ergo, no heat is produced.
An atom, on its own, has no heat, no temperature above absolute zero Kelvin.
Fourth rule of physics*.
The background radiation of the universe, thanks Willard and Brandon G [good to see you commentating] of 2.76K or whatever is very interesting from this point of view.
It comes from all directions, it is EM energy and it is like the whole universe is surrounded on all sides by a faint heat [EM energy] source.
–
People do not understand that every atom and every molecule are totally stable structures on their own.
The extra energy or heat that radiates off a mass of molecules together is a new heat source in its own due to the momentum of particles in forming that mass.
Swenson is right about the planet cooling down.
He has not articulated clearly how the mass had the inordinate amount of energy it has in the first place clearly, and no, it does not come from the sun.
Good to see you here too, angech.
Dr Spencer, a while ago, Willis Eschenbach put a post up on WUWT. It used CERES data to show that a greater part of global warming has taken place in the arctic, in the winter and at night. I think that your UAH data shows that arctic warming is happening faster than the rest of the world, as you describe in ‘Climate Change, The Facts 2020’. Does UAH also confirm the other parts of Willis’s hypothesis?
I’m not a real moderator. Real moderators are able to just delete any comments they feel like, on a whim, to indulge their fantasies of having some sort of control over other people. Real moderators are here to censor, and suppress freedom of expression. I’m just having a bit of fun. When I write “please stop trolling”, it doesn’t actually have any effect. People are still able to say whatever they want to say, and it will be posted and there for posterity, no matter how many times I repeat my “please stop trolling”.
I think what people are really upset about by the “please stop trolling” is…they don’t get to have the last word.
DREMT impersonator (probably Tyson), please stop trolling.
Is there an echo in here?
Ah, it could be RLH, of course. Tyson, Little Willy, or RLH are all strong contenders for being the one impersonating me.
Gentle Graham gently gaslights a little more.
Well, it’s got to be someone. I didn’t post the comment at 10:51 AM.
It’s got to be someone who’s obsessed with me enough to be aware of that quote, and childish enough to post under somebody’s else’s name.
Could be Gentle Graham.
After all, he is his own favorite topic.
No, I’m your favourite topic. That’s why you follow me around everywhere I comment, leaving responses about me…and that’s why you’re a strong contender for being the impersonator. You’re obsessed with me, and extremely childish.
“I didnt post the comment at 10:51 AM”
Sure.
Why would I randomly post that in response to Pat Smith?
Why would Gentle Graham *ever* gaslight anyone?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Why would I randomly post”
You do that all the time.
No, not at all, there is no echo. Agree to disagree. One of us has to be the adult. So here goes just last wording. Sociopaths will be sociopaths.
DREMT impersonator, please stop trolling.
Gentle Graham ought to let readers decide.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
pat smith…”CERES data to show that a greater part of global warming has taken place in the arctic, in the winter and at night. I think that your UAH data shows that arctic warming is happening faster than the rest of the world, as you describe in Climate Change, The Facts 2020″.
***
Roy doesn’t normally comment this far into a post, usually he comments on the following few days only.
Roy did offer a comment a while back re warming in the Arctic. From what I recall, he was talking about the effect of the warmer North Atlantic on the Arctic.
When you consider conditions in the Arctic for most of the year, you have little or not solar input. If there is any warming effect it has to be minimal, like a degree or two warming at -40C -> -50C. It’s so cold in the region of the Arctic Ocean that ice forms in salt water up to 10 feet thick. For me, talking about anthropogenic warming in such conditions is a might silly.
If anyone thinks that the winter storms in California will end, they are mistaken. This is indicated by the polar vortex circulation, which is blocked over the Bering Sea by ozone accumulation.
https://i.ibb.co/fFgXQLR/gfs-t100-nh-f144.png
Thinks? Or cares?
Natural processes are natural.
Wow! Such depth of thinking and relevance to my comment!
Professor Zharkova called, asking for the latest sun activity
poly-idiotic charts , She likes to have a good laugh over them.
https://youtu.be/Oj4whLHXYes
Yeah I’d be laughing at her too given her first prediction was 65 and we’re already up to 82.
Yes, but we should keep in mind that NASA had a very low prediction for SC25 as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_25#Predictions
and that other people predict similarly low things, e.g.
Does Machine Learning reconstruct missing sunspots and forecast a new solar minimum?
Velasco Herrera, Soon, Legates (2021)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273117721002465?via%3Dihub
*
Conversely, we have McIntosh & Leamon who predict a much stronger cycle:
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/news/view/466/20220411-solar-cycle-25-the-overachiever.html
*
No idea who is right! We’ll see in the near future how SC25 develops
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EPvsCvRGS9gDyrVBsggsNb7NcbMywiMB/view
or, for the crazy lovers of ‘poly-idiotic’ data evaluation:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sQRVUvHBjtlxE124nneg1ZBuj6KvE1wz/view
Time will tell!
All predictions are useless. None of them employ knowledge about the physics of the sun, because there is very little such knowledge. It is all statistical.
I have to wonder why Zharkova chose only cycles 21-24 for her analysis. Is it coincidence that she chose precisely those cycles for which we had a decrease. “Surprisingly” she got a further decrease.
Perhaps the others have done similar – I haven’t checked.
This cycle, the two hemispheres are much closer to being in phase:
41-40 this time compared to 54-23 at the same point last cycle, and both still rising. If the hemispheres had been in perfect phase last cycle then we would have had a maximum of 140 instead of 116.
In the end it makes little difference. We are certainly not headed for a Maunder-like Minimum, and that lowered global temperatures by only about 0.4C. We have also just passed the two Dalton cycles, and still rising. And starting next month cycle 24 begins its inter-peak nap, after a 4-month spurt.
A link was supplied recently to a video featuring Zharkova in which she explains in detail how she arrives at her conclusions.
Meantime, here’s a link …
https://solargsm.com/solar-inertial-motion-and-global-warming/
The video may be the one here…
https://principia-scientific.org/scientist-predicts-little-ice-age-gets-icy-reception-colleagues/
Please don’t shoot the messenger.
Why not? You have no issue with shooting messengers.
And Principia is not a source of scientific information.
AQ,
You wrote –
“And Principia is not a source of scientific information.”
I suppose you think papers such as this are “scientific information”, do you?
“Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature.”
You really are a simple and gullible SkyDragon, donkey.
Maybe you could peer into your vast stock of climatological lore and explain the role of the GHE in the cooling of the planet over the past four and a half billion years or so? Only joking – you can’t, and I assume that you are not delusional enough to try!
Maybe you should try trolling, instead. You might find someone simple enough to feel offended, insulted or annoyed by your efforts, but I doubt it.
Give it a try, if you like.
Mike,
I suppose you keep braying.
aquerty…”I have to wonder why Zharkova chose only cycles 21-24 for her analysis”.
***
I just posted a link to her site and you are too stupid to read it for yourself. Rather, you blame the site Principia for your abysmal ignorance.
You’re not even a good troll.
In terms of sunspots she seems to suggest more sideway and then it takes off.
Or 25 rose quickly and is going sideways, and it rise steeply again and then crash steeply with dead cat bounce.
[And then the grand solar min of cycle 26. But I would say 24, 25, and 26 is grand Solar min and because over fairly long time period
it could lower global climate temperature by a small amount, and 3 cycles is pretty short amount of time. But you could call a long time if talking about global weather.
I would say it effects weather which is not global climate.
Likewise la Nino is likewise about weather and is El Nino is weather.
I don’t think La Nino lowers global warming, and instead it’s warming
the ocean, though it take a long time to warm the ocean.
Or El Nino dumps more oceanic heat into atmosphere, La Nino has more cooler tropical surface water to warm, and pushes more warmed tropical ocean water deeper on eastern side of Pacific- it’s large scale ocean mixing effect.
Then she talks about getting closer to sun, 2000 year cycle.
I will note we have been cooling for 5000 years, but she saying we going to get “global warming”. Which is right, if you know global warming means and more uniform global temperature. Or we get less weather effects, and we get a get wetter world [if had lot of it, we green the Sahara desert- which, a just a greened Sahara does increase global average temperature. But rather than nature greening Sahara, it seems more likely humans who trying to green the Sahara desert could have more of an effect than just this natural effect.
In the west of Russia, temperatures are up to 25 C lower than normal for these days. Currently it is the largest temperature anomaly in the world.
Keep chasing that cold while ignoring the warm.
ren is a student of science whereas you are a dumbass Ozzie.
binny…”You, Clint R, together with Robertson and the Pseudomod are the ones who put an own interpretation on Newtons words….”
***
An explanation was offered as to why. Newton stated in Principia that the Moon moves with a linear motion that is converted to a curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field. He also noted that the Moon keeps the same face pointed at the Earth.
If the Moon is moving with an instantaneous linear motion, keeping the same side instantaneously pointed at Earth, that makes sense only if it is not rotating on a local axis.
It’s exactly the same motion as a ball on a string or a car moving around a circular track. You spinners are arguing that the ball and the car are also rotating about a local COG. It that was true of the car, it would spin out and lose control. The ball would wrap itself up in the string and lose orbit.
Newton obviously knew all of this hence the argument that the translation is wrong.
FFS will all of you give this BS a break.
ALL OF YOU.
The cult really loses it when their false beliefs are exposed, huh Ant?
If I had to guess, Pup, I’d rather think that the trolling you, Bordon, and Gentle Graham are doing is getting rather tedious.
T E D I O U S, I tell you.
You alone can change AQ’s mind.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“You alone can change AQs mind.”
And why would anyone want to waste their time trying? AQ is free to believe anything he likes. He might even even choose to believe some delusional SkyDragon at NASA or NOAA who thinks that the Earth’s interior and surface became molten due to the Earth careering through space bashing into meteors!
Shades of Dug Cttn! Maybe “heat creep” explains it all!
If AQ wants to believe, that’s his choice, if others want to laugh at his beliefs, why not? It’s called freedom of thought.
What are you braying about, Mike, and why do you cry –
is it because you feel excluded?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote
You alone can change AQs mind.
And why would anyone want to waste their time trying? AQ is free to believe anything he likes. He might even even choose to believe some delusional SkyDragon at NASA or NOAA who thinks that the Earths interior and surface became molten due to the Earth careering through space bashing into meteors!
Shades of Dug Cttn! Maybe heat creep explains it all!
If AQ wants to believe, thats his choice, if others want to laugh at his beliefs, why not? Its called freedom of thought.
Hush hush, Mike.
Keep braying, we’re all here for you.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote
You alone can change AQs mind.
And why would anyone want to waste their time trying? AQ is free to believe anything he likes. He might even even choose to believe some delusional SkyDragon at NASA or NOAA who thinks that the Earths interior and surface became molten due to the Earth careering through space bashing into meteors!
Shades of Dug Cttn! Maybe heat creep explains it all!
If AQ wants to believe, thats his choice, if others want to laugh at his beliefs, why not? Its called freedom of thought.
<:
Good, Mike.
I hope you feel better.
Do you want to bray a little more?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote
“You alone can change AQs mind..
And why would anyone want to waste their time trying? AQ is free to believe anything he likes. He might even even choose to believe some delusional SkyDragon at NASA or NOAA who thinks that the Earths interior and surface became molten due to the Earth careering through space bashing into meteors!
Shades of Dug Cttn! Maybe heat creep explains it all!
If AQ wants to believe, thats his choice, if others want to laugh at his beliefs, why not? Its called freedom of thought.
.
Good. The ant finally understood the implications of the message and started shouting. Likely waving his hands in the air as well.
As I said, he’s not even a good troll.
Have you found the time to find the authoritative translation of the Principia, Bordon?
Ask Gill for details.
Weird Wee Willy,
Ooooh, obscure! Oooooh, cryptic!
“Ask Gill . .. ”
And if he declines to carry out your command, what then? Will you have a tantrum or threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue?
I’d like to see that!
By the way, at least one US university physics department agrees with me “The simulated experiment shows how the motion of a familiar projectile like a cannon ball is fundamentally the same as the orbit of a celestial body like the moon.” in relation to Newton’s writing in “A Treatise of the System of the World.”
Maybe you could explain why a cannonball would tumble end over end when fired – for no particular reason at all. If you find yourself bereft of an explanation, maybe you could ask Gill (whomever he or she is).
What an incompetent troll you are.
Carry on anyway.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Still boasting about your lack of comprehension skills?
Maybe you could poke yourself in the eyes with a needle, and whine that I have blinded you!
Oh dear, your trolling doesnt seem to be making you look any less stupid and ignorant than you are.
Carry on.
What are you braying about, Mike, and why have you misplaced your comment?
Wistful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
” . . . why have you misplaced your comment?”
You idiot. I comment as I wish. There is precisely nothing you can do it, either.
Carry on thinking that I value your opinions enough to answer your stupid and irrelevant questions.
Fool.
Keep braying, Mike.
So easy to skip.
Wistful Wee Willy,
You wrote
. . . why have you misplaced your comment?
You idiot. I comment as I wish. There is precisely nothing you can do it, either.
Carry on thinking that I value your opinions enough to answer your stupid and irrelevant questions.
Fool.
Very good, Mike.
Anything else?
Wistful Wee Willy,
You wrote
. . . why have you misplaced your comment?
You idiot. I comment as I wish. There is precisely nothing you can do it, either.
Carry on thinking that I value your opinions enough to answer your stupid and irrelevant questions.
Fool.
Again, Mike?
Again!
who is bordon?
C’mon, Bordon.
Robertson
*
1. ” He also noted that the Moon keeps the same face pointed at the Earth. ”
And here again, you show how you distort and misrepresent Newton’s source.
See the links to the original text and its translations in
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1425903
*
2. ” Newton stated in Principia that the Moon moves with a linear motion that is converted to a curvilinear motion by Earths gravitational field. ”
(Not only) I still await your exact reference in Newton’s ORIGINAL Latin text source of his Principia.
Here are the Latin sources
Book I and II
https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Philosophiae_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica
Book III
https://books.google.de/books?id=2wNYAAAAcAAJ&hl=de&pg=PA1&q=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
You never posted that really original reference until now.
Bin, since you now admit Earth’s axis doesn’t move much: “Earth spin axis inclination for example needs over 20,000 years to move from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees.” Maybe you’re ready to answer the easy question:
What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Moon’s orbit?
And, I’ll even give you a hint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
I’m saying you can’t get the right answer. Prove me wrong.
Psst, Pup –
Do you see the Moon spinning?
” Bin, since you now admit Earths axis doesn’t move much… ”
I didn’t need to admit what is evident.
What you should admit: since Earths axis inclination doesn’t move much per orbit around the Sun, why then should Moon’s axis inclination change more per orbit around Earth?
Why do you think it does? Do you see it moving?
*
Please try to ask intelligent things which are worth debating.
For example: why don’t you help Robertson, who seems to have difficulties in finding the original Latin text from which his claim originates?
” Newton stated in Principia that the Moon moves with a linear motion that is converted to a curvilinear motion by Earths gravitational field. ”
Please, Clint R, help him!
Clint R
When looking at this simplified figure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
you are manipulated by your own religious ball-on-a-string ideology.
I repeat what I already wrote above: the inclination of the lunar spin axis (and the speed of the lunar spin) are computed wrt selenocentric coordinates.
The trivial picture you show has nothing to do with what the scientists you denigrate as ‘astrologers’ use(d) centuries ago as well as these days:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lbu-ejT74btzbCJZxikmvN9Ra6dAD79z/view
As long as you don’t want to understand this, we don’t need to discuss further.
Feel free to continue claiming that the Moon doesn not rotate about its axis, Clint R!
No problem for me :–)
Bin, that link showing Moon’s imaginary rotational axis is from your cult. THAT is your belief. It is exactly what your “astrologers used centuries ago as well as these days”. Yet you now label it “trivial”.
And, you run from solving the simple problem.
Reality always wins.
” It is exactly what your astrologers used centuries ago as well as these days. ”
No, it is not, of course.
It is an absolutely trivial simplification of the reality – unlike your ball-on-a-string, which is trivial as well, but is a perversion of the reality.
The reality, Clint R, looks like this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lbu-ejT74btzbCJZxikmvN9Ra6dAD79z/view
Wrong again, Bin.
It’s what your ancient astrologers claimed, and you believe without question. Your link doesn’t give the values. This link does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
Now answer the question, or keep proving me right!
grammis pups asks a stupid question, proving yet again that he doesn’t understand rotational inertia and conservation of angular momentum. He doesn’t think coordinates are of any importance, so he doesn’t bother to specify what “angle” he is writing about. The fact is that the Moon’s rotational inertia is quite large and thus it’s polar axis points to the same location in the sky from orbital perigee to apogee. and, of course, that’s because the Moon rotates once an orbit.
Swanson, I’m on record as claiming you, and your cult, can’t correctly answer the simple question:
What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Moon’s orbit?
I even gave you a hint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
I’m saying you can’t get the right answer. You don’t understand the REAL science, and you can’t even understand your cult’s “science”. Prove me wrong. Your troll tactics mean NOTHING.
swannie…”The fact is that the Moons rotational inertia is quite large….”
***
The Moon has no rotational inertia. As Newton points out several times in Principia, it has only a linear or rectilinear motion. Had the Moon an inertia about its axis, Newton would surely have noted that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one’s personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.
proof for Binny from Principia…again!!!!…
A general proof of planetary motion, wherein the Moon is a planet of Earth…
Page 80 of 594
Definition V
A centripetal force is that by which bodies are drawn or impelled, or any way tend, towards a point as to a centre.
Of this sort is gravity, by which bodies tend to the centre of the earth magnetism, by which iron tends to the loadstone ; and that force, what ever it is, by which the planets are perpetually drawn aside from the rectilinear motions, which otherwise they would pursue, and made to revolve in curvilinear orbits.
***
specific to the Moon…
Page 397 0f 594
PROPOSITION IV. THEOREM IV.
That the moon gravitates towards the earth, and by the force of gravity is continually drawn off from a rectilinear motion, and retained in its orbit.
SOI very high, which means more rain in Australia.
Latest Southern Oscillation Index values
SOI values for 8 Jan, 2023
Average SOI for last 30 days 21.05
Average SOI for last 90 days 14.05
Daily contribution to SOI calculation 22.15
We got two days of rain last time. Is that unusual?
We likely won’t have anything more than showers in the next 7 days.
Stop trolling Ren you Ozzie twit. He never bothers anyone, sticking to his informative posts.
If you don’t like them, don’t read them.
AQ,
You wrote –
“FFS will all of you give this BS a break.
ALL OF YOU.”
Having a minor temper tantrum, are you? SHOUTING won’t help, you know.
And what will you do if nobody takes any notice of your demands? Nothing at all?
You appear to be just another ignorant and impotent SkyDragon cultist, whining and complaining.
Carry on.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Braying = “whining and complaining”
Also “to make the loud noise typical of a donkey.”
AQ,
You wrote
“FFS will all of you give this BS a break.
ALL OF YOU.”
Having a minor temper tantrum, are you? SHOUTING wont help, you know.
And what will you do if nobody takes any notice of your demands? Nothing at all?
You appear to be just another ignorant and impotent SkyDragon cultist, whining and complaining.
Carry on.
You seem lost in the thread, Mike.
Calm down.
AQ,
You wrote
FFS will all of you give this BS a break.
ALL OF YOU.
Having a minor temper tantrum, are you? SHOUTING wont help, you know.
And what will you do if nobody takes any notice of your demands? Nothing at all?
You appear to be just another ignorant and impotent SkyDragon cultist, whining and complaining.
Carry on.
Still failing to admit you are lost in the threads, Mike?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Still boasting about your lack of comprehension skills?
Maybe you could poke yourself in the eyes with a needle, and whine that I have blinded you!
Oh dear, your trolling doesn’t seem to be making you look any less stupid and ignorant than you are.
Carry on.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Still boasting about your lack of comprehension skills?
Maybe you could poke yourself in the eyes with a needle, and whine that I have blinded you!
Oh dear, your trolling doesnt seem to be making you look any less stupid and ignorant than you are.
Carry on.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Repeat your comment, and I’ll give you a cracker.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Still boasting about your lack of comprehension skills?
Maybe you could poke yourself in the eyes with a needle, and whine that I have blinded you!
Oh dear, your trolling doesnt seem to be making you look any less stupid and ignorant than you are.
Carry on.
Have a cracker, Mike.
If you repeat your comment, you’ll have another one.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Still boasting about your lack of comprehension skills?
Maybe you could poke yourself in the eyes with a needle, and whine that I have blinded you!
Oh dear, your trolling doesnt seem to be making you look any less stupid and ignorant than you are.
Carry on.
Want another cracker, crackpot?
Here it is. Ask me again. Go for it.
Weird Wee Willy,
You are crackers if you believe I would ask a donkey SkyDragon cultist like you for anything at all.
Carry on boasting about your lack of knowledge – it suits you.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Still boasting about your lack of comprehension skills?
Maybe you could poke yourself in the eyes with a needle, and whine that I have blinded you!
Oh dear, your trolling doesnt seem to be making you look any less stupid and ignorant than you are.
Carry on.
Still braying, Mike?
Flynnson still is blathering and blaathering and blaaathering.
Having never anything relevant to say, Flynnson permanently urges in saying something.
I recall him having claimed some years ago that putting CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer would make the thermometer hotter.
Imagine what a genius guy, this Flynnson!
Binny,
You wrote –
“I recall him having claimed some years ago that putting CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer would make the thermometer hotter.”
Pity you can’t back up your recall with a quote, isn’t it?
You are confused. SkyDragons seem to think that increased CO2 in the atmosphere makes thermometers hotter – they call this the “greenhouse effect”, I believe.
Carry on being a sour Kraut (or a sauerkraut, if you prefer a play on words).
You also wrote –
“Imagine what a genius guy, this Flynnson!” Presumably, in your sour Krautish fashion, you intended some gratuitous offence by addressing me as Flynnson, but I decline to be offended by dimwitted SkyDragons, in general.
So thanks for the encomium, but I would be interested to know why you think I am a genius? I am far too modest and humble to make such a claim.
Thanks for the support.
Dubya outdoes himself:
https://youtu.be/Y23mTSviCZo
Tim Folkerts says:
January 8, 2023 at 8:33 AM
Concentrate the 273 K energy with mirrors, lenses anything you like. Use the finest IR lenses money can buy.
That shows your fundamental misunderstanding. You *cannot* concentrate thermal radiation to be any more concentrated than the source. If 315 W/m^2 leaves the surface of the ice, then no mirrors or lenses will ever give you move than 315 W/m^2. And you will never boil water with that ice radiation.
Tim this is not correct.
Lens can converge EM radiation.
You can converge IR radiation such that an object absorbing multiple amounts of IR will heat to boiling point.
a,
Tim is confused, as usual. Any curious child realises that IR can be concentrated with a hand lens – starting fires, burning the legs off ants etc. The Ivanpah solar power station concentrates IR, roasting birds in flight, while heating a target to incandescence.
Tim is confused about the difference between W/m2 received, and the temperature of the emitter, as are most SkyDragons.
However, he is correct that no amount of concentration can produce a temperature in excess of the source, which destroys his bizarre contention that the radiation from a colder body can be absorbed by a warmer, resulting in the warmer becoming hotter. Of course, this would result in the colder body becoming even colder, which delusional SkyDragon cultists never seem to consider!
So much for the GHE! No free energy. The universe keeps unfolding as it should.
I hope you are not trying to imply that concentrating IR from ice with sufficient cunning, will allow you to boil water! That’s just insane – unless you can demonstrate it. After you have demonstrated your perpetual motion machine, I suppose.
Let me fix that for you ….
Any curious child realises that SUNLIGHT can be concentrated with a hand lens starting fires, burning the legs off ants etc.
Any curious child also realises that thermal IR from ICE can NOT be concentrated with a hand lens for starting fires, burning the legs off ants etc.
Try it! Go out on a cold, sunless day and see how focused you can make that IR!
Tim,
Light obeys the laws of optics. Angech is correct.
You are confused about the relationship between irradiance in W/m2, and temperature, as are most SkyDragons. For example, NOAA, through weather.gov, states “Energy released from the Sun is emitted as shortwave light and ultraviolet energy.”, and conveniently forget to mention that more than 50% of the Sun’s energy is emitted as IR. I wonder why?
NOAA then avoids irradiance and temperature completely, by inventing a new unit “Using 100 units of energy from the sun as a baseline the energy balance is as follows: . . . ”
“Absorbed shortwave radiation from the sun – 47 units
Absorbed longwave radiation from gases in atmosphere. – 98 units”
A miracle! Of 100 units from the Sun, 145 units reaches the surface! What a pack of SkyDragon idiots!
Light of any frequency can be concentrated or “magnified”. A large example was the Arecibo dish, for concentrating comparatively long wavelengths.
Radiation from a colder atmosphere cannot make the warmer ground hotter. No GHE.
“Light of any frequency can be concentrated or magnified. A large example was the Arecibo dish, for concentrating comparatively long wavelengths.”
Yes, but the EM radiation is still not more concentrated than the source. If you could take the detector from Arecibo and fly it right to the source, the signal would be more intense than any signal detected at earth — no matter what fancy dish or lens or mirror you make. (Just like if you take an ant to the surface of the sun, it will get more burnt than any lenses or mirrors could do on earth.) That is all I was claiming.
“NOAA, through weather.gov, states “Energy released from the Sun is emitted as shortwave light and ultraviolet energy.”, and conveniently forget to mention that more than 50% of the Suns energy is emitted as IR. I wonder why?”
The reason is simple – you don’t understand the terminology for IR.
0.75 – 1.4 um is typically considered “near-infrared”
1.4 – 3.0 um is typically considered “short wavelength infrared”
All of this IR from 0.75 um to 3.0 um is considered “short wavelength light”. And this covers the VAST majority of the sun’s IR. About 95% of sunlight is contained in UV, visible, and short wavelength IR. Nothing (well, no more than 5%) is ‘conveniently’ omitted.
This is classic! Neither ang nor fraudkerts understand radiative physics or thermo. They’re saying the same thing (that ice cubes can boil water), but fraudkerts denies that ice cubes can boil water, as he presents his bogus equation showing that ice cubes can boil water!
If you’re confused, welcome to cult nonsense!
“You can converge IR radiation such that an object absorbing multiple amounts of IR will heat to boiling point.”
1/2 right!
Yes, you can converge light from a distant source
No, you can’t concentrate it any brighter than the source.
So if some of the sources of “multiple amounts of IR” were themselves above 100 C, you could concentrate it to boil water (but not if the sources were ice-cold or colder).
The light from a distant fluorescent bulb can be concentrated, but the focused image will never be any brighter than the surface of the bulb.
The light from the distant sun can be concentrated, but the focused image will never be any brighter than the surface of the sun.
The thermal IR from a distant sheet of ice can be concentrated, but the focused image will never be any more intense than the surface of the ice.
Tim,
And, of course, radiation from a colder atmosphere cannot “add” or be “concentrated” to make a warmer surface even warmer, can it?
As a matter f fact, the Earth’s surface cools at night, regardless of how many W/m2 the atmosphere, buildings, oceans or whatever are emitting, and regardless of whether you call it back radiation, forward radiation, or sideways twirly-whirly radiation.
Light is light. Even implying that “thermal IR” is somehow special, is misleading. Try providing an example of “non-thermal IR”.
SkyDragon cultists live in a fantasy world. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, because it is hotter than its surrounding environment. Deny reality all you want – reality takes no notice, and just keeps keeping on.
No GHE.
Swenson says “And, of course, radiation from a colder atmosphere cannot “add” or be “concentrated” to make a warmer surface even warmer, can it?”
and “Radiation from a colder atmosphere cannot make the warmer ground hotter. No GHE.”
The first is vague. The second does not follow from the first.
It is true that radiation from only cold regions cannot be added to radiation from other cold regions to make a surface any warmer than the cold surfaces.
But the interesting question is “what happens when radiation from cold surfaces is added to radiation from warm surfaces?”
Consider 4 interrelated scenarios (all at steady-state).
1a) a surface is surrounded entirely by 3 K surfaces [0 W/m^2]
2a) a surface is surrounded entirely by 273 K surfaces (ice cold) [315 W/m^2]
I think everyone will agree that a surface inside will become 3 K (a) and 273 K (b)
1b) a small hole is made so that 300 W/m^2 of sunlight (from a 5800 K surface) shines in on the surface.
2b) a small hole is made so that 300 W/m^2 of sunlight (from a 5800 K surface) shines in on the surface.
I think people will agree that 1b would give 270 K. That is what (sigma)T^4 predicts. There is 300 W/m^2 from the sun and 0 from the rest of the surroundings, so the surface will warm until it radiates 300 W/m^2.
That leaves 2b. There are a few choices.
a) 270K (only the sunlight matters, and we can’t add colder ‘icelight’)
b) 273K (just take the warmer of the two temperatures?)
c) 323K (the 300 W/m^2 of sunlight boosts the temperature above 273 K until the surface is radiating 615 W/m^2).
fraudkerts, that’s a lot of blah-blah. Are you now trying to back away from your nonsense that means ice cubes can boil water?
Repeating your FALSE accusations will not make them true, Pup.
You, OTOH, have claimed on this very thread having seen a ball on string spinning.
That’s the Clint we all know and love.
Anything more than high school level is over his head.
Anything more than a couple paragraphs is beyond his attention span.
Here’s some fraudkerts fraud that doesn’t even make it to high school level:
Two fluxes (F1 and F2) arriving the same surface simply add so that the surface is emitting F1+F2.
He gave the example of 315 W/m^2 and 315 W/m^2 then raising the surface temperature to 325K, emitting 630 W/m^2. That’s fraudulent physics.
It easy to disprove such nonsense. Four such fluxes arriving a surface would then raise the temperature to 386K (113C, 235F), emitting 1260 W/m^2. That’s obviously hot enough to boil water.
315 W/m^2 is the emission from an ice cube. So when I pointed out that fraudkerts was claiming ice cubes could boil water (which is what his fraud implies), he backed off, trying to obfuscate using the inverse square law to claim ice could never bring 315 W/m^2 to a surface.
He didn’t back away from his nonsense. He just claimed that ice could never bring 315W/m^2 to a surface. He’s so slippery.
But, reality always wins.
Let’s say that an ice cube can only bring 300 W/m^2 to a surface. Or heck, be even easier on fraudkerts, let’s say an ice cube can only bring 250 W/m^2 to a surface. Then 5 ice cubes would result in (using the fraudulent physics – 1250 W/m^2) a surface temperature high enough to boil water. Like I stated from the first, using fraudulent physics if it’s not hot enough, just add more ice!
Now, what will slippery fraudkerts try next?
“lets say an ice cube can only bring 250 W/m^2 to a surface. Then 5 ice cubes would result in (using the fraudulent physics 1250 W/m^2) a surface temperature high enough to boil water.”
Oh heck, why limit it to 250 W/m^2? Let’s go for the full 315 W/m^2. You could do this by putting a solid dome of ice 1 m in radius above the surface. Alternately, you could take that dome away and use a dome of radius 2 m or 3 m or 4 m or 5 m. Any one of those domes would supply 315 W/m^2 to the surface.
Now think hard. What would happen if you put all 5 over the surface? Well, the innermost dome would block all the radiation from domes farther out. The total from ice is limited to 315 W/m^2. Fluxes from emitters *in the view of* the surface add; ie fluxes actually arriving at the surface simply add. Fluxes from emitters NOT in view don’t add because, well, they never arrive.
Now think hard again. Suppose I have a material hot enough to emit 4×315 W/m^2 = 1260 W/m^2. That would be about 386 K. If I put 1/4 of dome over the surface, it would receive a flux of (1/4)1260 W/m^2 = 315 W/m^2. If I put 4 quarter-domes above the surface to form a full dome, then the full dome would provide 1260 W/m^2. The 4 fluxes from 4 different surfaces in 4 different directions do add. All of those fluxes really do arrive and they simply add.
As usual, fraudkerts is trying to slip away from his own nonsense. He’s trying to find another way to pervert reality. He’s still trying to corrupt the laws of physics to protect his cult.
Rather than me showing how wrong he is, I thought I would put this out as another test for the cult. We have seen they can’t solve very simple physics problems. Let’s see if they can find even one thing wrong with the fraud here:
Suppose I have a material hot enough to emit 4315 W/m^2 = 1260 W/m^2. That would be about 386 K. If I put 1/4 of dome over the surface, it would receive a flux of (1/4)1260 W/m^2 = 315 W/m^2. If I put 4 quarter-domes above the surface to form a full dome, then the full dome would provide 1260 W/m^2. The 4 fluxes from 4 different surfaces in 4 different directions do add. All of those fluxes really do arrive and they simply add.
fraudkerts uses a trick here. Can his followers find it?
Bindidon
Willard
angech
Entropic man
Brandon
Norman
Barry
Antonio Querty
bobdroege
Ball4
E. Swanson
I’m saying not one of the names above can find the fraud. Prove me wrong.
“315 W/m^2 is the emission from an ice cube. So when I pointed out that fraudkerts was claiming ice cubes could boil water (which is what his fraud implies), he backed off, trying to obfuscate using the inverse square law to claim ice could never bring 315 W/m^2 to a surface.”
Tim and I explained several times to Clint, why ice can NEVER EVER provide more than it emits to another surface. It emits 315 W/m^2. It can NEVER EVER provide more than 315 W/m^2 to a surface.
But trolls like Clint play DUMB, and pretend that this has never been explained ad-nauseum to them
They LIE and misrepresent what you’ve said.
IE “fraudkerts was claiming ice cubes could boil water”
This is how TROLLS like Clint operate. And why he got banned twice previously for trying to twist and change Roy Spencers words.
He is shameless. Ignore him.
Nate, I forgot to include you in the list above. How could I have forgotten?
Sorry I forgot you, but please feel welcome to identify the fraud mentioned:
Suppose I have a material hot enough to emit 4315 W/m^2 = 1260 W/m^2. That would be about 386 K. If I put 1/4 of dome over the surface, it would receive a flux of (1/4)1260 W/m^2 = 315 W/m^2. If I put 4 quarter-domes above the surface to form a full dome, then the full dome would provide 1260 W/m^2. The 4 fluxes from 4 different surfaces in 4 different directions do add. All of those fluxes really do arrive and they simply add.
I claim not one of you cult idiots can find the fraud. Prove me wrong.
I was assuming blackbodies — not a ‘fraud’ or ‘trick’ but merely a simplification that everyone has been using in this discussion.
You miscopied and lost a multiplication sign: “4135” instead of “4 x 315” — not a ‘fraud’ or ‘trick’ but a simple error on your part.
I assumed a certain symmetry — the quarter domes each cover 1 octant and the peak of each 1/4 is directly over the surface in question and go down to the ‘horizon’. Not a ‘fraud’ or ‘trick’ but merely an obvious arrangement for the situation.
Otherwise, it is all correct. Now I am curious what ‘fraud’ or ‘trick’ you think is there.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1426797
“Lets say that an ice cube can only bring 300 W/m^2 to a surface. Or heck, be even easier on fraudkerts, lets say an ice cube can only bring 250 W/m^2 to a surface. Then 5 ice cubes would result in (using the fraudulent physics 1250 W/m^2) a surface temperature high enough to boil water. Like I stated from the first, using fraudulent physics if its not hot enough, just add more ice!”
If I lower the number to 250 THEN I can exceed the amount that ice emits!?
Wrong, and very ignorant..
We have explained thoroughly to Clint why ice can NEVER shine more than it emits onto another surface. TO do so would require it to shine its emitted radiation THROUGH other ice that is blocking its view of the surface.
THAT DOESNT WORK.
Clint seems incapable of getting this simple geometric principle and pretends that he has never heard about it.
Fraudkerts got caught with his fraud and now can’t get away from it. He’s trying to pervert using the inverse square law. Braindead barry is trying to pervert using “view factors”. Now, troll Nate is trying to pervert by insinuating no two fluxes can arrive at a surface!
The “given” problem is “fluxes ARRIVING at a surface”. How they got there is NOT the issue. The issue starts from “fluxes ARRIVING at a surface”. Everything else is a distraction to cover their fraud.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“How they got there is NOT the issue. ”
Oh? Then why keep claiming falsely that ICE can do the job?
Just stop trolling.
“The issue starts from “fluxes ARRIVING at a surface”. “
Yep! And yet at each turn, you instead revert to talking about fluxes LEAVING a surface.
A flux of 315 W/m^2 leaving a surface like ice does not remain a 315 W/m^2 when arriving at other places — it can drop off with distance.
Again, consider a hemisphere of ice @ 273 K that emits 315 W/m^2 of flux. If you place this hemisphere above a small surface below the center of the dome, that surface receives 315 W/m^2 from the dome of ice.
Now remove half of the dome of ice. The remaining ice still emits 315 W/m^2, but the surface will only receive half as much flux = 157.5 W/m^2 from ice. If you remove the other half, again the surface receives 157.5 W/m^2. Put out neither half and you get 0 W/m^2. Put both halves there and you get 315.5 W/m^2.
Yes, the issue starts from fluxes arriving. We can add the fluxes arriving from either half of the ice dome and get the total: 157.5 + 157.5 = 315. Easy-peasy!
Some reality:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1426797
From that link: “315 W/m^2 is the emission from an ice cube. ”
See? you are STILL confusing flux FROM a surface and the flux TO a different surface. And this is immediately after you said “The issue starts from fluxes ARRIVING at a surface.”
No confusion on my part, fraudkerts. You just ignore the best part:
Now, what will slippery fraudkerts try next?
Clint doubles down on: “lets say an ice cube can only bring 250 W/m^2 to a surface. Then 5 ice cubes would result in (using the fraudulent physics 1250 W/m^2) a surface temperature high enough to boil water. “
To bring 250 W/m^2, the ice sheet would have to cover 250/315 = 79.4% of the hemisphere above the surface (ie 79.4% of the solid angle above the surface).
A second such sheet of ice would not cover 158.8% of the hemisphere. It could at best cover the remaining 20.6% = 100% coverage. The rest of the ice would have to be either in front other ice (blocking the other radiation) or behind other ice (so its radiation never gets to the surface.
So in this case, we would add 250 W/m^2 from the first sheet and no more than 65 W/m^2 from the next ice sheet. Once the surroundings are 100% ice covered, you can’t increase the radiation using more ice or thicker ice or more layers of ice. You can’t get 250 W/m^2 from the first sheet AND 250 W/m^2 from the next sheet.
Physics works. Geometry works. You simply don’t understand.
Wrong again, fraudkerts.
I never said anything about an “ice sheet”. That’s your attempt at fraud, again.
No wonder you got terminated by your small town community college. Small town people don’t like frauds.
“Geometry works.”
Exactly Clint is trying to add fluxes beyond what is geometrically possible.
A blackbody surface that ‘sees’ only a field of ice – as in covered by a dome of ice – receives the full 315 W/m2 of ice. View factor is unity, or 100%
Take away ice cubes from that dome and the surface receives fewer W/m2 from the ice.
Simple as that.
Braindead barry must believe that two flashlights cannot shine on a surface. The cult idiots have a lot of funny beliefs.
That’s not really why ice cubes can’t boil water, but I’ll take it. Braindead barry has just destroyed the GHE nonsense, using his own original nonsense!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Cint must believe that when one flashlight is placed directly behind another, you still get both beams shining on a surface.
“lets say an ice cube can only bring 250..Then 5 ice cubes would result in”
How bout let’s not say stuff that can never ever happen with ice!
And he takes being an asshole to new depths..
Now, we’re got fraudkerts, braindead barry, and troll Nate, all believing two flashlights cannot shine on the same surface.
That’s not what I was referring to when I said fluxes don’t simply add, but I’ll take it.
(This happens often. The cult idiots get so tangled up in their nonsense that they start arguing with themselves. Swanson has reported one of his experiments where he had two spotlights shining on a surface. That’s why this is so much fun.)
grammie pups, Thanks for the mention.
Of course two flashlights can shine on a surface. Three, four, or five flashlights can shine on a surface. And, consequently, ice cubes can shine on a surface. But, the resulting ARRIVING fluxes do NOT simply add, as the cult claims.
Ice cubes can NOT boil water.
This is the simple reality that the cult has been unable to face. That’s why they’ve used inverse square law, view factors, and irresponsible placement of the flashlights attempting to cover up their fraud.
Just as the flux from flashlights can be adjusted by moving the flashlights, flux from ice cubes can be similarly adjusted. So, adjusting the flux from 5 ice cubes to 250 W/m^2 each, the cult claims that would amount to the surface emitting 1250 W/m^2. And, that’s enough energy to boil water.
The cult’s nonsense, which started with Tim Folkerts, would mean that ice cubes can boil water.
Will fraudkerts, braindead barry, or troll Nate admit they’ve been wrong? Will any of them admit they’ve been involved in fraud?
Of course not — they’re in a cult.
“barry must believe that two flashlights cannot shine on a surface.”
Of course they can. I’ve lit stages and seen it for myself. Two spotlights of equal intensity provide more light to a given patch of black stage or curtain stage than just one. Because fluxes add. You can use mirrors for the same effect.
A 1000 W stage light shines on a surface. Let’s make it a spotlight so the beam is not too diffuse.
Does the surface receive 1000 W?
Nope.
Say that the surface receives 100 W/m2 energy from that 1000 W spotlight. Point another 1000 W spotlight at that same patch of surface – but now it’s getting a bit less than 100 W/m2 because the geometry is different and the beam is not perpendicular. View factor!
Direct a spotlight to a stage floor as as a crosslight, so that the illuminated section is an ellipse instead of a circle, and the patch is not as bright. The energy per unit time is covering more area. We experience this every day as the Earth rotates and the angle of solar radiation changes.
View factor, Clint.
All the world’s a stage.
Now keep adding spotlights to create a dome of them. With each stage light added the angle of the incoming light changes. And the further away from perpendicular the beam is to the stage surface, the less intensity of the light hitting the patch of surface where the first stage light hits it.
But that patch does get brighter with each spotlight added. It also gets warmer. Ask any performer working under them.
As soon as you start adding ice cubes or flashlights or stage lights, the geometry of the radiance changes relative to the designated surface and you have to account for it.
You are still trying to add fluxes from source as if geometry doesn’t matter.
This is where you fail.
And when you are trying to add fluxes at the destination as above, your geometry becomes unphysical.
So how do we add multiple 100 W/m2 to a patch of surface? Easy. Make sure that each source is powered enough that it can deliver that much energy per unit time to the given area.
And this is why multiple ice cubes can’t irradiate a surface beyond 315 W/m2 – because the first ice cube delivers a fraction of that power to the designated surface area, and if you add power to each ice cube to account for the changing angle and make them irradiate the same area at the same power as the first ice cube, they cease to be ice cubes.
As I said way upthread, if you are adding two fluxes of 315 W/m2 arriving at a surface, then you are not talking about ice cubes.
Look at it this way.
Consider the radiation given off by a one metre cubed sized ice cube from one of its surfaces to a 1 square metre blackbody surface 1 millimetre away.
For much of the area of that 1 square metre surface, it’s getting close to 315 W/m2.
Now chip out a one centimetre cubed block and get rid of the rest of the ice.
Does the one metre square surface receive the same energy from the smaller ice cube as it did from the large one?
Every part of the surface is receiving some energy from the small ice cube. But the area directly in front of it is getting much more of it than everywhere else.
Area matters.
As does view view factor, Clint.
Braindead barry, thanks for confirming you don’t understand any of this.
I’ll try to keep it really, really simple:
A flashlight is shining on a surface so that the flux ARRIVING the surface is F. A second flashlight is positioned so that it also provides a flux of F, to the same surface. Your fraud claims the surface would warm so that it is emitting 2F.
Do you agree so far?
No.
The 2 flashlights represent a fraction of the total field of view of the surface.
The surface doesn’t just equilibrate with the radiation arriving from the 2 flashlights, it equilibrates with the radiation arriving from the entire field of view.
As well as summing the flux from the flashlights, you also have factor in the emission from the surface. If our surface is in space, and is a blackbody, then it is radiatively equilibrating with both the cold of space and with the summed flux of the 2 flashlights. As we agreed way upthread that a surface freely emits to the cold of space unimpeded, then that’s going to be one cold surface, because deep space is taking up most of the field of view.
You just don’t understand the geometry of view factors. It seems you refuse to understand it. That’s why you will never understand this subject, and why you will continue to believe that the radiation from ice cubes can boil water.
“Your fraud claims the surface would warm so that it is emitting 2F.”
In Clint’s universe, Conservation of Energy is optional.
Nate and barry believe arriving fluxes don’t add, but for the wrong reasons. Folkerts and Swanson believe arriving fluxes simply add.
Conflicting beliefs, and both are wrong.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Gee it’d be great if, for once, Clint would explain how some amount of energy goes in, and a different amount goes out.
But he won’t.
He’ll just again tell us we don’t understand any of this, and toss ad homs at us.
That’s what trolls do.
Apparently Clint’s physics only works with “pieces” of ice and not “sheets” of ice.
Troll Nate doesn’t understand that the “F + F = 2F” came from fraudkerts. Troll Nate doesn’t understand ANY of this so he tosses ad homs.
fraudkerts is now so confused he’s just throwing crap against the wall.
And, braindead barry must believe ARRIVING fluxes need to be adjusted for view factor! (The poor uneducated troll doesn’t understand an ARRIVING flux has ALREADY been adjusted for view factor.)
That’s why this is so much fun.
“Troll Nate doesnt understand ANY of this so he tosses ad homs.”
Exactly as predicted. Reassuring that nobody has replaced our Clint.
“Troll Nate doesnt understand that the F + F = 2F came from fraudkerts.”
Well you said F + F are going in. And YOU claim F + F is not coming out.
With no explanation as to how that works. Apparently you think Conservation of Energy is just a suggestion.
Gee it would be great if you would ACTUALLY explain it this time.
But you won’t.
You will again just tell me I don’t understand any of this and toss ad hom grenades.
That is what trolls do. They can’t help it.
Troll Nate doesn’t understand that the “F + F = 2F” came from fraudkerts. Troll Nate doesn’t understand ANY of this so he tosses ad homs.
“F + F = 2f”
Yep, that’s summing the fluxes arriving at the surface.
“Your fraud claims the surface would warm so that it is emitting 2F.”
Only if the entire field of view was comprised of both sources of F.
The flux arriving to a surface from half a dome of ice is less than 315 W/m2.
You getting it yet?
“Finally, the incident flux (irradiance) on surface k can be found. It is the sum of the radiation leaving each other surface j in the enclosure that is incident on surface k”
https://www.thermopedia.com/content/70/
Lookee there. Fluxes arriving at a surface are summed! And lookee here.
“…irradiance (H1) will depend explicitly on the incoming radiation field at the surface, which, in turn, will depend on the outgoing radiation fields from all the other surface which can ‘view’ surface 1.”
https://www.eng.auburn.edu/~dmckwski/mech7210/radexchange.pdf [p 13]
And that handy physics text mentions something else we’ve being trying to tell you, Clint.
“The net average radiative flux from the surface, denoted q, will simply be the difference between the flux leaving the surface and the flux arriving at the surface”
Yes, you sum the fluxes arriving at the surface.
For purely radiative transfer the final temperature of the surface can be derived from the difference between the sum of the incident fluxes and the outgoing flux, which is comprised of thermal emission and any reflection.
q1 = J1 – H1
That section of the university physics text also lets us know that the intensity of radiation falling on a surface “is (implicitly) a function of incident direction.”
View factor, Clint. Learn about it.
Clint,
Can you provide a physics text or other reputable source that supports your notion that fluxes can’t be summed?
No, you can’t.
Can you provide a physics text or other reputable source that says that warm objects can’t absorb radiation from cooler objects?
No, you can’t.
Because these two idea are born out of the imagination of of AGW deniers, who invent physics to shore up their ideology.
We’re coming up to year 6 without one single reputable physics source being offered to corroborate these imaginary physics.
I’ll ask once more, so that anyone silly enough to be reading this far down in a terribly acrimonious forum can see you fail to provide such substantiation. Again.
Can you provide a sound reference for these fundamental ideas?
Sorry braindead barry, you’re STILL not getting it.
There is no “field of view”. There is no “half a dome of ice”. “View factors” don’t play into this. The two equal fluxes, F and F, are ARRIVING the surface. That’s a given. All your nonsense is just a distraction.
This has been explained to you several times, but you dont get it. You’re braindead.
A flashlight is shining on a surface so that the flux ARRIVING the surface is F. A second flashlight is positioned so that it also provides a flux of F, to the same surface. Your fraud claims the surface would warm so that it is emitting 2F.
Do you agree so far?
A simple “yes” or “no” is all that is needed.
Clint admits he has no answers as to how he evades Conservation of Energy. Its clear that facts don’t matter to him.
He is just here to troll.
Heres how Clint posed the last problem:
“A flashlight is shining on a surface so that the flux ARRIVING the surface is F. A second flashlight is positioned so that it also provides a flux of F, to the same surface. Your fraud claims the surface would warm so that it is emitting 2F.”
So F + F is going into a surface, Clint says.
I asked:
“Gee itd be great if, for once, Clint would explain how some amount of energy goes in, and a different amount goes out.”
His answer is:
“Troll Nate doesnt understand that the F + F = 2F came from fraudkerts. Troll Nate doesnt understand ANY of this so he tosses ad homs.”
Well, no, You Clint are clearly saying F + F is going into a surface.
So I said:
“Well you said F + F are going in. And YOU claim F + F is not coming out.
With no explanation as to how that works. Apparently you think Conservation of Energy is just a suggestion.
Gee it would be great if you would ACTUALLY explain it this time.”
But you don’t. You again blame Tim.
“Troll Nate doesnt understand that the F + F = 2F came from fraudkerts. Troll Nate doesnt understand ANY of this so he tosses ad homs.”
No I understand very well that you are claiming F + F are going into a surface, while F + F is not coming out.
And you still have no explanation as to how that works.
Because, lets face it, you’re just here to troll, not to make sense.
Braindead barry and troll Nate must be in some kind of keyboard contest. Probably some kind of a cult thing….
barry can’t understand that “view factor” has nothing to do with this issue, since it is about ARRIVING flux. And Nate doesn’t know the difference between “F + F” and “2F” when talking about fluxes.
As usual with these cult idiots, they don’t even understand the basics.
No, Clint, it is you who doesn’t understand. This is precisely where you go wrong…
“Your fraud claims the surface would warm so that it is emitting 2F.”
As soon as you start talking about the temperature of the surface you need to account for view factors.
2 fluxes ARRIVE at a surface.
But so does the flux from everywhere that is not those two fluxes. And the surface emits to the whole field of view.
The surface equilibrates with the sum of all the fluxes, not just the 2 flashlights.
And if the rest of the environment is cooler than the 2 flashlights, then the surface will not emit 2F.
View factor matters.
None so blind as those who refuse to see.
When are you posting your genuine physics sources corroborating that:
1) Fluxes arriving at a surface are not summed
2) warm objects cannot absorb any EM radiation from cooler ones
5 years and counting, Clint!
Well braindead barry, if all that rambling gobbledygook translates to you no longer believe two fluxes, F, arriving a surface result in 2F being emitted, I can accept that.
It sure took you long enough….
Yes, those fluxes still sum, but you still haven’t learned a thing. More than 2 paragraphs is apparently too difficult for you. Explains a lot.
So when are you going to supply us with a reputable source saying:
1) incident fluxes are not summed
2) warm objects can’t absorb radiation
When are you going to substantiate these imaginary laws of physics?
2) warm objects cant absorb radiation * from cooler objects
C’mon Clint. We’ve been asking you to substantiate this with a reputable physics source for years. Can’t you just admit you looked and couldn’t find anything?
Glad to see you’ve dropped that “view factor” nonsense, braindead barry. People were starting to wonder about you.
Yes, keep correcting the 1) and 2) gobbledygook. The more corrections the better.
This sub-thread is getting too long so I won’t be responding. Keep improving. You’ve got a long way to go. Baby steps….
Yep, corrected the nonsense of 1) and 2) with references many times. Glad to see you’ve given up the search for physics texts trying to prove these erroneous views. Now all you have to do is learn about view factors and you’ll understand why the radiation from any number of ice cubes can’t boil water.
It’s been a might effort but I think you’ve made a bit of progress. Finally! (I’ve kept this one to 2 paragraphs for you)
“Nate doesnt know the difference between F + F and 2F when talking about fluxes.”
No I don’t, I don’t think anybody does. Please enlighten us!
So Clint says two fluxes, F, are going into a surface.
Lets say each F = 250 W/m2. So a total of 500 W/m^2 are going into a surface. But Clint says 500 W/m^2 are NOT coming out.
Where did the missing watts go? It is a great mystery.
I predict he will have no answer. But will just tell me I don’t understand any of it, with ad-homs for good measure.
Because thats what dimwitted trolls do.
I predicted Clint would have no answer. And sure enough he had no answer, saw that he was losing again, and skedaddled out a here.
He will return later, to try to spread the same manure again, pretending it was never debunked here.
But we will remind him.
Try again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LVSrTZDopM&t=2415s
linked From WUWT
And Peterson does good interview about everything about climate
and stuff.
Orbital Kinetic Energy:
https://tinyurl.com/Orbital-KinEn
AQ,
Presumably, you are trying for the appearance of intelligence through obscurity.
Consider the linear velocities of a particle at the tip of a wind turbine travelling at say, 100 m/s, and a particle 1 mm from the root of the blade, travelling at 0.002 m/s. And yet the blade does not fly apart, nor rotate about any internal axis normal to its plane of rotation.
You don’t seem to accept that the Moon is simply falling towards the Earth, as Newton surmised. Luckily, its forward motion is such that it never reaches the Earth. Actually, it is travelling a little faster than required to maintain a consistent elliptical orbit, and is gradually receding.
The point of your link, if any, is obscure indeed. Is it the product of some SkyDragon cultist?
Find the fault in my mathematics, or go away and get a degree in physics so you are able to do so.
AQ,
What mathematics are you talking about? What are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that the conservation laws apply to a closed system?
You seem to be having difficulty in expressing yourself.
By the way, your spellchecker might need checking. Infinitesimal is generally spelled with only one s.
Einstein supposedly said “If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.” Try explaining the role of the GHE in the cooling of the Earth over the past four and a half billion years or so. Feel free to use as much mathematics as you wish.
How hard can it be?
Have a nice day
AQ,
What mathematics are you talking about? What are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that the conservation laws apply to a closed system?
You seem to be having difficulty in expressing yourself.
By the way, your spellchecker might need checking. Infinitesimal is generally spelled with only one s.
Einstein supposedly said “If you cant explain it to a six year old, you dont understand it yourself.” Try explaining the role of the GHE in the cooling of the Earth over the past four and a half billion years or so. Feel free to use as much mathematics as you wish.
How hard can it be?
It’s deja clueless all over again.
AQ,
You really have no clue, have you?
You can’t even describe the GHE, can you, let alone explain how it cooled the Earth for four and a half billion years or so.
You could always try acting the fool by pretending you are intelligent, and that strangers should value your bizarre SkyDragon notions. If you can actually say what they are, of course, which seems quite unlikely.
Give it a try – a good laugh won’t hurt anyone, will it?
https://tinyurl.com/Orbital-KinEn
When you’re ready …
AQ,
Just posting pointless links won’t help you to appear intelligent. You can’t even explain what you are trying to say.
You have been hoist with your own petard.
Don’t blame me if you look about smart as you are. It’s all your own work – stand up and take credit for being an irrelevant SkyDragon cultist!
Dimwit.
=> => => => https://tinyurl.com/Orbital-KinEn <= <= <= <=
AQ,
Just posting pointless links wont help you to appear intelligent. You cant even explain what you are trying to say.
You have been hoist with your own petard.
Dont blame me if you look about smart as you are. Its all your own work stand up and take credit for being an irrelevant SkyDragon cultist!
Dimwit.
You can lead a sheep to water …
That is a beautiful proof AQ.
Antonin, your "beautiful proof" leads to the conclusion that a chalk circle drawn towards the outside edge of a merry-go-round platform is rotating on its own axis because the platform rotates.
Yet most sane, rational human beings would conclude that the chalk circle is simply rotating about the same axis as the rest of the platform…namely, the axis in the center of the platform.
One single motion, not two…and you might be surprised to find out who agrees that it can be described that way…
AQ,
Gentle Graham is trying to intimate that the motion of the Moon should be modelled using a pure rotation for the orbit AND the spin, like a ball on string.
Because reasons. Or rather sane people. Like Nikola Tesla.
Sane people who claims that they *see* the Moon spinning in the sky.
But that is an illusion,
Make that what you will.
"Gentle Graham is trying to intimate that the motion of the Moon should be modelled using a pure rotation"
Antonin modelled the problem using a circular motion, Little Willy, thus my response is entirely appropriate.
"Sane people who claims that they *see* the Moon spinning in the sky."
Nobody claims that they see the moon spinning in the sky, idiot. The "illusion" is when you mentally visualize the moon’s orbit from above and outside (same POV as the GIF). There it appears, in your mind’s eye, as though the moon rotates on its own axis…however, appearances can be deceptive.
.
Gentle Graham has invested 77 months of his life trolling this website on an issue that requires he learns to read equations. Here is is, again playing words games.
And he sucks at word games.
An *illusion* is a distorsion of the senses, not a misconception of a mental construction.
Nikola simply brain farted there.
No big deal.
But he is Grahams guru, and Graham might *never* concede anything.
So he soldiers on, gaslighting along the way.
You know, Little Willy, they might not have had GIFs in Tesla’s day, but you could still draw diagrams of the moon’s orbit as seen from the same POV as the GIF we all know and love.
Perhaps it’s your own inability to visualize things that is the problem for you, in grasping what Tesla meant by the "illusion".
Why are we still talking about this, though, in a thread about Antonin’s "beautiful proof"? Oh, that’s right, because you get an idea into your head, and won’t ever let it go, even when the discussion’s moved on.
Gentle Graham *still* refuses to own his confusion between the Moon and its representation.
Let us bite, and suppose that his silly pet GIF represents a ball on a string.
That is, imagine there is a string between the two circles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File%3ATidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
How does anyone see the ball spinning, again?
How would the right side of that silly GIF be possible if there was a string?
The illusion is just another Moon Dragon cranks myth!
"How does anyone see the ball spinning, again?"
Are you saying that the MOTL doesn’t appear to be the one that’s spinning!?
Gentle Graham does not always gaslight, but – well, he does always gaslight.
The reason why we say that the Moon spins is simple.
Physics.
Not observation.
Physics.
Just like AQ just did.
I’m guessing Little Willy’s sudden switch is because he finally understood what is meant by the "illusion", and realized he now looks like a complete idiot.
And so Gentle Graham elects to gaslight a little more.
Next he’s gonna try to convince readers that when Pup says that he can see the Moon spin “in relation to the fixed stars” the GIF represents that view.
🤦♂️
DREMT
How about you challenge the logic DIRECTLY. What is preventing you from finding the fault?
I did find the fault, Antonin. As did Swenson, almost immediately. I certainly can’t take all the credit. Your "beautiful proof" went "poof" pretty much straight away.
Your only “fault” was an assertion that (1/2)mv^2 does not apply to motion in a curved path. I have never heard a “scientist” make that claim before.
Antonin, if you want to believe that chalk circle is rotating on its own internal axis, you go right ahead. Draw some more chalk circles, and you’ll get even more axial rotation! Infinite axial rotation for Antonin, please…
AQ,
This might explain why it’s hard to intuit Moon Dragon Crank physics:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1419429
For some reason Gentle Graham believes that he can escape discussing momentum by handwaving around definitions of orbit and rotation.
Little Willy is going to keep popping up like this. We’re fairly far down-thread, he thinks lots of people will be reading, so he likes to stay as active as possible in these sorts of situations. He’ll be responding within minutes of each of my comments, no doubt.
AQ presents a document in which the first derivation leads to this conclusion:
https://tinyurl.com/Orbital-KinEn
Gentle Graham tries to dodge that wrench with his silly chalk that allows him to play more word games.
Word games in which he sucks.
By which he tries to evade the necessity of talking about angular velocity.
He soldiers on.
See what I mean? Little Willy just can’t help himself.
"Yet most sane, rational human beings would conclude that the chalk circle is simply rotating about the same axis as the rest of the platform…namely, the axis in the center of the platform.
One single motion, not two…and you might be surprised to find out who agrees that it can be described that way…"
I wonder if that person you might be surprised about will make an appearance in this thread?
Gentle Graham prefers to armwave an absurd reductio instead of being confronted with physics.
I can’t blame him. Moon Dragon cranks have little else.
Maybe he doesn’t show up unless you say his name…
Boo.
No, I wasn’t thinking of Brandy Guts.
Gentle Graham is talking about Mighty Tim, BG.
For some reason he (Gentle Graham, that is) believes that as soon as you decompose a motion into various components, it’s not a motion anymore…
Anything to deflect from physics, including gaslighting.
The misrepresentations begin.
Well, when you misrepresent someone, Little Willy, expect them to tell you that this is the case.
When Gentle Graham whines about being misrepresented, he never really shows how.
For some reason.
I’m actually constantly correcting you, but whatever. It gets boring after a while.
Gentle Graham gently gaslights…again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Ant found a link he can’t understand and throws it against the wall without comment. He has no clue about the relevant physics. He just hopes he can somehow support his false beliefs.
We see this kind of nonsense all the time.
It is all my work. Unlike you, I have studied physics. If you had, you would be able to engage with it.
I thought it was your own work, Ant. I just wanted you to admit it.
But again, you start off with a false accusation, which makes you a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll. And, that’s NOT an insult, it’s reality.
You’re welcome to try again, without your troll tactics.
Poor Pup.
Cannot take a loss like a man.
“Admit”?? How does providing a fact qualify qualify as an “admission”? Why would I want to hide that fact?
Apparently you beginning with a false accusation is OK, and you’ve admitted that you knew it was false. Please explain how that wasn’t “troll tactics”.
And WHO is the anonymous troll, g..e..r..a..n?
Ant, apparently you just want to argue. I don’t have time, or interest, for such nonsense.
I’m merely responding in kind to the person who wants to argue, g..e..r..a..n
Ant did not choose to try again. He got caught, but could only respond with a false accusation. He relied on a worthless troll to run interference for him.
Ant’s mistake was in attempting to apply kinematics to orbital motion. That can easily lead to nonsense and incorrect outcomes. But in their cult, they thrive on nonsense and incorrect outcomes.
> mistake was in attempting to apply kinematics to orbital motion
🤦♂️
Wow – apparently you don’t recognise the necessity for sleep.
Never heard of time zones?
Does THIS qualify as a false accusation, g..e..r..a..n, or do you get special dispensation?
Ant, when you actually learn why your “work” has NOTHING to do with Moon, then you can try to explain it to worthless willard.
Good luck with that….
AQ,
You wrote –
“Wow apparently you dont recognise the necessity for sleep.
Never heard of time zones?”
And you think somebody values your irrelevant utterances because . . . ?
Keep the laughs coming.
By the way, did the link you supplied supposedly “prove” that the Moon is rotating about an internal axis? You didn’t just assume the Moon was rotating, and point out that if it was, its angular momentum would be greater than if it wasn’t, did you?
If you did – silly, silly. About as silly as saying that if your bicycle had three wheels, it would be a tricycle.
Typical SkyDragon dummy – ignore fact in favour of fantasy. Just like you ignore the fact that Newton’s Law of cooling applies to the Earth, which has an “average” temperature of around 3500 K.
Keep denying reality – reality doesn’t care.
What are you braying about, Mike?
The tricycle trick is Gentle Graham’s main trick!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Consider a system consisting of two infinitessimal (point) masses (red and green), each of mass 2
m , joined by a
massless rod of length 2r.”
Can’t make massless rod, but can make an insignificant mass compared
ends.
Let’s make the end, a 6 meter radius sphere of solid lead: 11,342 kg
per cubic meter, volume: 904.78 cubic meter of lead, total mass:
10,262,014.76 kg for one and x 2 for two 20,524,029.52 kg.
And massless rod or pipe of 100 meter tall with inside diameter of
6 meters with wall thickness of 4 mm and made Aluminum alloy of density of 2700 kg per cubic meter.
Inside diameter is 12 meter: 12.004 meter times pi = 37.71164636 times 100 = 3771.164636 square meter times .004 = 15.084658544 cubic
meter times 2700 kg = 40728.5780688 kg.
So 40.7 tons vs the 20,524 tons.
And center of gravity is in middle of 100 meter pipe.
So, put it in 400 km orbit of Earth in zero inclination orbit.
Now could rod longer, say 1000 meter or say 10,000 meter:
with mass of 407 tons, and I would say it still make like massless rod or 10 km being 4072.8 ton vs the 20,524 tons of both ends.
And center of gravity is in middle, and with longest pipe the gravity
force upon pipe are quite significant- but with strong Aluminum alloy
as just guess, it seems pipe wouldn’t break.
Now have two positions one the ends are in slightly different orbital inclination from each other. And other have difference of orbit distance from Earth: the center of gravity is 400 km, and ends are
395 and 405 km from Earth.
It seems as guess, and particularly since at zero inclination this has less forces upon the pipe as compared to the difference of 395 vs 405 km, and it also seems “less stable”.
Of course there another way, where one ball of lead leading the other one and everything is at 400 km high orbit and at same inclination- which has least forces acting on it, and also seems the least stable.
So, therefore one make longer, like 100 km long pipe, but it make it
even less stable, and if not stabilized, could more likely result in breaking the pipe.
But change out the lead with water. Have water be 1/10th length- so with 100 km having 10 km of water at each end. So, about 28.27 square meter cross section times 10,000 meter is 282,743.1 tons of water at
either end. That seems like way too much mass, 1/100th length
Or 1 km of water at either end: 28,274.31 ton, more than twice lead.
The center gravity of water is 1/2 km from end and in middle of pipe for both masses.
With water, you can enter it. And has excellent radiation shielding.
And would have microgravity effect as do with ISS.
If water section leading the other water section, the microgravity will be most similar to ISS [but stronger]. Things should drift towards the 1/2 km point and towards the 50 km mid point.
And will occur even if far from Earth- say at Earth/sun L-1 [1.5 million km from Earth].
But the effect from Earth should be least, if one end is following the other and all is 400 km from Earth and all is at same Earth inclination.
Now what happen if one end is 50 km closer to earth [350 km orbit] and other at 450 km orbit?
Grr, 113.09724 square meter rather than “28.27 square meter cross section” off factor 4, much more 4 times than lead sphere, more 8 times. Things could break in a number of ways.
One way is pressure of water. So withstand 33 psi, ok, so
does not seem to be as much of possible problem. And lets have ball of air in middle the ends [1/2 km from end- at 5 psi or we pressurize the at water 5 psi – and water not compressible, we remove about 1000 tons of water, give this air pocket at 5 psi.
Now apply rocket power to move it so one end is 350 km from Earth surface.
And we ask where does pocket of air go, and is there any difference in air pressure?
Mike Flynn,
Was that the Chewbacca Defense?
Woeful Wee Willy,
The fantasy world in which you live is bizarre indeed.
Carry on.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Here:
https://youtu.be/aV6NoNkDGsU
Cheers.
Weary Wee Willy,
Another pointless link? Too embarrassed to say what you mean?
Oh dear, Willy, your attempts to appear intelligent don’t seem to be doing all that well.
Have you managed to explain the role of the GHE in the Earth cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so? You shouldnt even need a link, should you, if facts support your explanation!
Only joking – you really have no clue about physics, do you?
What are you braying about, Mike, and if you can’t even click on a link, why should anyone spoon feed you?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
What good would it do me to waste my time clicking on meaningless links?
How do I know it’s meaningless?
Because an idiot SkyDragon wants me to waste my time clicking on on it.
What good does it do to you to keep braying like that, Mike?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
What good would it do me to waste my time clicking on meaningless links?
How do I know its meaningless?
Because an idiot SkyDragon wants me to waste my time clicking on on it.
Is it meaningful to you that you keep braying like that, Mike?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
What good would it do me to waste my time clicking on meaningless links?
How do I know its meaningless?
Because an idiot SkyDragon wants me to waste my time clicking on on it.
Why are you wasting your time braying, Mike?
Another low with heavy rainfall has reached northern California.
https://i.ibb.co/syqWhrb/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-01-09-081242.png
This is not the end of the rainfall in California. The western circulation is blocking over the Bering Sea.
https://i.ibb.co/4NTWTtt/pobrane.png
This is what the polar vortex blockage over the Bering Sea in the middle stratosphere at 10 hPa looks like now.
https://i.ibb.co/g4sLycH/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-01-09-123802.png
The technicalities of the debate here are always refreshing. But remember our good fortune. Let’s not lose sight of the cost all this is having on the poorest in the developing world.
https://open.substack.com/pub/envmental/p/sacrificing-humanity-on-the-green?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Well done:
https://climateball.net/but-renewables/
How to construct an S-G filter (according to Wiki)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitzky%E2%80%93Golay_filter
“A SavitzkyGolay filter is a digital filter that can be applied to a set of digital data points for the purpose of smoothing the data, that is, to increase the precision of the data without distorting the signal tendency. This is achieved, in a process known as convolution, by fitting successive sub-sets of adjacent data points with a low-degree polynomial by the method of linear least squares. When the data points are equally spaced, an analytical solution to the least-squares equations can be found, in the form of a single set of ‘convolution coefficients’ that can be applied to all data sub-sets, to give estimates of the smoothed signal, (or derivatives of the smoothed signal) at the central point of each sub-set. The method, based on established mathematical procedures, was popularized by Abraham Savitzky and Marcel J. E. Golay, who published tables of convolution coefficients for various polynomials and sub-set sizes in 1964. Some errors in the tables have been corrected. The method has been extended for the treatment of 2- and 3-dimensional data.
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’.”
Of course a single pass S-G filter does not accurately match what an accurate CTRM filter does over is output as it passes through too much high frequencies. That requires the use of a multi-pass S-G which is what I use in my filters.
Also, an S-G filter does not accurately predict the exact line that fits the data at the ends of its window, as that requires data that has yet to be entered (see how the end of the lines wriggle around on the Wiki).
Blindsley Hood’s eternal, opinionated, condescending blah blah.
A filter operating on existing data never predicts anything in it: it simply processes that data.
A prediction is an extrapolation made out of that existing data, like in e.g.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jq4WtwwH8vcY3Fdx7vEFGge8niRmqHRn/view
But Blindsley Hood never admits anything, and is always right.
However, the vast majority of people don’t act like him and people like Robertson, Clint R, Flynnson and a few other guys.
Heureusement!
That polyidiotic chart takes the cake ,
have you send it McIntosh yet ???
Binny,
You wrote –
“A prediction is an extrapolation made out of that existing data, like in e.g. . . . ”
Which can be done by a reasonably competent 12 year old – or even me, I suppose.
You seem to be disagreeing violently with the IPCC, which stated that it not possible to predict future climate states.
Maybe, instead of peering into a bowl of chicken entrails, you could peer into a bowl of sauerkraut? Just as effective, and you could add some wurst of choice, some “himmel und erde” – yum!
See? Predicting can be quite satisfying if you do it correctly.
“A filter operating on existing data never predicts anything in it: it simply processes that data”
The point is that the data needed for an S-G to accurately plot a line to the end of the data, it requires assumptions to be made for the half of the window to which the fit, however it is calculated, is to be made.
Depending on if the new data (i.e. in the future) is high or low the ‘fit’ will alter over the later half of the window.
Unless you somehow imagine the S-G is a miraculous invention.
That is why the red line changes its value at the ends in the plot below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitzky%E2%80%93Golay_filter#/media/File:Lissage_sg3_anim.gif
rlh…”A SavitzkyGolay filter is a digital filter that can be applied to a set of digital data points for the purpose of smoothing the data…”
***
Is Roy not using something similar to get the red running-average curve in his monthly series?
CTRM is a much better (i.e. more accurate) filter without the distortions that Running Means add. As they only operate with limits as to their operation and to bring the output up to ‘now’ some other form of filter is required. As you get closer to ‘now’ the accuracy of any filter degrades so I now use a range to display what is likely to happen (I used to use a central value but that was not well understood).
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/01/uah-global.jpeg
Will the global average sea surface temperature anomaly return to the 1981-2010 average?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Our Moon does not rotate about its own axis.
Since Moons sidereal rotation period 27,32 days (in reference to the stars) is the same as its orbital around Earth period, Moon definitely does not rotate on its own axis.
If Moon rotated on its own axis, Moons sidereal rotational period should have been shorter than its orbital around Earth period.
****
Moons sidereal spin (in reference to the stars) is a sum of Moons around Earth orbital, Moon’s around sun orbital and Moons around its axis movements.
Since Moons sidereal spin is equal to the Moons around Earth orbital movement, Moons axial spin is zero Moon does not rotate about its own axis.
****
Planet Mercury rotates about its own axis.
Mercurys sidereal rotational period: 58,646 Earth days.
Mercury orbits sun in 87,97 Earth days.
Mercurys diurnal period is 176 Earth days.
***
Our Moon doesnt rotate about its own axis.
Moons sidereal rotation period is equal to its around Earth orbital period:
27,32 Earth days.
Moons diurnal period is 29,53 Earth days.
Moon’s sidereal rotation period is shorter than Moon’s diurnal period, because Moon also orbits sun.
Moon’s sidereal rotation spin = 1 /27,32 rot/day
Moon’s diurnal rotation spin = 1 /29,53 rot/day
Consequently, Moon spins faster in reference to the stars than it spins in reference to the sun!
Moon’s spin in reference to the stars is faster, than its spin in reference to the sun, because Moon’s spin in reference to the stars is a sum of two movements:
1. The Moon orbiting Earth.
2. The Moon orbiting sun.
–
There is not any movement of Moon around its own axis.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> If Moon rotated on its own axis, Moons sidereal rotational period should have been shorter than its orbital around Earth period.
You should tell that to Mercury, Christos.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Maybe you don’t know, but Mercury does not orbit the Earth.
Now is your time to boast that you didn’t comprehend what Christos wrote.
Idiot. Your attempt at being gratuitously offensive merely shows that you are gratuitously stupid.
Charon does not orbit the Earth either, Mike Flynn.
Is there a point behind your braying?
Whiny Wee Willy,
Go for it, laddie.
Tell me water is wet, and that you weren’t trying to be gratuitously offensive.
Another diversion? Maybe you could try saying “You should tell that to Mercury, Christos.”, hoping nobody will notice you are an idiot SkyDragon.
Charon? Was Charon’s role more important in the cooling of the Earth over the past four and a half billion years or so than the GHE, or did neither have any discernible effect?
C’mon Wee Willy, at least try to pretend you have a clue.
Go for braying, Mike Flynn.
“Maybe you dont know, but Mercury does not orbit the Earth”.
***
I would claim that wee willy is a Druid from pre-Copernicus days, but that would be an insult to Druids.
Has anyone else noticed that we willy is becoming more cranky as we re-educate him?
Yes, definitely.
C’mon, Bordon.
Leave gaslighting to Gentle Graham.
Little Willy provides us with an example of his crankiness.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
…and another example…
Moar gaslighting from Gentle Graham.
…aand another example…
Moar gaslighting from Gentle Graham.
…aaand another example…
Moar gaslighting from Gentle Graham.
…aaaand another example…
Moar gaslighting from Gentle Graham.
…aaaaand another example…
Moar
…aaaaaand another example…
g
…aaaaaaand another example…
a
…aaaaaaaand another example…
christos…Newton proved the Moon does not rotate on a local axis. He stated in Principia that the Moon moves with a rectilinear (straight line) motion. He also pointed out that all planets, like the Moon, are pulled into a curvilinear motion by a central gravity.
Newton also pointed out that the Moon keeps the same side pointed at Earth. The Moon, with an instantaneous rectilinear motion, keeping the same side pointed at Earth, must be moving with curvilenear motion without local rotation.
As you claim, the ‘apparent’ rotation wrt the stars is an illusion that must be examine closely to understand that it is produced by curvilinear translation and not by a rotation about a local axis.
He (Newton) correctly observed that the orbits are created by a combination of radial velocity and gravitational attraction. He most certainly did not say that that an orbit defined an orientation wrt the center of the orbit. In fact he claimed the opposite was true, see Newton 1.
RLH,
No offense intended, but radial velocity is a consequence, not a cause, if you see what I mean.
In the case of Earth, its radial velocity varies continuously.
Newton’s First Law states “A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.”
Both the Earth and the Moon travel in straight lines, acted on by the force of gravity. Observation confirms that this seems to be the case.
Unfortunately, every particle in the universe exerts force on every other particle in the universe. Adding chaos (or applying the uncertainty principle if you prefer), means that the approximate present does not determine the approximate future. Modelling the Moon’s orbit – exactly – is not possible, in the sense that its velocity and position can be established in the future with absolute certainty. Nor can its past.
SkyDragons seem to believe they can affect the future in some measurable way by changing the present composition of the atmosphere.
They are quite mad, as far as I can see. Not one of them is prepared to come out and state what they believe, and subject themselves to having to support their ideas.
This might explain avoiding the supposed GHE at every turn, and diverting to arguing about something quite irrelevant, such as whether the Moon rotates about an internal axis. What next?
Mike Flynn,
With respect – what are you braying about?
Here’s a little tidbit:
Please do *not* show it to Bordon!
Cheers.
Forces can be considered to operate at a instant of time.
rlh…”He (Newton) correctly observed that the orbits are created by a combination of radial velocity and gravitational attraction. He most certainly did not say that that an orbit defined an orientation wrt the center of the orbit. In fact he claimed the opposite was true, see Newton 1″.
***
Do you mean tangential velocity? Radial velocity would be in the direction of a radial line, or the speed of a rotating vector, whereas the rectilinear motion to which Newton referred was in the instantaneous direction of a tangent line to an orbital path. As the Moon moves in that tangential direction at any instant, gravity redirects the tangent line direction a smidgen the next instant.
It may be the case, that at the tangential velocity, the Moon covers quite a few metres in a straight line before the bending takes effect. Don’t know, but that’s what calculus is all about, the instantaneous change of a curve. With an orbit, the vertical change must be about 5 metres for every 8000 metres traversed in a tangential direction. Following that ratio, an orbiting body meets the requirements of the Earth’s curvature.
It’s an interesting study and that’s how Newton derived the concept of calculus, using geometry. If you take the positive half of a sine wave and divide it into rectangles along the x-axis, you can approximate the area under the sine wave. The error will be represented by the tiny triangular-like shapes between the top of the rectangle and the curve. By making the rectangles thinner and thinner, the error margin is reduced.
What Newton wanted to know is what the limiting value of area under the curve was as the width of the rectangles approached zero. We had a math prof who drove us nuts trying to calculate what the error would be given a certain curve with a stated acceptable error. We would not be examined on the concept but he thought it was cool. Didn’t seem to understand that we had scads of other homework to work on. Turns out we had to take the 4th derivative of the curve equation, if it existed, to get such an error value.
“Do you mean tangential velocity?”
At the instant that the forces operate, tangential, radial and linear are all the same acting at approximately right angles to any orbit. Same in magnitude, same in direction. Gravity operates at ‘right angles’ to those, causing an orbit to occur. No force from all of those causes the Moon to rotate wrt the fixed stars during its orbit.
Vournas
What you wrote above is 100 % in contradiction to what you write since years on your blog and on several other blogs, this one of course included.
Does this mean that you deny all what you wrote until now?
Here is a collection of information anybody can find on your page:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N4v5M7td7NuT3xsXm9W2KMgm1BXQqegT/view
The source of the info I collected is, as you know, here:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/449096398.html
And on that page
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443779687.html
you clearly mention that all planets and moons rotate!
It is even clear from your own informations that you agree to synchronous rotation, as is visible no only for Earth’s Moon, but for Jupiter’s Galilean moons and Pluto’s moon Charon as well.
*
Are you sure you understand, Vournas, that by denying the rotation of the Moon about its polar axis (and by extension, that of all other moons in the Solar System), you are contradicting your own theory concerning
“The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon” ?
The difference of rotation speed between Earth and its Moon is the most important factor in your computation of their respective warming!
*
And the following
” Moon’s spin in reference to the stars is faster, than its spin in reference to the sun, because Moon’s spin in reference to the stars is a sum of two movements:
1. The Moon orbiting Earth.
2. The Moon orbiting sun.
There is not any movement of Moon around its own axis. ”
really is the most stupid statement I have ever read.
Because in that case, ALL planetary and moon rotations being faster wrt the stars than wrt the Sun would mean that they don’t rotate about their axis.
**
What’s the matter with you, Vournas?
Will you now update your web site according to your new denial, so that all moon rotation periods you indicated now will disappear?
Christos again ignores facts, such as the Moon’s rotation is on an axis tilted 6.7 degrees to the axis of its orbit, which is in turn tilted to the Earth-Sun orbital plane, as well as the Moon’s libration.
He is a welcome addition to our Cult of Lunatics.
Why are you trolling Ren you Ozzie twit? He never bothers anyone, sticking to his informative posts.
It seems every alarmist troll who comes on this site feels obliged to harass Ren. We know what that’s about, Even though Ren has offered no opinions re skepticism, his posts cut to the heart of the matter. All he’s doing is informing us as to what is what in the real world. Alarmist trolls take exception because they cannot deal with the truth.
C’mon, Bordon.
Calm down.
Don’t c’mon, Gordon with a G.
Calm up.
Gentle Graham gently gaslights again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1426768
Bordon, Gill. Pretty simple.
Gordon, Bill. Even simpler.
Willard. Very, very, simple. Gullible to boot.
[snigger]
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1425273
Little Willy just links to random discussions for no apparent reason.
Graham plays dumb again.
Brandon wrote –
“Graham plays dumb again.”
SkyDragon clairvoyance? Telepathy?
Or just more SkyDragon unsupported assertion, and wishful thinking presented as fact?
Brandon is just another dimwit who cannot even describe the GHE in any way which accords with reality. Who would value the opinions of such a donkey?
Not me, that’s for sure.
I really have no idea what either of you two identical twins are on about.
Once again Mike Flynn is braying, and Gentle Graham is playing dumb once again.
The cyclical online life of Dragon cranks is complete.
Still no idea what you were talking about. Oh well. I guess it wasn’t important.
Gentle Graham is still playing dumb.
OK, Little Willy.
Now you’re getting the idea.
Who’s “Little Willy,” BG?
Oh, you are referring to the fact that I call you two silly names as a result of you two refusing to call me DREMT. I see. I wasn’t expecting the point to be that petty.
Gentle Graham gaslights a tad more.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Sorry – what does Aussie have to do with anything? Why do you always feel the need to needlessly attack entire groups, which is MUCH worse than attacking individuals.
Ren has claimed we are going to cool – that is an opinion.
He is providing a cherry-picked view of the world for the sole purpose of promoting his agenda.
It’s revealing seeing conservatives who believe in unfettered free speech showing that they only mean free speech for themselves.
aqwerty…”Ren has claimed we are going to cool that is an opinion”.
***
Ren is talking weather, not climate.
While skeptics were counting polar bears thinking it will win them the debate the climate schysterz brutally falsified the temperature data
https://bit.ly/3QtB4zD
They are all slimy cheaters…Had-crut, NOAA, and GISS.
Recently, Gavin Schmidt of GISS, a mathematician, portrayed the science of Zharkova, with a degree in astrophysics, as nonsense. He was trying to trash the theories of Zharkova that we ‘may’ be heading into a mini-ice age, based on her in-depth studies of the solar cycles. I emphasize ‘may’ because that what she said.
This is the same Schmidt who ran and hid from a climate debate with Lindzen, knowing full-well he’d get his butt kicked. The same Schmidt who could not offer a proper equation for positive feedback, even though he programs such a feedback into GISS climate models.
Both GISS and NOAA lied about 2014 being the hottest year ever. NOAA presented the false information on the basis of a 48% probability and GISS came in with a 38% probability.
Had-crut was once run by Phil Jones, who was caught on the climategate email scandal bragging about using a deceitful trick created by Schmidt’s buddy Michael Mann to hide declining temperatures. In the same set of emails, he claimed that he and ‘Kevin’ would see to it that skeptical appears would be blocked from IPCC reviews.
That would seem to implicate Kevin Trenberth of NCAR since he and Jones were Coordinating Lead Authors on IPCC reviews and quite capable of blocking these papers.
” They are all slimy cheaters… Had-crut, NOAA, and GISS. ”
My experience with your daily lies, Robertson, is that you are the slimiest of all cheaters.
C’mon, Bordon.
You haven’t read these emails, have you?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“You havent read these emails, have you?”
Are you denying that some slimy SkyDragon self-appointed “climate scientist” wrote in an email “Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”?
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
“You wrote”
and then you kept braying.
Why?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“You havent read these emails, have you?”
Are you denying that some slimy SkyDragon self-appointed “climate scientist” wrote in an email “Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”?
Do you realize that you and Bordon are braying about two different issues, Mike?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“You havent read these emails, have you?”
Are you denying that some slimy SkyDragon self-appointed “climate scientist” wrote in an email “Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”?
Mike Flynn,
You haven’t read these emails, have you?
Too busy braying, no doubt.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
You havent read these emails, have you?
Are you denying that some slimy SkyDragon self-appointed climate scientist wrote in an email Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!?
Did you know that these emails had numbers, Mike?
Too busy to bray, I see.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“You havent read these emails, have you?”
Are you denying that some slimy SkyDragon self-appointed climate scientist wrote in an email “Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”?
If you don’t believe that I quote parts of documents without reading them, don’t blame me if others laugh at you. Whilst I appreciate you thinking that I have awesome superpowers, you are wrong – as usual.
Of course I have read what I quoted, you idiot! You might as well go back to your homosexual protestations of love – you won’t look any more stupid.
What a donkey you are!
So, Mike.
What email number?
Keep braying,
the falsifying data, doesn’t change the fact that 15 C is cold,
and Europe average temperature is about 9 C and US is about 11 C, though in US most people living where it’s warmer, such as California
with average of about 15 C. I don’t think Europe has state as warm as 15 C- Italy about 14 C, and Greece is 16 C- very nice places to live, though driving in Italy is suppose to be fairly crazy
The climate schysterz have caused the public to waste trillions of dollars, and they are flying in private jets.
And all more stupid when China is burning over 4 billion tons of coal- if Europe wants reduce CO2, they should buy less from China, but China will run out coal and Europe will run out of money.
And both China and Europe will continue to lose population.
It seems to me the most significant thing China is doing is making a lot of rockets to go into Space.
gb…”though driving in Italy is suppose to be fairly crazy”
***
I am reading WWII history where Yank forces have landed at Salerno and are driving North toward Naples. Driving was a lot more hairy back then with the Germans firing mortar rounds and their 88mm cannons at people on the roads.
Robertson
Your comment dated “January 9, 2023 at 3:58 PM”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1426710
*
1. Once more, your comment is free of any reference to any source.
2. I am NOT AT ALL interested in your English text which could be manipulated
– by the (unknown) translator
– by yourself, as you lie here all the time whenever you feel the need to do.
*
Thus I repeat:
(Not only) I still await your exact reference in Newtons ORIGINAL Latin text source of his Principia.
Here are the Latin sources
Book I and II
https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Philosophiae_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica
Book III
https://books.google.de/books?id=2wNYAAAAcAAJ&hl=de&pg=PA1&q=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
*
You never posted that really original reference until now.
Post the original source, Robertson!
binny the loon…”I still await your exact reference in Newtons ORIGINAL Latin text source of his Principia”.
***
You seem to think I am going to run out and find a Latin translation for the English translation we have been discussing. Don’t hold your breath.
Besides, I have proved using the English translation that Newton agreed that the Moon does not rotate on a local axis.
C’mon, Bordon.
You still haven’t found the authoritative translation:
I think this applies to the Moon too. What about you?
yep…applies to the Moon. It’s moving in a straight line and other forces (gravity) act to divert it. Don’t now what he was getting at re spinning hoop. Just don’t confuse circular motion with rotation about a local axis. Here he is talking about a circular orbit related to curvilinear motion.
Great, Bordon.
Now, if gravity does not prevent the Moon from orbiting, why the Hell would you think it prevents it from spinning?
C’mon.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You idiot. Gravity creates the orbit. It is a force acting on a body traveling in a straight line.
Gravity slows the “circular motion” of an unbalanced body.
I don’t expect you understand any of this, but others who are curious about the Moon’s motion might.
You quoted Newton, but in the manner of one who does not understand what they are doing. I doubt you have the ability to comprehend the difference between fact and fantasy, as you continually claim you don’t understand what you have quoted.
Don’t blame me because you are a mindless SkyDragon cultist – you’ve done it to yourself.
Have you ever heard of reading before braying, Mike?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You idiot. Gravity creates the orbit. It is a force acting on a body traveling in a straight line.
Gravity slows the circular motion of an unbalanced body.
I dont expect you understand any of this, but others who are curious about the Moons motion might.
You quoted Newton, but in the manner of one who does not understand what they are doing. I doubt you have the ability to comprehend the difference between fact and fantasy, as you continually claim you dont understand what you have quoted.
Dont blame me because you are a mindless SkyDragon cultist youve done it to yourself.
You should read before braying, Mike.
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted –
“And larger bodies-planets and comets- preserve for a longer time both their progressive and their circular motions, which take place in spaces having less resistance.”
I salute you for appealing to authorities which support their opponents. A rare example of being prepared to look stupid to advance understanding.
As the Moon, which has reduced its “circular motion” ie. rotation about an internal axis, to zero. It took a very long time, possibly billions of years. As was unavoidable, given the effect of gravity on the Moon’s inhomogenous internal mass distribution. Examples are an unbalanced wheel stopping with its heaviest point closest to the ground, or a pendulum stopping its motion, with the bob at the lowest point of its travel.
Nature doesn’t care what anybody “thinks”. You may “think” that a GHE made the Earth hotter since its creation, if you wish. Other SkyDragons may well agree with you.
Quote another authority, if you like. See f you can find one which supports you, for a change.
Is there a point behind all that braying, Mike?
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted
And larger bodies-planets and comets- preserve for a longer time both their progressive and their circular motions, which take place in spaces having less resistance.
I salute you for appealing to authorities which support their opponents. A rare example of being prepared to look stupid to advance understanding.
As the Moon, which has reduced its circular motion ie. rotation about an internal axis, to zero. It took a very long time, possibly billions of years. As was unavoidable, given the effect of gravity on the Moons inhomogenous internal mass distribution. Examples are an unbalanced wheel stopping with its heaviest point closest to the ground, or a pendulum stopping its motion, with the bob at the lowest point of its travel.
Nature doesnt care what anybody thinks. You may think that a GHE made the Earth hotter since its creation, if you wish. Other SkyDragons may well agree with you.
Quote another authority, if you like. See if you can find one which supports you, for a change.
Let me get this straight, Mike Flynn –
There is no point behind all this braying?
None at all?
swenson…”As the Moon, which has reduced its circular motion ie. rotation about an internal axis, to zero”.
***
The spinners, for some strange reason, believe the Moon slowed its spin till it was in a perfect synchronous rotation with its orbital period and magically stayed there. The fly in the ointment is their inability to explain how it keeps the same side pointed at Earth while it spins exactly once. Also, why it stopped slowing down its spin. They seem to believe it became locked in place.
I even dumbed it down for wee willy to the point where a person walking around a round table while harnessed and attached to a rope, so he could not possibly rotate about a vertical axis, and willie still couldn’t get.
C’mon, Bordon.
Your harness fantasies were far from being simple.
Here’s simple –
Gravity does not spin the Moon while it curves its path into an elliptical orbit.
That’s not a viable position according to the physics we know.
Robertson
” You seem to think I am going to run out and find a Latin translation for the English translation we have been discussing. ”
You definitely prove the level of your incompetence and stupidity.
Newton’s ORIGINAL text is in LATIN, you idiot.
Show me the ORIGINAL LATIN source of the allegedly correct translations you post.
You didn’t even mention where then English text you post comes from and who was the translator!
Except Clint R, no one can behave as dumb as you do.
Bin is more obsessed with me than with anyone else.
That’s good, I must be doing something right….
binny…”Newtons ORIGINAL text is in LATIN, you idiot”.
***
Did I not just explain to you that I am not about to run out and find the Latin version? I’m finding it hard enough to correct the 19th century translation.
Good grief Bordon,
You keep saying “latin translation.”
Binny keeps telling you that the original is in latin.
I mean, c’mon.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
> He has not articulated clearly how the mass had the inordinate amount of energy it has in the first place clearly, and no, it does not come from the sun.
Getting Mike Flynn to articulate would be a good first step, Doc.
For now he keeps braying!
Silly Willy wrote –
“Getting Mike Flynn to articulate would be a good first step, Doc.”
The idiotic Wee Willy keeps trying to demonstrate his silliness – with some effect.
He is probably annoyed that angech has agreed with me, quite rightly, that the Earth is cooling. He tries to divert by demanding that a third party (Wee Willy being completely ineffectual himself ) “get” me to “articulate” something unspecified, hoping to divert attention away from the fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, supposed GHE, GHGs, tipping points, and pious SkyDragon prayers notwithstanding.
Alas, the delusional Willard cannot even offer up a good diversion. Who would willingly dance to the discordant jangling of a fool like Willard, and attempt to do what the fool is too incompetent to do, himself?
Why this other demonstration that you are very good at braying, Mike?
Silly Willy wrote
Getting Mike Flynn to articulate would be a good first step, Doc.
The idiotic Wee Willy keeps trying to demonstrate his silliness with some effect.
He is probably annoyed that angech has agreed with me, quite rightly, that the Earth is cooling. He tries to divert by demanding that a third party (Wee Willy being completely ineffectual himself ) get me to articulate something unspecified, hoping to divert attention away from the fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, supposed GHE, GHGs, tipping points, and pious SkyDragon prayers notwithstanding.
Alas, the delusional Willard cannot even offer up a good diversion. Who would willingly dance to the discordant jangling of a fool like Willard, and attempt to do what the fool is too incompetent to do, himself?
What are you braying about, Mike, and have you found anyone to disagree with you yet?
You’d have to articulate your position a bit more for anyone to disagree with it!
Swoon.
Weary Wee Willy,
Are you still thinking that boasting about your stupidity makes you appear clever?
Throwing in a protestation of homosexual love doesn’t help you (in my opinion, anyway).
The general response is likely to be “Ewwww!”, rather than “How sweet!”
In the meantime, explaining the role of the GHE in the cooling of the Earth over the last four and a half billion years or so, might help appreciation of your enormous intellectual grasp of physics.
Only joking. Delusional SkyDragon cultist prefer fantasy to physics, don’t they?
Carry on.
Are you still thinking that if you keep braying about a theory you had no curiosity to find by yourself for more than a decade things will change, Mike?
Weird Wee Willy,
Talking in tongues again?
There is no GHE theory, because there is no GHE.
As I wrote (I’ll repeat it because you are obviously a little retarded and slow on the uptake) –
In the meantime, explaining the role of the GHE in the cooling of the Earth over the last four and a half billion years or so, might help appreciation of your enormous intellectual grasp of physics.
Only joking. Delusional SkyDragon cultist prefer fantasy to physics, dont they?
What are you braying about, Mike?
Weird Wee Willy,
Talking in tongues again?
There is no GHE theory, because there is no GHE.
As I wrote (Ill repeat it because you are obviously a little retarded and slow on the uptake)
In the meantime, explaining the role of the GHE in the cooling of the Earth over the last four and a half billion years or so, might help appreciation of your enormous intellectual grasp of physics.
Only joking. Delusional SkyDragon cultist prefer fantasy to physics, dont they?
Mike Flynn,
That will be all.
Weird Wee Willy,
Talking in tongues again?
There is no GHE theory, because there is no GHE.
As I wrote (I’ll repeat it because you are obviously a little retarded and slow on the uptake)
In the meantime, explaining the role of the GHE in the cooling of the Earth over the last four and a half billion years or so, might help appreciation of your enormous intellectual grasp of physics.
Only joking. Delusional SkyDragon cultist prefer fantasy to physics, don’t they?
Mike Flynn, everyone!
swenson…”Why this other demonstration that you are very good at braying…”
***
This is more along Einstein’s experience with peer review. When an editor told him there were several hundred people who disagreed with a paper he was submitting, E. pointed out that it only took one person to prove him wrong.
I am still waiting for one person to prove Swenson wrong about anything he has claimed. He has invited posters many times to prove him wrong on the GHE. No takers.
C’mon, Bordon.
First, it was a book.
Second, peer review did not exist at the time.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
> “Can be described” != “can *only* be described”, Graham.
Gentle Graham always confuse the two, BG.
Incorrect.
For instance:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1425124
weewilly…”As he walks parallel to the table, he translates. That is, he orbits.
As he looks at the table his head turns. That is, it spins.
One motion. One complex motion. Very, very tough to understand for Moon Dragon cranks”.
***
I fixed the problem for you by making the table round. After all, if you are making an orbit of a table why make it square?
You can walk around a circular table, keeping the same side of your body pointed at the centre of the table, and there’s no need to turn your head. You can if you want but it makes no difference.
However, the spinners have argued that you are still rotating about a central, vertical axis. To eliminate that possibility, I had the walker wear a safety harness, fitted with straps over his shoulders, making it impossible for him to rotate within the harness. Then I had the inside edge of the harness connect to a rope via a hook and the other end of the rope attached to an axle via another hook that rotated on a central, vertical pole through the table centre.
Now we have a ball on a string situation. It is not possible for the walker to rotate about his vertical axis because he would need to wrap himself up in the rope. We can even ensure he doesn’t by making the rope length slightly longer than the table radius.
It doesn’t matter if it a human connected to the rope, or the Moon, the motion is pretty well the same…curvilinear translation without local rotation.
we willy has painted himself into a corner. Normally, he is sitting on a tree limb while he saws off the limb between him and the trunk.
C’mon, Bordon.
No, you didn’t fixed anything with a round table.
In fact you showed the *only* (Gentle Graham should pay attention to this quantifier) case where you could argue that your feet were synchronized with your head.
And then you’d have discovered a spin-orbit lock:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Congratulations!
“No, you didnt fixed anything with a round table”.
***
You re even more stupid than I thought. I dumbed it down to the most basic level and you still can’t see it. However, your obtuseness reveals an alarming inability to think scientifically for you and your fellow climate alarmists.
Thanks for participating in our study.
C’mon, Bordon.
Please leave gaslighting to Gentle Graham.
Little Willy inadvertently agrees that the case where the person is physically unable to rotate on their own axis whilst moving is the same as the “tidally-locked” moon scenario. Another glorious own goal.
Gaslighting Graham forgets that Bordon’s feet do not control his head.
Ah well.
What is this, the Exorcist where Linda Blair’s head rotates on an axle?
C’mon, Bordon.
That’s the CSA Truther’s trick.
Another glorious own goal for Little Willy.
Gentle Graham has a short term memory:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1425091
The emphasized words are for BG.
Please link to more arguments that you lost. I enjoy thinking that people will follow the links and read on through. Even if it is a tad unlikely that anybody ever follows your links.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1425189
wee willy…”As he walks parallel to the table, he translates. That is, he orbits.
As he looks at the table his head turns. That is, it spins.
One motion. One complex motion. Very, very tough to understand for Moon Dragon cranks”.
***
This is a Duh!!! moment ww. To look at the centre of the table, one’s head has already spun 90 degrees. That is the starting position and head rotation plays no part in the rest of the orbit because it had to turn initially to meet the requirements that the orbiter was looking at the centre. Therefore, once the orbit begins, there is no need to rotate the head.
Looking at the centre is not important, it is keeping one side facing the centre that matters. Therefore the orbiter can look straight ahead to prevent tripping over obstacles. As the orbiter looks straight ahead, he is doing what Clint claimed the Moon does as it orbits. It scans the stars due to it orbital motion. In fact, it scans 360 degrees without rotating on a local axis due to its curvilinear motion.
Newton knew that and he noted it in Principia. The translator obviously did not understand the meaning and interpreted Newton incorrectly.
C’mon, Bordon.
Your body can move forward as your head adjusts its line of sight.
At.
The.
Same.
Time.
There’s no “already spun” that holds.
Your trick is as old as Zeno.
Little Willy links to one of his funniest comments.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
43 years of record
This past year was 7th warmest.
It is inside standard deviation from the mean. 7th in a 43 year record is meaningless.
Agreed.
Very good! Now:
What are the odds of that in 43 years of record?
Willard
Your list is much less meaningless than simply talking about the single year 2022.
Because except 1998, all years are since 2010.
Let’s see, Binny.
Suppose that, in the last 43 years, Germany made its 10 best performances during the Hockey Junior Championship in 1998, 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022.
Would you say it’s random?
Wistful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Would you say it’s random?”
Do you have some reason for thinking anybody cares? No?
I thought so.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Wistful Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Would you say its random?”
Do you have some reason for thinking anybody cares? No?
I thought so.
Do you have a random stupid question generator? Another idiot called Willard might well accuse you of “JAQing off”, but he’s just a SkyDragon cultist, so his bizarre comments mean nothing.
Keep claiming that your stupidity prevents you from understanding English. You’ll eventually convince everyone it’s true – even your fellow SkyDragons!
Carry on.
What are you braying about, Mike, and have you ever heard of skill?
Wistful Wee Willy,
You wrote
Would you say its random?
Do you have some reason for thinking anybody cares? No?
I thought so.
Do you have a random stupid question generator? Another idiot called Willard might well accuse you of JAQing off, but hes just a SkyDragon cultist, so his bizarre comments mean nothing.
Keep claiming that your stupidity prevents you from understanding English. Youll eventually convince everyone its true even your fellow SkyDragons!
Carry on.
Copypasta and braying do not mix well, Mike.
Repeat your comment again, you will see why.
Wistful Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Would you say it’s random?”
Do you have some reason for thinking anybody cares? No?
I thought so.
Do you have a random stupid question generator? Another idiot called Willard might well accuse you of JAQing off, but hes just a SkyDragon cultist, so his bizarre comments mean nothing.
Keep claiming that your stupidity prevents you from understanding English. You’ll eventually convince everyone it’s true – even your fellow SkyDragons!
Carry on.
You seem to have misunderstood me.
Just making sure my point is clear, Binny.
No worries.
That is a good demonstration of why Mark Twain referred to statistics as a form of lie. Here in Vancouver, Canada, I don’t think you’d get much argument that 2022 was one of the coldest we have experienced.
2022 was 5th highest surface temp,
and 1.2 C above 2nd half of 1800s.
Last 8 years hottest on record.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/climate/earth-hottest-years.html
Yeah, Tonga-Hunga sure had a big effect.
Yes, Hunga Tonga is having an effect. Arctic is +0.8 which is huge, while tropics are -0.35. Huge effect indeed.
Key word is “had”.
T-H’s effect may be gone. We’ll know more in the next couple of months.
It’s always fun to see that the very same people
– who endlessly discredit the processing of surface temperature by NOAA, GISS, MetOffice/CRU etc. fully welcome a good agreement of the UAH’s lower troposphere data with e.g. the RATPAC-B balloon data at similar atmospheric pressure levels hence altitudes
– have no idea how the same balloon data behaves on the surface compared to e.g. GISS.
*
Here is a comparison of UAH 6.0 LT (land) with RATPAC-B data at 700 hPa i.e. ~ 4 km:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jgoT_7p4D7IQksKHd8l4In9rYIFuh3Up/view
Trends 1979-2022 in C / decade:
– UAH land: 0.18
– RATPAC 700: 0.19
*
And here is a comparison of GISS (land) with RATPAC-B data at the surface:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RsCMx9k5tLAzAPLCyppNzicqR0VAhWJS/view
Trends 1979-2022 in C / decade:
– GISS land: 0.25
– RATPAC surf: 0.27
*
Thus, according to these all-time-better-knowers, radiosonde balloons are good when compared to UAH in the lower troposphere because UAH is good, but are bad when compared to surface data because surface data is bad.
Great.
Psssst!!! Eben. Binny’s at it again with the fake graphs.
C’mon, Bordon.
Why are you trolling Binny you Dragon crank? He never bothers anyone, sticking to his informative posts.
It’s a long story wee willie. Started before you appeared, unless you changed your nym.
I know, Bordon.
I’m just making a point.
Keep to your inside baseball and leave new guests alone.
And if he doesn’t?
Are you going to shock him into immobility by describing the GHE?
I’d like to see that!
If he doesn’t what, Mike?
You’re braying again.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You obviously have the attention span of a demented goldfish, so I guess I have to help you out. You wrote “Keep to your inside baseball and leave new guests alone.”.
I was merely asking what would be the consequences if Gordon declined to accept your command. My curiosity was piqued, because you are powerless to do anything to Gordon.
Maybe you have an inflated sense of your importance and influence – as most idiot SkyDragon cultists do. Oh well, maybe others are really in awe of your imaginary power and influence, but are keeping quiet out of a sense of humility and modesty, or possibly fear.
Only joking, of course. You’re a reality denying dimwit, furiously believing in a GHE, which has no discernible effect on anything at all. Oh dear, not looking too clever, are you? Maybe your supporters can leap to your defense, do you think?
[chortles at witless fool trying to be clever]
Mike Flynn,
You obviously are braying.
So I stopped at You obviously.
Cheers.
Weak Wee Willy,
You haven’t managed to explain the role of the GHE as the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, by the look of things.
How hard can it be? Don’t you believe that the GHE makes the Earth hotter?
What a bizarre SkyDragon cultist you are – a GHE which heats and cools simultaneously, and cannot be described because of its mysterious nature!
Time for a diversion, perhaps?
Donkey.
You’re the one braying, Mike.
Which is obvious as soon as one reads “donkey.”
So why read anything else?
Ta.
Weak Wee Willy,
You havent managed to explain the role of the GHE as the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, by the look of things.
How hard can it be? Dont you believe that the GHE makes the Earth hotter?
What a bizarre SkyDragon cultist you are a GHE which heats and cools simultaneously, and cannot be described because of its mysterious nature!
Time for a diversion, perhaps?
Donkey.
Copy-paste your comment again, Mike.
Willard
Don’t let this bonehead fool you.
Robertson can’t fake any graph because like every real engineer he can’t create any.
He doesn’t have half a bit of a shadow of a clue about anything we could imagine.
Whenever he posts such idiocy, just reply with a link that shows his incredible competence:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365217
Cela devrait suffire.
binny…”Robertson cant fake any graph because like every real engineer he cant create any”.
***
Engineers cover linear graphs on the first day, mainly because we cover all that in math classes. From there we branch out into complex graphs like Smith Charts, 3-D saddle regions, and calculating the true length and true angle of lines and angles on curved surfaces.
https://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/smith-chart-basics
Suppose you had to make a 1-D drawing of the opening in a large vertical cylinder to which is welded a pipe connecting at 37 degrees to the horizontal and slanting 24 degrees to the west. You only have half an hour for this problem on a 3 hour exam and you have to draw the opening so it will connect to a cylindrical pipe with its end cut at an angle to suit the angle and direction in which it must connect for welding.
I recall one very simply problem that left many student scratching their heads. If you create it backwards its dead simple. Basically you take a cylinder made of paper then pinch one end and glue it in the horizontal direct and do the same on the opposite end in the vertical direction.
That creates an object made of paper that has triangles on each edge. On one edge you cut a hole so you can fill it with cream, for coffee, and seal the hole. To use it, you tear off the tab and squeeze the cream out through the hole. Don’t see them around anymore.
If you were given that object in 3-D on an exam, with a line drawn on it around a corner, could you figure out the length of the line in half an hour, under pressure? Someone with insight could see immediately that it was made from a cylinder, but under pressure it’s not that easy.
Once you figure out its a cylinder, you have to unfold it in your mind and draw the flat sheet of paper from which it is made. Then you have to calculate where the ends of the line is located and measure it on a flat surface. That’s the true length.
If that person had been paying attention in engineering drawing class, and had done all the assigned problems, it would have helped immensely.
C’mon, Gordon.
Robertson
You not only never were an engineer: you were during your life busy with quite different things, and created your engineer vita a posteriori from scratch.
You also totally lack intelligent humor, as your stupid reaction on my sarcastic sentence
” Robertson can’t fake any graph because like every real engineer he can’t create any. ”
perfectly shows.
Since Bordon will never get the authoritative translation of the Principia:
That’s Proposition 22.
Note the S.
Isaac does not seem to focus much on defining rotation, translation, and orbit.
Wondering Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Isaac does not seem to focus much on defining rotation, translation, and orbit.”
Are you appealing to your own authority? Well, that’s authoritative – not!
What part of Sir Isaac Newton’s writings do you not comprehend? I am always willing to help out slow learners and the mentally retarded, so feel free to ask for assistance.
By the way, I assume you are referring to Sir Isaac Newton, rather than Isaac Finkelstein, when you refer to Isaac. Correct me if I am wrong.
Oh well, if you indulge in obscurity and obfuscation, you might be seen as an international man of idiocy, rather than mystery.
Given up on the GHE, have you?
Carry on.
As usual, Flynnson has nothing relevant to say, so he’s pushing to say something irrelevant.
If I were asked to show what mental impotence looks like, I would point out his stupid answers that appear everywhere.
Binny,
Its a good thing that nobody asks you for your opinion, then. Do you wonder why that is?
By the way, have you found an explanation of the role of the GHE in the Earth cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so?
Maybe you could ignore the GHE, and concentrate on denying the readily observable fact that the Moon is just continuously falling toward the Earth, and not rotating about an internal axis while it does so.
Thats why we only see the bottom of the Moon when it is overhead, falling towards us.
Carry on avoiding reality, if it makes you feel clever.
What are you braying about, Mike?
As usual, Flynnson has nothing relevant to say, so he’s pushing to say something irrelevant.
If I were asked to show what mental impotence looks like, I would point out his stupid answers that appear everywhere, especially one of the most stupid ones he ever wrote:
” … and concentrate on denying the readily observable fact that the Moon is just continuously falling toward the Earth, and not rotating about an internal axis while it does so. ”
That is so utterly stoopid… now dumb Flynnson even deigns to be Robertson’s newest butt-kisser!
Wonderful.
Nice find, Willard :–)
https://ia600903.us.archive.org/23/items/bub_gb_6EqxPav3vIsC/bub_gb_6EqxPav3vIsC.pdf
(page 252)
and its source:
https://books.google.de/books?id=x-_K1KGZvv4C&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&source=bl&ots=LtVy4wJkn_&sig=ACfU3U3JXf_82r1cHHz7daxmm0agYrJFcQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjUgYmsh8zjAhVsxosKHY1NAXAQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Not the translation I am looking for. If I recall correctly the first edition was in the 1960s and a revised version in the 1990s.
I’ll see if I can find more information as to author.
C’mon, Bordon.
You never recall correctly.
Research and report.
ww…”Isaac does not seem to focus much on defining rotation, translation, and orbit”.
***
He should not have to explain those matters. They are obvious to anyone trained in physics. When he used the word rectilinear, the meaning is obvious. It means in a straight line. Given that, it follows that curvilinear means in a curved line.
When we add the modern term translation it gives a more precise definition. rectilinear translation means that all parts of a rigid body are moving parallel to each other and at the same speed. However Newton’s curvilinear motion must have the same meaning as curvilinear translation, and it does.
It follows that curvilinear translation means the same for a curved line. However, it also follows that motion along a curved line differs from motion along a straight line. The body is either maintaining the particles all moving in parallel or it allows for the body to rotate at the same time. That applies to rectilinear translation as well.
If we have a sphere sitting on the floor, in order to perform rectilinear motion as defined, we must slide the sphere along the floor, or transport it so it does not rotate in order that it perform rectilinear translation.
We could also sit the sphere on a toy train and run it in circles around a track. It is the same thing. The sphere does not rotate about a local axis.
C’mon, Bordon.
You haven’t found the authoritative translation yet?
Do yourself a favor and buy it.
Ask Gill to share the cost.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
It’s been interesting watching the denier cult rush into damage control mode.
AQ,
That would be the SkyDragon cult of reality deniers, would it?
Denying that the GHE cannot be defined, while simultaneously denying that the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so.
Deny away – it makes no difference to reality.
You remain a dimwitted denier.
Are they paying you overtime tonight, Mike?
AQ,
That would be the SkyDragon cult of reality deniers, would it?
Denying that the GHE cannot be defined, while simultaneously denying that the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so.
Deny away it makes no difference to reality.
You remain a dimwitted denier.
Saying something witless like “Are they paying you overtime tonight, Mike?” just reinforces the perception that you are both delusional and bereft of support for your GHE fantasies.
Go on, try and say something clever!
Boy they must be paying you well. Because of course no one in their right mind would sit on this site all day every day, year in year out. Or are you not in your right mind, Mike? It looks like it has seriously worn away at your creativity.
AQ,
That would be the SkyDragon cult of reality deniers, would it?
Denying that the GHE cannot be defined, while simultaneously denying that the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so.
Deny away it makes no difference to reality.
You remain a dimwitted denier.
Saying something witless like “Boy they must be paying you well.” just reinforces the perception that you are both delusional and bereft of support for your GHE fantasies.
Go on, try and say something clever!
How do you fill in the time between posts, Mike? Do they insist you attack other sites too? Or do you have time to alt-tab to a porno and search for your natural frequency?
Or are you already spent by the time you get to the porno? It seems your posts here would take a lot out of you.
AQ,
That would be the SkyDragon cult of reality deniers, would it?
Denying that the GHE cannot be defined, while simultaneously denying that the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so.
Deny away it makes no difference to reality.
You remain a dimwitted denier.
Saying something witless like “Or are you already spent by the time you get to the porno? It seems your posts here would take a lot out of you”. just reinforces the perception that you are both delusional and bereft of support for your GHE fantasies.
I leave porn to Gavin Schmidt playing with his knob, and Wee Willy Wanker JAQing off, while he professes undying homosexual love. You seem content to play the stupidity card, but at least you have natural talent in that regard.
Go on, try and say something clever!
[laughing at SkyDragon attempts to be gratuitously offensive]
Actually, you give me the impression of someone who would hang around shopping centres between 3 and 4 each weekday afternoon. Let’s call the scandal Flynn-gaetz.
AQ,
That would be the SkyDragon cult of reality deniers, would it?
Denying that the GHE cannot be defined, while simultaneously denying that the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so.
Deny away it makes no difference to reality.
You remain a dimwitted denier.
Saying something witless like Actually, you give me the impression of someone who would hang around shopping centres between 3 and 4 each weekday afternoon. Lets call the scandal Flynn-gaetz.” just reinforces the perception that you are both delusional and bereft of support for your GHE fantasies.
What form of mental defect leads you to think that anybody cares about your “impressions”? Maybe you imagine you are part of some SkyDragon cult, where other idiots look up to you!
Go on, try and say something clever!
[laughing at SkyDragon attempts to be gratuitously offensive]
Q: Why are New Zealanders like sperm?
Good old Mike Flynn.
The master brayer.
aquerty…”Its been interesting watching the denier cult rush into damage control mode”.
***
Even more interesting that the alarmists cannot explain why, or who the deniers might be.
Bindidon:
Bindidon says:
January 9, 2023 at 5:08 PM
Vournas
“you clearly mention that all planets and moons rotate!
It is even clear from your own informations that you agree to synchronous rotation, as is visible no only for Earths Moon, but for Jupiters Galilean moons and Plutos moon Charon as well.
*
Are you sure you understand, Vournas, that by denying the rotation of the Moon about its polar axis (and by extension, that of all other moons in the Solar System), you are contradicting your own theory concerning
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon ?
The difference of rotation speed between Earth and its Moon is the most important factor in your computation of their respective warming! ”
–
****
Thank you, Bindidon.
–
Now, please Bindidon, can you tell us what is our Earth’s own axial spin ?
And, consequently, what is our Earth’s own axial rotational period ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
Look at your own data!
… and when will you explain us why, in your opinion, all moons in our Solar System suddenly stopped to rotate at the speed you mention in your own blog?
How is that possible?
*
Are you too now telling us that Newton was wrong when writing
https://books.google.de/books?id=2wNYAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&source=bl&ots=XdhHqPZLN-&sig=ACfU3U2LekN4fkSdDED9hDSPUtCi9t8pJw&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjUgYmsh8zjAhVsxosKHY1NAXAQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
or that he was wrongly translated by all translators, e.g.
Motte
https://books.google.de/books?id=6EqxPav3vIsC&pg=PA238&redir_esc=y&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false
Chtelet
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k290387/f39.item
Wolfers (§21 Lehrsatz on page 399, i.e. 414 in the pdf file)
https://ia902704.us.archive.org/24/items/mathematischepr00newtgoog/mathematischepr00newtgoog.pdf
*
What’s the matter with you, Vournas?
Bin, please demonstrate your expertise on lunar matters by answering this simple question:
What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Moon’s orbit?
I’ve already given you a hint. If you need more help, just ask.
” What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Moons orbit? ”
Like the Flatearthists who deny the reality shown by photographs of Earth taken from ISS or the Moon as ‘fake’, you deny any scientific explanation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1426419
You continue to think that the computation of the angle wrt the Ecliptic, of Moon’s allegedly ‘imaginary’ spin axis, is related to Moon’s orbit. It is not.
*
Your newest pseudo-argument becomes as boring as your ball-on-a-string.
This is my last reply to your nonsense. Please let me in peace, and ask other people from now on.
Sorry Bin, but that ain’t how it works.
You don’t get to come here and throw your trash all over the blog and then whine when you’re asked to pick it up, like some spoiled brat.
You try to act like you’re an expert on issues, attacking others that try to correct you. You cannot answer ANY of the simple questions, and you STILL don’t understand the simple ball-on-a-string.
It’s not my fault you’re a braindead cult idiot. So whine all you want. We know you have NOTHING.
I love to expose frauds and phonies. That’s why this is so much fun.
Bindidon:
” and when will you explain us why, in your opinion, all moons in our Solar System suddenly stopped to rotate at the speed you mention in your own blog?
How is that possible?”
–
****
I don’t know why “all moons in our Solar System suddenly stopped to rotate…” maybe not suddenly, maybe not altogether…
Well, it happened long time ago, before our era, long before us humans appearing on planet Earth.
–
Also it is obvious, from modern astronomical observations, Earth also slows down its rotational spin. All planets in solar system slow down their rotational spins.
Eventually, all planets in solar system will stop their rotation.
–
What will become of us humans, when planets stop spinning ?
Does that dilemma concerns you too, Bindidon ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Long live Aristotle!
” Well, it happened long time ago, before our era, long before us humans appearing on planet Earth. ”
*
Stop kidding us, Vournas, you behave here as if you would think we are all idiots.
When I asked you upthread
” … and when will you explain us why, in your opinion, all moons in our Solar System suddenly stopped to rotate at the speed you mention in your own blog? ”
you perfectly know what I meant, namely that a few months ago, you never told us that the Moon – and with it all the moons around the other planets – wouldn’t rotate about their polar axis.
Never did you that until you suddenly changed your mind.
*
Why are you trying all the time to elude the fact that you listed all planet and moon rotations in your own blog?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N4v5M7td7NuT3xsXm9W2KMgm1BXQqegT/view
From your rotation ratios it is clearly visible that you were aware of all moons’ rotation speeds.
We can see in the list in your blog that your numbers even show Pluto’s and Charon’s final synchronous rotation: their rotation speeds are identical.
*
How can you that the moons in the Solar System don’t rotate when you tell exactly the contrary in your own blog?
Vournas, you are losing any credibility here.
Bin, are you taking CV out-of-context? Where he’s saying “rotating”, he’s talking relative to Sun. That’s his issue — day/night.
Like with Newton, you can’t understand the context.
As far as losing credibility, you have little left since you can’t answer the simple “imaginary axis” question.
Clint R
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N4v5M7td7NuT3xsXm9W2KMgm1BXQqegT/view
Did you understand the numbers in the table, or didn’t you?
The numbers Vournas uses have NOTHING to do with ‘relative to Sun’, let alone with a ‘day/night issue’ coming out of your own fantasy.
The numbers all come from infos like
https://solarviews.com/eng/charon.htm
There you see Charon’s (sidereal) orbital periods: 6.38725 Earth days.
Out of that number, Vournas computes, for his formula,
1 / 6.38725 = 0.1565 with 4 digits atdp.
The same for Triton:
https://solarviews.com/eng/triton.htm
(-)5.87685 Earth days and hence 0.1702.
Look in Vournas’ table:
Charon 0.1565
Triton 0.1702
*
I know, you will reject this, because you, Robertson, Flynnson, Hunter and a few others reject everything that does not fit your pseudo-scientific narrative.
All wrong again, Bin.
What you can’t understand is that if a body is orbiting, but NOT rotating, its day/night is determined by its orbit. You have a hard time visualizing what is happening. Get off you keyboard and tie a short string to a coffee cup handle. Nail the other end of the string to the center of a table. (Don’t worry about ruining the table — this is for science.)
Now move the cup in a circle, keeping the string tight so that the handle always faces the nail. Turn out the lights and shine a flashlight from one end of the table. Notice that the handle has a “day” and a “night” during each orbit around the nail.
Repeat until you understand.
Clint R
You are at least 100 % right.
At least!
Why should Christos waste time playing your games? You have Motte’s translation, why not post it? We have already explained why it is wrong and you have failed to rebut our rebuttal.
” We have already explained why it is wrong… ”
You did explain why Andrew Motte’s translation was wrong?
Never and never! You are really a dumb liar, Robertson.
Here is the original from which ALL later English translations were derived, this time focusing on Book III, Prop IV Th IV resp. Prop V Th V:
https://ia600903.us.archive.org/23/items/bub_gb_6EqxPav3vIsC/bub_gb_6EqxPav3vIsC.pdf
Go to page 215/216, i.e. pdf page 240 resp. 219/220 i.e. pdf page 244.
Motte’s translation is the first translation of Newton’s Principia which he originally wrote in LATIN:
https://books.google.de/books?id=2wNYAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&source=bl&ots=XdhHqPZLN-&sig=ACfU3U2LekN4fkSdDED9hDSPUtCi9t8pJw&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjUgYmsh8zjAhVsxosKHY1NAXAQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&f=false
*
What is wrong with people like you and some others, Robertson, is that
– on the one hand, you all appeal to Newton’s authority wrt rectilinear paths and curvilinear orbits AND agree to Mottes translation because that fits your egomaniac narrative
but that
– on the other hand, you reject Newton’s authority wrt Moon’s rotation about its axis AND Motte’s translation of the original LATIN text because that does NOT fit your narrative.
Updates on predictions.
SAMURAI predicted in August 2019:
a strong La Nina cycle starting at the end of 2020, which will drop UAH6.0 down to -0.2C at its peak.
A la Nina did indeed start at the end of 2020. SAMURAI made his prediction based on the previous UAH baseline (1981 – 2010). There have been no negative UAH anomalies at all on that baseline since 2013.
SAMURAI predicted in August 2019:
The CMIP5 5 climate model ensemble predicts the global temp anomaly will be +1.2C by 2020, with a global warming trend of 0.2C/decade, when reality will be a -0.2C global temp anomaly and a warming trend of around 0.1C/decade.
That didn’t go so well either.
SAMURAI predicted in September 2020:
The coming La Nina event will soon cause global UAH temps to fall rapidly over the next 2 years
This is what happened since September 2020.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2020.67
And if you want a bit more context, here’s the last 12 years.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2010
SAMURAI’s next prediction in January 2021:
By May of this year, the UAH 6.0 global temp anomaly should fall to around -0.1 ~ -0.2C.
UAH May 2021 anomaly was +0.08
Eben said in May 2020:
The temperature will be dropping so fast from now on you will have to wear a parachute just looking at it
Well not really….
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2020.3
And here’s that 12 year context again. Feel free to add more years if you think I’m not giving enough context.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2010
RLH has a prediction up but it’s 8 years too early to check that. Same with Scott R, a prediction of UAH anomaly of -0.2 by August 2024 on the old baseline.
I’ve already done Salvatore’s predictions, so no need to repeat.
An amazing coincidence – all ‘skeptics’ on this board predict future cooling.
Gosh barry, you could have used all that time to learn some science.
For example, do you know why ice cubes can not boil water?
Radiatively? Sure. I’ve explained it to you a few times. Have you forgotten again?
I don’t have any predictions from you, so you’re off-topic in this thread.
Sorry barry, but I must have missed your explanation. Could you link to it?
Thanks.
Sure. In the second half of this post, for example.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1312949
Let me know if you have a prediction for global temps.
Sorry barry, but that’s wrong. It’s a distraction. It’s an attempted smokescreen.
You’re saying ice can’t boil water because of “view factors”!!! Fraudkerts tried the same kind of thing, concentrating on “emission” instead of “absorp.tion”. The issue is about “ARRIVING” fluxes. It is a given that several 315 W/m^2 fluxes can arrive a surface. View factors are not an issue here. (If you don’t know how to do that, I can show you.) But, those arriving fluxes do NOT simply add. Four such fluxes could NOT boil water. But, you believe they can.
If I’m wrong, and you don’t believe that, then show me why four 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface can NOT boil water. Fraudkerts bogus example shows the four fluxes can boil water.
What will you try next?
“You’re saying ice cant boil water because of ‘view factors’ ”
Yep.
I notice that in my post there I said, “View factors, Clint. Learn about them.”
Still haven’t? Here’s a primer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_factor
And yes, it’s what Tim was talking about, too.
We’re not going to get anywhere if you don’t understand this.
And that’s why you’re going to keep erroneously believing that ice cubes can boil water.
Well barry, I was curious what you would try next. You went with the most unoriginal choice, you simply ignored the issue:
The issue is about “ARRIVING” fluxes. It is a given that several 315 W/m^2 fluxes can arrive a surface. View factors are not an issue here.
You’re a braindead cult idiot, lacking any creativity.
“It is a given that several 315 W/m^2 fluxes can arrive a surface.”
It is impossible for those fluxes to be originating from ice cubes.
We’ve tried to explain why this to you, but you refuse to learn.
And that’s why you erroneously believe that ice cubes can boil water.
Okay barry, let’s go down that rabbit trail, just to play your game.
What flux would an ice cube bring to a surface 3″ away?
If you don’t know the answer, it would be at least 300 W/m^2. So using your fraudulent “physics”, 5 ice cubes, properly positioned, would mean 1500 W/m^2 is being emitted by the surface — plenty enough to boil water.
(Why don’t you just admit that you believe ice cubes can boil water? Several others of your cult have admitted that. Are you ashamed of your cult?)
b,
You wrote –
“It is impossible for those fluxes to be originating from ice cubes.”
Presumably, you are questioning 315 W/m2. OK, how about 300 W/m2?
Or pick a value that you think is realistic, and let others know.
I suspect all you can do is whine and complain, but feel free to state what initial assumptions you are prepared to accept. My contention is that it is impossible to use the radiated energy from ice to raise the temperature of even the smallest amount of water – no matter how you concentrate that energy to increase the irradiance arriving at the water.
Are you prepared to accept that ice can emit, say, 300 W/m2? Do you accept that this 300 Watts of power can be concentrated (following the laws of optics) into an area of 0.1 m2?
You see, you are not prepared to accept reality, because you know where it leads.
In the same fashion, you refuse to accept that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, because this would demonstrate the complete irrelevance of a GHE which is supposed to heat, rather than cool the planet!
So keep denying reality, keep whining and complaining that Nature isn’t cooperating with your fantasies. Just like Gavin Schmidt, in a recent interview – “Gavin Schmidt says theres nothing really wrong with climate models in fact, “theyve done a pretty good job of predicting what has happened.” One reason they arent more precise, he says, is people.”
Oh dear, Gavin’s “models” are correct. The problem is people, and reality, conspiring to make him look stupid! Paranoia, anyone?
If you believe that the radiation from ice can be used in some fashion can be used to heat water, just provide some details of where this miracle has been observed and documented, or people might think you are just another paranoid, delusion, reality denying SkyDragon.
Go for it.
Several ice cubes can’t light the patch directly in front of the first ice cube with the same intensity of radiation as the first, because smaller and smaller portions of radiation reach the same patch directly in front of the first ice cube the further and further away each ice cube gets from the patch of surface area.
View factors. Learn about them, Clint.
The only way to get the full radiative power of ice on any surface is for the view factor from that surface to be unity WRT the ice.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1427506
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1427514
barry,
You wrote –
“Several ice cubes cant light the patch directly in front of the first ice cube with the same intensity of radiation as the first, because smaller and smaller portions of radiation reach the same patch directly in front of the first ice cube the further and further away each ice cube gets from the patch of surface area.”
The Ivanpah solar generating plant has 173,500 heliostats doing exactly what you claim can’t be done. The average insolation in that part of the Mojave Desert is less than 300 W/m2, yet by concentrating the IR, the collector becomes white-hot!
You see, 300 W/m2 is completely meaningless in relation to temperature.
From HelioCSP –
“For example, a heliostat array designed to collect 100 m2 of solar energy could direct all this energy onto a surface of about 0.5 m2, whereas a passive system would require a surface area of the full 100 m2.” Or concentrating say 300 w/m2 into one two-hundredth of the area multiplies the intensity by 200, but the total power remains the same. You can figure out why concentrating 300 W/m2 from the Sun, and the same power from ice results in different temperatures.
You should be able to accept the reality that IR can be concentrated, even by a system of flat mirrors. Unless you are a delusional SkyDragon, who rejects reality in favour of fantasy.
You really don’t understand any of this, do you? You just put your tail, between your legs and run away. Fair enough, it’s a good strategy when faced with a reality you cannot cope with.
Keep running.
Swenson,
Focussing the sun’s energy can only potentially make the point of focus as hot at the sun – no hotter. It would require a lens that captures ALL of the collimated light emanating from the sun in a given direction and concentrating it on one spot.
A glass lens would absorb most of the IR coming from the ice. You need a different material.
IR from nearby ice is uncollimated, and therefore can’t be focussed to a point.
Even you could focus the uncollimated light from an ice cube, the same lens can’t focus light from 2 different sources on the same spot.
So now you’re using lenses, or a system of lenses at angles to try to focus uncollimated IR from various ice cubes.
You’re still going to end up with far less energy arriving at the point of interest than is emitted by the ice cubes, and the area is still open to the rest of the environment.
“You see, 300 W/m2 is completely meaningless in relation to temperature.”
You can calculate the temperature of a blackbody surface that emits at this rate.
The answer is -3.452 C
But for the purposes of calculating the temperature of a surface receiving that energy from only a portion of the field of view, you are absolutely right.
barry,
You wrote –
“Focussing the suns energy can only potentially make the point of focus as hot at the sun no hotter.”
As with focussing IR from ice – no hotter than the ice.
A few other points. Lenses are made specifically for concentrating IR, but an ordinary glass lens suffices to focus IR sufficiently to start fires etc. But hey, use a selenium lens if you wish. Mirrors are cheaper, that’s why they use them for heliostats. And yes, mirrors reflect IR.
Can uncollimated light be focussed? Of course it can – camera lenses do it on a regular basis.
I have already pointed out that 173,500 mirrors at Ivanpah can indeed concentrate their bit of 300 W/m2 power on a target which becomes white hot! Why use lenses when mirrors will suffice? And yes, lenses can be used, and are used, in other circumstances.
As I said, 300W/m2 is a pointless measurement. As you point out, a black body of around -3 C should emit 300 W/m2, but won’t raise the temperature of an object to more than -3 C – even if you used 173,500 mirrors to concentrate the radiation. However, 300 W/m2 from the Sun can make the Ivanpah collector white hot – obviously hotter than -3 C!
I’m still not sure whether you accept that no amount of radiation from ice, no matter how it is concentrated, can possibly raise the temperature of water.
Maybe you could let me know.
Well I’ve been trying to tell Clint that 2 or 10 or 1000 ice cubes can’t boil water, if you haven’t noticed. He doesn’t seem to understand that view factors matter. Maybe you can help him.
barry,
You wrote –
“Well I’ve been trying to tell Clint that 2 or 10 or 1000 ice cubes can’t boil water, if you havent noticed.”
That’s good. Now tell him that no amount of colder CO2 can make a warmer surface even hotter. I’ll back you up.
Assuming that the nutters at NASA are not delusional, the atmosphere, (including CO2), radiates 340 W/m2 towards the surface, which is supposedly 288 K, according to the same nutters.
You might care to use your finest climatological physics, and work out what temperature 340 W/m2 represents, then work out how much hotter it makes a warmer surface! Of course you can’t, Im just having a laugh at your expense.
Maybe you could claim that CO2 radiated energy is really, really, hot?
barry is just another braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
Now, he’s trying to make it sound like it’s me that is claiming ice cubes can boil water! He’s making stuff up, again.
It’s his own cult nonsense that would result in ice cubes boiling water. He knows that is wrong, but he won’t admit his cult nonsense leads to ice cubes boiling water. He has to falsely accuse and misrepresent, to cover for the cult’s fraud. And now, as are Norman and Bindidon, barry’s obsessed with me!
That’s why this is so much fun.
“Now, hes trying to make it sound like its me that is claiming ice cubes can boil water!”
Yep nobody has been arguing that ice can boil water. That strawman is one that ONLY YOU keep suggesting.
“Now, he’s trying to make it sound like it’s me that is claiming ice cubes can boil water! He’s making stuff up, again.”
Stop denying what we all know you’ve been trying to push for years.
No one here has ever said that that the radiation from any number of ice cubes can boil water. That idea has only ever been floated by you. Every. Single. Time.
That’s correct, braindead barry. I’ve identified more fraud coming from your cult.
Your cult nonsense would result in ice cubes being able to boil water. I was happy to point it out. Who knows, maybe some cult idiot will learn something.
Anything’s possible….
We’ve been trying to explain to you why the radiation from ice cubes can’t boil water. But you persist in bringing up this erroneous belief. It seems nothing can shake you from it.
I think I observed that the global T has been falling since 2016.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2014.6
Doesn’t mean much.
Temperatures fell after the 2010 record until 2016 record came along.
Temperatures can be portrayed as falling after 2016 until the 2023(?) record comes along.
So when do you expect global Ts to rise above the 2016 figures?
“until the 2023(?)”
So if that doesn’t happen….
Might be 2023, might be later.
I do expect that there will be a new record, indeed a number of them over coming decades.
Are you suggesting that the 2016 record is peak warming and that it will not be exceeded?
Seems to me that there are both natural and anthropogenic changes to the atmosphere that can be suspect in the modern warming. Figuring that out should be the mission of every dollar spent on the subject. Political hysteria though has us investing hugely in solving very poorly documented problems. Assembling thousands of non-independent and special interest scientists in a grand UN exotic location confab isn’t helping a bit.
Entropic man says:
”Are you suggesting that the 2016 record is peak warming and that it will not be exceeded?”
I don’t know what RLH is suggesting but it does seem to me predicting peak warming is a lot like predicting the next ENSO anomaly from the far side of the spring predictability barrier.
E.g. nobody has exhibited any skill in predicting change.
I see more desperation to do something about so as to claim victory if it does turn around.
I am using the consensus paradigm.
This describes short term variation in global annual temperature due to ENSO etc superimposed on a long term warming trend due mostly to human CO2 emissions.
As a result new records tend to coincide with El Nino peaks. I can project that such a peak is likely in the next few years and will bring a new record. I cannot predict years in advance when that peak will occur.
The sceptics, on the other hand continue to claim that we are close to peak warming, though they have no scientific basis for this opinion.
“Might be 2023, might be later.”
Vaugh enough not to be falsifiable.
ET:
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/01/uah-global.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/01/uah-tropics.jpeg
Entropic man says:
”As a result new records tend to coincide with El Nino peaks. I can project that such a peak is likely in the next few years and will bring a new record. I cannot predict years in advance when that peak will occur.
The sceptics, on the other hand continue to claim that we are close to peak warming, though they have no scientific basis for this opinion.”
With all due respect your line of reasoning is the future will resemble the past. One can’t call that science either.
The fact that humans might be causing that might be what is running through your head but the fact is. . . .this is just another human experiment for which the evidence isn’t in.
Your bet seems highly unfair as you will claim victory on a single years mean temperature whereas you are trying to match that against an endless cooling trend of many years (years in advance).
Bottom line is its about trends the current cooling trend is 8 years and 3 months. A record year in 2023 (by .01C) would only shorten the cooling trend by 4 months. So both of you would be technically still be winners.
“With all due respect your line of reasoning is the future will resemble the past.”
Not quite.
I’m watching an ongoing process.Humanity continues to.emit CO2 and the science tells me that this will produce ongoing global warming. Until I see evidence that human CO2 emissions will stop, my default projection will be continued warming.
If you want to put a persuasive case for peak warming in 2016 you would need to show that the processes in the near future will not resemble those in the near past.That would require considerable restructuring of human society.
Climate science is able to consider natural variation as well as AGW and see that the last 7 years is a combination of both.
With ENSO contributing a short term downward trend, the NET temperature is staying flat, making clear that the other contributions still have an upward trend.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Nino34+Tglb_2015-2022.pdf
So certainly, when the current La Nina ends, it would be an excellent bet that temperatures will rise and break the previous record.
Entropic man says:
”That would require considerable restructuring of human society.”
You sound like one of those guys looking for a ‘position’ rather than a ‘job’. If you study history you would learn that human society is being constantly and completely restructured.
An example is recent archeological and ecological research in the Amazon basin shows it was completely different 800 years ago. It wasn’t a rainforest but instead grasslands. The leftist slogans of “Protect the Rainforests” is completely misguided. We have little idea of the degree of ecological change that goes on naturally with what is thought of as very few degrees climate change.
The most eye opening moment of my life was to visit the La Brea Tar Pits. It was an incredible experience to see how much ecosystems change in just 15,000 years. But now it is being revealed that we know little of the change on much shorter time scales. The CAGW mantra right out of the gate had the earmarks of a ‘big lie’. It was like the nutcases of the soap boxes of Pershing Square in LA had taken over the world. People truly ignorant of science masquerading as scientists. Fact is we try to give everybody an education and fail to realize the risks of believing the ‘degree’ over everything else.
Gill, you sound like Bordon when you rely on credentialism so often.
Willard the path to professionalism has been established as the following:
1) Present credentials (e.g. degrees or education) and/or relevant experience.
2) Take competence examination.
3) Complete ethics training/examination
3) Provide evidence of appropriate professional insurance/bonding.
4) Pay license fees
5) maintain license via providing evidence of required continuing education and evidence of continued insurance/bonding requirements and pay renewal fees.
When thats too tough next best is probably something like used car sales or running for office. No credentials required there.
“I think I observed that the global T has been falling since 2016.”
According to your graph the temperature has gone up and down since 2016, which was the warmest year of the last 6. Unsurprising, as that was also the year of a super strong el Nino.
When we get another super strong el Nino I predict that the global T will exceed 2016.
Care to make a near-term prediction RLH?
“When we get another super strong el Nino”
When do you think that will be?
No idea. They have no particular regularity.
Even if we don’t get one, we will still get a warmer year than 2016, as I expect the global T will warm in the long-term, and even a moderate el Nino will eventually break the 2016 record for global temperature.
I’ll predict that we will break the warmest year in the UAH LT record before long, but we won’t break the record for the coldest year in that record before you and I shuffle off this mortal coil or for the next hundred years.
I’ve got you down predicting that the 10 years to 2031 will be cooler than the 10 years to 2021. Do you have a nearer term prediction?
“I expect the global T will warm in the long-term”
And if it doesn’t?
And if I answer that question?
barry says:
”Ive got you down predicting that the 10 years to 2031 will be cooler than the 10 years to 2021. Do you have a nearer term prediction?”
I’ll take that bet for the 10 years ending Dec 31, 2015 vs the 10 years ending Dec 31, 2025.
“I’ll take that bet for the 10 years ending Dec 31, 2015 vs the 10 years ending Dec 31, 2025.”
Excellent, Bill.
How does USD $100 sound? Happy to go up. I’ll be good for it in 2026.
I’ve bookmarked your proposal for the future.
Happy to use UAH as the measuring stick. But I’d like you to suggest a reasonable alternative if it is discontinued.
Not sure what would trigger its discontinuance except political malice. After all I don’t think folks are going to stop putting weather and climate satellites up in the sky. Sure beats depending on Russia and China to tell what the world’s temperature is even if solutions are found for the surface station network to deal with UHI as indicated in Roy’s most recent post. Seems to me both will continue as certainly US weather stations provide a whole plethora of products that deal with the weather. From a data collection point of view if one desires to know what mean climate temperature over large areas are, satellites are the long term future.
I am not expert on the problems they may face. I just know the approach has so much more going for it.
barry says:
”Excellent, Bill.
How does USD $100 sound? Happy to go up. Ill be good for it in 2026.”
—————————
LOL! I am not usually a gambler. Haven’t hardly placed a single cash bet in 50 years. Last I remember was losing $5 in slot machines when I went to Las Vegas about 15 years ago for a convention. Looked at the machines and though boy is this stupid. But convinced myself to put $5 up for the experience. An yep lost it all. And its a lot better deal than the California Lottery!
This bet seems better than Las Vegas seeing as you have a good likelihood of a significant El Nino over the next 3 winters and I have some cooling baked into the books.
However, since we really don’t know each other and unless we find a reliable line somewhere that wouldn’t renege on the bet that would be a lot cheaper than setting up an escrow account. . . .I am willing to bet say an immediate ”Yep ——–(fill in the blank) you were right!” As those seem quite rare and hard to earn around here.
If you bet money I’ll honour it. I’d set up a temporary email account to contact you and then to my real email account and work out the details from there.
But sure, an online concession works for me too.
Dunno what would cause discontinuance either, but I’ve seen plenty of institutions vanish that seemed neverending. Maybe Roy and John decide to retire and no one takes up the slack. Anyway, I figured it’s a reasonable contingency. I’m going to name Had.CRU as the alternative. It has the lowest long-term and short-term trends of the surface sets, so I figured it would suit an AGW ‘skeptic’.
Bill, here are the average of the 7 years up to Dec 2015, and the average of the 7 years following up to Dec 2022.
0.018 C
0.246 C
We’ve got 3 years to go.
For you to win the bet the average UAH anomaly of the next 3 years needs to be -0.52 C.
There hasn’t been an anomaly that low since 1993. And no year in the UAH record was as cold as that on average.
You might want to rethink this.
Misunderstanding. I was talking end warming. there hasn’t been any warming for 7 years in fact a cooling trend. I thought ending with a warming period with 3 years to go was a decently even bet considering how likely they are being estimated to be El Nino years and the theory that steps arrive once every 10 years. My focus was on your prediction of a record year which if it comes at or near the end would create a warming trend.
I wouldn’t take the bet as you are offering it. When it comes to warming I see a chance of cooling but I would think if we are talking about natural variation its 50/50 that a peak warming would turn around in any given 10 year period of natural warming.
I would consider your original bet but think its kind of silly to bet on something 10 years out. Thats beyond my life expectancy per professional actuaries.
“Ive got you down predicting that the 10 years to 2031 will be cooler than the 10 years to 2021. Do you have a nearer term prediction?”
Ill take that bet for the 10 years ending Dec 31, 2015 vs the 10 years ending Dec 31, 2025.”
The meaning was quite clear when you made the bet, Bill.
A lot of stuff is clear to you Nate that shouldn’t be.
I was thinking in terms of the hottest year coming with an El Nino that he was predicting. A bet that it would only require an El Nino and one of the .2C decadal step ups that AGW hawkers always talk about like seen in the 80’s and 90’s.
Bill,
I couldn’t quite make out what you thought you were betting on. On a warmer year than 2016 occurring during the current decade to 2025?
2 years left to beat a record set 6 years ago in 2016, which broke the record set 18 years prior?
Don’t fancy the odds.
Tricky observations
1. 2016
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:2016/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend
2. 2015
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2015/plot/uah6/from:2015/trend
3. 2014
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2014/plot/uah6/from:2014/trend
4. 2013
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2013/plot/uah6/from:2013/trend
This is so utterly laughable, Blindsley Hood!
Thank you for confirming what I said. Are you forecasting that this fall will end and, if so, when?
I did not confirm what you ‘said’. Not even close!
I just have shown what a tiny bit of temperature history you were once more talking about
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/fig/an_wld.png
above all concentrated around a huge warming bump in 2016 which was way more than a simple El Nino:
1998
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1998/gridtemp199802e.png
2016
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2016/gridtemp201602e.png
I said that global T has been falling since 2016. Your fist graph showed I was correct. You then added other graphs about which I had said nothing.
Your fist graph agreed with what I had said.
You failed to suggest when this decline will end.
Blindsley Hood
You are as stubborn and opinionated as usual.
Why to discuss with a guy like you about temperature?
It’s like ‘discussing’ with Robertson or Clint R about Newton or the lunar spin.
*
” You failed to suggest when this decline will end. ”
No I did not fail, Blindsley Hood.
I just see no reason to comment on things that are unpredictable.
Binny,
Good to see that you agree that the future is unpredictable,
Or did I misunderstand you, and you are really saying that the future is predictable except when it isn’t, but you are not going to tell anyone what is predictable and what is not?
In any case, you have to demonstrate prediction skill better than a twelve year old (or me, if you think I’m setting the bar too high comparing you to a twelve year old).
By the way, the IPCC has said that it is not possible to predict future climate states, so maybe you could try predicting stock movements, or soybean futures, or something.
Only joking – you just want people to believe you can predict the future better than a twelve year old. Tee hee!
I’m just happy that you agree with what I actually said.
Dinglebarry conveniently forgot his own predictions
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-726374
Oh yes? Could you pleased quote the prediction from that post?
Yep, I thought not.
You’re still as described in that post, Eben.
Barry…maybe you could explain why the global average is back at the baseline, where it was in 1999? Or why the average hung up around 0.25C following the major EN in 2016?
It appears the 2016 EN left a residual warming of about 0.25 C for several years that was not there before it began. The 0.25C warming came abruptly after 18 years of no trend. You can’t claim the 0.25C warming is due to anthropogenic causes since that kind of warming would be far more gradual.
The underlying trend of warming due to human emissions would be expected to be gradual, and is about 0.2C/decade.
However it is partly obscured by larger short term variations . ENSO for example raises global average temperatures by 0.3C above the trend or 0.2C below the trend.Add another +/-0.1C due to variations in weather and the variations you describe are easily accomodated.
“ENSO for example raises global average temperatures by 0.3C above the trend or 0.2C below the trend.”
As ENSO does not add temperature in itself why is the above asymmetrical? Or are you only talking about T recently?
On a panetary scale ENSO affects the flow of energy within the climate system.
La Nina increases the proportion of incoming energy absorbed by the bulk ocean. This reduces the amount of energy available to heat land and atmosphere. This depresses the average surface temperature by a few tenths.
El Nino does the opposite. The oceans take up less of the incoming energy , leaving more to raise the equilibrium temperature of land and atmosphere.No new energy, just robbing Peter to pay Paul or vice versa.
Why the asymmetry? Above my mathematical pay grade. There’s probably a power law involved somewhere.
“Why the asymmetry?”
Other sources are symmetrical.
EM,
You are delusional. ENSO – “El NioSouthern Oscillation (ENSO) is an irregular periodic variation in winds and sea surface temperatures . . . ”
Maybe you have been believing SkyDragon cultists at NOAA? They spout nonsense like “ENSO is one of the most important climate phenomena on Earth due to its ability to change the global atmospheric circulation, . . . ”
Well, no. Climate is the statistics of past weather observations, and ENSO is also a statistical pattern of weather observations.
You are free to believe as you wish, and others are free to laugh at your beliefs if they wish, equally. Nature cannot be fooled, in any case.
“maybe you could explain why the global average is back at the baseline, where it was in 1999? Or why the average hung up around 0.25C following the major EN in 2016?”
Sure. That’s weather. Not to be confused with climate change.
Here in Sydney we’ve recently had some cold Summer days that were cooler than some warm days from last Winter. But the temps this season are still on average warmer than Winter.
That’s the difference between weather and climate. ENSO events are weather, not climate. Periodic and transient.
In three days, another Arctic cyclone will reach California.
https://i.ibb.co/gJ0pT18/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f084.png
There will be very heavy precipitation in northern California on Saturday, January 14.
https://i.ibb.co/PZ5Z3R1/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-01-11-001949.png
ren…it’s northern California, they get a more rain there than in southern California.
This chart lists precipitation for northern, central, and southern California. Remember that a lot of California is desert.
https://ggweather.com/seasonal_rain.htm
Nates brain explodes and when it comes back on line only half the remaining braincells are firing.
Here Nate claims he found triangular rotation when in fact all he found was a mapping problem of rotating a triangle around a central point.
Whereas elliptical rotation is defined as a particle or object rotating on an elliptical path.
Not the same thing Nate. Why not simply launch a triangular satellite into an elliptical orbit? At least that would be somewhat on topic.
If you are going to have a particle follow a triangular path you will get no argument from me that is a translatory motion and it will possess zero angular momentum.
Face it Nate your argument in the moon discussion isn’t going anywhere.
Gill fumbled the ball on his own goal line:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1427084
Perhaps you could ask Bordon to help you out.
LOL!
If you could comprehend the first sentence you would know that indeed the moon’s particles move along an elliptical path without the individual particles changing distances between themselves.
The axis is not one of those moving points. The remainder of the paper goes on to explain how you make such an isometric move of say a triangle and all its points around an elliptical path without changing any distance between those points.
Heck dude! I learned this in 7th grade drafting!
The previous post aside Willard. the paper isn’t about how you CAN’T move something isometrically in a elliptical rotation; its a paper that tells you how to do it. Its a nice instruction sheet for folks who want to do animated films of an orbiting planet and use a computer to do the art work.
If they didn’t consider it an ”elliptical rotation” the work would be about an ”elliptical translation”. But its not. They use the term ”elliptical rotation” 54 times and ”elliptical translation” zero times.
In fact on the second page they say: ”Interpreting a motion on an ellipsoid is an important concept since planets usually
have ellipsoidal shapes and elliptical orbits”
And the title of the Paper is ”An Alternative Approach to Elliptical Motion”
Its amazing all that could just fly over your head as you zeroed in on the wrong interpretation of what moving points were being constrained to maintain an equidistance.
Come on, Gill.
That paper is not about drawing ellipses with only one compass.
Certainly not by keeping to one focus!
So are you a complete mathematical/computer dummy Willard?
This is about drawing with a computer. Isometry was about drawing before computers. Isometric projections was something like chapter 3 or 4 of beginning drafting in middle school. Its about producing cartoons! Computer Games! Plans! Automation! Its a marriage of logic, mathematics, drafting, and animated arts. It has tons of applications all of which have well paying jobs. This is the low level technical stuff for building applications that you can provide to the artists and gamers in user friendly applications. AutoCad and Adobe Illustrator are well known early examples of such applications.
https://tinyurl.com/3wvejbke
As DREMT pointed out to you incredibly simply: If elliptical motion wasn’t a rotation. . . .they would call it elliptical translation! or elliptical general plane motion!
Gill, Gill,
I already told you:
The study.
Is about.
A numerical method.
To rotate an ellipsoid.
In 3D.
That’s not the same thing as creating an ellipse using a single rotation.
Willard please stop trolling/obfuscating. Just start by answering DREMTs question to Tim
Why is Bill posting far from my post that he is criticizing and not quoting me?
Bill gaslights by refusing to do an easy search to find the definition of a word, ROTATION.
Instead he finds an obscure mathematics paper with two words put together, Elliptical Rotation, without knowing what the paper is all about. He imagines that the two word combo means the first word is DEFINING the second word, or vice versa. Who knows. But neither one makes any sense.
They’re just desperate, Bill.
Some people think ad homs are a sufficient rebuttal. They are not.
See what I mean?
Again, all I see is ad homs, and no rebuttal.
Thats how we recognize trolling.
#2
See what I mean?
Anybody? Anybody see what he means?
Maybe he needs to repeat another dozen times?
Would that help people see what he means?
No?
OK.
#3
See what I mean?
DREMT has again won the last-wording-award, which is what we give to the losers of the arguments, as sort of a consolation prize.
He can come and get his award now.
And I will, silently, say ‘See what I mean’.
Is it a mystery than Venus at Earth distance from the Sun would colder than Earth?
There is no theory of the greenhouse effect, but some imagine there
is, and there is agreement the water vapor is most powerful greenhouse gas on Earth, and Venus lacks ocean and has only very small trace amount of water vapor.
And even cargo cult might say CO2 is saturated in regards to Venus.
Also Venus rocky surface get hardly sunlight reaching at Venus distance from the Sun, and obviously 1/2 as much at Earth distance.
Also the cult might happier with idea the Earth has more “greenhouse effect than Venus as it feeds their fantasy that our icehouse global climate could be become hot.
Though I know that greenhouse effect is about Earth average temperature becoming uniform and “more greenhouse effect” will cause there to be less hottest days.
And this brings up another issue, wouldn’t Venus get a less uniform
rocky surface temperature when further from the Sun.
So, in inky darkness on Venus rocky surface far far away from anyplace that get any sunlight, shouldn’t place have much lower temperature to dim places on the rocky surface far closer to any
sunlight?
And isn’t greenhouse related atmosphere being transparent to sunlight reaching the surface and sunlight heating the surface?
You aren’t getting that on Venus rocky surface at Earth distance from the Sun.
Do you remember the days when the United States had reliable power? When the U.S. power grid had enough excess capacity to deal with weather issues and plant outages? When electric rates were reasonable? Those days may be over due to forced electrification of heating systems and automobile sales as President Biden, Governor Newsom, and other politicians force mandates and goals at the U.S. electric grid to make it carbon-free. The recent holiday weather is an example of rolling blackouts and outages that occurred in California and the U.S. south from such policies. States hit hardest by blackouts in last weeks winter storm have significantly increased reliance on heating homes with electricity over the last decade, putting more strain on the power grid when temperatures drop. The number of households using electric heat in Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina increased by about 20 percent from 2009 to 2020, while the generating capacity of power plants in the region remained relativity flat and increasingly dependent on renewable energy.
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/the-grid/trend-toward-forced-electrification-resulted-in-rolling-blackouts-during-arctic-blast/
Strange how a “scholarly” think tank reads more like a libertarian filter house for the fossil fuel industry.
Funny that the article didn’t include Texas, which had some of the most significant blackouts this Winter. I guess the causes of that didn’t fit the ideology.
Funny that barry forgot to mention the disastrous outages Texas had two years ago, which were the most significant blackouts ever.
I guess the causes of that didnt fit the ideology.
The 2021 power outages were largely caused by cold weather knocking out the natural gas power service, which is the primary source of electricity generation in Texas. Coal plants failed, too, as did wind. Even a nuclear station went offline. All these could have been avoided with cold-proofing.
The real problem is that Texas refuses to link to neighbours or the national grid in order to cover outages. It’s a disaster of Texan ideology.
Texas emphasises a free market approach to the grid, with as little government oversight as possible. So myriad companies are building for the buck, not building back-up, because where’s the profit in that? The extra shielding against cold weather isn’t there because it’s cheaper not to reinforce power supply that way when grid-freezing cold snaps are rare. The consumer will have to live blackouts because profit is king.
The ex Mayor of Colorado City expressed the Texan attitude perfectly.
“No one owes you or your family anything; nor is it the local government’s responsibility to support you during trying times like this! Sink or swim, it’s your choice! The City and County, along with power providers or any other service owes you NOTHING! I’m sick and tired of people looking for a damn hand out! If you don’t have electricity you step up and come up with a game plan to keep your family warm and safe.”
Yep, even if you pay your energy bills, the energy companies don’t owe you any energy. Get yourself some of that self-reliance, people!
Yee-haw.
Texas used to get things right, but now they’re headed down “woke lane”.
A large percentage of the Electric RELIABILITY Council of Texas (ERCOT) Board of Directors didn’t even live in Texas!
Go WOKE, go broke.
You mean the definition of “woke” is to live in a different state?
How brain-dead are you, exactly?
There’s mothing “woke” about Texas power supply. It is run on pure market principles, and with an isolationist philosophy that is pure conservative. The state is Republican-led and has been for ages.
Conservatives used to be about responsibility. Now it’s all hate and blame someone else if things go wrong.
The US Republican party needs mending. It’s a disgrace. The Texas power grid needs to be run on the principle that everyone gets continuous energy, instead of purely profit.
THIS is what happens when you give market ideology free reign. THIS is why industry was legislated in the first place, to prevent corporate greed and self-interest from punishing the public.
Reading further into it, I found an old-school Republican telling it like it is. The agriculture commissioner.
“I’m a Republican. We run the state. We own this. We need to man up, take charge,” he said. “The legislature is going to hold hearings and try to figure out what’s going wrong out here in the country. We’ve got a saying for that. Hey, buddy, you’re a day late and a dollar short. It’s not doing us any good now.”
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/texas/republican-we-run-the-state-state-backup-generators-someone-forgot-buy-texas-sid-miller-power/287-c0e0d680-e38a-4149-baa3-c01da9b6f0af
You can bet he isn’t going to use buzzwords like “woke” and try to pin blame of the left.
First off anything run by government isn’t going to roll smoothly. Been around too long to believe anything different.
Problem here is similar to kind of problems I work professionally in.
As we have migrated from home generated energy (primarily fireplaces) through oil and coal furnaces to electric and natural gas systems. We are faced with the problems of a ‘natural monopoly’
Monopolies have nothing in common with ‘free enterprise’ and what they do have in common is a focus on profits and power and absolutely no concern for the customer, except today they need to keep running feel good ads to keep their monopolies in a favorable light overall for political reasons.
So what I do is essentially advocate for the public in the face of ‘natural monopolies’ and/or the tendency of these institutions to not give a shit about anything but their bottom line. In fact that’s what most environmental consultants not working for those institutions do.
I said I have respect for James Hansen and that’s because he proved to me he wasn’t a government institutional tool spouting party lines and such. I don’t have to agree with him to know that his motivations are correct.
I am neither a democrat nor a republican because I am too aware that both sides advocate for different types of monopolies and thus fit in the large category of powerful self interested institutions.
However that has changed a lot in the past decade. In fact the private monopoly interests have been kowtowing big time to the democrat party as of late.
So what we see in Texas IMO, is an effort to deinstitutionalize the natural monopoly of electric energy distribution. One of the main objectives IMO of switching to electric cars is for the government to obtain better control over the distribution of energy.
but deregulation is about giving control to the consumer in the face of models built around natural monopolies. The fact they are natural monopolies makes that difficult.
I am in favor of decentralization and deregulation in all ways feasibly best for the consumer.
So if you are the sort that actually believes the government or private institutions have your best interest at heart. . . .go ahead and be a sucker and get a job with an institution whose revenue streams make you completely non-independent and less free.
Free market philosophies don’t protect the public either. It’s a retroactive model.
My home state had one of the best run energy grids in the world. Then the government decentralised it. It became more expensive and less effective.
Why would state run power generation do better than breaking up the the task among lots of rivals? Dunno. But that’s how it was.
Texas has relatively low-cost energy for consumers. But I wonder if Texans realize that coil, oil and natural gas receive the lion’s share of federal government grants, tax breaks and waivers in the mix of energy subsidies, and has done so for decades. Texans are paying for their energy through taxes. I’m not sure if the public are very aware that Texas’ vaunted energy self-sufficiency receives a significant boost in federal subsidy.
For something as complicated as the energy grid, a healthy balance of competition within a well-regulated market seems to have the best of it.
https://www.uow.edu.au/the-stand/2022/should-australian-governments-nationalise-the-electricity-sector-its-not-that-simple.php
barry says:
”My home state had one of the best run energy grids in the world. Then the government decentralised it. It became more expensive and less effective.”
Indeed may be true Barry. King Solomon makes a great case for authoritarianism also.
But you are talking about a single supplier for which customers have no choice. In a free market system the managers of your utility can compete for customers. I lived in Oregon and my electricity there was dirt cheap compared to Los Angeles because by being a customer of the only local utility they sold me energy from the Bonneville Dam project that. If your utility prices went up because of the ability of your utility to buy power started facing competition from those pinned to higher priced sources of energy as are some providers in Oregon. . . .then some peoples price of electricity would go down while yours went up.
Texas deregulation was just in requiring distributors to provide access to their lines to energy sellers and eliminated vertical integration by monopolistic utilities. There are plenty of municipal power companies still in Texas and when having a free market like stock markets regulators put in limits as to how much prices are allowed to fluctuate.
I have said somewhere in here that deregulating monopolies is a good thing. One just must be very careful about how to go about doing it. In a sense of that, but not monopolies by definition because of much of what I do is better classified as a mix of commodities and unique products and services over which one must guard against one side overwhelming the other.
A great example of that was in the audit failure of Exxon where one of the nation’s largest energy suppliers and one of the nation’s largest audit firms both collapsed because of a mixture of fraud and the inability of the auditors to detect the fraud before the former was to far gone to save when the fraud was finally detected.
So yes I am very familiar with the issues.
“Authoritarian”
Hahaha. South Australia was a democracy throughout all this. If anything went wrong with energy supply the government got the blame and they paid at the ballot box.
What are you, a libertarian?
Across a range of industries it has been demonstrated that a healthy balance of competition and government regulation works best. There are a few exceptions, such as the medical industry.
Purely user pays doesn’t work so well when the product is for, or effects, the common good.
Private industry is not a tough analysis. Profit is king. The inner culture of the corporate world isn’t about ethics or care for people, and that’s why government regulation happened in the first place. Industries were literally killing their workforce and/or customers and lying about it. From the radium industry in the early 20th century, where the honchos lied about radium research while the women working with it glowed in the dark and died, to the tobacco industry, which paid ‘scientists’ to produce papers that aligned with sales.
There are some crazy libertarians out there who want to do away completely with government oversight. They have forgotten the lessons of history, and are blind to those same lessons when they play out today.
Anyway, the government has intervened in Texas and mandated improvements to the energy sector. A bunch of good ideas didn’t pass legislature – it is Republican yee haw over there after all. but at least they approved more loans to the energy suppliers to anti-freeze some of the grid. :eyeroll: They’re happy to bail out industry, but not customers who get poor service. Customers can always go to another provider… who is also at the mercy of the suppliers’ profit-driven choices.
It’s not one or the other, Bill. It’s both that works well.
barry says:
”What are you, a libertarian?”
——————————–
Nope I defy pigeon holing. I belong to no party. In California it is listed as ‘undeclared’, though I am not opposed to declaring for the purpose of voting for somebody in a primary. But California passed the open primary act so its no longer necessary.
barry says:
”Across a range of industries it has been demonstrated that a healthy balance of competition and government regulation works best. There are a few exceptions, such as the medical industry.”
—————
We agree. Deregulation any place I have seen it enacted doesn’t mean zero regulation. It just means that exclusive monopolies are broken up and some other regulatory framework installed friendly to small business.
I know energy is being regulated more and more everyday. Deregulating the energy sector by a State has to be a bear just complying with US energy policy. Plenty of superrich happy folks about that though.
The folks making the big profits in overly regulated industries are without exception the biggest players.
They in fact push for the most regulation of all to push competition out. Its a myth that big corporations are opposed to regulation. They profit hand over fist from it. In fact its hard to get big unless you structure your business to take advantage of regulation. Texas oil billionaires are all over US energy policies cleaning up.
barry says:
”Purely user pays doesnt work so well when the product is for, or effects, the common good.”
———————
You are telling me? Thats what I do for a living, namely recommend both enactment of needed regulation and the repeal of archaic or no longer needed regulation.
barry says:
Private industry is not a tough analysis. Profit is king. The inner culture of the corporate world isnt about ethics or care for people, and thats why government regulation happened in the first place. Industries were literally killing their workforce and/or customers and lying about it. From the radium industry in the early 20th century, where the honchos lied about radium research while the women working with it glowed in the dark and died, to the tobacco industry, which paid scientists to produce papers that aligned with sales.
—————————
thats fine and definitely has a lot of truth to it.
Folks in some popular front (and this applies equally to all political parties) create a public charity to oversell environmental harm. And right behind it will be some big huge business with a plan. More than 30 years at this and I have seen some pretty blatant stuff.
barry says:
”There are some crazy libertarians out there who want to do away completely with government oversight. They have forgotten the lessons of history, and are blind to those same lessons when they play out today.”
Yeah thats a line fed folks from the authoritarian left. Truth is there is a nut for every cause. The question is how many are there. When you get down to if you aren’t going to force people to pay for it there are virtually none.
One or a few might show up once in a while carrying big signs. I have a few in mind that have been around my work as I wrote that sentence. but its a short list.
barry says:
”Anyway, the government has intervened in Texas and mandated improvements to the energy sector.”
I won’t argue that there is a lack of competition to keep prices low. But I will reiterate the primary reason for that is unneeded and or inefficient regulation.
barry says:
”Its not one or the other, Bill. Its both that works well.”
——————————
Isn’t that what I am saying Barry? Do you actually hear just one thing?
We sometimes play the game of removing all greenhouse gases from Earth and asking what Earth average temperature is.
Let’s do it with Venus at 1 AU distance from the Sun [Earth’s distance from the sun].
First Venus rotates slower than any planet know to exist and with at 1 AU distance it’s going continue to hold this record- it’s going to have the same length of day as it does at Venus distance from the sun.
Next, we start by removing all of atmosphere of Venus.
So, it going to be somewhat like our Moon, but have a much longer day the the Moon [and longer day Mercury- or going to like Mercury at 1 AU distance from the Sun.
Venus has a lot CO2, but compared Earth it also has a lot nitrogen.
If add CO2, it is just going to freeze out of the atmosphere.
So to have atmosphere we could add back some of it’s nitrogen- which will not all freeze out of atmosphere.
Venus has more than 3 atm of nitrogen, but we going add 1/2 atm of nitrogen and 1/2 atmosphere of CO2.
So Venus has 1 atm pressure at sea level which is 500,000 ppm nitrogen and 500,000 ppm of CO2 will no other gases.
And going to start with a uniform temperature of 15 C [which is also
an average temperature of 15 C].
So first question is that, after the first day, will Venus average temperature become warmer or colder than 15 C
—
How Long Is One Day on Other Planets?
The Short Answer:
Planet
Day Length
Mercury 1,408 hours
Venus 5,832 hours
Earth 24 hours
Mars 25 hours
Jupiter 10 hours
Saturn 11 hours
Uranus 17 hours
Neptune 16 hours
—
Or 5832 / 24 = 243 days per 1 Venus day
In 243 earth days will average increase or decrease?
Hey…where’s Pluto?
> As the Moon, which has reduced its circular motion ie. rotation about an internal axis, to zero. It took a very long time, possibly billions of years. As was unavoidable, given the effect of gravity on the Moons inhomogenous internal mass distribution.
C’mon, Bordon.
A spin-orbit lock has nothing to do with magic. It has everything to do with physics. Since you insist, riddle me this:
How come gravity stopped the Moon spin but can’t stop it from orbiting?
Whacky Wee Willard,
Gee, a stupid attempt at a gotcha!
How come gravity can stop a pendulum from swinging, while the pendulum continues to orbit the centre of the Earth while it simultaneously orbits the Sun under the influence of that same force of gravity?
You really need to fix your random gotcha generator. Maybe it was designed by a deranged and delusional SkyDragon engineer!
Heres a real gotcha for you – how come the Earth managed to cool, in spite of four and a half billion years or so of the GHE, combined with four and a billion years of sunlight?
See? You aren’t game to answer, because you will look like a SkyDragon cultist idiot.
Try harder. Maybe you can manage to offend or annoy somebody, one day.
Mike Flynn,
What
are
you
braying
about
???
Witless Wee Willy,
Can’t answer? Won’t answer?
I suppose someone might care for your opinion. Another delusional SkyDragon, perhaps.
Carry on.
What should I answer, Mike?
You’re just braying.
Witless Wee Willy,
Cant answer? Wont answer?
Nobody can force you to answer – you are free to look stupid by demanding answers of others, while refusing to provide any yourself.
I suppose someone might care for your opinion. Another delusional SkyDragon, perhaps.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Why should I answer?
You’re just braying.
Witless Wee Willy,
Cant answer? Wont answer?
Nobody can force you to answer you are free to look stupid by demanding answers of others, while refusing to provide any yourself.
I suppose someone might care for your opinion. Another delusional SkyDragon, perhaps.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
What makes you think I didn’t answer already?
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“What makes you think I didnt answer already?”
What makes you think you did?
You don’t have to explain why four and a half billion years or so of GHE and continuous sunlight made the Earth colder, not hotter. You can’t, anyway – I’m just playing with you. I know I shouldn’t take advantage of the mentally handicapped (even if they are a bit light in their loafers), but nobody’s perfect.
You are not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?
Mike Flynn,
Why would I want to explain that again?
Keep braying!
Wistful Wee Willy,
“Mike Flynn,
Why would I want to explain that again?
Keep braying!”
Why do you think I would care about the opinions of someone can’t even figure out why they want to do something (or not)?
Why ask me, dummy? Show some backbone – make up your mind!
Carry on on doing very little.
Mike Flynn,
Will explaining that to you stop your from braying?
I doubt it, for it never did!
Whickering Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Will explaining that to you stop your from braying?
I doubt it, for it never did!”
Oh, how obscure! Oh, how cryptic! Oh, how stupid! You are just another idiot SkyDragon cultist, implying secret knowledge, but reluctant to divulge it. What is it that you can explain, and where is the explanation?
How about explaining the role of the GHE in the cooling of the Earth over the last four and a half billion years or so. How hard can it be for a SkyDragon cultist claiming access to hidden “climate science” secrets?
Time for another diversion, wriggling Wee Willy? You can run, but you can’t hide!
What about that explanation, Mike – you didn’t get it the last time?
That’s totally possible!
Whickering Wee Willy,
You wrote
Mike Flynn,
Will explaining that to you stop your from braying?
I doubt it, for it never did!
Oh, how obscure! Oh, how cryptic! Oh, how stupid! You are just another idiot SkyDragon cultist, implying secret knowledge, but reluctant to divulge it. What is it that you can explain, and where is the explanation?
How about explaining the role of the GHE in the cooling of the Earth over the last four and a half billion years or so. How hard can it be for a SkyDragon cultist claiming access to hidden climate science secrets?
Time for another diversion, wriggling Wee Willy? You can run, but you cant hide!
And why should I care about your doubts, Mike?
Oh… the endlessly blathering Flynnson is back, breakfast time seems to have come to an end in and around Oz.
Flynnson stored during the night enough energy to brainlessly insult others again and again.
Carry on, Superblatherer!
Binny,
How are your predictions going? Are you predicting the predictable or the unpredictable?
The IPCC says that predicting future climate states is not possible. Are you predicting the appearance of brightly coloured graphs you intend to draw in the future, perhaps?
You’re right – Im having a laugh at your expense,
Carry on predicting – or not predicting, as you wish.
Willard
What I think is terrifying is that even if it were technically possible for the JWST team to download a perfect 7-day movie showing a full synchronous rotation of the Pluto-Charon duo, the moon-rotation-denying mafia would nevertheless find a totally unscientific way to discredit it and denigrate it.
You just have to take a closer look at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1427471
and then you can imagine what that would look like 🙂
Binny,
You got to appreciate our Moon Dragon cranks’ equanimity.
Here is Christos:
[CHRISTOS] If Moon rotated on its own axis, Moons sidereal rotational period should have been shorter than its orbital around Earth period.
Here is Christos a few lines later:
[ALSO CHRISTOS] Planet Mercury rotates about its own axis. Mercurys sidereal rotational period: 58,646 Earth days. Mercury orbits sun in 87,97 Earth days. Mercurys diurnal period is 176 Earth days.
There’s little one can do facing that kind of thing.
Yeah, I had overlooked that ‘kind of thing’.
Vournas’ rotational data table and his subsequent denial speak for themselves.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Very good, apart from the minor consideration that Mercury doesn’t actually orbit the Earth. The Ptolemaic model, where celestial bodies rotated around the Earth, was generally abandoned in the 16th century, although some religious sects refused to accept that the Earth was not the center of the universe, apparently including the cult of the SkyDragon.
As you say, there is little you can do about it, but at least doing little is right up your alley.
Keep on doing as little as you can. Play a few “silly semantic games” if you find you are accidentally doing too much.
Carry on doing very little.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
There is nothing special about the Earth or the Moon.
Try again!
Weepy Wee Willy,
Very good, apart from the minor consideration that Mercury doesnt actually orbit the Earth. The Ptolemaic model, where celestial bodies rotated around the Earth, was generally abandoned in the 16th century, although some religious sects refused to accept that the Earth was not the center of the universe, apparently including the cult of the SkyDragon.
As you say, there is little you can do about it, but at least doing little is right up your alley.
Keep on doing as little as you can. Play a few “silly semantic games” if you find you are accidentally doing too much.
Carry on doing very little.
Writing “There is nothing special about the Earth or the Moon.”, while previously whining about Mercury, is an example of you doing very little, so at least you are taking my advice, albeit with great reluctance.
Mike Flynn,
Celestial bodies are celestial bodies.
So what are you braying about?
Weepy Wee Willy,
Very good, apart from the minor consideration that Mercury doesnt actually orbit the Earth. The Ptolemaic model, where celestial bodies rotated around the Earth, was generally abandoned in the 16th century, although some religious sects refused to accept that the Earth was not the center of the universe, apparently including the cult of the SkyDragon.
As you say, there is little you can do about it, but at least doing little is right up your alley.
Keep on doing as little as you can. Play a few “silly semantic games” if you find you are accidentally doing too much.
Carry on doing very little.
Writing “Celestial bodies are celestial bodies. So what are you braying about?” is an example of you doing very little, so at least you are taking my advice, albeit with great reluctance.
As you wrote before “Why should I answer?” Why indeed?
Mike Flynn,
If gravity is all that matters, what applies to the Moon applies to all celestial bodies, including Mercury.
Is that too hard for you understand, or are you braying just for the fun of it?
Long live and prosper.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“If gravity is all that matters, what applies to the Moon applies to all celestial bodies, including Mercury.”
Oh dear, you witless wonder, is that the best you can do after I point out that Mercury, unlike the Moon, does not orbit the Earth?
What next – water is wet? If a bicycle had three wheels it would be a tricycle?
You’re a dimwitted SkyDragon cultist, trying to appear clever – badly.
Why are you bringing up the relationship between the Earth and Mercury, Mike – is it because you know nothing about astronomy, or is it because you just like braying?
Whiffling Wee Willy,
Here’s what you wrote –
“[CHRISTOS] If Moon rotated on its own axis, Moons sidereal rotational period should have been shorter than its orbital around Earth period.
Here is Christos a few lines later:
[ALSO CHRISTOS] Planet Mercury rotates about its own axis. Mercurys sidereal rotational period: 58,646 Earth days. Mercury orbits sun in 87,97 Earth days. Mercurys diurnal period is 176 Earth days.”
You need to get your goldfish to give you more attention span lessons.
“Mercury doesn’t actually orbit the Earth.”
Nobody said it does. WTF are you talking about?
barry,
Maybe you think resorting to implied obscenity makes you look intelligent. It probably does to delusional SkyDragon cultists, but not to rational people.
You will note that in a comment above, Willard implied some connection between the orbital motions of Mercury and the Moon.
You obviously share the idiot SkyDragon Willard’s lack of comprehension.
By the way, why do you want to know what I was talking about? Is it a matter of some importance to you? If you wish to learn from me, all you have to do is ask – in which case I will laugh in your face, because you are just trying to be offensive.
You idiot.
Mike Flynn,
Maybe you are braying for too long.
What, this?
[ALSO CHRISTOS] Planet Mercury rotates about its own axis. Mercurys sidereal rotational period: 58,646 Earth days. Mercury orbits sun in 87,97 Earth days. Mercurys diurnal period is 176 Earth days.
So it’s Christos’ words, and he says Mercury orbits the sun.
Let me be more plain, if acronyms trouble you. You’re a fucking idiot.
testing
ww…”Theres little one can do facing that kind of thing”.
***
Especially when Christos is talking way over your head.
Come on, Bordon.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Come on, Bordon.”
Well, that’s certainly concise – not to say completely obscure
Is that really the best you can do?
Come on, Willard, put in at least a bit of effort!
Come on, Mike.
This?
“[ALSO CHRISTOS] Planet Mercury rotates about its own axis. Mercurys sidereal rotational period: 58,646 Earth days. Mercury orbits sun in 87,97 Earth days. Mercurys diurnal period is 176 Earth days.”
So it’s Christos’ words, and he says Mercury orbits the sun.
Let me be more plain, if acronyms trouble you. You’re a fucking idiot.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1427496
ww…I did not imply gravity stopped the Moon rotating, I have no idea what initial conditions were available. I said ***IF*** gravity slowed it, there is no reason why it would stop slowing the rotation at a 1 to 1 spin to orbit ratio. It would keep slowing the rotation till it stopped completely.
The Moon has only one force acting on it in a radial direction. A pendulum has the same but it also faces air resistance and a negative gravitational force each time it rises to its limits.
Different motion. However, when the pendulum changes direction, it has zero KE and full PE. As gravity drags it from that extreme it accelerates till it has max KE and zero PE at the halfway point. Then it begins to decelerate as it approaches the other extreme. Therefore both gravity and air resistance serve to slow it down.
Come on, Bordon.
You said *given the effect of gravity*.
This is, like, the opposite of an if!
And yes there is a reason why many moons are in a tidal lock with their planet.
The hint is in the name.
“there is no reason why it would stop slowing the rotation at a 1 to 1 spin to orbit ratio. “
Of course there is a reason. Tidal locking is well understood.
…and, rotation slowing to a 1 to 1 spin to orbit ratio as the "Spinners" see it is rotation slowing to a 0 to 1 spin to orbit ratio as the "Non-Spinners" see it.
…and, rotation increasing to a 1 to 1 spin to orbit ratio as the "Spinners" see it is "rotation in the opposite direction to the orbital motion" slowing to a 0 to 1 spin to orbit ratio as the "Non-Spinners" see it.
The tidal locking physical mechanism: it makes sense either way, but from the "Non-Spinner" perspective, it’s always acting to bring the rotation rate to zero.
Exactly, Tim:
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2020/01/20/a-deep-dive-into-tidal-lock/
"The tidal locking physical mechanism: it makes sense either way, but from the "Non-Spinner" perspective, it’s always acting to bring the rotation rate to zero."
Which is obviously just a much more sensible way to look at it.
Tim,
You might also like:
https://eos.org/features/tidally-locked-and-loaded-with-questions
…which is obviously just a much more sensible way of looking at it.
Tim,
Here is a clear presentation:
http://astro.pas.rochester.edu/~aquillen/ast233/lectures/H_Tidal.key.pdf
How Moon Dragon cranks would explain rotational deformation will be fun!
"Rotational deformation" would be explained by "Non-Spinners" the exact same way that it’s explained by "Spinners".
Tim,
Perhaps you’d like:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.10833
I’m sure Moon Dragon cranks could simply reword all of this by adding “does not” in front of every “spin” they encounter and be done with it.
Little Willy often links to things he doesn’t understand. He just hopes there is something there that will convince readers he’s right about whatever point it is he’s trying to make. He generally just throws a load of crap up against the wall and hopes something will stick.
He is just a troll. He has become so discombulated on the whole discussion he can’t bring himself to take a position on the question of the MOTL or the MOTR. He is not even in the debate.
He should say, like all the other “Spinners” do, that he thinks “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR…but he has even argued with me for several days before about that! He can’t even understand that the “Spinner” position is for “orbit without spin” to be as per the MOTR. He is a truly hopeless case.
Gentle Graham has succeeded in defining his pet category in a way that the belief about the Moon spin has become irrelevant.
Good for him!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more, and Gill, well, who knows what an auditor who never collects receipts does.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
[MIKE FLYNN] How come gravity can stop a pendulum from swinging
[ISAAC NEWTON] 🤦
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Poking yourself in the eye won’t garner much sympathy, but correct me if I’m wrong.
Have you worked out that the Moon orbits the Earth, but Mercury does not, yet?
What are you braying about, Mike?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Poking yourself in the eye wont garner much sympathy, but correct me if Im wrong.
Have you worked out that the Moon orbits the Earth, but Mercury does not, yet?
Maybe you could try blaming me because you lack comprehension skills. What is it you don’t understand – or don’t you know? Have you considered that you might be just another sad and confused SkyDragon cultist.
I guess if you can’t even explain how the Earth managed to cool, in spite of four and a half billion years of GHE and continuous sunlight, then you have to find some excuse for looking like a delusional SkyDragon.
“Poking in the eye” – just what are you braying about, Mike?
ww…don’t you watch the 3-stooges ( no…not ww, aquerty, and binny)? You should know the defense by now for a two fingered eye-poke. Might come in handy.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You really must try to increase your attention span, dummy.
You posted this picture of you poking yourself in the eye – I dont know why – 🤦.
Possibly because you just realised that you live in a fantasy world, where a mysterious GHE made the world hotter after four and a half billion years or so, rather than colder, which is the reality.
Poke yourself in the eye again, if you wish. Use a sharp stick, if you want to experience a bit of reality.
[chortles at retarded SkyDragon cultist]
Mike Flynn,
Are you really that dumb?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ren…re California storm.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/california-storms-in-photos-state-drenched-with-thousands-forced-to-flee/ar-AA16bnhP?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=0e48312a27e3449d807d05b1f65162d0
entropic…”The underlying trend of warming due to human emissions would be expected to be gradual, and is about 0.2C/decade”.
***
So why did we get 0.2C in one year following the 2016 EN? No trend for 18 years then 0.2C in one year.
And why did we get another 0.2C in 1977, a phenomenon they named the Great Pacific Climate Shift? It was later identified as the PDO in the 1990s.
If you look carefully, there is another 0.2C following the 1998 EN. That’s about 0.6C occurring in three intervals within a year each.
You only read half my comment.
There is a long term warming trend of the UAH temperature graph (0.13C/decade), and other temperature records.
The long term trend is due to human emissions increasing atmospheric CO2.
On top of this are short term random and cyclic variations which can move one year’s temperatures up to 0.4C above or below the trend.
Your expectation that the line should be smooth is because you underestimate the short term variability of the climate system. The examples you quote are due to short term variation and do not reflect the underlying long term trend.
EM,
You wrote –
“The long term trend is due to human emissions increasing atmospheric CO2.”
Four and a half billion years or so of cooling might lead a rational person to conclude that any greenhouse effect, claiming planet heating ability, existed only in the imaginations of SkyDragon cultists.
I believe CO2 levels have been far higher in the past, as well as H2O levels. For example, before the first liquid water appeared, all the H2O was in the atmosphere, but the planet still cooled.
No GHE, and it should be noted that SkyDragon cultists who believe otherwise cannot even describe the GHE in any way that accords with observed fact. Your assertion appears to be based on fantasy or religious fervor rather than science.
But I suppose religions and cults are based on faith and belief, which changes according to circumstances, in many cases. Have you any facts to support your assertion?
Sorry Ent, but you’re obsessing again.
There has been a warming trend since the 1970s. That’s pretty well documented by reliable sources such as UAH. But, it’s your belief that the warming is caused by “human emissions”. To believe CO2 can warm Earth is akin to believing that ice cubes can boil water.
That ain’t science.
Clint R
So many strawmen. Will you ever run out of hay.
The CO2 does not “warm” the Earth but it does allow the solar input to sustain a higher steady sate temperature. And NO this does not mean ice can boil water and it never has, that is only your illogical mind coming up with BS to confuse ignorant people.
CO2 between Earth surface and space acts like an IR barrier to some bands of IR so the surface will warm to a higher temperature than it would be if the CO2 were removed.
It is science, it is measured, it is real. Only in ignorance and science denial do you keep posting on this blog.
It is my belief that you think repeating you invalid points endlessly will make them true. Reality does not work that way. You are wrong the first time and will be wrong after the 10,000th posting of your idiot points.
You are a legend in your own mind. People who actually studied real science and have logical thought know you are an idiot.
Norman, did you find your valid technical reference that fluxes simply add yet? Specifically, fraudkerts fraud?
You clearly believe that the warming trend is not due to human emissions.
What is your scientific explanation for the warming trend?
The scientific explanation for the warming trend is “natural variation”. To believe CO2 is warming the planet one has to also believe that ice cubes can boil water. Beliefs ain’t science.
You’re anti-science, Ent. You’ve so anti-science you’re willing to pervert reality to protect your cult beliefs. That’s why you’ve claimed passenger jets fly backwards. You’re anti-science AND anti-reality.
“The scientific explanation for the warming trend is natural variation.”
Can you be more specific?
You should be able to sum all the causes of natural variation and show that their combined effect is the observed warming.
However IIRC when this is done the sum of all the natural variations is a slow cooling trend for the last century, not the warming we observe.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Nice try Ent, but we don’t even know all of the things affecting natural variation. For example, clouds vary affecting albedo, but where’s the historical data on that? We know the Polar Vortex affects climate, but where’s the historical data on that? What about undersea volcanos?
You’re just throwing crap against the wall. What will you try next?
“The scientific explanation for the warming trend is natural variation
“Nice try Ent, but we dont even know all of the things affecting natural variation.”
So you can’t explain the warming trend using natural variation.
That must be what “natural variation” is, Ent.
Maybe someday we’ll know much more about Earth’s climate. What we know for sure, at this time, is there are people trying to pervert both reality and science.
Seen any passenger jets flying backwards this week?
Natural variability he knows nothing about – looks like a Sky Dragon crank explanation alright.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard please stop trolling
Our Moon does not rotate about its own axis.
Since Moon’s sidereal rotation period 27,32 days (in reference to the stars) is the same as its orbital around Earth period, Moon definitely does not rotate on its own axis.
If Moon rotated on its own axis, Moon’s sidereal rotational period should have been shorter than its orbital around Earth period.
****
Moon’s sidereal spin (in reference to the stars) is a sum of Moon’s around Earth orbital, Moons around sun orbital and Moon’s around its axis movements.
Since Moon’s sidereal spin is equal to the Moon’s around Earth orbital movement, Moon’s axial spin is zero and Moon does not rotate about its own axis.
****
Planet Mercury rotates about its own axis.
Mercury’s sidereal rotational period: 58,646 Earth days.
Mercury orbits sun in 87,97 Earth days.
Mercury’s diurnal period is 176 Earth days.
***
–
Our Moon doesn’t rotate about its own axis.
Moon’s sidereal rotation period is equal to its around Earth orbital period:
27,32 Earth days.
Moon’s diurnal period is 29,53 Earth days.
Moons sidereal rotation period is shorter than Moons diurnal period, because Moon also orbits sun.
Moons sidereal rotation spin = 1 /27,32 rot/day
Moons diurnal rotation spin = 1 /29,53 rot/day
Consequently, Moon spins faster in reference to the stars than it spins in reference to the sun!
Moons spin in reference to the stars is faster, than its spin in reference to the sun, because Moons spin in reference to the stars is a sum of two movements:
1. The Moon orbiting Earth.
2. The Moon orbiting sun.
There is not any movement of Moon around its own axis.
****
–
Planet Mercury rotates about its own axis.
Mercury’s sidereal rotational period: 58,646 Earth days.
Mercury orbits sun in 87,97 Earth days.
Mercury’s diurnal period is 176 Earth days.
****
Now let’s calculate:
1/58,646 = 0,0170514 rot/day is the Mercury’s spin in reference to the stars
1/87,97 = 0,0113675 rot/day is the Mercury’s additional spin because of the Mercury orbiting sun
and
1/176 = 0,00568181 rot/day is the Mercury’s spin in reference to the sun
What we see here is that Mercury rotates on its own axis once every orbit around the sun. That is why Mercury’s diurnal cycle lasts two Mercurian years.
Let’s summarize the different rotations
Rot Stars = Rot Orbital + Rotation Sun
0,0170514 = 0,0113675 + 0,00568181
****
If our Moon were rotating on its axis once every time Moon orbited Earth, Moon’s diurnal cycle would last 29,53 x 2 = 59,06 earthen days.
–
Also, if our Moon were rotating on its axis once every time Moon orbited Earth, Moon’s sidereal rotation period (in reference to the stars) would last 27,32 / 2 = 13,66 earthen days.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
Thus you herewith officially confirm that what you write on your web site
https://drive.google.com/file/d/165g1ZcRCgVkfYBbkKGGFILcA-JPQbwkz/view
and
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N4v5M7td7NuT3xsXm9W2KMgm1BXQqegT/view
is completely wrong stuff we all can forget.
*
May I nevertheless recommend the lecture of Karol Koziel’s article?
https://tinyurl.com/2ffp8nnt
Even if one does not ‘believe’ what such people write, it is good to at least read it.
*
Να έχεις μια όμορφη μέρα
For some moons I obtain Earth relative rotational values differing (very slightly) from yours (Io, Enceladus, Titan).
E.g. Titan:
https://solarviews.com/eng/titan.htm
Rotational period (days) 15.94542
Orbital period (days) 15.94542
1/15.94542 is 0.06271 >< 0.06289 on your blog.
Such tiny differences nevertheless may influence your computations.
Bindidon:
–
“In the page
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443779687.html
we see
” And planets and moons do ROTATE. ”
It is therefore evident that Vournas was 100 % convinced of the rotation of all
celestial bodies in our solar system – before he suddenly decided to become a
follower of the lunar spin deniers in Roy Spencer’s blog.”
–
****
Well, thank you, Bindidon.
I never denied moons in solar system rotating. What I said is moons in solar system do not rotate about their own axis.
–
The sidereal rotation moons in solar system perform is a synchronous curvilinear movement when moons orbiting the mother planets.
–
When orbiting the mother planet, moons have a sidereal rotation period.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
Now you become really dishonest.
Look at your own web site:
” N.earth = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotation spin. ”
” N.moon = 1 /29,53 rotation /per day, is Moon’s rotation spin ”
It is absolutely clear to anybody that you mean Earth’s and Moon’s rotation, and not Earth’s rotation and Moon’s orbit.
You are ridiculing yourself.
Bindidon:
“It is absolutely clear to anybody that you mean Earths and Moons rotation, and not Earths rotation and Moons orbit.”
–
****
Please, Bindidon, how the 1 /orbital period = “orbiting spin” should be called ?
>< – maybe ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Do you know Phoebe by any chance?
“Moons spin in reference to the stars is faster, than its spin in reference to the sun, because Moons spin in reference to the stars is a sum of two movements:
1. The Moon orbiting Earth.
2. The Moon orbiting sun.”
But this is inaccurate.
* The moon orbits the earth with changing angular velocity (fastest at perigee and slowest at apogee).
* The moon orbits the sun with changing angular velocity (fastest at perihelion and slowest at aphelion).
* the moon spins in reference to the stars with a constant angular velocity.
There is simply no way to sum these two varying angular velocities and get a single, constant angular velocity.
Tim:
–
“* The moon orbits the earth with changing angular velocity (fastest at perigee and slowest at apogee).
* The moon orbits the sun with changing angular velocity (fastest at perihelion and slowest at aphelion).
* the moon spins in reference to the stars with a constant angular velocity.
There is simply no way to sum these two varying angular velocities and get a single, constant angular velocity.”
–
****
There is not any movement of Moon around its own axis.
****
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, I was just quoting you!
You said the moon spins with a constant speed relative to the stars.
You also claimed that this constant spin rate was the sum of two separate non-constant rotations.
I was simply pointing out that your own words contain a contradiction!
Tim:
“Christos, I was just quoting you!
You said the moon spins with a constant speed relative to the stars.
You also claimed that this constant spin rate was the sum of two separate non-constant rotations.
I was simply pointing out that your own words contain a contradiction!”
–
****
What I said is:
There is not any movement of Moon around its own axis.
****
–
Please, Tim, show me, where it is I said “the moon spins with a constant speed relative to the stars.” or “this constant spin rate was the sum…” ?
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos: “Please, Tim, show me, where it is I said “the moon spins with a constant speed relative to the stars.” ”
Also Christos: ” … because Moons spin in reference to the stars is a sum of two movements …”
That says the moon spins (at least in reference to the stars). And that spin *is* observed to be at a constant rate. And that constant spin cannot be the sum of the two non-constant spins of the moon about the earth and the earth about the sun. .
Thank you, Tim.
* The moon orbits Earth with LINEAR velocity.
* The moon does NOT “orbit” the sun.
* The moon does NOT spin, in reference to the stars, with a constant angular velocity.
“The moon does NOT spin, in reference to the stars, with a constant angular velocity.”
Yes. It does. An astronaut on the moon would see the stars move across the sky at a constant angular rate.
“The moon does NOT spin, in reference to the stars, with a constant angular velocity.”
You are free to make any unsupported claim you like. The question will never be resolved by either of us just making claims and counterclaims. Do you have evidence (actual measurements) that the moon does NOT turn at a constant rate with respect to the stars?
I thought not.
fraudkerts, you have to understand the science. You have to know what “orbital motion without axial rotation” is. You don’t.
Once you understand what “orbital motion without axial rotation” is (It’s like a ball-on-a-string), then you would realize Moon is NOT rotating. Like the ball, one side of Moon always faces the inside of its orbit.
Reality is WAY too complicated for braindead cult idiots.
Again you are free to make claims — like your “Once you understand what orbital motion without axial rotation is (Its like a ball-on-a-string)”.
But you still don’t know if the moon turns at a constant rate so that stars move across the sky at a constant rate.
And you now can’t say what ‘elliptical orbital motion with axial rotation is’. You are going backwards, Clint, in terms of being able to explain real moons in real orbits.
“And you now can’t say what ‘elliptical orbital motion with axial rotation is’.”
Wrong fraudkerts. That would be Earth. Earth rotates in its elliptical orbit.
What will you try next?
You are 3/4 of way there, Clint.
You say a ball-on-a-string is circular rotation without axial rotation. Moving in a circle with one facing pointing straight in. That is 2/4.
Further, you note that earth moves in an elliptical orbit. That is 1/4 more.
But you skipped “without axial rotation.” That is the missing piece — the piece you will never get.
* If you say there is one face pointing straight in (as before), then you have admitted your model would have no libration.
* If you say there is libration, then you have admitted that “without axial rotation” now means something different than before; something you have no model for.
More fraud from fraudkerts: “You say a ball-on-a-string is circular rotation without axial rotation.”
Wrong fraudkerts. The ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
The rest of your comment is even worse.
You don’t understand ANY of this. It’s almost like you’re braindead….
Whatever words you want to use, Clint, it doesn’t change the fact that you can’t predict the correct libration of the moon with your simplistic orbital motion models. You can’t describe what you mean by ‘without axial rotation’ for elliptical orbits.
Wrong again, fraudkerts. (You can’t make one comment without fraud, can you?)
The simple model does not have libration. The simple model does not attempt to predict Moon’s libration. The simple model is ONLY about “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
“Without axial rotation” means the same for both perfect circular orbits or elliptical orbits — the same side of the orbiting body always faces the inside of its orbit.
What fraud will you attempt next?
Let’s face it, the ‘simple model’ is only for simpletons, not for real planetary orbits.
Wrong troll Nate. The simple model is ONLY about “orbital motion without axial rotation”. One side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit. Just like Moon.
Most simpletons can’t understand the simple model, as you repeatedly demonstrate.
Feynman makes it clear how to choose the correct theory.
Its quite simple, the spinner model can easily account for the Moon’s observable libration, axial tilt, etc.
No one can explain, even conceptually, how to sensibly incorporate the axial tilt and libration into the non-spinner model.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1428626
The non-spinner model thus cannot be the correct choice.
Oh well, you guys tried, but failed.
Nate says:
”No one can explain, even conceptually, how to sensibly incorporate the axial tilt and libration into the non-spinner model.”
LOL! Nate explains why he can’t see where the non-spinners are coming from. He has never done a problem before where the rotation didn’t have a perpendicular axis. Thats because he has never done anything with a physical axis that wasn’t perpendicular.
Nate seems to believe that a because a conceptual perpendicular axis is necessary to apply the formulas he knows it must be a real requirement that a physical axis must also be perpendicular.
ROTFLMAO! All physical non-perpendicular axes do is move a level higher in difficulty than any problem that Nate has ever solved so he imagines that physical axes have to be perpendicular.
Then he extrapolates that to the moon’s motion and notes the axis is tilted to the orbital plane and declares that a non-rotation because he can’t figure out how to calculate its rotational quantities.
But of course this is ridiculous one can rotate a tilted plate on a non-perpendicular axis and start imagining the plate being made up of a conglomeration of spherical shapes and to get organized you start noticing that you can visually see a rotation of these spheres on an axis parallel to the non-perpendicular axis.
So Nate goes EUREKA!!! these spheres are not in ROTATION!
So lets deep dive into this:
Why is a perpendicular axis necessary in any calculation?
The answer is that in the brilliance of mathematics if you want to use mean values for the sum of the angular momentum of each particle you must imagine first a perpendicular axis.
But that doesn’t rise to the level that the physical axis must be perpendicular. That just an imaginary reference point for the purpose of using shortcut calculations.
Theoretically all these calculations boil down to individual ‘r’s for each particle that rotate around a fixed point, not a perpendicular axis.
But no matter how you do it the angular momentum of a rotation around an external axis is not going to equal the term Lorb.
It equals Lorb+Lspin. This is why the only way for the spinners to deny the MOTL being the correct model is to deny that rotation exists on any external axes.
But they have been battered and beaten on the MOTL vs MOTR argument realizing that gee science widely recognizes rotations on external axes and they haven’t found a single source explicitly denying that fact.
So gee lets go after elliptical motion. Here they fail to note that all rotations in the world are elliptical. In fact a circle is an ellipse! Its just a special case of an ellipse that is handy for making it easier to do mathematics.
Gill, Gill,
All rotations in the world are elliptical because circles are ellipses.
Not all rotations are circular, however.
Where are your receipts?
Willard says:
”Not all rotations are circular, however.”
Actually more than that Willard. No rotations are circular except in your mind. A circle is simply an ellipse that has zero eccentricity. But there are no known rotations that have less that .00000000001 eccentricity. Thus it is not circular. But when the eccentricity is very small we frequently consider them to be circular, like the eccentricity of a journal on a high performance engine is usually designed with an eccentricity not to exceed .001 inches for every inch in the diameter of the journal.
We have somebody posting here talking about physical librations of the moon that can amount to 100 seconds of physical movement. That is a considerably tighter tolerance than found in the rotation of a high performance engine.
Bill does a gish gallpop but fails to answer the question:
“No one can explain, even conceptually, how to sensibly incorporate the axial tilt and libration into the non-spinner model.”
Its as if he really doesnt have an answer.
And yet he continues to believe his model is the best..
“Nate seems to believe that a because a conceptual perpendicular axis is necessary to apply the formulas he knows it must be a real requirement that a physical axis must also be perpendicular.
ROTFLMAO!”
Yes heehaw that is rollickingly funny….not really.
But laughing at inappropriate moments is a sign of mental illness.
Nate says:
”Bill does a gish gallpop but fails to answer the question:
ROTFLMAO!
Yes heehaw that is rollickingly funny.not really.
But laughing at inappropriate moments is a sign of mental illness.”
———————-
It appears that Nate has no response. Certainly you aren’t going to try to deny that all rotations are ellipses are you. You would have to have an argument to support that if you did.
What’s to answer, Bill?
Meanwhile an for an axial tilt to be observed, it requires an axis. For an axis to exist requires rotation around that axis.
Thus the Moon has a rotation..on..its..axis.
Oh well.
Gill, Gill,
Once again, rotations are ellipses.
Because circles are ellipses.
No circle, no pure rotation.
I agree Willard. ‘pure rotation’ is a special case of rotation.
Do you agree? I didn’t hear you to clearly say you did.
Willy doesnt want to answer that question because it torpedoes Nates argument about the axis needing to be perpendicular.
1. The pure rotational motion: The rigid body in such a motion rotates about a fixed axis that is perpendicular to a fixed plane.
Here we can see an animated picture showing Jupiter’s Galilean Moon Ganymede rotating about its axis:
https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/25/2022/10/ganymede2-8ae3eae.gif?quality=90&webp=true&fit=1000,1000
The animation was built out of several photographs taken by the Very Large Telescope.
From
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/news/jupiter-largest-moons-sharpest-views-earth-based-telescope/
The Lunar Spin Deny Squad (and its newest member Vournas) is sure to say:
“It’s all fake!”
just as Flatearthists say when shown images of Earth taken by the ISS.
Bindidon, sequencing photos from all sides of an object do NOT mean it is rotating. It’s just like a single photo of Earth does NOT mean it is NOT rotating.
You clearly have NO knowledge of ANY of this. You just keep throwing nonsense against the wall, hoping something will stick. Just like the rest of your cult.
And as expected, the squad’s dumbest member enjoyed us with his usual trash:
” … sequencing photos from all sides of an object… ”
Maybe this poor guy explains us how VLT could ever manage to show the Ganymede ‘object’ from ‘all sides’.
Dumber you die, as we use to say in French.
How did they get the photos, Bin?
(See how braindead you are?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Telescope
Your point?
Do you need this explained to you, barry?
Tell us that the ball-on-a-string is also rotating as it revolves.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R
How can a telescope lying on Earth photograph a celestial body located tens of millions of km away, ‘from all sides’?
Are you really that stupid, Clint R?
What about using your own brain for the first time, instead of insulting others ‘braindead’ ?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1427496
So you don’t know how the VLT managed to photograph all sides of Ganymede, Clint. I guess that’s why you talked about anything but that when queried.
That’s a misrepresentation, braindead barry. Which means you’ve got NOTHING else, except trolling.
No no, dodgy Clint. the conversation went like this.
Bindidon: Maybe this poor guy explains us how VLT could ever manage to show the Ganymede ‘object’ from ‘all sides’.
Clint immediately replied: How did they get the photos, Bin?
I supplied a link to the VLT, thinking you needed help answering that.
It seems you still can’t answer your own question.
Maybe it wasn’t rhetorical and you were really asking for help?
If so, the answer is that they pointed the telescope at Ganymede. From Earth.
And that’s how they managed to see al sides of it. The moon rotates.
…but not on its own axis.
“And, what ‘model’ are you referring to? The only model Ive presented is the ball-on-a-string, which has no rotational axis, just as Moon has no ‘rotational axis’.”
So Clint cannot explain the observed axial tilt, he just declares there is no axis.
His model is thus useless.
“BTW, I dont do the ‘ad-hom’ thing unless Im responding to ad-homs.”
Pullleez, it is not an ‘ad-hom’ to disagree with your arguments and point out flaws. As Tim F does.
And yet:
‘As usual, fraudkerts is trying to slip away from his own nonsense. Hes trying to find another way to pervert reality. Hes still trying to corrupt the laws of physics to protect his cult.’
Seems like someone has posted a comment in the wrong place, so I will just reiterate:
…but not on its own axis.
DREMT its amazing the spinners still don’t know the moon is still ‘rotating’ even if the rotation is on an external axis.
It doesn’t seem to matter how many times you explain it, and in how many different ways…they just can’t learn…
Willard doesn’t want to answer that question because it torpedoes Nates argument about the axis needing to be perpendicular.
1. The pure rotational motion: The rigid body in such a motion rotates about a fixed axis that is perpendicular to a fixed plane.
Bill is confused and fantasizing again..
He has yet to explain how axial tilt can be observed with no axis!
I already explained that numerous times. It relates to solar perturbation.
You haven’t explained why an orbit and a spin on an interior axis can be prevented from appearing like the first 38 seconds of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
No you didn’t. Because axial tilt requires an axis, which you guys deny exists.
“DREMT its amazing the spinners still dont know the moon is still ‘rotating’ even if the rotation is on an external axis.”
I made that point myself, using this graphic to demonstrate.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Rotation_illus.svg
Titled: Rotation (angular displacement) of a planar figure around a point
I made the point that whether you use a geometric frame of reference or an inertial frame of reference, the moon is rotating.
You have to use a very peculiar frame of reference to argue otherwise.
What should settle the debate is whether or not the moon has rotational angular momentum (as in, around an internal axis).
I’ll leave it to the non-spinners to look that up.
barry, if you accept the moon is rotating about an external axis then you automatically accept it is not rotating about an internal axis. Whether you understand that, or not.
The moon is rotating around an internal axis, and orbiting around the Earth.
For people who wish to ignore orbital mechanics and the fixed stars, then a geometrical analysis with 0,0 coordinates at the Earth gives the same answer – the moon rotates. Cf the graphic above.
Your problem seems to be that you conflate the geometric analysia with orbital mechanics. Thus you point to the moon’s external rotation as in the image I linked above, but you then say that this is a consequence of its orbit.
The moon has angular momentum in its orbit and also in its rotation around its own axis. Ergo, it orbits and rotates.
A lot of jabber by Barry and he concludes with the statement that is he is right without any explanation at all and zero sources for support.
Thanks for that critique, Bill. When you provide lots of substantiation and your ‘opponents’ supply none…
As in ZERO
then the criticism is one-eyed and amusing.
Examining just this subthread, guess who did and didn’t provide any sort of link to substantiate a point?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1430326
This goes for any number of topics here.
And it’s pretty rich coming from the guy who wouldn’t supply a link to corroborate his claim about what Hansen said, when I provided one at your request.
Like with the Republicans in the US, if you get accused of or criticised about something, it’s usually projection.
“The moon is rotating around an internal axis, and orbiting around the Earth.”
Only if by “orbiting around the Earth” you mean “translating around the Earth”. If by “orbiting around the Earth” you mean “rotating around the Earth”, then no, the moon is not rotating on its own internal axis as well. Do you ever pay any attention to comments that are not addressed to you, barry? Have you not looked around to see what other people in the debate have conceded? Have you not paid any attention to what has been happening in the debate, generally?
You’re behind the times, barry.
barry says:
Thanks for that critique, Bill. When you provide lots of substantiation and your opponents supply none
As in ZERO
then the criticism is one-eyed and amusing.
Examining just this subthread, guess who did and didnt provide any sort of link to substantiate a point?
—————–
We just started this subthread Barry. In this comment section I have 5 posts with 4 different supporting links.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1426275
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1428102
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1428160
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1427066
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1427280
In addition I have posted this link in several previous comment sections the latest being the November temperature update:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1427280
And DREMT has added 4 links in this comment section:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
https://www.brightstorm.com/science/physics/circular-motion-and-rotational-mechanics/rotation-and-revolution/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw demonstration of a rotation of the moon on its axis and one rotation by an orbit
And unlike you and your fellow spinners you have nothing that explicitly excludes any of the above.
barry says: Examining just this subthread
Limiting it to this subthread huh?
Try searching the comment sections of this monthly update and last months update.
https://tinyurl.com/2znbr677
https://tinyurl.com/3wvejbke
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/orbital+rotation
https://tinyurl.com/2zmj7hf3
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
And of course DREMT added others:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287 https://www.brightstorm.com/science/physics/circular-motion-and-rotational-mechanics/rotation-and-revolution/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
Yeah Barry,
This duo wants you to pay very close attention to their posts, but ignore all others. Because nobody rebutted their posts!
This is how they self delude and keep the argument going indefinitely.
Another ‘Duh!!!’ moment from Binny. Ganymede, Callisto, and Io are all claimed to be tidally locked, suggesting they all rotate about a local axis in the same amount of time they orbit Jupiter.
Meantime, Binny submittd a very grainy, extremely poor animation of Gannymede allegedly rotating on a local axis. Another seriously ‘Duh!!!’ moment. The animation is claimed to represent Gannymede rotating about a local axis but what we are seeing is the same views we would get of our own Moon when it is on the opposite side of the Earth from the Sun, as viewed from the Sun.
A telescope viewing Gannymede from Earth, however, has the luxury of not only seeing light reflected while Gannymede is on the far side of Jupiter, provided it is not blocked by Jupiter, but also when it is between Jupiter and Earth. With the additional info, we should get a very clear view of any rotation about a local axis.
We don’t. What we are seeing is a few frames pieced together in such a manner as to produce a grainy, poorly-defined image.
Animation is not a realistic moving image but a model trying to depict such motion. What we are seeing with Binny’s moving image is what we see with our own Moon with the addition of images of the far side captured from a perspective of the stars.
The gif file we use to view the Moon’s orbital motion has far more clarity than Binny’s image yet it has only 50 images in the animation. Why is that? Gannymede is obviously moving with a pure curvilinear motion if, in fact, it orbits Jupiter while keeping the same face pointed at Jupiter. I have seen no evidence that is the case that it keeps the same face pointed at Jupiter.
“what we are seeing is the same views we would get of our own Moon when it is on the opposite side of the Earth from the Sun, as viewed from the Sun.”
Demonstrating the point made above that the moon spins WRT to fixed stars (and our sun).
Indeed Barry the moon rotates WRT stars the question is which axis does it rotate upon.
barry…”Demonstrating the point made above that the moon spins WRT to fixed stars (and our sun)”.
***
Spin needs an axis plus an angular momentum about the axis. The Moon has no angular momentum about anything, either internally nor externally.
All the Moon has is a linear momentum.
Bill
The Moon’s spin axis is offset 6 degrees from perpendicular to its orbital plane. This is why an observer on Earth sees liberation in lunar latitude as well as in lunar longitude.
“All the Moon has is a linear momentum.”
Our chief of science denial gives his insights.
Ent, since you want us to believe you know about Moon’s [imaginary] “spin axis”, maybe you can answer this simple question:
What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Moon’s orbit?
[BARRY] the Moon spins
[GILL] Indeed Barry the Moon rotates
” the angles given by your cult”
I assume you mean by the cult of Astronomy’s observations?
Yeah, it is tilted 6.7 degrees from the orbital axis, points to fixed point on the celestial sphere (map of the stars), and remains so throughout its orbit.
Now you:
How does YOUR model explain the axial tilt, if the Moon has no rotational axis?
Or if you can’t, just tell me I don’t understand any of this and toss in some ad-homs.
Nate, you’re the only one that has attempted an answer, so far. Thanks.
Unfortunately, it’s wrong.
And, what “model” are you referring to? The only model I’ve presented is the ball-on-a-string, which has no “rotational axis”, just as Moon has no “rotational axis”.
BTW, I don’t do the “ad-hom” thing unless I’m responding to ad-homs. Notice you didn’t use any adhoms in your comment, so I didn’t either. If you don’t want ad-homs, don’t use them.
The tilt Nate is talking about is not a tilt vis a vis the ecliptic it is a tilt to the path the moon follows around the earth.
So since Nate’s head is literally in outerspace he thinks this is evidence that he can use to deny the moon rotates around the earth.
We should await for when Nate brings some credible support for this notion and read that. Neener neener!
There is no tilt vis a vis the moon’s rotation due to the force of gravity. The moon points toward the earth and sun not the plane of its orbit. . . .proving it is gravity that influences the moon’s motion not some ancient pre-moon spin put on it by little green men.
Indeed Gill the lunar axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic plane:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
Now, about the Earth equatorial plane, I have questions.
Willard the earths equatorial plane is determined the tilt of the earths axis not the axis of the moon.
And, what model are you referring to? The only model Ive presented is the ball-on-a-string, which has no rotational axis, just as Moon has no rotational axis.
So Clint cannot explain the observed axial tilt, he just declares there is no axis.
His model is thus useless.
BTW, I dont do the ad-hom thing unless Im responding to ad-homs.
Pullleez, it is not an ad-hom to disagree with your arguments and point out flaws. As Tim F does.
And yet:
As usual, fraudkerts is trying to slip away from his own nonsense. Hes trying to find another way to pervert reality. Hes still trying to corrupt the laws of physics to protect his cult.
“The tilt Nate is talking about is not a tilt vis a vis the ecliptic it is a tilt to the path the moon follows around the earth.”
False. Bill gets most things wrong.
“In astronomy, axial tilt, also known as obliquity, is the angle between an object’s rotational axis and its orbital axis, which is the line perpendicular to its orbital plane; equivalently, it is the angle between its equatorial plane and orbital plane.”
Body NASA, J2000.0[38] epoch IAU, 0h 0 January 2010 TT[39] epoch
Axial tilt
(degrees)
R.A. (degrees)
Sun 7.25
Mercury 0.03
Venus 2.64
Earth 23.44
Moon 6.68
You guys have no idea how to explain this axial tilt without the Moon having a spin.
Oh well, try again with a different issue.
Nate says:
”In astronomy, axial tilt, also known as obliquity, is the angle between an objects rotational axis and its orbital axis, which is the line perpendicular to its orbital plane; equivalently, it is the angle between its equatorial plane and orbital plane.”
Nate understands how astronomers simplify the concepts they work with so as to simplify their calculations to ”close enough”.
But he doesn’t understand what a rotation is and he doesn’t realize that using these concepts one can not derive proofs. To derive proofs, which is never easy, it means reaching beyond shortcut estimates.
If you followed Nate’s logic here it would be impossible to spin a tilted plate on a non-perpendicular axis. People have been doing that for thousands of years but Nate doesn’t know that having his head buried deep in the sand.
Gill, Gill,
You’ll never guess what an orbital plane is used for.
Willard says:
Willard please stop trolling.
Bill gets the definition of axial tilt wrong. Tries to blame others with yada yada yada.
Still can’t account for it with his model.
Lame!
“If you followed Nates logic here it would be impossible to spin a tilted plate on a non-perpendicular axis.”
Unclear what you are thinking here.
You don’t seem to understand what axial tilt is. Think of the Earth. It is spinning on its rotational axis, and that is tilted 23.5 degrees to its orbital axis. And the rotational axis points to a fixed star Polaris throughout the orbit.
For axial tilt to be observed, it requires that there be a rotational axis. Thus the Moon has its own rotational axis. Which by itself falsifies the claims of the non-spinners, that the Moon is not rotating on its own axis.
Nate says:
”Think of the Earth. It is spinning on its rotational axis, and that is tilted 23.5 degrees to its orbital axis.”
So I take it you are pursuing the classic form of argument:
If it rains outside the sidewalk will be wet.
The sidewalk is wet
Therefore it rained outside.
As in:
If if a celestial body is spinning on an internal axis it will have a tilted axis.
The moon’s axis is tilted
Therefore the moon is spinning on an internal axis.
The Leaning Tower of Pisa is leaning at 3.99 degrees.
You are saying there is no Tower. Your logic is illogical.
We observe that the sidewalk is wet.
You guys are trying to claim that it doesnt follow that there is a sidewalk.
dum dum dum dum
“Ganymede rotating about its axis:”
I declare this to be a fraudulent animation. I loaded the gif file in Irfanview, a free viewer that allows the extraction of individual images in a gif file.
There are only 4 images. Images 1 and 2 are the same image rotated about 20 degrees CCW. Images 3 and 4 have nothing apparently in common with images 1 and 2.
If images 1 and 2 are indicative of rotation, then we are looking down on a pole perpendicular to the page with the Moon rotating about 20 degrees CCW. Images 3 and 4 should show the same pole but they don’t. Image 3 shows a small blue spot in centre-frame which appear to have rotated about an axis that is parallel to the page and pointing about 45 degrees from the x-axis.
In other words, the pole for images 1 and 2 is at a 90 degree angle to the pole for images 3 and 4.
Why an animator would want to mislead people like this is the question.
Come on, Bordon.
This is not a live cam.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Precipitation in California on January 14 may be very heavy, due to the overlap of lows in the upper and lower troposphere (there may be very strong winds from the Pacific). A cold front in the upper troposphere will condense water vapor over the ocean.
https://i.ibb.co/fpR4JcQ/gfs-cape-usa72.png
Continued heavy rainfall from the Pacific Ocean is reaching California.
https://i.ibb.co/qm6dZkV/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-01-11-135702.png
The triple superdeveloping La Nina Bindiclown cannot see got updated
https://i.postimg.cc/MH26Xyzt/mei-lifecycle-12.png
It’s enough for all of us if the little ankle-biting dachshund can see it!
Speak for yourself you dumbass, it’s only you and your dumb sidekick dinglebarry who can’t see it.
Ooooh the stalker becomes quite aggressive and impolite!
https://i.postimg.cc/ncKCrHx1/Screenshot-2023-01-11-at-18-14-24-MEI-v2-NOAA-Physical-Sciences-Laboratory.png
https://i.postimg.cc/QNffPWV2/Screenshot-2023-01-11-at-18-16-51-https-psl-noaa-gov.png
Do you see what I can’t see, little ankle-biting dachshund?
You are such an idiot!
Who is “all of us” ??? do you see an imaginary army of climate clowns with you in the room ???
Climate clown?
Speak about yourself, little ankle-biting dachshund!
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
1973-76 First and Third year stronger than current one.
Oh well.
Any bets/suggestions of what is going to happen this year?
FYI, there appears to be no 4 year La Ninas in the record, at least the one back to 1950.
All two or three year La Ninas ended with an El Nino.
So far. Like our recorded ENSO history is SO long and 1950 is ancient history.
What do you dislike about IOCAS ICM?
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table
Check w the expert predictions. You?
IOCAS ICM?
Natty is as brain-dead as Bindiclown only less funny
Didnt your mother teach you about the ‘if you nothing nice to say, or don’t have an actual science point, you don’t need to post’?
The actual front will not reach California until overnight, with highs over Nevada blocking it over the Mountains.
By January 15, the flood threat will increase.
https://i.ibb.co/M91jnKp/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-01-11-165915.png
What a beautiful picture!
https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/Earth-at-moon-LRO-NASA_S.jpg
Text
” Magnificent Earth
This magnificent image of our blue planet rising over the Moon’s limb was made with NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter on October 2015 when the spacecraft flew about 134 kilometers above the Moon’s far side. “
Bindidon, in your braindead head, does that photo of Earth “prove” it is NOT rotating?
I don’t know what that photo proves or doesn’t prove, Clint R.
What I know however is that your question proves you are an ignorant and stubborn person, able only to insult others with your ‘braindead’ stuff.
Bin, “braindead” is NOT an insult. It’s reality. You choose to deny reality, that makes you braindead. That’s why you can’t learn.
It’s a life-choice.
If you ever choose reality, your brain will start to rebuild.
Hey, Pup.
Here’s reality:
https://youtu.be/AIVt25Z1lDA
Don’t miss the most intelligent comment yet from the worthless troll.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1426342
You are the troll, Pup.
That is why when Mighty Tim asks you to support your position you run away.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Clint R,
Binny is one of those people who chooses to feel insulted, and blames others for his inability to control his feelings.
If he has no facts to support his delusional thinking, he just looks for sympathy, by claiming his “feelings” have been hurt.
No self esteem, I guess.
I think it even goes past a self-esteem issue, Swenson. Bin is braindead.
What’s the matter with the Sunny boy?
https://tinyurl.com/bddw5jtf
Hmmmh. Perhaps the observers drank a little more champagne than usual.
Light reading on ENSO.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64192508
GISS is not an outlier among surface data sets and RSS LT. All give quite similar trends.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Also Reanalysis data
https://climate.copernicus.eu/2022-saw-record-temperatures-europe-and-across-world
What is your suggestion as to what is going to happen THIS year?
“GISS is not an outlier among surface data sets and RSS LT.”
Any guess as to why both show the same outcome when RSS is biased upwards because it continues to use known warming satellites?
You are oversimplifying the situation. RSS explains their rationale in their methods paper. You can read it.
There’s the rationale offered by RSS and the real reason, that they sold out to the NOAA meme of fudging temperatures.
RSS are still wrong in their choice and use of warming satellites. As Roy and John have clearly shown.
This is regardless of what RSS says.
I see. So you are certain their science rationale is wrong because you trust your chosen authority of Roy and John?
But you havent bothered to read the RSS methods paper?
We had the discussion earlier about the ‘deferring to authority’ logical fail.
Experts can be wrong. Roy and John have been before, in one case, spectacularly so.
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/1998/08/13/a-heated-controversy
Didn’t the head of RSS express a lack of confidence in his data Nate?
The more confident in your belief the more true it is?
Isn’t that what Carl Mears is doing here? About a year and a half before he revised his data base to match that of the surface stations?
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/01/over-reliance-on-satellite-data-alone-criticized/
” he revised his data base to match”
Both UAH and RSS did extensive revisions at that time. RSS revision resulted in a higher trend while UAHs revision resulted in a lower trend.
Ive read the papers. Both made some subjective judgement calls. I don’t know enough to tell who has done it right.
While you seem certain that RSSs revision was only done to match political beliefs?
Based on what?
If a company’s various VPs give you wildly different revenue figures, then come back with large revisions every other day, should you trust these numbers?
“Mears underscores that the best practice is to ‘look at all the different data sets, you dont want to trust only the satellite temperatures.'”
He’s being honest and absolutely correct. No surprise that Ted Cruz got it exactly wrong.
If researchers need to know the accurate T trend, they should not rely on the satellite data, given its much larger uncertainty, large revisions and lack of consensus.
Nate says:
”If a companys various VPs give you wildly different revenue figures, then come back with large revisions every other day, should you trust these numbers?”
Well all I know is he expressed doubt about his numbers. If it was as you say then dang he had good reason to doubt his numbers.
Not HIS numbers. He said don’t rely on satellite T trends alone. That means on UAH,RSS, UW. Because all have uncertainty.
Nate says:
Not HIS numbers. He said dont rely on satellite T trends alone.
—————————
What do you mean not his numbers? Those are the only numbers he works with.
And how does his statement to not rely on satellite T trends alone express any confidence in his numbers.
Doesn’t UAH match up really well to the UHI Free USCRN surface network? Sounds a lot better than stations try to estimate how out of sync their data is due to UHI, not to speak of Russian and Chinese disinformation.
Stop putting your words in other peoples mouths, troll.
Many surface and reanalysis data sets together on one plot show quite good agreement.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/custom-uploads/Indicators/temperature/C3S_indicators_temperature_Tab1_fig1_apr22_branded.png
My goodness, all the cheaters agree, who’d a thunk?
Now compare that trash to UAH.
Evidence that their ALL cheaters?
Nah, science deniers dont need no stinkin evidence.
That would be “they’re,” Mr. Precison.
Oooh you got me there..
A hint for the gullible Coolista: one could say the opposite.
” Any guess as to why both show the same outcome as UAH is biased downwards because it continues to use known cooling satellites? ”
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.365/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/offset:-0.613
Another one of Binny’s fudged graphs. Has he no shame?
Robertson
” Another one of Binnys fudged graphs. Has he no shame? ”
Instead of lying about what you don’t have a clue about: why don’t you learn to make graphs?
Or dou you prefer to keep a dumb, ignorant polemicist forever?
If Blinny bothered to compare before and after the use of the warming satellites as I did, then maybe he would have a clue.
Blindsley Hood
I have shown you often enough that all you do is to show manipulated charts comparing anomalies belonging to different reference periods.
So you prefer to keep robertsoning instead of reasoning, similar to here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365217
What you did was the same as what he did; with the difference however that while his misrepresenting is due to ignorance, yours is 100% intended manipulation.
How is before and after a manipulation?
bill hunter…”As DREMT pointed out to you incredibly simply: If elliptical motion wasnt a rotation. . . .they would call it elliptical translation! or elliptical general plane motion!”
***
That is why we have to look carefully at the motion of the Moon. As it stands, we are looking at a point called its centre of mass, moving with an elliptical orbit. That ignores the shape of the Moon, which is standard practice when examining the trajectory of a ‘uniform’ rigid body. The Moon is regarded as uniform sphere and since it is uniform, its motion can be regarded as its centre of mass.
Willard seems to be trying to apply that motion to a triangle and that’s OK provided the triangle has the same momentum and rectilinear motion as the Moon. That’s the key. Normally, when we talk about rotation we are talking about a body rotating about an internal axis, however, the Moon is a very special case in which a body orbits, or rotates about, an external axis.
The reason for that orbital motion is a basic property of the Moon, that is has a large mass and velocity, giving it a tremendous linear momentum. That linear momentum is bent out of its linear path into a curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field. It so happens that the lunar velocity is just right to act like Newton’s cannonball with enough momentum that it will remain in a constant orbit.
Let’s examine a triangle with its apex always pointed at Earth’s centre. That means the base is always moving parallel to an orbit created by the apex. The COM is also moving along a elliptical, concentric path. Once again, we have three important parts of the triangle moving along concentric paths. Therefore, the apex always points at Earth’s centre and the base acts like a tangential vector, constantly changing it orientation wrt the stars.
Come on, Bordon.
A triangle has no momentum. It is just a geometry figure.
Also, a rotation is simply a motion in which there is a change of direction. It does not matter if the axis is inside or outside the body of the rotating object.
The critical part is to determine if there is a change of direction. For that you need a frame of reference. Unless you are talking an absolute rotation. Just like velocity in physics.
You need to watch Gill more closely. He is trying to suggest that an orbit involves a rotation. You are against the idea.
Willard says:
”The critical part is to determine if there is a change of direction. For that you need a frame of reference. Unless you are talking an absolute rotation. Just like velocity in physics.”
Not good enough. You need to answer DREMTs question regarding the frame of reference of the MOTL and the MOTR from a distant star.
C’mon, Gill.
Gentle Graham is not the King of Physics you portray.
Let me remind you of where that silly GIF comes from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
To take that change into account, you need physics.
Sorry.
On the plus side, doing some physics might help you get out of the geometry hole you dug yourself in.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Sorry.”
No need to apologise. You can’t help being a lying, delusiobal, SkyDragon cultist!
Be proud.
Delusiabol?
Willy’s incompetence and ineptitude must be infectious.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Sorry.”
No need to apologise. You cant help being a lying, delusional, SkyDragon cultist!
Be proud.
ps. I know the typo may have confused you, so I fixed it.
Willard says:
”Cmon, Gill.
Gentle Graham is not the King of Physics you portray.”
Does that mean unless the ”King of Physics” asks the questions you aren’t going to answer them?
Gill, Gill,
I would not answer an irrelevant question even if it came from the King of Physics. But since you like that question, Gentle Graham forgot to tell me where were the fixed stars in the GIF.
Would you be so kind as to tell me where they are?
OK since you refuse to reveal your position on this topic that proves your participation is strictly as a troll.
I will keep a url record of responses to DREMTs question and we can create 3 categories of participants in the debate on circular orbits represented by the MOTR and the MOTL and no answer.
Spinners will be those that claim the MOTR
Non-spinners will be those that claim the MOTL
Trolls will be people making posts in the thread on the topic who don’t know.
Gotta identify the riffraff to reduce the noise.
So far I have:
DREMT – MOTL
Bill – MOTL
Willard – Troll
Bill Hunter,
Willard is more of a wannabe troll, in my view. He is free, of course, to try to convince me otherwise.
The fool just keeps demanding answers to gotchas, but of course refuses to state his position – which probably involves bending over and clutching his ankles.
Not terribly bright, but given enough time and effort, he might be able to annoy or offend someone less intelligent than himself – which rather lowers his potential audience.
Ah well, if someone has to be an object of derision, it might as well be a delusional SkyDragon cultist, I suppose.
Swenson says:
which probably involves bending over and clutching his ankles.
——————
Well he did make clear it wasn’t physics he was bending over for.
Gill,
You haven’t answered my question.
I suppose you haven’t even realized that your question isn’t related to what Bordon quoted from you.
🤦
You and him should have a talk.
Bill,
See the funny donkey Willard braying that you haven’t answered his question!
Oh dear, poor Weeping Wee Willy, and his plaintive complaints. I’d be laughing at him too.
What a strange delusional SkyDragon cultist he is. Seems to think that rational people have an obligation to respond to his whining gotchas.
“But since you like that question, Gentle Graham forgot to tell me where were the fixed stars in the GIF.”
You will not listen to me (on any subject), so I will let barry explain:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1412184
Gill?!
Willard please stop trolling
Still waiting for Gill’s answer…
Willard please stop trolling #2
Let’s help Gill learn his trade:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1413805
More bait from Little Willy. “Orbit” and “spin” are separate, the two groups just have different ideas on what “orbit” is.
Gentle Graham gently gaslights a little more.
Orbit and spin are not separate in the 1+1 trick.
Nor are they separate in the CSA Truther trick.
Willard please stop trolling #3
“Orbit and spin are not separate in the 1+1 trick.
Nor are they separate in the CSA Truther trick.”
Neither are “tricks”, and yes “orbit” and “spin” are separate in both. It’s just that “orbit” is a different motion to what the “Spinners” think it is.
“Its just that ‘orbit’ is a different motion to what the ‘Spinners’ think it is.”
Orbit is defined the way it is by Astronomy, not by popular vote of people on the internet.
Not sure where people go that idea.
…It’s just that “orbit” is a different motion to what the “Spinners” think it is.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
Orbit and spin are so independent in the CSA Truhers trick that when he moves the clock arm that holds the Moon, he makes it spin *at the same time*.
More than that – he argues that the Moon *cannot* spin!
So yeah, a silly trick.
Were spin and orbit truly independent, every degree of orbit would not come with a degree of spin.
No, idiot, the CSAItruth video just shows “orbit” from the “Non-Spinner” perspective. “Spin” still occurs, separately to the “orbit”. In the first third of the video, they show the moon “orbiting” whilst “spinning” in the same direction as the “orbit”, once per orbit. In the second third of the video, they show the moon “orbiting” without “spinning”. In the final third of the video, they show the moon “orbiting” whilst “spinning” in the opposite direction to the “orbit”, once per orbit.
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
The CSA Truther claims that spin and orbit are *impossible* if we want to preserve phenomena.
This is a proof.
It is not a mere matter of perspective.
We could actually turn the argument in its face. If the Moon only rotates around the center of the Earth, then that center becomes the center of a spherical geometry. Such spherical geometry, centred around the center of the Earth, returns us back to heliocentrism.
A steep price to pay, if you ask me.
More so that the center of the Earth is not even the barycenter!
It’s a job to know how to respond to somebody who is that confused. I think I will just leave your comment for posterity, so that when you eventually work out how simple this all is, and how wrong you were, you can look back at your comments with the mixture of embarrassment and disbelief that they warrant.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
It is as if he never really thought about why Bordon keeps insisting that an orbit is actually a pure translation.
But then it has little to do with his pet GIF, so how could he understand?
Little Willy gaslights a little more.
” the CSAItruth video just shows orbit from the Non-Spinner perspective.”
Weird that DREMT keeps citing a false authority that specifically argues the Moon isnt rotating, by using a geocentric rotating reference frame!
Then insists that reference frames dont matter to non-spinners.
Note that the narrator always states the Moon is not rotating. Never mentioning the non-spinner meme ‘not rotating on its axis’.
Whereas DREMT states that the Moon is rotating, just not on its own axis.
The video has the Moon move as the MOTL, and narrator states
“It is one orbit. It should never be considered as one rotation.”
Which contradicts how the non-spinners DEFINE orbit.
And he states near the end. ‘By taking out the Moon and moving it around, it appears to not be rotating. (He is showing it with MOTR motion) But as soon as we put it back on the motor its clockwise rotation becomes visible. (again it is moving as MOTR)”
IOW, if he puts it into a geocentric rotating frame of reference, we ‘see’ its clockwise rotation, whereas in reality it has NO ROTATION either way.
Its as if the non-spinners doesnt understand their own many contradictory arguments.
Just to clarify what I mean by by ‘using a geocentric rotating reference frame!”
In the video, there is bar attched to the Earth’s center that holds the Moon, and most of the time, the bar is rotating around the Earths center.
Whenever he states that the Moon is rotating, it is rotating in reference to the bar not in reference to space. Whenever he says the Moon is not rotating, it is not rotating in reference to the bar, and not to space.
Thus he is clearly using his rotating bar, attched to the Earth, as his frame of reference.
I’ll just add a quick note about the video, since sociopaths that I no longer respond to are in the area, likely to make stupid points that reveal their own abject failure to understand the absolute basics, even after all this time…
…the video shows, perfectly clearly, that "spin" is being kept separate from "orbital motion" as the "Non-Spinners" see it. It’s nothing to do with "reference frames". It’s simply a question of keeping "spin" separate from the "Non-Spinners" version of "orbital motion".
If you kept "spin" separate from the "Spinners" version of "orbital motion", then motion like the MOTL would be "orbiting whilst spinning, once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbital motion"…and motion like the MOTR would be "orbiting without spinning". However, that is not what is being shown in the video.
That’s all there is to it.
Gentle Graham gaslights more and more.
The CSA Truther fixates the Moon on the arm. That attachment is fixed. When the Moon orbits, it also spins.
Orbit and spin are therefore *not* independent.
Gravity does not work that way.
> heliocentrism
Geocentrism, of course.
Even my autocorrect refuses to buy what Gentle Graham and the CSA Truther are trying to sell!
I’m glad you decided to continue leaving more evidence of your stupidity, Little Willy. Thank you. You’ll look back on it in years to come with great shame.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
77 months of trolling because he *cannot* ask a direct question.
How can gravity make the Man on the Moon always face the Earth?
Conventional physics has it that gravity only provides a pull.
How does Dragon Crank physics work?
An attempted subject change to one already addressed a dozen times by multiple commenters? No thanks.
Gentle Graham cannot even recognize his pet GIF anymore.
That or he is gaslighting.
The question as to how to interpret the motion of the Moon, in the CSA Truther trick as elsewhere, is a question of physics, not mere geometry.
…no thanks.
Willard please stop trolling #4
Gill, Gill,
Have some receipt:
I think you know where to find this.
That’s physics, not geometry.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“the video shows, perfectly clearly”
Notice DREMT never addresses the problem, which is what the silky voiced narrator says. Which makes it clear that he is using a geocentric rotating reference frame.
We keep hearing
”
Its nothing to do with “reference frames”
But is just lip service.
I am, for no particular reason, just going to reiterate what I wrote earlier:
“…the video shows, perfectly clearly, that "spin" is being kept separate from "orbital motion" as the "Non-Spinners" see it. It’s nothing to do with "reference frames". It’s simply a question of keeping "spin" separate from the "Non-Spinners" version of "orbital motion".
If you kept "spin" separate from the "Spinners" version of "orbital motion", then motion like the MOTL would be "orbiting whilst spinning, once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbital motion"…and motion like the MOTR would be "orbiting without spinning". However, that is not what is being shown in the video.
That’s all there is to it.”
Indeed there is no particular reason, since the issue of what the narrator says throughout the video is still not addressed.
When he removes the Moon from the arm, he notes that its rotation becomes evident.
Only when it is attached to the arm does its rotation start to be referenced to frame of the rotating arm.
…and just to reiterate, once again:
“…the video shows, perfectly clearly, that "spin" is being kept separate from "orbital motion" as the "Non-Spinners" see it. It’s nothing to do with "reference frames". It’s simply a question of keeping "spin" separate from the "Non-Spinners" version of "orbital motion".
If you kept "spin" separate from the "Spinners" version of "orbital motion", then motion like the MOTL would be "orbiting whilst spinning, once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbital motion"…and motion like the MOTR would be "orbiting without spinning". However, that is not what is being shown in the video.
That’s all there is to it.”
Those that understand, will understand. Those that don’t get it by now, never will. Oh well, never mind.
“Those that understand, will understand. Those that dont get it by now, never will. Oh well, never mind.”
So we agree that the argument can be done.
Halleluyah!
Oh well, never mind.
What are you braying about?
Woebegone Silly Willy,
You seem a tad confused. What part of “stupid” do you not understand?
Only someone really, really, stupid would deny that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so – mythical GHE notwithstanding!
You really do appear to be just that stupid, but feel free to attempt to convince me otherwise.
You seem to be braying once more.
Is it to illustrate stupidity, Mike?
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“I would not answer an irrelevant question even if it came from the King of Physics.”
Work it out, dummy.
That must be it, Mike.
Weak Wee Willy,
If you say so, donkey, if you say so.
Indeed I do, jackass.
Willard please stop trolling
Wily Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“He is trying to suggest that an orbit involves a rotation.”
You’re just trying to pass off your worthless opinion as fact. “Trying to suggest . . .”? Really? What does that mean in English?
Your claims of mind-reading are ludicrous. You might just as well indulge in a spot of outright lying! Playing your “silly semantic games” can’t obscure the fact that your faith in the GHE which you can’t describe, and didn’t stop the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, has been shattered. Sad.
Carry on ignoring the physical facts which Christos Vournas presented, relating to the motion of the Moon. You might just as well profess belief that everything the nutters at NOAA and NASA present as fact, is more than unsupported assertion.
Carry on avoiding the fact that nobody has described where the GHE may be observed, measured, and documented.
Lying, delusional SkyDragon cultist? Others can form their own opinions.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Still blaming me because you can’t read? Oh well, I suppose others might have missed my comment too, so no harm repeating it. Here you go –
Wily Wee Willy,
You wrote
“He is trying to suggest that an orbit involves a rotation.”
Youre just trying to pass off your worthless opinion as fact. “Trying to suggest . . .”? Really? What does that mean in English?
Your claims of mind-reading are ludicrous. You might just as well indulge in a spot of outright lying! Playing your “silly semantic games” cant obscure the fact that your faith in the GHE which you cant describe, and didnt stop the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, has been shattered. Sad.
Carry on ignoring the physical facts which Christos Vournas presented, relating to the motion of the Moon. You might just as well profess belief that everything the nutters at NOAA and NASA present as fact, is more than unsupported assertion.
Carry on avoiding the fact that nobody has described where the GHE may be observed, measured, and documented.
Lying, delusional SkyDragon cultist? Others can form their own opinions.
Mike Flynn,
Could you please copy-paste your comment another time?
Thanks.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Could you please copy-paste your comment another time?
Thanks.”
My pleasure. Let me know if you are having difficulty understanding anything. Here you are –
Whacky Wee Willy,
Still blaming me because you cant read? Oh well, I suppose others might have missed my comment too, so no harm repeating it. Here you go
Wily Wee Willy,
You wrote
“He is trying to suggest that an orbit involves a rotation.”
Youre just trying to pass off your worthless opinion as fact. “Trying to suggest . . .”? Really? What does that mean in English?
Your claims of mind-reading are ludicrous. You might just as well indulge in a spot of outright lying! Playing your “silly semantic games” can’t obscure the fact that your faith in the GHE which you can’t describe, and didn’t stop the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, has been shattered. Sad.
Carry on ignoring the physical facts which Christos Vournas presented, relating to the motion of the Moon. You might just as well profess belief that everything the nutters at NOAA and NASA present as fact, is more than unsupported assertion.
Carry on avoiding the fact that nobody has described where the GHE may be observed, measured, and documented.
Lying, delusional SkyDragon cultist? Others can form their own opinions.
Well done, Mike!
Again?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Again?”
Certainly. My pleasure. I’m gratified you want as many people as possible to be aware of my opinion, so they can make up their own minds as to the width of your stupidity.
So here you go –
“Wily Wee Willy,
You wrote
“He is trying to suggest that an orbit involves a rotation.”
Youre just trying to pass off your worthless opinion as fact. “Trying to suggest . . .”? Really? What does that mean in English?
Your claims of mind-reading are ludicrous. You might just as well indulge in a spot of outright lying! Playing your “silly semantic games” cant obscure the fact that your faith in the GHE which you can’t describe, and didn’it stop the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, has been shattered. Sad.
Carry on ignoring the physical facts which Christos Vournas presented, relating to the motion of the Moon. You might just as well profess belief that everything the nutters at NOAA and NASA present as fact, is more than unsupported assertion.
Carry on avoiding the fact that nobody has described where the GHE may be observed, measured, and documented.
Lying, delusional SkyDragon cultist? Others can form their own opinions.
That does not tell me what you are braying about, Mike.
Could you copy-paste your comment once again?
Wondering Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Could you copy-paste your comment once again?”
I do my best to help the intellectually challenged and slow to learn, so here –
“Wily Wee Willy,
You wrote
“He is trying to suggest that an orbit involves a rotation.”
Youre just trying to pass off your worthless opinion as fact. “Trying to suggest . . .”? Really? What does that mean in English?
Your claims of mind-reading are ludicrous. You might just as well indulge in a spot of outright lying! Playing your “silly semantic games” can’t obscure the fact that your faith in the GHE which you can’t describe, and didn’t stop the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, has been shattered. Sad.
Carry on ignoring the physical facts which Christos Vournas presented, relating to the motion of the Moon. You might just as well profess belief that everything the nutters at NOAA and NASA present as fact, is more than unsupported assertion.
Carry on avoiding the fact that nobody has described where the GHE may be observed, measured, and documented.
Lying, delusional SkyDragon cultist? Others can form their own opinions.”
Keep braying, Mike.
One day I might even read it!
Weepy Wee Willy,
I have tried to respond in your native tongue, donkey. You show little understanding of English.
Oh well, ask away, like a 3 year old human asking why, why, why.
Just asking irrelevant questions won’t make you any smarter – particularly if you just keep repeating the same silly question.
I suppose that, rather than trying to lower myself to your level, I should just treat your plaintive bleating with the derision it deserves, but I have a duty to help those less fortunate than myself intellectually.
Maybe you could demonstrate your understanding of physics (even the SkyDragon donkey variety), by explaining the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years or so of the Earth cooling, but I doubt it.
You will just claim you don’t understand. You are a dim donkey, indeed. You don’t even understand your native tongue.
Carry on with your grovelling requests. I’ll just laugh at you, because you don’t even understand donkey!
Mike Flynn,
Speaking in tongues once again?
Keep braying!
Willard please stop trolling.
Any receipt, Gill?
Willard please stop trolling #2
ww…”a rotation is simply a motion in which there is a change of direction”
***
A change of direction is described by translation as well. Rotation is a specific change of direction wrt to an axis, either external or internal.
The difference is, with pure translation all particles of the translating body must move along parallel lines at any instant and at the same speed, With rotation, all particles must be rotating about an internal axis, in parallel, at the same angular speed or about an external axis in parallel.
With an external axis, rotation about the axis, with no internal rotation, is the same as curvilinear translation. The body could be rotating about an internal axis at the same time as it is rotating about the external axis. To distinguish the two we tend to call rotation about an external axis ‘revolution’, or orbiting.
Come on, Bordon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation_(geometry)
After more than ten years ranting and trolling this website, you need to be able to pass through the first sentence of a Wiki entry.
Willard please stop trolling.
JFY, Gill:
I’m sure you know where I took this.
Willard please stop trolling #2
Ain’t your job, Gill.
Your job is to collect receipts:
Op. Cit.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard tries his hand at petty insults suggesting all auditors to is collect receipts.
But that is just prima facie evidence that either Willard doesn’t have clue one as to what auditors do or that he is just a little petty bigot running around here tossing out petty insults without adding a single iota of intelligent thought to the debate. He is like a Googler. . . .searching words out on that search engine and thinking that they actually apply to the discussion.
In other words, an iconic example of an ignorant troll.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1428563
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gill, Gill,
You’re all confused again.
Your own behavior is an insult to the auditing sciences.
So if you want to pass as an auditor for real, you’ll have to provide real receipts.
Otherwise you’re basically Bordon’s evil twin.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
There is no such thing as an external axis when using gravity. There are only barycenter.
The Earth/moon barycenter is external to the body of the moon itself. So, in that sense it is an external axis.
Another receipt for Gill:
[WIKIPEDIA] A barycenter is a dynamical point
[GENTLE GRAHAM] Oooh…big whoop.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1414576
Yes, a barycenter is a point…which the external axis goes through.
Gentle Graham still does not get Richards point.
The barycenter *is* not an axis, It is a point.
More than that – it is a *dynamical* point. A *center of mass*.
A center of mass between the Moon and the Esrth.
What causes the transfer of energy to this center of mass?
Little Willy still does not get my point, which refutes RLH’s point and settles the issue in my favour. Little Willy still does not also get that RLH agrees “orbital motion” is rotational, he just erroneously believes that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTR. It is not, it is motion like the MOTL.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
A barycenter *is* a point.
That point *is* dynamic.
It *is* a center of mass.
Gravity is involved to create it.
More specifically, tidal acceleration or tidal deceleration.
Physics rules here, not a geometry Moon Dragon cranks fumble over.
And especially Gentle Graham for 77 months now.
Little Willy waffles on.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Entropic Man posed a question (intended as a gotcha, I suppose) –
“You clearly believe that the warming trend is not due to human emissions.
What is your scientific explanation for the warming trend?”
Pretty simple. Human [produced] heat.
I base this on the following –
1. Heat affects thermometers, and can result in them being hotter, whereas “emissions” don’t.
2. The Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, in spite of the composition of the atmosphere.
3. Human energy production and use (all of which eventually manifests as heat) has steadily increased since humans existed. Since 1900, the production of waste heat has increased by a factor of 70 or so – depending on estimates.
4. This effect should be more noticeable when comparing night-time minima (no interference from insolation), and should be greater in areas of high energy production and use.
However, if you have reasons to support your apparent view that increased human energy production and use cannot affect thermometers, I am happy to them.
One caveat, of course. “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.”, so a reproducible experiment demonstrating the heating power of “human emissions”, separate to those emissions resulting from heat-producing processes, would be appreciated.
Ed Berry has already shown Eman that most of the CO2 increase has been due to nature. What did Eman do with the information? He went over and insulted Dr. Berry on his website, resulting in Eman being banned. Eman wants a scientific explanation. He’s a man of science.
Get it right.
I went on his site and pointed out that what he described was thermodynamically impossible. Rather than falsify my argument he threw me off.
Ent, you don’t know the first thing about science. You reject science, like you reject reality.
So, quit whining, little snowflake.
(How many passenger jets flying backwards did you see today?)
swenson from ent…’What is your scientific explanation for the warming trend?
***
According to the IPCC they have two explanations but neither sounds scientific.
The IPCC claims…
1)19th century scientists claimed it did.
2)Humans started releasing CO2 into the atmosphere mid 18th century and it started warming mid-19th century. Therefore it must be the CO2 causing the warming.
Gordon,
The bumblers at the IPCC don’t seem to accept that the processes that produce CO2 produce heat – and lots of it. The same dimwits refuse to believe that burning hydrocarbons also produces H2O!
Gee, two “greenhouse gases” formed as a byproduct of creating heat!
The last time I looked, thermometers were designed to react to heat – not “greenhouse gases”.
Oh well, at least the IPCC acknowledge that it is not possible to predict future climate states. They just ignore the fact that the Earth seems to have cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, notwithstanding the fact that higher levels of “greenhouse gases” existed during this time.
The planet cooled regardless. What a pack of reality denying SkyDragons. Probably Government workers with nothing better to do than daydream.
Do the sums.
The amount of heat released by human activity is a very small percentage of the heat required to produce the observed global warming.
EM,
I have. You obviously haven’t. You may not have noticed that the planet cooled for four and a half billion years, with higher levels of both CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere.
However, as I said, experimental support for the mythical GHE is notable by its absence.
When you can heat a thermometer using a greenhouse gas, in the absence of sunlight [laughing] let me know. Otherwise, you are just seen as another witless SkyDragon cultist, who cant even describe this magical effect which had no effect at all for four and a half billion years.
A miracle, which pious SkyDragon cultists believe occurred when humans first appeared. Their version of original sin, is it?
Keep proselytising.
“When you can heat a thermometer using a greenhouse gas, in the absence of sunlight [laughing] let me know.”
Troll Swenson seems to thinks the Earth gets no sunlight.
Nate,
Read what I wrote, dimwit.
Others can, and they might have a good laugh at your attempt to deny reality. You do realise the sun sets, and sunless night occurs?
Even four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight couldnt stop the Earth cooling. Deny away, donkey.
Troll Swenson continues to fail at logic, thinking insulation stops working at night..
What insulation?
Bill Hunter,
Obviously magic GHE “insulation”, which raises temperatures at night (or anytime, really).
As I said, human waste heat is a very small % of the energy imbalance. Total waste heat is 160,000 TWhr, equivalent to a rate of 0.029W/m^2. The total rate of heat gain by the climate system is 2.9W/m^2
Human emissions account for 1% of the measured rate of heat gain.
https://skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm
I thought it was 239w/m2 give or take a few watts.
Bill Hunter
“I thought it was 239w/m2 give or take a few watts. ”
That is the flux absorbed by the climate system from the Sun. In a stable climate the outgoing flux to space would be the same. The energy content and temperature would stay more of less constant.
In practice the amount of outgoing flux is about 3W/m^2 less than the incoming flux. This imbalance is what we are discussing. It makes the Earth a net importer of energy, which is why we see UAH recording 0.13C/decade of warming.
Any alternative explanation of the warming would need to find the same 3W/m^2 from somewhere.
Swenson claimed that the waste heat from our civilization was adding enough extra heat to explain the warming, but at 0.03W/m^2 human heat emissions are 100 times too small.
EM,
You wrote –
“The total rate of heat gain by the climate system is 2.9W/m^2”
Nonsense. You just can’t accept that the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so, can you? As the surface does every night, and boiling water does if left to itself.
The only “energy imbalance” relative to the Earth is the one which results in cooling in the absence of a sufficient energy input to maintain temperature.
Put your hand on a hot stove top. Tell me how it can’t possibly do you any harm because it is a very small part of an “energy imbalance”. Try and convince people that thermometers don’t respond to heat at night, by showing falling temperatures.
Only dimwits try to measure temperatures using W/m2, and make stupid statements like “It makes the Earth a net importer of energy, . . . “. Deluded SkyDragon cultists just invent this sort of nonsense to justify their religious convictions.
The Earth cooled, you fool! The “climate system”doesn’t store” or “accumulates” heat. Anything hotter than its surroundings promptly cools, in line with Newton’s Law of Cooling.
Donkey.
The “239W/m^2” really has little significance. It comes from an imaginary sphere. It’s as bogus as a supposed “energy imbalance” of 3W/m^2 or claiming passenger jets fly backwards.
Just typical cult nonsense.
ent…”In practice the amount of outgoing flux is about 3W/m^2 less than the incoming flux. This imbalance is what we are discussing. It makes the Earth a net importer of energy, which is why we see UAH recording 0.13C/decade of warming”.
***
I should not respond to garbage emanating from SkS but you strike me as a good bloke (for an Irishman ☺ ☺) so I’ll go for it.
The so-called imbalance is explained as heat being absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere. That infers heat is being retained. However, there is no heat flowing from the surface, only infrared energy, which is not heat. All, the same, a tiny portion of the IR can be absorbed by the trace gases and it heats them very briefly.
The amount the IR raises the GHG temperature has never been measured in the atmosphere. Not even Tyndall bothered to measure the heating effect, only that CO2 absorbed IR. And if the amount of heating is measured, where is the proof that such heat is transferred to the 99% of the atmosphere accounted for by nitrogen and oxygen?
The claim that the outgoing IR is 3 W/m^2 less than the incoming flux has not been measured either. It was estimated based on a questionable study by Kiehle-Trenberth. They admitted that they did not measure these values but estimated/inferred them.
For argument’s sake, suppose the figure is correct. Why could that difference not be attributed to N2 and O2 in the atmosphere absorbing heat directly from the surface. That theory was put forward by R. W. Wood, an expert on gases. He claimed that N2/O2 absorbed heat at the surface, rose into the atmosphere and held the heat because neither N2 or O2 can radiate it away at terrestrial temperatures.
There’s you warming without resorting to trace gases. The beauty of the N2/O2 theory offered by Wood is that the heat is dissipated naturally as the air rises, thins, and loses its heat. We tend to think about energy in the sense that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. I have no idea where that idea came from because it’s not true for heat.
Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and is often maintained by the proximity of gas atoms to each other. That is, through collisions. If you lower the density of the gas, you separate the atoms/molecules, providing less collisions per second. As the collisions are reduced, the temperature drops naturally.
The atmosphere has a natural negative density gradient, therefore as denser gases rise through the layers, they become reduced in density naturally. That is, they lose heat naturally.
Entropic man says:
Bill Hunter: I thought it was 239w/m2 give or take a few watts.
That is the flux absorbed by the climate system from the Sun. In a stable climate the outgoing flux to space would be the same. The energy content and temperature would stay more of less constant.
In practice the amount of outgoing flux is about 3W/m^2 less than the incoming flux.
————————
Indeed if heat content of the planet is going up it has to be heat coming from somewhere. Thats why I posted the range of uncertainty ”239w/m2 give or take a few watts” of what incoming energy is. It makes sense doesn’t it if the climate system absorbed more light that would cause some effect?
Not sure where you got the 3w/m2 from. NASA in a james hansen study estimated it at an estimated .58w/m2 here:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/673/nasa-study-earths-energy-budget-out-of-balance/
so we have:
solar constant variation
albedo variation via clouds and ice
we have man increasingly generating heat per Swenson
we have volcanic variations
we have aerosol variations
perhaps others
all these can be pretty minor and add up.
Bill Hunter
The uncertainty in the energy imbalance is quite large.
Since we see an ongoing warming trend we can infer that heat is entering the system from somewhere.
You can infer its size from satellite incoming and outgoing radiation measurements.
You can calculate it from the increase in ocean heat content or volume since that’s where 90% of the imbalance ends up.
I’ve done the ocean calculations myself and got an energy imbalance of 6*10^21 Joules/year or 1.0W/m^2. That’s well within the range of values published by various researchers.
You can measure the types of natural variation you mention. They sum to a very slow cooling of about 0.001C/decade.
1.0w/m2 is a lot different that 3.0w/m2 (or alternatively 2.9w/m2).
As I said the incoming is 239w/m2 give or take a few watts. The sun changes its intensity and the planet changes its albedo. Both affect what is incoming.
EM,
Ill help out. Here’s NASA’s description of the greenhouse effect –
“The greenhouse effect is the way in which heat is trapped close to Earth’s surface by “greenhouse gases.” These heat-trapping gases can be thought of as a blanket wrapped around Earth, keeping the planet toastier than it would be without them.”
The blanket didn’t seem to be able to stop the molten surface cooling, did it?
It doesn’t even seem to stop the surface cooling at night. Is it a magic blanket, perhaps, which only keeps the planet toastier when the Sun is shining brightly? You don’t realise how ridiculous the description sounds, but maybe you haven’t actually read NASA’s description.
If you are prepared to support NASA’s bizarre nonsense against a few questions of fact, please let me know. Or do you possibly have another description of the greenhouse effect which you are prepared to defend?
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
You look like a crank who would argue that unless your blanket prevents winter, it could not have warmed you yesterday night.
Willard please stop trolling
Stick to collecting receipts, Gill.
Willard please stop trolling #2
You still have receipts to collect, Gill.
willard…”What are you braying about?”
***
Why are you so ungrateful and unkind? Swenson is only trying to help you out.
C’mon, Bordon.
Leave gaslighting to Gentle Graham.
Willard,
Please stop trying to troll.
Flynnson
” The blanket didnt seem to be able to stop the molten surface cooling, did it?
It doesnt even seem to stop the surface cooling at night. ”
You could hardly act more stubborn, more stupid, Flynnson. You’re seriously on your way to beating the Clint R genius in this field, aren’t you?
*
” Or do you possibly have another description of the greenhouse effect which you are prepared to defend? ”
Here’s one, unfortunately written in French, ah well, ah well:
L'effet de serre atmosphérique : plus subtil qu'on ne le croit!
https://tinyurl.com/mwew486v
*
Due to Adobe’s desire to protect their PDF formats against free copies, you’ll find it a bit difficult to use Google’s translator if you don’t speak French very well.
*
Also, the translation of the title into English
“The atmospheric greenhouse effect: more subtle than you think!”
gives a glimpse of how reading the article might be beyond your abilities – as you are far better known on this blog for endlessly repeating stupid things in your condescending five o’clock tea English than for being a person open for actually subtle things.
binny…”Heres one, unfortunately written in French…”
***
Changing the language does not convert the GHE theory from pseusdo-science to real science. A lie in any language is still a lie.
Binny,
Gee, it’s a pity that the delusional Frenchman couldn’t get anyone in the rest of the world to take him seriously enough to translate his work into the most widely spoken language in the world. Or are you just keeping that version a secret? What an idiot you are!
Unfortunately, just claiming that there is an atmospheric greenhouse effect doesn’t work any more.
There is no greenhouse effect, apart from the fantasy which occupies the heads of dummies like you, who are deluded enough to think that the future can be predicted by dissecting the past!
You cant even explain why the surface cools at night, can you? The GHE loses its heating effect when the Sun goes down, is that it?
swenson…from NOAA…”The greenhouse effect is the way in which heat is trapped close to Earths surface by greenhouse gases. These heat-trapping gases can be thought of as a blanket wrapped around Earth, keeping the planet toastier than it would be without them.”
***
Blatant lies from NOAA. This is a seriously poor analogy to a real greenhouse which uses glass to trap the heat in ***ALL*** air molecules, 99% of which is made up of nitrogen and oxygen. The glass actually traps heated molecules of air. It is impossible for a gas, especially a trace gas like CO2, to trap air molecules, therefore such a gas cannot trap heat. Besdies, there is no thermal energy flowing from the surface to trap.
It gets worse. They are suggesting that a real greenhouse warms because the glass traps infrared energy. There is no science that can prove trapped infrared energy warms air molecules. That theory represents a misunderstanding/ misrepresentation of Tyndall’s experiment in which he noted that CO2 in a long glass tube could absorb infrared energy from a flame.
That flame, at about 3000C was located inches from the gas in the tube. Infrared radiated from the surface is a tiny fraction of that intensity and it is subjected to the full force of the inverse square law. As revealed by an expert on gases, R. W. Wood, circa 1909, by the time it is a few feet off the ground it will have lost the intensity to warm anything.
I have already revealed the effect of the inverse square law with a much hotter heat source. Holding one’s hand near a glowing 1500 watt oven ring will be felt as an extreme heat, both due to radiation and direct heating of air molecules. However, pulling the hand back 4 feet reveals no heating effect. It is unconscionable to think that a much cooler heated surface like the Earth’s surface would fare any better.
What NOAA is actually claiming is fundamentally unsound. Once solar energy heats the soil and infrastructure in a greenhouse, the soil and infrastructure heats ALL air molecules by direct conduction, and those heated molecules rise via convection. Once heated by SW solar, a tiny fraction of the air molecules radiate IR. The GHE theory as expounded by NOAA claims that IR can be recycled to raise the temperature of the trace gases even higher.
That kind of recycling is called perpetual motion and it is a no-no in science. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, that pseudo-science has been extended to the atmospheric gases where it cannot possible explain warming.
“there is no thermal energy flowing from the surface to trap”
What do you think heats the air in contact with the surface? Magic?
RLH,
He wrote –
“Once solar energy heats the soil and infrastructure in a greenhouse, the soil and infrastructure heats ALL air molecules by direct conduction, and those heated molecules rise via convection.”
I suppose that is magic of a sort. Photons interacting with electrons. Nobody knows why, but the predictions of QED theory are borne out by experiment – to the limits of measurement.
Unlike the supposed GHE, which can’t even be described, and thus cannot even generate a testable hypothesis, let alone a theory. And yet, gullible SkyDragon cultists simply refuse to believe that the Earth cooled, in spite of a GHE allegedly making it hotter!
Try for a better gotcha next time.
rlh…”[GR]there is no thermal energy flowing from the surface to trap
rlh…What do you think heats the air in contact with the surface?
***
I coulda swore we were discussing heat transfer by radiation.
Are you saying there is no radiative transfer between the ground and the air?
RLH says:
”Are you saying there is no radiative transfer between the ground and the air?”
NASA says here that it is 17.8w/m2
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/what-is-earth-s-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows
And since other routes of energy leaving the surface amounts to 127.7W/m2, radiative heating of the atmosphere by the surface comprises only about 1/7th of the total energy leaving the surface.
Bindidon:
“Bindidon says:
January 11, 2023 at 8:23 AM
For some moons I obtain Earth relative rotational values differing (very slightly) from yours (Io, Enceladus, Titan).
E.g. Titan:
https://solarviews.com/eng/titan.htm
Rotational period (days) 15.94542
Orbital period (days) 15.94542
1/15.94542 is 0.06271 >< 0.06289 on your blog.
Such tiny differences nevertheless may influence your computations."
–
****
Thank you, Bindidon.
The 0,06289 result came out as a shorthand calculation.
Instead of 1/15,94542 = 0,06271
I did the 1/15,9 = 0,06289
****
Thank you for noticing.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
binny…”Rotational period (days) 15.94542
Orbital period (days) 15.94542″
***
More astronomical misdirection. We know these Moons are not rotating on a local axis, they are translating without local rotation.
> they are translating without local rotation
Another receipt for Gill.
Yes – even unjustified assertion can be.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/09/climate-crisis-extreme-weather-heat-rainfall-drought
Sounds pretty Paul Ehrlich to me. Predictions after the fact.
Paul Ehrlich saw a famine and predicted the world could not adapt to the growing population citing all sorts of evidence.
These guys need to keep working on their prediction skills so they can actually predict such events. That would be a good use of their time so as we could have help in place.
But I suspect it will look more like the kind of predictions like California falling into the ocean predictions that never amount to anything.
“More likely” and “our best guess” is the new scientific standards
Good point.
C’mon, Bordon.
Leave cheerleading to Pup.
“May have caused” , I forgot “May have caused”
You mean made about 80 times more likely, Eboy.
Never forget – Voruyut.
Worried Wee Willy,
You quoted –
” . . . was made about 80 times more likely by the climate crisis, one study has found.”
Surely you jest, oh brainless SkyDragon!
A “climate crisis” causing rain? Really?
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, you donkey – and causes nothing at all. Do you wonder that people like me laugh at your ignorance?
Carry on.
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
Willard,
Please stop trying to troll.
“But Ehrlich” is another square, Gill & Eboy:
https://climateball.net/but-predictions#ehrlich
Detection and attribution is kind of beast altogether.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Detection and attribution is kind of beast altogether.”
Best stick to braying, donkey. English is obviously beyond your grasp. Do you have a degree of mental retardation, or are you just naturally inept and sloppy?
” . . . Is kind of beast altogether.”
Indeed.
Mike Flynn,
Did you find *another* occasion to bray?
Looks like you did.
Willard,
Please stop trying to troll.
Normally I would attempt to justify an ad hom attack on a source like this, but the Guardian is such a climate alarmist rag that I would not expect anything other than such alarmist propaganda from them. Besides, Bill, covered it well.
NOAA has blamed a heat wave and a flood in 2021 in the Vancouver, Canada area on La Nina, so why would they turn face and blame similar tragedies on an unknown climate nonsense?
C’mon, Bordon.
The Grauniad reports on this:
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/
The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society is your target.
Go for it.
“…assessments of how human-caused climate change may have affected the strength and likelihood of individual extreme events”.
Note…***MAY HAVE CAUSED***.
Desperate pseudo-science.
C’mon, Bordon.
Quote properly.
Willard,
Please stop trying to troll.
Whacky Wee Willy,
The fumbling bumblers obviously don’t realise that climate is the statistics of past weather observations – just like you.
Climate is numbers – it changes nothing. It’s a result, not a cause.
Only braindead SkyDragon cultists believe otherwise, poor deluded fools.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Witless Wee Willy,
JAQing off again, are you?
You ask, I laugh at you.
Bend over and grab your ankles.
[sniggers at troll]
What are you braying about, Mike?
Wonky Wee Willy,
Keep asking. Ill keep laughing in your face.
I have a three year old who asks more intelligent questions than you. He also predicted today’s sunrise.
Can an idiotic SkyDragon cultist do better than that?
[chortles at ineffectual troll]
swenson…”Climate is numbers it changes nothing. Its a result, not a cause”.
***
Same with the term global average, from which climate change propaganda is derived.
Example. 2022 was claimed to be the 6th warmest of the satellite record. As far as we are concerned here in Vancouver, Canada, 2022 was one of the coldest. Even the summer of 2022 was much cooler than the summer of 2021.
What are you braying about, Mike & Bordon?
Willard,
Please stop attempting to troll.
Willard says:
”The heavy rain that caused devastating floods in Nigeria, Niger and Chad last year, for example, was made about 80 times more likely by the climate crisis, one study has found.”
Yep probably estimated from two 100 year floods hitting in the same year.
Gill,
Please leave quoting and saying to Bordon.
Conflating saying with quoting, that is.
Willard please stop trolling
tim f…”An astronaut on the moon would see the stars move across the sky at a constant angular rate”.
***
Come on, Tim, that is a Homer Simpson, ‘Doh!!!” moment.
The Moon is orbiting the Earth with a linear velocity that is bent into curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field. Of course someone standing on the Moon would see the stars moving by because the Moon is moving relative to them. It completes a full 360 degree transit around the Earth every month or so.
The relative motion is not due to the Moon rotating on a local axis, it is due to the Moon’s linear orbital motion.
Don’t know what you mean by a constant angular rate. Where’s the angle that changes? It has to be centred in the Earth based on a circular orbit, therefore the only place you could notice that radial line changing angles would be from the Earth.
> The Moon is orbiting the Earth with a linear velocity that is bent into curvilinear motion by Earths gravitational field.
Gill should take note.
That’s a receipt.
Whickering Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Gill should take note.”
And if he doesn’t, are you going to get your parties in a twist?
Oooooh, scary!
What are you braying about, Mike?
If Gill does not do the job he took upon himself, then Gill becomes another cranky jackass.
Just like you. With a different kind of braying, of course.
If you say so, donkey, if you say so.
Mike Flynn,
Keep braying, jackass.
Winsome Wee Willy,
If you say so, donkey, if you say so.
Mike Flynn,
😊
Willard,
Please stop attempting to troll.
You completely missed the point, Gordon. The “constant angular rate” is the point.
The moon’s ‘linear motion’ carries it around the earth at a varying angular rate. Highest at perigee and lowest at apogee. If that was the cause of the rate that stars move across the sky, then the stars would move at CHANGING rates, not CONSTANT rates.
Since you seem to think my statement about constant rate is obvious, then you should also know that the moon’s orbit cannot be the cause.
Tim! There you are. Here’s the question you’ve been avoiding, again:
"Presumably, you agree that movement like the MOTR can be considered to be two motions, since you agree that movement like the MOTL can be considered to be one motion. Yes?"
Your answer please, Tim.
You know the answer, DREMT.
The animated MOTL moving in a perfect circle could be considered “one motion” — one rigid rotation about the center of the cartoon earth.
A real moon moving in a real ellipse is not one rigid rotation about about the center of a circle.
Tim, the question was about the MOTR, not the MOTL. You just dodged it again.
Oh, well the MOTR can most simply be considered one motion — a translation along a circular path.
If could also be considered a rigid rotation about the ‘earth’ and a counter-rotation about the moon’s axis.
Finally! Thanks.
"I[t] could also be considered a rigid rotation about the ‘earth’ and a counter-rotation about the moon’s axis."
As I’ve been saying for years, and various "Spinners" have disagreed. Now those "Spinners" can argue with you, and not me. Bliss.
The MOTR can be considered to be comprised of two motions, and the MOTL can be considered to be comprised of one motion.
So, hopefully, Tim, you should also understand why the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. It’s simply a question of whether "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL, or the MOTR. Axial rotation is then to be kept separate from that motion, in either case. So it’s not a question of defining axial rotation wrt a certain reference frame. It’s just a question of keeping the axial rotation separate from the "orbit without spin" motion.
> It’s just a question of keeping the axial rotation separate from the “orbit without spin” motion.
🤦♂️
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Its just a question of keeping the axial rotation separate from the “orbit without spin” motion.”
But you are STILL left with the fact that you can’t explain “orbit without spin” for an ellipse. It doesn’t really matter what you want to call it if you can’t get the motion right! A real moon cannot travel an ellipse and keep one side toward the earth.
However, calling MOTR “orbit without spin” DOES work for ellipses. A real moon COULD travel along an ellipse AND keep one side always toward the ‘top’ of the screen.
Tim, do you agree that the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames?
Some argue that the moon is rotating on its own axis wrt an inertial reference frame, and not rotating on its own axis wrt a non-inertial reference frame. Surely you now understand that this way of looking at the issue is incorrect?
The issue is not resolved with any one idea in isolation. There are myriad issue that all interconnect.
* reference frames
* rotation
* orbit
* curvilinear motion
* centripetal force
* gravity
* axis
* … and more.
That’s a dodge, Tim. Try again:
Some argue that the moon is rotating on its own axis wrt an inertial reference frame, and not rotating on its own axis wrt a non-inertial reference frame. Surely you now understand that this way of looking at the issue is incorrect?
“Some argue that the moon is rotating on its own axis wrt an inertial reference frame”
And they are correct! That is a perfectly correct statement! Just a different perspective than you choose. In fact, it is BETTER than how you say it!
The MOTL *is* rotating (at a rate of once per orbit) on its axis with respect to an inertial frame. And it is NOT rotating with respect to a frame rotating with the orbit. Basically, you choose to include “rotating on its own axis wrt an inertial frame ” as part of your definition of “orbital motion”. You are free to do that, but it is still “rotating on its own axis wrt an inertial frame “!
Just like we are free to NOT include “rotating on its own axis wrt an inertial frame ” as part of “orbital motion”.
Here’s the thing. Our approach is easily and naturally extended to elliptical orbits. Yours is not.
tim you just have the wrong axis.
Gill, Gill,
You finally have receipts about the Dragon cranks pet GIF.
Please collect them all!
No, Tim…you are still “lost in reference frames”. The only way the moon can be rotating on its own axis is if “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. Don’t you see how that consideration goes beyond reference frames?
“The MOTR can be considered to be comprised of two motions”
OR the MOTR can be considered to be comprised of twelve motions.
But neither scenario is testable of falsifiable. Its not science.
OR most simply, the MOTR can be considered to be comprised of one motion.
And that works the best for orbits in general.
“As I’ve been saying for years, and various "Spinners" have disagreed. Now those "Spinners" can argue with you, and not me. Bliss.”
Looks like Tim might have found his first “Spinner” to argue with…
Some people imagine they score imaginary points if they can get people to say certain meaningless phrases, while continuing to evade the big picture truths.
Thats how we recognize trolls.
…looks like Tim might have found his first “Spinner” to argue with…
Looks like Gentle Graham is gaslighting a little more.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
What are you babbling about fraudkerts?
You don’t know anything about Moon’s motion. You don’t even understand your own cult’s nonsense. If you did, you could solve the easy problem:
What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Moon’s orbit?
I’ve claimed that none of your cult can solve the easy problem. So far, I’ve been right — as usual….
I answered your silly question.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1428626
You made it clear that you have no interest in my answer, because this is just another trolling exercise.
Everyone gets that, except you.
Wrong troll Nate, I addressed your comment right below your link.
You got the wrong answer.
So you declare, with no explanation.
Because, we understand this was just a trolling exercise and has no point.
[TIM] The constant angular rate is the point.
[GENTLE GRAHAM] But what about my pet GIF?
[PUP] But what about my riddle?
That’s right, Little Willy. Tim has one note, one constant point that he continuously makes over and over and over again on the moon issue. Others are more interested in different aspects of it. I’m interested in seeing if Tim can finally understand why reference frames do not resolve the moon issue, as that is of far more importance to science than the simple question of whether or not the moon rotates on its own axis. I’m sure he can get it.
Gentle Graham gaslights a bit more.
Mighty Tim has physics on his side.
Gentle Graham has a pet GIF.
A pet GIF he would need physics to interpret correctly.
Even better – Mighty Tim answered Gentle Graham that his repetitive and irrelevant requests can only be gaslighting at this point.
> answered
so many times
Willard please stop trolling
I await a response from Tim, and try to ignore the impotent squawkings of irrelevant trolls.
When will Gentle Graham tackle angular rates?
If Tim were to be honest, he’d acknowledge that I’d already responded to his point in previous discussions. He doesn’t accept my response, fair enough, but he could at least stop pretending that nobody has responded to it.
Whereas it’s now about the tenth time he has dodged answering my simple question…and God knows how many times people have dodged answering Clint R’s question.
If Gentle Graham was being honest, he’d admit that Mighty Tim answered him ten times already.
But since he really really really really really does not want to deal with physics, he needs to bait Might Tim once again.
Pure gaslighting.
Little Willy will always blindly support Tim, whether he’s in the right or not. He worships the ground the guy walks on. If only Little Willy would pay a bit more attention to the things that Tim agrees with me on, that Little Willy still disputes…
…mind you, Little Willy will dispute anything that I say, no matter what…and when he sees Tim saying the exact same thing, he just puts his hands over his ears and shuts his eyes…rocking back and forth, he chants: "it’s not happening, it’s not happening"…
If Gentle Graham was being honest, he’ll admit that he’s trying to bait Might Tim over a point refuted a thousand times that has no bearing to Bordon’s point to which Mighty Tim replies.
A “point refuted a thousand times”…except Tim just agreed I’m correct.
Gentle Graham gaslights once again.
Mighty Tim only agreed that one can describe a moon without spin as a translation along a circular path.
He also said that it could be described other ways, e.g. an orbit and a counter-counterclockwise spin.
He *did not* agree about anything else.
Moreover, Gentle Graham once again simply ignores how scientists are going to pick which description is right.
This involves physics, and physics rely on frames of reference.
Unless of course we are dealing with absolute motion.
Which means that Gentle Graham is still stuck with an absolute, and physic-less viewpoint.
The two descriptions which apply to the MOTR are applicable wrt the same reference frame (an inertial one). Another way of saying that reference frames do not resolve the moon issue. However, nobody expects you to understand.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
A reference frame helps determine changes of direction.
Without one, how can he say that Bordon is incorrect in thinking that the Moon only translates?
I just explained, Little Willy. Sorry you didn’t get it, again.
Gentle Graham gaslights once more.
Just as he’s conflating rotation with pure rotation, he’s confusing “suffices to” and “is necessary to” explain.
Sorry you didn’t get it, again.
And so Gentle Graham gaslights once again.
Now that Mighty Tim just told him the same thing I did, will he listen?
I bet not.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
People work so hard to distract from a simple issue.
The constant angular motion of stars across the sky on the moon cannot be the result the the varying angular speed of the moon around the earth. The axial spin is separate from the orbital motion.
Indeed, you work very hard to distract from a simple issue, Tim.
"Presumably, you agree that movement like the MOTR can be considered to be two motions, since you agree that movement like the MOTL can be considered to be one motion. Yes?"
Your answer please, Tim.
[BORDON] Don’t know what you mean by a constant angular rate.
[MIGHTY TIM] The Moon’s linear motion carries it around the earth at a varying angular rate. Highest at perigee and lowest at apogee. If that was the cause of the rate that stars move across the sky, then the stars would move at CHANGING rates, not CONSTANT rates.
[GENTLE GRAHAM] But my pet GIF! But my pet GIF!
Willard doesn’t know that a rotation doesn’t have to have the same angular rate. Like you know the crankshaft in your car. So he is just getting overly excited as he thinks he has found yet another way to intelligently define rotation.
I wonder if Little Willy even realizes that Tim’s amazing point that he reiterates over and over again is one of geometry, and not physics!?
I suppose just because Tim uses phrases like "constant angular rate", that convinces Little Willy that it’s "physics"…
Yes a strange sort of way of looking at things since stars themselves are in elliptical orbits.
The whole matter is much more complicated. All rotations are ellipses. They are ellipses because nothing meets the standards of perfection which a circle is.
Take the ball on a string. The rotation of the ball is going to both stretch the string and put a strain on the anchor point/fixed axis of the string and move it also perhaps ever so slightly.
Spinners are just foundering on the shoals of perfection as even a spinning crankshaft in an high performance engine has tolerances of about a thousandths of an inch for every inch of the size of the journal it rotates on. So we are faced with them throwing everything they can think of at the wall trying to delineate what a rotation is and every thing they can think of is the actually the way they want to define away and arrive at that beautiful concept of perfection they learned in a classroom many years ago.
So the rotation of the spinners is just a non-existent symbol of perfection that really applies to nothing and only applies to theoretical rotations on an objects center of mass, spinning at a perfectly constant speed, in a wholly unperturbed environment. And of course there is no such thing.
I have said over and over that academic learning is only good for teaching new beginning students and for entry level jobs or assignments in research. If you want to be an engineer you will have to go through your apprenticeship after getting a degree. Some though in that process won’t cut the mustard and will find themselves quickly in an administrative position, if their work habits are good enough.
Gill, Gill,
In geometry, rotations have no angular velocity at all. Hence why Gentle Graham keeps fumbling on basic affine geometry. And you’re following in his ridiculous footsteps.
You’re supposed to collect receipts. Like this one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-337331
So yeah – if you’re going to rehearse the 1+1 trick, Moon Dragon cranks need to dust off their physics handbook.
Gentle Graham will of course do as he pleases, which means he’ll soldier on, gaslighting along the way.
Little Willy repeats Tim’s geometry (not physics) point, hoping for a different response the seventieth time…
Gentle Graham gaslights once again:
Angular velocity is a concept of classical mechanics.
Astronomical observations belong to physics.
🤦♂️
“I suppose just because Tim uses phrases like "constant angular rate", that convinces Little Willy that it’s "physics"…”
…and Little Willy proves me correct, again.
[MIGHTY TIM] The rotation about the [M]oons axis, however, proceeds with essentially constant angular speed. The stars move across the lunar sky at a constant angular rate.
[GENTLE GRAHAM] See? Geometry!
It is absolutely as much a point of geometry rather than physics as the points I make which you suggest are geometry rather than physics.
Gentle Graham enters stages of grief.
The Moon spins at one angular rate.
The Moon orbits at another angular rate.
It’s hard to argue that the motion of the Moon is only one rotation.
Mighty Tim’s argument is basic celestial mechanics.
The only grief I have is with wasting so much of my time arguing with a complete ignoramus such as yourself.
[GENTLE GRAHAM] Tim’s geometry (not physics) point
[ALSO GENTLE GRAHAM] It is absolutely as much a point of geometry rather than physics
That’s right.
🤦
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Since it might get lost above … here is the answer again.
“Some argue that the moon is rotating on its own axis wrt an inertial reference frame”
And they are correct! That is a perfectly correct statement! Just a different perspective than you choose. In fact, it is BETTER than how you say it!
The MOTL *is* rotating (at a rate of once per orbit) on its axis with respect to an inertial frame. And it is NOT rotating with respect to a frame rotating with the orbit. Basically, you choose to include “rotating on its own axis wrt an inertial frame” as part of your definition of orbital motion. You are free to do that, but it is still “rotating on its own axis wrt an inertial frame”!
Just like we are free to NOT include “rotating on its own axis wrt an inertial frame” as part of “orbital motion”.
Heres the thing. Our approach is easily and naturally extended to elliptical orbits. Yours is not.
Tim you just have the wrong axis.
Gill, Gill,
If you add another plane Moon Dragon cranks stand no chance.
No, Tim…you are still “lost in reference frames”. The only way the moon can be rotating on its own axis is if “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. Don’t you see how that consideration goes beyond reference frames?
Notice how when Tim makes a valid point, the TEAM simply ignores it, and continues with
‘Pay attention only to OUR points’
Thats how we recognize trolls who are not here for honest debate.
The only way the moon can be rotating on its own axis is if “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. Don’t you see how that consideration goes beyond reference frames, Tim, the only person I am interested in talking to on this thread?
The TEAM just doesnt get that they have lost this argument-many times over.
And they just lost again when they dis this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1428069
They are saying:
So before I needed Madhavi to be right about rotation.
But NOW I need her to be wrong. So yeahshes wrong, now.
Her standard definition of rotation, that all textbooks use?
Yeahthats wrong, now.
Tim, there was this guy I used to respond to…can’t remember his name, now…anyway, this guy used to complain about me for declaring that I had won the argument all the time…you don’t suppose he could possibly be hypocritical enough to have started going around constantly declaring that he had won the argument all the time…do you, Tim? Nobody could be that much of a pathetic hypocrite, could they? Surely not…
“Spinners are just foundering on the shoals of perfection”
This is how losers talk Bill.
Tell the Apollo astronauts that they needn’t worry about perfection in your model! No need to worry that when your model is used the lunar lander could miss the Moon by 20,000 km or so!
Given the choice to use your model or our model to predict where the target landing site will be in space, when they get to the Moon, the choice is clear.
…surely not…
The phrase ‘beating a dead horse’ is appropriate here.
One of the sides chooses to ignore the many contradictions between their argument and reality, and between their own arguments, in order to just keep a long over argument alive.
Can’t imagine it would be fun to live with people who want to keep an argument going and going, endlessly rehashing the same tired memes to try to score ‘points’.
…can you believe that this same guy claimed that he hated hypocrisy, Tim!? Probably the biggest hypocrite on the blog, claiming that he hates hypocrisy…
[GENTLE GRAHAM] Bordon can defend himself. Not my problem.
[ALSO GENTLE GRAHAM] The hypocrisy! The hypocrisy!
“The only way the moon can be rotating on its own axis is if orbit without spin is as per the MOTR. Dont you see how that consideration goes beyond reference frames?”
You are coming at this backwards — still. The *first* step needs to be defining what is meant by “rotating on its own axis”. Only after knowing what “rotation” means can we decide if a particular motion involves “rotation”.
And to recap:
* an axis is a line
* a point is rotating about the axis if changes orientation but maintains a constant distance.
If you have a different definition, then you need to *start* there.
***************
The more I read what you write, the more I am convinced what you are thinking is more like rotating on an “axle”. Or rotating *in addition to” another rotation.
The ‘axle’ is fixed to a rotating ‘platform’ and the ‘moon’ is fixed to the ‘axle’. There is no separate, additional rotation on the solid, 3D ‘axle’, but there IS rotation on the 1D, mathematical ‘axis’.
Tim doesn’t get it. Oh well.
And so Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
DREMT, you are the one who doesn’t get it . How can you possibly try to decide if something is ‘rotating on its own axis wrt an inertial reference frame’ or ‘orbing without rotating on its own axis’ is if you can’t define what you mean by ‘rotation’. So far you have steadfastly refused to either acknowledge the definition I am using or provide your own.
And we can take it one obvious step further. What does “orbiting without rotating on its own axis” mean for an elliptical orbit? Re-draw MOTL and MOTR with an elliptical orbit (sweeping equal area in equal time). How would a moon that is “not rotating on its own axis” face?
* For Team Physics the answer is simple — it is still exactly like MOTR. The ‘top’ of the moon keeps facing the ‘top’ of the screen all the time.
* For Team Contrarian, there are various, competing ideas. All are similar to MOTL, but differ in small but significant ways.
You have agreed that movement like the MOTL can be described as being comprised of only one motion. Thus, whether you accept it or not, you have agreed that the MOTL can be described as not rotating on its own internal axis. You have also agreed that movement like the MOTR can be described as being comprised of two motions. Thus, whether you accept it or not, you have agreed that the MOTR can be described as rotating on its own internal axis.
The MOTL and MOTR are both presented to the viewer wrt the same reference frame, with the origin through the Earth, and the edges of the screen representing distant “fixed stars”. Thus, you have already agreed that the MOTL can be described as not rotating on its own internal axis “wrt the fixed stars”, and that the MOTR can be described as rotating on its own internal axis “wrt the fixed stars”. So, you should easily see why reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.
You choose not to, because you would rather remain blind.
Notice DREMT refuse to address a single point you made, Tim. Nor does he answer any of your questions. He is clearly not here for honest debate. He just keeps repeating the same tired memes.
You have asked him repeatedly to define rotation. He previously used Madhavis definition of ROTATION, but it no longer works for him, and yet he refuses to say what his new definition is.
He is here to troll, not debate.
…oh, and by the way, Tim, I will re-discuss (for the twentieth time) your points about elliptical orbits when (and only when) you have publicly agreed that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL, and that the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
With those two points conceded, eternally, never to be taken back, we can go over my answers that you are already well aware of, once again.
“Thus, you have already agreed that the MOTL can be described as not rotating on its own internal axis “wrt the fixed stars””
No. Rotation about an axis means changing orientation relative to some reference point at constant distance from the axis. The MOTL does that about the axis through the center of the moon relative to ‘the fixed screen’. Therefore it rotates about that axis relative to the screen.
Or we could describe MOTL as not rotating on its own internal axis wrt the some ‘rotating platform’ carrying the MOTL around in a circle. Define an x-axis that points from the earth to the MOTL (an axis that rotates). The near point on the MOTL remains along that x-axis, so the MOTL is not rotating wrt that rotating reference frame.
"No. Rotation about an axis means changing orientation relative to some reference point at constant distance from the axis. The MOTL does that about the axis through the center of the moon relative to ‘the fixed screen’. Therefore it rotates about that axis relative to the screen."
Tim, you can say "no" until you’re blue in the face. It doesn’t matter. Logic dictates that you have agreed that the MOTL can be described as "not rotating on its own axis".
Once again…you have agreed that movement like the MOTL can be described as being comprised of only one motion. I have that on record, and it will never be forgotten, for as long as you comment here. So, that "one motion" can either be "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis", or it can be "the moon remaining stuck in one location, not moving around the Earth, whilst rotating on its own internal axis". Since we can all agree that the MOTL is moving around the Earth, then that "one motion" has to be "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
If you describe movement like the MOTL as being comprised of two motions, then those two motions will be translation in a circle, and rotation about an internal axis.
So, these are your options, Tim. The MOTL is either comprised of:
1) "One motion" – rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
2) "Two motions" – translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
> can be described
Graham means “can *only* be described” but he doesn’t say it.
Caveat emptor.
No, I mean "can be described". Everything I’ve written is accurate, and correct. I’m right, and Tim’s wrong, on this one.
You’ve already tacitly agreed, up-thread, as well:
"…a ball on a string *can* be described as rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, it *can also* be described as a translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis."
If Graham agrees both options are valid, what is he still arguing about?
Currently, I’m trying to get Tim to understand why the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. You should understand that too, now.
When it comes to the ball on a string, what is actually occurring physically is that the ball is rotating about an external axis whilst not rotating about an internal axis. There are mechanical means by which you can achieve a similar motion (in appearance) by combining translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis. However, that is not what is happening with the ball on a string. It is not actually rotating on its own internal axis, it is physically rotating (being swung) about an external axis. That is why I categorically state:
1) The ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis.
However, with the MOTL it’s a slightly different story. It can be described either way. So, what we need to do to resolve that issue is decide whether "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL or the MOTR. Hence this entire debate about the moon issue, which has gone on for so long.
Various factors cloud the issue, distracting from ever getting to a solution. One of those is the ever-repeated issue of reference frames. They do not resolve the issue, despite some people claiming definitively that the moon is rotating wrt an inertial reference frame, and not rotating wrt to a non-inertial reference frame. That is false, as hopefully you now realize.
It actually depends only on whether "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL or the MOTR.
Let me just correct this, before some people lose their shit over my sloppy wording:
"They do not resolve the issue, despite some people claiming definitively that the moon is rotating on its own internal axis wrt an inertial reference frame, and not rotating on its own internal axis wrt to a non-inertial reference frame. That is false, as hopefully you now realize."
> Graham means “can *only* be described”
Gentle Graham often glosses over that “only,” BG, just as he almost always glosses the “only” in “can be described as *only* a rotation.”
He did so many times that it’s as if he was gaslighting.
Utterly inevitable that Little Willy would feel the need to comment, at some point. Utterly inevitable…and, as always, I’m falsely accused of "gaslighting", when all I’m doing is being as careful as possible with my wording, whilst being completely open and honest in what I’m saying.
Inevitably Gentle Graham will gaslight a little more.
This is *my* subthread.
I’ll just await a response from either Tim, or Brandy Guts. Little Willy is on "ignore/automatic PST" for the rest of the sub-thread.
While Gentle Graham gaslights a little more, I will simply repeat that his definition of Spinner does not involve *any* belief regarding the Moon spin… 🤦
DREMT will address Tim’s points “your points about elliptical orbits when (and only when) you have publicly agreed that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL, and that the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
With those two points conceded, eternally, never to be taken back, we can go over my answers”
Wow, Just WOW.
It is reasonable to ask that someone answer their existing questions before answering your new ones.
But after you DO answer their questions, multiple times over, they then renege on their end of the deal, and move the goal posts, and ask, or rather, DEMAND, that you not just answer their question, but you need to AGREE with THEIR answer to the question…. that gets into unreasonable territory.
It gets into childish, narcissist territory.
And it is designed evade answering your question, thus to keep an argument going indefinitely.
Everyone’s a critic…
“When it comes to the ball on a string, what is actually occurring physically is that the ball is rotating about an external axis whilst not rotating about an internal axis. ”
Whilst not ADDITIONALLY rotating about an internal axis. I.e. if you measure the ‘internal rotation’ relative the the direction defined by the rotating string, there is no ADDITIONAL rotation.
Wrong, Tim, as explained. I went through the logic with you, step by step. You cannot fault the logic, so you link to part of a comment I did not even address to you and simply repeat your delusions.
Better correct this, or squawkers will squawk:
“…you quote part of a comment I did not even address to you…”
I went through the science with you; the math; the data. Step by step.
Objects on rotating platforms are rotating. About myriad axes simultaneously. One of those axes might happen to not itself be moving (perhaps the center of a MGR), but that does not prevent simultaneous rotations as measured about other axes.
What you ALWAYS mean is no ADDITIONAL rotation. That the rotation about the internal axis is at exactly the same rate as the external rotation; locked together; as if the moon were rigidly mounted on a platform.
****************
But let’s for the sake of argument agree that ‘orbit without axial rotation’ means like the MOTL. We are STILL left with the problem that you have no idea how to extend that to an elliptical orbit. Which way would you draw the cartoon moon if the orbit were shaped like this? How would a real, tidally locked moon face?
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-77ab2edd868e027e41a1f2604149db3e-c
(replace the sun there with the moon; replace the earth with the MOTL image of the moon; each slice is 1/12 of a moon’s sidereal period).
Sorry, Tim, we are strictly on a “concede to proceed” basis. I will just repeat my irrefutable remarks, and await your concession:
Once again…you have agreed that movement like the MOTL can be described as being comprised of only one motion. I have that on record, and it will never be forgotten, for as long as you comment here. So, that "one motion" can either be "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis", or it can be "the moon remaining stuck in one location, not moving around the Earth, whilst rotating on its own internal axis". Since we can all agree that the MOTL is moving around the Earth, then that "one motion" has to be "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
If you describe movement like the MOTL as being comprised of two motions, then those two motions will be translation in a circle, and rotation about an internal axis.
So, these are your options, Tim. The MOTL is either comprised of:
1) "One motion" – rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
2) "Two motions" – translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
You are offering a false dichotomy (actually two).
The first is the false dichotomy that rotation about one axis precludes rotation about another axis. The “MOTL” is — by any normal definition of “rotation” — rotating about myriad axes. Intuitively, the simplest is to think about rotation about the central, external axis. But others are just as valid. That moon IS rotating about the moving, internal axis even when we are considering ‘one motion’.
The other false dichotomy is that only “one motion” or “two motions” can be valid and that they are mutually exclusive. BOTH are valid descriptions. And there are others, like ‘translation in a circle with radius R/2 plus a rotation about that external axis.’
**********************
And yet again, you can argue semantics until you are blue in the face, but you are STILL no closer to being able to explain ‘orbiting in an ellipse with no axial rotation’.
Let me fix that (again).
Since we can all agree that the MOTL is moving around the Earth, then that “one motion” has to be “rotation about an external axis with no ADDITIONAL rotation about an internal axis”. But the ‘one motion’ produces a measurable rotation around both of the axes in question (plus infinitely more).
PS Have you ever thought that if you have one position, and every scientist in history has a different position, then maybe — just maybe — you are the one who doesn’t understand?
"then that “one motion” has to be “rotation about an external axis with no ADDITIONAL rotation about an internal axis”. But the ‘one motion’ produces a measurable rotation around both of the axes in question (plus infinitely more)."
No, Tim. If the "one motion" produced a measurable rotation around both of the axes in question then that would be "two motions", and not "one motion".
It’s like talking to a child.
For the sake of argument, lets say you are correct in how you describe “one motion” and “rotation only about an external axis” to describe the MOTL
Now tell us how you would describe the more correct diagram where the MOTL is moving in an ellipse. How would the moon face throughout the orbit? You can use this ellipes (with suitable substitutions) to describe.
http://hildaandtrojanasteroids.net/KeplerII.jpg
Is that “one motion” — and if so, what is the one motion? Or is that “two motions” — and if so, what are the two motions?
As I told you, Tim…before we re-discuss this for the twentieth time, and I tell you yet again what you already know full well is what I think, I am going to need you to publicly concede the two points. Not just “for the sake of argument”…but because you genuinely understand and agree.
Let’s (for the umpteenth time) go over the logic. In which of the following would the MGR horse on a pole be a) ‘rotating on its axis’ and b) have a measurable rotation with my smartphone sensor?
1) I am standing still and the horse faces every direction over the course of 4 seconds.
2) I am walking north and the horse faces every direction over the course of 4 seconds.
3) I walk around in a circle in 4 seconds, keeping my own nose pointing north the whole time.
4) I walk around in a circle in 4 seconds, keeping my own nose pointing forward along the whole time.
The answers are “all” and “all”. IF you think (3) and (4) have different answers, then you have to explain why the *exact same motion by the horse* could be a rotation about its axis in one case, but not in the other.
PS, I am holding the pole in each case.
Let’s go over the logic, again:
You have agreed that movement like the MOTL can be described as being comprised of only one motion. I have that on record, and it will never be forgotten, for as long as you comment here. So, that "one motion" can either be "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis", or it can be "the moon remaining stuck in one location, not moving around the Earth, whilst rotating on its own internal axis". Since we can all agree that the MOTL is moving around the Earth, then that "one motion" has to be "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
If you describe movement like the MOTL as being comprised of two motions, then those two motions will be translation in a circle, and rotation about an internal axis.
So, these are your options, Tim. The MOTL is either comprised of:
1) "One motion" – rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
2) "Two motions" – translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
Tim, it is impossible to debate with people like DREMT, who just repeat their points over and over while pretending that their opponents have made no arguments, made no points, presented no logic.
To clarify what we mean, it helps to discuss similar situations. In each of the 4 listed situations for the MGR horse:
a) is there rotation on its own axis
b) would we record a rotation with my smartphone sensor?
c) is there ‘one motion’ or ‘two motions’?
Tim, not sure you gave enough information for your questions to be answered. Is the MGR horse rotating on its own axis automatically, somehow!? Only initially you said:
"I am standing still and the horse faces every direction over the course of 4 seconds."
How is that occurring?
If the horse is automatically rotating on its own axis, then your 3) and 4) will not even be the same motion. Yet you say the motion of the horse would be exactly the same in both cases.
Perhaps try something coherent.
The motion is exactly as described: “the horse faces every direction over the course of 4 seconds.” Eg north initially, east 1 sec later, south another second later, west another second later, north another second later, east another second later, …
I suppose you could consider that “automatic” if you want. Or simply “frictionless” on the pole. In any case, the motion is the motion. Is that motion “rotation on its own axis”?
Are you saying your answer changes? Like “if I stand still and hold the pole still and a motor turns the horse, then the horse IS rotating at 15 RPM on its axis. But if I turn the pole in my hands, then the horse is NOT rotating on its axis.” Or “if I hold the pole still the horse is moving without friction, then it is rotating on its axis at 15 RPM, but if I turn the pole a 15 RMP, then the horse stops rotating on its axis. (and if I turn the pole at 16 RMP, the horse is rotating the OTHER way on its axis at 1 RPM). “
Dear Tim,
How do you get yourself so confused? If the rotation of the horse is motorised, on the pole, automatically rotating it on its own axis at a rate of once every four seconds, then:
3) I walk around in a circle in 4 seconds, keeping my own nose pointing north the whole time.
4) I walk around in a circle in 4 seconds, keeping my own nose pointing forward along the whole time.
Those actions will result in the horse performing two different motions as seen from above the circle (same POV as the MOTL/MOTR GIF).
Assuming in 4) that you are walking with (for example) your left side constantly oriented towards the center of the circle. Whereas in 3) you are walking highly unnaturally with your nose pointing north the whole time.
This is getting us nowhere.
Whereas if you just actually tried to refute the logic in my 10:38 AM comment, you would soon realize that you can’t. Perhaps you have already realized that, which is why you are trying these ridiculous diversions.
DREMT, you are clearly conflating “axis” and “axle”. One is a 1D line, the other is a solid object. A MGR horse welded to a steel axle can’t ‘rotate on its axle’ but can ‘rotate on its axis’.
Until you can recognize these are two separate issues, you are never going to move ahead in your understanding.
All of my examples are ‘rotating on their own axis’ at 15 rpm. Only some are ‘rotating on their axle’.
Tim…instead of falsely accusing me of not understanding something basic, try to refute the logic I have presented in my 10:38 PM comment. Just try it. I want to see you, for the very first time, actually quote from that comment, and try to refute what is being said.
No one can answer until you clarify if you mean “rotating on a physical axle” or “rotating on a mathematical axis”.
I have always meant axis, Tim. Not axle. Axis.
Always.
Now, respond to the comment, or don’t. If you don’t, please do not waffle on with something else that you have already said a dozen times before.
[GENTLE GRAHAM] Sorry, Tim, we are strictly on a “concede to proceed” basis. I will just repeat my irrefutable remarks, and await your concession:
[ALSO GENTLE GRAHAM] Now, respond to the comment, or don’t. If you don’t, please do not waffle on with something else that you have already said a dozen times before.
“I have always meant axis, Tim. ”
So you know that an axis is a 1D line. An axis cannot itself ‘rotate’. The only way to determine orientation around that line is by using some OTHER reference point off the line. Ie we NEED to describe a frame of reference.
The most obvious and useful reference is some distant ‘fixed star’ (or equivalent). Then by any reasonable definition, the MOTL rotates around the (moving) internal axis. A point on MOTL moves in a circle as measured from that axis.
Reference frames, again? Already covered it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1430460
You are mixing reference frames, Tim…for the external axis rotation, you mentally use a reference frame with the origin through the external axis. Fair enough. But then, you use another, different reference frame with the origin through the CM of the MOTL itself, and say, “hey look! It appears as though it is also rotating on its own internal axis wrt this reference frame!”
So you then get it into your head that the MOTL is rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis at the same time. It is not. You are mixing up different reference frames. Wrt the reference frame with the origin through the external axis, the MOTL is either:
1) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis (one motion).
2) Translating in a circle with rotation about an internal axis (two motions).
You’ve said that the movement of the MOTL can be described as being comprised of only “one motion”, thus you necessarily concede it can be described as not rotating on its own axis.
For interested people, able to think instead of insulting others…
Here is a document concerning the Chinese Chang’e 5 mission, in which several technical details concerning some of the mission’s trajectories are mentioned and explained.
*
Orbit Design Elements of Chang’e 5 Mission
https://downloads.spj.sciencemag.org/space/2021/9897105.pdf
It is interesting to look at those occurring places of the word ‘spin’ in sections 4 and 5 of the document.
If the Moon wouldn’t rotate: why then would Chinese people bother about its spin in their technical documents?
The first place:
” Referring to point A in Figure 4, the intended landing site is close to the orbit plane when the lander begins the powered descent at descent point E, and the landing site will be in the descent trajectory plane when the lander lands, owing to the spin of the Moon. ”
*
Similar considerations can be found in various Apollo and Selene documents.
The main problem is the same for all people: due to the fact that the Moon spins at an equatorial rate of about 4.7 meter/second, the absolute ascent point coordinates are not the same as the absolute landing point coordinates.
For Apollo 11 for example, the distance between absolute landing and ascent points was over 360 km (21 1/2 hours stay time).
Therefore, the computation of orbiter’s trajectory and speed must take that distance into account.
*
But be sure that the Lunar Spin Deny Squad will tell you that this is all sheer nonsense…
Bindidon
Yes indeed the Moon does rotate on its axis. The problem is evidence does not convince any of the deniers on this blog. Regardless of what you show or present they will not accept any of it. They are the same mentality as “Flat Earthers” not much difference. The appeal is that real science takes lots of effort to learn. The likes of Gordon Robertson, Clint R, Swenson are all below average IQ so they can’t understand science at all or what observation and evidence are our how to use logical thought to put this evidence together in a coherent fashion. If you will notice the three stooges all repeat stupid things endlessly and any attempt to correct their stupid posts goes nowhere. If you go back years you will see Swenson/Mike Flynn posting the same things over and over. Same with Gordon Robertson and the g/e/r/a/n J/D/H/u/f/f/m/a/n poster.
I quit on the Moon Rotation with this bunch. They are not going to change regardless of any evidence you present. It is sad we have such arrogant stupid people as part of our species but what are we to do. Stupid people are fine if the complete arrogance is removed. All the stupid posters are smug and arrogant with their made up physics. Not different at all from the mentality of “Flat Earth” idiots. You can never convince these stupid troll of any rational science. Not one of them is smart enough to understand it. I have hopes for DREMT, the other three are too stupid to educate.
norman…comes out of hibernation to spew…”the Moon does rotate on its axis”.
***
Norman, I still await the proof to which you refer. We have proved, using good old physics, and by interpreting the words of Newton correctly, that it is not possible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis.
We have even dumbed it down to your apparent mental level by introducing the ball on a string model, but obviously we have over-estimated your mental level.
It’s just as well you quit on the model, you were making a fool of yourself as you usually do.
Norman used to try to fake a knowledge of physics, but he got caught too many times. He had to admit he had no real background, just had picked up stuff on the Internet.
Then, he stated that he ALWAYS supported his claims. But, he couldn’t support ANY of the claims I caught him making.
He went into several months of meltdown, and now he’s a full time troll. He has no science, just insults and false accusations.
He joins several other trolls here, also having NOTHING. It’s been fun watching his meltdown.
Clint R
Whatever your “Flat Earth” mentality needs to believe.
Norman, the funny thing is that you would believe Earth is flat if it came from your cult. Just look at how quickly you accepted that Earth has a “real 255K surface”. (Do you need other examples?) You’ll believe whatever your cult claims because you’re a braindead cult idiot. That’s not an insult, it’s reality.
C’mon, Bordon.
Have you found the authoritative translation yet?
Meanwhile, enjoy some real scientific dispute:
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.3293410
Willard please stop trolling
binny…”…owing to the spin of the Moon”
***
They don’t elaborate in the least what they mean by spin. Anyone fluent in lunar technology would never use the word spin in reference to rotation.
Gordon,
I don’t have a problem with the way the words are used – it makes no difference to the calculations involved.
I was aware of the use of “spin” as in the following quote “Revolution object spinning around an external axis. Ex: Earth moving around the Sun ”
Of course, for a satellite orbiting the Moon, the Moon appears to spin beneath it, whereas for a geostationary satellite orbiting the Earth, the Earth appears to be not spinning at all, which is rather the point. However, a true geostationary Moon satellite (physically impossible, but that’s another story), would appear to be not moving at all when viewed from the Earth. Say, if it was in a direct line between the Earth and the Moon – unmoving against the background of the Moon which faces the Earth.
So, I suppose there would have to be more semantic gymnastics to explain this away. Reminiscent of the cycles, epicycles, and all the rest of the logic gymnastics employed by supporters of the geocentric view of the Earth.
Who cares anyway? With the best will in the world, sometimes things don’t always go as wished. That’s life, and playing with semantics doesn’t help when you’re dead.
I will acknowledge that the words spin and orbit have different meaning in astronomy. They need to create words that relate properly to their formulas and calculations. It just becomes a problem when amateurs start confusing those special identifying words as relating to reality in any beyond their use in calculations.
I would expect some very experienced folks having the same problem stemming from a lack of experience and/or need to consider the real ‘substance’ of motions.
Thus the ‘form’ of astronomy puts to good use the difference in the meanings of the words spin and orbit.
Its just a lack of understanding that these different definitions relate to real differences in physical rotations or in other words the ‘substance’ of motion. Not understanding that difference in astronomy has little or no current importance so it is allowed. And has the benefit of not unnecessarily complicating things for people trying to get work done.
But it does create an element that starts to incorrectly extrapolate the standards and forms of their work product to real physical characteristics and go on a blog and parade their ignorance of the substance.
It has potentially huge impacts, potentially requiring real reeducation if science ever advances to the level of creating worlds and other celestial objects. Engineers do that for a lot of objects. They even create space craft to orbit and orient in particular directions using active systems to achieve and maintain that orientation. But the folks advancing to the designer level on this has to learn what nature has in store for him. . . .namely the tendency for a simple rotation on an external axis to adopt an attitude like the MOTL.
Gill,
Gill,
Everybody knows about a spinning top.
A spinning top does not orbit.
It spins.
Mike Flynn was just utterly confused.
No need to pontificate.
Willard says:
”A spinning top does not orbit.”
Indeed Willard a thats basic logic. To rotate means both to revolve around an external axis or to spin on an axis in the interior of an object. That that doesn’t make something that spins on an axis inside of an object to also orbit. Both can occur at the same time in separate motions though. So a spinning top could be sent into orbit.
Gill, Gill,
Mike Flynn referred to “spinning around an external axis.”
My point is that it’s not what “to spin” means.
Neither in astronomy or in ordinary parlance.
Twas just a brain fart.
I’m glad you agree.
the language is does not provide mutually exclusive definitions for spin, rotate, and revolve.
For example one may spin a ball on a string over ones head. Spin and orbit are the two most different. But all are rotations and revolutions.
For example an engines crankshaft may spin at 6,000 revolutions per minute. The spinning crankshaft is where revolutions per minute (rpm) is measured.
Spinner in their desperation for arguments try to provide exclusive definitions to words that don’t have exclusive definitions for the precise point of trying to win and argument. I would call that fraudulent science.
Of course being more generous perhaps they simply didn’t pay much attention in English class.
Gill, Gill,
A skater spins.
A ping pong player makes a top spin.
A The Price Is Right contestant spins the wheel.
A washing machine is on spin cycle.
Ordinary usage is quite clear on this.
And what do you have for evidence that a spin cannot be on an external axis?
Binny,
Well, the Moon certainly spins around the Earth, just like the Earth spins around the Sun.
But setting aside semantics for a moment, have you managed to find out how the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so, in spite of the GHE, or are you just going to keep denying reality?
I can quite understand why you dont want to face facts, but it won’t help you.
As Feynman said to NASA – “Nature cannot be fooled”. How arrogant was he, do you think?
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
Since you like pictures:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum#/media/File:Classical_angular_momentum.svg
Willard,
Please stop trying to troll.
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
Here is the legend:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum
Is the notion of spin too complex for you?
Weeping Wee Willy,
You keep asking, I keep refusing to answer and keep laughing at your inept attempts to troll.
Ask away, donkey. See how far it gets you!
[laughs at idiot SkyDragon donkey]
Willard doesn’t know the answer here as he refuses to answer DREMTs question as to which scenario he is posting.
Not sure why he is cutting and pasting. And a Wikipedia article. Nate complains about them because anybody can write their own articles. But Nate is just a robot on this so he won’t complain about Willard doing it.
Gill is unable to do a basic bookkeeping task. If only he had the engineering discipline of Bordon…
Meanwhile, after being caught in yet another silly semantic game, Mike Flynn brays again
Wee Willy Wanker.
If you say so, Wanker, if you say so.
” Well, the Moon certainly spins around the Earth, just like the Earth spins around the Sun. ”
Once more, the brainless Flynnson is unable to reply in a useful manner.
Do you think he would read the paper, and try to understand what’s in it? You are plain wrong.
All what Flynnson is interested in is to distract, distort, misrepresent, discredit, denigrate and lie.
Flynnson really belongs to this blog’s most ignorant and dumbest trolls. He even beats Robertson in this discipline :–)
Oh look at what Robertson writes:
” They dont elaborate in the least what they mean by spin. ”
Why the heck should people perfectly knowing what is the lunar spin loose their time with ‘elaborate what they mean by spin’ ???
Only dumb pseudo-engineers like Robertson don’t know anything about that.
Robertson of course did not read the Chang’e 5 paper; otherwise he would have seen in section 4.2:
” where φ = 43:11∘ is the specified latitude of the landing site in this study, ωm is the spin rate of the Moon, and tAB is the time that the landing site travels from point A to point B in Figure 4
https://i.postimg.cc/SQdR6Y9r/Screenshot-2023-01-13-at-12-37-29-SPACE-9897105-1-22-9897105-pdf.png
(the lunar surface stay time of two days). ”
*
” Anyone fluent in lunar technology would never use the word spin in reference to rotation. ”
If Robertson (1) had a normally functioning brain and (2) was or had been a REAL engineer, he would simply use a web search engine and search for documents containing the keyword “lunar spin”.
But… obviously neither (1) let alone (2) are even remotely correct assumptions.
Searching with Google allows you to add ‘exclude’ keywords (up to about 32):
https://tinyurl.com/6b5huess
and you obtain a lot of links to useful stuff.
As we can see, there are a few people ‘fluent in lunar technology’.
But… as we know, this is all ‘ancient astrology’.
Long live the true lunar science, i.e. Tesla’s pamphlet, coins, MGRs, the MOTL/MOTR blind-alley, and above all: the ball-on-a-string!
Bin, don’t forget that you don’t understand ANY of this. You acknowledged that you couldn’t solve the simple imaginary axis angle problem. You don’t have a viable model of OMWAR.
You have NOTHING, except links you can’t understand.
Wonderful, Clint R!
‘Weiter so’, the Germans around me love to say :–)
*
Butt when you write
” You acknowledged that you couldnt solve the simple imaginary axis angle problem. ”
you are wrong.
Because
– I didn’t acknowledge anything;
– there is nothing to solve there, except for the fans of the ball-on-a-string!
Did YOU solve the problem, Clint R?
I would be SOOO happy if you could show your solution!
Sorry Bin, but I interpreted your not having solved the simple problem as your admission you couldn’t. If you now believe you can solve it, please do so.
“What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Moon’s orbit?”
I already gave you a hint. Do you need another hint?
I claim you can’t solve it because you don’t even understand your cult’s nonsense. Prove me wrong.
Sorry Clint R: for the umpteenth time, I repeat that your question makes sense only for fans of the ball-on-a-string.
Sorry braindeadidon, but the question comes from your cult’s nonsense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
You don’t even understand your own nonsense. Thanks for continuing to prove me right.
grammie pups repeats his nonsensical question over and over again while not giving any indication that he even understands what he requests. He fails to specify which angle he refers to and what he means by “the high and low points of Moons orbit”. Of course, he also fails to give any hint about which coordinate system to use for his measurements, a basic requirement for any discussion of dynamics.
Keep it up, grammie, it’s always fun to laugh at your ignorant posts, especially when you insist on repeating them.
"grammie pups"
Swanson, you refer to me by the same name. Are we to take it that you still haven’t worked out that Clint R and I are two different people!?
Poor Swanson doesn’t understand all of his concerns are identified in his cult’s diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
Poor Swanson proves me right, again. None of the cult idiots even understand their own nonsense, let alone reality.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Spot the two errors, Pup
Best of luck!
Alternatively, you can always do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Little Willy jumps in to try and change the subject, immediately doing himself what he criticized others for doing, further up-thread.
Gentle Graham gaslights once more.
As if Pup’s bait was topical…
🙄
” Sorry braindeadidon, but the question comes from your cults nonsense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg ”
No.
Firstly, it is not a cult, let alone a nonsense; it is the result of observations and of the evaluation of these observations which you entirely deny without having ever given a valuable scientific proof of their incorrectness.
Secondly, the question comes from yourself, and not from any alleged cult’s nonsense.
Your meaningless question is intimately related to your own ‘ball-on-a-string’ cult belief, and thus makes only sense to those who share your cult belief.
As you know, I don’t belong to your cult.
Thus, if you don’t know the answer to the question you’re asking yourself, ask your friends-in-denial: they will help you.
*
Luckily, ignoramuses like you, Robertson, Flynnson, the Pseudomod, Hunter and a few other lunar spin deniers never were, nor are, let alone will ever be involved in the scientific preparation of lunar missions.
OMG!
Yes Bin, it’s all about your cult’s nonsense.
It’s a very simple question, but you can’t answer it. You don’t even understand your cult’s nonsense. As you may remember, and as well documented here, I predicted you couldn’t answer the simple question.
Thanks for proving me right.
binny…the ball on a string is not a belief, it’s a fact. As a ball rotates about one’s hand on a string, the same face of the ball always faces the hand. It is constrained to fly under such conditions due to tension on the string. If the ball rotated on a local axis it would try to wrap itself up in the string.
The Moon always has the same face pointed at Earth. What other possible explanation could we have other than it behaves similar to the ball on a string?
swannie…”he also fails to give any hint about which coordinate system to use for his measurements, a basic requirement for any discussion of dynamics”.
***
Good old Swannie, always ready and willing to toss intangibles into a debate to muddy the waters. In all my study hours in engineering, studying complex physics problems, not once did we use a reference frame. Didn’t have to, all our problems worked fine in the reality of our Earth- based inertial frame.
Maybe you haven’t noticed that the Moon is part of that reference frame.
Old Gordo does it again, pontificating about his great engineering education as if it had anything to do with the issue. Perhaps he failed to notice that I asked for an appropriate “coordinate system” to use when replying to grammie’s red herring. Then he wanders off, claiming that:
Except that a reference frame fixed at the Earth’s CM would prove that the Moon rotates. That’s because the Moon’s rotational vector in any inertial reference frame would be parallel to that measured in any other inertial reference frame, including Gordo’s Earth centered one in which the Earth rotates 366.25 times a year. One must conclude that Gordo never had to work on the math of orbital problems.
The Moon rotates once an orbit.
“Except that a reference frame fixed at the Earth’s CM would prove that the Moon rotates.”
If you can select a reference frame that gives invalid results, that tells you reference frames have little value.
“The Moon rotates once an orbit.”
To get the terminology correct: Moon orbits Earth, but does NOT rotate about its own axis.
Pup,
If you can pick a reference frame that gives invalid results, then you can pick a reference frame that can give valid results.
Which means you and Gentle Graham have things to discuss.
To choose the correct reference frame for a situation requires a knowledge of the relevant science. If the relevant science is known, the reference frame is redundant.
Pup,
Here’s Gentle Graham:
Perhaps you should have a talk with him.
Willard you don’t understand the situation.
From the perspective of the earth the moon is not rotating.
But the moon is rotating on the earth’s COM it just doesn’t appear so looking at the moon from the earth by way of viewing it once each day unless you deduce that it is rotating around the earth. |But if you look at from space it is clearly rotating around the earth.
This has been confusing for people because the sun appears to have the same motion as the moon until you examine it very closely then you can detect that the sun has a rotation you just have to do it correctly so as to not confuse its motion with the moon’s motion.
E. Swanson says:
”The Moon rotates once an orbit”
————————-
Well yeah obviously! Since orbit is synonymous with rotate!
Gill, Gill,
An orbit may involve some rotation, but a rotation ain’t no orbit.
I say *some* rotation because there are non-Keplerian orbits:
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/39653
Besides, I’ve told you many times already that pure rotations only get you circular orbits, not elliptical orbits.
To get Keplerian orbits, you need to add some translation.
Bill chimes in with a red herring, claiming that since “rotate” has been incorrectly used to reference orbiting, my statement is obviously correct. Using the word “rotate” with two meanings does not solve the question. But, my question to Gordo was about what coordinate system to use to answer pups request for measuring angles of the Moon’s rotation and orbit.
To further reply to the No-Spin cult, it should be obvious that a coordinate system must be the starting point in any discussion of the dynamic motions of objects in space. When a coordinate system is selected, it must be defined in reference to the surroundings as appropriate to the specific problem, which is the reason they are called “reference frames’. For any problems involving acceleration and rotation in space, one must specify an reference frame fixed in the stars in order to build the mathematical models to study the motions.
Attempting to use an Earth fixed coordinate system with one axis pointing toward the Moon will lead to the incorrect conclusion that the Moon does not rotate around it’s axis, whereas using an inertial reference frame will always show that the Moon does rotate. That’s why the No-Spin Cult refuses to discuss “inertial reference frames”.
E. Swanson says:
”Using the word rotate with two meanings does not solve the question.”
————————-
I didn’t use rotate with two meanings. Rotate has one meaning. It has two forms, rotation on an interior axis and rotation on an exterior axis. Spinners ignorantly believe the MOTL isn’t rotating when obviously it is.
E. Swanson blurts:
To further reply to the No-Spin cult, it should be obvious that a coordinate system must be the starting point in any discussion of the dynamic motions of objects in space. When a coordinate system is selected, it must be defined in reference to the surroundings as appropriate to the specific problem, which is the reason they are called reference frames. For any problems involving acceleration and rotation in space, one must specify an reference frame fixed in the stars in order to build the mathematical models to study the motions. Attempting to use an Earth fixed coordinate system with one axis pointing toward the Moon will lead to the incorrect conclusion that the Moon does not rotate around its axis, whereas using an inertial reference frame will always show that the Moon does rotate. Thats why the No-Spin Cult refuses to discuss inertial reference frames.
————————–
Swanson the MOTL and the MOTR are in the same reference frame wrt the stars. Your thinking here is completely garbled.
The MOTL is rotating. The MOTR is either not rotating or it has two separate rotations in opposite directions with the exact same synchronization. All in the reference frame wrt the stars. Try again!
Hunter claims that the MOtR/MOtL cartoon is based on an inertial reference frame. Of course, if one places the origin for that reference frame at the CM of the Moon, the Moon is clearly rotating which would appear so even with an elliptical orbit, which is the real situation. With that origin, the Moon’s axis of rotation can also be tilted, again, as is evidenced by data.
Trouble is, the No-Spin Cult thinks the cartoon implies “rotation” around an external axis, which could only work for a circular orbit, not an elliptical orbit, you know, like, reality. You can’t justify your claim that the Moon rotates around an external axis when the internal axis of rotation is not parallel to the orbital axis.
E. Swanson says:
”Trouble is, the No-Spin Cult thinks the cartoon implies rotation around an external axis, which could only work for a circular orbit, not an elliptical orbit, you know, like, reality.
———————-
Reality is a circular orbit is an elliptical orbit.
And you have no source that excludes ellipses.
and the non-spinners have several sources that includes ellipses.
We win by forfeit on your side for completely failing to support your position on that. You guys haven’t even shown up with a single argument so far.
Hunter’s reply ignores the fact that an elliptical orbit precludes “rotation around an external axis” in which said axis is at some fixed position. Of course, at each point in the ellipse, the body might appear to be instantaneously rotating around some external point, but THAT POINT CHANGES around the orbit.
Then too, Hunter completely ignores the fact that the Moon’s rotational axis is tilted wrt the orbit’s plane, which is another reason that the rotation can not occur around some fixed external axis. Has he forgotten that he once touted the slight tilt of the Moon’s axis wrt the Ecliptic many months ago?
Hunter is just repeating the No-Spin cult’s semantic games, refusing to actually use math to present any case for rational scientific discussion.
Swanson essentially argues that the earth does not rotate on its axis because the sun creates tides in its particles.
Funny guy. What part of your delusional brain came up with that red herring? As usual, no analysis, no math, nothing of substance
Swanson if you want to redefine motions because of perturbations from different sources where do you draw the line between when you do redefine and you don’t redefine?
I am just pointing out that because these perturbations come from different sources than the primary elements of the basic rotation does not give a good basis for saying the primary motion doesn’t exist. What you need to do instead is start with the primary motion and point out that variations to that motion are coming from completely different sources.
Ultimately without a line drawn based upon some degree of perturbation. . . .even rotations on internal axes aren’t rotations because any given particle can be said to be rotating on its own axis and that the motion of that particle going around the center of an object is just a translation.
There is an old saying that you reap the nonsense that you sow.
Bottom line rotations on external axes is an accepted rotation. One can compute all the rotational elements of an elliptical rotation with known physics equations. But if you want to know everything about the motion of the moon you need to count the gravity effects from every celestial body in the universe.
Hunter posts another posts another blast of off topic semantic word salad. Lets try again to cut thru the crap.
There are about 13 Full Moons each year and they occur at different locations around the orbit. An Earth observer sees more of the Moon’s northern hemisphere for about 5 of those Full Moons and more of the southern hemisphere for another 5 Full Moons or so. Those easily observed facts have been called Librations in Latitude which have long been accepted as proof that the Moon rotates around an internal axis. The effect is entirely analogous to the seasonal changes on Earth due to the tilt of the Earth’s rotational axis.
Hunter and the rest of the No-Spin Cult have refused to provide any analytical evidence to refute these conclusions while repeatedly asserting that the Moon’s dynamic motions can be described as a rotation around some mythical external axis. Sorry, trolls, the Moon’s motion is a combination of it’s rotation around an inclined axis thru the CM coupled with a translation of the CM along an elliptical path. Spewing reams of words onto this site without any effort toward a scientific proof is an assault on the other participants who post here and should not continue in a rational world. Of course, we’ve been here for many months of wasted bandwidth, so one can expect the No-Spin Cult to continue their spamming BS.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
For aficionados only :–)
Searching for documents with the combination key ‘lunar spin’ instead of the much more general ‘moon rotation’ was good because it narrowed the results in a way that suddenly revealed a paper previously unknown to me:
The Rotation of the Moon (1974)
J. Derral MULHOLLAND
Groupe de Recherches de Godsie Spatiale
Meudon, France
https://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/barb_0001-4141_1974_num_60_1_61004.pdf
Chapters V and VI are simply amazing.
Another paper of rubbish based on Cassini and in part on Galileo.
“After a short while, he [Galileo] realized that he always saw most of the same features: Luna always keeps the same face towards us. Knowing the geometrical explanation of the lunar phases as resulting from the Moon’s orbital motion, it must have been evident to him that this implied that the Moon was spinning about an axis, with a rotation rate about the same as the sidereal orbit motion.”.
***
The author speaks on behalf of Galileo, claiming it must have been apparent to Galileo that the Moon was spinning about an axis.
“Cassini 1st law…”1. The Moon rotates uniformly with a period equal to the mean sidereal period of its orbit about Earth;
Author…re Cassini’s laws…”The first describes the magnitude of the rotation vector, the other two its direction in space”.
***
Cassini was wrong, therefore the author is wrong. We have proved here that it is not possible for the Moon to rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.
Author…”Earth raises tides on the Moon, and these tides will result in frictional losses, which must produce some loss in rotational angular momentum”.
***
How is the friction created? There is no resistance to create a friction force.
The basis of author’s argument supporting the Moon’s rotation is a model in which the Earth orbits the Moon. Why??? Then he goes off into a convoluted arguement based in complex math.
Later he concedes…
“One must not suppose that we have produced an internally consistent “proof” of Cassini’s laws for the Earth-Moon system”.
“It is not even certain that the present gravitational model of the Moon is adequate”.
We have proved here that Cassini was wrong. The author fails to adequately explain libration.
binny…”Why the heck should people perfectly knowing what is the lunar spin loose their time with elaborate what they mean by spin ???”
***
I don’t know what ‘lunar spin’ means. The word spin, in English, is not a word we would use to describe rotation about a local axis. For all I know, the word spin might be employed incorrectly to describe a change in orientation of the near face wrt the stars. After all, the article was written by people whose native language is not English.
The word spin is used incorrectly in quantum theory. It is measured as +1/2 or -1/2, whereas a true rotation would be measured in radians/second, or equivalent. Although some people infer it refers to an angular rotation of the electron about an axis, that is absurd.
No one can locate an electron in an atom let alone tell if it is rotating on a local axis. The electron location must be generalized to a location within a shape that represents the likelihood of it being found there. So, how could anyone claim it is spinning.
And why would anyone try to compare a subatomic particle with a planet? That’s the normal inference when the the word spin is used. For whatever reason, some have reversed the process by which electrons orbiting atomic nucleii are compared to planets orbiting the Sun.
In English, the word spin is normally reserved for situations in which a rotation is non-specific. For example, in a spin dryer, the word spin does not refer to the rotating drum that rotates the clothes but to the clothes themselves being spun around an undefined axis.
Same with a person spinning in a circle. There is no definite axis described, just that the person is turning about an undefined axis. So why would ‘spin’ with reference to the Moon means rotation about an axis and not the Moon spinning about the Earth?
In English we have yet another meaning for spinning, which is actually a twisting motion. When thread is spun for use in textiles, it is twisted about an undefined axis. In fact, the threads are spun around each other.
In summary, in general, the word spin in English is an indefinite rotating motion that does not describe a definite axis. Rotation is the proper word to describe a planetary body rotating on a local axis.
Bordon,
Come on.
A spinning top.
A spinning wheel.
A top spin.
Figure skating spins.
A roulette spin.
The spin washing cycle.
A car spin.
Spinning a yarn.
Spinning classes.
I mean, come on.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
This is my new local climate supermodel
https://bit.ly/3H19J4P
Looking good!
Are those her legs, or is she riding a chicken?
Gordon isn’t into any kind of ‘spinner’.
RLH
Just wondering if ENSO 1.2 is still an indicator of where ENSO is headed? Or does that not apply any more?
It is likely that the various ENSO areas will follow East to West following the trade winds.
What is going to happen in the future at the Eastern edge is the real question.
ENSO 1.2 in the last 7 weeks has risen from -2.0 to -0.3.
And your prediction of it for the rest of the year is what?
rlh…”There is no such thing as an external axis when using gravity. There are only barycenter.”
***
Why does Newtons law of gravitation measure from the centre of masses and not from a barycentre?
The center of the masses IS the barycenter. Both (or more) objects orbit around it.
I believe he was trying to refer to the centre of mass of EACH body.
But Gordon’s imprecise language is easy to misinterpret.
When dealing with orbits only the combined center of all of the masses is important, i.e. the barycenter.
He specifically referred to the law of gravitation, ie. the force of attraction between the two bodies.
The two of you are discussing two different concepts.
BTW – I don’t know the original context of this discussion (and don’t want to know).
Antonin Qwerty
” I dont know the original context of this discussion (and dont want to know). ”
Well, I fully understand you.
The very origin of the endless discussion is the denial of the lunar spin by a small minority of people posting on this blog.
aquerty…”He specifically referred to the law of gravitation, ie. the force of attraction between the two bodies”.
***
To bring you up to speed, as a favour to my Aussie cobbers, Richard (rlh) and myself have a disagreement about barycentres. I claim a barycentre is a mathematical COM whereas Richard extends that to a requirement that the Earth and Moon are orbiting the barycentre and that the Moon is not orbiting the Earth’s centre.
My argument is that the gravitational force at the distance of the Moon is too weak to cause a rotation about a barycentre since it is just barely strong enough to raise the oceans about a metre.
Furthermore, all calculations of the lunar orbit are done from Earth’s centre, not from a barycentre.
The Moon does not rotate about a barycentre, it rotates about the Earth’s COG. The Earth certainly does not wobble about a barycentre, which is located within the Earth. If it did, the Earth would be wobbling in small circles as it orbits.
As usual Gordon, you are denying basic physics. And the concept of rotation about the barycentre was referred to by Newton in Principia.
And no one actually says ‘cobbers’. You couldn’t get more cringe.
AQ,
Well, I’m not sure that explaining to two different people what they are talking about, is all that helpful. Do you have a particular reason for making pointless comments?
How about explaining the role of the GHE in the Earth’s cooling over the last four and a half billion years? You need to be prepared to defend your position, of course.
I’ll have a good laugh at your expense in the meantime, pretentious SkyDragon dummy.
Off you go now – a bit of teeth gnashing and weeping might make you feel better.
"And the concept of rotation about the barycentre was referred to by Newton in Principia."
There we have it, then. Newton’s a "Non-Spinner". Thanks, Antonin.
aquerty…fair dinkum cobbah. You’re not trying to deny your culture, are you? Hopefully you have not turned your back on the worthies, eh Bluey. Next you’ll be telling me Rolf Harris is no longer cool.
Nail me hide to the shed, Fred.
Newton said nothing about the Moon or any other planet orbiting a barycente. He talked about barycentres but I saw nothing conclusive.
C’mon, Bordon.
Have you found the authoritative translation yet?
You’re missing out:
DREMT
Perhaps you’d care to explain how rotating about the earth-sun barycentre leads to the conclusion that the moon is not rotating about its own axis. Make sure you also reference the earth rotating about the sun-earth barycentre in answering that.
Oh, Antonin. If you agree that the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, then you agree that it is not rotating on its own internal axis.
The Earth is rotating about the Sun/Earth barycenter and rotating on its own internal axis. The moon is just rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter.
You went with rotation, rather than translation, Antonin. You haven’t been following the debate, obviously.
While Gentle Graham continues his gaslighting, readers might like to recall:
https://tinyurl.com/Orbital-KinEn
See, Antonin? You should definitely have gone with translation.
So you argue by assertion.
Nice spin – we should call you ‘Moon’.
No, Antonin, it’s been backed up and demonstrated a dozen times in various different ways over the years. Most “Spinners” now accept it to be correct, regardless of their position on the moon issue overall. “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion as per the “moon on the left”:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
AQ,
You can always call Moon Charmaster Infurion:
https://www.youtube.com/@chartmasterinfurion/about
I prefer Graham.
Willard please stop trolling
DREMT
Yet it funny how all astronomers and cosmologists will disagree with you.
You’re so behind with the debate, Antonin. “Spinners” are arguing that the moon is “translating in an ellipse, whilst rotating about an internal axis”.
Not “rotating about an external axis whilst rotating about an internal axis”.
Why do you think there’s so much fuss being made by “Spinners” arguing that “revolution/orbit” is not defined as a rotation about an external axis!?
Then you come along, agreeing with me that it is defined that way…and even suggesting that Newton agrees it is defined that way!
This is one of the moments where the rest of the “Spinners” put their hands over their ears, shut their eyes and rock back and forth chanting “it’s not happening, it’s not happening”…
Antonin Qwerty says: “Yet it[‘s] funny how all astronomers and cosmologists will disagree with you.”
It’s important for people to realize that both astronomy and cosmology grew out of astrology. Both were, and still are today, based more on beliefs than science. NASA names its missions and rockets after ancient gods, for example. Both astronomy and cosmology are full of ancient beliefs that defy physics. The Moon nonsense, including “tidal locking”, is just one example.
What we learn here is that many people are more interested in false beliefs than in reality.
It is important to realize that the number of cranks in Team Moon Dragon is smaller than in Team Sky Dragon.
In fact here is what a crank from Team Sky Dragon welcomes a Moon Dragon crank like Pup:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/03/07/the-nub-of-the-argument/#comment-63901
There might be one blog in the universe where we can find as many Moon Dragon cranks.
Astronomy and cosmology are also where we get such nonsense as the big bang, Hubble’s “Law”, and the Drake equation.
All are anti-science.
Pup,
“But Science” is boring:
https://climateball.wordpress.com/but-science/
Too easy. You have no chance.
Clint R says:
”Astronomy and cosmology are also where we get such nonsense as the big bang, Hubbles Law, and the Drake equation.
All are anti-science.”
I wouldn’t call it anti-science. I would call it non-science. Spinners and CO2 as the major temperature control mechanism theorists as living in the same category confounding the words that come out of the mouths of those with various degrees of scientific credentials as always being science (cherry picked scientists that is based upon celebrity status rather than illustrious track records of being correct, though having been correct doesn’t rule out such participation in speculation)
“The moon is just rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter.”
Why?
“the Moon is not orbiting the Earths centre.”
That would be as the barycenter is the sum of the masses of the Moon and the Earth.
And one needs to keep in mind this isn’t anything like listening to advice from your doctor. Not at all!
Doctors are constrained legally, professionally, and customarily restrained from offering speculative advice. There are both criminal and civil penalties that can be pursued against doctors that stray over that line.
Whereas academic/non-professional scientists are actually encouraged to speculate. Academic freedom is a concept thought of as encouraging the advancement of science. Doctors can only go there in very closely supervised ways as they aren’t allowed to just willy nilly experiment on their patients.
Once you understand this you should be able to understand that scientists generally mean no harm but they don’t fit the model of the medical profession where it has always been necessary to constrain them in their enthusiasm for new ideas.
Government needs to use science but they need important independent and transparent processes in adopting new science for the purpose of experimentation through government regulation. Federal restraint on that is far better when administered through the civil service than it is in most states.
It can’t be done by the employees of large institutions whose funding depends upon the government. The model of government passing standards as legal obligations in the professions is managed by the professions through various bodies whose main objective is to ensure that government standards are more strictly adhered to by additional layers of standards to keep stuff out of the court system which reflects on the entire system to the extent that you frequently can’t get a license to practice unless you meet both the public and privately promulgated standards.
RLH says:
” ”the Moon is not orbiting the Earths centre.”
That would be as the barycenter is the sum of the masses of the Moon and the Earth.”
—————————-
That would be incorrect! When one says that it reveals a basic misunderstanding of what the implications of a barycenter is.
One may know how a barycenter is calculated. But the fact is the moon rotates around both the barycenter and the center of the earth at the same time. The barycenter is just the ”mean” position of the earth on a grid of the moon’s orbital plane as the moon rotates around it.
The same could be said of the ”mean” position of the moon as it both rotates and its elliptical orbit precesses.
Gill, Gill,
The barycenter is simply a center of mass.
It is useful if you want the COM.
Why do you keep ranting as if you were Bordon’s evil twin?
Willard you are off topic as usual. I agree the barycenter is the center of mass. I never said it wasn’t.
What I was addressing was the claim that the moon doesn’t orbit the center of the earth. It does! One does not understand barycenters if you think the barycenter is just on one side of the earth. The barycenter revolves around the center of the earth and the moons orbit doesn’t change from its rotation around both at the same time because when the moon gets to the other side of the earth, so does the barycenter. So the barycenter moves at the same rate of rotation as the moon and takes on a shape of an ellipse around the center of the earth. Or you can look at it like the barycenter fixed in space and the earth prescribes an ellipse around the barycenter on the opposite side of from the moon.
Finally the barycenter is a computed location it possesses no power in itself to force a rotation. The earth does have that power. So in fact the moon rotates around the earth. Its truly odd how you guys extrapolate stuff. You learn a new fact and suddenly its a physical relationship rather than a conceptual one to the earth moon system.
the commanding notion here is substance over form. Only the human mind is capable of elevating form over substance and making grievous errors sometimes as a result.
In accounting elevating form over substance is how auditors err and criminals commit fraud and magicians fool the eye.
In the sense that the Moon orbits around the center of the Earth you might be correct, but to suggest that it is one of the centers that creates the elliptical orbit you would be incorrect. That would be the COM or barycenter. As Newton suggested.
Gill, Gill,
The barycenter isn’t a “”mean” position,” whatever you might mean by that. It’s just a center of mass. And it is indeed relevant in the celestial reference systems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Celestial_Reference_System_and_its_realizations
And your point is false: the Moon indeed orbits the barycenter. But since the barycenter is located inside the Earth, one can abstract the difference for toy model.
Like Gentle Graham’s pet GIF.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1430173
Gill, Gill,
The Moon.
Orbits.
Around.
The barycenter.
Of the Moon-Earth system.
In fact:
https://www.education.com/science-fair/article/barycenter-balancing-point/
Hence why orbit will eventually become like the Pluto-Charon system.
Why does Newtons law of gravitation measure from the centre of masses and not from a barycentre?
C’mon, Bordon.
For the same reason he’s standing in the shoulders of giants:
It’s shorter.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“For the same reason hes standing in the shoulders of giants:”
Do you suffer from ineptitude or incompetence?
If you must post pointless attempts at trolling, try and get your English correct, at least.
Actually, you might look less inept if you just stop trying to troll.
Mike Flynn,
Fess it.
You have no idea why Isaac used that specific wording, don’t you?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
If you don’t realise Sir Isaac Newton referred to standing “on” the shoulders of giants, rather than your inept claim that he stood “in” the shoulders of giants, you are truly retarded and sloppy.
In the meantime, Willard, please stop trying to troll.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Isaac was referring to Hooke.
How tall was Robert, again?
OhOhOhoH!
Willard please stop trolling
MEI
Year Indexsum Months
1892: -54.67 40
1908: -52.22 41
1973: -48.71 36
2020: -41.46 31
The current la Nina has now reached #2 for recent events, with only 1973 staying above it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
Two years ago, the Tokyo Climate Center was so utterly wrong with its ENSO forecast that I still can trust them today:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
Hmmmh.
Of course I wanted to write ” can’t trust “.
Bindidon,
I dont trust anyone’s predictions of the future better than I trust mine.
From time to time, my predictions have turned out to be wrong, but at least I don’t have to go far to locate the fool who thought he could look into the future!
Only joking, I just make assumptions, and act on them. I lead a quiet and contented life, which is all I want.
The future is unpredictable, but you don’t have to accept reality if it doesn’t suit you.
Predict away.
So do you expect La Nina, El Nino or neutral for the rest of this year?
Yes.
So a non answer.
You also refused to answer me when I asked you the same question.
What do you dislike about IOCAS ICM?
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table
Nothing at all. But you demand definite predictions from others, while only being prepared to give the plume yourself.
I think that IOCAS ICM is closer to the truth than others. We will see won’t we.
Ask me again
When Bindiclown realized his epic La Nina forecasting fail he tried to spin it into some kind of dispute how strong it was going to be , something that nobody even argued about ,
Only problem , he declared La Nina to be over and tried to compare it to the previous ones long before it ended , it turns out he lost even his own straw-man argument , that takes some doing,
Now the piece of scum wants to blame somebody else for it
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-936851
Idiot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY6NDipRmp4
Episode 1987 Scott Adams: Joe Biden’s Garage, And The Government Lying To You About Everything
Back up DNA code, to make younger and carbon capture
CO2 levels aren’t high, but if they get too higher, than one could remove the the CO2.
Since we not mining methane hydrates, one could argue we could have massive release of Methane into atmosphere. So since know how remove
CO2 from atmosphere [if we think there is too much CO2 some time in future] we should find out how remove Methane from atmosphere- in case say, we get impactor which causes trillion of tons of Methane in atmosphere.
Meanwhile if use the back up code, we don’t have under population problem.
So, other than finding out how to remove Methane in atmosphere fast enough and cheap enough, we just need to test artificial gravity in space.
Scott’s good news, is we are not living in Canada.
It seems to me, it’s possible Canada could get a bit warmer, and
elect other people.
The new saying up here is ‘Trudeau Must Go’. For me, the sooner the better.
I noticed today that one Republican is calling for a moratorium on wind farms on the ocean. He thinks they might be responsible for the deaths of several killer whales. Don’t know how but it’s a good idea to shut down those monstrosities whenever possible.
https://www.space.com/tim-dodd-everyday-astronaut
Tim Dodd, the ‘Everyday Astronaut,’ gets down to Earth about SpaceX moon trip
By Leonard David
published about 2 hours ago
Space.com interviews Tim Dodd.
Good interview.
It will be exciting, but at moment we got to get the starship
test launch.
Which probably indicate we find stuff which delay other launches or things move faster, than one can reasonable expect.
Meanwhile is seems the world moving ahead fairly fast and I hope New Glen rocket gets launched this year also.
I have considered how one use Falcon-9 to make artificial gravity station, and been thinking about using New Glenn, also.
New Glenn could make a bigger one, and it could act as dummy test payload [falcon 9 doesn’t need that, but it’s cheaper]
With the New Glenn, I thought 7 meter diameter rocket was too large, so I thought you nest smaller diameter cylinders, 6, 5, 4 meter, inside it, and extended when in orbit. The New Glenn also lifts more
payload, so I would just add a lot water as payload and lots of compressed air tanks [a couple tons of air- and 20 tons or more of water}.
swenson…”Gee, two greenhouse gases formed as a byproduct of creating heat!”
***
It’s worth elaborating on this point. Entropic immediately suggested that the amount of heat released by such processes is a spit in the ocean compared to other causes of anthropogenic warming.
Is that so? R. W. Wood made an excellent point in 1909 that gases like nitrogen and oxygen, that make up 99% of of the atmosphere, cannot easily release heat once warmed. That’s because they can’t radiate it away easily at terrestrial temperatures.
So, if we heat the atmosphere in cities, according to Wood, an expert on gases, the heat is not easily dissipated. The heated air will rise, but then we replace the heat immediately with all of our heat sources. So, it’s not just heat island effects increasing warming, its the very air that is involved. The same air that is claimed to be warming the atmosphere due to a trace gas.
It is insane to ignore the warming of nitrogen and oxygen by anthropogenic processes and focus on a trace gas as the source of warming.
Naturally, at night, with no solar input, it cools. However, with all of our sources of anthropogenic heating, even during the night, the air likely remains warmer than without the human input.
We are not talking major warming, but even 0.1C is significant warming, according to the modern meme of global warming. And since 1850 we are only talking about 10 x 0.1C global warming. I am sure the heat we add to the atmosphere in cities accounts for more than 0.1C warming.
Global air temperature depends average temperature of ocean, 3.5 C,
just the surface of ocean and the entire atmosphere is not much heat.
You call atmosphere and ocean surface, weather, and entire ocean, global climate.
Or as some say, more then 90% of global warming is warming this cold ocean.
But if just talking about entire atmosphere and top surface of ocean or land, I don’t think heat generated by humans is warming it by much- the human heating affects the weather by a small amount.
But so does CO2 added- both can be called immeasurable amounts.
The Earth climate warms and cools, regardless of human heat generated or the CO2 human emits. Life eats CO2, and cold ocean absorbs CO2- we aren’t in Ice Age due to life eating CO2, rather it’s because of cold ocean. Though life in the ocean also does also eat CO2- doesn’t seem
we have explored the ocean enough, to have much of idea of how much much.
Anyhow, humans didn’t cause the Little Ice Age, and it seems human had little to do with causing us to leave the Little Ice Age.
swenson…”swenson…I dont have a problem with the way the words are used it makes no difference to the calculations involved.
I was aware of the use of spin as in the following quote…”
***
The point I was trying to make was in reference to Binny’s claim that the Japanese paper supported his claim that the Moon had a spin. I saw nothing in the paper to suggest the Japanese claimed ‘spin’ referred to the Moon spinning about a local axis.
In fact, I thought it odd that scientists would use the word spin in reference to a rotating body. Maybe it’s a poor translation from Japanese. However, there are theoretical types trying to compare the rotation of heavenly bodies to the alleged spin of electrons in quantum theory.
The irony there is that such a spin for an electron is rated as +1/2 or -1/2, hardly quantities you’d apply to rotation, which is normally rated in metres/second or radians/second. It’s obvious that quantum theory use of spin is not the same as spin related to rotation. No one has ever seen an electron let alone it spinning about an internal axis.
I wish they’d stick to good old rotation, or at least offer a brief explanation of what is meant by so-called lunar spin.
ww…[from wiki]…”ww…spin angular momentum S is really orbital angular momentum of the object at every point”.
***
Contradiction in term. There is no such thing as angular momentum for a body like the Moon since it has, at each instant, only a linear momentum. Any inferred angular momentum is fictitious. It is inferred as if the body had an angular momentum.
If you had a spinning top doing its spin thing on the floor, you could claim a spin angular momentum. It is a solid body rotating about an internal axis. No comparison whatsoever to the Moon in its orbit.
Of course, if the spinning top was spinning on a platform that was rotating about you, you’d see every side of the top. Only if the top stopped rotating would you see only the one side.
C’mon, Bordon.
You’re just begging the question. You do not even *define* the Moon as having no angular momentum. You just assert it as fact.
So how the hell is that supposed to be a contradiction in term?
For the ten thousandth time, leave fallacy fluff to competent authorities. It’ll rot your brains.
I mean, it’ll rot your brains more.
Willard,
Please stop trying to troll.
http://www…I stated it as fact because it is obviously fact. The Moon has only linear motion and a body with only linear momentum cannot have angular momentum.
How do you like that for artificial intelligence? I wrote ***www*** as in wee wonky willy, and it added an http. Artificial intelligence is exactly what it means, artificial intelligence.
ps. artificial intelligence is synonymous with climate alarm.
C’mon, Bordon.
What is contrary to fact is called a counterfactual.
Not a contradiction in term.
Don’t be an oxymoron.
Wasted Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Not a contradiction in term.”
I believe that the phrase is written as “a contradiction in terms”, but delusional SkyDragon cultists don’t worry about normal usage. Cooling is warming, more is less, climate is weather . . .
Please stop trying to troll until you get a bit better at it.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Factual claims are, wait for it, factual.
Self-contradictions are analytical.
Two different kinds of proposition.
Cheers.
Willard,
Please stop trying to troll.
Prove, not assert, it.
Tim Folkerts wrote –
“A real moon cannot travel an ellipse and keep one side toward the earth.”
The real Moon seems to, the last time I looked. Maybe Tim is rejecting reality in favour of his fantasy.
As Newton’s First Law states “every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.”
I’m not sure why Tim refuses to accept the operation of Newton’s First Law, but the observed motion of the Moon seems to accord with Newton’s supposition.
Oh well, anything to divert away from having to face the fact that nobody has even managed to describe the GHE, let alone explain its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling.
Mike Flynn,
The Moon seems to what?
Less braying, more English.
Cheers.
Willard,
Please stop trying to troll.
Mike Flynn,
You recalled Isaac’s First Law:
“every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force”
What would happen to the Moon if it was not spinning at all?
ww…Mike hasn’t been around here for a couple of years now.
C’mon, Bordon:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/05/02/science-into-agitprop-climate-change-is-strangling-our-oceans/#comment-782826
You might need Gill’s help to audit that one.
Witless Wee Willy,
Thank you for confirming that the Earth is about four and a half billion years old.
Maybe you accept that the surface is no longer molten, and, if so, maybe you could attempt to explain the role of the GHE in cooling the Earth, while everybody (except delusional SkyDragon reality deniers) rolls around laughing.
In the meantime, please stop trying to troll.
Wondering Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“What would happen to the Moon if it was not spinning at all?”
Questions, questions – trying to look intelligent by acting like a three year old!
Look at the Moon, idiot. That’s what happens.
Your gotcha turned into a fizzer.
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about – Gentle Graham’s pet GIF is a troll?
That’d be sad.
Willard,
Please stop trying to troll.
“Tim Folkerts wrote A real moon cannot travel an ellipse and keep one side toward the earth.
***
Yes, it can, within a few degrees. A radial line from the Moon’s near face will only vary 5 degrees from the aligned radial lines at pergigee and apogee. That is the angle of longitudinal libration.
If I am facing someone dead on, are you claiming I am no longer facing the person if I rotate 5 degrees?
Speaking of libration, I’ll drop the ‘r’ and have a coffee. If gb is reading, he may opt to do the same, knowing how much he likes coffee. I do the decaf trip, however. I know longer feel inclined to do hand springs after a cuppa.
Decaf, I never understood the concept.
It seems coffee more caffeine, would be improvement.
Some think coffee is good for you, it seems coffee with more caffeine
should be better for you.
I have had adequate amounts so far for today.
With moon thing, what do these people think tidally locked, means?
I used to sit in a cafe with a buddy and drink multiple cups of coffee after a meal. Got to the point where I was having trouble sitting still, never mind focusing.
They seem to think tidally-locked is a locking between bodies related to tidal forces. No explanation is offered to explain why that should affect the rotation if either body, provided one or both were rotating to start with.
If one body’s tidal forces could slow another bodies rotation, however, why would the body stop rotating at exactly one orbit per orbital period of that body? There is no way any lateral forces exist to prevent the rotation from continuing.
The theory has never been tested with a huge body like the Moon and it is obviously wrong.
> No explanation is offered to explain why that should affect the rotation if either body
Good grief, Bordon.
Wanna bet?
Don’t want to take your money. Too easy. Where are the lateral forces that would be required to slow down the hypothetical rotation of a body with the mass of the Moon at the distance of the Moon?
I mean, the Moon moves through space at roughly a km/sec with the gravitational forces of the Earth and Sun affecting it. Doesn’t slow it down at all, and if those tidal forces had slowed it, the Moon would have lost orbit and crashed into the Earth millions of years ago.
–“They seem to think tidally-locked is a locking between bodies related to tidal forces.”
Which is correct.
Also if Moon same mass but denser [smaller diameter] there would be
less tidal forces upon it.
And since Earth is larger diameter, it has more tidal forces and/or compared being smaller and denser Earth has more tidal forces.
“No explanation is offered to explain why that should affect the rotation if either body, provided one or both were rotating to start with.”–
Well, Moon going further from Earth due Earth’s spin and the tidal forces caused by moon upon Earth [which slowing Earth’s spin apparently]. Though Sun would also has less tidal force upon Earth and would also be slightly slowing Earth’s spin velocity [also slightly moving Earth further from the Sun]. If something hit Earth to make the Moon, it’s thought this impact added to Earth rate of spin. And we have little space rocks spinning quite fast- though it’s thought the space rock have only been within the inner solar system for only few million years- as they will eventually hit something or be tossed out of inner solar system.
So, anything orbiting the Sun around 1 AU distance is travelling at about 30 km/sec around sun- you or our dog are going 30 km/sec around the sun- as is our Moon. The Moon is going about 1 km/sec around Earth, if make something a lunar distance go less than 1 km/sec, like say .5 km/sec, it falls closer to Earth, falls, gains velocity and than goes back to distance where going .5 km/sec, and returns fall closer to Earth, etc.
Hohmann transfer is related to if object was someplace beyond Jupiter, the fastest and least energy to get near the sun, is to slow it’s rotating speed around the sun, down. You do this, and the weak Solar gravity slightly but constantly accelerates you towards the
sun- given say a month of time, you going quite fast. And works the other way, increase your orbital speed and go further from the Sun.
At Earth distance and velocity of about 30 km/sec, 16.6 km/sec added to 30, leaves the solar system. And at low Earth you going 7.8 km/sec just to be in orbit. Hence the expression, LEO is 1/2 way to anywhere.
Of course lunar orbit is more than 1/2 way to anyway- you fall to Earth and get velocity relative to Earth of about 10 Km/sec:
10 – 7.8 = 2.2 km/sec faster than LEO velocity.
Or any high orbit around any planet, is more than 1/2 way to anywhere. Or planets are gateways to solar system- if want to go anywhere, soon, you want to somewhat close to a planet [or close to
our Moon. I like idea of being in high orbit of Venus- such l-1 or L-2 [or closer- it’s hot [and cooler in any shade- and you making shade if using solar energy].
As for this part:
“provided one or both were rotating to start with.”
Let’s give a number closer to “to start with” say 3 billion years ago.
Where was the Moon and how fast could possibly spinning on it’s axis, and assuming some rate of spin, when did it slow to half of the spin when it was 3 billion years ago.
Or we could assume it closer and had more tidal force, than it does now.
C’mon, Bordon.
It does not have to be a lot.
Just enough so that you recall that explanations of a spin-orbit locks have been offered in this very thread.
” If one bodys tidal forces could slow another bodies rotation, however, why would the body stop rotating at exactly one orbit per orbital period of that body? ”
Typical ball-on-a-string stuff.
Who said it ‘stops rotating’ ? No one did.
Earth’s spin slows down by less than 2 milliseconds per century. Why should that be different for our Moon?
Years ago, a Germano-Italian research woman working at one of the Max-Plank institutes computed both the increase of distance between Earth and Moon, as well as their spin decrease, all due to tidal forces.
Her result was that if the Sun would live long enough, Earth and Moon would experience their so-called final synchronous locking (both planet and moon facing each forever, and rotating/orbiting in 46 current Earth days) in about 52 billion years.
But like Pluto and Charon, both would then still rotate about their respective polar axis.
*
That’s all Bindidonian braindead cult idiocy, of course!
“That’s all Bindidonian braindead cult idiocy, of course!
Correct Bin. And that’s all you’ve got. If you had any knowledge of the issue, you would be able to answer the simple, almost trivial, question:
What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Moon’s orbit?
You can’t answer it, even after I gave you a hint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
I’m on record as claiming neither you, not your cult, can correctly answer the simple question. Prove me wrong.
The answer is a big fat goose egg, C00kie.
Explain why it should be otherwise.
Something other than, “because the axis doesn’t exist,” if you please.
Everybody tries to make the fundamentals way too complicated. The earth completely controls the rotation of the moon.
Thus it meets all the needed definition of a rotation on an external axis. The fact that the moon has influences on it by the sun, jupiter, saturn etc. doesn’t change the fact that the rotation of the moon is controlled by earth’s gravity.
Spinners are just casting their line every which way to deny that reality. And why do they do that? It is because they worship authority and don’t understand why astronomy treats the moon’s motion in a dissected (like a frog) manner. It is simply because our interactions with the moon can be approximated to what is today a sufficient degree by assuming its a perfect spheroid and using simpler math. Mathematicians to this day trying to perfect the calculations on it argue amongst themselves constantly.
Gill, Gill,
The Earth only *pulls* the Moon with gravity.
How can it pull it so that the Man on the Moon keeps facing the Earth?
Physics has it that some spin is involved.
Moon Dragon cranks have word games on the meaning of rotation.
Unless you can provide receipts?
Yes Brandon, your answer to the simple question is a “big fat goose egg”. As usual, you’ve got NOTHING.
binny…”Earths spin slows down by less than 2 milliseconds per century. Why should that be different for our Moon?”
***
My point exactly. There are no forces acting to slow down the Earth or the Moon. I doubt that the 2ms/century is accurate.
My point is that so-called tidal forces have no effect on rotation. They can certainly raise Earth’s oceans by a metre per tide but there are no lateral forces acting to affect rotation of the Earth.
This is not a magnetic force effect between two bodies separated by a few mms.
bill h…”Everybody tries to make the fundamentals way too complicated. The earth completely controls the rotation of the moon.
Thus it meets all the needed definition of a rotation on an external axis. The fact that the moon has influences on it by the sun, jupiter, saturn etc. doesnt change the fact that the rotation of the moon is controlled by earths gravity”.
***
That’s the point. The Moon’s orbital path is controlled almost entirely by Earth’s gravitational field. There are very minor effects from the Sun and other planets but they are so minor as to be insignificant.
Of course, the linear momentum of the Moon is very important but it wants to keep the Moon moving along a straight line at each instant of time. Earth’s gravitational field is responsible for bending the linear momentum of the Moon into an elliptical orbit.
C’mon, Bordon.
We’re not looking for what causes the Moon’s orbit. We’re looking for what causes the Moon to keep the same face toward the Earth.
Moon Dragon cranks like you say it’s gravity. But how does that work exactly? Some might suggest it’s a lateral swirl, like when they evoke the ball on a string. Others suggest it only takes a pull. That would mean the Earth has a stronger pull on farther points at the left of it.
In both cases, that’s just not how gravity works.
Do you have another model to offer?
Willard denies gravity exists.
Gill, the auditor without receipt.
Willard if you don’t know what gravity is you should read up about in a textbook. I guess you were absent when they brought the topic up in 3rd grade.
Gill, Gill,
Physics textbooks are not on the Moon Dragon cranks side.
Why do you keep refusing to provide any receipt?
Textbooks? I was reading a textbook yesterday that gave the moon’s orbital rotation as an example of uniform circular motion.
Gordon says: “Yes, it [the real moon] can [travel an ellipse and keep one side toward the earth], within a few degrees. “
And that is EXACTLY the point! “Within a few degrees” is not NEARLY good enough! The motion of the earth’s moon is easily measured to within tiny fractions of a degree.
The two models give easily distinguished results. One model will match the actual moon’s measured motions and one will not. I will take the model that agrees better every day (doubly so when that model ALSO agrees with conservation of angular momentum).
fraudkerts, what are you even talking about? The difference of a few degrees doesn’t change the fact that one side of Moon always faces the inside of its orbit. And what “two models” are you talking about? You’re not STILL believing the ball-on-a-string is a model of Moon’s exact orbit, are you?
You’re not even good at fraud anymore.
Pup,
A few degrees indeed changes the idea of a “face” of the Moon:
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/lunar-libration-see-more-than-50-of-moon
Pray tell how that’s a mere optical feat.
The “difference of a few degrees” *is* huge! Libration due to eccentricity is 754′ according to wikipedia. The quoted accuracy itself tells us both the magnitude and the approximate accuracy for libration (within a minute of angle or better). Its not good enough that one side faces inward ‘within a few degrees’ when the measurements can predict within minutes how the moon will face.
The two models here are:
1) the right model, where the moon turns at a constant rate relative to the stars
2) Gordon’s ‘radial line’ model (eg here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/
These give results that agree ‘within a few degrees’, but not within a few minutes. Only one can be correct.
1) is incorrect
2) Link doesn’t work
tim…”Its not good enough that one side faces inward within a few degrees when the measurements can predict within minutes how the moon will face”.
***
Eeeeeewwww!!! What’s that stink, a red herring?
C’mon, Bordon.
You dismiss the few degrees as unimportant.
Mighty Tim shows you that they matter.
So there’s no red herring there.
Please leave fallacy fluff to grown-ups.
Any physical libration of the moon sometimes called nutations are extremely minor and not in any way visible to the eye.
They are smaller than the play in the main crankshaft in a high performance engine and are just something that comes with the territory of orbital and elliptical rotations. Further they are no less accurate than the calculations commonly used to estimate the angular momentum of the moon.
That’s 7 degrees, 54 minutes.
And this libration you speak of. Is it taken from the frame of reference you have rejected?
Non-spinners use the same frame of reference you use. The MOTL.
From the correct frame of reference, where the moon rotates around the earth once every ~28days, the physical libration is estimated at 100 seconds. or about .027 degrees.
Gill, Gill,
You’re Just Asking Questions while confusing all the librations together.
Bordon was talking about longitudinal libration:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/MoonVisibleLibration.jpg/1024px-MoonVisibleLibration.jpg
You’re talking about a libration that can’t be observed with the naked eye. It still has been predicted as it follows from theory. And when we had the tools to see it, it was there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration#Forced_physical_libration
Please stick to the receipts business.
tim…all we can see around the edge of the Moon due to longitudinal libration is about 5 degrees. The reason we can see that far around the edge is the radial line from the Moon’s near side diverges from the radial line at apogee and perigee by 5 degrees.
There is no longitudinal libration at apogee and perigee. Figure it out.
C’mon, Bordon:
https://sparky.rice.edu/public-night/libration.html
Do you *ever* research any of this?
If you do, ask Gill to keep receipts.
“There is no longitudinal libration at apogee and perigee. Figure it out.”
Yes. Everyone knows that.
“The reason we can see that far around the edge is the radial line from the Moons near side diverges from the radial line at apogee and perigee by 5 degrees.”
Again, that is YOUR model — the “radial line model”. Other models predict noticeably different amounts of libration. Your model predicts too little libration. Less than the observed amount.
If the predictions fail, the model must be discarded.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkerts says:
Again, that is YOUR model the radial line model. Other models predict noticeably different amounts of libration. Your model predicts too little libration. Less than the observed amount.
————————-
Radial line model? What are you doing? Stuffing words into peoples mouths in an attempt to justify your position on the matter.
All rotations are subject to imperfections. Rotations cannot be limited willy nilly. Radial line models???? It sounds like your model is a ‘perfect’ radial line model. If its not what tolerances are allowed?
Do you have a source for that or did you just make that up yourself?
Gill, Gill,
You lousy auditor:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1426970`
Should I start to track all your blunders?
Willard you blundering idiot!
I know what it is. I am asking what his source is that it has anything to do with classifying a motion as a rotation or translation.
Gill, Gill,
You really have no idea, do you?
When Bordon speaks of “rectilinear motion,” he’s hinting at translation.
I thought you read your Holy Madhavi.
How disappointing.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
while in an Ice house global climate, does a thermogeddon make any sense. Some don’t like CAGW. But sea levels rising by meters could be called CAGW, but this happenned a lot during our long Ice Age.
But thermogeddon is what? Living in Mexico or India?? Or Florida?
The closest to thermogeddon would seem to living on middle of Sahara desert, but that is caused by global cooling- or a drier world.
When living on water world, warmer is less dry.
Oh, also living in city with a lot UHI effect, like +10 C also could make imagine a thermogeddon.
Let’s google:
Thermogeddon: When the Earth gets too hot for humans
Onestudy says that parts of the Earth could start to become uninhabitable within a century. Surely it cannot be true?
26 October 2010
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827835-600-thermogeddon-when-the-earth-gets-too-hot-for-humans/
“IT IS the late 23rd century. Houston, Tel Aviv, Shanghai and many other once-bustling cities are ghost towns.”
Seems like that more than century. Shanghai could suffer from under population in less than 50 years, and worse in 100 years.
Unless people can live longer, but Houston can have a lot UHI effects, and could be bigger city in next 50 years.
People could live in ocean settlements.
We do not need a 100% renewables. The CO2 is not a climate change control knob.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You can’t think of any other reason for using renewables?
The use of renewables prolongs the fossil fuels deposits for the future generations.
–
The fossil fuels (natural gas, oil and coal) will be in demand for many millennia, if not for ever, for humans’ needs on planet Earth.
And not only for burning them to generate energy.
–
The use of fossils just by simply burning them is a very brutal use of Earth’s natural resources. It is adequate to forest fires.
–
I see the humanity in millions, if not billions years perspective existence on Earth.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Hostility to an Electrical market?
“We do not need a 100% renewables.”
“It seems renewables are poorly defined, but, wiki:
Renewable energy is energy that is collected from renewable resources that are naturally replenished on a human timescale. It includes sources such as sunlight, wind, the movement of water, and geothermal heat.”
Wiki, continues:
“Although most renewable energy sources are sustainable, some are not. For example, some biomass sources are considered unsustainable at current rates of exploitation. Renewable energy often provides energy for electricity generation to a grid, air and water heating/cooling, and stand-alone power systems.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy
If not talking an electrical grid, and a modern or typical grid being constant source of electrical power, you say humans and animals are
renewable energy source.
Most of human history you had renewable energy source called slave labor. We also had horses and cattle and dogs which you could call a renewable energy source. But when say “naturally replenished” you get
into problems, all it requires human labor- which require things like religions, morality, and political systems- which aren’t “naturally replenished”.
And if talking humans, you have to talk wars humans have- such as current war in Ukraine- but are wars constantly going on elsewhere in the world- and UN has been useless in preventing them.
But idea that any kind of government including UN, could stop wars, is idiotic idea. Governments cause wars.
Instead of ill defined term of a fantasy idea of renewable energy, one talk about way to get all the energy we could need.
And that probably can’t be found on Earth.
The creative power of humans, might find it on Earth, but one probably should not rely on it, in terms of a governmental policy.
So, how is this difference to be understood?
Mean global sea-surface temperature from nov to dec -22:
Down almost .1 degree as eyeballed from that tidbits CDAS-graph here: https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
While NOAA shows a .02-degree uptick the same period:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/ocean/all/6/2019-2022
The difference is easy to understand, NOAA are cheaters. They use climate models to synthesize temperatures.
For example, NOAA uses only 3 reporting stations to cover the state of California and all the stations are near the warmer coast. There are colder temperatures in the Sierra Mountains that are ignored.
They reported 2014 as the hottest year ever, using a 48% probability. NASA GISS, who get their fudged data from NOAA, used a 38% confidence level. That is outright cheating and that’s why NOAA shows a warming when UAH shows a cooling.
Furthermore, when the IPCC reported a 15 years flat trend from 1998 – 2012, NOAA went back and manipulated the SST to show a warming during that period.
Question is what sort of monitoring of the present they represent – funny how these sites mostly assume you’re instead all into their near-term _forecasting_, despite them being the handlers of those current-state data presumably.
His argument that the ‘recovery from the LIA’ has been linear and ongoing for the last few centuries, is not physically motivated, and is pure speculation.
We know what recovery from cooling events of the LIA period look like: the Maunder minimum (1690s) and Tambora (1815). It is an exponential recovery to equilibrium, and lasts a few years at most.
https://tinyurl.com/2pcz4hmh
Thus scientists have found his arguments unconvincing.
responding to Bill
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1429592
on Akasofus speculation.
You don’t understand Nate. Its not a war on amounts of data to show regional affects from a volcano.
And its not a few years. But as we are told almost daily there is a 1 degree backlog/imbalance. Which is about how much it has warmed in the past 150 years. That imbalance is feedbacks, albedo change and delayed deep ocean warming. Seems most scientists are thinking that. Makes sense to me.
Of course that imbalance may no longer exist. It could be that because we have a theory that isn’t playing out as expected they computed the imbalance. Not sure which year but it wasn’t in Trenberth’s initial radiation budgets. Probably 2009 in response to the cooling then.
One should expect some highs and lows around the top. Its not a nice smooth top. Its also not a nice smooth rise or fall. There is so much noise in the data its hard to get a handle on whats going on. I see Roy published another part of the UHI story today. Perhaps even Carl Mears will start getting some confidence in his data.
The auditors job is to confirm if the imbalance is actually in the bank. It could be there or we may have just spent it. As the next few decades unfold we should get a clearer answer on that.
After all the CO2 theory is based on not having another explanation. One cannot just handwave away other explanations that also match the data and can’t otherwise be proven or disproven.
Gill, Gill,
Every single day humans release a Mt Pinatubo eruption’s worth of CO2:
https://climateball.wordpress.com/but-abc/#volcanoes
Willard you don’t know what you are talking about. Nate is talking about cooling resulting from Tambora.
Gill, Gill,
But Da Paws is another square altogether:
https://climateball.net/but-da-paws/
Are you suggesting I put an entry for your newly found guru?
Also, you forgot to provide any receipt once again:
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/1/4
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
At any rate Tambora came at the end of the Dalton Minimum. It wasn’t responsible for the Dalton Minimum.
“It wasnt responsible for the Dalton Minimum.”
Did I say it was? No. Weird.
In any case we are currently experiencing another two cycles like the ‘Dalton minimum’.
And global T is looking quite warm compared to that period.
nate…”In any case we are currently experiencing another two cycles like the Dalton minimum”.
***
We won’t know that till glaciers start growing again.
Sheesh! Nate is trying to compare current temperatures to temperatures in the midst of the LIA!!
The right comparison would be the Roman Optimum or the Medieval Warming Period when we didn’t have an instrument record just a record of a lot of green in Greenland from which it earned its name.
“Sheesh! Nate is trying to compare current temperatures to temperatures in the midst of the LIA!!”
Bill keeps talking about the LIA, with its mysterious mechanisms. He alludes to the Dalton minimum as a mechanism. But if we get another minimum just like it, it won’t have the same effect…..cuz its not during the LIA.
Its all very confusing.
“In any case we are currently experiencing another two cycles like the Dalton minimum”
***
We wont know that till glaciers start growing again.”
And Gordon thinks causes don’t exist if their hypothesized effects arent observed.
The sun is the cause, and it is doing ~ what it did during the Dalton Minimum, and that is independently knowable.
Nate says:
”Bill keeps talking about the LIA, with its mysterious mechanisms.”
It doesn’t seem all that mysterious to me. The LIA was accompanied by about 3 Maunder Minimum like events and quite possibly a relatively inactive sun.
Nate says:
”He alludes to the Dalton minimum as a mechanism.’
But if we get another minimum just like it, it wont have the same effect..cuz its not during the LIA.”
that doesn’t seem so mysterious. Indeed we have some sketchy evidence as the exact cause because we only have spot counts and not watt measurements. We know there is a correlation between the two but we are shy evidence of how much the sun may have dimmed or was dimmed during these minimums.
And yes we could have another Dalton Minimum but haven’t yet. And yes there quite likely be an explanation of it. As you know feedback is believed to create an extended period of solar imbalance. The direction of that imbalance would have a potentially huge effect on the how much temperature change we would see. Quite honestly its about as uncertain as what the temperature response will be to CO2 emissions. We simply don’t know and observations are suggesting perhaps models are likely overestimating warming by a degree or more.
The last pause really put hitch in the step of warming. Now you need the next step up to hit about .2c hitch of warming in the next handful of years over the current trend just to keep pace with the high range of reduced warming we have seen over the past 45 years. But if only half of that warming is manmade as suspected by IPCC its likely only going to get worse for the model estimates.
The Maunder Minimum ended in ~ 1700
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png
Better look at CET here.
https://tinyurl.com/psa4crua
It is clear that in 1700-1705 the T abruptly rose to a plateau that it oscillated around for the next 200 years.
Then during the 20th century it rose slowly, then accelerated around 1980.
Do you believe in feedbacks? If you do you would realize that if climate warming feedbacks are positive, there would be negative feedbacks for some unknown period of time to cooling. After all the assumption for current warming is another degree of warming baked into our climate.
That would represent 1 degree worth of negative feedback to a turn around towards a cooling trend.
The flipside of that would also be true for a turn from the LIA into the modern warming period.
1 degree hmmmmmmmmmm, Gee one degree of internal negative feedback to a return to a warm age might mask warming for what? The industrial age has produced all of 1 degree warming in a 150 years.
So 1 degree of positive cooling feedback would take us from 1700 to where? Oh 1850 and the beginning of the industrial age. Then that one degree of warming feedback from the LIA recovery would be able to manifest itself over the next 150 years which if my math is correct brought us to 2000 and the pause.
So to be clear Nate. I am waiting for what happens next. Its hard to get excited by a super El Nino interrupting the pause and see that as an incontrovertible sign of continued CO2 warming.
And that would be give or take some range of uncertainty around the figures I am using. Was the pause a pause at the top, or was it just a flattening of the recovery curve, or was it an internal multi-decadal cool oscillation. I don’t know the answers to any of that. It would take a major effort to connect the dots and I have seen a single analysis that even attempts to do that. Akasofu took a shot at it off the books. Probably could get awarded any funding from the academic gate keepers. Judith Curry retired from academia for the same reason. There are a lot more.
So bottom line is its hard to distinguish the current warming from the early 20th century warm. There are multi-decadal climate oscillations and what we saw in the early 20th century is good evidence of that.
So I am pretty convinced and so it seems some members of the IPCC that some of the modern warming is comprised of that and or continued recovery from the LIA as I laid out. You though suggest 200 years in your response. I would say that could be the case too. The cycle here is being identified as 800 years but it could well be a thousand years.
Ice core data supports the idea that warming happens faster than cooling. And there are some reasons for that that I am not going to go into right now.
The thirteenth century isn’t a hardline start to climate change. Its where people started struggling with it. Its not even clear that people struggle with warming periods. After all we live on a very cold planet in the midst of an ice age with the attendant low levels of CO2 that result from that. And before you respond that isn’t a denial that humans are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. That is definitely a very significant part of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
“After all the CO2 theory is based on not having another explanation. One cannot just handwave away other explanations that also match the data and cant otherwise be proven or disproven.”
Some might call idea that CO2 causes 33 C degrees of global warming.
Ie, without any CO2, Earth average global surface temperature of about 15 C would be about -18 C, as a CO2 theory.
So, google “Greenhouse Effect theory” top entry:
“Remove carbon dioxide, and the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse. Without carbon dioxide, Earth’s surface would be some 33C (59F) cooler.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/
But most think global warming is related to effect of Earth’ orbit:
“Within icehouse states are “glacial” and “interglacial” periods that cause ice sheets to build up or to retreat. The main causes for glacial and interglacial periods are variations in the movement of Earth around the Sun.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
Also from above:
“There are several theories as to how a greenhouse Earth can come about. Geologic climate proxies indicate that there is a strong correlation between a greenhouse state and high CO2 levels.
However, it is important to recognize that high CO2 levels are interpreted as an indicator of Earth’s climate, rather than as an independent driver.”
Or one can say the CO2 theory of 33 C warming caused by CO2, is ignoring we are in an Ice Age, and that are near the end of Holocene interglacial period, and the Holocene period began related to aspects
having to do with Milankovitch cycles.
But in terms being in an Ice Age, most think it related to plate tectonic, or geological changes on Earth.
So, ignores the Age we in [related geological changes] and glacial and interglacial periods.
What might be interesting, is what does Earth “look like” if it’s average global surface temperature was -18 C. And also what if it’s average temperature was 18 C.
Earth with average temperature of 18 C, has happened. Earth with average of -18 C, may have never happened. Could be a fantasy- something which has never happened and will never happen.
I find the impracticable question more interesting- it could related
to the silly “CO2 theory”.
As starting place, we apply a rule, the tropical temperature doesn’t
and hasn’t change much. So to clarify, if the tropical zone average temperature becomes, say average of 15 C, we going to call that, not
changing much, when one considers the average global temperature is -18 C.
so, 40% of Earth surface 15 C, and 60% of surface has average temperature cold enough to have average global temperature of -18 C
So, say 60% at -24 C and 40% at 15 C
So class score 40 times 15 = 600
And 60 times -24 = 1440 – 600 = -840 / 100 = -8.4 C
No where near -18 C
60% at -36 = 2160 – 600 = 1560 /100 = -15.6 C
That close. lets, say tropics is colder than 15 C, say 12 C
4012 = 480: 2160 – 480 = -16.6 C
60% at -40 C = 2400 – 480 = -19.2 C
So somewhere around there, now look at the 60%.
Let’s say 1/2 of it, has average of -60 C and other half nearer tropics is -20 C
And near poles which -60 C, 1/2 that, get -40 and -80 C
So, this is world which can freeze out CO2. Or could easily lower CO2 below the death line of 150 ppm. Say 100 ppm or less.
And this isn’t even a slushball global climate, or nowhere near a snowball Earth- which some imagine Earth has had in the past.
Such world is easier than living on Mars.
A main advantage of Mars, is it’s pretty good if you a space-faring
civilization, getting off Mars and suborbital travel is easy.
But this cold earth could support a population of tens billions- unlike Mars, if you had ocean settlement. Natural life is greatly diminished- lack Co2 would killed, but Humans add CO2 to Atmosphere.
But it could not vaguely happened with geology of present Earth.
And 18 C Earth require average ocean temperature of + 4 C
A ocean of 5 C, would have no polar sea ice in summer and not much in Winter [or none in winter] and we still be in an ice house global climate.
The “33K” nonsense comes from comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere. That’s just how they pervert science. Very few people spend the time to find out the facts, and just go along with the nonsense.
Clint R
Your “Flat Earth” mentality has no limits. You peddle this false statement over an over. There is NO perversion of real science, only in your Flat Earth brain do you see such. The Flat Earthers sound just like you. They have chosen one topic you another but none of the lot of you have rational or logical thinking. You just make stupid statements and repeat them over an over.
The 33 K is actually measured. The average Earth Surface comes in around 288 K and the TOA measured value gives a Black Body temp of 255 K.
The Surface emits an average of 390 W/m^2 and the TOA emits 240 W/m^2. You can’t understand any of this so you ignore facts and keep saying the same things over and over hoping they will magically become true because you suffer from an egomaniac personality.
You should watch some Flat Earth videos. You will observe yourself in these. No logical thought, will not accept any measured values.
Too bad you and Gordon Robertson are such anti-science idiots haunting this blog.
Sorry troll Norman, you must have forgotten, no insults, false accusations, or misrepresentations allowed.
Have you been able to find any valid technical reference for your nonsense that:
1) Earth has a “real 255K surface”
2) Two fluxes, each F, arriving at a surface will result in the surface emitting 2F?
Clint R
Mr. Flat Earth.
1) has been answered many many times. Since you are a Flat Earth mentality it is not possible for you to rationally accept the answers you have been given. If you are interested look at past threads you will find this has been answered several times.
2) Tim Folkerts has explained this to you so many times you don’t have enough fingers and toes to keep track. You are so incredibly confused about fluxes leaving a surface and fluxes arriving at a surface. No matter how detailed Tim Folkerts is you are not able to understand the difference.
Fluxes emitted from ice will be less at a receiving surface than what is emitted. To get 100% of the ice flux reaching a surface you must totally surround the object with ice. If you do this no other IR flux can reach the surface. Visible light still can (which is what Tim Folkerts was claiming).
Two fluxes add, take one heat lamp an aim it at a target with a thermometer reading its temperature. Then turn on a second heat lamp and prove your idiot theory that fluxes do not add. If you are correct the temperature will not increase with the second lamp.
You are a complete troll idiot. Nothing will change your idiotic behavior. I did respond to point out how much of a Flat Earth idiot you truly are. You are told things over and over yet you can’t understand them. A babbling idiot you are and seems you always will be.
Sorry troll Norman, but everyone knows if you had any valid technical reference for your nonsense you would be zealously providing it.
You’ve got NOTHING.
[PUP] everyone knows if you had any valid technical reference for your nonsense you would be zealously providing it.
[ALSO PUP] another link he does not understand
Wee Willy wet his diapers. Anybody got a dry diaper?
Willy please stop dribbling.
Willard
Thanks you summed it up quite well. Give Clint R information from valid science sources and he makes the exact claim you portrayed.
He is a hopeless Flat Earth idiot that no evidence will change. He blathers on and on on this blog but only shows what an ignorant, yet highly arrogant, poster he is.
Classic double bind, Norman:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
Perhaps only gaslighting is worse.
Dragon cranks have little else.
norman…”Two fluxes add, take one heat lamp an aim it at a target with a thermometer reading its temperature. Then turn on a second heat lamp and prove your idiot theory that fluxes do not add. If you are correct the temperature will not increase with the second lamp”.
***
How many times does it need to be repeated to you that infrared energy is not heat. Heat is produced ***AFTER*** infrared is absorbed and no longer exists. Therefore, infrared sources are not added, heat quantities are adding.
That can be better explained by going to the atomic level. If only one heat lamp is used, only a certain number of atoms are involved. If you double the infrared intensity, more atoms are affected. Naturally there will be a level at which the atoms will become saturated.
That could be confirmed by increasing the number of heat lamps while monitoring the surface temperature. At some point the temperature will not rise because no number of heat lamps can raise the temperature above a certain temperature.
You can see that effect with soldering irons. If you are having trouble soldering because the wattage of an iron is too low, you can use two irons and get the heat required to melt solder. However, no matter how many irons you use, you can never raise the material temperature high enough to weld with it.
Gordon Robertson
IR lamps are often called heat lamps.
Clint R continuously claims fluxes don’t add. This is false. Fluxes do add as you can tell by the experiment described. Your explanation of the process does not change the reality that fluxes add.
Clint R calls rational scientists “cult minded”. He is wrong. He is the cult minded Flat Earther. He says the dumbest things and when it is pointed out he makes even dumber points. Complete closed minded cult idiot. What he thinks he sees in everyone else is his onw reflection. he is the cult minded idiot that will not examine evidence, degrades any who challenge his stupidity and blathers on and on about things that were explained to him many times.
Way off topic Bill, and going where?
Well you haven’t worked out the math. Yes any effects from Tambora were gone quickly. The LIA is different than the Maunder Minimum as the Maunder was a 60 or 70 year period ending around 1700. But cooling began in 1200ad and was accompanied by 2 other grand minimums though people weren’t counting sunspots, the information comes from other proxies.
So why would it not be different than short term events? Short term event, short term recovery. Long term event, long term recovery? Maunder effect and a 60 to 70 year recovery.
I mean isn’t that truly at the heart of climate concern? That recovery could be long and difficult? Or do you really think it will resolve itself as quickly as Tambora?
Medieval Warm Period I – 950 – 1040
Oort minimum – 1040 – 1080
Medieval Warm Period II – 1100 – 1250
Wolf minimum – 1280 – 1350
Sporer mimumum 1450 – 1550
Maunder mimimum – 1645 – 1715
Dalton minumum – 1790 – 1830
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum
Interesting graphic…
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
We’re about due for a cold spell.
–On a scale of tens of millions of years or more, the Earths climate is driven by plate tectonics.
On a scale of hundreds of thousands of years, the Earths climate is driven by orbital cycles which bring Earth closer to or more distant from the Sun.
On a scale of thousands of years to decades, the Earths climate is driven by variations in energy emitted from the Sun.
If governments, the UN, or climate activists want to stop the normal planetary process of climate change, then they need to stop plate tectonics, stop variations in the Earths orbit and stop variations in solar output. Even the omnipotent, omnipresent Kevin Rudd couldnt manage this!–
https://climatechangedispatch.com/what-climate-crisis-a-primer-on-earths-turbulent-climatic-past/
From: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
Some interesting things- and roughly seems correct.
I am sure what climate activists want, mainly think they want a religion- and you know, power corrupts, etc.
I think we are having cold weather and we will have more cold weather. As far as global warming, we might get as cold as 1970’s, but 30 years from now, I don’t expect to much cooler. Or sea level
will not will not drop much, maybe 1″ or two.
But I can’t say anything about major volcanic activity- other it has
seem quiet for long time. But since most volcanic activity has occurred in the ocean, and will occur in the ocean and we pretty clueless about ocean, it seem likely anything big will happen in the ocean- and would have no past knowledge about ocean volcanic activity to assess it against, unless it something quite extreme- which is not likely.
I was wondering about and remember some island being formed volcanic activity on TV program when I was like 10 years, and I thought knew name, but apparently, not.
Anyways while looking it, here another island which formed recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hds1OBxVg4s
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surtsey
–Entropic man says:
January 15, 2023 at 7:32 AM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surtsey —
Yeah is likely, but I don’t remember this name- I imagine
I would remember island named after a norse god- and it was quickly named.
Also, it’s common for such volcanic islands to quickly “disappear”, so, probably Surtsey or island which quickly disappeared.
Follow up of:
On a scale of tens of millions of years or more, the Earths climate is driven by plate tectonics.–
link in other post.
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. says:
January 15, 2023 at 8:22 pm
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2023/01/14/what-climate-crisis-a-primer-on-earths-turbulent-climatic-past/#comment-181747
–This article by Ian Plimer contains statements that contradict head-on available data. Specifically, he says:
On a scale of tens of millions of years or more, the Earths climate is driven by plate tectonics.
There is no evidence supporting such a claim! There has been little change in the position and coastal lines of continents over the past 50 My. Yet, the Earth surface has cooled by about 15 20 C. The real cause of this cooling was the net loss of atmospheric mass to Space and the resulting depressurization of Earths surface, which reduced the adiabatic thermal enhancement. —
Anyone agree with Ned??
“all the CO2 theory is based on not having another explanation. One cannot just handwave away other explanations that also match the data and cant otherwise be proven or disproven. ”
You are right, of course.
I challenge you to disprove my hypothesis that global warming is caused by leprechauns.
More seriously, it’s ultimately about the science. Physicists have produced a coherent, consistent and consilient explanation for global warming, ie. AGW.
None of the alternatives have come up to anywhere near the same standard, despite considerable research. If they had someone financed by an oil company would have found it.
Now Ent, there you go again: “Physicists have produced a coherent, consistent and consilient explanation for global warming, ie. AGW.”
That’s what you BELIEVE, but beliefs ain’t science. You believe a lot of funny things, like claiming that passenger jets fly backwards.
The truth is, physics debunks the AGW nonsense. You just don’t know physics.
A physics no physicist recognizes.
Except a few Sky Dragon cranks.
Odd how that works.
Wee Willy wet his diapers. Anybody got a dry diaper?
Willy please stop dribbling.
Gill, Gill,
These are not the magic words.
If you want to take Gentle Graham’s place, you got to emulate properly.
Willard please stop trolling
😊
“More seriously, its ultimately about the science. Physicists have produced a coherent, consistent and consilient explanation for global warming, ie. AGW.”
Have Physicists “produced a coherent, consistent and consilient explanation” or anyone given explanation of why we not in an Ice Age and in coldest time of this Ice Age.
Is our cold ocean with average temperature of about 3.5 C, is it warmer than what it has been measured to be.
Anyone given explanation of why having a cold ocean doesn’t matter?
In terms of recently [within last million years] is it disputed by anyone, that the warmest known period have had warmer ocean than 3.5 C.
That were all 4 C or warmer? And all had much higher sea levels than we presently have.
How about within our Holocene period where sea levels were 1 to 2 meters higher than present sea levels. Anyone given any explanation of why when we colder oceans and lower sea levels, we are somehow not in a colder time period?
ent…”I challenge you to disprove my hypothesis that global warming is caused by leprechauns”.
***
I have looked through several IPCC reviews, looking for the proof you claim is there. Maybe you could point me to a more definite, scientific proof. The main points I see are:
1)19th century scientists claimed it is true.
2)CO2 began increasing in the atmosphere in the mid-17th century due to the Industrial Revolution and global warming began circa 1850. Therefore, the IPCC concludes, the warming was caused by anthropogenic gases.
That’s not science, it is sheer conjecture. It completely ignores the fact that the world was in a peak of the Little Ice Age during the Industrial revolution. Warming was inevitable.
Testing
rlh…”It is likely that the various ENSO areas will follow East to West following the trade winds”.
***
Just curious. Does ENSO follow the trade winds or does it produce them? I mean, when ENSO reverses, do the trade winds reverse as well, at least, in the Pacific?
***
Answering my own question…ENSO weakens and strengthens the trade winds.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ninonina.html
Whether ‘a’ follows ‘b’ or ‘b’ follows ‘a’ depends on the direction you are reading them.
I tend to live in the real, physical world and eschew reference frames if not required. That does not mean I reject the notion of reference frames out of hand. I can definitely see a use for them in situations involving complex motion.
I had an enlightening experience at an awareness seminar after I had wasted half an hour of an instructor’s time arguing that perhaps I could walk through a brick wall if I could manage to re-arrange the atom in my body to fit between the atoms in the brick wall.
His mission was to bring me back to physical reality and admit that, no, I could not walk through a brick wall. It was not till I was on my way home that night that the process by which my mind operated, at the time, was faulty. That came as a sudden insight and not through logical reasoning.
I did not reject the possibility of humans dematerializing, as in Star Trek, and fitting through the atoms in a wall, I simply finally got it that such technology was not available in my real world and that it was OK to admit that.
I just laid out a simple proposition to Wee Willy. If you take the lunar orbit and stretch it into a straight line, the lunar motion in very similar to what it would be in the orbit. The same side of the Moon would always face one side of the line. If it rotated exactly once over the length of the line, which is still the same length as the original orbit, it becomes plain as to the difference between linear translation and linear translation with one rotation over the orbit.
It becomes blatantly clear that a rotating body cannot keep the same side pointed to one side of the line.
C’mon, Bordon.
If the orbit of the Moon is a straight line, then the orbit of the Earth is a parallel line too.
And then you wonder how it would be possible for the Earth to orbit the Moon?
You need to work on your intuitive side a little more.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
bill h…”After all the CO2 theory is based on not having another explanation. One cannot just handwave away other explanations that also match the data and cant otherwise be proven or disproven”.
***
The IPCC can handwave them away because they have a only mandate to prove the anthropogenic theory. The rest of us cannot handwave away the LIA because there is both strong anecdotal and proxy evidence to back it and that it was global.
The irony is that the IPCC recognized the LIA and MWP on two different occasions, yet they are dismissing the LIA today as lacking proof that it was global. They acknowledged both the LIA and MWP in the 1990 assessment and later they re-instated the LIA and MWP in the hockey stick after it was dismissed by NAS. The only way Mann et al could get a straight shaft on the hockey stick was to dismiss the MWP and LIA. The IPCC were later forced to re-instate the MWP and LIA as seen in the new hockey stick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A94ytqmK1Ro
SpaceX Starship Full Stack Upgrade Testing, Falcon 9 OneWeb, Falcon Heavy USSF-67, JWST Update
Speaking of creative power of humans- JWST is cool, and I didn’t know
they going to change it’s orbit. I don’t know how successful it will be, or it seems solar system dust, varies and don’t think anyone measured it- though GEO satellite market might be measuring it- I just don’t know enough.
Anyhow the 1st Quarter Vulcan Centaur Peregrine:
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
Is interesting as is this new rocket I have not following very
much. And lunar mission, and other lunar mission ongoing and coming.
rlh…”In the sense that the Moon orbits around the center of the Earth you might be correct, but to suggest that it is one of the centers that creates the elliptical orbit you would be incorrect. That would be the COM or barycenter. As Newton suggested”.
***
This theory is misdirected from a binary star system in which two massive stellar bodies are claimed to orbit a common centre of mass. This theory seems to have spread recently because when I studied astronomy as an elective, no mention was made of this theory, applied to a binary star system, being applicable to the Earth-Moon system.
There was a mention of a barycentre related to the Sun and its planets. One has to understand that the force applied by the planets on the Sun is not great enough to move the Sun. Since the Moon can move water on the Earth to a level of about a metre, the Sun, being a mass of gas plasma, the planets should create a bulee in the Sun along the ecliptic plane. Why the heck would that force move the entire Sun, which is enormous wrt the size of the total planetary mass.
Since the alleged barycentre is about 1000 km inside the Earth that means the other 11.7 km of Earth diameter is rotating about this barycentre. That would produce a noticeable wobble around the Earth’s axis.
I checked this out and found the following…
“It is commonly believed that the Earth is perfectly spherical in shape. But in reality, it is an oblate spheroid, with varied geographies contributing to the uneven distribution of mass on the surface of the Earth. Due to this uneven distribution, Earth wobble as it spins on its axis.
Using satellite data on how water moves around Earth, NASA scientists have been able to find out exactly how and why does the Earth wobble.
When the Earth rotates on its spin axis an imaginary line that passes through the North and South Poles it drifts and wobbles. These spin-axis movements are called polar motion in scientific parlance. NASA scientists have computed that the measurements for the 20th century show that the spin axis drifted about 4 inches (10 centimeters) per year. Over the course of a century, that becomes more than 11 yards (10 meters).
NASA scientists have broadly categorized three processes that are responsible for this drifting if the earth. The three processes are: contemporary mass loss primarily in Greenland, glacial rebound, and mantle convection”.
https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/why-the-earth-wobbles/
***Not a word about wobble or drift due to a barycentre.***
If the Earth was rotating about a barycentre with a the axis at a ratio of 11.7/1 km, one would expect an immense and very noticeable wobble. However, NASA reports…”…NASA scientists have computed that the measurements for the 20th century show that the spin axis drifted about 4 inches (10 centimeters) per year”.
***4 inches of wobble***
Heck, the Moon lifts the tides a metre.
The barycentre is nothing more than a mathematical calculation of the centre of mass of the two systems. That means the Moon is very small wrt to the Earth’s mass. It certainly lacks the gravitational force to pull the Earth far off its polar axis, as the article states.
So you don’t believe in Newton at all. Each action, no matter how big or small, has an equal and opposite reaction. That is what creates the barycenter at the heart of the COMs.
Not one word from you about the proof I submitted that the polar axis drifts no more than 4 inches, or the reasons for the drift.
You continue with a confusion about the difference between a mathematical calculation of a centre of mass and actual physical motion related to gravity.
This is not about mathematical averages it is about what impact a force has on a mass. We know the Moon can raise the water in oceans about 1 metre but there is simply not enough force to move the entire planet. If there was, Earth would continue to get closer to the Moon and vice-versa. That would prove disastrous eventually.
You also need to know how Google works. The sites that are best advertised through manipulation of the Google engine get preferential views. Sometimes, if you want to learn the truth on the Net you have to dig deep for it. That is evidenced by the number of sites that show up as supporting the barycentre theory.
Furthermore, Google tends to favour some sites and reject others. To get unbiased information these days I have to use a search engine other than Google, like Yandex. I am not implying that everything on Yandex is kosher, it is simply an alternative view of sites that are often rejected on Google.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-the-barycenter.html
“In space, two celestial objects of different masses also have a point at which they will balance. Where two bodies have the same masses, the barycenter will lie directly in the middle of the two bodies. However, if the bodies have different masses, the barycenter will be located close to the body with the larger mass.”
“The Earth possesses one moon, and the barycenter of the two bodies is situated 1,710 kilometers below the Earth’s surface. Earth is larger than the moon, and it is at this position that both of them seem to revolve around.”
The concept of a barycentre is basic physics applied to stellar bodies. If you have a dumbell with equal weight on either end, you can pretty well be assured the COM is near the centre of the shaft connecting them.
If you drilled a hole in the shaft for an axle and you were able to spin the dumbell at high speeds, you would have to add minute weights to either end to balance the unit to prevent vibration.
Suppose you now change the weights on either end so one weight is twice the other. You would need to recalculate the COM and drill another hole. As you spun the combo, it would start to vibrate at a certain angular speed.
Since the COM of the Earth-Moon system is located about 1 km inside the surface, that condition would set up an unstable rotation of the Earth. The polar axis would be swinging in a large, unhealthy arc each day about the barycentre.
I have seen no direct evidence that is the case, all I have seen is conjecture as to what ‘should’ be happening.
I forgot to add, my example of a dumbell is a rigid body joined by a solid handle. Therefore each weight at either end is constrained to rotate about the COM.
That’s not the case with the Moon, which has a considerable linear momentum. Nor is it the case with the Earth which has an even higher linear momentum. Neither are compelled to rotate about a COM.
With a dumbell, neither weight is free to move on its own. The entire system has an angular momentum whereas the Earth-Moon system has no angular momentum. You can’t have a real angular momentum if the participant bodies are not attached to a central axis.
The Moon does not rotate about the Earth in the same manner dumbell weights are constrained to rotate about a COM. I have no idea why this notion of a barycentre arose with the Earth-Moon system. As I said, the only application I have seen was to a binary star system and I have never seen an adequate explanation of that kind of system. They are viewed indirectly via radio-telescopes that detect only solar gas spectra.
See the article I quoted for a definition of a barycenter.
That’s all you have is a definition. It is not applicable to the Earth-Moon system for reasons given. The clincher is the NASA article I quoted about the Earth’s axis wandering no more than 4 inches per orbit.
Gordon Robertson
Here is the evidence you seek. It is based on Newton’s Laws.
Earth/Moon barycenter is observed. You can let this falsehood of yours rest, the evidence has been given to you.
https://www.fpreuss2.com/en3/en03/en030215.htm
They can see Earth’s wobble by looking at Mars against the background stars.
What you do with real evidence is up to you but it has been provided.
I supplied a link in which they explained that the movement of Earth’s polar axis moves something like 4 inches. That has been measured by instruments. That 4 inch movement was explained and none of the explanations involved a barycentre.
Whatever they are doing in your article is wrong. Parallax is not something you’d see based from Earth, you’d need to view it from well outside Earth. Parallax is something you see on an analog voltmeter. You need to look at the needle dead on otherwise you get a small error. To help with that, some meters had a curved mirror on the dial so you could line up the needle with the reflection.
If the people writing your article can see an alleged 9.2 kilometer parallax error I’d like to know what they are on.
The ‘tide’ of the ground on the Earth caused by the Moon is larger than 4 inches let alone the water/ocean.
https://www.thoughtco.com/land-tides-or-earth-tides-1435299
“land tides only change the Earth’s surface by around 12 inches (30 cm) or so twice a day”
Come on, Richard, you know water can be displaced without moving the entire mass of the Earth. Furthermore, the figure of a solid surface displacement of nearly a foot is bs. It’s closer to 1 cm, depending on the material being displaced. A material like granite would never deform to that extent without breaking.
Food for thought. If the Moon can raise water by a metre what is it doing to the atmosphere?
> when I studied astronomy as an elective, no mention was made of this theory,
C’mon, Bordon.
That’s as true as Gill is an auditor.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I know that most of the “spinners” have seen this by now, but just to be fair I’ll present it once more.
What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Moon’s orbit?
The question refers to the nonsense that Moon has an [imaginary] spin axis, as indicated in this cult diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
It has already been shown that the cult knows NOTHING about orbital motions. So the point of this exercise is to show they don’t even understand their own cult nonsense. They can’t study their own diagram and come up with the correct answer.
They’ve got NOTHING.
The 18th-century battle over lunar motion
In a dispute with more than just scientific import, Alexis Clairaut, Leonhard Euler, and Jean le Rond dAlembert each employed their own strategies to establish that they were the first to understand a puzzling feature of the Moons orbit.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.3293410
I didn’t read it all. It’s just that people have always been interested in the Moon.
I interested in when some woman lands on the Moon.
gb…the article does not explain the physics, it is a rambling mess of nothingness. The author can’t even get it right that Newton invented calculus, not his German counterpart, Liebnitz, who was not even in the picture when Newton invented it.
This is what you get when 3 mathematicians stick their noses into physics. It is revealed in the article that at least one of them was manipulating equations to get an answer rather than trying to understand the physical problem as Newton had done.
This article is not about lunar rotation, it is only about its orbital path. If you consider the major axis and the direction it points in space, that direction rotates through 360 degrees every 8 years or so. They were trying to explain that using Newton’s law of gravitation.
My personal opinion is the rotation of the ellipse is related to the Moon’s momentum. Since it is always trying to move in a straight line, the motion somehow pulls the orbit around the centre of the ellipse a bit during each orbit.
I have emphasized in the past that the Moon does not follow an orbital path, it creates one as a resultant between lunar momentum and Earth’s gravitational field. Since lunar momentum slightly exceeds the effect of gravity, it causes an elongation in the orbit and also causes a slight rotation of the ellipse.
C’mon, Bordon.
I already posted that link:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1428880
And you’re just ranting once again.
“The author cant even get it right that Newton invented calculus, not his German counterpart, Liebnitz, who was not even in the picture when Newton invented it. ”
Well I don’t really do calculus, but I am interested in getting to Mars faster, and it doesn’t seem like calculus is solving that issue.
It’s common to say nuclear rocket can get to Mars within 60 days, but it seems more like lying used car salesmen pitch.
The main thing is cost of getting rocket fuel to orbit- and nuclear rocket can less tonnage of rocket fuel- largely because LH2 is low mass rocket fuel and heat just H2.
It doesn’t work well with hohmann transfers- as has low thrust, though lot more thrust Ions engine. With ion engines someone claimed
to Mars take 39 days- again not a hohmann transfer.
So, one can’t get to Mars orbit in less 3 month with hohmann, unless you flyby at relatively fast velocity difference.
And it seems to me, what Musk want to do is get to Mars in 6 months
with roughly a hohmann, and get rid that velocity difference by hitting Mars atmosphere to slow down.
Anyhow, it Calculus can solve low thrust to Mars quickly using non hohmann, but can’t apparently solve a high thrust, non hohmann to Mars in say 3 months [and arriving not high velocity relative to Mars].
So you be in LEO, and get to say 100,000 away from Earth, acceleration fast in direction going for say 5 min.
With ion engine you constantly thrust for 20 hours and spiral out of LEO {non hohmann]. Or instead going on direction of orbit, you thrust 90 degree to the path of orbit {the wrong way to do it- or non hohmann which will waste a lot rocket power. And roughly speaking I want do the wrong way to it [sort of].
You state it different way. Be LEO orbit, shoot gun in direction you going in- the bullet will do a hohmann, it goes to higher orbit and returns the lower orbit- unless bullet has enough velocity to escape Earth orbit.
Now let’s do non hohmann and shoot bullet straight up [rather than in direction orbit {hohmann] and opposite direction [hohmann which will re-enty Earth’s atmosphere even if low velocity bullet].
And instead shooting straight, you straight down [and probably will not hit Earth unless in very velocity bullet].
With calculus, I would predict if shoot straight up, it’s similar to shooting straight down, or bullet go to lower orbit. Or bullet goes straight up, then pass thru the orbital distance that it started it.
And that what I want it to do, going to Mars in 3 months or less.
Explain another way, we send Webb to L-2. Via Hohmann with less than escape.
Now Mars spacecraft to L-2 but say +8 km/sec over above escape at when a L-2 point distance. Or straight way from Sun, Earth is black dot on the Sun {unless moon in the way- actually at that distance
Moon should be smaller than Earth?
It would neat for Webb point cheap camera in direction of Earth and Moon- blocking the sunlight- oh, think that’s done from L-1 [with sun behind it]
Though you would be going around sun at a about 30 km/sec or same velocity as L-2 point is and + 8 km/sec added to the 30 km/sec vector.
Or if in LEO going 7.8 km/sec, and shoot bullet at 1 km/sec adding a vector 1 km/sec straight up to the 7.8 km/sec orbital velocity.
I don’t think 8 km/sec delta-v quite enough- but where does it go, in terms up, and then down below Earth’s orbital distance.
And rather than straight up which angle will it fall further pass Earth’s orbital distance [the further it fall towards the sun, the better the angle of vector to take.
That was easy to find:
“I just saw this from NASA today. While this is taken from L1, and this question is about L2, these two Lagrange points are similar distances from the Earth (in opposite directions), so we can see that the proportions, at least of the Earth and moon, are more or less correct in my simulation.”
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/10355/what-does-the-sun-earth-moon-system-look-like-from-the-sun-earth-l-2-point
From L-1, Moon appear surprisingly smaller. And seeing the farside of the Moon. I forgot about it, and thought Moon was a bit bigger.
I like see it from L-2
Interesting picture from 720 km:
https://www.space.com/stunning-lightsail2-photos-earth-from-space.html
It’s hard to figure out this “gbaikie” guy. Is he trying to be a Skeptic-in-training, or a Troll-in-training? It’s hard to tell. Is he even trying to learn anything?
But, we can tell he loves his keyboard. For sure.
He seems to believe this is his blog. But, maybe he’s a part owner. Maybe gbaikie sends Dr. Spencer money each month to share the expenses. Possibly even a penny a word. That would amount to about $400/month, in a rough estimate.
“Its hard to figure out this gbaikie guy. Is he trying to be a Skeptic-in-training, or a Troll-in-training?”
Well, I don’t spend as much time, arguing with Willard.
But it seems, I win and you lose.
Well, that answers my question, gbaikie.
You don’t argue with worthless willard because trolls don’t argue with trolls. In fact, you even linked to the same nonsense as he did.
Birds of a feather….
> I win and you lose.
😊
“Well, that answers my question, gbaikie.
You dont argue with worthless willard because trolls dont argue with trolls.”
Well I do argue [or educate] willard, just not much as some people.
But I will agree with you, trolls don’t argue with trolls.
Willard doesn’t think I am lukewarmer.
I don’t think he understands that I would prefer, a lot more warming- because, obviously, we in an Ice Age. So higher CO2 level might warm a bit, but not much, and it hasn’t measurable so far, but if give it few centuries, it might warm little bit more [but no where near enough].
Let me put in more obvious terms.
I think if we can get enough water {cheap enough], and green the Sahara desert with it, that will do more global warming than CO2 can do.
I think spending a couple trillion dollars to green the Sahara
would be good idea.
And we have spent +5 trillion making wind mills and solar panels which has done nothing about global warming {other add a bit Co2}- they don’t work, they are blight upon the land, and cause pollution.
They are as bad or worse than subsidizing burning wood.
But it seems people are understanding having govt pay to burn
wood for electrical generation is bad idea [they may be against it because causes more CO2] I against because of pollution and it’s waste the public’s money- and adds to governmental corruption.
willard…”The Earth only *pulls* the Moon with gravity.
How can it pull it so that the Man on the Moon keeps facing the Earth?
Physics has it that some spin is involved.”
***
Leave this to people with the intelligence to understand it. It has been explained to you over and over how it works yet you are still asking dumb questions. The irony is, the explanation is seriously simple.
And no, the physics explanation does not involve spin.
C’mon, Bordon.
You have no explanation for that and it shows.
Open the ellipse into a straight line. If you still can’t see it, you are hopeless.
Indeed I see the straight line, Bordon:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-osuniversityphysics/chapter/13-4-satellite-orbits-and-energy/
It’s V.
I thought you would be too thick to understand what I was getting at.
C’mon, Bordon.
For once you got the mic, you drop it before singing one song?
Have another line (H/T AQ):
https://tinyurl.com/Orbital-KinEn
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
willard…”Gill, Gill,
You lousy auditor:
Do you mean tangential velocity? Radial velocity would be in the direction of a radial line, or the speed of a rotating vector, whereas the rectilinear motion to which Newton referred was in the instantaneous direction of a tangent line to an orbital path. As the Moon moves in that tangential direction at any instant, gravity redirects the tangent line direction a smidgen the next instant”.
***
Are you in super-troll mode or have you lost it completely? It was me who wrote the above. Bill does not get into detail about radial lines and tangent lines as far as I have seen.
C’mon, Bordon.
Here’s Gill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1430622
Gill does not even know about your “radial line” model! Perhaps you should talk about it a bit more. If you do it as much as gb spams, Pup might even wonder if you send Roy “money each month to share the expense.”
Notice the quote marks in the above? That means it’s a quote. Searching the string will lead you to Pup’s rant.
It was actually someone else, maybe rlh, who started the radial line motion. Note that I said motion, as if the motion was in a radial direction. I asked if he meant the angular velocity of a rotating radial line or motion along a radial line.
C’mon, Bordon:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2022-0-00-deg-c/#comment-1207937
Who do you think you’re kidding?
This is cheap-assed trolling ww. You are referencing my usage of a radial line motion in two different contexts.
I know you love to play the Devil’s advocate by stringing out these debates using meaningless arguments. The more you do it, the more we reply with scientific replies, and the more you look like the stupid ass you really are.
And the more you look like a stupid ass, the more points are lost by your trolling alarmist buddies. So, keep it up, you are helping us in the climate debate as well.
C’mon, Bordon:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-974071
I can go back in time until you cave in.
While Gill is a phony auditor, I am not.
Willard please stop trolling
Good Gill, Good Gill,
Since you’re big on receipts, here’s a snippet from 2018:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/chinese-satellite-filled-with-corrosive-fuel-will-probably-hit-the-ocean/#comment-293229
Do you think Richard was here back then?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
BG for the win:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1428124
The trolling of our Moon Dragon cranks can stop now.
Does this mean Little Willy finally accepts he has been wrong for a good couple of years? He certainly never accepted that:
“…[motion like the MOTL] *can* be described as rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, it *can also* be described as a translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis”
whenever I tried over and over again to explain this to him. I guess he will now pretend he did, all along.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-648926
My first contribution to that silly trolling by the Moon Dragon cranks.
There’s also this proof that his pet GIF is actually indeterminate:
https://tinyurl.com/why-the-gif-is-indeterminate
In other words, what I hold all along cohered with what BG said.
The long and the short of it is that Moon Dragon cranks have yet to establish what propels the Moon in their “model,” if we can call it that.
Predictably, Little Willy pretends he agreed all along. Of course, that leaves the question of why he spent so much time and energy defending and seemingly agreeing with bobdroege, who most definitely does not think that motion like the MOTL “*can* be described as rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”. Dozens of hours Little Willy must have spent, arguing with me over that…
…such a strange little troll.
Predictably Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
By his logic, BG just agreed with him.
Hence why he said that only one model makes physical sense.
But wait – does that mean that Gentle Graham agreed with this all along?
That would explain why he never offered any physical justification for his position in his 77 months of trolling!
More lies and distortions from Little Willy…
…such a strange little troll.
A little more, our Gentle Graham gaslights.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Greasy Graham gaslights about what is in agreement and what isn’t as per a ball on a string. The third paragraph makes that explicit, so there is not even a whiff of ambiguity for him to exploit.
More false accusations from Brandy Guts to ignore.
Greasy Graham may not need to exploit any ambiguity, BG.
He can simply offer a totally unresponsive response!
I wasn’t aware Brandy Guts had said anything that warranted a response…just more false accusations from him. So I highlighted that they were false, and that’s that.
Read the third paragraph and tell me it coheres with your word substitution in the first.
Brandy Guts, I deliberately substituted "ball on a string" for "motion like the MOTL" because I agree with you that motion like the MOTL can be described in those two ways, but I disagree that the ball on a string can…and I explained to you exactly why, up-thread.
We know that motion of the MOTL isn’t exactly like motion of the real moon, so what’s the problem?
> because I agree with you that motion like the MOTL can be described in those two ways
We do not agree on that, and I make it explicit in the third paragraph.
No, you made it explicit in your third paragraph that in your opinion the real moon cannot be described in those two ways.
The real moon does not move exactly like the MOTL. That’s why I said:
"We know that motion of the MOTL isn’t exactly like motion of the real moon, so what’s the problem?"
The title of your song is “The Moon Does Not Rotate on Its Own Axis”, Graham. You tell me.
OK, I will tell you that your complaints about me trying to "gaslight" were completely unfounded. As usual.
And Greasy Graham punts.
No, I kept on topic to the sub-thread, which was your false accusations of gaslighting. Will you retract them, Brandy Guts?
Like Greased lightning, Graham again evades the question how MOTL applies to the real Moon’s motion(s) given his concession that the former isn’t an exact representation of the latter.
The uninitiated may be flabbergasted by this, but by now it is truly old hat.
You’re changing the subject onto that whilst refusing to apologize for your false accusations, Brandy Guts. At least apologize first, before we move on.
Graceful Graham gracefully keeps to the topic he himself introduced.
His deflection is definitely not a deflection from itself!
Here is how it started:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1430701
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“…it *can also* be described as a translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.”
That’s WRONG. We know the ball is NOT rotating because the string does not wrap around it.
Silly trolls will never learn.
Yes, it’s definitely wrong for the ball on a string. The ball on a string is physically rotating (being swung) about an external axis, so it is not “translating in a circle whilst rotating about an internal axis.”
The MOTL, on the other hand, can be described as either:
1) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
2) Translating in a circle whilst rotating about an internal axis.
However, 2) is only the correct description for our moon if “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. Which it isn’t…it’s as per the MOTL.
So, that’s that.
Gentle Graham gaslights furthermore.
All he does is to beg the question using the smallest amount of words:
Has he ever supported that claim empirically?
No – music videos do not count.
I’ve explained before that the ball on a string is a good model for “orbit without spin”, and why.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
The only argument he provided for his position is along the lines of his silly 1+1 trick.
And that’s just a silly, stupid trick.
False, in every way…but funny. You usually absolutely hang on my every word…but every now and then you conveniently “forget” about some arguments I have made. That’s not my fault, or problem.
And so Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
While it took me a few weeks to build the Moon Dragon Crank Master Argument, what does Gentle Graham has to show for himself – a music video !??!??!
…but every now and then you conveniently “forget” about some arguments I have made. That’s not my fault, or problem.
And so Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
While it took me a few weeks to build the Moon Dragon Crank Master Argument, what does Gentle Graham has to show for himself a music video !??!??!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
what does Gentle Graham has to show for himself – a music video !??!??!
What I have to show for it are a music video:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
and “the four points”:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis.
2) “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL.
3) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
4) “Revolution/orbit” is defined as a rotation about an external axis.
All of which have at least one “Spinner” in agreement with it, although no one “Spinner” agrees with all four at once.
I also have a string of argument wins on other related points.
So all in all, I have made a lot of progress with people on this site. Whereas you have, sadly, not progressed one iota since you started.
Oh well.
And so once again Gentle Graham flees from a challenge to peddle his incoherent crap.
All very coherent, bell-end.
Greasy Graham escapes again!
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
We’re not describing a ball on a string, Pup.
Why do you keep returning to that silly example when you always end up saying it’s not even a model of the Moon’s motion?
Now, even though a ball on a string *can* be described as rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, it *can also* be described as a translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
A banana is a fruit, Pup, but not all fruits are yellow.
Why do you keep returning to that silly example when you always end up saying its not even a model of the Moon’s motion?
It’s a model of “orbit without spin”.
Something the “Spinners” are in dire need of.
And so according to Gentle Graham, Team Physics need a model of a Moon that does not spin.
That must be why he calls them “Spinners”…
🤦♂️
“Spinners” think the moon is spinning…thus they necessarily think “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. What they need is a model, however…
Gentle Graham gently gaslights a little more…
Team Physics has a ton of numerical models of the Moon motion!
Team Moon Dragon, however, still has to provide a model, any model actually…
“Spinners” think the moon is spinning…thus they necessarily think “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. What they need is a model, however…(for their version of “orbit without spin”)…
Gentle Graham gently gaslights a little more…
Team Physics has a ton of numerical models of the Moon motion!
Team Moon Dragon, however, still has to provide a model, any model actually…
I’m not talking about “numerical models of the moon motion”, you gormless troll. Try reading…
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights a little more.
What does he think numerical models of the Moon motion implement??????????????????????????????????????
…not what I’m after, troll.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
In a way, it’s a bit sad: unless and until his needs are met, he can’t proceed to contribute anything. And even then, all he does is to exploit what looks like concessions to run away with it instead of trying to understand it…like the sleazy manipulative Machiavellian that he is.
So it always ends thus:
“Meet me in the middle,” says the gaslighting man.
You take a step forward.
The gaslighting man takes a step back and repeats:
“Meet me in the middle.”
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The stars directly above any point of the surface (except at the poles) of the Moon change continuously therefore it rotates.
…but not on its own axis.
It has an axis about which it rotates as it orbits.
Ah, so you are going with “translates” for “orbits”, by which you mean motion like the MOTR. Got it. I thought you had already agreed that an “orbit” was a rotation around the barycenter, though?
Greasy Graham should review:
Willard may recall my fondness for redundancy.
"translation doesnt ever entail rotation"
Except in the case of the moon, according to the "Spinners" (they think it’s translating in an ellipse whilst rotating on its own internal axis)…and, in fact, in the case of pretty much every single known orbiting object, according to the "Spinners".
Never forget to add the *only*, BG, for Greasy Graham will *always* try to equivocate around it.
Also, the notion of entailment might be above his pay grade, so thread lightly.
Brandy Guts was caught out, so Little Willy comes to the rescue…
Look up the word “entail” and report, Graham.
Sorry, what was your point, again?
You said: "Since translation doesn’t ever entail rotation, Graham’s 1+1 trick fails"
That’s a non-sequitur. My 1+1 argument is simply that motion of the MOTL cannot be described as "rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis". Since you agree that motion of the MOTL can be described as rotation about an external axis without rotation about an internal axis, you should agree. Unless you’re a complete idiot.
Are you?
> what was your point, again?
Graham plays dumb again.
> Since you agree that motion of the MOTL can be described as rotation about an external axis without rotation about an internal axis
I don’t agree with that, Greasy One, and said as much in the text Willard quoted.
#2, look up “entail” and report.
So you agree that a ball on a string can be described as "rotating about an external axis without rotating about an internal axis", but you disagree that the MOTL, which moves exactly as per a ball on a string, can be described that way!?
Thank you for indirectly answering my question in the affirmative.
If neither MOTL or a ball on a string exactly model the movements of the real Moon, Graham should have no trouble accepting that the real Moon rotates on its own axis.
But that is not the title of his song.
A ball on a string correctly models "orbit without spin".
I will take it that you accept motion like the MOTL can be described as "rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis", then. Silly Brandy Guts.
Greasy Graham gently gaslights again.
His 1+1 argument is that if one adds a spin to the orbit of the Moon, it cannot keep the Man on the Moon facing the Earth at all times. His argument is that one cannot add another rotation to the orbit, which is already rotating. Hence the 1+1 line, which is silly as we are talking about degrees, not numbers.
The trick fails when we observe that orbit and spin are independent. When the Moon orbits the Earth, it does not *eo ipso* keeps the Man on the Moon facing the Earth.
A spineless Moon would be like a Ferris Wheel, not a ball on a string.
Hence the current gaslighting below from our two main Dragon trolls.
The problem with that argument is everything has extraneous movement. Even a rotating moon has a tide. The moon still has a solar tide for example. So the moon rotates on its axis wrt to the sun and the other stars and of course that axis is at the COM of the earth.
Little Willy tries to tell me what my own argument is, when I already accurately and correctly described it at 10:39 AM. Whilst he does this, Little Willy falsely accuses me of gaslighting!
Not only can I tell Gentle Graham what his silly 1+1 trick is, but I can tell what the whole Moon Dragon Crank Master Argument is.
And Gill appeals to imperfection, which offers another refutation of the 1+1 argument.
This is a good day.
It’s a great day for you to please stop trolling.
If Grasping Graham considers that MOTL is an exact equivalent of a ball on a string, then yes, logically both can be described as “rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”.
But note again that Glissading Graham Glides away from the pointy question of how that applies to the title of his favorite song.
I’m glad Brandy Guts finally sees reason.
The ball on a string is a model of "orbit without spin". The same side always faces the inside of the orbit, throughout.
Similar to how one side of the moon always faces the inside of the orbit, throughout.
Of course, it has always been acknowledged that there are differences between the motion of a ball on a string/MOTL to the real moon itself. The real moon has an elliptical orbit, exhibits libration, etc etc. However, the principle remains the same, and the ball on a string/MOTL was never meant to be an exact model of the moon’s motion.
"Orbit without spin" is as per the ball on a string/MOTL. That’s the take home message of this feature presentation.
And so Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
To opine on his pet GIF conclusively, he would need physics.
Hence he slides from *can be seen* to *can only be seen*.
Both sides can *interpreted* either way, really.
Meanwhile, the legend of his pet GIF still reads:
If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure..
I’d tell Gallivanting Graham that there is a model which *exactly* describes the motions of the Moon instead of one that is only “similar”, but he’d just Gingerly Gallop away from it again.
Otherwise he’d have to redo his entire music video.
And that would be Galling by Golly.
You’ve learned a lot from me on this subject, Brandy Guts. Considering what you thought when you came into the discussion and where you are now, you certainly owe me. You’re welcome.
BG should definitely be thankful for all the trolling tricks Gallivanting Graham tried on him.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
A quote from Brandon Gates, who has revealed he doesn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground wrt physics.
A body can have both curvilinear motion and local rotation. The Earth is a perfect example.
C’mon, Bordon.
BG does not disagree with the idea that “a body can have both curvilinear motion and local rotation,” if by “local rotation” you simply mean a spin.
It’s Gentle Graham, Pup, and your evil twin who disagrees with that!
The misrepresentations continue…
And so Gentle Graham still fails to understand his own 1+1 argument!
🤦♂️
The 1+1 argument is strictly about rotation.
Gentle Graham gaslights once more.
If we accept that the motion of the Moon is complex, i.e. that it comprises both translation and rotation, then the 1+1 argument is false.
Unless Gentle Graham wants his 1+1 argument needs to posit that the Moon’s orbit follows a pure rotation.
Otherwise it’s trivial to come up with a series of rotations and translations that would be equivalent.
🤦♂️
If you want to describe the moon’s motion as a “series of rotations and translations” that is equivalent to “one motion” then go ahead. If you are describing the moon’s movement as being comprised of “one motion”, no matter how complex, then you automatically concede it is not rotating on its own axis. Good for you.
☺️
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
The whole Moon Dragon scam is braindeadly trivial –
A pure rotation is equivalent to a pure translation.
All you need is to switch reference frame.
A pure rotation is incompatible with a pure translation and vice versa.
As long as you are in the proper reference frame for the pure motion you choose.
None of that matters, since our current phenomena requires another framework, which involves or a “general” motion to borrow Holy Madhavi’s own wording.
So in the end we need to have both translation and rotation working at the same time.
None of the geometry arguments Moon Dragon cranks fumble over explain how the Moon turns the Man on the Moon as she glides her orbital path, breaking Newtonian laws along the way.
We want to represent the world, not play silly semantic games.
The whole 1+1 argument is pure bonkers for orbit and spin are independent.
Adding one rotation to one rotation sometimes gets you zero rotation anyway.
That’s all there is to it. With more time we could probly reduce Graham’s scam to a tweet.
“A pure rotation is equivalent to a pure translation.
All you need is to switch reference frame.”
Lol. No, Little Willy. A “pure rotation” is not equivalent to a “pure translation”. Even if you “switch reference frames”. God, you are ridiculous.
ww confuses the re-orientation of the near face with rotation about a local axis. Re-orientation is a property of curvilinear motion.
Little Willy is hopelessly confused, Gordon. Even his friend Brandon has a better grasp on it than he does. I really think you could talk to him about it for the rest of your life, he would never get it.
C’mon, Bordon.
Two points, A and B.
To get from A to B you have two choices:
You translate from A to B.
You rotate from A to B.
In Euclidean geometry, to rotate is to rotate in a circle.
In circle geometry, to translate is to move along the points in a circle.
Got that?
Good.
That’d be 50$.
And of course Gentle Graham will gaslight a little more…
🤷
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
You can translate from A to B along a curve without rotating. You can also translate from A to B along a curve while rotating about a local axis without rotating about a local axis.
I tried to tell you earlier. Take a straight line and walk along it facing normally. There is no doubt that is rectilinear translation without rotation. Now bend the curve very slightly so it is not straight. Walk along as before and you translate along a curved path without rotation. If you continue to bend the curve into an ellipse, the motion is exactly the same.
However, if you look straight ahead, as if following a line marked in the middle of the path, your line of site will re-orient naturally so you are looking in a different direction to the direction in which you started. That’s what you are calling rotation but I can prove mathematically and geometrically it is not rotation about a local axis.
Newton acknowledged both as rectilinear and curvilinear motion. He claimed the Moon moves with rectilinear motion and that gravity bends the motion into curvilinear motion.
Rotation about a local axis is a very specific motion. If a body rotates about a local axis it must rotate through so many degrees about that axis and with the Moon that rotation must be through 360 degrees per orbit if it is true. In that case, the Moon cannot keep the same side pointed at Earth.
The reason I offered the example of a person walking around a round table while wearing a harness, attached to a rope, that prevented the person rotating about a local axis, was to emphasize the difference between curvilinear translation (motion) and local rotation. With the harness in place and attached to the rope, the walker cannot rotate about a vertical axis yet the walker can walk right around the table keeping the same side pointed at the table centre.
C’mon, Gordo.
No, you can’t “translate from A to B along a curve while rotating about a local axis without rotating about a local axis” if you are referring to a pure motion.
In a translation, all the points of the object move.
In a rotation, one point does not.
You can’t have both.
Which leads to a misunderestimated point (H/T Richard) –
If you want to say that the Moon orbit is a pure rotation, you necessarily need to include the barycenter in the Moon.
In other words, you can only say that the Moon-Earth system is making that rotation.
That’s another 50$.
…but RLH doesn’t seem to get that if you describe the moon as rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, you cannot also say it is rotating on its own internal axis. Unlike BG, who understands that “a ball on a string *can* be described as rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”. So, BG must understand the 1+1 argument, despite falsely claiming that it is a “trick” that fails. Little Willy claims to agree with BG, so he should also understand, but is of course either too stupid too, or too stubborn to admit he was wrong about it. All the fun of the fair.
Both the Earth and the Moon ORBIT around the barycenter between them.
Ah, so you are going with “translate” for “orbit”, by which you mean motion like the MOTR. Got it. I thought you had already agreed that an “orbit” was a rotation around the barycenter, though?
And so Gentle Graham whines because Richard sticks to the proper wordology.
He would never rigidly cling to his!
No, I asked RLH a question.
An orbit is an orbit. Nothing else.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
His *but Richard* deflected from the topic:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1430848
Little Willy links back to one of his most muddled and hopelessly confused comments, whilst RLH dodges the question magnificently…
Orbit vs Rotation – What’s the difference?
https://wikidiff.com/rotation/orbit
Yes, responded to further down-thread.
Gaslighting Graham greasily gaslights once again.
Every time he gets refuted by anyone, things become confusing to him.
You cannot refute the 1+1 argument. It’s just an obvious, irrefutable fact. You cannot combine rotation about an internal axis with rotation about an external axis and end up with motion like the MOTL. Anyone thinking that they can is delusional.
And here is how we know that when Graham says “can be described” he really means “can *only* be described”.
Yet he Greasily persists in his imprecision.
Gentle Graham clings to an argument that has already been refuted.
1+1 can equal zero.
1+1 can equal one.
1+1 can equal three.
It all depends on the system under consideration.
The orbit of the Moon does not determine the orientation of the Man in the Moon.
Moon Dragon cranks have a faulty physics module with faulty default values.
You haven’t refuted the 1+1 argument, and never will. It’s funny to laugh at you, though. Please continue.
A Ferris Wheel, for instance, refutes the 1+1 argument.
Hilarious. More, please.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1431152
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ww…”Repeating Nikolas interpretation doesnt invalidate anyone elses unless he can explain more phenomena in a more general way, and even then hed have to show how everyone but him fails”.
***
You twit. Tesla proved, using the kinetic energy of a rotating system that the Moon was not rotating about a local axis. Because you cannot understand his methodology is no reason to pervert his reasoning.
The methods we non-spinners have used here are derived independently.
C’mon, Bordon.
Nikola proved no such thing, and there’s no method behind your madness. You’re just a crank who needs to vent here since, I don’t know…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/oh-the-insensitivity-more-on-ocean-warming-1955-2010/#comment-20489
2011?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The question posed to “spinners”:
What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Moon’s orbit?
They never could provide the correct answer.
The correct answer is “13.36°”.
The significance is, of course, a REAL spin axis doesn’t change anywhere near that much. IOW, Moon doesn’t have a spin axis, because it is NOT spinning.
Let the trolling begin….
Well done, Pup!
Now, where’s your homework?
Willard please stop trolling
That’s better, Gill.
Since you pretend to be the auditor here, let me ask you:
Who wrote this, and when?
ww…Troll, please stop Willarding.
C’mon, Bordon.
Here is a Ferris wheel:
https://media.giphy.com/media/cJagvBbf85eCWDymFk/giphy.gif
Are the cabins rotating or translating?
Please confer to Holy Madhavi for the correct answer.
Back on topic please, Little Willy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1430721
I am waiting for Bordons answer. Etc.
Worthless willard found another link he can’t understand.
A Ferris wheel has TWO motions. The chair is both orbiting AND rotating. If it only orbited, the riders would be dumped out.
I predict the cult will STILL not understand.
Back on the topic, Pup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1431152
…and Clint R’s prediction was correct.
Greasy Graham gaslights a little more.
Little Willy insults and falsely accuses a lottle more.
Gentle Graham made another worthwhile gaslighting contribution.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Moon doesn’t have a spin axis”
Wrong.
Worthwhile. Great contribution. Good insight. Thank you.
Imagine is Gentle Graham would respond like that every time Pup argues by assertion
Imagine if Little Willy held himself up to the same standards he expects of me.
Imagine if Graham stopped his greasy gaslighting for three months.
I’d have to start gaslighting, first…but it’s just not me.
And at the speed of grease lightning Gentle Graham gaslights again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ball on a string is analogy.
But you could hang a string from Earth/Moon L-1 to lunar surface and it acts as a “ball on a string”- with end of string at L-1 always pointing at Earth.
And if had the material strength, you could hang a string from GEO to Earth surface- and call it a space elevator.
Lunar space elevator works because of the lower gravity of the Moon- but useful about it, dropping water on the Moon to get electrical power from dropping the water.
But first you have mine the endless amounts of water available in solar system.
But at Venus orbit, one probably get more money per ton of water.
So, one might mine lunar water and ship to Venus {though Mars might
able to do it cheaper} and then water from other places, could send to Venus, cheaper than Mars/Moon could do it, and then build lunar elevator and Moon can import water while getting electrical power by dropping it.
The energy could more then, some would imagine from low lunar gravity, but a portion is due to gravity loss.
The moon doesn’t have much gravity, unless you limit speed to say 100 mph, and so you drop the water at speed less than 100 mph- maybe less than 50 mph. Though have to slow it down, as water at say 1 km/sec [2232 mph] would be very destructive to anything- though could useful if want dig a hole very quickly- voyage to center of Moon- sort of thing.
“ball on a string is analogy.”
Which is wrong because if there was a string it would wrap around the Earth very fast.
Nope gravity just treats the COM of the earth like the axle on a yoyo with zero friction. . . .so the analogy holds. If it were actually a string it would not be an analogy. Analogies are only for folks who can actually envision the similarities while ignoring the differences. When ones mind is polluted with religious dogma about stuff its hard to do that.
If gravity behaved like a string why would it operate differently on the Moon to the Earth?
Spinners are getting pretty darned desperate to find a crevice to pound a piton in.
Not as desperate as you are.
Not the space elevator.
But string between between middle of nearside and say Panama on Earth it would wrap around Earth at about speed of Earth’s spin, which is about 1000 mph.
Ludicrous, thanks.
I agree, you are Ludicrous.
Your argument was ludicrous.
Hard no, Richard.
Ludicrous is not alliterative enough.
Little Willy and RLH are best of friends, again. The years of pointless bickering are all forgotten about.
Gentle Graham has one wheel, and it is bickering.
Little Willy has one wheel, and it is bickering.
Gentle Graham gently gaslights more and more.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“The 33 K is actually measured. The average Earth Surface comes in around 288 K and the TOA measured value gives a Black Body temp of 255 K.”
–
*****
Earth’s average surface temperature is 68C higher than Moon’s average surface temperature.
Also Earth, because of a higher than Moon Albedo, Earth receives 28% less solar radiative energy than Moon.
–
And yet, Earth’s average surface temperature is 68C higher than Moon’s average surface temperature.
–
Since Earth and Moon are at the same distance from the sun, but Earth’s average surface temperature is 68C higher than Moon’s average surface temperature… there is only one explanation left:
It is the planet surface ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON !
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Moon has no measurable atmosphere either.
” It is the planet surface ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON ! ”
Exactly! Earth rotates wrt a fixed point in space 27.3 times faster than our Moon, yeah (even if the Moon does not rotate, that’s the magic point here, isn’t it).
It is the magic of the planet’s spin.
–
When it is understood, it becomes science!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
More nonsense from Clint R
” The question posed to ‘spinners’:
What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Moon’s orbit?
They never could provide the correct answer.
The correct answer is ‘13.36°’. ”
This is, as I wrote many times, of course absolute nonsense because no celestial body would ever change the angle of its spin axis by such an immense value.
The celestial body namely would then wobble with such an energy that it never could keep its elliptic orbit, and would perform chaotic movements instead.
Imagine you would ask the same for Earth:
” What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Earth’s orbit? ”
*
The only occurrence of the number ‘13.36’ known to me with regard to the Moon is the result of approximately computing the number of Moon orbits per Earth orbit.
Thus Clint R should now unveil the place on the Internet from where he ‘discovered’ that strange value, shouldn’t he?
That’s correct Bin, that much change in the imaginary spin axis tells us it is IMAGINARY. Moon does not have a spin axis.
Yes it does.
The only spin axis the moon has is at the COM of earth.
A Foucault pendulum on the Moon would say different.
The other problem is that a ‘spin axis’ implies a circular motion about the axis. The moon moves in an ellipse, so there is no ‘spin axis’ about the earth
For some reason Gill believes that the Moon orbits not only around a barycenter but *also* around the center of the Earth, Tim.
Make that what you will.
The Foucault Pendulum, again!
Can’t be bothered to go through the motions, this time…
Gentle Graham punts once again.
You already know what the answer is. You linked to it on another thread, last month.
Grumpy Graham does not always refuse to return to a topic because he could not bother, but when he does he feels the need to respond anyway.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I repeat:
Thus Clint R should now unveil the place on the Internet from where he discovered that strange value, shouldnt he?
That’s what is so instructive about this, Bin. Not one of you cult idiots could correctly answer the simple question. AND, the question was right from you own cult nonsense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
The point is you don’t understand ANY of this. You don’t understand the relevant physics.
You don’t even understand the simple ball-on-a-string!
Look at RLH running around the blog like a chicken with its head cut off, throwing his short, meaningless denials against the wall! Or worthless willard, still not understanding a Ferris wheel, or troll Norman, or Brandon, or Swanson, or YOU! That’s what “braindead” looks like.
You won’t get but the shortest of words from me.
Sound policy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Here is a Ferris Wheel:
https://media.giphy.com/media/cJagvBbf85eCWDymFk/giphy.gif
Are the cabins purely rotating or purely translating?
Please confer to Holy Madhavi for your answer:
https://tinyurl.com/holy-Madhavi
Crickets from Holy Madhavi fans.
Now, technically, you might think you’d be able to describe motion of the cabins as either:
1) Rotating about an external axis whilst rotating about an internal axis, in opposite directions.
2) Translating in a circle.
However, thinking about the actual mechanics of it all, it is clear that in the case of the Ferris Wheel, 1) is the correct answer. The clue is that they are on a big wheel, so physically the cabins are being rotated about an external axis (an axis located in the center of the wheel). In order to remain upright, the cabins have to be physically able to rotate on their own internal axes. If they were not capable of such motion, the result would be that the cabins move as per the MOTL.
There is no such thing as an external axis when using 2 bodies and gravity.
We’re talking about a Ferris Wheel…and most definitely one of the axes of rotation for the Ferris Wheel cabin is external to the cabin.
RLH pontificates about what holds everything together and starts his own classification system.
The rest of science agrees with me on the Moon/Earth duo.
Gill, Gill,
The Statler & Waldorf act requires two guys,
You should ask Bordon.
Willard please stop trolling.
For once Gentle Graham could simply read Holy Madhavi.
But no, he needs to armwave to his pet GIF.
Why is that?
…because it’s easier and quicker than describing the motions in full every time.
Gentle Graham gaslights once again.
Holy Madhavi provides all we need to refute Moon Dragon cranks.
They cling to definitions until they go against them.
Not at all. According to what you read in Madhavi, options 1) and 2) are appropriate. However, when you actually look into the mechanics of it, only 1) is correct. As I explained, and you have not rebutted.
Gentle Graham gaslights once again.
BG may appreciate that tapdancing.
Still no rebuttal.
The Greasy One tries to flip the script once again.
Like Pup just did.
Just say stuff, and when people object, ask for a sammich.
Always he same trick with them.
Two manipulative pricks.
Yet people can plainly see that I made an argument at 10:21 AM, and you have offered no rebuttal to that argument. Just vaguely handwaving to Madhavi…but nothing specific.
Gentle Graham is right for once.
He argued by assertion.
Therefore he argued, right?
Your failure is visible. Thank you.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more.
Every time he wants something he does.
Willard please stop trolling.
Orbit vs Rotation – What’s the difference?
https://wikidiff.com/rotation/orbit
Yeah, that won’t cut it, I’m afraid. Both "Spinners" and "Non-Spinners" can agree that an orbit is a path, or trajectory. So that settles nothing. Try again. Keep looking up definitions until you get one which gives some indication of the orientation involved…such as mentioning "translation" for the "Spinners", or "rotation about an external axis" for the "Non-Spinners".
But no-one but you defines an orbit as a rotation.
False, as you know. I’ve linked to various definitions before where "revolution/orbit" is a rotation about an external axis.
Nobody but the "Spinners" on this blog defines an orbit as a translation. Try to find an example of a definition of "revolution/orbit" mentioning translation.
Either Greasy Graham throws forget about Bordon or throws him under the bus.
Both are good.
And BG might notice another *only* omission.
Nobody but Bordon defines an orbit as pure (i.e. only) a translation!
Teh Greasy One’s got a point about translation being applied to an orbiting body with axial spin. I should know this from all the hours I’ve logged in Kerbal Space Program.
But he’s also got a problem. By the strict definition of translation, *only* MOTR (aka a properly functioning bicycle pedal) can be described as a curvilinear translation.
…and motion like the MOTR can be described as rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions.
You mean *pure* curvilinear translation, BG.
Never forget your qualifiers, or the Greasy One *will* misread it.
But Willard the moon isn’t in curvilinear translation. If you tried to put one in the sky you would need a motor to keep it aligned to the translation model. You don’t need to supplement anything to get a simple elliptical rotation though. Thats why the MOTR is either only an impossible imagined single motion or it is two motions.
Gill, Gill,
You need to coordinate your responses with Bordon.
He is he one who clings to that idea!
Gordon is an anomaly. He defines an orbit as a translation, but when he says that he actually means motion like the MOTL. Whereas most people would think of a translation in a circle as being motion like the MOTR.
You know all this already, of course.
Bordon is not *an* anomaly.
He is *the* anomaly.
Which makes Gill the evil twin of the anomaly.
Nobody but Bordon argues that orbits are pure translation.
Yeah – making it plural shows how silly the whole geometrical project would be.
It might still work, tho.
No, Little Willy. All "Spinners" argue that "orbit without spin" is translation in a circle (by which they mean, motion like the MOTR).
You may not. That’s because you’re an idiot who doesn’t even understand his own side’s position properly.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1431303
See, BG?
Gentle Graham always starts with an observation that looks damning but is pretty damn obvious.
If the orbit of the Moon involves both rotation and translation, then of course it involves translation!
Now, watch him trying to insert an *only* somewhere.
You’re so vague in the way you use words, Little Willy.
Do you mean the "orbit without spin" part of what you think of as the moon’s motion involves both rotation and translation…and then you have rotation about an internal axis as an additional motion on top of that?
Or do you simply mean that you think of the moon translating in an ellipse whilst rotating on its own internal axis, same as all the rest of the "Spinners"?
Gentle Graham gaslights once more.
The orbit is a complex motion.
To try to reduce it to a question of pure, single motion is ludicrous.
Also, there is the annoying fact that ellipses are not circles
🤦
Or do you simply mean that you think of the moon translating in an ellipse whilst rotating on its own internal axis, same as all the rest of the "Spinners"?
Gentle Graham plays dumb once more.
The orbit involves both rotation and translation.
Pure rotations only provide circular motion.
Will Gentle Graham be able to continue to play dumb?
Only time will tell.
I will need absolute clarity, I’m afraid.
Are you saying that you think "orbit without spin" involves both rotation and translation?
Gaslighting Graham really really needs to confirm that an elliptical orbit cannot be a pure rotation.
In his 77 months of trolling, it never occurred to him that he could open a book on affine geometry and check for himself.
An elliptical orbit is not a rotation *alone*.
An elliptical orbit is not *only* a rotation.
An elliptical orbit is not a *pure* rotation.
How many other ways will he need before he stops playing dumb?
Little Willy; I asked you a simple, direct question, and would like an answer on it. Thanks.
And to make sure Gill does not intervene with his silly *but circles are ellipses* –
When I am talking about elliptical ellipses, I am not referring to circular ones!
I could say *non-circular* orbits, but if I do not add *elliptical* I get other semantic issues.
So the only way out would be to say *elliptical but non-circular* every time.
I try to leave mouthfuls to Gentle Graham.
For the first time ever in all your time commenting on this blog – please answer the simple, straightforward question, Little Willy.
1) MOTL is one class of orbit with spin.
2) MOTR is the only class of orbit without spin.
This has been explained endlessly to Gyrating Graham, yet he Gamely Grapples away.
Yes, that is the "Spinner" view, Brandy Guts. Thank you. Now, if you don’t mind, I’m awaiting an answer to a question from Little Willy, about his view.
[W] An elliptical orbit is not a rotation *alone*.
[GG] But what about ellipses as *I* define them?
Little Willy…are you saying that you think "orbit without spin" involves both rotation and translation?
Goofy Graham continues to punt and bait.
A non-circular but elliptical orbit.
Involves some translation and some rotation.
This applies to *any* and *all* such orbit.
Whether the object is spinning or not.
Most if not all celestial bodies spin.
***
The orbit of a celestial body is a complex motion.
So complex it took us 1600 years plus whatever was before that to solve it.
That Goofy Graham still baits and punts with his Moon Dragon crank stuff means one thing.
He is trolling.
Worse, he is gaslighting.
Willard says:
”A non-circular but elliptical orbit.
Involves some translation and some rotation.”
———————-
One could look at elliptical motion as such but elliptical rotation is considered to be a rotation, a singular motion with a single cause, namely the gravity of earth and one only needs rotational formulas worked out in physics to describe it. It doesn’t require the presence of something else like a road to have a rotating wheel move down the road.
But one can look at the moon as two separate motions if one desires to for convenience. But you can lift a wheel of the road and it will just rotate. You can’t do the same thing with the moon because it isn’t translating on a road or anything like that. You can only imagine it as a road and if you do you are losing information not gaining information.
Here is what a so-called orbital translation looks like when combined with a rotation on the moons central axis. Oops doesn’t look anything like our moon. To make it our moon one would have to add a third motion or stop the rotation of the moon on its own axis.
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw
Bull Hunter you are wrong.
So Little Willy is saying that "orbit without spin" involves rotation and translation. Which necessarily means, of the two possible options, motion like the MOTL. So Little Willy can only be saying that "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTL.
So Greasy Graham is gaslighting again.
Gill, Gill,
Please do not tell me you just discovered the CSA Truther!
🤦
I really am just trying to make sense of your own words, Little Willy. Rotation necessarily involves a change in orientation. So if you say that "orbit without spin" involves rotation and translation, then you are necessarily saying that the object is changing orientation without spinning. Which means, of the two possible options, you must be saying "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTL.
It’s so hard not to laugh at you when you condemn yourself with your own words like that, and then try to blame me for interpreting them in the only logical way.
Gullible Graham does not always return to his pet GIF, but when he does it is because he wants to understand.
It is as if he could not understand anything without that silly GIF!
Perhaps it is just another way for him to peddle his pet GIF.
The GIF is just a shortcut way of describing the motions. I could have written out my last comment to you without mentioning "MOTL" and instead saying "motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit" – but why bother?
Another excellent contribution from our gaslighter.
The GIF has a legend.
The important bit is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Moon Dragon cranks owe readers an explanation as to why this would be be the case.
Using physics.
Not silly word games.
Well, Little Willy…since your own words reveal that you are technically a “Non-Spinner”, and that you disagree with what the legend of the GIF says yourself, I guess that explanation you are looking for could come from yourself.
And so Gross Graham fails once again to confront the physics behind his pet GIF.
Gross.
Little Willy tries to deflect attention away from his blunder. Grotesque.
More gaslighting by Gaslighting Graham.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Still more nonsense from Clint R
*
1. He writes:
” The question posed to ‘spinners’:
What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Moon’s orbit?
*
They never could provide the correct answer.
The correct answer is ‘ °’. ”
2. I reply
” The only occurrence of the number ‘13.36’ known to me with regard to the Moon is the result of approximately computing the number of Moon orbits per Earth orbit.
Thus Clint R should now unveil the place on the Internet from where he ‘discovered’ that strange value, shouldn’t he? ”
*
3. He replies again nonsense instead of telling us what he was asked for:
” Thats correct Bin, that much change in the imaginary spin axis tells us it is IMAGINARY. Moon does not have a spin axis. ”
*
But HE is himself the source of that IMAGINARY information !!!
Thus again I ask Clint R to unveil the place on the Internet from where he ‘discovered’ that strange value.
Where is the link to that place, Clint R?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1431206
Clint R
Stop trolling.
You wrote above:
” The question posed to ‘spinners’:
What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Moon’s orbit?
They never could provide the correct answer.
The correct answer is ‘13.36°’. ”
*
No ‘13.36’ is visible on you usual nonsense link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
Will you now FINALLY show us where you got this 13.36 number from, Clint R?
C00kie is obviously doubling the lunar obliquity of 6.68 degrees wrt its orbital plane.
Because? Because he is a silly k00k.
What you are referring to is some belief that a rotation can never be perturbed. The sun perturbs the lunar rotation to a significant degree. Thus the moon’s equator is positioned in alignment with both the sun and the earth.
But this is just another quest to find an imperfection in the rotation – elliptical orbit, libration, any other influence you can dig up to call what is obviously a rotation and very frequently referred to as such a non-rotation in favor of two separate motions.
But the fundamental fact is if the moon had a rotation on its axis at the same rate of rotation as the orbit before entering orbit it would look like this in orbit as seen in the first 38 seconds of the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
Science has special term for rotations lacking certain perturbations such as ”pure rotation”, and ”uniform circular rotation”. In the real world there are no rotations that completely lack perturbations. Perturbations come in various degrees.
Bill Hunter
I have already seen this video and it shows a false narrative. It is not an actual orbit but a ball on a string, the center is connected to the Moon image. RHL has pointed out many times a “ball-on-string” does not represent an actual orbit. It is just a ball rotating around an axis. Not any different than a record spinning on a record player. This is only a representation of an object rotating around a common center.
Bill Hunter if you want to be a valid skeptic on Climate Change don’t go down this rabbit hole that the Moon does not rotate on its own axis. It is sad to watch. All the endless arguments.
Moon not rotating is like Flat Earth. No real evidence will convince them otherwise.
Norman, you’re misrepresenting things again.
If you really respected reality, you would not need to misrepresent it, would you?
That video deals with the motions involved. Like the ball-on-a-string, it verifies that if the orbiting object is rotating, it would present different sides to the inside of its orbit.
That’s how we know Moon is NOT rotating on its axis.
To counter this, you need a viable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. But, you don’t have one. It’s like your other nonsense, you can’t support any of it.
Does the box on which the Moon sits rotate or not as it ‘orbits’?
…about an axis in the center of the apparatus, RLH.
Gill, Gill,
The CSA Truther trick *requires* pure rotation!
🤦
It demonstrates rotation about an external axis with or without rotation about an internal axis, Little Willy. All it requires is for you to have a functioning brain.
Greasy Graham gaslights a little more.
The CSA Truther trick is so easy to spot.
Every time he moves the arrow he makes the Moon spin a bit.
Just like a ball on a string.
But not like the Moon.
Gravity just does *not* work that way.
As I said, it requires a functioning brain.
Another excellent contribution by our gaslighter.
The number of Moon Dragon cranks in the universe must be a smol number.
So according to Garrulous Graham, only a few select chaps have a functioning brain.
It is so wonderful to be trolled like this for 77 months.
You don’t need to be a “Non-Spinner” to understand the video. For instance, I assume Brandy Guts understands it, amongst other “Spinners”.
Gross Graham gaslights a little more.
Understanding the CSA Truther video is trivial.
I already explained it to him so many times that if he still claims I do not understand it is *only* because he is gaslighting.
I agree that understanding it is trivial. If you stopped demonstrating a failure to understand it, I could stop correctly suggesting that you do not understand it.
And so Great Graham blames me for his gaslighting.
So great.
So stop demonstrating a failure to understand it. Stop saying that it’s a “trick”, would be a start.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
Willard please stop trolling
“But this is just another quest to find an imperfection in the rotation elliptical orbit, libration, any other influence you”
You guys have taken this to new levels of ridiculous denial.
Your theory fails to explain the observations. In science, that is the end of the theory.
But in your Flat Earther mentality, lack of agreement between ones theory and observation is not a flaw! Its a feature.
Because, ya know, perfect is stupid.
Well obviously you guys have conceded the MOTL is the single motion rotation of a moon in orbit. Otherwise you would not be saying the real moon is not a rotation because (name your fav) the orbit is elliptical, it has librations, its axis isn’t perpendicular all the time when you know that ‘basic’ motions are just as subject to perturbations by other forces as anything is in the real world.
Gill, Gill,
That pet GIF was created to illustrate the right part.
What would happen if the Moon did not spin.
It was not meant as a way to gaslight people about the meaning of rotation.
Gaslighting? What are you doing Willard? Waving the white flag?
Oh, Gill,
Gill,
You definitely should leave playing dumb to Gallivanting Graham.
It is not like you, and he is soooo good at it!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“subject to perturbations by other forces”
Just another word for ‘perfection’ that was also a red herring.
Your model still performs much worse than the spinner model at accounting for the observations. And Astronomy wisely uses the successful spinner model.
There is no good reason to use your model. Thus the debate is over.
“Well obviously you guys have conceded the MOTL is the single motion rotation of a moon in orbit.”
Not really, and DREMT agrees that it the MOTL CAN BE described as a rotation.
All this proves is that there is one cartoon example of an orbit that has all the properties needed to qualify it as a rotation.
But so what? One case does make the rule.
All other orbits DO NOT qualify as rotations. So to DEFINE an orbit as a rotation makes no logical sense, and in any case, it is simply made up by you guys.
All this proves is that there is one cartoon example of an orbit that has all the properties needed to qualify it as a rotation.
But so what? One case does make the rule.
All other orbits DO NOT qualify as rotations. So to DEFINE an orbit as a rotation makes no logical sense, and in any case, it is simply made up by you guys.
—————————-
Nate it isn’t just a cartoon example. Here is an actual experiment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw See Experiment 2
I am sure you don’t want to be a fraudster by your own definition so if you think its just a cartoon and reality is something different you should post your experiment with a moon spinning on its axis so we can see if it meets the standards.
In lieu of that I will take if you have finally conceded the point on the MOTL.
Still waiting on your engineering for an orbiting MOTR that doesn’t involve any rotations.
Same goes for your claim all other orbits aren’t rotations either. As I see it they involve an orbital rotation around an external axis combined with an independent spin on the moon’s internal axis as engineered in Experiment 1 of the link above.
“Same goes for your claim all other orbits arent rotations either.”
Gee it would be fantastic if the people who keep insisting that such and such is a rotation could even DEFINE rotation.
But they can’t. They won’t. It does make one wonder why.
What are the afraid of?
It is clear to me all orbits are rotations. Just some have what everybody acknowledges to be independent spins in addition to the rotation.
The additional rotation of the earth isn’t seen from the sun or the earth. But it does produce the seasons on earth and is seen from other stars clearly establishing itself as a ‘unique’ and ‘additional’ rotation.
It even has a unique name the sidereal rotation.
Every orbiting planet has one. It is the orbital rotation.
This is the one rotation that cannot be seen or deduced from either the rotating body or the axis by any fixed particle/observer in the system unless there is an additional rotation.
“It is clear to me all orbits are rotations. ”
a. One side asserts that an orbit is a rotation, but cannot DEFINE what a rotation is. And cannot find a definition of orbit or rotation that agrees.
b. The other side provided 5 definitions of orbit, and several definitions of rotation, from dictionaries and textbooks. They conclude orbits are not rotations, because, they are not defined as rotations, and in general, they cannot satisfy the available definitions of rotation.
Lets ask some neutral people which side is winning on this issue?
The additional rotation of the earth isnt seen from the sun or the earth.”
It can be seen from the sun.
“But it does produce the seasons on earth”
It produces the day-night cycle. The tilted axis produces the seasons.
“and is seen from other stars clearly establishing itself as a unique and additional rotation.”
The Moon’s rotation is seen from the stars and the sun.
Consider this. If we look at the Moon each night at its highest point in the sky, over 29 days, each night it has moved ~ 12 degrees around its orbit and has different stars behind it. We are looking at the Moon in a frame of reference that is rotating 12 degrees per night.
It is only from this rotating, geocentric, frame of reference, that we see the Moon NOT rotating.
Nate says:
”It produces the day-night cycle. The tilted axis produces the seasons.”
Thats incorrect. All the moon only has one sidereal rotation wrt to earth per 27.5 days. That results in 13.4 moons/rotations at zenith in the sky per year. But because they are all sidereal wrt to the earth there are no earthshine day/night cycles.
WRT to the stars the moon also has about 13.4 rotations per year.
But WRT to the sun per earth year there are only about 12.4 day night cycles because just one is sidereal WRT to the sun.
“The additional rotation of the earth isnt seen from the sun or the earth. But it does produce the seasons on earth”
You were clearly talking about the Earth here, Bill.
I corrected you, the rotation produces the day-night cycle on Earth, NOT the seasons.
Your answer inexplicably switches to talking about the Moon:
“Thats incorrect. All the moon only has one sidereal rotation wrt to earth per 27.5 days”
Do you have brain fog, or are you just trolling?
Nate says:
Bill”The additional rotation of the earth isnt seen from the sun or the earth. But it does produce the seasons on earth”
You were clearly talking about the Earth here, Bill.
I corrected you, the rotation produces the day-night cycle on Earth, NOT the seasons.”
Do you have brain fog, or are you just trolling?
——————-
Who has brain fog Nate?
Earth has 365.25 day/night cycles per year.
However, from the stars earth has 366.25 rotations. That extra rotation is the earth orbiting around the sun and there is no day night/cycle associated with that rotation.
When switching to the moon.
The moon has 0 earthshine/earthdark cycles per year but has 13 rotations with respect to the stars. Thats because all the moon’s rotations per year are sidereal/orbital wrt to the earth.
Bindidon, I gave you the link that shows the bogus angle of 6.68°. Are you admitting you don’t understand that diagram?
But you got one thing right, that is a “nonsense link”. It comes from your nonsense cult.
Admit you don’t understand physics, orbital motion, or your own cult nonsense, and I will draw you a picture.
Reality is good — you should try some.
Does C00kie really believe that the Earth’s imaginary spin axis changes 46.88 degrees between the high and low points of its orbit around the Sun?
How then does he explain seasons?
Day and night?
Braindead brandon, Earth has a REAL spin axis. So the axis ALWAYS points in the same direction. Either side of Earth’s orbit, its REAL spin axis is ALWAYS pointing in the same direction.
Don’t try to understand, you can’t. You’re braindead.
Just keep trolling. That’s all you can do.
Sad C00kie offers no reason why a hypothetical Moon axis should change orientation throughout its orbit, then complains he’s misunderstood.
[weeps]
Clint R
” Bindidon, I gave you the link that shows the bogus angle of 6.68°. ”
1. Why is it ‘bogus’, Clint R? Just because you deny it?
2. Why did you multiply this angle by 2? Do you yourself know the reason?
3. Why do you admit the inclination of Earth’s spin axis, but not that of the Moon?
” Reality is good you should try some. ”
I stay full in reality, Clint R.
You don’t accept reality, like I have shown in my reply to Don Healy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/urbanization-effects-on-ghcn-temperature-trends-part-i-the-urbanization-characteristics-of-the-ghcn-stations/#comment-1430672
a reply you don’t accept but can’t contradict, as usual.
Obviously Clint R is saying that the so-called lunar "spin axis" tilts by 6.68 degrees wrt its orbital plane, and that this tilt continues throughout the orbit, not remaining oriented towards the same fixed star throughout the orbit.
So, at the "high point" of the lunar orbit, the tilt is oriented towards the right side of the screen (look at the diagram linked to), and he’s saying at the "low point" of the lunar orbit, the tilt is now oriented towards the left side of the screen.
Whereas according to the current wisdom, the tilt would be oriented towards the right side of the screen at both the "high point" and the "low point" of the orbit.
Yes Goofy Graham, the question is why C00kie would propose such a silly thing on the basis of that diagram alone.
Because he’s a k00k will have to satisfy me, alas.
Well Bindidon didn’t seem to understand, so I thought I’d explain. I think the reason Clint R is saying that is as follows:
Take an orange, and attach it to the end of a string. Fix the other end of the string to the center of a table. Insert a pen into the orange, pointing at a jaunty 6.68 degree angle from perpendicular to the table. There’s your "spin axis". Now, keeping the string taut, move the orange in a circle around the center of the table. The "spin axis" changes orientation throughout the "orbit".
Why would C00ky claim a ball on a string isn’t a good model for lunar motion, then tie a string onto it, Gassy Graham?
Because he’s a k00k, that’s why.
6.68 is not an arbitrary angle. It’s an *observed* one that *perfectly* explains all the motions of the real Moon that break your idealized geometric model into itty bitty bits.
Kind of like this:
https://youtu.be/zs7x1Hu29Wc?t=170
Brandy Guts, I’m not saying Clint R is correct, or incorrect. I’m just trying to explain why I think he argued that. I assume you get it now.
You’re welcome.
You’re correct, DREMT.
Because Moon always keeps one side facing the inside of its orbit, the opposite side always keeps facing outward. The 6.68° angle shown is measured from the perpendicular to Moon’s orbital plane. The imaginary spin axis “leans” in one direction. So on the opposite side of the orbit, the imaginary spin axis would be pointing 6.68° in the other direction. That makes a total change of 13.36°.
And that much change indicates Moon is NOT rotating. The ONLY axis that would keep pointing in the same direction is the perpendicular line (to Moon’s orbital plane). But, we know Moon is NOT spinning about that axis, as we would see all sides of Moon.
(We knew all this over a year ago, from the simple ball-on-a-string. That’s why this is so much fun.)
Pseudomod
Though I didn’t think a priori that Clint R’s 13.36 was nothing else than twice the inclination of the lunar axis wrt the ecliptic, I of course understood the nonsense of his ‘argumentation’.
Yours is exactly as nonsensical: you just need to apply the same ‘argumentation’ to Earth.
Earth has a spin axis, whose inclination is 23.5 degrees.
What is the sense of asking
” What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Earth’s orbit? ”
Why does the question make any sense for you, Clint R and some others when related to the Moon, but not when related to Earth?
It’s just the same nonsense, Pseudomod.
There is no change in angle in either case anywhere else than in your imagination.
dremt…”The “spin axis” changes orientation throughout the “orbit”.
***
Not only that, it traces out an elliptical path.
Explanation. The mysterious axis is claimed to be 6+ degrees from a perpendicular line to the orbital plane. If we allow that perpendicular line to trace out an orbital path then the axis will trace out an orbital path concentric to that path and outside it. That means, as you claim, the axis will point in 360 different directions as the Moon orbits.
Since there is a stipulation that the near face must always point toward Earth that is further proof that the Moon cannot be rotating, even using the spinner’s perspective. The motion is clearly curvilinear motion without local rotation.
What is afflicting is that none of the lunar spin deniers is able to grasp is that if Earth would rotate once per orbit around Sun instead of once per Earth day, it would appear to observers when viewed from the Sun exactly like Moon appears to observers on Earth.
So after protesting that a ball on a string does is not really a model for lunar motion, two of our three Dragon Cranks are again invoking the ball on a string model.
I couldn’t make this up.
Brandon here is a model that is supportable:
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw
This is going better than I expected.
Bin believes if he applies his nonsense to Earth, that “proves” his Moon nonsense!
And braindead brandon still doesn’t understand the simple ball-on-a-string.
I better start a list….
A ball-on-a-string only applies to a ball-on-a-string, not an orbit.
Gill, Gill,
The CSA Truther trick is so obvious even you, the lousiest auditor this Earth has ever known, should be able to see through it!
🤦
Little Willy gaslights again.
Girouette Graham gently gaslights again.
You are the one gaslighting, Little Willy.
Moar gaslighting from Greasy Graham.
Little Willy…your 5:10 PM comment was pure gaslighting. If me pointing out that you were gaslighting is gaslighting, then I guess you are gaslighting the hundreds of times you falsely accuse me of gaslighting. Whatever. Another pointless exchange.
I’ve found the best model of all.
https://youtu.be/3NYlYN-QTig?t=59
Enjoy.
Of course Generous Graham is gaslighting, for it is obvious that the Moon does not need to rotate on itself like if it was glued to the arm of the clock or a string like a a ball on string.
Gravity *only* pulls it toward the Earth, ceteris paribus.
Gravity does not turn the Moon around so that it needs to face the Earth.
Another force is at play.
That the CSA Truther presents his trick as a proof only reinforce his willingness to gaslight as many people as possible.
How did it work so far?
Generous Graham trolls this website for no good reason.
🙄
See what I mean?
No physics in the bag of fluff.
It’s not just gravity, though, is it, Little Willy? You have been told repeatedly that it’s a combination of gravity, and the moon’s linear momentum, e.g. look at the animations here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
And so Gruesome Graham punts again.
Readers might ask – what is *it* in his claim that *it* is not physics?
The forces involved in the famous cannonball arenot *only* physics?
Gruesome.
You said:
“Gravity does not turn the Moon around so that it needs to face the Earth.
Another force is at play.”
and that led to my response.
dremt from ww…”Gravity does not turn the Moon around so that it needs to face the Earth.
Another force is at play.
***
Gravity does not need to turn the Moon and the Moon does not turn. It keeps going in a straight line.
Gravity just needs to move the Moon enough to fit its motion to the curvature of the Earth, which drops in vertical elevation 5 metres for every 8000 horizontal meters of motion. If gravity manages to deviate the Moon 5 metres from its path for every 8000 metres moved in a tangential direction, the Moon will remain in orbit.
rlh…”A ball-on-a-string only applies to a ball-on-a-string, not an orbit”.
***
A ball on a string keeps the same side pointed at the twirlers hand. The Moon keeps the same face pointed at its external axis, Earth. I’d say their motions were similar. Similar enough to make a point.
Richard must be awfully short, the truth of this goes right over his head.
Wait.
When Griefing Graham says that the Moon keeps a straight line –
Does it mean that he is a closet translationist?
Bordon should be relieved of not being alone in the universe anymore.
(Gill, his evil twin, does not count.)
Ah, looks like it was Bordon who wrote this.
Bordon, you need to quote properly. What you attribute to Gentle Graham were my own words. That made me think that after my words came his. But they were yours.
Come on.
ww claims I need to quote properly. What does this say…
dremt from ww
***
The problem has been all along is that ww does not pay attention to what is written.
C’mon, Bordon.
Your “[Gainful Graham] from ww” is just your ordinary editorial license. It’s not Gainful Graham who said those words. They are not his words taken from me.
Had you quoted me directly instead of using the quote from Gainful Graham, you’d make a better case that you read my comment.
bindummy…”What is afflicting is that none of the lunar spin deniers is able to grasp is that if Earth would rotate once per orbit around Sun instead of once per Earth day, it would appear to observers when viewed from the Sun exactly like Moon appears to observers on Earth”.
***
No, it wouldn’t. If the Earth turned exactly once per orbit over 365 days, an observer from inside the orbit would see all sides of the Earth.
C’mon, Bordon.
Wanna bet?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
A ball-on-a-string only applies to a ball-on-a-string, not an elliptical orbit.
A ball on a string is a model of “orbit without spin”.
A *circular* orbit.
Of a system connected by material means.
Useful to show conservation of angular momentum.
An angular momentum Moon Dragon cranks consider being zero.
Such a self own.
Once again, a ball on a string is a model of “orbit without spin”.
Once again, Moon Dragon cranks deny that the Moon has angular momentum by promoting the model physics teachers use in class to illustrate the preservation of angular momentum.
🤦
Willard starts making stuff up about what non-spinners believe.
Oh, Gill.
You are such a sport.
Are you denying that the ball on string illustrates preservation of angular momentum, by any chance?
Yes, Bill, Little Willy is a complete disgrace.
Graceful Graham does not always use the ball on a string that is used in physics classes to illustrate the preservation of angular momentum, but when he does it is to use it as an argument for a position according to which the Moon has zero angular momentum.
🤦
Little Willy wants to change the subject onto angular momentum, and like a spoilt child, he will not stop until he gets his own way. He could of course just start a new thread on angular momentum, and see if anyone wants to join him there, in discussing it. Instead, he would rather continue to stamp his feet in this thread.
Graceful Graham distracts readers from the following facts:
– a ball on string preserves angular momentum
– Moon Dragon cranks deny that the Moon preserves angular momentum
– Moon Dragon cranks often use the ball on string as a model
– Moon Dragon cranks score an own goal cry time they do
The web of deflections Graham weaves is quite graceful.
The stamping of feet continues.
Almost 78 months of trolling by Graceful Graham.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Obviously Clint R is saying that the so-called lunar “spin axis” tilts by 6.68 degrees wrt its orbital plane, and that this tilt continues throughout the orbit, not remaining oriented towards the same fixed star throughout the orbit.”
Thanks for explaining this fake fact, another beauty by the shameless bunch.
Thus we add it to the list of your TEAM’s declared ‘truths’ that are not true.
"Brandy Guts, I’m not saying Clint R is correct, or incorrect. I’m just trying to explain why I think he argued that. I assume you get it now."
Beautiful self own.
*Chef kiss*
Obviously not, but never mind.
” Im not saying Clint R is correct, or incorrect.”
It is the latter.
The TEAMs declared ‘truths’ are easily debunked.
“The latitudinal libration of the Moon occurs because its axis is tilted slightly, relative to the plane of its orbit around the Earth; this makes the Moons north and south poles apparently alternate in tipping slightly toward the Earth as the Moon moves through its orbit.”
https://www.britannica.com/science/libration
…not, but never mind.
“not, but never mind.”
Because this is a valid source, and you guys don’t have one that contradicts it.
Oh well.
…but never mind.
The Moon rotates once per orbit of the Earth as many, many sources claim.
Fantastic contribution. Thank you.
Fantastic for a parrot. I am still waiting for Richard to lay out a scientific proof for that but he seems content to quote authority figures.
Come on, Bordon.
The proof is in Holy Madhavi.
Ask Gill for details.
Willard please stop trolling
I read somewhere upthread
” Everybody tries to make the fundamentals way too complicated. The earth completely controls the rotation of the moon.
Thus it meets all the needed definition of a rotation on an external axis. The fact that the moon has influences on it by the sun, jupiter, saturn etc. doesn’t change the fact that the rotation of the moon is controlled by earth’s gravity.
Spinners are just casting their line every which way to deny that reality. And why do they do that? It is because they worship authority and don’t understand why astronomy treats the moon’s motion in a dissected (like a frog) manner.
It is simply because our interactions with the moon can be approximated to what is today a sufficient degree by assuming its a perfect spheroid and using simpler math. Mathematicians to this day trying to perfect the calculations on it argue amongst themselves constantly. ”
*
Where is the scientific proof for these superficial claims?
*
” Mathematicians to this day trying to perfect the calculations on it argue amongst themselves constantly. ”
*
Where are all these constantly arguing mathematicians?
Where is the list of all these scientists (astronomers, physicists, mathematicians) who proved that the Moon doesn’t rotate about its polar axis, and hence proved all other scientists wrong?
Please avoid naming Tesla (whose pamphlet is anything else than a scientific proof).
Where are they, these fantastic people who scientifically contradicted Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, d’Alembert, Beer/Maedler, Habibullin, Rizvanov, Eckhardt, Mulholland, Koziel, Chapront, Calamé, Migus, Moons, Wisdom… the list is long and I forgot at least half of it!
Bin, instead of searching for people you can’t understand you should take notice of all the reality you’ve been denying. The ball-on-a-string tells you that an object orbiting, but NOT rotating, always as one side facing the inside of its orbit. You have to deny that, to hold to your false beliefs.
Now, your own cult nonsense has been busted. Moon does NOT have a spin axis.
Why do you hide from reality?
Fantastic contribution, Pup.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Willard please stop trolling
“Now, your own cult nonsense has been busted. Moon does NOT have a spin axis.”
But it tilts, and the tilt varies by 13.36 degrees!
Bwahahahaha!
nate…here’s all you need to know…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
Note the tilt of lunar axis to the vertical of 6.68 degrees. Using the knowledge that the Moon keeps the same side pointed at Earth, rotate the drawing so the Moon is opposite where it is in the drawing. Note that it is now leaning 6.68 degrees in the opposite direction. That sums to 13.36 degrees difference over half an orbit.
Something is wrong with the claimed tilt. We non-spinners have tried to tell you what is wrong but your comprehension level sucks.
Why is a made up fact all I need to know?
There is nothing available to indicate that is what happens to the ‘nonexistent’ axis, Gordon.
“Using the knowledge that the Moon keeps the same side pointed at Earth”
You neglect the observed Libration, which includes wobbling in latitude, caused by the fact that the axis leans 6.68 degrees in the SAME direction throughout its orbit, just as Earth’s axis does.
Thus we see the lunar north pole at times, and other times it is hidden from us.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1432508
binny the rocket scientist…”Mathematicians to this day trying to perfect the calculations on it argue amongst themselves constantly”.
***
If the mathematicians have the wrong basis in physics for the Moon’s rotation then their math will be wrong. That fact astounds you for some reason, that mathematicians in the 17th and 18th century could have had an incorrect understanding of lunar rotation.
If they had approached it from the Newtonian revelation that the Moon moves with a linear motion which is bent into a curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravity, they might have arrived at a different derivation. However, the interpretation of Newton’s Principia is misleading in that it contradicts the very words of Newton.
He stated plainly that the Moon moves with a linear motion. In the same breath, he stated that linear motion is bent into a curvilinear motion by gravity. He also acknowledged the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth. Yet the translation tells us he also claimed the Moon is rotating on a local axis.
***THE TRANSLATION IS WRONG***
That would make Newton completely stupid and we know he was not a stupid person. If the Moon is moving with a curvilinear motion while keeping the same side pointed at Earth it is the same as a car driving around an oval racetrack. Newton would never claim the car was also rotating about its COG while driving around the track under control. To rotate 360 degrees, it would require the loss of control and the car skidding on its tires as it turned through 360 degrees about its COG.
We tried everything on the spinners like using a ball on a string, under tension by the string so it could not turn on its COG without rolling itself up on the string. We tried a locomotive on an oval track system. To rotate the locomotive 360 degrees it would have to be lifted by a crane to rotate it. To turn a locomotivee 180 degrees it has to run onto a turntable and have the turntable rotate it.
The problem here is that you spinners completely misunderstand the meaning of rotation about a local axis. It means specifically that a mass has to have an angular momentum about an internal axis. You think a car driving around a track has an angular momentum about its COG and it does not. At no time, as long as the tires are in contact with the track and holding firm, without sliding, does the car have angular momentum about its COG.
Come on, Bordon.
Have you found the authoritative translation of the Principia yet?
And of course cars have angular momentum:
https://rwaphysicsoncars.wordpress.com/6-angular-momentum/
You forgot Claudius Ptolemy
Try harder Bidenito try harder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwafrO0YNoM
Elon Musk Announces 5 New SpaceX Starships
I think the Starship rocket exhaust should go thru
a lot of copper pipes with water running thru the pipe.
In plumbing you can’t solder a copper pipe if there is
any water in the pipe. Melting solder is at relatively
low temperature, or don’t need make the cooper pipe as hot
to make it glow. And you pipe water thru the pipe, so wouldn’t
reach water’s boiling temperature at 1 atm pressure.
But to be sure, have water at +40 psi and allow the end of
pipe to open and flowing, in case a large amount of steam is
made. So made pipe able withstand 300 psi, run it at 40 or 60
psi. And copper shouldn’t get as hot as pot of water in a stove-
despite +4000 C rocket exhaust.
So have about 3″ diameter copper pipe spaced by 6″ inches.
And have another row below with 3″ diameter pipe in middle of
space of pipes above it. And then 90 degree to it, and the 3″ pipe
with a 4″ space.
So, pipe could endlessly survive rocket exhaust, it will cool rocket exhaust a bit and it will slow and cause turbulence to thrust, and if thermal concrete still explodes, it get in way flying debris [break the pipes, rather than break the rocket].
And once empty of water, it will light enough to move and replace other mobile platform which gives access to crew to bottom of rocket [inspection and etc].
bit
Braindead, California Style
California storms: A 2-inch fish is limiting how much water can be captured for cities and farms
The most drenching storms in the past five years have soaked Northern California, sending billions of gallons of water pouring across the state after three years of severe drought.
But 94% of the water that has flowed since New Year’s Eve through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, a linchpin of Californias water system, has continued straight to the Pacific Ocean instead of being captured and stored in the state’s reservoirs.
Environmental regulations aimed at protecting a two-inch-long fish, the endangered Delta smelt, have required the massive state and federal pumps near Tracy to reduce pumping rates by nearly half of their full limit, sharply curbing the amount of water that can be saved for farms and cities to the south.
The move has angered Central Valley politicians of both parties along with agricultural leaders, who have been arguing for many months that someone must help farmers suffering terribly during the drought. Now they are frustrated that the state Department of Water Resources and the federal Bureau of Reclamation aren’t capturing more water amid the record rainfall.
“It’s like winning the lottery and blowing it all in Vegas,” said Jim Houston, administrator of the California Farm Bureau Federation. “You have nothing to show for it at the end of the day.”
ttps://www.mercurynews.com/2023/01/13/california-storms-environmental-rules-are-limiting-how-much-water-can-be-captured-for-cities-and-farms/
We know it’s not about the fish. It’s about idiots like the California governor and his alarmist hordes wanting to keep the focus on the propaganda of catastrophic climate change.
From the article:
“The rules were put in place by the Trump administration in 2019”
binny balloon….” Bindidon, I gave you the link that shows the bogus angle of 6.68.
1. Why is it bogus, Clint R? Just because you deny it?
2. Why did you multiply this angle by 2? Do you yourself know the reason?
3. Why do you admit the inclination of Earths spin axis, but not that of the Moon?
***
1)It’s bogus because the Moon has no rotational axis.
2)You can see the 6.68 degree alleged axis here…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
By the time the Moon is 180 degrees around it orbit, that N-S axis must be tilted in the opposite direction. We know that since the inside face of the Moon must always be on the inside, therefore the axis must tilt out the way at the 180 degree point. In fact it must be tilted 6.68 degrees from the vertical all around the orbit
Ergo, 2 x 6.8 degrees = 13.6 degrees difference.
3)The same is not true for Earth’s axis because the Earth’s axis is always slanted in the same direction. That’s why we have seasons.
According to the wiki drawing above, the Moon’s alleged axis changes its tilt from one side of the orbit to the other. The only way it could do that is if the axis N-pole itself was wobbling once per orbit in a circle.
“Its bogus because the Moon has no rotational axis.”
Yes it does.
Correct! At the earth’s COM!
I should have added…no rotational axis within the Moon. It does have a rotational axis in the Earth although Richard has it located in the wrong place.
Richard is motivated by watching Monty Python, in particular, the skit of the ‘bloody, good argument’.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hwqn9
I had to click o the video to get sound.
Gordo’s Wrong Again.
Pay attention Swannie. We are not claiming the 13+ degrees is correct, only that the spinners at Wiki are wrong about an axis and that it is tilted 6.68 degrees to a perpendicular of the orbital plane.
I can’t speak for Clint on this but it’s his observation. Maybe he sees it differently.
Once again, Robertson behaves so ignorant, so stubborn…
” 1)Its bogus because the Moon has no rotational axis. ”
But… that’s exactly what the pseudo-engineer Robertson could never disprove – except with tricks like his endless appeals to Tesla’s authority, or his perverse misrepresentations of Newton’s original New Latin text (yes, Robertson: New; this Old Latin, which you suspect was used by Newton, was in use at best until about 75 BC).
*
” 3)The same is not true for Earths axis because the Earths axis is always slanted in the same direction. Thats why we have seasons. ”
Is it possible to behave dumber? I don’t think it is…
Robertson, Moon’s axis is also ‘always slanted in the same direction’.
Why are you stupid enough to think that a celestial body’s axial tilt could vary by such amounts without fatally affecting the shape of its orbit?
You, Robertson, an engineer? OMG.
If the Moon had an axial tilt of 23.5 degrees like Earth, it would have seasons too – despite orbiting Earth.
If the Earth rotated around the Sun once per orbit, an observing device very close to the Sun would always see the Earth showing its same face to the empty focus of its elliptical orbit, just as the Moon does with respect to Earth.
An orbit is a rotation. Thats why there is an extra sidereal rotation with every single orbit that appears from some far star if one ignores the orbit just like but not the same as a rotation on an internal axis.
Fundamental to the spinner position is that an orbit is NOT a rotation. yet its presence always adds up to a rotation.
These are your beliefs, but you provide no definition of ORBIT that agrees. And no definition of ROTATION at all.
We provide you multiple definitions of both, and they do not agree with you. So you pretend that these can be ignored.
Back a few years ago, when facts actually mattered, you would have lost the debate.
binny…”Robertson, Moons axis is also always slanted in the same direction.
Why are you stupid enough to think that a celestial bodys axial tilt could vary by such amounts without fatally affecting the shape of its orbit?”
***
I don’t think the Moon has an axis of rotation internally, therefore I don’t think the imaginary axis tilts. The purpose of the link provided was to demonstrate how spinners contradict themselves.
You still don’t get it, which fails to surprise me given your penchant for quoting authority figures. If the Moon has an axis and is tilted as shown at the link, in order for it to keep the same face pointed at Earth, it has to be pointed in the opposite direction 180 degrees later. That means its alleged axis has changed its tilt by 13+ degrees, therefore the Moon would be wobbling dangerously.
The Earth has a wobble of about 4 feet. That is, Earth’s North Pole moves back and fro by 4 feet every rotation. A wobble of 13 degrees for the Moon would make it quite unstable. A wobble of 13.3 degrees would represent a motion of the pole by about 405 kilometres on the Moon.
Come in, Bordon.
The Earth does not change its tilt as it orbits the Sun.
Unless you are thinking very long term.
About 2 degrees every 40K.
Also, you should not start by assuming what you want to prove.
“By the time the Moon is 180 degrees around it orbit, that N-S axis must be tilted in the opposite direction. We know that since the inside face of the Moon must always be on the inside, therefore the axis must tilt out the way at the 180 degree point”
Clint does some creative fiction writing and of course he brings no evidence of his 13.36 degree swing.
Ignores libration. Aproximately same Moon face points to the Earth, but wobbles side to side and up and down. The up and down is due to tilted axis, which DOES NOT tilt in the opposite direction when the Moon has moved 180 degrees around its orbit.
It DOES point in the same direction throughout the orbit, just as Earth’s axis does.
nate…”Clint does some creative fiction writing and of course he brings no evidence of his 13.36 degree swing”.
***
Clint did not write that, I did. I gave all the evidence required for a person with a basically logical mind.
If the Moon has an axial tilt as shown in the wiki drawing, we know from the fact that it keeps the same face pointed at the Earth, that 180 degrees later, the tilt must be in the opposite direction. 6.68 + 6.68 = 13.36 degrees difference.
The only way that is possible is if the Moon had a considerable wobble. I calculated, based on the Moon’s diameter that a 13.36 deviation works out to 405 kilometres of movement. A wobble of that extent would likely be noticeable from Earth.
“If the Moon has an axial tilt as shown in the wiki drawing, we know from the fact that it keeps the same face pointed at the Earth”
which is also not a fact.
You ignore libration, as you do any inconvenient facts.
How to Beg the Question in One Easy Step
Well played, Bordon!
How to Beg the Question in One Easy Step
“Yes it does”.
Well played, RLH!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/earth-moon-system
[inserts random link].
Gratuitous Graham has no link to offer.
So he pretends he has one.
Gratuitously.
Untrue. Willard lies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287 https://www.brightstorm.com/science/physics/circular-motion-and-rotational-mechanics/rotation-and-revolution/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
What? Hunter presents links which agree with the Spinners? From his links, Rotation refers to a circular motion around a body’s internal axis where as, Revolution refers to motion around some external axis, particularly, an orbit.
It is obvious from these links that rotating and revolving are two different motions and the word “rotate” should not be applied to circumstances such as orbits. When Hunter figures that out, maybe we can move on.
"Revolution refers to motion around some external axis"
If there’s an axis of rotation, then it’s rotation, idiot!
"Revolution/orbit" is a rotation about an external axis, as the links show.
There is no such thing as an external axis where gravity is concerned.
That’s just an utterly irrelevant diversion. So I’ll ignore it.
Gill, Gill,
None of these links establishes that the Moon does not spin.
And like ES says, they rather support the established view.
Which is why it is called the established view.
Try again.
If "revolution/orbit" is a rotation about an external axis, then no, the moon does not spin.
That’s why people are so frantic about trying to deny the definitions linked to, Little Willy.
None of these sources establish that the Moon does not spin.
They do not even provide evidence for it.
Pure gaslighting from our gaslighter.
If "revolution/orbit" is a rotation about an external axis, then no, the moon does not spin.
Gargantuan Graham repeats the same irrelevant point.
None of these sources supports Moon Dragon cranks.
How can something that, if true, means the moon doesn’t spin, be an “irrelevant point”? Little Willy so funny with his gaslighting.
“trying to deny the definitions linked to”
No definitions were linked to.
There are no definitions of Orbit, defining it as a rotation.
You guys have lost that argument.
“If “revolution/orbit” is a rotation about an external axis, then…”
‘If the Earth is flat, then ….’
‘If 7 > 11, then …’
Some people think these false premises are legitimate because they are just a matter of OPINION.
But that is a category error.
“A category mistake, or category error, or categorical mistake, or mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category”
The point was that your link was completely random, having nothing to do with the thread.
The most important point is that Moon Dragon cranks have very little lichurchur to point to.
But they *do* have a music video, so there is that.
That might be an important point to you, but it is not related to the subject of this thread.
Graceful Graham might wish to ignore the vast lichurchur in the Earth-Moon that it will not go away. Neither will disappear the desert landscape of the Mood Dragon lichurchur cranks left.
If only Graceful Graham had the toy models Perigal left. Sad.
Little Willy continues with his off-topic diversions.
Graceful Graham could never identify a topic even his life depended on it.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
How to Beg
ww…gets the cherry-pick of the month award.
We willy, will you try to pay attention. The subject of the current thread is the alleged ***LOCAL*** axis of the Moon. Are you so mentally challenged that I have to state ‘local’ axis each time?
Come on, Bordon.
You have no idea what a cherry is.
Your task is to prove that the Moon does not spin.
If you posit that she does, then you beg the question.
Clearer this time?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
How to Beg the Question in One Easy Step
Well played, Bordon!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Hypersensitve Camera Beams Back Photo of the Dark Side of the Moon
Jan 13, 2023
https://petapixel.com/2023/01/13/hypersensitve-camera-beams-back-photo-of-the-dark-side-of-the-moon/
The list of things that are ‘true’ because the non-spinners have declared them to be true, just keeps growing.
‘Orbit is defined as a rotation’
‘A rotation cannot be defined’
‘A rotation used to be defined by Madhavi as a circular movement around an axis, but that is no longer true’
‘Axial tilt does not require an axis to exist’
‘The non existent axis doesn’t point to a fixed point among the stars anymore’
‘The non existent axis changes its tilt by 13.36 degrees’
Unfortunately none of these ‘truths’ have any evidence to back them up.
That’s because none of them are actually true.
Troll Nate as you seek to pervert reality, you have several advantages. You can take things out of context. You can misrepresent what people say. You can make false accusations.
Even with all those advantages, reality always wins.
Your imaginary spin axis changes by 13.36°, based on your own cult’s nonsense.
And the simple ball-on-a-string indicates that an orbiting object, without axial rotation, would always keep one side facing the inside of its orbit. Just like Moon. Circular or elliptical orbit makes no difference.
What will you try next?
“Your imaginary spin axis changes by 13.36”
Relative to what?
rlh…”Your imaginary spin axis changes by 13.36
Relative to what?”
***
Are you sure you have a Master’s degree? Are you sure its not a Master Baiter’s degree?
Relative to a line perpendicular to the orbital plane. That has already been stated several times.
“Circular or elliptical orbit makes no difference”
Orbits are always elliptical.
When you guys include librations, tilted axes, and elliptical orbits all not being rotations then nothing is a rotation.
Gill, Gill,
If you abstract all the relevant details, even the ball on string would work.
Relevant details like physics.
And then there is the fact that particles of the moon orbit the central spin axis of the moon. . . .well what can I say? LMAO!
Willard says:
If you abstract all the relevant details, even the ball on string would work.
Relevant details like physics.
—————————–
You mean questioning authority? Physics is all about questioning authority.
Gill, Gill,
Questioning is one thing, trolling is another.
Please learn the difference.
” And then there is the fact that particles of the Earth orbit the central spin axis of the Earth. . . .well what can I say? LMAO! “
There are more precise words than rotation to describe what you see.
1. Orbit.
2. Revolution.
being just 2.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Cult Leader Grammis pups wrote:
Surely you don’t mean THIS GRAPHIC.
Yep, ES. Pup does.
🤦
Thickson, Clint R and I are two different people. Get that through your thick skull.
Pseudomod
You may be two different people; but since you share 100% of Clint R’s anti-scientific nonsense, you can hardly be distinguished from him here.
Not true, but never any point in talking to you.
Poor Bindidon. His meltdown has him so defeated he’s just lashing out aimlessly. It’s a good thing he’s not allowed to own a gun. He’d be shooting himself in his own foot.
He reminds me of Norman.
Binny,
Let’s help our cranks once more:
“Pup” refers to Pup, for he’s a pup.
“Grammis” refers to who owns the pup.
It’s not that hard.
But yeah, they’re mostly indistinguishable, except when they argue about the existence of tidal locking…
They should fight that one to prove to ES who’s the boss!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Swanson has the right graphic, but the wrong projection of lunar motion.
I’ll add this one to the list….
Whereas Clint projects the figure off the page, inserting his own fantasy into it. Then declaring it ‘truth’.
Shameless.
Troll Nate is almost in tears as he watches his false beliefs being trashed.
That’s a good thing.
He overestimates his competence and his influence on people.
Classic DK syndrome.
Swannie…I got sucked in by such a drawing at first till I noticed what is wrong. In the drawing, we are viewing the edge of the orbital plane, therefore the Moon is moving into the page and re-emerging on the left coming out of the page. While in the page, somehow the poles became reversed. They fail to explain in the drawing how that is possible.
The only way you can see the real action is to look down on the Moon, hence the orbital plane, as it rotates about the Earth. Therefore the perpendicular axis will appear as a centred dot on the Moon with the axis protruding as a dot to the outside of it. Those dots must always move in parallel to maintain the condition that the same side always face the Earth.
Due to the requirement that the inside of the Moon must face Earth, that clearly means the dot located to the outside of the Moon must always appear on the outside. The Pole cannot cross over as depicted in your drawing. In other words, your drawing is wrong.
Come on, Bordon.
The polar axis of a celestial body can be wherever:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/uranus/in-depth/
It just is where it is.
Try not to rationalize too much.
Gordo wrote:
No, Gordo, the Moon’s polar axis in the drawing is nearly perpendicular to the Ecliptic plane on both sides of the graphic. That’s the 1.54 degree Lunar Obliquity as shown on the RHS. The Moon’s orbital axis is the dotted line to the left of the “N” pole and to the right of the “S” pole. There’s no reversal.
Have you had your vision checked lately? Need trifocals to read?
Little Willy, Swanson, please stop trolling.
Nate says:
”A rotation used to be defined by Madhavi as a circular movement around an axis, but that is no longer true”
———————-
That was not a definition Nate. That was a compare and contrast explanation of the difference between what a translation is versus what a rotation is.
She also said: ”A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same
direction during the motion.”
And yet you insist that a translation is something else. Between the two so-called definitions there is a good amount of territory and as DREMT has pointed out one can pick and choose between the MOTR and the MOTL and IMO opinion the choice has to come down to whether there is one motion or two motions.
The things you call out such as non-perpendicular axis and libration which if they did not exist would be ‘pure rotation’ or an elliptical Kepler orbit with an eccentricity between =0 which would be ‘uniform circular motion’ are just special cases of rotation.
Ultimately IMO it boils down to closer examination as to whether the motion is one or more motions.
You can’t call out Madhavis characterization of a rotation as definitive without also accepting that her characterization of a translation is also definitive. So your argument self destructs on its own terms.
Gill, Gill,
You are not playing team right now.
Gellified Graham spent the trying to flee away from opening Holy Madhavi.
I suspect he already knows it refutes his silly 1+1 trick.
Here you are, offering your help to audit back the text.
Where shall we begin?
> spent the
day yesterday
Nope Willard. Madhavi acknowledges rotations around external axes.
Gill, Gill,
You yourself DESTROYED the 1+1 trick below.
If the motion of the Moon is complex, it falls under what Madhavi calls general motion.
General motion involves *both* translation and rotation.
In general motion, you can have 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 and even more if you want.
We agree Willard.
The MOTR is a complex motion. But I am not going with translation and rotation. I am going with 2 rotations because the MOTR is in orbit and it merely appears to not be in a rotation because of the existence of a synchronized counter rotation as described here in Experiment 3.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
Feel free to post an experiment if you disagree.
The 1+1 argument is simply that you cannot combine rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis and get motion like the MOTL. It cannot be refuted.
The 1+1 argument is easily refuted by reading back Holy Madhavi.
And I hope BG appreciates this other graceful omission of the *only* qualifier by Graceful Graham.
As BG agrees, “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL. Thus, you cannot add rotation about an internal axis to that motion, and still end up with motion like the MOTL! Even a child could understand.
“Thus, you cannot add rotation about an internal axis to that motion, and still end up with motion like the MOTL! Even a child could understand.”
Yes! You get it! There is not an ADDITIONAL rotation about the internal axis. The rotation about the internal axis is one and the same rate as the rotation about the external axis. When there is a rotation about the external axis, there is an identical rotation about the internal axis. If you use the rotation sensor on your phone, you will record a rotation whether the phone is placed on the external axis or the internal axis; whether it is place at the center of a MGR or near the edge of the MGR.
Exactly what I have been saying all along.
“When there is a rotation about the external axis, there is an identical rotation about the internal axis”
No, Tim. Try reading what I said again (and note that Brandon agrees):
”“rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL“
There you go.
Mighty Tim DESTROYS the 1+1 trick.
Graceful Graham should gracefully concede the point and move on.
Tim is wrong. BG and I are right.
“Can be described as,” Graham. It can *also* be described as circular motion about an external axis and a rotation about an internal axis at the same angular rate.
In short, I’m far more in agreement with Tim than you.
AQ did an elegant proof of why the latter model makes more physical sense than the former. You should not dismiss it so Gratuitously.
And as seen here before, so did the Slo Mo Guys. There are no maths so even you should be able to understand it.
https://youtu.be/zs7x1Hu29Wc?t=170
"It can *also* be described as circular motion about an external axis and a rotation about an internal axis at the same angular rate."
Weasel words from Brandy Guts. These are the two possible kinematic descriptions for motion like the MOTL:
1) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis (one motion)
2) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis (two motions).
Tim has acknowledged that movement like the MOTL can be described as "one motion". Yet he wants that "one motion" to somehow include both rotation about an external axis and rotation about an internal axis! No, Tim, that would be two motions…and "two motions" already has a description…number 2), above.
Mighty Tim adresses the *argument* that underpins the 1+1 trick.
Gallivanting Graham tries to deflect on the *conclusion*.
An equivocation on the notion of argument.
And BG agrees with the refutation offered by Tim.
So what does Gallivanting Graham does?
He will misrepresent both BG and Tim!
So beautiful gaslighting.
DRENT, you plainly said “Thus, you cannot add rotation about an internal axis to that motion, and still end up with motion like the MOTL!”
And that is what I have said all along. You don’t need to ‘add’ rotation about the center of the moon — the rotation about the center means there is, as a natural consequence, and equal (but not additional) rotation about infinite other axes.
Draw an axis up though the center of the MOTL. draw a vector from that axis to any point on the MOTL. Does that vector change orientation and remain constant length? Yes — so there is rotation about that axis.
Tim mostly just made some declarations. Little Willy accepts them as absolute truth, because it’s Tim. This is the only argument Tim made:
"If you use the rotation sensor on your phone, you will record a rotation whether the phone is placed on the external axis or the internal axis; whether it is place at the center of a MGR or near the edge of the MGR."
The answer to that is obvious: there is a change in orientation experienced by the phone whether the phone is placed at the center of a MGR or near the edge of the MGR. If placed at the center of the MGR, the phone is simply rotating on its own axis. If placed near the edge of the MGR, the phone is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own internal axis. It’s still "rotating", however (just not on its own internal axis) thus it experiences a change in orientation, which is what the phone sensor detects.
"Draw an axis up though the center of the MOTL. draw a vector from that axis to any point on the MOTL. Does that vector change orientation and remain constant length? Yes — so there is rotation about that axis."
Tim, you can only say there is rotation about an internal axis for the MOTL if you go with option 2):
"2) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis (two motions)."
Note that this is two motions, not one motion. You have agreed that movement like the MOTL can be described as "one motion".
Read my 12:26 PM comment, basically.
Galloping Graham galops again.
I hope BG noticed how Galloping Graham used his *only* once again.
We should be thankful for the many ways he distorted quantification to galop.
With an L or two. Whichever he prefers.
Once again, I await a response from either Tim or Brandy Guts, and put Little Willy on "ignore/automatic PST" for the rest of the sub-thread.
“No, Tim. Try reading what I said again (and note that Brandon agrees)”
Again DREMT always ignores others’ logic, just refers them to his declared ‘truths’.
[MIGHTY TIM] There is no *additional* rotation.
[GALOPING GRAHAM] Read what I wrote again.
[MT] The spin is *at the same rate* as the orbit.
[GG] I confer to you to what I wrote.
[MT] The rotation of the spin is a *natural consequence* of the orbit.
[GG] I repeat what I said.
[W] Galoping Graham is Galoping.
[GG] I await Mighty Tim.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I get what you are thinking, DREMT. I really do. You are thinking of physical horses on physical poles on physical platforms. The horse is rigidly attached to the pole, so it doesn’t rotate on the pole. You are thinking of a picture of the moon on a sticker stuck to some transparent sheet that carries the MOTL. The image is attached to the turntable, so the image of the moon doesn’t rotate on the sheet.
There is no added rotation beyond the rotation of the base around its center.
What you can’t seem to grasp is that ‘rotating about a mathematical axis’ could be different from ‘rotating on a physical platform.”
You seem stuck in Piaget’s ‘concrete operational stage’ and can’t seem to move on to the ‘abstract operational stage’.
Tim, the mind-reader, gets everything wrong, as usual.
You have said that the movement of the MOTL can be described as being comprised of "one motion". You’ve also said before that it can be described as being comprised of "two motions". These are your options, Tim:
1) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis (one motion).
2) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis (two motions).
Every time, and in every possible circumstance, that you refer to the MOTL as "rotating on its own axis", you are going with option 2). Whether you understand that, or not.
I know you don’t realize, but you confirmed what I wrote, DREMT. The things your say are indeed understandable by a child. My points require thinking beyond the concrete thinking of a child.
I did not confirm what you wrote, Tim. We are not in agreement, and you appear to be delusional.
Gentle Graham gaslights once more.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Tim, the mind-reader, gets everything wrong, as usual.”
Then proceeds to read Tim’s mind.
”
Every time, and in every possible circumstance, that you refer to the MOTL as “rotating on its own axis”, you are going with option 2)”
Bwahahahaha!
Readers will no doubt recall that my stalker agrees one of the ways the movement of the MOTL can be described is "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis". Thus, he should agree with what I’m saying. For some reason, he just chooses to drift around the comment section making bitchy little remarks about me rather than correcting Tim.
Consider the phone. It records rotation. It records positional changes (translation).
In the case of the MOTR it only detects translation, its x,y position changes, but no orientation changes. Any rotations are purely in the imagination of some people.
In the case of the MOTL it detects translation because its x,y position changes. And it detects rotation, because its orientation changes, and the axis of rotation will be determined to be in the z direction.
Thats all you need to know describe planetary orbits and rotations.
Only in the unique cartoon case of the MOTL, could you take the detected translation and rotation data and find that, together, it is equivalent to a rotation around an external axis.
But in general that will not work, and it would be difficult and pointless to try to describe orbits it that way.
Thats all there is to it.
Readers will note that my stalker clearly described the axial rotation of the MOTL strictly in the context of 2), translation in a circle plus rotation on its own internal axis (two motions). Exactly as I said. Will Tim respond to my stalker? Of course not. "Spinner" will never argue against "Spinner".
Ever.
“In the case of the MOTL it detects translation because its x,y position changes. And it detects rotation, because its orientation changes, and the axis of rotation will be determined to be in the z direction.”
Notice that the phone detects rotation, and the direction of the axis of rotation (z), but not the position of the axis. By convention it can be taken to be the COM of the body.
Readers will no doubt recall that my stalker agrees one of the ways the movement of the MOTL can be described is "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
"Spinner" will never argue against "Spinner".
Ever.
Readers will recall that Garbagebowl Graham can’t stop gaslighting.
Here he comes…
Nate says:
”In the case of the MOTR it only detects translation, its x,y position changes, but no orientation changes. Any rotations are purely in the imagination of some people.”
Yes indeed just ‘some’.
This entire conversation is dependent upon the imagination of people Nate.
Imagination is an absolute necessity to qualify as an engineer and to imagine how one would actually ‘build’ a model of the MOTR.
Those who lack the imagination of how to do that are not qualified as engineers or applied physicists, nor effective experimenters.
> Imagination is an absolute necessity to qualify as an engineer
Didn’t you say you were an auditor, Gill?
“Those who lack the imagination”
In science, those who imagine effects that arent observed and publish them are considered fraudsters.
"Spinner" will never argue against "Spinner".
Ever.
Nate says:
”In science, those who imagine effects that arent observed and publish them are considered fraudsters.”
Well I guess that leaves you and the rest of the spinners as fraudsters.
That because this video shows a scientist/engineer how can build a MOTR and explain how it works and make a video of it as proof.
Experiment 1 shows neither a MOTL nor a MOTR but a moon that has a rotation on its axis in the same direction as the moon’s orbit.
Experiment 2 demonstrates how to build a MOTL
Experiment 3 demonstrates how to build a MOTR.
There proof of no fraud. No can you prove you are not a fraud? By building such a demonstration using your theory? If not Nate you have proven yourself to be a fraud via inaction in explaining and demonstrating how your system works.
“That because this video shows a scientist/engineer how can build a MOTR and explain how it works and make a video of it as proof.”
Sure, and my grandfather clock shows how the ONE motion of the minute hand on the clock face, can come from dozens of hidden rotations of gears. But, unlike for the Moon, or the cartoon moons, those hidden motions in back of my grandfather clock can be discovered, observed and verified.
So you can imagine that the Moon is built the way it is in the video, with two hidden mechanical rotations , or the way my grandfather is built with dozens of hidden mechanical motions. But neither mechanism is testable, verifiable, or falsifiable.
But if you insist you KNOW what those hidden motions are real regardless, then that’s a religious belief, my friend.
And BTW, even DREMT understands the video is flawed and is not proof of anything.
Ah, Bill is talking about the CSAItruth video:
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw
Yes, that’s a good demonstration of the motions from the “Non-Spinner” way of looking at it…apart from one small mistake at about 0:40 where the narrator says the moon’s axial rotation is diametrically opposite to its orbital motion, when he means in the same direction. The narrator uses the terms “orbit” or “normal orbital motion” for “orbit without spin” and “rotate” for “axial rotation” (or rotation about an internal axis). So when he says the moon is “not rotating” he means “not rotating about an internal axis”. Obviously that should be clear to most people anyway, but thought I should add it, just in case.
The video should really clear up any confusion. I will just make sure it’s understood that it has nothing to do with reference frames, it is simply a demonstration of the motions whereby “axial rotation” (rotation about an internal axis) is kept separate from the “orbit without spin” motion as the “Non-Spinners” see it…so motion like the MOTL. Once again: nothing to do with reference frames, just a question of keeping the two motions separate from one another.
Not only Bill cites the CSA Truther trick, but he holds that Glorious Graham is the CSA Truther!
So glorious.
The trick is obvious – the CSA Truther turns the Moon on herself as he orbits it. Thus he hides a rotation.
“The narrator uses the terms orbit or normal orbital motion for orbit without spin and rotate for axial rotation (or rotation about an internal axis). So when he says the moon is not rotating he means not rotating about an internal axis.”
Bwahahahah..
He never says ‘axial rotation’ when referring to the Moon’s rotation or lack thereof.
But naturally DREMT is able to read the mind of the translator, or simply imagines that his thinking aligns with DREMTs.
While everyone else assumes what he says as what he means!
"The trick is obvious – the CSA Truther turns the Moon on herself as he orbits it. Thus he hides a rotation."
Simply ineducable.
Cuz no one could possibly disagree with how DREMT sees things!
Simply ineducable.
Some think ‘educating’ means getting people to think as you do.
…ineducable.
Nate is a fraudster by his own definition
Annoying facts getting in the way?
Just trash the messenger.
Troll Handbook, Ch 11.
“The video should really clear up any confusion. I will just make sure its understood that it has nothing to do with reference frames”
The narrator didnt get your memo.
“It is one orbit. It should never be considered one rotation.”
At the beginning of the video @ 1 min, the Moon arrow starts pointing DOWN and ends pointing down, IOW it rotates 360 degrees in the inertial frame, while it does 1/2 of an orbit, but the narrator clearly states that it has rotated only 180 degrees.
But 180 degrees is correct in REFERENCE to the rotating arm.
At the end of the video.
“Let us take the Moon off the (arm) and move it in this manner, although it appears to be not rotating”
In this case the Moon is moved manually like the MOTR with NO rotation in the inertial frame of reference.
But he states:
“the moment it is placed back on the motor (arm) its rotation becomes clearly visible”
In this case the same MOTR motion is achieved on the rotating arm with CW motor rotation.
So once again, it is only in REFERENCE to the rotating arm, does he claim it has rotation.
This makes it clear, as throughout the video, he is measuring the moons rotation in a rotating reference frame.
If there’s one thing that’s clear about this debate, it’s that some people will never let go of the idea that reference frames resolve the moon issue. It’s so weird as well, since if they genuinely thought it was just a matter of "the moon rotates on its own internal axis wrt an inertial reference frame and doesn’t rotate on its own internal axis wrt a rotating reference frame", they would simply leave it at that. There would be no need for them to ever discuss anything else.
Yet, as we see, part of them (deep down) must realize that reference frames resolving the issue can’t be true, since they spend so much time arguing about other things besides reference frames. And, there’s flashes of them getting it, like conceding that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL, which must surely make them see at least for a little bit that the issue is not resolved by reference frames…then along comes a video that they choose to misinterpret/misunderstand, and they’re back to their old ways again.
All very odd…but fascinating to watch.
“So when he says the moon is not rotating he means not rotating about an internal axis. ”
He means “not rotating relative to the box under the moon”. Or not rotating relative to the axle (NOT ‘axis’) that is holding the moon.
But when you watch the arrow on the moon (from 0:50 – 1:30), the arrow is pointing “down” when it starts the orbit. The arrow is again pointing “down” half way through the orbit, and is once again pointing “down” after one full orbit. 720 degrees.
When measured from the logical, inertial frame of the camera making the video, the MOTL rotates one time per orbit. The MOTR rotates 0 times per orbit.
And for a physical counter-argument, we could mount a picture of the moon on an x-y plotter rather than on a rotating arm. Then repeat the whole video with a new physical set up.
With the x-y plotter, one orbit would leave the ‘arrow’ on the moon always pointing ‘down’ during the orbit. To make the moon face in the whole time, the motor would have to turn once during one orbit.
For many reasons, ‘the x-y plotter’ analogy is better than the ‘rotating arm’ analogy. Most directly because an x-y-plotter can handle elliptical orbits and a rotating arm cannot.
See what I mean?
Tim is still "lost in reference frames".
He will never understand that it is not a question of judging axial rotation wrt a specific reference frame, it is a question of whether "orbital motion", or "orbit without spin" (if you need that clarity) is like the MOTL or the MOTR, and then keeping "axial rotation" separate to that motion, in either case.
The discussion is about what "orbital motion" is, nothing more.
“… some people will never let go of the idea that reference frames resolve the moon issue. ”
No. Reference frames simply provide the language needed to discuss the issues. Angles (or positions) can only be measured relative to frames of reference. Rotations (or translations) only have meaning relative to frames of reference.
"No. Reference frames simply provide the language needed to discuss the issues. Angles (or positions) can only be measured relative to frames of reference. Rotations (or translations) only have meaning relative to frames of reference…"
…but that is agreed, Tim! That’s not what I mean by "reference frames do not resolve the moon issue". How many times do I have to explain it!?
Some people argue that the moon rotates on its own internal axis wrt an inertial reference frame, and does not rotate on its own internal axis wrt a rotating reference frame, and that this is all there is to it. Moon issue resolved. That is not the case.
Yes, we need a reference frame to discuss rotations and translations…but we already have that, and always have! Once again, in this video, the relevant reference frame has its origin within the "Earth", whilst the sides of the screen represent the distant "fixed stars". Or N, S, E and W compass positions, if you prefer. The top of the screen is "north", the bottom "south", and so on. Exactly like with the MOTL/MOTR GIF. We are all discussing this issue wrt the same reference frame, and always have been!
Where you go wrong is in mentally switching from that to another reference frame, with the origin placed at the CoM of the moon itself…all as I explained to you further up-thread. You can’t mix up reference frames in this way and then declare that the MOTL is "rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis". It is not!
"Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL, Tim. Wrt the reference frame discussed, where the origin is within the Earth.
“the relevant reference frame has its origin within the “Earth””
No. The relevant frame to determine rotation of the moon is the frame centered on the COM of the moon. If you want to know if the moon rotates on it’s axis, then the relevant frame is the axis (and two axes perpendicular axes aligned with the ‘fixed stars’).
"No. The relevant frame to determine rotation of the moon is the frame centered on the COM of the moon. If you want to know if the moon rotates on it’s axis, then the relevant frame is the axis (and two axes perpendicular axes aligned with the ‘fixed stars’)."
Wrong, Tim…that’s the way you choose to do it if you ignore what "orbit without spin" is, in the first place!
If you go with the frame centered on the CoM of the moon, and declare it’s "rotating on its own internal axis", then you are automatically saying that "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR…but that doesn’t mean that "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR, it’s just what you have arbitrarily decided by using that reference frame to determine the axial rotation of the moon!
It’s basically circular logic, Tim.
Whereas what we need to determine is whether "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL or the MOTR, in the first place. Then whether or not the moon is rotating on its own axis becomes obvious.
Wrong, Timthats the way you choose to do it if you ignore what “orbit without spin” is, in the first place!”
Wrong. I don’t ignore anything ‘first’. I deal with the issue at hand directly. To determine ‘rotation about an axis’ you start with the axis. You don’t start with ‘orbits’ and only come back to rotation once you have picked your own arbitrary definition.
"Starting with the axis" is starting by assuming that there’s an internal axis of rotation. Which is what you’re supposed to be setting out to determine! So it’s circular logic. You need to determine if there’s an internal axis of rotation, first of all. Which requires looking at the bigger picture…and that means putting your origin through the Earth, rather than the CoM of the moon. That is, quite literally, "the bigger picture".
An object can rotate about an external axis without rotating about an internal axis. Surely you agree with that?
In which case, there has to be a motion which corresponds to that description. It just so happens that there is – motion like the MOTL.
If you put the origin of your reference frame through the CoM of the moon itself, you lose all sight of that bigger picture. You can’t "see" that the MOTL is rotating about an external axis, and thus not rotating about its own internal axis.
Similarly, an object can translate in a circle, without rotating about an internal axis. Surely you agree with that?
In which case, there has to be a motion which corresponds to that description. It just so happens that there is – motion like the MOTR.
The fact that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis", and "translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis" are two separate motions, should help you out of your current "reference frame funk".
“If you go with the frame centered on the CoM of the moon, and declare its “rotating on its own internal axis”, then you are automatically saying that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR”
Again, you are coming at this backwards. FIRST decide what “rotating on an axis” means. THEN decide if the moon is doing that. Only AFTER that should we even worry about orbits.
I am not ‘declaring’ the moon is rotating on its axis. I am merely stating what ‘rotating on an axis’ means — constant distance and changing angle. Then I am ‘deducing’ that the moon does that.
"Then I am ‘deducing’ that the moon does that."
Only if "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR, Tim. Only if.
“Only if “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR, Tim. Only if.”
Still backwards!
The moon is rotating on its axis IF AND ONLY IF rotation on an axis means “constant distance and changing angle from that axis”. Since the moon does this about its axis, then it *is* rotating on its axis (per this definition).
Once that is established, then BECAUSE of how rotation was defined, I can deduce that MOTR is indeed “orbing without rotating on its axis”. This definition has serve physics well of 100’s of years, and
You are free to define what *you* mean by ‘rotating on an axis’. And then to apply that definition find out how it meshes with conservation of angular momentum, elliptical orbits, and the rest of classical physics. Good luck with that!
“Only if “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR, Tim. Only if.”
Which is not a matter of opinion in astronomy, physics, aerospace engineering, and in dictionaries.
"Once that is established, then BECAUSE of how rotation was defined, I can deduce that MOTR is indeed “orbing without rotating on its axis”. This definition has serve physics well of 100’s of years, and…"
No, Tim. You are forgetting about how "rotation about an external axis" is defined. That’s your problem.
"Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL. You have to grok that, first.
Then you will realize (hopefully) that putting the origin of your reference frame through the CoM of the body of the MOTL itself and thinking that it’s rotating on its own internal axis is the wrong way to go about it entirely.
“No, Tim. You are forgetting about how “rotation about an external axis” is defined. Thats your problem.”
But the TEAM forgets that they have disavowed that definition, and have yet to provide an alternative!
"Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL. You have to grok that, first.
Then you will realize (hopefully) that putting the origin of your reference frame through the CoM of the body of the MOTL itself and thinking that it’s rotating on its own internal axis is the wrong way to go about it entirely.
“No, Tim. You are forgetting about how “rotation about an external axis” is defined. Thats your problem.
“Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL. You have to grok that, first.”
No. I am not forgetting anything. That is not now rotation is defined.
Rotation about ANY axis (internal or external!) is defined (in any physics or engineering or math text) as ‘constant distance and changing angle relative to the axis’. That is what you need to grok. That definition holds for BOTH the internal and the external axes. We do not need ‘special cases’ for “internal” or “external” or “orbiting” or “MOTL” or ‘a ball on a string’ anything else. Rotation about an axis is rotation about an axis.
“”Starting with the axis” is starting by assuming that theres an internal axis of rotation. “
Also, no. An axis is simply a POSSIBLE line around which something is rotating. Then you test it to see if some particular point remains at ‘constant distance and changing angle’.
* If yes, then there is rotating about that axis.
* if no, then there is NOT rotation about that axis.
Tim, we can go back and forth for the rest of our lives, if you like. I’m right. You’re wrong. Get over it.
None of this even settles the moon issue. It’s just a tiny step on the path for you understanding the "Non-Spinner" way of looking at things…but you can’t even get off the starting line. Your programming runs so deep it’s unreal.
"Rotation about ANY axis (internal or external!) is defined (in any physics or engineering or math text) as ‘constant distance and changing angle relative to the axis’"
Let’s go with that, for now. Obviously there will be people shrieking and squawking about constant distance and going on and on and on and on about ellipses vs. circles…but just for the sake of argument, let’s go with it. To have "changing angle relative to the axis", the motion has to be as per the MOTL. Yes? So that is rotation about an external axis. Motion like the MOTL.
If I ask you some questions, will you even answer them? Probably not, but here goes.
Do you accept that there is a motion "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis"? Like, do you even accept that this is a possibility!?
If you do accept it’s a possibility, then you have two options…it’s either motion like the MOTL, or the MOTR. Which do you think it is?
If you don’t accept it’s a possibility, then how do you explain that you accept there’s such a motion as "translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis"?
“Do you accept that there is a motion “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”? Like, do you even accept that this is a possibility!?”
No. Every point on the MOTL is rotating about the center (constant distance, changing angle). but since all points are moving in unison, then every point on the MOTL is saying a constant distance from every other point. The MOTL is rotating about about an axis through any point on the MOTL (including the point through the center).
“If you dont accept its a possibility, then how do you explain that you accept theres such a motion as “translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis”?”
Because “translation” rotation” two separate motions! A “rotation around the center” is not a “translation around the center”! I thought that would have been obvious!
"No. Every point on the MOTL is rotating about the center (constant distance, changing angle). but since all points are moving in unison, then every point on the MOTL is saying a constant distance from every other point. The MOTL is rotating about about an axis through any point on the MOTL (including the point through the center)."
Tim, I’m going to be blunt – this appears to be complete gibberish. What astonishes me is that you are actually saying you think "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" does not exist. So you think if there is rotation about an external axis, there necessarily has to be rotation about an internal axis! Just crazy…
"Because “translation” rotation” two separate motions! A “rotation around the center” is not a “translation around the center”! I thought that would have been obvious!"
Yes, Tim. It’s obvious that translation and rotation are two separate motions. Which is why I don’t understand how you can’t see that if there’s such as thing as "translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis" (and you would describe that as motion like the MOTR), that there must be such a thing as "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" (which would be motion like the MOTL). Two separate motions.
“So you think if there is rotation about an external axis, there necessarily has to be rotation about an internal axis!”
Yes. It agrees with every definition of “rotation about an axis”.
Since you have no definition, you are in no position to say what does or does not count as a rotation!
It doesn’t agree with any definition of rotation, Tim, or any kind of logic, or common sense, or even what most of your fellow “Spinners” seem to think.
RLH, and bobdroege, would (wrongly) state that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTR, rather than the MOTL…but even they at least acknowledged that there was such a thing. As far as I’m aware, every other “Spinner” agrees that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL.
So…talk me through your logic, here, Tim. You agree that movement like the MOTL can be described as being comprised of “one motion”…but that “one motion” is rotation about an external axis and rotation about an internal axis…then you also agree that movement like the MOTR can be described as being comprised of “two motions”…and those two motions are…rotation about an external axis and rotation about an internal axis, again (just in opposite directions this time). So, you move from the MOTL being one rotation on an internal axis per external axis rotation, in the same direction, to the MOTR being one rotation on an internal axis per external axis, in the opposite direction…it is just a switch from +1 to -1…there is no zero! There is no zero internal axis rotations per external axis rotation in Tim’s world. It just goes 3, 2, 1, -1, -2, -3, and so on. Is that right?
Tim…you have a PhD! What’s wrong with you?
“Which is why I dont understand how you cant see that if theres such as thing as “translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis” (and you would describe that as motion like the MOTR), that there must be such a thing as “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” (which would be motion like the MOTL). Two separate motions.”
You don’t understand a lot it seems! Why should it be surprising that “a translation does not cause a rotation” but “a rotation causes a rotation”. Two completely different ideas!
“Timyou have a PhD! Whats wrong with you?”
I am starting think that ‘what is wrong with me’ is that I think I can explain physics on a blog to someone who works hard not to understand.
Why it is baffling to your that two counter-rotations might cancel each other out?
This has been my favourite discussion of the whole moon debate, Tim. A truly dazzling performance from you. Quite simply, breathtaking. No wonder you think the moon rotates on its own axis! You literally think it cannot possibly be described otherwise!
Why did you ever even bother arguing about elliptical orbits, etc!? All you needed to say was that you thought “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” does not exist. Why bother worrying about definitions of rotation!? You’ve decided that “zero” is no longer in your vocabulary when it comes to the subject.
OMG. I don’t even know what to say.
“Why it is baffling to your that two counter-rotations might cancel each other out?“
It’s not. At all. What’s baffling is how you go from +1 to -1 and skip out zero.
Try reading the comment again, Tim.
“No, Tim. You are forgetting about how ‘rotation about an external axis’ is defined. Thats your problem.”
Tim points out that
“Rotation about ANY axis (internal or external!) is defined (in any physics or engineering or math text) as ‘constant distance and changing angle relative to the axis’. That is what you need to grok.”
But DREMT does not grok, because he keeps falsely declaring ‘Orbits are defined as rotations’.
And so he perpetually evades this issue.
“Tim, we can go back and forth for the rest of our lives”
And thus he completely IGNORES the fundamental contradictions in his argument.
Readers will no doubt recall that my stalker agrees one of the ways the movement of the MOTL can be described is "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
He and Tim are in direct disagreement.
"Spinner" will never argue against "Spinner".
Ever.
“The ‘axle’ is fixed to a rotating ‘platform’ and the ‘moon’ is fixed to the ‘axle’. There is no separate, additional rotation on the solid, 3D ‘axle’, but there IS rotation on the 1D, mathematical ‘axis’.”
Tim and I fully agree on this point.
Your disagreement with him seems to boil down to the word ‘additional’.
IOW this disagreement is purely semantic and pedantic.
It NO impact on the larger issue of whether the Moon rotates on its own axis.
On THAT issue, whether your claim that an ‘Orbit is defined as a rotation’, really matters.
We showed you 5 definitions of Orbit, none agree with your claim that Orbit is defined as a rotation.
So that’s 5 points for us.
Your claim that Madhavi’s definition of Rotation is now wrong really matters for THAT issue.
We showed you at least 5 definitions of rotation, all agree that it is a circular motion, and doesnt agree with your claims.
So that’s 5 points for us.
In both these cases, which are central to the Moon spinning argument, you guys fail to support your claims. And in fact you shamelessly contradict yourself by referring again and again to Madhavis’ defintion of rotation!
He and Tim are in direct disagreement.
"Spinner" will never argue against "Spinner".
Ever.
“Its just a simple point about rotation. ”
Yes. it is quite simple. An object like a MGR is physically rotated by turning the center of the platform. The ‘obvious’ motion is rotation about the center.
But there is more beyond this ‘obvious’ view. Rotation is a change in orientation at a constant distance as measured from a defined axis relative to a chosen reference frame. This is true for a horse on a MGR when measured from the pole of the MGR horse relative to the ‘fixed ground’.
If you want to actually define what you mean by rotate, then maybe you can tell us how you ‘simply’ decide if something is rotating.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1433971
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1434216
“the relevant reference frame has its origin within the “Earth””
That is the relevant frame if you want to determine if there is rotation about an axis through the center of the earth.
But the relevant frame if you want to determine if there is rotation about an axis through the center of the moon would through the center of the moon.
“The discussion is about what “orbital motion [without axial rotation]” is, nothing more.”
OK. what is “orbital motion in an ellipse”? There is no real point in talking just about circles, since no real orbits are circles.
If MOTL is ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ for a circular orbit, then which way — precisely — would the moon face for ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ for an elliptical orbit. If you were going to recreate the MOTL animation for this ellipse (http://hildaandtrojanasteroids.net/KeplerII.jpg), which way would the moon face at “C”? Would the side that was facing right at “A” (toward the center) be facing
* straight up?
* up and left?
* up and right?
Tim, for your first comment, I refer you back to the comment you are quoting from (and generally all of the comments above) and ask that you read through the entire thing again, and again, until you understand why you’re wrong. I have nothing more to add on the subject – you’re wrong. That’s that.
For your second comment, I remind you that I will not be answering any of your questions, unless and until you accept that you’re wrong. Any further response from you, to me, will be automatically PST’d, until you accept that you’re wrong.
What is “elliptical orbiting without axial rotation”?
Tim, please stop trolling.
“For your second comment, I remind you that I will not be answering any of your questions, unless and until you accept that youre wrong”
Unless you say you agree with me Im not going to play with you anymore!
Tim, having DREMT not responding to you anymore is, in my experience, a good thing. Just go with it.
"Any further response from you, to me, will be automatically PST’d, until you accept that you’re wrong."
Otherwise, we set a precedent that discussions can move on to other subjects without agreement being reached on the actual point of contention. This is part of the reason this long moon debate goes nowhere. People get frustrated and then start to introduce other points on a tangent.
DREMT: “The discussion is about what “orbital motion [without axial rotation]” is, nothing more.”
This is what YOU said was the key idea. What would elliptical orbital motion look like for a real moon? We can disagree about how we want to define words, but predictions are testable. You apparently have no idea how a real moon could face in a real orbit.
Would an “elliptical MOTR” also always keep one face to the “top”? Would an “elliptical MOTL” keep one face straight toward the earth? Straight toward the center of the ellipse? And just as importantly, what reasoning leads you to your conclusion?
“without agreement being reached on the actual point of contention. This is part of the reason this long moon debate goes nowhere. ”
True.
Like the definition of ROTATION.
Should be straightforward to reach agreement on that based on the many readily available definitions.
No, Tim. You butted into this discussion with a comment made on January 17, 2023 at 11:57 AM which was regarding a subject we had been talking about further up-thread. That subject is whether or not the MOTL can be described as "rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis". It can, and you should have accepted that by now.
That topic has been the subject of this particular sub-thread ever since. Attempting to now switch it onto elliptical orbits will not be tolerated. Please stop trolling.
“All you needed to say was that you thought “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” does not exist.”
I have said that many times in many ways. All you needed to do was listen.
Most specifically and most frequently I have said that MOTL is rotation about the central axis with no ADDITIONAL rotation about its internal axis. Until you can write a concise, precise, mathematical definition of “rotation about an axis” you will be doomed to confusion.
And I talk about elliptical orbits because it should help to clarify the key ideas you are missing. The ONLY simple, accurate description for elliptical MOTL is “translation of COM at varying rates + rotation about the COM at constant rate” and elliptical MOTR is “translation of COM at varying rates + no rotation”.
All your focus on “one motion” or “two motions” or “rotations about external axes” are distraction. they don’t describe real orbits!
"I have said that many times in many ways. All you needed to do was listen."
Lol. Tim actually think he’s right! He’s still continuing to argue with me about it. Unbelievable.
Tim…you go from +1 to -1 and skip out zero. That is painfully obviously wrong.
You’re utterly delusional. Utterly. Please stop trolling, and please stop responding to me on this issue. We’re done. As is your credibility.
When one of us agrees with 400 years of math and physics and engineering, and one of us disagrees with 400 years of math and physics and engineering, it is pretty clear who is ill-informed and delusional. You can’t even define “rotation”!
It’s not even about the moon issue, Tim. It’s just a simple point about rotation. You’re a clown.
“Its not even about the moon issue, Tim.”
DREMT seems to realize he can’t win on that issue. Doesnt even try anymore.
Thank the lord that argument is over!
It’s just a simple point about rotation. You’re a clown.
–
“That was not a definition Nate.”
Yet another false declared ‘truth’ by Bill.
Denier!
Bill can’t read plain simple English in a textbook. Blames others.
It is clear Nate that the word ‘circular’ is an example and not a definition as she states that the alternative motion is a translation which has no change in orientation.
You have finally conceded DREMT’s MOTL argument as being a single motion rotation. The real moon is also a smooth single motion rotation with constant angular momentum
You have no argument left to support your position.
Graceful Graham gracefully omits to mention:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1431129
Oh, look, the ball on string again!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1431326
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1431354
Little Willy links to something off-topic. No surprises there.
Gallivant Graham gaslights a little more.
The topic was the 1+1 argument.
*But BG agrees with me* was both false an irrelevant.
The right side of the GIF matters to the 1+1 argument.
"The right side of the GIF matters to the 1+1 argument."
No, it doesn’t. The 1+1 argument involves only the MOTL. You cannot combine rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis and get motion like the MOTL. If BG doesn’t agree with that, I don’t know what’s wrong with him. Currently I’m assuming he does agree, given what he’s said so far.
You assume wrong. And that you don’t apply the 1+1 trick to MOTR is a straightforward way to show why it fails when applied to MOTL.
How could it apply to the MOTR when the argument is entirely about the MOTL!? The argument is as follows:
“Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL (BG agrees with this).
So, if you add rotation about an internal axis to the above motion, at any rate and in either direction, you no longer have motion like the MOTL.
Or, to put it another way, you cannot add rotation about an internal axis to rotation about an external axis and get motion like the MOTL. 1 + 1 does not equal 1.
People try to refute it by saying, I can break the movement of the MOTL into two motions, therefore you must be wrong.
However, if you are breaking the movement of the MOTL into two motions, those two motions will actually be:
a) Translation in a circle.
b) Rotation about an internal axis.
So, it does not refute the argument. Translation in a circle is not the same as rotation about an external axis.
Once again Gaslighting Graham gaslights.
His 1+1 trick is *not* about his pet GIF.
He *uses* his pet GIF to illustrate his claim.
His claim is about the *concept of rotation*.
His claim is that orbit and spin can’t coexist.
It is *impossible*.
Just like 1+1 cannot be 1.
Which is silly, for angles can add up to zero.
And also for Mighty Tim’s reason:
Rotations are not additive like he claims they do.
More so when we’re talking about two rotations that are not even on the same plane.
And so Gaslighting Graham gaslights like the little gaslighter that he is.
"His claim is that orbit and spin can’t coexist.
It is *impossible*.
Just like 1+1 cannot be 1."
No, that is completely incorrect, Little Willy. That is not what I’m claiming. For what I am claiming, try reading my 1:19 PM comment.
[W] Gentle Graham claims that spin and orbit are not possible.
[GG] Try reading what I wrote.
[W] “You cannot combine”
[GG] Please stop trolling.
[W] 🤦
An object can orbit and spin at the same time.
An object can translate in a circle, and rotate on its own internal axis, and result in motion like the MOTL.
An object can rotate about an external axis, and rotate on its own internal axis, and result in motion other than the MOTL.
An object can not rotate about an external axis, and rotate on its own internal axis, and result in motion like the MOTL.
Obviously Willard still isn’t up to speed.
Galoping Graham gallops once more.
The implicit context behind his hall of mirrors is an *only* that applies to the current phenomena, viz.
[1+1] A spin and an orbit *cannot* describe the actual motion of the Moon. Only a description with one rotation only can, i.e. an orbit.
So there are two quantifiers, one inside the clause, one outside of it.
Sometimes he concedes that there are alternative descriptions. Then he needs to relax the *only* outside the claim.
Sometimes he concedes that the motion of the Moon is complex, and thus involves more than pure rotation. That relaxes the *only* inside the claim. He is currently sidestepping this last issue by speaking of “one motion.”
By shifting between the two *only* he, Galoping Graham can troll this website for 77 months with a trivially false claim.
Poor Galoping Graham.
GG notably left out:
5) An object can orbit and *not* spin, resulting in MOTR.
Also note there is really no distinction between orbit and translate in a circle (or non-circular ellipse), though he appears to make one.
And by (2) he is finally a “spinner”.
I think this calls for a Grandiose Gala!
Yes, Bill, Little Willy has been behind for so long. I don’t think he will ever get it. Oh well.
On to Brandy Guts:
"GG notably left out:
5) An object can orbit and *not* spin, resulting in MOTR."
No. An object can translate in a circle and not rotate on its own internal axis, and result in motion like the MOTR.
An object can also rotate about an external axis, and rotate about its own internal axis, and result in motion like the MOTR.
"And by (2) he is finally a “spinner”."
No, Brandy Guts…because you’re missing one thing.
"Orbit without spin" is rotation about an external axis, and not translation in a circle/ellipse.
Yes, BG.
Galoping Graham always leaves out something.
And then he lulzes with Gill.
Does Brandy Guts finally understand and agree that the 1+1 argument is correct?
I understand that Graham has defeated the 1+1 trick himself with his own postulate (2).
We’re down to the (imaginary) difference between “orbit” and “translating in a circle” (or non-circular ellipse).
Orbit is probably the better term since the strict definition of “translate” is movement without any change in orientation, aka “rotation”, it applies to both circular and non-circular ellipses, and can apply to objects with or without axial spin.
Now finally, Gallant Graham has acknowledged that MOTR can be described as circular motion without axial spin … and here I might insert an “only” since it takes an Olympian level of mental gymnastics to justify a cyclist’s foot rotating while their a$$ in the saddle does not.
"I understand that Graham has defeated the 1+1 trick himself with his own postulate (2)."
Absolutely not, Brandy Guts. You appear to have a learning disability. "Postulate (2)" is:
"An object can translate in a circle, and rotate on its own internal axis, and result in motion like the MOTL."
The 1+1 argument relates only to rotation about an external axis. Once again: the 1+1 argument is that you cannot combine rotation about an external axis, with rotation about an internal axis, and get motion like the MOTL.
Rotation about an external axis is not the same motion as translation in a circle.
"Now finally, Gallant Graham has acknowledged that MOTR can be described as circular motion without axial spin"
I have always acknowledged that the MOTR can be described as translation in a circle without rotation about an internal axis. It can also be described as rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis. For the functioning bicycle pedal, the latter is the appropriate description.
brandon…”MOTR can be described as circular motion without axial spin ”
***
Think of a ferris wheel. Each car has an axle that allows the car to remain upright as the wheel turns. A person riding in a ferris wheel car had better pray that a bearing does not seize as the wheel reaches the top.
Come on, Bordon.
The Ferris Wheel is my example!
So let me get this straight: you think passenger in gondolas are not falling down the Ferris Wheel because they are spinning?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1431171
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1431237
That was not a rebuttal then, and it’s not a rebuttal now.
Perhaps Galoping Graham will be able to solve that one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1432239
He could solve the other one, so we made an easier one.
Just for him.
Argh.
I just hate that damn autocorrect. Completely useless. More than useless.
Galoping Graham obviously failed to solve the Ferris Wheel problem.
I wonder if Brandy Guts now understands and agrees that the 1+1 argument is correct?
I wonder if Guzzling Graham will accept that his (2) only works with complex motion.
I will await a response from Brandy Guts, and try to ignore the increasingly incoherent droolings of one of the most relentless sociopaths I have ever encountered.
🤷
No response from BG. I will assume he now gets it.
BG,
Regarding the postulate (2) by Germane Graham:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1432239
I assume Germane Graham still does not get it.
I get that you think the “Spinners” are wrong, and I find that very funny.
Even Gill solved it!
Must be a difficult position for BG to be in. Little Willy has been gaslighting him for months. If he has worked out that the 1+1 argument is correct, then he’s got to be questioning everything Little Willy says. They’re obviously friends though…so it must be tough.
Imagine this. Germane Graham spent five years trolling this website using silly memes, one of which is the 1+1 trick. Everyone can see through it, including Gill.
What is there for him to do?
Trolling seems to prescribe itself.
But why stop there, why not go for gaslighting?
And so Germane Graham gaslights a little more.
The 1+1 argument is correct. Obviously so. If you add rotation about an internal axis to rotation about an external axis, you will not end up with movement like the MOTL. Now, you can call that resulting movement, which is not motion like the MOTL, "one motion", if you wish…but I’m not sure what that would really achieve.
It would achieve defeat of your argument that 1+1 != 1, Galoot
Graham.
Adding axial rotation to rotation about an external axis not resulting in motion like MOTL is not in dispute as far as I’m concerned.
What I object to is how you are using that as a strawman to the spinner perspective that orbital motion plus axial spin can be, and most properly is, applied to the motions of all celestial bodies except, improbably if not impossibly, one that moves like MOTR.
The non-spinner perspective is useful for constructing orreries that model orbiting bodies which are not tidally locked to the body they orbit.
And for trolling of course.
"Adding axial rotation to rotation about an external axis not resulting in motion like MOTL is not in dispute as far as I’m concerned."
Lol…but that’s exactly what Little Willy is trying to dispute! So…you agree that the 1+1 argument is correct (in all but name, perhaps). Thank you.
"What I object to is how you are using that as a strawman to the spinner perspective that orbital motion plus axial spin can be, and most properly is, applied to the motions of all celestial bodies except, improbably if not impossibly, one that moves like MOTR."
You’re still not quite there, though. I’m not using anything as a strawman. The "Spinner" perspective is that "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR, which they would describe as translation in a circle/ellipse. The "Non-Spinner" perspective is that "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTL, which they would describe as rotation about an external axis.
One of the clinchers is…"orbital motion" is defined as a rotation about an external axis.
You have a singular talent for reading only what you want to read, and substituting something else in place of what you glossed over.
The 1+1 argument *rests* on the arithmetic proof that 1+1 != 1.
If you were to read the appropriate section of Madhavi you will find that she indeed combines two motions and calls the result one.
As for orbit, you’ve subbed in your preferred definition completely ignoring how I defined it, and falsely complained that my argument is defeated.
Truly Gross, Graham.
"The 1+1 argument *rests* on the arithmetic proof that 1+1 != 1."
No, it doesn’t. At all. I just said "1 + 1 does not equal 1" to try to get across to Little Willy that combining rotation about an internal axis with rotation about an external axis cannot result in motion like the MOTL…which you agree with! Little Willy argued then, and has been arguing since, that you can combine rotation about an internal axis with rotation about an external axis, and get motion like the MOTL. Which you disagree with.
"As for orbit, you’ve subbed in your preferred definition completely ignoring how I defined it, and falsely complained that my argument is defeated."
I don’t ignore how you define it, BG. I just acknowledge that you cannot actually support that definition. Show me a definition of "revolution/orbit" that mentions translation.
I have repeatedly shown definitions that mention rotation about an external axis.
I subscribe to zee Moshpit’s notion that as soon as you appeal to a dictionary you’ve lost the argument, Garrulous Graham. An argument is valid so long as its conclusion logically follows from its premises. Example:
is a valid argument. Now here’s the key: p, q and r can be anything you want so long as their meaning is clearly defined without ambiguity or contradiction.
Anything.
So … SO WHAT if someone else defines p, q and/or r differently than I do. So long as I’m clear and consistent on what I mean by “orbit”, WHO CARES that you can find instances of someone using the same word differently than I do.
Conversely, if you want “orbit” to mean something different from how I use it go right ahead so long as that word has the same meaning no matter what context you use it in.
Now, see if you can attack my argument based on how I’ve defined my terms instead of how someone else has defined them.
I bet you can’t.
"Now, see if you can attack my argument based on how I’ve defined my terms instead of how someone else has defined them."
I take it this is your argument:
"We’re down to the (imaginary) difference between “orbit” and “translating in a circle” (or non-circular ellipse).
Orbit is probably the better term since the strict definition of “translate” is movement without any change in orientation, aka “rotation”, it applies to both circular and non-circular ellipses, and can apply to objects with or without axial spin."
Well, "rotation about an external axis" can also apply to objects with or without axial spin. The Earth, for instance, can be described as both rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis, 365.25 times per orbit (as opposed to the 366.25 times per orbit you get if you describe it as translating whilst rotating on its own internal axis).
Gabby Graham retreats to the familiar formula of dropping his onlies while failing to find any logical flaw in my argument or offering any support for why his argument should be preferred over mine.
And since he is Gargantuan on insisting that people make one choice or the other between two valid choices, I choose the spinner perspective since it makes the physics tractable.
This has been a prerecorded message.
You’re welcome to choose as you wish.
What’s important to me is that it’s understood that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL…
…and that you cannot combine rotation about an internal axis with rotation about an external axis and get motion like the MOTL.
Since you agree with me on both of those things, my work here, with you, is done. Thank you.
There’s the matter of the title of your song, Grievous Graham.
You pay lip service to the spinner’s view but it is only that, and in support of that argument I cite the above as Exibit A.
There are the points I’m interested in, and then there’s the issue of whether or not the moon rotates on its own axis. What fascinates me is how people can get so confused over the simplest matters (not necessarily the moon issue itself, but related topics such as rotation about an external axis, etc.)
We have people with PhDs making extraordinary errors of basic logic when it comes to that. It’s not due to a lack of intelligence and certainly not a lack of education in these cases…it’s simply the programming that blinds them to the obvious. I find that side of things so much more rewarding and interesting than simply whether the moon rotates on its own axis, or not…
…and of course that is a demonstration that people should bear in mind when considering the GHE and climate change/AGW. Which is how the issue ties in with that in the first place. It’s always the same sort of people who refuse to open their minds about other possibilities…and for much the same reasons…
And so Gambit Graham Gamely Grants that it was all just a Game after all.
Not in the least, Brandy Guts old boy. That the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames, and why, ought to be of more interest to science than the issue of whether or not the moon rotates on its own axis. So that’s worth all the pointless back and forth alone. It’s certainly not a game.
I genuinely don’t think the moon rotates on its own axis…I just recognize that there’s so much more to be had from the argument than that trivial matter.
[Genuine Graham] An object can translate in a circle, and rotate on its own internal axis, and result in motion like the MOTL.
[Guileful Graham] I genuinely dont think the moon rotates on its own axis
🤦
OK, Brandy Guts. You still don’t quite get it, and that’s fine with me.
Guileful Graham gently gaslights again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
bill…”She also said: A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same
direction during the motion.”
***
To expand on that briefly, the translation she defines is rectilinear translation. To translate that to curvilinear translation, any motion along a continuous curved line, we must add that the linear motion is instantaneous motion.
That is the basis of calculus as you know. Any motion on a curve can be found by taking the derivative of the curve equation, which gives you the slope of the tangent line, m at any instant. By applying the equation of a line,
y – y0 = m (x – x0)
we have derived ‘m’ from the derivative of the curve therefore know the equation of the tangent line from this equation.
Applying that to all the particles in a body performing curvilinear motion, the tangent lines formed by the orbit of each particle must be parallel ***at any instant***.
That is obviously true for each instant on the lunar orbit. Each particle on the Moon, at any instant, is moving along its own orbital path in parallel with any other particle. If the Moon was rotating about a local axis, that would no longer be true and it would be unable to keep the same face pointed at Earth.
Come on, Bordon.
Take a line ABC. Draw a circle around B connecting A and B. Move that circle any way you like.
I will find a perpendicular line to it.
So by your logic, rotation is impossible.
Is this really what you want?
> A and B
Sigh. A and C.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Are rocket launches better than fireworks?
What is most amazing to me is that this little Lunar Spin Denial Squad trusts collective egomaniacal, unscientific, utterly surreal thoughts more than what has been written in technical reports preparing or describing things that really happened:
1. A STUDY OF LUNAR LANDING SITES AND ASSOCIATED STAY TIMES
Laurence W . Enderson Jr (1965)
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/nasa_tn_d_2795.pdf
*
2. Orbit Design Elements of Chang’e 5 Mission
Zhong-Sheng Wang , Zhanfeng Meng, Shan Gao, and Jing Peng (2021)
https://downloads.spj.sciencemag.org/space/2021/9897105.pdf
*
But… what else would you expect from such people?
What remains is that
– Moon’s spin clearly exists;
– its period, firstly computed in 1750, is the same as that computed nowadays (27.32166 days);
– its daily rotation angle is 13.17636 degrees, what corresponds to a rotational equatorial speed of 4.62630 meters / second, and is the number used by those who engineered real lunar descent and ascent procedures.
*
No: this is no ‘appeal to authority’. This simply describing experienced reality.
bindidon claims anything you can conceptually breakdown using laws of science actually exists.
I would argue that you can deem particles of the moon are orbiting the central axis of the moon as well Bindidon. One should be careful with the standards one uses to come to stupid conclusions.
As usual, Hunter – the guy who lacks any real knowledge in the domain discussed by the two reports I posted above – keeps on the trivial blah blah like Flynnson, Robertson, Clint R etc etc.
What about scientifically proving that the two reports are wrong, Hunter?
Hunter wrote:
So, how does that fit a Rigid Body?
“A rigid body is usually considered as a continuous distribution of mass.” Those particles you mention are not free bodies and thus each can not independently exhibit rotational characteristics, they move in lock step in concentric circles when rotating around an axis.
I would say a rigid body would involve any two particles/objects or more bonded in someway together.
What happens when you start unbonding them? Well suddenly angular momentum isn’t strictly conserved and it becomes linear momentum and thus as energy it is conserved.
Thus the term rigid body. Rigid body would be any two or more particles/object bonded together in such a way you can assume they aren’t likely to come apart. And what is likely? Well I think you have to use some form of inductive logic there. Namely the future will be similar to the past.
So as DREMT says you can consider something to be a conglomeration of multiple motions. The rule is if the particles/objects can be treated as being rigid in its ‘relative’ ‘inductive logic’ sense then you can make some conclusions.
But at some point when trying to decide if a motion is made up of a single motion or multiple motions that would be based upon facts and circumstances. Thus the concept of a general plane motion is introduced. But clearly the multiple motions displayed by the moon are not in the same plane. Influences are coming from various other locations in 3 dimensional space, each representing a separate plane motion.
A rotation though is a plane motion. So knowing the above and gathering all the circumstances is the MOTL a single motion that is a rotation around an external axis? Or is it multiple motions around 2 axes. I think the answer is obvious.
After settling on that then one can move onto whether the 3 dimensional motions of the moon could be comprised of one plane motion with a number of other plane motions from other directions such as from the varying position of the sun, jupiter, saturn etc.
I think again the answer is obvious. Or at least as obvious as it probably can get.
Gill, Gill,
When you rant like that you become indistinguishable from Bordon.
The motion of the Moon is one motion.
One complex motion.
Which involves translation and rotation.
Both for the orbit and for the spin.
Is that too complex for you to get?
Think.
The flaw there is defining “translation” as one side always facing the same distant star. That would mean a passenger jet circumnavigating Earth would have to fly backwards during part of the trip. That is NOT orbital motion.
"The motion of the Moon is one motion.
One complex motion.
Which involves translation and rotation.
Both for the orbit and for the spin."
Lol. Little Willy has reached peak confusion.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights like no one else.
Bdgx, Mighty Tim, Nate, MarkB, BG, Binny, EM, Bob, MikeR, me.
And a long list of commenters.
And a whole scientific field.
All confused.
Everybody who ever interacted with this silly troll is confused.
Always misrepresented.
Poor Gaslighting Graham.
None of the commenters you have listed would describe the moon’s movement as being comprised of only one motion, idiot.
The people who think the moon’s movement is comprised of only one motion are the "Non-Spinners"…
…and you think "rotation about an internal axis" also involves translation!? I mean…the mind boggles.
Galoping Graham gently gaslights.
Many authors call The Motion of the Moon all its various motions.
A complex motion can be decomposed into many motions.
The most basic motions being of course rotation and translation.
There are others in other fields, e.g. reflection.
As long as we recall that it would be silly to reduce the motion of the Moon as a pure rotation, all is well.
Poor Graham.
Yes, you think “orbit without spin” involves rotation and translation, as we established further up-thread. Technically, that makes you a “Non-Spinner”, as I explained at the time.
wee willy…”Bdgx, Mighty Tim, Nate, MarkB, BG, Binny, EM, Bob, MikeR, me.
And a long list of commenters.
And a whole scientific field.
All confused”.
***
Correct!!! All confused. Wee willy finally got it right.
Come on, Bordon.
Science is like a Poker table.
If you do not know where is the mark, that means you are it.
If you think they are all marks, that means you are the Anomaly.
Ask Graham about that last one.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
bill…”Thus the term rigid body. Rigid body would be any two or more particles/object bonded together in such a way you can assume they arent likely to come apart”.
***
Bill free free to offer criticism. That’s open to anyone, it just seems the spinners lack the ability to offer constructive criticism.
Expanding on what you claim re a rigid body, there is a definition for the rectilinear motion of a rigid body. All particles in the body must move along parallel lines at the same speed.
The definitions for curvilinear translation were so convoluted in mechanical engineering texts that I devised my own definition based on the definition of rectilinear motion and the observations of Newton re lunar motion.
My reasoning is based on the definition of rectilinear motion, that an equivalent motion must be defined for motion along a curve. It strikes me as implausible that such a definition would be over-looked, rather it appears to have been lost somewhere along the line. Newton knew about it, why is the definition so fleeting and imprecise these days?
If you look in a typical mechanical engineering text, they depict curvilinear motion/translation as a bizarre motion like two levers on independent axles attached on the other end to the axles on a bus. As the bus is moved back and forth on the lever it moves over a 180 degree arc in a semicircle.
How can such a convoluted contrapition be offered as an example of curvilinear motion when a locomotive moving on a circular track offers a more realistic example? Or, a satellite orbiting the Earth, or the Moon itself. Or a ball on a string. In fact, Newton offered the Moon as an example of rectilinear motion being converted to curvilinear motion by the effect of gravity.
The Moon is referred to as a uniform rigid body, basically because it is uniform throughout, hence its motion can be represented by its COM. If it was shaped like a peanut, with one end smaller than the other, the COM would need to be relocated. However, after finding it, the orbit could be based on that COM. That’s because the average linear velocity is the velocity of the COM.
In reality, all points on a uniform rigid body like the Moon move along their own orbital paths. However, as part of a uniform rigid body, each particle is required to follow the motion of the COM. That would not be the case if the body was also rotating about the COM.
It’s easy to prove my proof with the Moon on a circular orbit but it’s not much more difficult to prove it for an elliptical orbit or any other path. With the Moon as a uniform rigid body, all particles must move in parallel and at the same speed.
The trick here is the speed, which is a scalar quantity found by dividing the angular distance traveled by the time taken. May people immediately claim that particles at different radial distances from the centre are moving at different velocities, which is true. However, all particles must complete the orbit in the same time as the COM, hence their rate of angular speed must be the same.
All that’s left is proving all particles in the Moon orbit in parallel. Easy. Draw a radial line from Earth’s centre through Moon’s centre and out the other end. Each particle making up that radial line within the Moon is constrained to move in parallel throughout an orbit.
Conversely, the particles making up the line within the radial line portion within he Moon would need to rotate through 360 degrees per orbit if the Moon was rotating about a local axis.
Also, for an elliptical path it is simply a matter of mathematically redefining the radial line protruding from the near-face of the Moon. That radial line is found at any point on an ellipse by drawing lines from each focal point to that point then bisecting the angle formed. At perigee and apogee the radial line thus formed coincides with a radial line in a circle, whereas at other parts of the ellipse it diverges from that circular radial line by a few degrees.
The angle of divergence is the longitudinal libration angle.
GR says:
Newton knew about it, why is the definition so fleeting and imprecise these days?
——————-
The answer to that came up months ago. Its because they can just ignore the radius of the rotation and just substitute linear momentum as angular momentum.
I noted that Lorb+Lspin=Lmoon. The spinners actually think the Lorb formula of a non-existent point mass without a radius of rotation and thus is a linear momentum can be assumed to be the angular momentum of the orbit. But to be the true angular momentum of the orbit Lspin is necessary ingredient. Lorb+Lspin is just a reduced equation from this equation.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
L=mvr is the formula for one particle
Thus the true rotation of the moon is Σmvr for every particle of the moon and is greater than Lorb by quantity Lspin.
The difference comes in that the mean value of the sum of the squares of a dataset is greater than the square of the mean value of the dataset.
So beautiful, so pure, so innocent.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“I noted that Lorb+Lspin=Lmoon. The spinners actually think the Lorb formula of a non-existent point mass without a radius of rotation and thus is a linear momentum can be assumed to be the angular momentum of the orbit. But to be the true angular momentum of the orbit Lspin is necessary ingredient. Lorb+Lspin is just a reduced equation from this equation.”
“thus is a linear momentum can be assumed to be the angular momentum of the orbit”
No, linear momentum is never angular momentum. They are different quantities with different units.
“But to be the true angular momentum of the orbit Lspin is necessary ingredient.”
No such rule. You just made that up, Bill.
Bill tried and failed several times to man-splain angular momentum to us. Having not learned his lesson, here he tries again, and fails again.
Well you acknowledge that linear momentum can never be a angular momentum.
So how do you justify the angular momentum of a rotation around an external axis by any spherical particle into which you can insert an imaginary axis when Lorb (which is a linear momentum) isn’t the angular momentum of that rotation around an external axis?
The answer is that the angular momentum of a sphere around an external axis equals Lorb+Lspin and thus Lmoon is > Lorb and is also greater than Lspin.
This means of course any angular momentum from a spin on an internal axis for a sphere rotating around an external axis must come from a different Lspin motion.
and the corollary to that is that any lack of angular momentum for a spin on an external axis due to the addition of angular momentum from a different Lspin motion on an internal axis must have been eliminated by that spin being opposite to the direction of the rotation on an external axis.
in other words Lorb can stand alone as an angular momentum only in the presence of a second motion.
> you acknowledge that linear momentum can never be a angular momentum.
You mean, for the 500th time, Gill?
For instance:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-581058
I can give you more receipts if you need.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“and the corollary to that is that any lack of angular momentum for a spin on an external axis due to the addition of angular momentum from a different Lspin motion on an internal axis must have been eliminated by that spin being opposite to the direction of the rotation on an external axis.
in other words Lorb can stand alone as an angular momentum only in the presence of a second motion.”
Very much a non-sequitur Bill. And truly a marvel of tortured circular logic.
Nate still waiting for you to publish a non-‘cartoon’ observation that establishes your contrary viewpoint as the correct one so that you will not think of yourself as a ‘fraudster’.
Nah.
Show us stuff that we have repeatedly asked you for:
A real definition of ROTATION that supports your claims.
A real definition of ORBIT that agrees that it must be a rotation.
Until then, you dont get to make even reasonable demands.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
Nope, sorry, doesnt answer any of the questions. You lose again.
Well thats my model. The sum of the angular momentum of each particle in orbit using the formula provided in the link is the same number as Lorb+Lspin. If its wrong you can show it is wrong. But you will fail in the attempt. Hopefully not because you stink at math.
“If its wrong you can show it is wrong. ”
If Madhavis definition (and everyone else’s) of ROTATION is wrong, you can show its wrong and provide an alternative. But you don’t.
It is a simple ask, but you can’t do it. In the good old days, that would mean the argument is OVER.
“The sum of the angular momentum of each particle in orbit using the formula provided in the link is the same number as Lorb+Lspin. ”
And nobody has disputed that. And?
Bin, I believe both of those sources have been dealt with before. Neither has any evidence that Moon rotates on its axis. Their observations are of Moon’s orbital motion. If you certain there is some evidence there, give the exact quote and I’ll be glad to debunk it for you.
No charge.
You don’t seem to have anything of value, huh?
Clint R
” Neither has any evidence that Moon rotates on its axis. ”
*
You are an inexperienced person, who above all is so stubborn, so opinionated that he isn’t even willing to accurately read documents, and hence loses any credibility, and… lies.
Let us have a closer look at the documents.
*
1. A STUDY OF LUNAR LANDING SITES AND ASSOCIATED STAY TIMES
Laurence W . Enderson Jr (1965)
On document page 16:
” If a delay or wait period in orbit is allowed, the effect on the landing sites is a westward precession of the sites relative to the lunar orbit . This precession takes place at a rate of 13.2° for each day delay in orbit and is due to the rotation of the moon ON ITS POLAR AXIS. ”
*
Further document page 16:
” If stay times on the order of 1 lunar day are desired, consideration should be given to a regression of the node line due to the oblateness of the moon.
This regression causes an apparent westward motion of a point on the
lunar surface, relative to the lunar orbit, at a rate equal to the combined lunar rotation and nodal regression rates. This effect reduces the allowable stay time on the lunar surface. ”
**
2. Orbit Design Elements of Change 5 Mission
Zhong-Sheng Wang , Zhanfeng Meng, Shan Gao, and Jing Peng (2021)
On document page 5:
” Referring to point A in Figure 4, the intended landing
site is close to the orbit plane when the lander begins the
powered descent at descent point E, and the landing site will
be in the descent trajectory plane when the lander lands,
owing to the spin of the Moon. ”
*
On document page 6:
” … where φ = 43:11∘ is the specified latitude of the landing site in this study, ωm is the spin rate of the Moon, and tAB is the time that the landing site travels from point A to point B in Figure 4
https://i.postimg.cc/SQdR6Y9r/Screenshot-2023-01-13-at-12-37-29-SPACE-9897105-1-22-9897105-pdf.png
(the lunar surface stay time of two days). ”
Further on document page 6:
” .. and when the lander touch downs on the lunar surface,
the intended landing site reaches the descent
trajectory plane with the spin of the Moon. ”
*
On document page 8:
” Referring to Figure 4, if only the RAAN (Ω) of the 200 km × 200 km circular orbit is adjusted (at u = 90∘ or 270∘), points D and A will rotate about the spin axis of the Moon for the same angle, i.e.,
ΔΩ = ΔαA. ”
**
But I perfectly know, Clint R: just like the posters nicknamed ‘Dr. Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team’ aka Pseudomod, ‘Gordon Robertson’, ‘Bill Hunter’, in between unfortunately ‘Christos Vournas’, as well as years ago ‘ge*r*an’ and ‘JD*Huffman’ , you never would admit even clearest evidence.
There is no evidence of lunar rotation there Bin, just as I stated.
What they are talking about is Moon’s orbital motion. Note that 13.2° is the angle moved by Moon in one day (13.2 X 27.3 = 360).
Like you see in the discussion here, people often use the wrong terminology, mixing up words like orbiting, revolving, spinning, rotating, turning, etc.
We know Moon is not rotating on its axis because we would see all sides of it. And we know the cult nonsense if WRONG because a real spin axis does not change by anywhere near 13°.
If you understood the basics, you wouldn’t get so confused.
Pup,
Here is evidence:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=sNUNB6CMnE8
Another line of evidence would be available to you by doing the Poll Dance Experiment.
“What they are talking about is Moons orbital motion. ”
No, the moon’s orbital motion is NOT the same as its axial rotation.
* 13.2 is the average rate the moon moves around the earth. But it is higher than 13.2 at perigee, and it is lower than 13.2 at apogee.
* 13.2 is the constant rate the moon turns on its axis.
How can anyone say that motions with different speeds are the same???
Moon does NOT rotate on its axis, fraudkerts. That’s just more of your fraud, like fluxes simply adding.
How can anyone want to spew so much fraud???
Amazing comment, Pup.
So informative, so constructive, so rich.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment,
tim…”How can anyone say that motions with different speeds are the same???”
***
Speed is the operative word, Tim. Speed is the average distance moved per unit time. It’s not a vector quantity.
The Moon moves with a constant linear momentum, which is a vector quantity. However, Earth’s gravitation field varies slightly over its orbit. The orbital path depends on the ability of gravity to hold the Moon in orbit and if it weakens, lunar momentum has more effect. Therefore, the Moon goes farther astray in the same time, elongating the ellipse.
That translates to different speeds at a constant velocity. It also explains Kepler’s equal areas in equal times for a radial line rotating within the ellipse and tracking the Moon.
Remember, the orbital path is a resultant between linear momentum and gravitational force. If the force weakens, even a tad, the lunar momentum will carry the Moon farther astray, elongating the orbital path.
“The Moon moves with a constant linear momentum”
No. It doesn’t!
* The moon moves fastest and with the largest linear momentum at perigee.
* The moon moves slowest and with the smallest linear momentum at apogee.
If you can’t get this right, there is no hope for anything more advanced!
Oh my! This is even worse! “That translates to different speeds at a constant velocity. “
tim…to change a linear momentum, a force is required in the direction of the momentum. Once the momentum is attained, another force is required in the opposite direction to slow it down.
Would you care to demonstrate these aiding and opposing forces for me?
tim…”Oh my! This is even worse! That translates to different speeds at a constant velocity. ”
***
You really have no idea of how orbital motion works, do you? The Moon has a constant velocity, which means it has a velocity vector tangential to the orbital path. In other words, the Moon wants to move in a straight line. It has no force acting in the direction of its momentum, or opposed to it, to change the momentum.
Earth’s gravitational field acts perpendicular to that vector and serves only to very slightly change its path by 5 metres over 8000 metres.
That 5 metre deviation is enough to maintain the orbit around the Earth’s curvature but it is not enough to accelerate or decelerate the Moon in a tangential direction. Therefore it is not enough to accelerate or decelerate the Moon’s orbital velocity.
However, the orbit is a resultant between the Moon’s linear velocity and Earth’s gravitational field. If they each have an equal effect, the orbit tends toward a circle. If the Moon’s velocity/momentum has a greater effect, the orbit is extended into an ellipse. If the momentum was high enough, the Moon would break free and sail off on a parabolic path.
Since the effect of the lunar momentum is larger than the effect of gravity, the orbit is extended into an ellipse. This is where Kepler’s law of equal areas comes in. If a radial line is to cover equal areas in equal times then a larger distance needs to be covered at constant velocity by the Moon.
That can happen if the effect of gravity is slightly reduced. With reduced gravity, the Moon can go further at the same velocity because its momentum is allowed to take it further in a straight line before the weaker gravity pulls it into the orbit. That results in an elongated circle.
“Would you care to demonstrate these aiding and opposing forces for me?”
The moon moves in an elliptical path, sometimes getting closer to the earth and sometimes getting farther.
When the moon is in the half of the orbit when it is getting closer, there is a component of gravity forward in the direction of motion, ‘aiding’ the motion, and the moon speeds up.
When the moon is in the half of the orbit when it is farther, there is a component of gravity backward opposite the direction of motion, ‘opposing’ the motion, and the moon slows down.
You could always google such simple things, and find actually measured numbers (0.970 to 1.082 km/s).
binny…” where φ = 43:11∘ is the specified latitude of the landing site in this study, ωm is the spin rate of the Moon…”
***
That should read…” where φ = 43:11∘ is the specified latitude of the landing site in this study, ωm is the re-orientation of the near face in the orbit…”.
Your arrogance, stupidity and stubbornness increase day after day.
Luckily, people like you and the other Lunar Spin Deny Squad members never were, nor are, let alone would ever be involved in the preparation of lunar missions.
In fairness, Binny, none of them would team up with the Anomaly.
Even Gill, who has little choice but to follow along.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
binny the bundt cake…” Moons spin clearly exists;
its period, firstly computed in 1750, is the same as that computed nowadays (27.32166 days);
its daily rotation angle is 13.17636 degrees,”
***
The rotation angle is the number of degrees it moves in its orbit per day, not the number f degrees it allegedly rotates per day.
The 27.32166 alleged rotation period is calculated by dimwits who did not take the time to look at the actual motion and properties of the Moon’s orbital motion. They all agree the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth and at the same time presumed it must be rotating on a local axis.
Even Newton’s 19th century translator screwed up the translation by introducing his own bias, thus obfuscating the meaning implied by Newton.
If just one of them had tried to prove it rotates, they might have seen the obvious. It is impossible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
If Binny had any interest in science, and the courage to wean himself off authority figures, he would present us with a proof that the Moon can rotate locally while meeting that condition.
RLH (Richard) has a Master’s degree but even he is so reliant on authority that he cannot lay out a proof. Meantime, we non-spinners have offered a multitude of proofs besides those presented by Tesla. All Richard can do is act like a parrot, occasionally flap his wings, and utter repetitive one-line mantras.
“…and utter repetitive one-line mantras.”
AKA, “bird droppings”.
#2
Your arrogance, stupidity and stubbornness increase day after day.
Luckily, people like you and the other Lunar Spin Deny Squad members never were, nor are, let alone would ever be involved in the preparation of lunar missions.
Gosh troll Bindidion, you got it all in — insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. And, like Norman, you don’t have any science.
I hope you’re enjoying your meltdown as much as I am.
(Next is #3, so you don’t have to ask someone.)
[ISAAC] the moon revolving uniformly about its own axis
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Our Moon does not rotate about its own axis.
Since Moon’s sidereal rotation period 27,32 days (in reference to the stars) is the same as its orbital around Earth period, Moon definitely does not rotate on its own axis.
If Moon rotated on its own axis, Moon’s sidereal rotational period should have been shorter than its orbital around Earth period.
****
Moon’s sidereal spin (in reference to the stars) is a sum of Moon’s around Earth orbital, Moons around sun orbital and Moon’s around its axis movements.
Since Moon’s sidereal spin is equal to the Moons around Earth orbital movement, Moon’s axial spin is zero Moon does not rotate about its own axis.
****
Planet Mercury rotates about its own axis.
Mercury’s sidereal rotational period: 58,646 Earth days.
Mercury orbits sun in 87,97 Earth days.
Mercury’s diurnal period is 176 Earth days.
***
Our Moon doesn’t rotate about its own axis.
Moons sidereal rotation period is equal to its around Earth orbital period:
27,32 Earth days.
Moons diurnal period is 29,53 Earth days.
Moons sidereal rotation period is shorter than Moons diurnal period, because Moon also orbits sun.
Moons sidereal rotation spin = 1 /27,32 rot/day
Moons diurnal rotation spin = 1 /29,53 rot/day
Consequently, Moon spins faster in reference to the stars than it spins in reference to the sun!
Moons spin in reference to the stars is faster, than its spin in reference to the sun, because Moons spin in reference to the stars is a sum of two movements:
1. The Moon orbiting Earth.
2. The Moon orbiting sun.
There is not any movement of Moon around its own axis.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“If Moon rotated on its own axis, Moons sidereal rotational period should have been shorter than its orbital around Earth period.”
Why? It could have been longer also. The fact that it is the same is due to tidal forces being raised on the Moon by the Earth (without any liquid water being present).
Vournas
” Moons spin in reference to the stars is faster, than its spin in reference to the sun, because Moons spin in reference to the stars is a sum of two movements… ”
You are claiming something that you absolutely cannot prove, let alone could you ever prove the scientific validity of your Φ story.
That seems like a good explanation to me.
What explanation, gb?
But I would thought tidally locked should been enough, Mercury is semi- tidally locked.
Most moons are tidally locked.
Mercury seems more interesting, but people have long history of always been interested in the Moon.
Mercury is the shortest planet to go to with hohmann transfer from Earth [or Venus or Mars] but it requires vector change, so it’s hardest planet get to, if you want land on it or get into Mercury’s orbit.
Mercury might be a good planet to terraform in terms of giving an Atmosphere.
Mars doesn’t need more atmosphere. So Mars has 25 trillion tonnes of atmosphere, and similar to Mercury, so add 25 trillion tonnes of atmosphere to Mercury.
Try this, gb:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Pluto-Charon_System.gif
That should tell you everything you need about Christos’ “argument.”
Right, Charon always has near nearside to Pluto as does the Moon and as do other moons tidally locked. And Pluto more obviously orbit it’s barycenter as does Earth {Earth’s barycenter is within Earth, but still “orbits it” or more correctly the center mass of Earth is always heading towards it, as also does Earth/Moon barycenter travels towards Sun’s barycenter.
“…travels towards Suns barycenter.
The Sun’s barycenter is outside of the Sun- or is more like Pluto/Charon rather than like Earth/Moon.
Both Pluto and Charon orbit around one another, gb.
They are totally locked.
The important point is to observe that the orbits are around the barycenter.
Christos simply invents laws that do not exist.
gb…”And Pluto more obviously orbit its barycenter as does Earth {Earths barycenter is within Earth…”
***
Not obvious, gb. I posted an article from NASA the other day in which it was revealed that Earth’s N-S axis only deviates 4 inches during a rotation. The barycentre is located about 1 km below the surface and if Earth rotated about it, that would mean the N-S pole deviation would be about 10 km. That means th pole would be turning in a circle with a 10 km diameter.
In the articles they gave 3 reasons for the 4″ deviation and not one of them was about a barycentre.
I doubt that willard’s depiction of Pluto orbiting a barycentre is correct.
Come on, Bordon.
What does your misrepresentation about the Earth-Moon barycenter have to Dow teh Charon?
— Gordon Robertson says:
January 17, 2023 at 6:18 PM
gbAnd Pluto more obviously orbit its barycenter as does Earth {Earths barycenter is within Earth
***
Not obvious, gb–
Some like to think Earth is twin planet, but some could say Pluto is more like a twin planet- though some might call it, twin Dwarf planets.
But I am open to other theories- or religions.
But more interested how get to Mars in 3 months with chemical rockets.
gb…”But more interested how get to Mars in 3 months with chemical rockets”.
***
Have you consulted any Martians? There may be a few on this blog.
Vournas
What about reading this?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1432081
Are you really ready to deny the contents of these two documents?
I can’t imagine, with the best will in the world, that you would agree with such an incredible denial, but… I’m capable of learning!
There is no evidence of lunar rotation there Bin, just as I stated.
What they are talking about is Moon’s orbital motion. Note that 13.2° is the angle moved by Moon in one day (13.2 X 27.3 = 360).
Like you see in the discussion here, people often use the wrong terminology, mixing up words like orbiting, revolving, spinning, rotating, turning, etc.
We know Moon is not rotating on its axis because we would see all sides of it. And we know the cult nonsense is WRONG because a real spin axis does not change by anywhere near 13°.
If you understood the basics, you wouldn’t get so confused.
Pup,
After trolling this website for more than ten years, you still have to support your conjecture that we would see all sides of the Moon if she was spinning.
I can assure you that if you do the Pole Dance Experiment, you would be able to refute your conjecture.
Since science is all about refuting conjectures, what are you waiting for?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Confuting the Moon Dragon Cranks Argument in a Tweet
P1. The motion of the Moon is complex.
P2. Chasles Theorem is true.
C. We can model the Moon as spinning and orbiting.
170 characters if we add the missing apostrophes.
Twoosh!
OK, Little Willy.
[rolls eyes]
😊
Sorry for your loss.
E pur si volteggiare:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=sNUNB6CMnE8
Oh, back to the LRO again, is it? I can never predict what random thing you will link to next.
🤦
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
P1. The motion of the Moon is complex.
“Complex” does not mean “general plane motion”. However, if you want to describe “orbit without spin” as being a general plane motion, a combination of rotation and translation, that could only mean motion more like the MOTL than the MOTR, because rotation implies a change in orientation. So that would still support the “Non-Spinners”. You are building up to a huge own goal, so please continue.
Gargle Graham plays word games again.
If a motion is complex enough, chances are it would be silly to try to reduce it to pure rotation or pure translation. So general motion might be needed to describe its complexity properly.
Gargle Graham still fails at grasping the distinction between material and formal mode. Mighty Tim might be onto something when he suggested that Gargle Graham was stuck at the concrete operational stage.
In any event he still will not own he mistake behind his 1+1 trick.
The 1+1 argument is correct. Obviously so. If you add rotation about an internal axis to rotation about an external axis, you will not end up having motion like the MOTL. Now, you can call that motion, which is not motion like the MOTL, "one motion", if you wish…but I’m not sure what that would really achieve.
The 1+1 argument is incorrect, and obviously so.
The motion of the Moon is complex, therefore Chasles theorem applies.
Unless Gargle Graham offers a refutation of that theorem, he should pack his marbles and go home.
Chasles’s theorem states that "the most general rigid body displacement can be produced by a translation along a line (called its screw axis or Mozzi axis) followed (or preceded) by a rotation about an axis parallel to that line".
Whereas in the 1+1 argument, we’re talking about combining rotation about an internal axis with rotation about an external axis. The result of that combination cannot be movement like the MOTL.
Perhaps Gargle Graham does not recall Holy Madhavi’s definition?
Here it is:
Chasles Theorem simply states that general motion applies to motion in general.
OK, so let’s say you want to refer to the combination of rotation about an internal axis with rotation about an external axis as a general plane motion. You decide that you will thus describe it as “one motion”. So what? The “one motion” will still not be like the MOTL. It cannot possibly be like the MOTL.
If you combine rotation about an internal axis with rotation about an external axis, you will not and cannot get motion like the MOTL.
Suppose Gargle Graham wishes to formulate the 1+1 trick in a quick and dirty manner.
He would say – Chasles Theorem is false.
However, that might not get the same rhetorical effect as the CSA Truther troll.
I’ve literally just explained why Chasles’ Theorem doesn’t even enter into it.
Gargle Graham does not even understand Chasles Theorem.
🤦
I understand it fine, which is how I know it makes no sense to invoke it in a discussion about adding rotation about an internal axis to rotation about an external axis. It simply doesn’t change anything about the fact that the result will not be motion like the MOTL.
I think you just write random stuff in the hope that it will confuse readers.
Gargle Graham soldiers on:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/207440
And of course what can be composed can be decomposed.
Perhaps Eulers theorem would be enough.
It’s always the same tactic. Link to something that doesn’t support you, and hope that the act of doing so will convince readers that it does.
Garrison Graham plays dumb once again.
Perhaps something is lost in translation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasles%27_theorem_(kinematics)
Any rotation and translation can be replaced by a rotation.
Thus any rotation can be replaced by a rotation and a translation.
In other words, general motion applies to motions in general.
Little Willy is just going to keep repeating the same trick again and again. He really is despicable.
Garbagebowl Graham keeps gaslighting:
(Jackson, 1942, p. 662)
Keep on linkin’, and keep on stinkin’…
Confuting the Moon Dragon Cranks Argument in a Tweet
P1. The motion of the Moon is complex.
P2. Chasles Theorem is true.
C. We can model the Moon as spinning and orbiting.
170 characters if we add the missing apostrophes.
Twoosh!
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Spot the Error
[RANDOM MOON DRAGON CRANK] An object can translate in a circle, and rotate on its own internal axis.
Cf. Holy Madhavi for details:
https://tinyurl.com/Holy-Madhavi
So now Little Willy is declaring that the “Spinners” description of the moon’s motion is in error. Wonderful!
So Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more instead of reading Holy Madhavi.
If only Gill could be around, but somehow when Bordon is here he disappears.
The “Spinners” description of the moon’s motion is that it is translating in an ellipse whilst rotating on its own internal axis. If that’s in error, please do quote from Madhavi and prove those “Spinners” wrong.
What will it take for Glossing Graham to read back his own guru?
I will await for Galoping Graham to open his Holy Madhavi.
OK, Little Willy.
Still waiting for Golden Graham to own his mistake.
No mistakes from me, Little Willy.
Still awaiting for Gargling Graham to recognize his mistake.
If you think the “Spinners” have got something wrong with their description of the moon’s motion, please do let us all in on your secret.
I know what one of the problems with it is: “orbital motion” is a rotation about an external axis, and not a translation…
One day Grizzly Graham will recognize his mistake.
Still waiting.
Keep waiting, Little Willy. Then, one day, you will realize that I’ve been right all along.
Awaiting a response from Giddy Graham that shows he gets the difference between equivalence and simultaneity.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Still waiting.
Presumably you think the combination of translation in a circle plus rotation about an internal axis is a general plane motion, thus you think it can be described as one motion, a “complex motion”…and you think this has some bearing on the overall discussion, for some reason.
Even though “axial rotation”, or rotation about an internal axis, must be kept as a separate concept from “orbital motion”. There have been numerous people from both sides of the argument constantly making that point over and over again, that “orbital motion” and “axial rotation” are two separate motions, not to be confused with one another.
Presumably Gargle Graham clear his throat instead of waning his obvious mistake.
No mistake, Little Willy, as explained.
I await for Gargle Graham to own his obvious mistake.
The motion of the Moon is complex enough for Chasles Theorem to apply.
His 1+1 trick denies the Chasles Theorem.
His only way out would be to argue that the Moon-Earth system *must* be modelled using pure rotation or pure translation.
Best of luck to him.
BG has just agreed that the 1+1 argument is correct (in all but name). Will that make any difference to Little Willy’s relentless confusion? Who knows.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again.
I’m just looking for some sort of rationality in this debate, Little Willy. BG agrees that you cannot combine rotation about an internal axis with rotation about an external axis and get motion like the MOTL. He said that wasn’t even in dispute, as far as he was concerned! Yet here you are, disputing it. With everything that you’ve got. In multiple places over the comment section at once.
If rationality was all he was after, Galoping Graham would have settled for a draw a long time ago.
His actual misconception is purely logical:
Motions M1 and M2 can be equivalent.
M1 and M2 can apply at the same time.
When they do, M1 and M2 combine into a complex motion CM.
That is, one can decompose it back into M1 and M2.
To claim that M1 and M2 are mutually exclusive as a full description of that CM, even if true, does not refute that fact.
Your inability to ever admit that you are wrong is truly something to behold.
I don’t need to argue against things I never said.
What I said was that you cannot combine rotation about an internal axis with rotation about an external axis and get motion like the MOTL…and that is correct.
You were wrong, and I was right.
As I said…"then, one day, you will realize that I’ve been right all along."
Garbling Graham gaslights furthermore.
It is quite possible to spin while orbiting at the same time, and the 1+1 trick is trivial to refute.
The Man on the Moon needs to turn to keep his face toward the Earth.
The orbit of the Moon alone does not explain that phenomenon.
A rotation is not enough to describe the Moon’s orbit.
Moon Dragon Cranks still waffle instead of providing a physical reason to the idea that the Moon should act like a ball on a string.
…you were wrong, and I was right.
As I said…"then, one day, you will realize that I’ve been right all along."
Spot the Error
[RANDOM MOON DRAGON CRANK] An object can translate in a circle, and rotate on its own internal axis.
Cf. Holy Madhavi for details:
https://tinyurl.com/Holy-Madhavi
All that is left to do is laugh at you, Little Willy.
Then PST you, because you will never stop otherwise…which I expect I will leave until tomorrow.
Spot the Error
[RANDOM MOON DRAGON CRANK] An object can translate in a circle, and rotate on its own internal axis.
Cf. Holy Madhavi for details:
https://tinyurl.com/Holy-Madhavi
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
posting down here, lost my place.
bill…”Thus the term rigid body. Rigid body would be any two or more particles/object bonded together in such a way you can assume they arent likely to come apart”.
***
Bill free free to offer criticism. That’s open to anyone, it just seems the spinners lack the ability to offer constructive criticism.
Expanding on what you claim re a rigid body, there is a definition for the rectilinear motion of a rigid body. All particles in the body must move along parallel lines at the same speed.
The definitions for curvilinear translation were so convoluted in mechanical engineering texts that I devised my own definition based on the definition of rectilinear motion and the observations of Newton re lunar motion.
My reasoning is based on the definition of rectilinear motion, that an equivalent motion must be defined for motion along a curve. It strikes me as implausible that such a definition would be over-looked, rather it appears to have been lost somewhere along the line. Newton knew about it, why is the definition so fleeting and imprecise these days?
If you look in a typical mechanical engineering text, they depict curvilinear motion/translation as a bizarre motion like two levers on independent axles attached on the other end to the axles on a bus. As the bus is moved back and forth on the lever it moves over a 180 degree arc in a semicircle.
How can such a convoluted contrapition be offered as an example of curvilinear motion when a locomotive moving on a circular track offers a more realistic example? Or, a satellite orbiting the Earth, or the Moon itself. Or a ball on a string. In fact, Newton offered the Moon as an example of rectilinear motion being converted to curvilinear motion by the effect of gravity.
The Moon is referred to as a uniform rigid body, basically because it is uniform throughout, hence its motion can be represented by its COM. If it was shaped like a peanut, with one end smaller than the other, the COM would need to be relocated. However, after finding it, the orbit could be based on that COM. That’s because the average linear velocity is the velocity of the COM.
In reality, all points on a uniform rigid body like the Moon move along their own orbital paths. However, as part of a uniform rigid body, each particle is required to follow the motion of the COM. That would not be the case if the body was also rotating about the COM.
It’s easy to prove my proof with the Moon on a circular orbit but it’s not much more difficult to prove it for an elliptical orbit or any other path. With the Moon as a uniform rigid body, all particles must move in parallel and at the same speed.
The trick here is the speed, which is a scalar quantity found by dividing the angular distance traveled by the time taken. May people immediately claim that particles at different radial distances from the centre are moving at different velocities, which is true. However, all particles must complete the orbit in the same time as the COM, hence their rate of angular speed must be the same.
All that’s left is proving all particles in the Moon orbit in parallel. Easy. Draw a radial line from Earth’s centre through Moon’s centre and out the other end. Each particle making up that radial line within the Moon is constrained to move in parallel throughout an orbit.
Conversely, the particles making up the line within the radial line portion within he Moon would need to rotate through 360 degrees per orbit if the Moon was rotating about a local axis.
Also, for an elliptical path it is simply a matter of mathematically redefining the radial line protruding from the near-face of the Moon. That radial line is found at any point on an ellipse by drawing lines from each focal point to that point then bisecting the angle formed. At perigee and apogee the radial line thus formed coincides with a radial line in a circle, whereas at other parts of the ellipse it diverges from that circular radial line by a few degrees.
The angle of divergence is the longitudinal libration angle.
Gordon,
The semi-major axis of the Moon’s orbit is 384,400 km,
semi-minor is 383,800 km, giving an eccentricity of 0.0559.
The focal points are thus 21,469 km to either side of center.
Maximum deflection will occur when the Moon coincides with the intersection of the orbital path and semi-minor axis, e.g. at the “12 o’clock” position.
Plugging 383,800 and 21,469 into the arctangent function gives an angle of 3.2 degrees maximum deflection. The observed deflection is 6.9 degrees, over twice as much.
I’m afraid you need to revisit your model.
Hard disagree, BG.
Maximum deflection will only occur when Geometry Graham will return from his hiatus.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Compare and Contrast
(1) A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.
(2) Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis
Puzzle. How can a motion be both a rotation and a translation?
A general plane motion can be thought of as two motions in the same plane.
Gill,
Right on!
The only way a motion can be a rotation and a translation is if it is a complex motion.
Well done!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
noooo, wee willy…a translation is a motion, not a motion is a translation.
Forget the definitions and think it out. If you have an x-y axis centred at 0,0 and you move it to a new origin, 0′,0′, which could be located at 5,5 on the original axes, the entire axis translates from 0,0 to 5,5. It is now located at 5,5 of the old axis.
Suppose along the way you also rotate the axis by 90 degrees. Now you will have the x axis where the y-axis used to be, and the y-axis where the x-axis used to be. That would be translation with rotation.
Capiche? That is called a translation of axes.
Rather than move the axes, you could move a point from 0,0 to 5,5 in a straight line and that would be rectilinear translation. Or, you could move the particle 5 units along the x-axis, then move it 5 units up the Y-axis to the same point at 5,5. That would be rectilinear translation in two moves.
You can’t rotate a particle, so forget it.
Suppose now you have a circle of radius 5 centred at 0,5. That is, on the y-axis at +5. The circle would pass through 0,0 and 5,5. So the arc from 0,0 to 5,5 would be a curve. If you now move a particle from 0,0 to 5,5, you perform curvilinear translation of a particle.
I have already covered the case where the body is a rigid body, but you get the idea.
> a translation is a motion, not a motion is a translation.
C’mon, Bordon.
Here’s what I said:
There is a kind of motion that is called a translation.
Just like there is a kind of motion that is called a rotation.
All complex motions can be reduced to these two.
Besides, don’t you recognize Holy Madhavi anymore?
Revise and resubmit.
Little Willy has decided to call “general plane motion”, “complex motion”.
Grammar Graham has decided to irefuse to own his mistake.
No mistakes here.
An obvious mistake.
So obvious even Gill could spot it.
Confident that Bill agrees with me, that you are just not "up to speed".
“If you now move a particle from 0,0 to 5,5, you perform curvilinear translation of a particle.”
Uhhh…Curvilinear translation refers specifically to a motion of Rigid Bodies, not point-particles.
Pretty sure Gargle Graham has yet to own his mistake.
Perhaps he does not see it yet?
Here is where you and really the whole TEAM gets derailed:
” I devised my own definition”
We’re currently discussing what you think is my mistake in multiple locations within the comments, Little Willy. Try not to pretend otherwise.
Gerrymandering Graham confuses his denial for a discussion.
Little Willy is never satisfied with anything I do or say.
Gorilla Warfare Graham could own that he currently responded to a comment Bordon directed at me,
OK, sure. I am responding to a comment that Gordon directed at you.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little less.
Only a little less, for Gentle Graham was not exactly responding to Bordon.
No, I was responding to you.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little less.
Why would he complain that the exchange goes all over the place if he cannot for the life of him stop from being all over the blog himself?
Readers might know why.
I’m easily baited, I guess…and you love to troll me. That’s why.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
If he has nothing to add, Gruesome Graham should get out of my thread.
"Your thread" which, if you were being honest, you would admit was designed specifically to bait me.
There is by the public nature of this forum no ”my threads” but trollers like Willard should refrain from participating beyond the very few times he asks questions, provides a source, or expresses an opinion.
Garbagebowl Graham just can’t resist trolling, and Gill joins along, oblivious to the fact that he just destroyed the 1+1 trick!
Bill gets it…the whole thing…absolutely perfectly, as far as I can tell from reading his comments.
Compare and Contrast
(1) A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.
(2) Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis
Puzzle – How can a motion be both a rotation and a translation?
A bad day for Little Willy. His friend BG threw him under the bus a tad. Though it’s not all a bad thing…it’s good for BG’s credibility!
KHAAAAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!1111
https://youtu.be/RbTUTNenvCY?t=12
Well, it could be good for BG’s credibility. Depends how he acts now, I guess.
Here’s another bone, Gullible Graham:
https://youtu.be/ON_irzFAU9c?t=4
OK, Brandy Guts.
Compare and Contrast
(1) A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.
(2) Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis
Puzzle How can a motion be both a rotation and a translation?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gimpy Graham hobbles away from another one.
Strides away, the confident victor. As you yourself agreed.
Gallant Graham throws his own triumph apparently not realizing that winning one point is not the same as winning all the points.
So much for his 1+1 trick again.
He also conveniently leaves out he once agreed that translating in a circle with axial rotation can describe MOTL before yanking it back because obviously a draw dissatisfies him.
I don’t need to win all the points in one go.
Once a point is won, it remains won. Then we build up those points as time goes by. I’m in a pretty good position by now, thanks.
"he once agreed that translating in a circle with axial rotation can describe MOTL before yanking it back because obviously a draw dissatisfies him"
No, I yank nothing back, and indeed I have agreed the same thing as far back as the very beginning of the debate. You still don’t understand something fairly basic. The argument is about whether "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL or the MOTR. Describing our moon as rotating on its own axis is only ultimately the correct way to describe it if "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR.
Gamboling Graham Gyrates away from the question of this thread Glorifying in his own Grandeur again.
If you say so, Brandy Guts.
Still not seeing an answer to Willard’s question, Goober. I only gave you two hints. Here’s a third: I could be wrong! You’ve a chance to score another point, what are you waiting for?
"Still not seeing an answer to Willard’s question…"
Bill already answered it.
Poor Gill, forced to step up to the plate because Glorious Graham prefers to troll.
Wait –
Do you see any response from Gill, BG?
Glorious Goober!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1432356
https://youtu.be/ON_irzFAU9c?t=4
The water boils
Is Earth in a vacuum?
“That’s what’s boiling the ocean”
Al Gore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-br-n9xTOc&t=348s
Linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Bill’s answer defeats your 1+1 trick, Graham.
Also, since rotation entails change in orientation, how can the resulting motion meet the requirements of a translation?
The 1+1 argument was that you cannot add rotation about an internal axis to rotation about an external axis and end up with motion like the MOTL. You have agreed that the argument is correct.
Thus you can no longer describe it as a "trick", and claim people have "defeated" it.
Guileless Graham implies that 1 + 1 doesn’t always not equal 1 and wonders how that is not Gaslighting.
Then he fails to distinguish what we agree on from what we don’t, and wonders the same thing.
Brandy Guts, you’re confused. If anything, Little Willy is the one that has gaslighted you. The whole "1+1" thing is just a name….and one that Little Willy has insisted upon. The actual argument was that you cannot add rotation about an internal axis to rotation about an external axis and end up with motion like the MOTL.
You have agreed that this argument is correct.
It’s utterly irrelevant that a general plane motion is the sum of a rotation and a translation. It changes nothing about any of the arguments made.
It’s also something that I taught Little Willy, in the first place!
Brandon R. Gates says:
”Guileless Graham implies that 1 + 1 doesnt always not equal 1 and wonders how that is not Gaslighting.”
I am hearing DREMT claim that 1+1 never equals 1 and that 1+1 always equals 2.
What he is saying as I hear it. That 1 can be divided into to 2 parts that don’t have to be equal. Like in 1 can be divided into 2/3rds plus 1/3.
I have no idea how you are coming up with your claim. Perhaps you can explain in a sensible sane manner. Maybe not.
"It changes nothing about any of the arguments made."
Except perhaps if you are going to consider "orbit without spin" to be a general plane motion…which supports the "Non-Spinners", as explained.
Lol.
> Perhaps you can explain in a sensible sane manner.
I can indeed, Bill. Graham is backpedaling away from an argument that nukes his acceptance of general plane motion as the combination of two or more component motions.
He tries to minimize the 1+1 argument to just an illustration, not the actual argument, utterly irrelevant, etc.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Even if he were there, he can’t make mistakes.
Gaslighting.
"Graham is backpedaling away from an argument that nukes his acceptance of general plane motion as the combination of two or more component motions."
False.
"He tries to minimize the 1+1 argument to just an illustration, not the actual argument, utterly irrelevant, etc."
Huh? The "1+1 argument" is simply a name for the following argument:
You cannot add rotation about an internal axis to rotation about an external axis and end up with motion like the MOTL.
You’ve agreed that’s correct.
Nate says:
”In science, those who imagine effects that arent observed and publish them are considered fraudsters.”
Nate just called out anybody who can’t imagine how to build, and build, and demonstrate a MOTR in accordance with their theory a fraudster!!
So DREMT submitted this demonstration of the MOTR with a full description of how to build this demonstration in support of his viewpoint of the MOTR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
In fact it was probably a year ago when DREMT last stated that if you actually build the moon to rotate in the same direction as the orbit you will get 2 revolutions per orbit. That is experiment 1
See Experiment 3 for how to build a MOTR!
and while you are at it see how to build a MOTL!
All engineers know how to do this. Even space craft engineers. They also use multiple motors in essentially the same way.
So if you are NOT a fraudster. You will need to engineer your version of the MOTR, videotape it showing how it works, or support somebody who has done so. Don’t be a sucker and go for a verbal description or a drawing (computer or otherwise) as you really don’t want to be thought of as a FRAUD. . . .or a DUMMY!
OK, I am board with DREMT’s demo.
Anybody else?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
Gill, Gill,
Griefing Graham is not the CSA Truther.
At least get this right.
The CSA Truther hides the spin when behind his rotation of the Moon.
Compare with the gondolas of a Ferris Wheel.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“OK, I am board with DREMTs demo.
Bill you’re quite gullible. Convinced by the silky voiced narrator.
BTW he is using a rotating reference frame to decide if the Moon is rotating. We know this because when the Moon is fixed to the rotating arm, he clearly states it is not rotating.
When he stops the arm and removes the Moon from it, and then manually gives the Moon the same motion, THEN he states it is rotating.
The mechanical device is not meant to be taken literally as the mechanism of the Moon. The video proves only how this device operates.
Yes, good video, Bill. Introduced it again here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1433292
BTW, he is not using a rotating reference frame to decide if the moon is rotating on its own internal axis or not. He’s simply sticking to the idea that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL, and then making sure (or rather, the apparatus itself makes sure) that “axial rotation” (rotation about an internal axis) is kept separate from this motion.
And so Glorious Graham puts his pet GIF in the mouth of one of his gurus.
The glory of Moon Dragon cranks has no ceiling.
Strange that he never uses DREMT’s term “‘axial rotation’ (rotation about an internal axis)” but DREMT can read his mind!
"So if you are NOT a fraudster. You will need to engineer your version of the MOTR, videotape it showing how it works, or support somebody who has done so. Don’t be a sucker and go for a verbal description or a drawing (computer or otherwise) as you really don’t want to be thought of as a FRAUD. . . .or a DUMMY!"
The challenge has been set…will it be met?
You guys are looking to go down new rabbit holes of denial.
Describing a motion is a separate task from describing the mechanism of that motion.
For example, to describe what the motion of the minute hand on my grandfather clock is, it would be quite silly to have to describe the inner workings of the clock. In order to convey what that motion is, one would simply say it is a rotation around the clock center at 1 rev per hour.
And here are some simple mechanisms for the MOTR motion.
Ask an xy plotter to draw a circle. The pen’s motion will be like the MOTR.
Ask a kindergartener to draw a circle. The motion of the crayon will be like the MOTR.
I asked my wife to make a coffee mug orbit her other fist. She held it by the handle in the normal way, and moved it in a horizontal circle around her other fist. The handle always pointed toward her. It was motion like the MOTR.
In labs there is a device called an Orbital Shaker. It moves flasks of solutions in an orbit like the MOTR.
https://youtu.be/_cBmJRq3JLw
Interestingly this motion is called orbital motion.
Im not going to build or videotape it because you can see the video of the orbital shaker in action.
But here is how to design one. Build an oscillator that can oscillate a mass, m, along the x-axis. An example is a speaker, which oscillates a diaphragm in that way.
Now get another oscillator that oscillates a platform along the y axis.
Put the x oscillator on the y-oscillator platform, and turn then both on. The mass will move like the MOTR, and like the flasks on the vertical shaker.
One direction doing sin(wt) the other doing cos(wt) will give you MOTR.
Good thread, Nate.
Nate says:
You guys are looking to go down new rabbit holes of denial.
Describing a motion is a separate task from describing the mechanism of that motion.
——————
Then there is no question that the MOTL is a rotation Nate.
At some point when terribly confused as you are about rotations on an external axis. . . .its probably a good idea to look to see if there is an external axis and make some determination about whether something is rotating around it.
The challenge her isn’t to create an image of a rotation you want and ignore the fact that the moon is rotating around an explicit point. Are you actually going to deny that?
The challenge here was to build a machine that would produce the MOTR. If you can’t do it. . . .you probably need to go with DREMTs machine or as you said above you are a fraudster by your own definition.
“Then there is no question that the MOTL is a rotation Nate.”
There is no question that the MOTL is rotating.
There is no question that the MOTR is not rotating.
Both of these can be verified by a measurement, eg with a phone.
“The challenge here was to build a machine that would produce the MOTR.”
Bill You are suffering delusions if you think you need to, or can, order people to go off and build things that are completely unnecessary to the argument.
This is a forum for debate. The debated points can be addressed with voluminous amounts of available facts and observations.
You’ve been shown all you need. If you still don’t get it, its because you are operating with extreme and willful confirmation bias. You cherry pick only confirming facts and dismiss all others (eg Madhavi, axial tilt, libration, definitions).
That is a YOU problem, and no experiment will fix that.
No you will toss some ad hom grenades at me.
Hunter wrote:
Already done, Bill. The Hubble Space Telescope would serve to answer that challenge as it stays focused on a single point in space long enough to capture an image while it orbits the Earth.
Yes Swanson the Hubble Telescope does that using motors to create the second motion like as demonstrated in this simple experiment #3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
Hunter, Sure, the HST uses an attitude control system to re-orient it. But, once it’s pointing at it’s intended target, the HST no longer needs to change it’s orientation. There is no “second motion”, though the positioning may need minor adjustments as it orbits.
thats incorrect Swanson. The telescope uses secondary power to first orient the space craft and also power up gyroscopes to stabilize it against forces that would start rotating it back to its natural position. there are a number of papers on the web describing how one might design a space craft to assume a single position like the moon but efforts to do that ran out of steam because of needs to hang all kinds of gadgets off the satellites in specific and often movable positions like solar panels that remain pointed at the sun and for the need of the Hubble Telescope to rotate with its orbit in a wide number of positions.
Nate says:
”No you will toss some ad hom grenades at me.”
You are tossing ad hom grenades at yourself here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1432925
That says to publish a real observation. A cartoon is an imagined observation only occasionally confined to certain kinds of motion as defined the underlying code. There are some things that can’t be completely modeled physically but usually there are simplified working models of such things.
This is an example of a published observation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
Hunter, You wrote:
The HST answers that challenge, providing said motion. You didn’t specify HOW said “machine” should produce the motion like the MTOR.
Swanson agrees that the HST proves the MOTR is made up of two rotations.
Bill, You have essentially lost a debate about whether the Moon landings are fake (you would think they are), and insisting that your opponents must land on the Moon to convince you!
Sayonara.
Sorry, Hunter, once the HST has been pointed at it’s intended target, it no longer needs to rotate. I won your stupid challenge, where’s my Blue Ribbon prize?
Hunter still doesn’t understand that dynamics considers six degrees of freedom when building math models of the motions of free bodies in space. There are three X-Y-Z translations and three more rotations. The rotations must be referenced to the stars and thus require inertial reference frames. “Not rotating” is just a special case of rotation.
The Moon rotates around it’s CM once as it’s CM “revolves” around each orbit.
No you didn’t win Swanson. If you want to think you did thats fine. I know how sensitive you are about that.
Nope, I told you the system has a sophisticated positional control system using gyroscopes to store energy for the position of hold the space crafts posture. And here is link describing the system.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-space-telescope-pointing-control-system
If you have a link denying that this is an active system by all means post it. Otherwise keep your head where it usually is where the sun doesn’t shine.
Hunter complains that the HST is a man-made machine with controls to keep it pointing toward some point in the stars. But he is ignoring the basic requirement of his first post, which was:
His challenge does not exclude ANY characteristics of said machine. The device just has to be a machine.
Now that Hunter finds himself in a bind, he is trying to wiggle out of his “challenge”, attempting to add restrictions. Those same restrictions could also be applied to the latest video of a machine representing grammie’s cartoon world, since part of the device includes a motor with a fixed rate of rotation. Hunter is again revealed to be a potty mouthed airhead troll.
the challenge Swanson was to explain how to build a MOTR with the number of motions they want to claim for the MOTR.
How many gyroscopes does the HST have in motion in addition to its orbit?
Just checking on how many rotational motions you are claiming to create the MOTR. DREMT are at a minimum of two. Perhaps we are in agreement.
Ferris met your silly challenge over a century ago, when he built his Ferris wheel.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Ferris-wheel.jpg
Hunter has lost the argument, but refuses to admit it and drops back into grammie’s cartoon world. He distorts how the HST works when he wrote:
The HST uses a 3 axis set of gyros to determine rotational rate wrt inertial space as part of the attitude control system. The reaction wheels are used to turn the HST from one direction to another and to compensate for short term external torques. The rest of the system includes magnetic torquers to compensate for any secular biases from external torques.
grammie pups cartoon is just a brain dead demonstration of the physics. As we all know, the Moon, like all orbiting bodies, rotates around it’s CM while it orbits (i.e., “revolves”) around the Earth-Moon barycenter.
As GR thinks that Newton was wrong….
Newton was right, the translator got it wrong.
So Newton 1, 2 and 3 (at least) apply regardless of the size of the masses involved.
Which translator, Bordon?
There are many, and we all know you do not have acccess to the authoritative one.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The latest in idiocy from Davos…
Senator John Kerry, Democrat….
“”I mean, it’s so almost extraterrestrial to think about saving the planet.” He added, “If you say that to most people, most people think you’re just a crazy tree-hugging, lefty, liberal, you know, do-gooder or whatever and there’s no relationship. But really, that’s where we are.”
Here again we see how Robertson ‘works’:
” Newton was right, the translator got it wrong. ”
He intentionally misinterprets, distorts, misrepresents everything that doesn’t fit his egomaniac narrative, regardless what it is about: viruses, evolution, Einstein’s work (e.g. time dilation, his addendum to Newton’s gravity laws etc), and if necessary, even Newton’s work itself.
Robertson is such a dumb, ignorant liar that he even claims Newton’s translator would have wrongly translated his work.
But… there were many translators of Newton’s original work in Latin! Can they have been wrong all together?
*
The youngest translation of Newton’s Principia known to me was done from Latin into Russian by A.N. Krylov in 1913:
https://www.jnorman.com/pages/books/46310/isaac-newton/matematicheskiya-nachala-naturalnoi-filosofii-first-russian-translation-of-principia
*
Let us repeat here the references to Newton’s original text and the three major translation from Latin into English, French and German.
*
Sources for Principia Scientifica, Book III, Prop. XVII, Th. XV
1. Newton’s original text in Latin
https://books.google.com/books?id=2wNYAAAAcAAJ&hl=de&pg=PA51&q=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
2. Motte’s translation in English
https://books.google.com/books?id=6EqxPav3vIsC&pg=PA238&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
3. Du Châtelet’s translation in French
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k290387/f39.item
4. Wolfers’ translation in German (on page 399, i.e. 414 in the pdf file, §21 Lehrsatz)
https://ia902704.us.archive.org/24/items/mathematischepr00newtgoog/mathematischepr00newtgoog.pdf
*
All four texts show the same:
” Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h 39′; Venus in about 23h; the Earth in 23h 56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the Moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. ”
*
Robertson is really the dumbest liar one could imagine.
But he is not the only one here who endlessly tries to manipulate the blog’s readers, by stupidly claiming that with ‘revolves‘, Newton could have meant ‘orbits‘ !
Let us repeat the following as well:
Jupiter orbits the Sun in 11.86 Earth years, Mars in 687 Earth days, Venus in 225 Earth days.
Does the Sun nowadays, in these liars’ mind, suddenly ‘orbit’ something in 25 1/2 days?
OMG…
You forgot Claudius Ptolemy
Try harder Bindinito try harder
Oh look…
The little stalking dachshund actually laughs at people’s doubts about the lunar spin, because this spin is clearly proven for him: he has made that clear often enough.
But instead of saying here what he really means, instead of contributing to the discussion, he prefers to cowardly attack me.
Pfui Deibel, Bavarian Krauts would say.
That’s a good example, Bin. The translators confused the terms, as people still do. They intermix revolve, spin, rotate, orbit, etc. You have to understand what is being discussed. You have to understand the simple ball-on-a-string.
Yes, when all the standard flimsy excuses to ignore incovenient facts have failed, just invent new ones:
Its the translator’s fault.
Yeah.
Four different people translated Newton’s Principia (which he wrote in New Latin) into four different languages, and coincidentally they all translated exactly the same place wrong : namely where Newton explains that the Moon rotates on its own axis, just like Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth and … the Sun.
Strange, isn’t it?
Ah well ah well.
Bindidon, don’t blow a gasket. I’ll explain this to you, again.
The planets both orbit Sun AND spin on their axes. Moon does NOT have that same motion. Moon orbits Earth, but does NOT spin.
So when talking about “day”, i.e. when surface sunlight varies from light to dark, it gets confusing. A planet’s “day” is related to its spin rate. But Moon’s “day” is related to its orbital rate.
Have you been studying the “coffee cup tied to the table” experiment? That explains it nicely. You can even get an adult to help explain it to you.
Okay, now you can blow a gasket.
That’s why this is so much fun.
clint…”A planets day is related to its spin rate. But Moons day is related to its orbital rate”.
***
Exactly.
However, we must be aware of how the word ‘day’ is used. It can mean the 24 hour period related to one rotation of the Earth on its axis or it can mean the amount of time it is illuminated by the Sun, as in daylight. After all, we talk about day and night with reference to daylight and no daylight. English can be very imprecise at times as we have noted with spinners messing up the word rotation.
Therefore, the lunar day can mean the amount of time, 14 days, during which the Moon is lit by the Sun. Those 14 days are due to the position of the Moon in its orbit as viewed from Earth. If we view the Moon from the perspective of the Sun, it is illuminated on all sides, therefore the day becomes 28 days, or so.
It seems to me that Newton made reference to a 28 day lunar day. I’ll have to check. I add that only because the translation leaves much to be desired.
” It seems to me that Newton made reference to a 28 day lunar day. Ill have to check. ”
Oho! The Robertson genius is about to check something seeming.
*
” I add that only because the translation leaves much to be desired. ”
Says this blog’s greatest ignoramus who
– isn’t able to translate anything from Latin to English
let alone to explain why
– four different translations would leave ‘much to be desired’.
Dumb, dumber, dumbest of all.
” Bindidon, dont blow a gasket. Ill explain this to you, again. ”
Wow! Clint R trying to ‘explain’… what could we expect?
It seems that the trolliest member of the Lunar Spin Denial Squad didn’t understanf what I was writing about.
Thus I think it is necessary to repeat it.
*
Four different people translated Newtons Principia (which he wrote in New Latin) into four different languages, and coincidentally they all translated exactly the same place wrong : namely where Newton explains that the Moon rotates on its own axis, just like Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth and … the Sun.
*
What did Clint R top troll not understand?
What does his dumb, trivial, egomaniac answer
” A planet’s “day” is related to its spin rate. But Moon’s “day” is related to its orbital rate. ”
have to do with what I wrote?
Denial really is a terrific disease.
Bin, here’s what the translations should have stated:
“Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, rotates in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h 39′; Venus in about 23h; the Earth in 23h 56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the Moon revolvesin 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.”
Then, it would be correct.
Clint R
” … and the Moon revolvesin 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. ”
As usual, you are an incompetent and lying person. You were not even able to correctly insert your own, handmade manipulation.
Newton never wrote in his original Latin text what you intentionally misrepresent.
Here is – for the umpteenth time the link to Newton’s original text:
https://books.google.com/books?id=2wNYAAAAcAAJ&hl=de&pg=PA51&q=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
The original text is:
” Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56′, Mars horis 24. 39′. Venus horis 23. circiter, Terra horis 23. 56′, Sol diebus 25 1/2, et Luna diebus 27. 7 hor. 43′. ”
Only one occurrence of ‘revolvitur’, which obviously applies to the whole sentence. You have included something that is not in the original text let alone in any translation.
*
You are such a poor, desperately lying troll, Clint R.
Bin, I’ve just corrected your translations.
But your meltdown is always a nice reward.
Reality is a bitch, huh?
” Bin, I’ve just corrected your translations. ”
For the bad, indecent elementary school student Clint R, I repeat:
You have included something that is not in the original text let alone in any translation.
You cannot correct translations with things that are missing from what you are originally translating.
*
You are such a poor, desperately lying troll, Clint R.
Well maybe it’s more like “clarifying” than “correcting”. The point is, it’s easier for you to understand.
” Well maybe it’s more like ‘clarifying’ than ‘correcting’. The point is, its easier for you to understand. ”
No, Clint R.
You aren’t interested in clarifying anything.
The point is, it’s easier for you to distort the original text.
It’s more likely you’re so braindead nothing can help you. After all, you STILL can’t understand the simple model of a ball-on-a-string.
I think your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. I assume that ”revolvitur” gets translated as ”revolves”. If so then Clint is specifying that revolves should only be applied to the moon and Clint was trying to put it in the terms you understand to be correct. e.g. rotates means spin and revolves means revolves.
If you put it in terms of what many scientists contend rotates means to revolve or spin. And that seems the best choice from my perspective also.
So if ”revolvitur” means rotates or revolves then IMO Newton didn’t specify a special kind of rotation for the moon nor did he say what you claim he said. . . .that the moon spins on its axis.
“Newton didnt specify a special kind of rotation for the moon”
Obviously since it is listed with Jupiter’s, Mars, Earth’s, and Venus rotation (spin) rate.
binny bundt cake…”namely where Newton explains that the Moon rotates on its own axis…”
***
Nope. Newton said the Moon ‘revolved’ on its axis. That can only mean the axis is Earth.
Robertson
” Newton said the Moon revolved on its axis. That can only mean the axis is Earth. ”
Like Clint R, you are a a poor, desperately lying troll.
Newton’s original text in the Principia:
https://books.google.de/books?id=2wNYAAAAcAAJ&hl=de&pg=PA52&q=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
” Quoniam verò Lunæ axem <b>suum</b> uniformiter revolventis ”
Translation
” Because it is true that the Moon revolves uniformly around ITS axis ”
*
Would YOU, when writing the same thing about Earth, suddenly tell us:
” That can only mean the axis is Sun. ”
*
You have been told that years ago, Robertson.
You still remind my Lady Rose of her Uncle Kurt, who 12 years ago kept starting all discussions from scratch, just like you, endlessly ignoring what he was told a week, a month, a year ago.
Today, when we visit him at the retirement home, he just silently stares through us.
This is probably your future, Robertson.
Bin, you left out “in reference to the fixed stars”.
Leaving out stuff makes it look like you’ve got something to hide.
” Bin, you left out ‘in reference to the fixed stars’.
No I did NOT, Clint R:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1432518
And unlike you, I wrote “with respect to the fixed stars”.
*
Inserting stuff which does not exist, like you do, makes it look like you’ve got something to distort.
As I stated Bin, you left out “in reference to the fixed stars”.
“Because it is true that the Moon revolves uniformly around ITS axis.”
It’s not too smart to deny your own comment, is it?
How could Newton write in New Latin when he spoke Old English? I relate the story of the author who had 5 years of New Latin and could not understand Newton’s Latin. A reader trying to read Old English would have just as much trouble.
Benny Hill did a comedy skit on Old English, where the ‘f’ looks like an ‘s’. Naturally, the name Susan becomes fufan.
That’s a mild discrepancy compared to the word usage.
The Lord’ prayer in Old English from the era of Newton…
O oure father which arte in heven,
halowed be thy name.
Let thy kyngdome come,
thy wyll be fulfilled as well in erth as it ys in heven.
Geve vs this daye oure dayly breede,
and forgeve vs oure treaspases,
even as we forgeven oure trespacers,
and leade vs not into temptacion:
but delyver vs from evell.
Now translate that to Old Latin, back to New Latin, then to New English.
” How could Newton write in New Latin when he spoke Old English? ”
You are such an absolutely ignorant idiot.
All educated scientists who wrote their work at Newton’s time wrote in a Latin dialect named – today – ‘New Latin’ in order to differentiate it from the language termed ‘Classical Latin’, in use from 75 BC to the 3rd century AD.
You really are so tremendously uneducated.
*
” I relate the story of the author who had 5 years of New Latin and could not understand Newtons Latin. ”
I had – about 55 years ago – 6 years of Classical Latin in the school.
Your ‘author’ very probably is as ignorant as you are.
See Bin, languages ain’t science.
“I had about 55 years ago 6 years of Classical Latin in the school”.
***
Problem is, Bin, you lack the understanding of physics to understand what Newton meant. If you had more patience and focused on what I have described to you, you might gain some insight as to what I am claiming.
If you can’t address what I’m trying to tell you, and respond intelligently, I simply ignore your insults.
Again, my 3 points….
1)Moon moves with a linear motion.
2)Earth’s gravity bends the motion into a curvilinear motion.
3)Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth, therefore…
4)It cannot rotate on a local axis.
Do you think that went over Newton’s head? I am not talking opinion here, he actually stated those first 3 points in Principia. I added point 4 but it’s a no-brainer based on 1,2 and 3.
C’mon, Bordon.
There’s a big step between 1-2-3 and 4.
Isaac was clear on this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1432957
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
FYI:
“Old English” was ~ 650 – 1150 AD
“Middle English” was ~ 1150 – 1600 AD
Newton spoke modern English.
tim…note the ~ , it means approximately. Do you think they were talking middle English till 1600 then abruptly converted to modern English?
That’s especially true with academic where it can take a century for change to come into effect.
Gordon, note the “650 – 1150 AD”. Do you think people were still speaking Old English 500+ plus years and TWO language shifts after Old English faded away?
Can’t you just admit you were wrong about Newton speaking Old English? No one expects you to be an expert in medieval languages, but doubling down on a mistake just makes you look stubborn and silly.
The planet Earths and the planet Mars faster rotation is what creates the necessary interaction for the incident on the planets’ surfaces solar energy the much more efficient accumulation.
–
Science is all about confirming conjectures.
–
It is all in the details…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I thought science was all about refuting conjectures, Christos.
How can you confirm them exactly?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
What do non-spinners have to say about this rig in orbit?
https://youtu.be/_AV5JinSviE
Or this deck of cards which IS in orbit?
https://youtu.be/fPI-rSwAQNg?t=44
But but but the MOTL!!!!1!
I would say you’ve just some more links you don’t understand, brandon.
You can’t point out any relevance to the discussion here, and the second one, involving “intermediate axis theorem” is WAY over your head.
Pup,
The relevance should be obvious to anyone who did the Pole Dance Experiemnt:
https://youtu.be/jea31rKtMmM
I have faith in you.
C00kie should go to Space Camp and Grimacing Graham should ask himself if 1+1+1+1 != 1.
https://youtu.be/EqCKFDBHzC4?t=48
They’re just here to troll, really.
Garbagebowl Graham soldiers on:
Op. Cit.
See what I mean? Little Willy is now determined to reduce the whole moon discussion to a farce. Well, more of a farce than it usually is. There’s always been two motions at the heart of it:
1) Orbital motion.
2) Axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis).
Little Willy wants both descriptions of the moon’s movement, the one from the "Spinners" and the one from the "Non-Spinners", to be seen as "one motion". Even though the "Spinners" have always seen the moon’s movement as being "two motions", both orbiting and rotating about an internal axis…
…and the "Non-Spinners" have always seen it as "one motion" – just orbiting…
…maximum confusion for the issue is always Little Willy’s aim.
Garbagebowl Graham, forever the victim of mathematical physics:
Ut infra.
Readers might appreciate that Moon Dragon cranks insist that the Moon rotates and that she has zero angular velocity, except Bordon who at least is consistent on that point.
After all, he is the Anomaly…
“the Moon rotates and that she has zero angular velocity, except Bordon who at least is consistent on that point”.
***
I have always agreed with Dremt and Clint. I agree that it rotates about the Earth as an external axis but that it has no internal rotation about a local axis. It is you spinners who mistake the constant re-orientation of the face we see from Earth as an angular rotation about a local axis. Spinners get sucked in by an illusion just as they get sucked in by climate alarmist theories.
> I agree that it rotates about the Earth as an external axis but that it has no internal rotation about a local axis.
C’mon, Bordon.
How many quotes would you need in which you rant about curvilinear translation?
ww…”How many quotes would you need in which you rant about curvilinear translation?”
***
That’s what causes the illusion of rotation about a local axis. The motion of curvilinear translation causes the near side of the Moon to re-orient constantly wrt the stars, producing the image that the Moon is rotating on a local axis.
Don’t bother wee willy, it takes great awareness to see this. Anyone who thinks a trace gas like CO2, making up 0.04% of the atmosphere, is producing a measurable warming, would never understand.
C’mon, Bordon.
You’re not Krishnamurti, and you need to choose:
(1) The Moon’s motion is a pure translation.
(2) The Moon’s motion is a pure rotation.
(3) The Moon’s motion is a complex motion.
If you pick (1), you can’t pick (2). If you pick (2), you can’t pick (1). At least not at the same time.
You should pick (3), because there’s no way you’ll be able to model the motion of the Moon using only one translation or only one rotation.
Go with Holy Madhavi.
What if, like you apparently think yourself, you went for “orbit without spin” as being 3), a general plane motion?
Then “orbit without spin” would be a mixture of rotation and translation. Since rotation is involved, it would mean the object changes orientation whilst moving, and since the motion we’re talking about is “orbit without spin”, the change in orientation could not be due to axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis). So any rotation involved in the motion would have to be about an external axis…
…that sort of motion would look much more like the MOTL than the MOTR, but nobody would be able to criticize it for supposedly not working with elliptical orbits.
Then you can add to that axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis) as your second motion to get from a movement like, say, our moon around the Earth (with no rotation about an internal axis), to a movement like the Earth around the Sun (with rotation about an internal axis).
Remember when I said you were moving towards a huge own goal?
☺️
Glorious Graham still fails to understand the meaning of equivalence.
Such a glorious winner.
Don’t get me wrong…I’d still go with describing "orbit without spin" as a rotation about an external axis, myself, since that’s the way it’s defined, and that’s what "orbital motion" is…but Little Willy has found a way for those that object to rotation about an external axis for their various ridiculous reasons to have all their problems solved.
Little Willy: the ultimate "Non-Spinner". Thanks for your assistance.
Glorious Graham gaslights a little more.
He simply *cannot* follow through the logic he himself imposed onto otters.
Once upon a time, Holy Madhavi rocked his world.
But now he has better – the CSA Truther.
Who cares if the CSA Truther does not abide by Holy Mahdhavi!
Thank you for your assistance (I’ll just ignore all the lies, distortions, false accusations, and misrepresentations in your last comment).
It was my pleasure to help Glorious Graham read Holy Madhavi properly.
I’m helping him so much that he has yet to answer two simple stupid questions:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1433317
If if if…
If only Orbit were defined as the non-spinners want it to be. But it isn’t.
Not by astronomers, physicists, engineers, or dictionaries.
That is just a fact. Like 11 > 7.
For them to put this in the
‘Things one can have an opinion about’ category is a logical error.
"Readers might appreciate that Moon Dragon cranks insist that the Moon rotates…"
…but not on its own axis.
Readers might appreciate how Garbagebowl Graham misremembers what is a rigid body. A refresher:
https://youtu.be/u_LAfG5uIpY
It’s "random link" time for Little Willy. What will he randomly link to next?
Guileful Graham clings to the thread by a thread:
Op. cit., p. 664.
The frenzy of utter randomness continues…
Global Graham soldiers on:
Op. Cit.
More random quotes and links, please…
Glossing Graham glosses over the meaning of “Op. Cit.”:
Thanks. More please! Never stop the randomness…
Gregarious Graham might not see it coming:
Op. Cit.
More!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1432833
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1432868
OK, Little Willy. More random links and quotes?
[W] Posts the theory, one theorem at a time.
[GG] More random links and quotes, please!
More!
Crickets.
Trolling.
Gentle gaslighting.
Yes, you do a lot of that.
Moar gaslighting from Gambit Graham.
Where?
Moar playing dumb by Gyrating Graham.
Who?
🤦
What?
🤦 🤦
Why?
Where is the Dragon crank model of the motion of the Moon?
Up your bum.
Maybe if it has all got that bad for Gaslighting Graham, he should take a break from posting for a while. Get some perspective on things.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
It’s just [this morning’s] weather, not climate:
Overhead blue sky …. -60.6°F
Ground …. 31.8°F
Climate involves things like “It’s the Sun, stupid”, and “A cold sky can NOT warm a hotter surface.”
Wherein C00kie uses the wrong instrument for the application and denies that insulation works. Again.
clint…”A cold sky can NOT warm a hotter surface.
***
Not only that, according to the AGW theory, heat from the surface warms GHGs, raising their temperature to maybe -60F. That same heat is then sent back to the surface and is claimed to raise the surface temperature to a temperature higher than it is warmed by solar energy.
It’s called perpetual motion. But, hey, when you have good propaganda going, and no one questions it, you’re on a roll.
Now Gordon jumps on the insulation denial bandwagon. Again.
I am simply quoting AGW as stated. It’s not my theory, and although I don’t have a huge problem with the insulation theory, it’s not my preference for describing the atmosphere.
A real insulator serves to slow the dissipation of heat from a body. Whereas that can be claimed for the atmosphere, where oxygen and nitrogen absorb heat from the surface and retain it because they can’t radiate it away, I don’t equate that with an insulation quality as much as I regard it a property of gases like N2/O2.
The atmosphere manages to dissipate heat completely, make it disappear, whereas an insulator simply slow the rate of heat dissipation.
> I am simply quoting AGW as stated.
No, you’re inventing a version which *does* violate the 2LoT. If you look at the energy budget diagrams you will find that the surface radiates more to the atmosphere than it receives back just as your skin gives more energy to your winter coat than it gets back from it. NET energy flow is from hot to cold in accordance with 2LoT.
> an insulator simply slow the rate of heat dissipation
Again the standard Sky Dragon Crank trick of implying that the greenhouse effect treats the atmosphere as a heat source. They never tire of it, after all it is all they have.
“…he surface radiates more to the atmosphere than it receives back just as your skin gives more energy to your winter coat than it gets back from it. NET energy flow is from hot to cold in accordance with 2LoT”.
***
Net energy flow, whatever that means, has nothing to do with the 2nd law. The 2nd law is about the direction of heat transfer only, it says nothing about net energy.
The fact that you have included radiant energy in the 2nd law means you fail to understand it. Quantum theory explains why heat can never be transferred cold to hot via radiation.
> whatever that means
I give you $5, you give me back $10. Net transfer of money is $5 to me.
This is not that difficult.
“I give you $5, you give me back $10. Net transfer of money is $5 to me”.
***
We are exchanging the same thing, money. Heat and infrared energy are not the same thing and they have nothing in common. So, how do you add heat and infrared energy?
This is the same mistake made by alarmist scientists, over and over. They cannot understand that infrared energy is not thermal energy. You cannot add them.
The 2nd law is about heat, and only heat. It indicates the direction heat is allowed to be transferred. Although heat can be claimed to be transferred from a hotter body to a cooler body by IR, the infrared takes no part in the heat gain or loss. Therefore there can be no net energy claimed by summing the two IR quantities.
Your net energy is acquired by summing the infrared energy emitted by the surface and the emitted infrared by GHGs in the atmosphere. Since the amount radiated by the surface is about 95 times the amount absorbed by GHGs, it stands to reason it will be a far larger amount than what is back-radiated, which should be lower than 5% due to losses.
Still, the 2nd law states that anything back-radiated cannot be absorbed by the surface since it comes from a cooler source. That is backed by Bohr’s quantum theory which makes it clear that IR from a cooler source cannot be absorbed by a mass at a hotter temperature than that source.
When you think of the 2nd law, think direction of heat transfer. It says nothing about net energy.
> We are exchanging the same thing
Two objects emitting EM at each other *are* exchanging the same thing, Gordon. True there are different flavors. In the visible we call those differences “colors”. But you could think of photons of different frequencies as different denominations of currency.
Your ideas about what hot objects emit and cold objects receive are of course completely wrong. You are encouraged to dust off your first year physics texts and review Planck’s law of blackbody radiation and Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation. You will find no mention of warm objects not being able to absorb radiation emitted by cool ones.
In point of fact, if that were true then C00kie’s IR thermometer couldn’t read the temperature of objects colder than its sensor.
Sorry braindead brandon, but that’s the same nonsense that leads to ice cubes boiling water. You just keep throwing the same crap against the wall.
That’s because you’re braindead.
C00kie thinks two suns will only warm you up as much as one will.
St00pid.
brandon…”Two objects emitting EM at each other *are* exchanging the same thing….”
***
No, they are not exchanging anything. When electrons in a hotter body emit EM they do so at the loss of heat. Therefore, the emitted EM contains no heat. If that EM is absorbed by a cooler body, and it excites the electrons in the cooler body, they will rise to a higher energy level which is represented as a higher kinetic energy, which is heat. The EM is lost as the heat is produced.
That process won’t work in the other direct, from cold to hot, since electrons in the hotter body won’t rise to a higher level of KE until they are excited by a specific frequency of EM. Since the emitted frequency is dependent on the temperature, EM from a cooler body has a frequency too low to excite electrons in a hotter body.
The 2nd law is preserved.
“You are encouraged to dust off your first year physics texts and review Plancks law of blackbody radiation and Kirchhoffs law of thermal radiation”.
***
Neither of those laws are pertinent to the absorp-tion/emission of EM by electrons in atoms. Kircheoff did his work circa 1850 and Planck was around the turn of the century circa 1900. It was not till 1913 that Bohr produced his theory linking EM radiation to electrons in atoms.
In fact, Planck admitted that had he known about the properties of electrons, not discovered till about 1898, it would have made his work a lot easier.
You need to bone up on Bohr’s work to understand what I’m talking about. His discovery lead to the the theory of chemical bonds and to the field of electronics.
Bohr was a student of Rutherford who came pretty close to the theory. It was not till a friend urged Bohr to dig out the work on emissions/absorp-tion lines for hydrogen that the light went on. All such lines are emitted by straight elements (not molecules) and it was Bohr who figured out why.
Atoms absorb and emit at discrete frequencies only. That’s the key to understanding why electrons ignore radiation from cooler bodies.
Gordon Gordon Gordon,
Bohr did not supersede Planck and Kirchhoff.
From the first we know that matter emits across a broad spectrum of frequencies, not a single one.
From the second we know that objects absorb well at frequencies they emit well. You can verify this by noting the absorp.tion spectrum of hydrogen is the exact inverse of its emission spectrum.
To sum up, neither hot nor cold know the temperature of the other, all they know is what to emit and what to absorb according to their own physical properties.
Clear sky and bright Sun all day:
Overhead blue sky . -58.4F
Ground . 44.6F
Sun will go down in another 3 hours and it will freeze again. Sun does what CO2 can’t.
Reality — the cult hates it.
Poor C00kie. Still can’t understand insulation.
[laments]
Brandy Guts, please stop trolling.
binny…”But he is not the only one here who endlessly tries to manipulate the blogs readers, by stupidly claiming that with revolves, Newton could have meant orbits !”
***
Once again, Binny offers rudeness and ignorance as a reply. So, I’ll explain, once again, why I have interpreted Newton as meaning the Earth revolves about the Earth.
Several times in Principia, Newton explains how the planets and the Moon move with a rectilinear motion and that gravity converts the straight-line motion into a curvilinear motion to form an orbit. When we add the condition that the same side of the Moon must face the orbiting centre, we automatically exclude any rotation or spin in the Moon’s motion.
That fact is painfully obvious. Like a car driving around a circular track, or an oval, only one side of the car can possibly face the inside of the track unless the driver loses control and the car begins spinning around its COG.
Newton was far too intelligent to have missed the obvious. He would not talk about rectilinear and curvilinear motion without understanding what I just described re the car on the track. Therefore, when he claimed the Earth revolved around its axis, he had to be referring to the Earth as its axis.
How do I know that? Simple, Newton also acknowledged that the same side of the Moon always faced the Earth. It’s a no-brainer. Like the car orbiting the track, the Moon must move in the same manner.
Robertson
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1432518
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1432835
You never will be willing to understand let alone to learn anything.
” How do I know that? Simple, Newton also acknowledged that the same side of the Moon always faced the Earth. ”
As usual, you manipulate the blog by intentionally omitting what Newton originally wrote:
” Quoniam verò Lunæ circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis dies menstruus est, hujus facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis ejus ”
Translation in English
” But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb ”
*
You never will stop distorting, misrepresenting and lying.
It’s pathological.
Newton obviously means the Moon is revolving about the Earth as its axis. Hew else could the Moon move with a rectilinear motion and have it converted to a curvilinear motion by gravity while keeping the same face pointed at Earth?
This is stupid simple, He is talking about the Moon moving in its orbit about what??? The Earth!!! …which is located at its upper focus. He states that the Moon keeps the sane face pointed at the upper orb, which is the Earth’s location in the ellipse. The axis has to be the Earth for the simple reason he uses the word revolving.
Robertson
” The axis has to be the Earth for the simple reason he uses the word revolving. ”
” Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h 39′; Venus in about 23h; the Earth in 23h 56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the Moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. ”
The word ‘revolves’ is used for Jupiter, Mars, Venus, the Earth, the Sun and the Moon in the same way.
Only fundamentally dishonest people like you, Cint R and a few other idiots try to dissimulate this simple fact.
*
You never will stop distorting, misrepresenting and lying.
Its pathological.
Bin, do you actually believe Earth “revolves” in ~24 hrs?
That’s what “braindead” looks like.
” Bin, do you actually believe Earth “revolves” in ~24 hrs?
That’s what ‘braindead’ looks like. ”
*
Then, according to the pathological troll Clint R, what Newton wrote below:
” Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h 39′; Venus in about 23h; the Earth in 23h 56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the Moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. ”
looks ‘braindead’.
Hmmmh.
Why don’t you visit a psychiatrist?
You keep confusing “revolves with respect to the fixed stars” with “rotates”, Bin.
Either you’re braindead, or you have an agenda to pervert reality.
Or both….
“Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′…”
***
I am not disputing the use of revolution to represent rotation. After all, I pointed out that a firearm, a revolver, actually features a rotating chamber.
You are not paying attention, as usual. I prefaced Newton’s usage of the word revolution by his other quotes that the Moon moves with a linear motion that is converted to a curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravity, and his mention that the Moon always keeps the same face pointed at Earth.
The only way that is possible is if the Moon does not rotate on a local axis. That’s why I claim Newton was misunderstood by the translator, who likely tried to change the meaning to portray his own misunderstading of lunar motion.
> The only way that is possible is if the Moon does not rotate on a local axis.
C’mon, Bordon.
You keep injecting this unsupported claim randomly in your rants.
little willy…when something is that obvious it requires no corroboration.
Sure, Bordon.
It’s so obvious that there are less Moon Dragon cranks in the universe than flat earthers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Robertson’s eternal, brazen lies
1. ” … and his mention that the Moon always keeps the same face pointed at Earth.
The only way that is possible is if the Moon does not rotate on a local axis. ”
*
As usual, a dumb, stubborn reply which deliberately, intentionally ignores what Newton REALLY wrote about the Moon in Prop XVII, Th. XV:
” Quoniam verò Lunæ circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis dies menstruus est, hujus facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis ejus ”
Translation in English
But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb
**
2. ” That’s why I claim Newton was misunderstood by the translator, who likely tried to change the meaning to portray his own misunderstading of lunar motion. ”
What’s that for a coward lie, Robertson? The translation is absolutely correct.
*
And your stupid hint on ‘the translator’ perfectly shows that you weren’t even able to look at and translate the simple texts in French and German I gave upthread links to.
1. Translation in French by du Châtelet, 1749
" Et comme le jour de la Lune par sa révolution autour de son axe est d'un mois, sa même face doit regarder toujours la terre à la différence près qui est produite par l'excentricité de son orbite. "
2. Translation in German by Wolfers, 1872
" Da der Tag des sich gleichförmig um seine Axe drehenden Mondes einen Monat beträgt, so wird immer sehr nahe dieselbe Seite desselben dem entfernten Brennpunkte zugewendet sein "
And these two translations also perfectly follow the original Latin text, Robertson (what by the way gives a clear hint on the absolute inability of your dumb ‘5 years of Latin author’ to translate Latin texts).
*
Why can’t you stop lying, Robertson?
Dang Bindidion, it doesn’t matter how many times you try to misrepresent Newton, you still can’t defeat the simple ball-on-a-string.
Wear out as many keyboards as you like, but the simple model still wins.
Reality always wins.
If you want to compete with reality, Pup, you need to try to model her.
Where is your Dragon crank model of the Moons motion?
Alternatively, you can join her – do the Pole Dance Experiment.
The stupidest argument of them all is when the spinners claim you can’t calculate your exact position without using a spin on the moon’s axis. That’s very false. What is actually a easier calculation is what lunar space flight engineers use is to first calculate an orbit around the moon then use features of the moon to calculate a trajectory to a specified landing area. That would be very difficult to do in one calculation but only because a lack of precision in setting course and exact speed. There are also issues of drift when flying through the atmosphere.
Ocean navigation has to account for all that thus positional navigation aids are employed to check progress through out a navigation.
Bindidon on Newton’s:
”But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb”
———————————-
It makes sense he would write it that way. The fact that the rotation uniform around a defined central axis would be the way he would explain it to the world which was far far far far less intelligent than him.
Its difficult to believe he actually believed the moon had a second motion unrelated to the first. The reason thats difficult is he understood that their were gross rotational quantities that arise out of its rotation around the earth. And above all, he had the acute vision to see that those orbital/rotational quantities were the equivalent to 2 motions and accessible by a far simpler calculation. Its a tour d’force vision on his part to devise the entire formula of that rotational quantity into 2 separate parts.
You all actually realize that as you try to equate the linear momentum of a translation with a rotational momentum of an object rotating on an external axis. But all you are doing is most likely inaccurately reverse engineering Newton’s visionary powers.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1434309
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
A BLAST FROM THE PAST
(Jackson, 1942, p. 662-663)
ww…”translation and rotation.
A translation is a motion in which all points have equal vector velocities; that is to say, in less technical but colloquially* more descriptive language, the velocities of all points are equal and parallel”.
***
That applies only to rectilinear translation. It’s a no-brainer because all particles are forced to move together at the same velocity and parallel to each other.
I think the reason they may avoid discussing curvilinear translation is due to the textbook being aimed at first year students who are not yer comfortable discussing calculus. I’d call such students wusses because in engineering we are forced to deal with complex math right away.
As soon as the path involving the motion becomes a curve, we must bring calculus into the equation and insist that all motion be reference to an instantaneous motion. That’s because the next instant everything changes.
However, a basis of calculus is that a curve must be continuous. That means it must move smoothly from one point to the next. If it moves smoothly there is a mathematical relationship between points and inferences can be made. If there is a discontinuity, all bets are off.
If I have a circular path, or orbit, the equation is x^2 + y^2 = r^2. I can take the derivative of that equation and determine that a tangent line with slope = dy/dx exists for each point on the curve at any instant.
If I have many points on a rigid body following that orbital path, and the body is not rotating, I can prove that all of those points, at any instant, are moving in parallel. By taking a radial line from the centre of the circle and extending it through the object, I can prove that all points touching that line must orbit in the same time, so I have proved that all points are moving in parallel at each instant and at the same speed. Therefore, I have fulfilled the requirement of rectilinear motion for a curve.
Note the difference between speed and velocity. Tim was having trouble with it the other day. Angular speed is not the same as tangential velocity.
> That applies only to rectilinear translation.
Check your Holy Madhavi once again, Bordon:
https://tinyurl.com/Holy-Madhavi
C’mon.
“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”.
***
That’s just plain silly. She is splitting hairs between parallel motion and concentric circles. No difference.
C’mon, Bordon.
You are once again pissing in the wind:
https://prog.lmu.edu.ng/colleges_CMS/document/books/GEC%20241%20Week%207%20Note.pdf
wee willy…”1. Translation: It occurs when a line in the body remains parallel to its original orientation throughout the motion. When the paths of motion for any two points on the body are parallel lines, he motion is called rectilinear translation. If the paths of motion are along curved lines which are equidistant, the motion is called curvilinear translation.
2. Rotation about a fixed axis: When a rigid body rotates about a fixed axis, all the particles of the body except those which lie on the axis of rotation move along circular paths
***
Definition 1 is wrong, it’s far too general and restrictive. Translation has nothing to do with lines drawn on bodies. It requires only that the particles in a rigid body move in parallel to each other at each instant.
With regard to definition 2, it corroborates what we have been saying. Check out the motion of the Moon. At each instant the particles making up the portion of a radial line cutting through the Moon and centred in the Earth are not turning about a central axis.
> its far too general and restrictive.
C’mon, Bordon.
It’s a joke, right?
Either a definition is too general or it’s too restrictive.
I stopped there.
Revise and resubmit.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Op. cit., p. 664.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
rlh…”So Newton 1, 2 and 3 (at least) apply regardless of the size of the masses involved”.
***
With Newton, you have to read the fine print. He offered a disclaimer for Newton II at least. He claimed…’If a force can move a mass…’. That’s a lot more precise than the general use of the equation f = ma, where it is presumed that any force can move any mass.
Obviously, the field of statics is about forces that cannot move masses, as in bridge construction. Equally obvious is the fact the Earth’s gravity can only move the Moon 5 metres vertically for every 8000 metres of tangential motion. One can hardly qualify such a motion as an acceleration. Therefore, f = ma does not apply to the interaction of Earth’s gravitational field with the Moon.
Pay attention, Richard, this is cutting edge science that you won’t find in any textbook. And you are hearing it first on Roy’s blog. Newton knew about this effect since he explained it in his cannonball theory. I don’t recall him offering equations to explain the phenomenon, however. If a cannonball is shot into orbit, what are the equations governing the phenomenon?
f = ma won’t work.
Others have tried to apply equations, albeit incorrectly. For example, they have claimed a body moving in an orbit with constant velocity is also accelerating because the velocity vector is changing direction. That is nonsense and anyone who has taken the time to understand vector theory knows it is the scalar quantity attached to the vector that determines acceleration, not the direction of the vector.
In a single dimension, a vector is described as a multiple of a unit vector, i. The unit vector has a length of 1. If I point a vector along the x-axis with its tail on 0,0, and its tip at x = 5, the vector is described as 5i. If it’s a velocity vector, it has a magnitude of 5 m/s.
The same applies to the y-axis, except a unit vector along the y-axis is called j. So, a vector from 0,0 to 0,5 would be called 5j. So, let’s take the vector 5i along the x-axis and swing it through 90 degrees so it is pointing up the y-axis. It’s still a velocity vector with magnitude of 5 m/s. No acceleration.
The thing is, if you were driving due east (x-axis) with a constant velocity, and you kept that velocity while you took an exit ramp and started heading north, you would have performed that change in direction without accelerating at at all. So, this nonsense we are fed about the Moon’s orbit, where it moves with a constant velocity, but is claimed to have an acceleration because the direction of the velocity vector changes direction, is just that, nonsense.
A BLAST FROM THE PAST
Take 2, hopefully with better formatting:
(Jackson, 1942, p. 662-663)
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Op. cit., p. 664.
Op. Cit.
Op. Cit.
Take 2:
Op. Cit., p. 665.
Ibid.
Think tornado.
Think Gordo.
Little Willy, please stop trolling…
Neither a,b,c,d, nor e applies to the Moon.
C’mon, Bordon.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Let’s put Bordon out of his misery:
The square brackets are from the translators themselves.
From the authoritative translation he may never be able to get.
Yes, the translation is all messed up. Earth does NOT “revolve” is 24 hrs, with respect to anything.
Earth ROTATES in 24hrs and REVOLVES in 365 days.
Once upon a time, there was Isaac Newton.
But now there is Pup, Roy’s longest standing sock puppet:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/comet-ison-time-lapse-video-take-2/#comment-93013
Stand aside, astrophysicists!
Pup is here.
(I wrote that last comment, BTW.)
Some months ago I did a little search on your hero. If that’s the same guy, he’s a physicist, not an astrophysicist. There’s usually a BIG difference between the two. Often the astrophysicist doesn’t know any physics….
You have every right to your own private Idaho, Pup.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“and the moon in 27d 7 h 43m”
***
That’s about right for the Moon revolving about the Earth. Depends if its solar or sidereal time.
What was that sudden wind? Oh, it was wee willy rushing to look up sidereal time on Wiki.
C’mon, Bordon.
the moon revolving uniformly about its own axis is what you’re supposed to notice.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The greatest trolls and liars on this blog:
– Clint R
– Flynnson aka Swenson
– Robertson
Clint R even distorts Newton’s own original wordings:
” Bin, here’s what the translations should have stated:
“Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, rotates in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h 39′; Venus in about 23h; the Earth in 23h 56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the Moon revolvesin 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.”
Then, it would be correct. ”
This is completely perverse, Pseudomod, and you know why: it is because Newton’s original does not contain such things, nor does any translation known to me, neither in French nor in English nor in German.
They were invented by Clint R himself.
But… he’s your friend-in-denial, isn’t he?
Hence you’ll never ask him to stop trolling, n’est-ce pas?
One of the characteristics of cultists is that they are quick to call someone a liar. They have to, to defend their false beliefs. Cultists can’t accept reality, so they believe anyone that brings reality must be a “liar”.
Bindidon knows nothing about orbital motion. He can’t understand the simple ball-on-a-string. He couldn’t answer the simple question about his own imaginary spin axis. He couldn’t even understand the answer, when it was explained to him. And, he STILL has no viable model of orbital motion without axial rotation.
It’s easy to see that the translations of Newton are taken out of context and confuse words like rotate, revolve, spin, orbit, etc. Newton, using his new calculus, showed how gravity would affect an orbiting body. His work led to the simple model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Poor braindead bindidon understands none of this, so he lashes out futilely trying to protect his cult beliefs. He’s a braindead cult idiot posing as an ignorant troll.
Expect the cult meltdown to worsen, as more and more reality is exposed.
That’s why this is so much fun. Reality always wins.
[ISAAC] the moon revolving uniformly about its own axis
[PUP] if you think this means that the Moon is revolving uniformly about its own axis, you belong to a cult.
Your own private Idaho must be awesomesauce, Pup.
Why didn’t you answer the simple question about Moon’s imaginary spin axis, troll?
You forgot to tell readers why Isaac pays lip service to Gerardus Mercator, Pup.
A ‘cult’ that is comprised of all the science agencies in the world, all astronomers, and pretty much everyone except Nikola Tesla and some boobs on the internet who think their cult leader isn’t a maverick.
What an upside down world Clint lives in when the cult is actually the mainstream view, and the fringe belief is solidly in the middle.
At least own your maverick status, you coward.
New explanation for Jupiter’s two massive asteroid swarms
by Staff Writers
Abu Dhabi UAE (SPX) Jan 18, 2023
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/New_explanation_for_Jupiters_two_massive_asteroid_swarms_999.html
“An international team of scientists including NYUAD researcher Nikolaos Georgakarakos and others from the US, Japan, and China led by Jian Li from Nanjing University, has developed new insights that may explain the numerical asymmetry of the L4 and L5 Jupiter Trojan swarms, two clusters containing more than 10,000 asteroids that move along Jupiter’s orbital path around the sun.”
[10,000 big enough to be seen from Earth distance- otherwise millions]
Though millions is not a lot- instead one could say the size of the space of L-4 and 5 of Jupiter is really, really big.
And space of any planet’s L-4 and 5 is pretty big- and L-1 and 2 are also kind of big.
Or Jupiter is kind of really big and fairly far from the Sun [which is a lot bigger] and because our solar system is larger human could imagine, Jupiter’s L-4 and L-5 are kind like small solar systems.
And Jupiter’s L-4 and L-5 are mostly empty, as is our solar system, and as is our galaxy, is mostly empty.
Which has led me, to a horrible thought, somewhere is vast darkness and emptiness our solar system, galaxy, and universe, there is a good
chance, that there are creatures that worship Earthlings, as gods.
The moon is a sight for scientific eyes at Raytheon Intelligence and Space
” A key component in gathering these celestial images is the Very Long Baseline Array” which is a radio interferometer that collects high-resolution imagery of astronomical objects. The signals collected from the Green Bank Telescope transmitter in West Virginia, which use a pilot system that employs a synthetic aperture radar, or SAR, are generating the highest resolution images of the moon ever taken from the ground.
The Apollo 15 landing site and Tycho Crater are two sites from where two-dimensional and three-dimensional images have been collected from the telescope that show tremendous detail, especially on the floor of Tycho.
“The detail in these images is stunning,” Wilkinson said.”
https://www.moondaily.com/reports/The_moon_is_a_sight_for_scientific_eyes_at_Raytheon_Intelligence_and_Space_999.html
“New 3D images of the moon from Tycho Crater to Hadley Rille reveal never-seen-before details of the lunar surface. The remarkable new images of the moons surface provide not only new details about the closest object to our Earth but new scientific opportunities as well.
Raytheon Intelligence & Space has partnered with the National Radio Astronomy Observatory and the Green Bank Observatory to use the National Science Foundations Green Bank Telescope to collect new imagery of the moon and its surface. RI&S outfitted the telescope with a transmitter to emit radar signals into space.
This partnership is researching how this new radio telescope system will enhance detection and imaging of small objects passing by the Earth, moons orbiting around other planets and other debris in the solar system.”
https://www.raytheonintelligenceandspace.com/news/2023/01/16/the-moon-is-a-sight-for-scientific-eyes
Thanks, interesting stuff.
Oh no… no that unscientific nonsense again!
” You keep confusing ‘revolves with respect to the fixed stars’ with ‘rotates’, Bin. ”
Now Clint R tries for the umpteenth time to intentionally misuse the expression ‘with respect to the fixed stars’, which is used in astronomy by Newton and all other scientists to obtain the exact period of motions of observed celestial bodies.
Clint R, the genial scientist, redefines ‘with respect to the fixed stars’ as a different kind of motion.
Thus, when Newton writes that the Moon, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′ , it does not rotate, but orbits.
But when Newton writes that the Sun, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 25 1/2 days, it follows that it should not rotate but also orbit.
*
That’s definitely too much.
Yes Bin, “That’s definitely too much” reality for you.
Hey Pup,
Was Gerardus Mercator an astrologer too?
Are you a worthless troll?
No, Pup.
That would be U.
I am a benevolent ninja.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Oh Noes… more ‘old’ Latin, and that from an astrologer!
Nicolai Mercatoris
Institutionum Astronomicarum
Libri Duo, De Motu Astrorum
Londini, 1676
https://books.google.de/books?id=TqwsGvy3sMEC&pg=PA285&hl=en&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
*
Appendix
Page 285: Septimo, De Luna
On page 286 you find the source of what Newton referred to in Book III, Prop XVII, Theor XV:
” Mr. N. Mercator, in his book on astronomy, published in the beginning of the year 1676, set forth this theory of the moon’s libration more fully on the basis of a letter from me. ”
*
Yeah.
THE FERRIS WHEEL AND THE CLOCK
Take the Ferris wheel again. Make it work properly. Watch the gondolas move.
Question 1. Do the gondolas rotate around the center of the Ferris Wheel?
Take a wall clock. Make its arms work properly. Watch the minutes arm.
Question 2, Does the clock arm rotate around the center of the clock?
1. The gondolas orbit (revolve) around the FW center as they also rotate on their axles. Two motions.
2. Either term, rotate and revolve, would be acceptable for a clock hand, but there’s only one motion.
Your 1 does not answer the question, Pup.
Your 2 almost answers the question.
Try again. This time, read the questions properly.
Actually, the worthless troll has stumbled on to a “gotcha” for his cult. They believe Moon is both orbiting AND rotating. So to be consistent, they must also believe a clock hand is both orbiting AND rotating!
Worthless willard has stumbled his cult into a corner.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Actually, Pup cannot answer simple questions.
Only one concept to apply.
One word in response to each question.
Less words than the number of sock puppets he used to troll this website for so many years.
Yes, another glorious own goal from Little Willy, the blog’s most notorious and relentlessly repellent troll. His losing streak continues.
Glorious Graham forgot to answer the questions too!
So glorious.
Nobody should dispute that 2 is yes.
My answer to 1 is no. The gondolas translate in a circle, aka orbit, around the center of the wheel while the axles they’re mounted to rotate inside them as they simultaneously orbit the center of the wheel.
Thanks, BG.
As a follow-up question, do you think that the gondolas spin on their axles?
No. Remove the axles and they’d fly off on a tangent while maintaining the same orientation, aka not spinning.
IOW their riders would die standing up.
Tra la la.
Giddyup Graham may like this follow-up answer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Eye
Does 1-1 = 0 or 2?
Certainly that is evidence that the “two motion” interpretation that Tim agrees can be applied to movement like the MOTR is appropriate for the Ferris Wheel.
Thank you for your assistance.
Let me raise you, BG:
https://youtu.be/D3YfUOpiPgs
But wait –
HOW CAN IT BE ONLY TRANSLATION IF THERE ARE MOTORS ROTATING THE LONDON EYE PODS????!!???
｢(ﾟﾍﾟ)
If the gondolas were spinning, the riders would feel more than the centripetal force of the main wheel’s rotation.
Not sure what you mean, BG:
https://youtu.be/DdMPjqNTKCI
How would THEY feel anything?
(╭ರ_́)
Indeed W, indeed.
https://youtu.be/YI3NoBeNwfk?t=90
…and yet, as Tim agrees, movement like the MOTR (the gondola) can be described as being comprised of two motions.
Fa la la?
Glorious Graham gloriously does not always fail to answer questions, but when he does he tries to peddle his pet GIF.
So glorious.
Try to stop mentioning the phrase "peddle his pet GIF", Little Willy. It’s not actually a rebuttal for anything. All it shows is that you apparently can’t understand that using the terms "MOTL" or MOTR" is just a shortcut for describing a motion. Here, let me write the comment out for you again:
"…and yet, as Tim agrees, movement where the same side of the body faces the same direction throughout the orbit (the gondola) can be described as being comprised of two motions.
Fa la la?"
Glorious Graham gloriously gaslights a little more, as there’s no reason to rebut his handwaving.
However, there’s every reason to recite some more Holy Madhavi:
https://tinyurl.com/Holy-Madhavi
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1431171
[GLORIOUS GRAHAM] Thinking about the actual mechanics of it all, it is clear that in the case of the Ferris Wheel, it must be rotating about an external axis whilst rotating about an internal axis, in opposite directions.
[HOLY MADHAVI] Are ya winning, son?
Well, if there’s nothing else…I guess that’s that. It was all dealt with a few days ago, further up-thread. You had no rebuttal then, as you don’t now.
Glorious Graham gently gaslights a little more.
How to Derive and Is from a Can:
(CAN) The cabins can rotate on their own internal axes.
(IS) The cabins are rotating about an internal axis (in opposite directions of the rotation of the wheel).
Nevermind the 1+1 trick!
Sure…because there are two possible ways of looking at it, initially…but ultimately only one is correct given what is actually, physically, occurring.
The wheel is rotating.
The cabins are attached to the wheel.
Thus the cabins are rotating, about an external axis.
That rules out translation, leaving the other option as the appropriate description.
“That rules out translation, leaving the other option as the appropriate description”.
***
How about translation with rotation? There is nothing mysterious about translation it simply means to move from one location to another. It’s how you move that seems to distinguish translation from other forms of motion.
Scientists have tried to quantify it by setting conditions, like all particles in a rigid body moving in parallel. However, that can be done at the same time the body is rotating. Rather than linear parallel lines you would get spiral parallel lines.
Newton did not call it translation, he called it motion. Still, he was describing the same motion: linear for the Moon and curvilinear for the resultant effect of gravity on the Moon’s linear momentum. If the Moon was rotating on a local axis, it would still be linear and curvilinear motion that got it from A to B, not the local rotation.
The “other option” I was thinking of personally was:
Rotation about an external axis, with rotation about an internal axis in the opposite direction.
I know, you personally think of translation in a circle as being motion like the MOTL. Most people think of it as being motion like the MOTR. So when you say “translation with rotation” you presumably mean the same thing I’m saying anyway. Motion like the MOTL but with added axial rotation in the opposite direction.
Bordon,
I’m sure you will appreciate this theorem:
[GGT] If the gondolas were not spinning, the riders would be feeling a lot more than a rollercoaster in which they were upside down. They would be upside down at one point.
So elegant. So true. Beautiful.
No, Little Willy. My 6:29 PM comment was in response to BG’s 6:16 PM comment. The “that” referred to his “the centripetal force of the main wheels rotation”.
Please stop putting words into my mouth.
[BG] If the gondolas were spinning, the riders would feel more than the centripetal force of the main wheels rotation.
[GG] If the gondolas were not spinning, the riders would be feeling a lot more than that. They would be upside down at one point.
There’s nothing worse than being upside down, except perhaps being upside down.
What’s Little Willy confused about this time?
Is Gracious Graham gaslighting again?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
There was some srsly serious stuff amidst the shenanigans upthread, Graham:
The riders would feel no centripetal force from the ferris wheel. Any such forces would be in equilibrium in the structure. The device is turning too slowly to cause significant forces on the riders.
There is another amusement park ride in which riders are suspended in air in cages as the ride turns at high speed, like this one…
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-point-of-amusement-park-rides-that-have-you-spinning
They are held in place by tangential momentum, which forces the bodies to move in a straight line tangentially. However, the walls are turning and forcing them to turn in a circle. The bodies want to keep moving straight and are forced against the turning walls, therefore they are held in place by the walls.
This is the same motion a person feels in a North American car when the car suddenly turns to the left. The passenger’s body wants to keep moving forward in a tangential direction and the door forces the person to follow the curve. It feels like we are pushing against the door but it is actually the door pushing on us. That results in the Newton III effect, where our bodies push back.
The versions of this ride I have seen actually have the floor drop out once the ride gets up to speed. The riders are literally stuck to the rotating walls and don’t fall down.
C’mon, Bordon.
If the riders did not feel anything, why would they wait in line for hours?
come on Willard he said the riders can feel the car door wall pushing on them. In the barrel with the falling floor its still the outer wall of the turn that is pushing on them so they can feel that too. Though like you and others who know nothing about physics they won’t instantly recognize its the wall and not them pushing on the wall.
[GILL] come on Willard
[ALSO GILL] shutup?
See also:
https://youtu.be/DdMPjqNTKCI
If the gondolas were not spinning, the riders would be feeling a lot more than that. They would be upside down at one point.
Here’s what going upside-down looks like, Goober:
https://youtu.be/dnuYiSdW9U8?t=9
OK, well if there’s nothing else, I’ll bid you all adieu…
While Garden-Variety Graham takes his leave, BG, let me ask you if you had the time to revisit AQ’s elegant proof:
https://tinyurl.com/Orbital-KinEn
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Grouchy Graham Gallops away from AQ’s simple proof again, which summarizes like this:
Because MOTL changes orientation as it orbits, it has added momentum over MOTR due to its axial rotation.
This is pure kinematics, so even Geometry Graham should be able to Grok it.
"Because MOTL changes orientation as it orbits, it has added momentum over MOTR due to its axial rotation"
Talk about begging the question…
Brandon is yet another spinner who simply ignores the fact that non-spinners state that the moon is already rotating. . . .just on an external axis causing the moon to change its orientation.
And his view of the MOTR is also distorted because it requires the presence of ‘a real force’ to ‘prevent the moon from changing its orientation when a moon is in orbit.
Its fine for the purposes of working on an operating system of an orbiting mechanism to think of the moon rotating on its own axis and they were inculcated in the classroom to breakdown the motion of the moon into that in order to make the calculations easier. But this is just a matter of then leaping to the conclusion that even if you can mathematically break a single motion down into two motions and imagine one of them stopping you will still need a real second motion to make that happen.
So he is taken in by the appearance of the MOTR as not rotation when in fact the only way one can construct such a moon is with two rotations with the second rotation synchronized with the orbit in the opposite direction as shown in Experiment 3 here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
I am still waiting for the spinners to come up with a mechanism different than the above where the MOTR has only one motion, one motor and moves like the MOTR. One can only do so in a computerized cartoon or in ones imagination.
Even C00kie should appreciate that AQ’s proof derives from kinematic first principles, Glowering Graham.
He should also recall that he agrees MOTL can be described as translation in a circle combined with an axial rotation, which is how AQ modeled his calculations.
Let him find an actual fault in the maths rather than just saying stuff.
A bicycle pedal on a frictionless bearing is the mechanical device you’re looking for, Bill. The axle spins on its own axis inside the bearing and the pedal does not spin. We know it does not spin because when you connect a rider to the contraption it would be absurd to say that their a$$ spins in the saddle along with their feet on the pedals.
"He should also recall that he agrees MOTL can be described as translation in a circle combined with an axial rotation, which is how AQ modeled his calculations."
Sure…and that’s the problem. That’s what I mean by begging the question.
> We know it does not spin because when you connect a rider to the contraption it would be absurd to say that their a$$ spins in the saddle along with their feet on the pedals.
You don’t understand, BG –
Just like the Ferris wheel gondola spins, the bike pedal spins too!
🤦
Look! Let me peddle in my pet GIF!
Don’t be so confused.
Willard please stop trolling.
Just had one of those ‘aha’ moments re lunar rotation.
Suppose we rig up a contraption like the ferris wheel gondola. Rather than sitting on a gondola chair that can rotate, we have the rider standing in a cage that protects him from fall, even if he becomes inverted, but it is welded in place so it cannot rotate.
He is facing the ferris wheel main axle. We start him at 3 o’clock, so he is standing erect facing the main ferris wheel bearing. We start turning him slowly so that by 12 o’clock he is lying horizontally facing the ground and the main bearing. Later, at 9 0’clock, he is inverted, with his head down and his feet up but still facing the main bearing. Then later, he is lying on his back looking up at the bearing.
Spinners will claim that motion represents a rotation about the guy’s COG but I am going to prove it is not. To rotate him about his COG we need another setup. We take the same cage and attach bearings to either side of it about mid-cage. Now we are able to rotate the guy about his COG. In fact, we can put the bearings on top and bottom of the cage so we can rotate him about his vertical axis.
When the guy is in the cage that replaces the gondola car, his body re-orients through 360 degrees but at no time does he rotate about his COG. That’s because he is rotating about the ferris wheel main bearing, which means his COG is rotating about it at the same time
He cannot be rotating about both the ferris wheel hub and the cage hub at the same time unless the cage has a bearing as described so he can rotate independently about his COG.
Even better, Bordon –
Imagine that there is only one round gondola. This gondola isn’t materially attached to the wheel. It orbits around the Earth.
At each moment, it goes from A to B because there’s a pull from a force that replaces the wheel. If we could turn off that pull, it’d go to C. We all agree with Isaac on that.
Imagine furthermore that this gondola shows only its belly to the Earth. There is the face of a Man drawn on it. Call it the Man-on-the-Gondola.
Now, why would you think that gravity would turn the gondola so that the Man on the Gondola always face the Earth?
That’s just not how gravity works.
Good talk.
“why would you think that gravity would turn the gondola so that the Man on the Gondola always face the Earth?”
***
Gravity doesn’t need to turn it, it’s always trying to go straight. But gravity does apply enough force to divert the straight-line motion into a curve, a la Isaac.
To stay in orbit, you need to following the curvature of the Earth, maintaining the same altitude. The Earth’s curvature changes 5 metres for every 8000 metres of horizontal distance, on average. If gravity moves the Moon 5 vertical metres vertically every 8000 metres of lunar straight-line motion, the Moon will maintain the same altitude.
That’s for a circular orbit. For an elliptical orbit, the effect of the Moon’s linear momentum needs to slightly out-weigh the effect of gravity. In that case, the Moon’s linear momentum tends to elongate the orbit.
C’mon, Bordon.
Here’s what happens when an object that is orbiting succeeds in “going straight”:
https://youtu.be/eUJfS0Dpwmo?t=50
To deny Isaac’s First Law would be quite something, even for you!
This is irrelevant Willard.
If a chunk gets knocked of a spinning platter than chuck will fly off in a straight line in compliance with the same law.
Disintegrate the moon into dimensionless particles and by the same law; all the particles will fly off in straight lines with zero spin on any of the particles. Thats because no particle will have the radius necessary to maintain a small part of the original angular momentum, all the angular momentum would be converted into linear momentum.
This is pretty simple stuff when one sees demonstrations of the principles involved. In the video the ball as the professor says flies off in linear momentum due to Newton’s law. the linear momentum is angular momentum when you have gravity holding an object in orbit or the bonding of molecules for an object spinning on its own axis.
As we have seen the ball will that is released will cease rotating around the external axis that created the angular momentum and will rotate around its own center of mass at the same rate if and only if that mass holds together in the process.
For the moon if it were released from its rotation around the center of the earth by destroying gravity about 99.9992% of its angular momentum would be converted to linear momentum. .0008% would be left to allow the moon to rotate on its own axis if and only if in the process of destroying gravity you don’t destroy the other bonds that holds stuff together. If that were to happen that you destroyed all bonds, then there would be zero angular momentum remaining. Thus angular momentum is only conserved as angular momentum when the system is intact. The energy of the angular momentum is always conserved, at least according to current theory that you can’t destroy energy.
So one should never get their panties in a twist over somebody else postulating something contrary to that. Nothing wrong with postulates about the unknown. Thats why we have religious freedom. One should take care that they are not viewed as a Fascist about those who propose different theories about the unknown. Unfortunately our history is full of such bigots.
Gill, Gill,
You’re just ranting like Bordon now.
Get better material.
” all the angular momentum would be converted into linear momentum.”
Bill cannot learn.
Another typical Nate debating point. . . .but better than usual.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Maybe some of you have experience in software engineering, and might have interest in downloading and installing
CosmoScout VR
a modular virtual universe developed at the German Aerospace Center (DLR).
It lets you explore, analyze and present huge planetary data sets and large simulation data in real-time.
https://github.com/cosmoscout/cosmoscout-vr
Software documentation:
https://github.com/cosmoscout/cosmoscout-vr/blob/main/docs/README.md
*
Some years ago, I had contact with the team; they sent me impressing comparisons of real pictures with the output of their simulation software:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N6csahJUIyk6b-ITXV-28WDr4JXgS058/view
*
But I’m definitely too lazy to start lots and lots of work in that corner…
Grand Solar Minimum progress
https://youtu.be/4gDn8DZag3U
Bordon is so close to becoming a spinner:
Imagine that man in a Multi Axis Trainer:
https://youtu.be/GFWsYJ0_KMI
I was thinking you are just about to over to the non-spinner’s side. That would not augur well for us since your trolling would caste a bad light on us.
C’mon, Bordon.
Becoming a Moon Dragon crank would be a big ask for me, for I would have to believe that:
– a pure motion is enough to model a complex motion;
– the Moon has no angular momentum;
– an gravity-free moon would not act like the ball string cut experiment
– a Ferris wheel gondola is spinning
– an illusion has nothing to do with optics
– Mercator was an astrologer
– Holy Madhavi is only relevant to say that an orbit is a rotation
– to confuse that notion of rotation with the one that applies to celestial bodies
And that’s just from the top of my head.
So yeah – a big ask.
What’s complex about converting a linear motion to a curvilinear motion with a force acting on it?
To have angular momentum you need a solid body rotating about an axis. The Moon is rotating about the Earth but it has only linear momentum. It’s momentum is acting in a straight line at each instant, not along the orbit.
The ferris wheel gondola car has to be rotating on its axis to remain upright.
We can take you on as an apprentice.
Bordon,
If you can find a way to make a race car run in an oval on pure linear motion, you could win Nascar year after year and until you get tired of winning.
Alternatively, Nascar may be the fastest way to learn about physics:
https://theconversation.com/nascar-may-be-the-fastest-way-to-learn-about-physics-118641
Isaac’s first law is a bane to everyone under the stars and everything above.
Poor uneducated willard doesn’t understand any of this.
In kinetics, a force must be applied to change direction. But in celestial motion gravity can change direction.
The poor child gets even more confused, the more he spews from his keyboard. Just look at how tangled up he can get:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1433676
It would take hours to straighten out all that mess.
Still awaiting for your Moon Dragon crank model of the motion of the Moon, Pup.
At some point you need to stop arguing by assertion.
If only you could do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Willard here is the model. Have you been absent?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
C00kie and Bill miss an important point. A NASCAR must rotate on its own axis to generate the force necessary to follow a curved path.
There is no similar constraint on the real Moon: gravity supplies the necessary force to change its direction wholly independent of its orientation.
Even better than that, BG –
Gill has all the tools he needs to refute the CSA Truther:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1432356
Brandon R. Gates says:
”A NASCAR must rotate on its own axis to generate the force necessary to follow a curved path.”
You are correct about this as there is no fixed axis from which the force emanates.
Brandon R. Gates says:
”There is no similar constraint on the real Moon”
You are correct about this as the force on the moon is not independent of an axis.
Brandon R. Gates says:
”: gravity supplies the necessary force to change its direction wholly independent of its orientation.”
You are wrong about this as the MOTR is impossible as a single motion. If it were wholly independent the MOTR would be able to be demonstrated with a simple working model similar to Experiment 2 on this model and having a different outcome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
[GILL] the MOTR is impossible as a single motion
[ALSO GILL] A general plane motion can be thought of as two motions in the same plane.
> If it were wholly independent the MOTR would be able to be demonstrated with a simple working model similar to Experiment 2 on this model and having a different outcome.
I met this challenge elsewhere already: a bicycle pedal on a frictionless bearing. Since such bearings don’t exist, we’ll have to limit this to a thought experiment.
There is another option that you can actually do. Jump on a bicycle and pump away, then ponder how your feet can spin with the pedals while your a$$ in the saddle does not.
Nobody ever proved something by a thought experiment. If you could do that. . . .well you might have a future in the story telling or movie business.
And oh one cannot observe a thought experiment. One can only become inculcated by a thought experiment. Which apparently you have been.
Notice how Bill backpedals away from the experiment he can actually do.
A thought experiment is not an experiment its a theory. after it has been quantitized then one can attempt to design an experiment to show their theory is correct.
Nate has completely given up the attempt to prove his theories correct.
Bill, this debate is about the Moon, not motors, clocks, gears or Rube Goldberg machines.
And you’ve lost the debate because you were completely unable to support your claims. You cannot explain the readily available lunar facts of libration, axial tilt, elliptical orbit, with your model.
As I noted,
“Show us stuff that we have repeatedly asked you for:
A real definition of ROTATION that supports your claims.
A real definition of ORBIT that agrees that it must be a rotation.
Until then, you dont get to make even reasonable demands.”
Mysteries of the Steam Locomotive
The horizontal bars connecting the drive wheels are called side rods. Notice that they don’t change orientation as the drive wheels undergo a full rotation.
Question: How can the side rods be rotating in the opposite direction of the drive wheels given their attachments at both ends?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yRVMnPJmdQ
Dedicated to Bill, who still can’t bring himself to ride a bicycle upthread.
Nate says:
”And youve lost the debate because you were completely unable to support your claims. You cannot explain the readily available lunar facts of libration, axial tilt, elliptical orbit, with your model.”
Certainly all those are fairly well understood Nate. What they represent to you is your assumption that they are not due to perturbations and separate from the basic motion of the moon.
I and DREMT have provided a large number of supporting documents explaining those perturbations and supporting our view of the basic motion underlying the motion of the moon.
And you have already agreed to the MOTL underlying basic motion and now after having been routed from your original defensive position remain in rear guard action retreat.
You claim that these explanations are not sufficient. But making that claim does absolutely nothing to support your position in the debate.
Debates are won or lost based not upon absolute evidence but by the preponderance of the evidence. Since you have yet to provide any evidence at all beyond your reliance upon authority you haven’t just lost the debate you have been routed in the debate.
Most of that list just proves that Little Willy still does not understand the “Non-Spinner” position. Even after all this time. Everything you say to him, he twists and distorts in his tiny wee head.
https://imgflip.com/i/786sul
Yeah, we went over this already.
“Certainly all those are fairly well understood Nate. What they represent to you is your assumption that they are not due to perturbations and separate from the basic motion of the moon.”
They are well understood with the Spinner model, without the fudge of mysterious ‘perturbations’.
The non-spinner folks just hand-wave these effects away without actually explaining them.
The observed axial tilt cannot exist without a rotational axis in the Moon.
But in the non-spinner model, the rotational axis DOES NOT EXIST.
That is not fixable with a perturbation.
Same goes for longitudinal libration. It does not exist without a constant spin angular velocity, and a non-constant orbital angular velocity.
IOW, two distinct motions.
The non-spinner model makes the absurd assumption of no spin, just ONE, never defined, orbital ‘rotation’, that mysteriously manages to produce TWO angular velocities.
That is not fixable with a perturbation.
Most if not almost all contributions so far in this thread by Gullible Graham show that he only has gaslighting left. Really. Srsly. As always.
That is all he has left.
At best he could backtrack and say – oh guys I was with Team Physics all along, it is just that I disagree with how we define the words rotation!
But then how can he do that if he cannot even admit that the Moon *has* angular momentum?
And so he is stuck in the windmills of his mind, trying to recruit other cranks.
Still, it would be fun to see one day *one* model of the motion of the Moon working under Dragon physics. I even bet it would be possible. But again, at best he will get an equivalent model. For the ones we got are within minutes of our actual observations.
As usual, everything is "gaslighting" to Little Willy.
One day he’ll realize that everything I’ve said to him is completely genuine. One day.
Worthless willard gets gaslighted by reality!
Genuine Graham’s Pup ate the Dragon Crank model of the motion of the Moon.
Willard says:
Genuine Grahams Pup ate the Dragon Crank model of the motion of the Moon.
———————————
Getting a little out there Willard. The non-spinners are embracing this working model.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
Gill, Gill,
That’s not a model.
Here’s a model:
https://cddis.nasa.gov/lw19/docs/2014/Papers/3092_Bourgoin_paper.pdf
You don’t know what a ‘working’ model is Willard. Its an experiment.
Op. Cit.
A simulation of observables isn’t an observable you have to take the guys word that its a genuine observable. That wasn’t Nate’s request he wanted observations and he can’t put it up. so its kind of like put up or shut up.
At any rate Willard you are trying to defend a point Nate has already conceded on. He has admitted that the MOTL is a single motion rotation on an external axis.
He is putting his money on that if it isn’t perfect and is subjected to perturbations it is no longer a rotation on an external axis. But none of those perturbations involve a rotation on the moon’s central axis.
Logic isn’t hardly Nate’s thing.
> at any rate
Gill, Gill,
Not at any rate.
At the same rate.
The Moon orbits around the Earth.
And it spins around itself.
At the same rate.
Get it?
“Logic isnt hardly Nates thing.”
Bill is quite obviously very frustrated with me.
It must be very frustrating for him to never have answers to the very simple questions that I keep asking.
What is a rotation? How do you define it?
Pretty basic. But he JUST CAN”T DO IT.
And why does he reject the standard definition, without any justification, and without ever offering an alternative?
It is weird that he keeps on using a word that he cannot define.
Thus, he lashes out.
He does his best to trash the messenger, with anyone he meets along the way.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once again, and Pup is lulzing along.
Again.
I’m not gaslighting you. That’s the point….and Clint R is probably laughing because the whole idea of it is so OTT. I feel bad for you if you’re questioning your own sanity (which is part of the definition of gaslighting) but that is not my intention and not what I’m trying to do. Maybe if it’s all got that bad for you, take a break from posting for a while. Get some perspective on things.
Geometry Graham gaslights a little more, this time confusing the action of gaslighting with its effect. As if one *had* to feel the loss of contact with reality to be able to observe when an abuser tried, for 78 months now, to claim that everybody was confused.
Sad, really.
If only he had a Dragon crank model of the Moon’s motion to offer…
An abuser? Seriously?
Geometry Graham punts again.
It’s hard not to claim people that people are "confused" when they demonstrate such confusion. All I can do is apologize if that makes you feel abused, in some way.
DREMT says:
”I feel bad for you if youre questioning your own sanity (which is part of the definition of gaslighting) but that is not my intention and not what Im trying to do.”
Indeed paranoia that the non-spinners are going to reach through the computer screen and get you could be a serious condition that maybe Willard ought to talk to a professional about.
Gill, Gill,
You’re not helping Geometry Graham right now.
Bill is not taking Little Willy seriously, I was trying to…but since Little Willy’s claims of "gaslighting" are probably just another underhand debate tactic on Little Willy’s part, perhaps Bill is right. I should not take Little Willy’s claims seriously.
Perhaps Geometry Graham is gaslighting a little more.
Who knows?
Let’s wait for another 78th month of his trolling to make sure.
Yeah…that’s not helping me believe you are serious, Little Willy.
https://imgflip.com/i/786sul
Very funny…but that’s just not me. I have no problem understanding why it’s thought that the moon spins. What I have observed over the years is a lot of confusion from people in trying to understand the "Non-Spinner" position, though. That’s not to say that there aren’t people out there who get it, but just disagree.
I’ve yet to talk to one "Spinner" who understands every aspect of it, however. They always say something which demonstrates they’re missing one piece of the puzzle, or another.
Brandy Guts, to his credit, has got a lot further in the few short months he’s been discussing the issue than you have in the two years or more that you’ve been discussing it. Then again, maybe it’s just because BG has shown the capacity to concede points.
It’s just not Geometry Graham.
No no.
It’s everybody who should deconfuse themselves.
They should believe that the Moon does not spin.
According to their own logic.
If only they were not so confused…
🤦
No, anyone can believe the moon spins if they want. I’m absolutely fine with that.
What the few people that I’ve spoken to in depth about the issue need to do, is try harder to properly understand the "Non-Spinner" position though, if they do want to try and criticize it. If they don’t want to criticize it, and they just don’t care enough about the issue either way, then that’s also fine…
…but when you get people constantly attacking you, and you know they don’t actually understand your arguments, because of the things they say about them, then of course you’re going to point out that they’re confused.
Poor Geometry Graham.
Always misunderstood.
It must be so confusing.
Willard please stop trolling.
A distinction that could be useful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_and_passive_transformation
I just made a post on transformation re the x-y plane. I called it translation of the x-y plane from 0,0 to 5,5. It’s called a transformation when you use a matrix to change the position, that is transform 0,0 to 5,5.
That’s too simple for a transformation but you get my drift. In computer graphics they use matrices in a program to move s shape around on the screen.
You’re right, Bordon.
In the end it does not matter much how you call the transformation.
You certainly could try to program the motion of the Moon.
Here’s one example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXD97l7ZT0w&t=1309s
(H/T BG.)
Did you watch the video or not?
Did you do that before or after you PSTd Willard?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Grudging Graham could learn a few things from Sebastian if only he could get over being Green that one so young is so astute … and has so many more subs to boot.
OK, Brandy Guts. You’re set on "attack" today, then.
You’re set on not learning anything today, Grousing Graham.
Not so different from any other day now that you mention it.
Hardly warrants a comment, really.
OK, then.
This belongs here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1434138
Before PSTing Little Willy, I took a brief look at the video, realized it was off-topic to the thread that he himself had created, and thus concluded that Little Willy was again trolling.
[BORDON] In computer graphics they use matrices in a program to move s shape around on the screen.
[ME] You certainly could try to program the motion of the Moon. See for instance:
[GEOMETRY GRAHAM] Little Willy, please stop trolling.
[BG] Grudging Graham could learn a few things from Sebastian if only he could get over being Green that one so young is so astute and has so many more subs to boot.
[GRUDGING GRAHAM] OK, Brandy Guts. Youre set on “attack” today, then.
[BG] You’re set on not learning anything today, Grousing Graham.
[GROUSING GRAHAM] OK, then.
[BG] Did you watch the video or not?
[GEOMETRY GRAHAM] Before PSTing Little Willy, I took a brief look at the video, realized it was off-topic
🤦
The reality of the discussion:
[LITTLE WILLY] Here’s a link to something I don’t really understand. Perhaps it will bait somebody into a pointless back and forth.
[GORDON] Talks a bit about the subject of the linked comment, then happens to mention computer graphics.
[LITTLE WILLY] Computer graphics! That’s a tenuous link. I can chuck this otherwise utterly random link in here now, and try to bait somebody into a pointless back and forth about that, instead.
[DREMT] PST.
[BRANDY GUTS] DREMT, you’re a piece of shit. I barely know you, have hardly talked to you, but I already despise you more than any other person on the planet, and absolutely insist that all of your motives are utterly evil. Your YouTube channel is pathetic and I will personally insult you about it until my dying day. Hatred.
[DREMT] OK, then.
[BRANDY GUTS] Did you even watch the video before you so diabolically PST’d this innocent hero, you disgusting sub-human abomination of filth that I’d gladly kill?
[DREMT] Yes, briefly, and concluded Little Willy was off topic, and just trolling again.
[LITTLE WILLY] Let’s make as big a fuss about this as I possibly can. I’ll write a comment about it here and start a whole new thread about it. That’ll be annoying.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1434243
I mean…maybe there were some slight exaggerations in there…but that’s basically it.
Maybe Geometry Graham just does not know much about geometry…
Random! OK, then.
Geometry Graham probly does not know much about geometry…
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Moon in the sky is like being clued to an imaginary sphere orbiting Earth. Moon doesn’t rotate about its local axis.
It is the Moon on the Left (MOTL).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
What about you asking the authors of
https://downloads.spj.sciencemag.org/space/2021/9897105.pdf
what they think about the lunar spin after the full success of the Chang’e 5 mission?
Main author: Zhong-Sheng Wang
zhongshengwang[at]hotmail.com
*
You could also ask the DLR team (Deutsche Luft- und Raumfahrt) which produced
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N6csahJUIyk6b-ITXV-28WDr4JXgS058/view
out of their own data.
https://elib.dlr.de/146855/1/Poster_v3.pdf
I’m sure Andreas Gerndt and his colleagues will love to tell you what happens when they switch off the lunar spin in their software :–)
Bin, instead of always linking to things you don’t understand, how about providing us with your viable model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
That would be an attempt at science.
Otherwise, you’ve got NOTHING.
Poor C00kie, still doesn’t understand a bicycle pedal.
[grieves]
Right Clint.
All they could do to do that is put a reverse spin on the moon as demonstrated here in Experiment 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
And if they put a spin on the moon it would have some effects from the angular momentum of that Maybe Bindidon could design it? No sense depending upon ‘cartoon’ figures. Need to have some reality injected into the conversation rather than constantly arguing against these guy’s self delusions.
> No sense depending upon “cartoon” figures.
Please, Gill.
Stop or you’ll make Geometry Graham sad.
Cartoons can often be a good tool for education. For classroom attendees who are paying attention anyway. But they are completely worthless as an experiment.
[GILL] No sense depending upon cartoon figures.
[ALSO GILL] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
> imaginary sphere
Indeed, Christos.
You could even argue that this sphere is perfect and that the Moon shrinks from time to time.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Thank you, Bindidon.
–
Now let’s see:
Earth’s and Moon’s orbital period around sun is
365,25 days
–
Lunar diurnal cycle period is
29,53 days
–
Lunar sidereal period in reference to the stars is
27,32 days
–
Lunar orbital period around Earth is
27,32 days
–
*****
Let’s have the rates:
Moon revolves in reference to the sun
1 /365,25 = 0,002737850 rot/day
–
Moon’s diurnal cycle rate is
1 /29,53 = 0,033863867 rot/day
–
Moon’s sidereal period rate is
1 /27,32 = 0,036603221 rot/day
–
*****
(1 /27,32 = 0,036603221 rot/day) = (1 /29,53 = 0,033863867 rot/day) + (1 /365,25 = 0,002737850 rot/day)
–
Let’s do the (1 /365,25 + 1 /29,53)
1 /365,25 = 0,002737850 rot/day
1 /29,53 = 0,033863867 rot/day
——————————–
============0,036601717 rot /day = 1 /27,3211
1 /27,32 = 0,036603221 rot /day = it is Moon’s sidereal period rate!
–
*****
There is not any Moon’s rotational rate (rot /day) about Moon’s local axis.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
I’m not interested in vague assertions you repeatedly post here, and which are, as I can see, absolute nonsense. You align numbers which have no real link to each other.
Instead of that, better would be for you to contact those who really know about lunar motions.
But maybe that, like the other lunar spin deniers, you prefer not to know how the reality looks like, and to keep contrarian.
Thank you, Bindidon.
“Im not interested in vague assertions you repeatedly post here, and which are, as I can see, absolute nonsense. You align numbers which have no real link to each other.”
–
Don’t you know, Bindidon, lunar diurnal cycle period is 29,53 days?
Don’t you know Earths and Moons orbital period around sun is
365,25 days?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bin,
We’re not interested in vague assertions you repeatedly post here, and which are, absolute nonsense. You take quotes out of context, which have no real link to reality.
Instead of that, it would be better to actually learn about the science of orbital motion.
But rather, like the rest of your cult, you prefer not to know how the reality looks like, and to remain braindead.
Pup,
Nobody died and made you King of this blog.
Well there is no question Willard you are the King of the Blog, like in King Dipshit.
Oh, Gill.
Is there something I could do for you today?
shutup?
No problemo, Gill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1432356
I knew it would be a waste of time but please stop trolling Willard. You are the only guy in here doing that to an obnoxious level.
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
Vournas
Of course I know these numbers. But…
” You align numbers which have no real link to each other. ”
That is the point, exactly like Clint R’s absolute 13.36 idiocy.
Bin, you couldn’t understand what the angle of your imaginary spin axis was. And you can’t understand how it would change with half an orbit.
You don’t understand any of this.
And, you can’t learn.
[GENTLE GRAHAM] Why do you start so many new threads on such worthless crap? You use this blog like it’s your own personal toilet roll.
How many new threads has Clint R started, and how many new threads have you started?
Generous Graham is gaslighting again.
There’s nothing special about starting a new thread.
Bordon does it all the time.
When was the last time Generous Graham asked Bordon to stop poasting?
When was the last time Gordon posted a new thread which was just a misleadingly edited summary of another thread? It’s not just that you start a lot of new threads, Little Willy. It’s that so many of them are just you blatantly baiting, and goading, and trolling.
Gaslighting Graham must have forgotten the time Bordon and Gill had a friendly chat.
So once again Gaslighting Graham’s special pleading fizzles.
Perhaps he should take some vacation from the blog.
Writing some music. Sleeping. Taking care of himself.
That’d do him good.
"Gaslighting Graham must have forgotten the time Bordon and Gill had a friendly chat."
No idea what you’re talking about. I don’t recall Gordon posting a new thread which was just a misleadingly edited summary of another thread. Or posting lots of new threads which are just blatantly baiting, goading, and trolling.
Gaslighting Graham must have forgotten the time Bordon and Gill had a friendly chat.
So once again Gaslighting Grahams special pleading fizzles.
Perhaps he should take some vacation from the blog.
Writing some music. Sleeping. Taking care of himself.
Thatd do him good.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
[BORDON] In computer graphics they use matrices in a program to move s shape around on the screen.
[ME] You certainly could try to program the motion of the Moon. See for instance:
[GEOMETRY GRAHAM] Little Willy, please stop trolling.
[BG] Grudging Graham could learn a few things from Sebastian {1} if only he could get over being Green that one so young is so astute and has so many more subs to boot.
[GRUDGING GRAHAM] OK, Brandy Guts. Youre set on “attack” today, then.
[BG] You’re set on not learning anything today, Grousing Graham.
[GROUSING GRAHAM] OK, then.
[BG] Did you watch the video or not?
[GEOMETRY GRAHAM] Before PSTing Little Willy, I took a brief look at the video {1}, realized it was off-topic
🤦
{1} https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXD97l7ZT0w&t=1309s
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1434234
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1424524
Why do you start so many new threads on such worthless crap? You use this blog like it’s your own personal toilet roll.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1424621
Worthless willard, this is just one more example of you braindead trolls throwing something against the wall you don’t understand.
There’s a major mistake in the programmed motion of Moon in that video. I claim that you don’t know what it is because you have NO understanding of Moon’s motion. What’s the mistake? You can’t find it because you’re a worthless troll.
Prove me wrong.
Pup,
You don’t exist.
Prove me wrong –
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Another FAIL for the teeny-bopper worthless willard.
Let’s throw this open to the rest of the cult idiots — Brandon, Bindidon, Norman, barry, Ken, Swanson, Fraudkerts, Ent, Ant…hope I didn’t forget anyone. I know they’re lurking out there.
I’m claiming not one of the cult can find the mistake.
Prove me wrong.
Pup,
Barry said it best:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1433669
Prove Barry wrong –
Publish a Moon Dragon crank model of the motion of the Moon.
(No, Gill – not your pet trick.)
Over 12 hours now, and no answers from the cult. They always pretend they know science, until they are asked to answer a simple question.
They’ve got NOTHING.
What C00kie means by wrong is that it shows his crank orthodoxy for what it is. He must hate it that with only four parameters and some simple maths, Sebastian’s model convincingly duplicates the real Moon’s longitudinal and latitudinal librations. You know, the apparent motions Moon Dragon Cranks don’t have a model for and must handwave away as “illusions”.
https://youtu.be/UXD97l7ZT0w?t=1600
In particular, watch the red line. Geometry Graham’s ball on a string can’t do that! Pity he didn’t get this far in the video!
Brandy Guts thinks arguing about the lunar librations is bringing something new to the debate. He forgets his place. He’s still fairly new to this, so we’ll just have to forgive him. He’s missed years of discussion.
Having no model of his own after years of being asked to produce one, Grizzled Graham’s only option is to pwn the n00b.
Sorry braindead brandon, but that’s not the part that is incorrect. The red and white lines are basically correct. That’s due to Moon’s elliptical orbit, which produces the libration we see from Earth. You haven’t found the mistake.
Do you need a hint?
Also, I see I forgot to include RLH, Nate, and TM. They are also invited to contribute. As I stated, not one will be able to find the mistake. Prove me wrong.
Sorry Pup but until you produce a Dragon Crank model of the motion do the Moon, you cannot play the Riddler.
Which is a good thing, for these green thighs do not look good on you.
I do not make the rules.
Sorry.
C00kie is actually correct that the Moon’s longitudinal libration is due to the elliptical nature of its orbit, but he doesn’t explain why.
Much depends on how he defines the external axis of rotation for the real Moon’s elliptical orbit.
Maybe Geometry Graham can help.
Still no answer from the cult idiots. They just continue to sling crap against the wall.
And worthless willard, we know you have no science but could you get a responsible adult to translate your comments for us. I don’t speak “immature teenager”.
Still no model by the Moon Dragon cranks.
I can be cracked. I can be made. I can be told. I can be played. What am I?
A sock puppet.
Here is the model without perturbations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
Science is still working on the impacts of all the perturbations arising from the gravity of an uncountable and unmapped number of objects. In fact progress in that direction resulted in the discovery of Pluto.
Nevermind pertubations, Bill; it’s a model without eccentricity. But you’ve got an even worse issue.
Moon cranks posit that MOTR must spin on its own axis at the exact opposite rate as its rotation around an external axis.
How can two separate rotations *on different axes* cancel each other out?
Maybe you can work on the locomotive problem while you knoodle on this one.
"How can two separate rotations *on different axes* cancel each other out?"
Well, just look at the video, Brandy Guts. 3:58 onwards.
Geometry Graham flunks another easy quiz.
Perhaps the locomotive problem will be easier for him to handle:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1434632
Oh and perhaps he can tell us where the real Moon’s axis of rotation is located given the eccentric nature of its orbit.
Brandon just exposed the bogus Moon rotation nonsense:
“How can two separate rotations *on different axes* cancel each other out?”
Exactly Brandon. That’s why we know Moon is NOT rotating on its axis.
And worthless willard keeps mentioning “model”. He’s so braindead he doesn’t know I presented a model of Moon’s motion months ago. He can find it since he likes searching for all comments.
"Geometry Graham flunks another easy quiz."
Obviously not…but OK, Brandy Guts.
“MOTR must spin on its own axis at the exact opposite rate as its rotation around an external axis”.
***
The MOTR gif is obviously wrong. It does not show a bearing on which the Moon is turning.
Come on, Bordon.
The bearing missing is in the missing Dragon crank model of the Moon motion.
Spinners are really getting desperate full tilt throwing mudballs against the wall trying to obfuscate the all too obvious.
Gill,
There is nothing to obfuscate:
https://youtu.be/sNUNB6CMnE8
Brandon R. Gates says:
”Nevermind pertubations, Bill; its a model without eccentricity. But youve got an even worse issue.”
well if you accept that the elliptical orbit arising from a bit of excess speed of the planet in relationship to how close it comes by the planet is a perturbation, which is easy to see like a teenager pressing a little too hard on the accelerator causing a bit of skid around the corner. Then its all perturbations.
Where are you coming from? You think in the real world basic motions are never perturbed without completely changing their character? Perhaps you should find a text that supports that point of view rather than just taking potshot as my model.
Brandon R. Gates says:
”Maybe you can work on the locomotive problem while you knoodle on this one.”
Way ahead of you Brandon. Madhavi has a locomotive engine problem to solve in her text having covered all the issues in the previous sections.
Gill, Gill,
No, your Holy Madhavi does not.
The *observed* Moon’s longitudinal libration can reach 754′, represented by the blue dots in this image. Sebastian’s max libration comes in just inside that angle.
It is not “perturbations” which cause the majority of the Moon’s librations, but rather an object following an eccentric Keplerian orbit spinning at a constant rate on a tilted internal axis.
https://i.imgur.com/lMUfXJD.png
Angle should be 7 degrees 54 minutes, or 7.9 degrees in decimal.
Brandon you need to do some reading. The orbital tilt is a perturbation caused by the sun and to a much lesser amount by other planets.
I didn’t mean orbital tilt. It is the tilt of the moon away from being perpendicular to its orbit. Its orbit is around the COM of the earth and the imaginary axis arising out its orbit would be perpendicular to that orbit if the sun was not modifying earths gravitational pull. Thus the moons axial tilt is perpendicular with the elliptic.
“Brandy Guts thinks arguing about the lunar librations is bringing something new to the debate. ”
Some people think things that their model has never ever explained shouldnt be brought up again, because, ya know, its not NEW.
Thats how gaslighting works.
Good point, Bill…
…and any sort of realistic model of the moon’s motion will ultimately only exist when the gravitational pull of all relevant celestial bodies is programmed into it. Whether the moon rotates on its own axis or not should be an emergent property of such a model, not be programmed into it to start with.
“Good point, Bill”
Not so much.
The observable motion of the Moon is what it is, INDEPENDENT of the mechanism of that motion.
Even so, the way planetary motion has been described for 400 years is physically motivated.
Newton used his gravity law to find the orbital paths of planets. The way ORBIT is defined, as a path, without a prescribed rotation rate, adheres to his solution.
…so you shouldn’t really program in "orbit without spin" as being translational motion (like the MOTR, as the "Spinners" think) or rotation about an external axis (like the MOTL, as the "Non-Spinners" think).
People who think planetary properties are ‘programmed in’ don’t make a heck of a lot of sense.
…"orbit without spin" as being translational motion (like the MOTR, as the "Spinners" think) or rotation about an external axis (like the MOTL, as the "Non-Spinners" think).
Geometry Graham Glosses over the fact that his model for the real Moon’s elliptical orbit is Gravity-free and *assumes* rotation about an external axis he hasn’t defined, much less provided observational evidence for.
Compare Sebastian’s model which uses Kepler’s laws that have been proven consistent with *observation* and axial spin derived from *observation* that produces latitudinal and longitudinal libration consistent with *observation* as an *emergent* property of the simulation.
In sum, Guileful Graham hands out homework assignments he is unable and/or unwilling to do himself and sets burdens of proof he himself does not abide.
Long past time for him to make his own sammiches.
"In sum, Guileful Graham hands out homework assignments he is unable and/or unwilling to do himself and sets burdens of proof he himself does not abide."
False. What homework assignments have I handed out? None. "Sets burdens of proof!?" What are you even talking about?
> What homework assignments have I handed out? None. “Sets burdens of proof!?”
January 23, 2023 at 6:38 AM
You can set any standards you want so long as you are able meet them yourself.
Until you have a model that exhibits orbital motion without axial rotation as an emergent property of the gravitational pull of all relevant celestial bodies, you have no business asserting the Moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Get it Graham?
Probably not.
"Until you have a model that exhibits orbital motion without axial rotation as an emergent property of the gravitational pull of all relevant celestial bodies"
Huh? "Orbital motion without axial rotation" is just the name of one of the two motions involved in the discussion. There is:
1) "Orbital motion" (or OMWAR, or "orbit without spin").
2) "Axial rotation" (rotation about an internal axis).
So any model of any orbiting body is going to exhibit 1). Whether or not a model of the moon exhibits 1) and 2), or just 1), depends on what OMWAR is…motion like the MOTL, or the MOTR.
My point to Bill, the person I was interested in talking to, was simply that one day there might be a model of the solar system programmed which includes all the effects of gravity from all of the bodies, and everything and anything else that needs to be taken into account, which accurately reproduces the motions of the moon and all the other celestial bodies. You might not need to do as Sebastian has done, and program in "orbit without spin" as being motion like the MOTR…
Perhaps one day Geometry Graham might even program such model…
The first Moon Dragon model of the motion of the Moon would certainly be a cause to celebrate!
Oh, Little Willy, I’ll never program a thing. No need. The moon issue was resolved in the "Non-Spinners" favour years ago. I simply continue to try and get the more interesting related concepts across to the stubborn "Spinners". As I said a while ago, once points 2) and 3) from my four point list are accepted by all the "Spinner" contributors, I’ll never comment on the issue again.
“The moon issue was resolved in the “Non-Spinners” favour years ago. ”
He means ‘The moon issue was resolved in the “Non-Spinners” MIND years ago.’
Meanwhile, in the real world yesterday, they ran out of excuses to deny the existence of the Moon’s tilted axis of rotation.
“one day there might be a model of the solar system programmed which includes all the effects of gravity from all of the bodies, and everything and anything else that needs to be taken into account, which accurately reproduces the motions of the moon and all the other celestial bodies.”
Astronomy pretty much accomplished that a century ago. I guess some people were unaware.
“Astronomers have been able to calculate the expected precession
of Mercurys apsides (due to the forces of other planets) to be 531 arcseconds per century, and they have observed that the actual precession is 574 arcseconds per century. This leaves a difference of 43″ that could not be explained by uncertainties in calculation or measurement and which was noticed as early as 1845. Before Einsteins theory of relativity (1916), there were three unsatisfactory theories to explain this phenomenon: a retardingforce due to a dust cloud around the sun, a new planet between Mercury and the sun, and an exponent slightly different from -2in the gravitational force law. Then Einstein modified the force law by introducing a component that varies as 1/r4.”
https://www.tau.ac.il/~morris/03411203/chapter3/mercury_paper.pdf
I simply continue to try and get the more interesting related concepts across to the stubborn "Spinners". As I said a while ago, once points 2) and 3) from my four point list are accepted by all the "Spinner" contributors, I’ll never comment on the issue again.
Mysteries of the Steam Locomotive
The horizontal bars connecting the drive wheels are called side rods. Notice that they don’t change orientation as the drive wheels undergo a full rotation.
Question: How can the side rods be rotating in the opposite direction of the drive wheels given their attachments at both ends?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yRVMnPJmdQ
Dedicated to Bill, who still can’t bring himself to ride a bicycle upthread.
[duplicate of a previous post]
The side rods are not rotating about an axis, they are oscillating. They are connected on one end to the wheels by axles on the edges of the wheels and to pistons on the other end where they are driven by steam.
This action is more like the pistons in a gasoline engine. They are connected to the rods that drive the crankshaft and there is a bearing inside each piston that allows them to oscillate. At the crankshaft, the rods connect via bearings. When the gas mixture explodes in the cylinder, it drives the piston down the cylinder and the rod is angled with the crankshaft so it rotates the crankshaft.
In a steam locomotive, the pistons are in a cylinder which has pressurized steam in it. The steam drives the piston out and it is angled correctly to turn the locomotive wheels.
a simpler diagram of this nature is a regular automotive piston engine.
bill…that’s what I was trying to describe above re crankshaft, rods, and pistons.
The main rod which attaches to the center drive wheel on one end and the piston on the other. That’s the one that oscillates, or swings, exactly like the connecting rod in an internal combustion engine.
The side rods are not connected to the piston, the connections are wheel-to-wheel, one connection on each end of the rods. Their orientation is perfectly horizontal throughout the rotation of the drive wheels, analogous to a properly functioning bicycle pedal … or MOTR.
I chose the steam engine model specifically because the side rods’ motion exactly matches that of a bicycle pedal but are attached at two points to illustrate the absurdity saying they are spinning in the opposite direction of the drive wheels’ rotation.
Here’s an old classic. Note how the long connecting rod connects to each wheel and to the piston on the left.
I am surprised that the location where it attaches to the wheels is so close to the axle (about a foot radius). All the same, this beauty used to pull coaches at 100 MPH.
Note that the piston drives the middle wheel and it drives the other two.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Flying_Scotsman_in_Doncaster.JPG
Four comments in and still neither Gordon nor Bill have explained how the side rods can spin opposite the direction of the drive wheels given that they’re attached to them at two points.
Only three trolls left here
https://i.postimg.cc/brsTScRP/think-tank.png
I prefer this one, Eboy:
https://tinyurl.com/Moon-Dragon-Crank-Wonders
One day due diligence to your grand solar minimum updates will be paid.
Try not to be so impatient.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
bill h…”flight engineers use is to first calculate an orbit around the moon then use features of the moon to calculate a trajectory to a specified landing area”.
***
From what I have read, they plot a course to get them into a rough orbit around the Moon, then fine tune the orbit to the required altitude using retros.
They also have their own reference frame built in by orienting to the stars rather than the Moon. They use gyros to do that. Therefore, any motion of the Moon is referenced to the lunar module (hence the stars) and not to the Moon’s centre. When they detect a motion, it is the orbital motion with which they are moving due to being bound to the Moon’s gravitational field.
Yep thats what I have been trying to tell Swanson.
He believes NOAA puts the Hubble Space Telescope in a certain orientation and it stays there naturally. He is trying to obfuscate the impossibility of the MOTR existing naturally and trying to push a false narrative.
The fact it is impossible tells us indeed the moon rotates on an external axis and if they admit that they have to carry the burden of not ”getting it” after years of arguing about it. A bunch of them are already on the slippery slope.
Gill, Gill,
Among other moons, Phoebe is not in a spin-orbit lock.
…and Phoebe doesn’t move like the MOTR.
Once again Gratuitious Graham gratuitously gaslights.
There are no known celestial bodies that move like the MOTR.
ALmost if not all celestial bodies known to mankind spins:
https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24933181-200-where-does-the-spin-of-celestial-objects-come-from-the-big-bang
…and the subject changes…
Gaslighting Graham does not always discuss his pet theory about the Moon spin, but when he pretends that the fact that all celestial bodies known to mankind spin is irrelevant.
You lost another point, so changed the subject. As everybody can see.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
brandon…”Did you watch the video or not?
Did you do that before or after you PSTd Willard?”
***
It’s flawed. The animator makes the same mistake, he presumed the Moon rotates on a local axis and gave it a rotation equal to the Moon’s orbital period.
Flaws…
1)The Moon crosses the Earth on same side when it should disappear behind Earth as it does near end of scene.
2)On the extreme right, one axis (presumably the N Pole) is aligned with a vertical graticle while the other is aligned with a horizontal graticule. That’s fair enough since the orbital plane is tilted, but he failed to add a line to indicate a vertical to the orbital plane. So, it is lost on the viewer, the relationship between the two.
On the RHS, the N Pole is tilted 6 degrees to the right of the vertical component. That angle must be reflected on the extreme RHS and it’s not. In order for the same side to remain pointing at the Earth, the North Pole must always remain outside of the vertical line to the horizontal plane. Therefore, on the extreme LHS, the N Pole must be to the left of the vertical line. It’s not, the vertical line is to the left of the N Pole.
3)He fails to mark a reference point on the near-side. If he had, it would have remained on the inside of the Moon, disappearing as the Moon went on the far side of the Earth. Then it would reappear and disappear for the entire 180 degrees in which the Moon moved across the near side of the Earth.
Dang Gordon, you let the cat out of the bag!
I was going to make the cult idiots suffer some more. But we know that worthless willard and braindead brandon couldn’t answer. And we can safely assume that other idiots viewed it and ran away. So no harm done. We learn again that they know NOTHING about what they purport to be experts on.
We know:
1) The cult has no viable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. This is key, because an understanding of OMWAR clearly indicates Moon is NOT rotating.
2) By the cult’s own nonsense, we know Moon has no axial rotation. The imaginary tilt axis would result in a change of over 13 at the opposite side of Moon’s orbit.
3) Based on NASA’s response to Gordon, NASA now claims Moon’s rotation is only reference to the “fixed stars”. Cult headquarters will not support the nonsense they’ve spewed. They are no longer standing by it.
Reality always wins.
Pup,
Your 1 shifts the Moon Dragon crank burden of proof.
Your 2 begs the question for which Moon Dragon cranks trolled this website for more that six years now.
Your 3 has NOTHING to do here. You are just piggybacking on Bordons latest rant.
Revisiting the usual load of nonsense
” The cult has no viable model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’. This is key, because an understanding of OMWAR clearly indicates Moon is NOT rotating. ”
It seems that the genius doesn’t understand that his paragraph reflects what is termed ‘circular reasoning’: we can only develop a model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ if we are 100% ‘convinced’ in advance that ‘the Moon is NOT rotating’.
*
” By the cult’s own nonsense, we know Moon has no axial rotation. The imaginary tilt axis would result in a change of over 13[°] at the opposite side of Moons orbit. ”
Strange argument.
The genius wrote this nonsense BECAUSE he is convinced that Earth spins about his axis BUT is ‘convinced’ that Moon does not.
Any Flatearthist could perfectly write:
” By the cult’s own nonsense, we know Earth has no axial rotation. The imaginary tilt axis would result in a change of over 46[°] at the opposite side of Earth’s orbit. ”
Why doesn’t the genius see the obvious analogy?
*
” Based on NASA’s response to Gordon, NASA now claims Moon’s rotation is only reference to the ‘fixed stars’. ”
a) I repeatedly asked the Robertson guy to show a proof of his alleged mail to NASA as well as of their alleged reply to it.
Nothing seen until now – should I wonder?
b) And for the umpteenth time again, the genius willfully distorts, twists and wrings the ‘reference to the fixed stars’, used to measure orbit and rotation periods, until it becomes something describing rotation. OMG…
*
Paraphrasons aujourd’hui Jean de La Fontaine, et écrivons comme lui:
" Le déni et le désespoir font mieux que force ni que rage. "
Correction
En fait, l'ami La Fontaine écrivit "… <b>plus</b> que force ni que rage. "
Ah là là! Ils sont bien loin entretemps, nos classiques.
No circular reasoning there, braindead Bin. The ball-on-a-string is a model of OMWAR. One side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit. How many times has this simple concept been explained to you?
Once someone understands OMWAR, it is obvious Moon is not rotating, as we would see all sides of it from Earth.
Earth’s change in angle of its spin axis changes very little during an orbit. Much less than half a degree. Moon’s imaginary spin axis, by your own cult’s diagram, would change over 13°. You can’t understand the simple diagram. You had a chance, but you’re braindead.
If you don’t believe Gordon, you’re welcome to contact NASA and ask them to come on this blog to answer questions about the nonsense they put out. They’ve already removed some youtube videos that are fraudulent. Get them here to explain why there is still such nonsense on the Internet. We could also teach them about “tidal locking”, another hoax from astrology. (Ever wonder why they name so many things after mythological gods and goddesses?)
Pup,
Here’s you:
[PUP’S GAMBIT] Two plus two equals four, therefore one plus three CANNOT equal four.
If you could stop being that silly, that’d be great.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
I can’t follow what you’re saying because you’re apparently talking about a different part of the video than I am.
This is what you should be looking at:
https://youtu.be/UXD97l7ZT0w?t=1600
It is a top-down view showing the Moon’s orbital motion using observed parameters for axial spin and orbital period calculated using Kepler’s laws. It does contain a near-side marker, indicated by the red line. It also includes a center-to-center line indicated by the white line, corresponding to an observer’s line of sight. Both are set to coincidence at perigee and apogee. Maximum deflection occurs when the white line is nearly vertical. This represents the maximum observed longitudinal libration, which for the real Moon is 7.9 degrees, represented by the blue dots in this image:
https://i.imgur.com/lMUfXJD.png
As you can see the simulated max deflection angle is nearly equal to the observed maximum, indicating a high fidelity of Sebastian’s model to reality, whereas Moon cranks are stuck on perfect circles with hand-waving appeals to undisclosed “perturbations”.
It is a top-down view showing the Moon’s orbital motion using observed parameters for axial spin and orbital period calculated using Keplers laws.
Braindead brandon, there are NO “observed parameters for axial spin”. And Kepler’s Laws do NOT address axial spin.
Correct those mistakes and I’ll point out more.
Sebastian uses Kepler to determine the Moon’s orbital position as a function of time, C00kie. So sorry the simulated result matches observed reality so closely. If only Moon cranks had a better model based on physics instead of geometry, you might not be so Crabby.
[wails]
Braindead brandon, there are NO “observed parameters for axial spin”. And Kepler’s Laws do NOT address axial spin.
Correct those mistakes and I’ll point out more.
> Keplers Laws do NOT address axial spin.
Nor did I say they did, moron.
Oh, I see. You just don’t use commas.
There remains the inconvenient fact that you can’t measure something that isn’t happening.
As usual, C00kie has things completely backward. The real inconvenience is that he doesn’t have a physical model of the Moon’s orbit consistent with rotation about an external axis. Meanwhile, Sebastian does have a physical model of elliptical translation combined with axial spin that is almost perfectly consistent with the real Moon’s longitudinal libration.
No wonder he is so Cranky.
Wrongo – brando. I presented a simple model of Moon’s motion many months ago. Your cult hero can find it for you. He likes to find old comments.
Maybe you should explain OMWAR to Sebastian.
> I presented a simple model of Moon’s motion many months ago.
Except that you didn’t, Pup.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I don’t think this guy understands the physics of the orbit. He seems to think the orbit is there and the Moon is following it. In reality, the orbit is created by the interaction of gravity and the Moon’s linear momentum. Therefore that red line makes no sense the way he has created it. With the overall view of the orbit it makes little sense.
I’ll need to look at it closer.
” That angle must be reflected on the extreme RHS and its not. In order for the same side to remain pointing at the Earth, the North Pole must always remain outside of the vertical line to the horizontal plane.”
Nonsense Gordon. This has already been explained to you! You don’t seem to be the least bit concerned with getting your facts right.
Why do you NEGLECT libration?
If you didnt, you would know that the side of the Moon facing Earth is not always exactly the same!
And the latitudinal part of is due to the tilt of the axis. On one side of the orbit the N. Pole tilts toward the Earth. On the other side of the orbit it tilts away from the Earth.
“The latitudinal libration of the Moon occurs because its axis is tilted slightly, relative to the plane of its orbit around the Earth; this makes the Moons north and south poles apparently alternate in tipping slightly toward the Earth as the Moon moves through its orbit.
https://www.britannica.com/science/libration
nate…”This has already been explained to you! You dont seem to be the least bit concerned with getting your facts right.
Why do you NEGLECT libration? ”
***
I have explained longitudinal libration in detail. Receiving an explanation from people who have no idea how orbital mechanics works is not something I tend to receive kindly.
It’s you who fails to understand Clint’s point, that if such an axis exists it has to offer a mirror image on the LHS to the image on the RHS. That’s means the N pole must point away from the Earth in both locations to meet the requirements that the near face always points at the Earth. If you don’t get that you are lost.
“Its you who fails to understand Clints point, that if such an axis exists it has to offer a mirror image on the LHS to the image on the RHS.”
This is you, Gordon, AGAIN, making up a new ‘fact’. Do you think you’re God?
Clint’s link does not have a LHS. You are not allowed to invent it out of nothing.
“Thats means the N pole must point away from the Earth in both locations to meet the requirements that the near face always points at the Earth. If you dont get that you are lost.
As explained, now for the 3rd time, your PREMISE is FALSE that the same face of the Moon always points at the Earth, because of libration.
And thus the logical consequence of the false premise is FALSE that “the N pole must point away from the Earth in both locations”.
Latitudinal is present, and as my SOURCE makes clear, it is due to the axial tilt. And it causes the N pole tilt inward on one side of the orbit and outward on the other side.
I don’t get why you guys keep ignoring facts and making up your own.
Just a quick note about libration of latitude:
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/lunar-libration-see-more-than-50-of-moon/
“Libration in latitude is the moon’s north-south nodding. It results primarily from the approximate 5 degree tilt of the moon’s orbital plane with respect to the ecliptic (Earth’s orbital plane).”
grammie pups misses the additional important quote:
The Moon’s equator is defined by the Moon’s rotational axis, which is not perpendicular to it’s orbit plane. The Moon can not be “rotating” around it’s orbital axis while it rotates around it’s internal axis.
HERE’s the appropriate graphic again.
You’re correct Swanson, that graphic indicates an imaginary spin axis angle of 6.68°, so, What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, between the high and low points of Moon’s orbit?
Youre correct Clint R, that graphic indicates an imaginary spin axis angle of 47 degrees, so, what is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, between the high and low points of Earths orbit?
*
When will you finally understand that your question above is EXACTLY as stupid as what I write?
Like Earth’s, Moon’s spin axis changes only by very, very small amounts.
Newton couldn’t compute these amounts, but unlike you opinionated ignoramus, he was a genial scientist. And that is the reason why he at least predicted these irregularities in Moon’s spin.
Like your pseudonym and denial brother ge*r*an, you will of course reply you nonsense to this my comment too.
*
Doesn’t matter, Clint R.
One day, you will silently give up…
The difference, braindead bin, is Earth has a REAL spin axis. It always points in the same direction during an orbit. Moon has an IMAGINARY spin axis, which changes by 13° in half an orbit.
Do you still have your experiment set up? A coffee cup with a short string tied to the handle and the other end of the string nailed to the center of a table?
Put a pencil in the cup so that it leans to one side. It doesn’t matter which side it leans to. Tape the pencil in place so it can’t move. Note the angle of the pencil, relative to a perpendicular to the table. Let’s say the angle is 25°, leaning north. Now, “orbit” the cup around the nail, keep the cup handle facing the nail. Halfway around the orbit, note the new angle of the pencil. If you were able to do it correctly, the change in the angle would be 50°. (The pencil will be at 25° to the vertical, but now leaning south.)
I predict you can’t understand this simple experiment. Prove me wrong.
clint…the drawing is wrong. I don’t know if it’s a Swannie special, or maybe Binny drew it. Take a look at the angle of the Poles on each Moon. If the pole is +6.68 degrees on the RH Moon it must be pointed in the opposite direction on the LH Moon. That gives your 13.3 degrees difference.
The way he has drawn it, there is no difference in angle.
Correct Gordon. Swannie doesn’t understand any of this.
He’s another braindead cult idiot posing as an ignorant troll.
Gordo again displays his ignorance of dynamics, writing:
The Moon’s poles are determined by it’s rotational axis. Since it is rotating, conservation of momentum REQUIRES that the direction of the spin axis is fixed wrt the stars, which the graphic displays.
The fact that the imaginary spin axis changes by over 13° indicates Moon is NOT rotating on its axis.
grammie pups fails dynamics yet again, writing:
The fact is, the Moon’s rotational axis points in the same direction wrt the stars on both sides of the orbit. The graphic is constructed with that reality in mind. There is no change in the angle between the axis and the Moon’s orbital plane. Remember that angular momentum is a vector quantity, which represents both the magnitude and direction.
Conservation of Angular Momentum.
"grammie pups…"
Swanson. Clint R and I are two different people. How many times!?
Moon has no rotational axis because it is not rotating on its axis. This is easily shown by the cult’s own nonsense. Their imaginary spin axis tilt of 6.68° would result in a change of over 13° in half a orbit. This is easily demonstrated by a simple experiment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1435421
Braindead E. Swanson understands none of this.
Said simple experiment ignores the fact that the cup is rotating around an axis perpendicular to the table, thus producing the visual illusion.
Cut your pencil so that it does not extend above the cup. Next, look at it from the level of the middle of the cup’s handle above the table. As you move the cup around, you can not see the pencil, in fact, you can not see the other side of the cup at all, since the line of sight is above the top of the other side.
Motion like the Moon’s libration of latitude would allow one to observe some the other side of the cup for half the way around the orbit, then see more of the bottom of the cup for the other half. The cup must be tilted in one direction for this to happen.
grammie and clones, here’s an even simpler test. Take 2 identical coffee mugs (or other cups with wide bases). Apply a bit of tape on one side of the rim 90 degrees from the handle. Place the cup with the tape on one end of a table and the other on the opposite end. Position both with their handles at 90 degrees from the line between the two and the one with the tape also placed such that the tape is on the side opposite the other cup.
Now, as one looks thru the handle of the cup without tape at the one with the tape, one can not see the tape or the outside rim of the taped cup, as the line of sight passes slightly above the outside rim.
Now, take your pencil and place it under the middle of the cup with the tape, such that the pencil is pointing perpendicular to the line of sight. Now, said cup will tilt either toward or away from the second cup as you repeat the viewing described above. When the taped cup is tilted toward you, you can see the tape and outer rim and when the cup is tilted away from you, you can see some of the bottom of the taped cup. That visual effect is identical to what one sees when viewing the Moon’s Libration in Latitude resulting from the tilt in the Moon’s rotational axis wrt the orbital plane.
"grammie and clones…"
Clint R and I are two different people, Swanson.
” Tape the pencil in place so it cant move.”
Nothing to do with what the Moon’s axis does, nor does it explain latitudinal libration.
Dumb experiment..
Yep a confused word salad.
A. The internal axis of the moon is perpendicular to the elliptic. It has a slight precession radius of 1.54degrees displacing the axis due to variations of the direction of the solar gravitational pull (a perturbation of the rotation)
B. The orbit is tilted about 5 degrees causing the latitude libration which is purely a visual effect.
Both A&B are part of the same basic motion which is a smooth elliptical rotation around the earth due to earths gravity.
Current theory of this is contained in Perturbation Theory:
”The earliest use of what would now be called perturbation theory was to deal with the otherwise unsolvable mathematical problems of celestial mechanics: for example the orbit of the Moon, which moves noticeably differently from a simple Keplerian ellipse because of the competing gravitation of the Earth and the Sun.
Perturbation methods start with a simplified form of the original problem, which is simple enough to be solved exactly. In celestial mechanics, this is usually a Keplerian ellipse. Under Newtonian gravity, an ellipse is exactly correct when there are only two gravitating bodies (say, the Earth and the Moon) but not quite correct when there are three or more objects (say, the Earth, Moon, Sun, and the rest of the Solar System) and not quite correct when the gravitational interaction is stated using formulations from general relativity.”
“A. The internal axis of the moon is perpendicular to the elliptic.”
Close, but 1.5 deg off.
In any case the ecliptic is simply the reference point on the celestial sphere, with orientation 0.
All objects, like the Moon, are measured with this reference. The moon’s orbital plane is tilted at an angle + 5 deg, and its equatorial plane is tilted at angle of -1.54 deg, from the ecliptic plane (0).
These angles are use to find the key angle, which is difference between them = 6.7 degrees. This is the axial tilt of the Moon’s axis to its orbital axis.
This produces the latitudinal libration.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1436071
Nate says:
A. The internal axis of the moon is perpendicular to the ecliptic.
Close, but 1.5 deg off.
————————
You guys like comparing ‘means’ and ‘averages’ Nate. The mean position of the axis of the moon is perpendicular to the ecliptic and the answer why it isn’t part of the time is found in ‘Perturbation Theory’ which is the current accepted theory since Newton was found wrong about that.
Even the earth’s tilt is found to have an ‘average’ tilt perpendicular to the axis but the rotational period of the precession is so much longer than the moon’s primarily because the earth has a large independent spin rate and direction that is not parallel to the ecliptic. The moon’s precession is due to the orbit of the moon not being parallel to the ecliptic.
And of course all that isn’t perfect either because there are other celestial bodies creating their own perturbations.
“You guys like comparing means and averages Nate. The mean position of the axis of the moon is perpendicular to the ecliptic”
Same can be said for the Earth’s axis Bill. And?
Obviously the long term mean is besides the point of understanding the Moon’s libration that we see.
Well I am sorry for you if you don’t understand the moon’s libration.
I’m sorry you are so confused..
I missed nothing, Swanson. Fully aware of what the linked source says and always have been.
The point I’m making is that the libration of latitude is actually mainly the result of the moon’s tilted orbital plane with respect to the ecliptic. You would think, given what some people try to push, that the libration of latitude is entirely the result of the tilt of the moon’s so-called "axis of rotation" relative to the moon’s orbital plane. However, that turns out not to be the case, at all.
grammie pups, your quoted reference disagrees. He states that the cause is the tilt of the Moon’s equator wrt the orbital plane.
"Libration in latitude is the moon’s north-south nodding. It results primarily from the approximate 5 degree tilt of the moon’s orbital plane with respect to the ecliptic (Earth’s orbital plane)."
Your authority contradicted himself with the later comment. Here’s another take:
Another one:
dremt…good point. I have not gotten into latitudinal libration but its obviously related to the tilt of the Earth-Moon orbital plane.
It makes perfect sense that when the Moon is relatively below the plane we see more around the top of the Moon.
Good work.
Exactly, Gordon.
Swanson, there is no contradiction. Your second source goes on to say:
“The 6.7º depends on the orbit inclination of 5.15º and the negative equatorial tilt of 1.54º“
I found a source that barely even mentions the axial tilt:
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/skills/lunar-libration-what-is/
“The Moon’s orbit is tilted to that of Earth by about 5˚ too, causing the Moon to appear to move above and below the ecliptic.
As it does so, we effectively peek over the southern and northern edge of the Moon by a small amount.”
The TEAM takes cherry-picking to new places.
“I found a source that barely even mentions the axial tilt:”
So it can’t be important!
Axial tilt is 6.7 degrees. That is real. There is not point in trying to diminish it.
That means on one side of the orbit, the N. pole tilts inward to the Earth 6.7 degrees, and the other side of the orbit, it points outward 6.7 degrees.
This is an easily observable movement of the Poles that produces the significant latitudinal libration.
…but more to the point, Swanson, it doesn’t really matter which sources say what. It’s what makes sense, that counts. As Gordon says:
"It makes perfect sense that when the Moon is relatively below the plane we see more around the top of the Moon."
You can visualize how it works. The tilt of the orbital plane must be the reason for the majority of the libration in latitude. Even if there was no "axial tilt", you would still get a libration in latitude, to a large extent. You would still see more of the top of the moon when it is at the "low point" in the orbit and more of the bottom of the moon when it is at the "high point". The "axial tilt" just accentuates that effect. Just study the diagram of the orbit of the moon, and think about it.
Nate verifies Moon’s imaginary spin axis changes by over 13°.
That means on one side of the orbit, the N. pole tilts inward to the Earth 6.7 degrees, and the other side of the orbit, it points outward 6.7 degrees.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally….
grammie pups (and Gordo) thinks science is about “what makes sense”. Sorry, guy, science is about describing the natural world and often times “what makes sense” is wrong. The lunar libration in latitude is caused by the angle between the Moon’s orbital plane and it’s equator. That’s the result of the Moon’s rotational axis not being parallel to the Moon’s orbital axis. We do not see the Moon by viewing along the Ecliptic plane, though the light from the Sun does arrive from that direction.
OK then, Swanson, several sources (including one of your own) need correcting, in that case. It either results primarily from the tilt of the moon’s orbital plane or it doesn’t.
Clint doesnt realize what I am saying is the opposite of what he had erroneously claimed
“Because Moon always keeps one side facing the inside of its orbit, the opposite side always keeps facing outward. The 6.68 angle shown is measured from the perpendicular to Moons orbital plane. The imaginary spin axis leans in one direction. So on the opposite side of the orbit, the imaginary spin axis would be pointing 6.68 in the other direction. That makes a total change of 13.36.”
Oh well.
Thanks for quoting me correctly, Nate.
That always makes you appear smarter than you are….
“dremtgood point. I have not gotten into latitudinal libration but its obviously related to the tilt of the Earth-Moon orbital plane.”
IOW, if I don’t believe the Moon has a tilted rotational axis, I can assume it has no observable effects!
“”It makes perfect sense that when the Moon is relatively below the plane we see more around the top of the Moon.”
Nah. Doesnt amount to much. Science is quantitative.
People don’t seem to realize that science doesnt need to make sense to you.
Just a quick note about libration in latitude:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
Pup might take note.
"The 6.7 deg depends on the orbit inclination of 5.15 deg and the negative equatorial tilt of 1.54 deg"
Yes, exactly. This confirms what I said previously, which is that the libration of latitude is primarily caused by the inclined orbital plane. Which makes sense, if you think about it. The moon’s tilted orbit causes it to appear to move above and below the ecliptic. This means we effectively get a glimpse over the southern and northern edge of the moon.
Just a quick note on my note on libration:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1435366
Pup might take note.
Cassini’s “laws” ain’t physical Laws. They’re beliefs. Physical Laws have a sound foundation in science, and stand up to rigorous testing. The Cassini crap fails miserably, as indicated by the more than 13° change in the imaginary spin axis.
Not to mention the simple ball-on-a-string.
That comment wasn’t a rebuttal, Pup.
That’s just a sock puppet trantrum.
As usual, Clint gets things back-ass-wards.
“Cassinis laws aint physical Laws. Theyre beliefs.”
The are empirical laws. That means repeatedly observed.
That means the opposite of belief. Try to get that right next time.
Troll Nate, “empirical laws” must stand up to science and reality. Just because someone observes something it does not mean is is real. Imagination is NOT science.
People can imagine lions, bears, and scorpions in the stars. Does that mean they are real?
“Just because someone observes something it does not mean is is real. Imagination is NOT science.”
Bwahahaha…
Clint thinks observations are imaginary, but his never observed beliefs are real.
Troll Nate, false accusations ain’t reality.
Pup, you’re not King of Reality.
You’re just a silly sock puppet.
Yes, I’m sure he will take note. You can stop responding, now.
Just a quick note on Cassini’s laws:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%27s_laws
Generalizability is one important characteristic of a scientific law.
You can stop responding, now.
Another note on Cassini’s Laws:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%27s_laws
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1435399
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1435444
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Cassini was obviously mistaken.
“Which makes sense, if you think about it. The moons tilted orbit causes it to appear to move above and below the ecliptic.”
Suppose there were NO axial tilt. Then the equator of the Moon would always aligned with its orbital plane.
When looking at the Moon we are looking on a line parallel to the Moons orbital plane.
Then the equator of the Moon would always be halfway up the Moon’s disk and the Poles would always be on the edge of the disk, not visible.
The 5 degree tilt of the orbit would only determine where in the sky the Moon would appear.
BUT, in reality we do see the Poles of the Moon appear and disappear.
There must be an axial tilt.
There is also a tiny effect of being at different latitudes on the Earth.
If the Moon was over our equator and we were observing from 45 degrees N latitude, we are seeing the Moon tilted by ~ 0.5 degrees relative to people on the equator.
But because the Moon stays within 5 degrees of our equator, the CHANGE of this tilt during the Moon’s orbit would be much less than 0.5 degree.
So “the libration of latitude is primarily caused by the inclined orbital plane.”
is just one more thing that the non-spinners declare that turns out to be fiction.
Nate, libration is NOT due to any “wobbling” of Moon. Libration is only due to Moon’s elliptical/slanted orbit.
“Nate, libration is NOT due to any wobbling of Moon. Libration is only due to Moons elliptical/slanted orbit.”
Find a valid source for this declared ‘truth’.
You won’t.
Thats how we recognize trolling.
Read it and weep, troll Nate:
In lunar astronomy, libration is the wagging or wavering of the Moon perceived by Earth-bound observers and caused by changes in their perspective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
From YOUR source, dimwit:
“Libration in latitude results from a slight inclination (about 6.7) between the Moon’s axis of rotation and the normal to the plane of its orbit around Earth. Its origin is analogous to how the seasons arise from Earth’s revolution about the Sun. Galileo Galilei is sometimes credited with the discovery of the lunar libration in latitude in 1632,[3] although Thomas Harriot or William Gilbert might have done so before.[5] Note Cassini’s laws. It can reach 650′ in amplitude.[4] The 6.7 depends on the orbit inclination of 5.15 and the negative equatorial tilt of 1.54. Latitudal libration allows an observer on Earth to view beyond the Moon’s north pole and south pole at different phases of the Moon’s orbit.[2]”
Hey, it’s my source!
nate…”Find a valid source for this declared truth”.
***
It’s obvious, no proof required. However, we have supplied a proof as well. Guess you were absent that day.
“Its obvious, no proof required. ”
Sure, if you again IGNORE, for what is it the 4th time now?, the available facts about libration.
The notions of trolls like Gordon are not constrained by any facts.
According to DREMTs source:
“Libration in longitude is the moons east-west wobble. This sort of libration is a product of the moons elliptical (elongated) orbit. Although the moons rotation, or spin, goes at a nearly constant rate, its orbital speed varies. It is going fastest at perigee (moons closest point to Earth) and slowest at apogee (moons farthest point from Earth).”
I guess we were supposed to, as the TEAM usually does, ignore this inconvenient part.
https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Fapp.box.com%2Fs%2F37jqqhs9i6z70dxbsh9ftl7sf6u7qr7s
Perhaps some people need to study Swanson’s graphic more closely. The libration of latitude is only meant to result in us seeing an additional 6.7 degrees of the moon. Not 13.4 degrees. Something is obviously amiss.
FYI, the diagram is not to scale. It shows the Moon about 5 Earth’s radii away.
In reality it is 60 Earth radii away.
Thus the impression from the diagram that we can look down on the Moon’s top is misleading.
“Libration in latitude results from a slight inclination (about 6.7) between the Moon’s axis of rotation and the normal to the plane of its orbit around Earth. Its origin is analogous to how the seasons arise from Earth’s revolution about the Sun. Galileo Galilei is sometimes credited with the discovery of the lunar libration in latitude in 1632,[3] although Thomas Harriot or William Gilbert might have done so before.[5] Note Cassini’s laws. It can reach 650′ in amplitude.[4]”
Note the AMPLITUDE, which is HALF of Maximum – Minimum, is 6 degrees 50 minutes.
Ie 6.83 degrees. MAX-MIN = 13.46 degrees.
"Something is obviously amiss…"
One thing that’s amiss is of course the scale of the distances involved, though it does mention that on the right hand side of the diagram. With the moon significantly further away from Earth than shown, it would of course appear even higher (on the right hand side) or lower (on the left hand side) relative to the position of Earth if it was properly shown to scale.
grammie pups fails geometry again. The viewing angles would be the same, thus the libration effects would be the same. However, with the Earth-Moon distance scaled properly, the Moon would appear smaller than that which appears in the graphic.
Swanson makes another blunder. The diagram notes that the Earth and moon sizes are scaled accurately. So no, the moon would not appear smaller with the Earth-moon distance scaled properly.
I’m well aware that the angles are the same, Swanson. Extend the moon’s orbital plane line out further to the right and the moon is in a higher position on the page than it would be otherwise, though. Yes? Extend the moon’s orbital plane line out further to the left and the moon is in a lower position on the page than it would be otherwise.
So, if anything, the correct scale would give even more of an impression that we can look down on the top of the moon, or look up at the bottom of the moon…
DEMT misses the point.
The ‘looking down on the top of the Moon from the top of the Earth’ effect, called Parallax, is greatly reduced when the diagram is drawn to scale with the Moon 60 Earth radii away.
“Parallax libration depends on both the longitude and latitude of the location on Earth from where the Moon is observed.
Diurnal libration is the small daily libration, an oscillation due to Earth’s rotation, which carries an observer first to one side and then to the other side of the straight line joining Earth’s and the Moon’s centers, allowing the observer to look first around one side of the Moon and then around the othersince the observer is on Earth’s surface, not at its center. It reaches less than 1 in amplitude.[4]”
Something else that’s amiss: I was under the impression that these quotes existed:
"Libration in latitude is the moon’s north-south nodding. It results primarily from the approximate 5 degree tilt of the moon’s orbital plane with respect to the ecliptic (Earth’s orbital plane)."
"The 6.7 deg depends on the orbit inclination of 5.15 deg and the negative equatorial tilt of 1.54 deg."
Are we now to believe they no longer exist? Is this just something I’ve "made up"? Or do the quotes exist?
“The 6.7 deg depends on the orbit inclination of 5.15 deg and the negative equatorial tilt of 1.54 deg.”
Your first source:
“Add to that, the approximate 1.5 degree tilt of the moons equator to the ecliptic, and you have the inclination of the moons equator to the plane of its orbit around Earth at some 6.5 degrees (5 + 1.5 = 6.5). Consequently, during the month, you can see about 6.5 degrees of latitude beyond the moons north pole, and a fortnight later, 6.5 degrees past the south pole.”
This source makes it abundantly clear.
“the inclination of the moons equator to the plane of its orbit around Earth at some 6.5 degrees (5 + 1.5 = 6.5).”
The Moon’s equator, which is determined by its plane, and thus axis, of rotation, is tilted 6.5 degrees to its orbital plane.
But DREMT has an outstanding ability to cherry pick to facilitate his confirmation bias.
Pretty sure the quotes exist…but I guess that can all just be ignored. Forget I breathed a word of it.
They may have said "it results primarily from the approximate 5 degree tilt of the moon’s orbital plane with respect to the ecliptic (Earth’s orbit plane)", but they didn’t actually mean that.
What they really meant was, "it results entirely from the moon’s "axial tilt"…to suggest anything else is heresy".
So, that’s that.
They meant what they said, but that is not ALL that they said. They went on to explain the mechanism for the libration.
But you CHOOSE to ignore it because the mechanism is the TILTED ROTATIONAL AXIS.
That is denialism in its purest form.
Sorry, allow me to correct myself.
They may have said "it results primarily from the approximate 5 degree tilt of the moon’s orbital plane with respect to the ecliptic (Earth’s orbit plane)", but they didn’t actually mean that.
What they really meant was, "it results primarily from the approximate 5 degree tilt of the moon’s orbital plane with respect to the ecliptic (Earth’s orbit plane)…and by that, we mean the actual mechanism involved has nothing to do with the tilt of the moon’s orbital plane, it has only to do with moon’s "axial tilt"…to suggest anything else is heresy".
So, that’s that.
the basic form of the spinner object is that if an object precesses it must be that object is spinning on its central axis.
But is it not true that all rotating objects can precess? Wiki thinks so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession#:~:text=The%20phenomenon%20is%20commonly%20seen,result%20from%20the%20external%20torque.
Perhaps its time for Nate to actually come up with a legitimate source that claims that objects rotating on an external axis cannot precess considering that is his main line of attack on the moon not rotating around an external axis but instead on its internal axis.
Blather is blather. Prove your point Nate.
“What they really meant was”
What they really meant was what they actually said.
They actually said
“you have the inclination of the moons equator to the plane of its orbit around Earth at some 6.5 degrees (5 + 1.5 = 6.5). CONSEQUENTLY, during the month, you can see about 6.5 degrees of latitude beyond the moons north pole, and a fortnight later, 6.5 degrees past the south pole.”
Now I notice DREMT cannot bring himself to quote this part.
Why?
And what does ‘consequently’ mean? It means that the libration is a consequence of the tilt of the Moon’s equatorial plane to it orbital plane. .
This is the slow motion instant replay of the denialism in action.
And Bill is off again on a tangent to who knows where…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1436071
There really is something amiss.
If it was simply the case that libration in latitude was solely the result of the moon’s so-called "axial tilt" remaining oriented towards the same fixed star throughout the orbit, the angle of the moon’s orbital plane would not matter at all. It would be completely irrelevant to the issue. The moon’s orbital plane could be parallel to the ecliptic, and the libration in latitude would be exactly the same amount as it is with the orbital plane at 5.15 deg inclined.
Yet so many sources mention the tilt of the moon’s orbital plane with respect to the ecliptic as being part of the explanation for the libration. Enquiring minds would want to fully understand why that is…whereas others just follow their own confirmation bias…
Indeed the ecliptic plane is telling us where the SUN is relative to the Earth.
The sun’s position should not be relevant to libration (Earths view) of the Moon, other than its illumination.
But Cassini’s laws relate to the precession of rotational axes and orbital plane of the Moon around the ecliptic plane.
Enquiring minds would want to fully understand why that is…whereas others just follow their own confirmation bias…
…I guess we’re currently going with, "it’s just a mistake that has been propagated all over the internet".
> the basic form of the spinner object is that if an object precesses it must be that object is spinning on its central axis.
Is it, Gill?
A quote and a cite might be nice to support that idea.
“The 6.7 deg depends on the orbit inclination of 5.15 deg and the negative equatorial tilt of 1.54 deg.”
This is true.
You have to do more than quote, you have to understand the logic.
The logic of the sources that explain the mechanism is pretty consistent:
“The latitudinal libration of the Moon occurs because its axis is tilted slightly, relative to the plane of its orbit around the Earth; this makes the Moons north and south poles apparently alternate in tipping slightly toward the Earth as the Moon moves through its orbit.”
and
“The lunar libration in latitude is due to the Moons axis being slightly inclined relative to the Earths axis. From our angle we can at one time peek over the north pole of the Moon, and then later in the lunar month we peek under the south pole.”
Similar logic here:
“Libration in latitude results from a slight inclination (about 6.7) between the Moons axis of rotation and the normal to the plane of its orbit around Earth. Its origin is analogous to how the seasons arise from Earths revolution about the Sun.”
your source
Earthsky.org, is some kind of astronomy magazine.
While I do not see any logic in the first part:
“Libration in latitude is the moons north-south nodding. It results primarily from the approximate 5 degree tilt of the moons orbital plane with respect to the ecliptic (Earths orbital plane).”
But the LOGIC of the next part is similar to the other sources.
“Add to that, the approximate 1.5 degree tilt of the moons equator to the ecliptic, and you have the inclination of the moons equator to the plane of its orbit around Earth at some 6.5 degrees (5 + 1.5 = 6.5). Consequently, during the month, you can see about 6.5 degrees of latitude beyond the moons north pole, and a fortnight later, 6.5 degrees past the south pole.”
…I guess we’re still going with, "it’s just a mistake that has been propagated all over the internet".
” all over the internet” means in one or possibly two astronomy magazine?
The internet is full of both information and misinformation.
One as be able to do more than quote mining, one has to make logical sense of what one finds.
…I guess we’re definitely going with, "it’s just a mistake that has been propagated all over the internet”. Some people obviously haven’t searched very hard…including within their own links, in the case of the Wikipedia entry…
Not really…
“Libration in latitude results from a slight inclination (about 6.7) between the Moon’s axis of rotation and the normal to the plane of its orbit around Earth. Its origin is analogous to how the seasons arise from Earth’s revolution about the Sun. Galileo Galilei is sometimes credited with the discovery of the lunar libration in latitude in 1632,[3] although Thomas Harriot or William Gilbert might have done so before.[5] Note Cassini’s laws. It can reach 650′ in amplitude.[4] The 6.7 depends on the orbit inclination of 5.15 and the negative equatorial tilt of 1.54. Latitudal libration allows an observer on Earth to view beyond the Moon’s north pole and south pole at different phases of the Moon’s orbit.[2]”
All that they say at Wiki on the topic.
I now understand why the ecliptic keeps being referenced.
The ecliptic plane is simply the standard point of reference (0 deg) on the celestial sphere.
The tilt angles of the lunar orbital plane and equatorial plane from the ecliptic plane (0) are known to be 5.15 deg and -1.54 deg.
These are simply used to FIND the difference between them (6.7 deg).
Again the mechanism is clearly explained to be the Moon’s axial tilt wrt to the normal to its orbital plane. Which is EQUAL TO the angular difference between the lunar equatorial plane and its orbital plane.
The 6.7 deg.
So that there is no mistake.
This issue of whether the Moon has a rotational axis, which is tilted from its orbital ‘axis’, which can be observed thru latitudinal libration seems to be resolved.
Unless people come up with yet another flimsy excuse, the Moon rotates on its own axis.
Last word, that indicates nothing has changed.
Looks like the denial will continue, no rationale needed…
…word, that indicates nothing has changed.
Good thread. I think we learned some things. Sorry it didn’t turn out well for the non-spinner cause.
…that indicates nothing has changed.
A short story about Apollo
Yesterday I read in a French newspaper that Edwin Eugene “Buzz” Aldrin, now aged 93, has married his “longtime love” Anca Faur. Wonderful story.
*
Mr Aldrin wasn’t only a USAF major and an astronaut; he was also a sciency guy, and received 50 years ago his PhD from MIT with a dissertation on ‘Line-of-Sight Guidance Techniques for Manned Orbital Rendezvous’, in which lunar landing and launching processes were discussed:
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/12652/28555330-MIT.pdf
In the reference list, we see
Houbolt, J. C. , “Luna-Orbit Rendezvous and Manned Lunar
Landing, ” Astronautics, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1962
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/JCHoubolt1961LunarOrbitRendezvous19780070033.pdf
*
And therein, we see
” Launch and injection phase of rendezvous
Launch of the lunar lander is initiated when the elevation of the line of sight between the lander and orbiting vehicle reaches an appropriate range of values .
Corrections during launch for offset of the launch point from the orbital plane of the orbiting vehicle are minimized by use of the near equatorial lunar orbit mentioned previously and by selection of the landing point with consideration of the stay time and the rotational rate of the moon. ”
*
Yeah.
One more of these poor guy who were long, long time ago already ” unable to grasp the simple fact that the non-spinner position is: ‘yes the moon rotates. It rotates on the COM of the earth’ (© Hunter – one of the boasting Super-Specialists in lunar science) “.
Incredible, but it is as it is.
*
Nothing will let the lunar spin deniers change their meaning, even if the JWST team would show us LIVE pictures of Pluto and Charon synchronously orbiting and rotating.
They behave exactly like Flatearthists who say
” Don’t show us images of Earth taken from your ISS: we know it is all fake, as are all Earth images taken from the Moon. “
Should read of course
” … and received 60 years ago … “
Nice find.
I’m sure he got it all wrong 60 y ago because of global warming politics. Or because he was brainwashed by textbook physics and engineering, and couldn’t think for himself. Or because the translator got it wrong.
“Nothing will let the lunar spin deniers change their meaning, even if the JWST team would show us LIVE pictures of Pluto and Charon synchronously orbiting and rotating“
I already see this animation:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Pluto-Charon_System.gif
…and do not see axial rotation. So what difference would live pictures make?
” So what difference would live pictures make? ”
For you very certainly none, because you will deny the axial rotation even if its is visible.
Bindidon, study the linked GIF.
Is the supposed axial rotation visible to you there?
If yes, then that’s the point I’m making. "Spinners" see axial rotation where "Non-Spinners" just see change in orientation due to "orbit without spin". "Live pictures" change nothing. You still appear to be missing the fundamental difference between our ways of looking at the issue. Yet whenever I point out that others still don’t seem to get it I’m accused of gaslighting. Oh well.
> change in orientation
Aka, “rotation” or “spin”.
🤦
Sure, "rotation"…but not necessarily on its own internal axis. So no face palm emoji required.
[GEOMETRY GRAHAM] not necessarily on its own internal axis.
[ALSO GEOMETRY GRAHAM] you *cannot* combine rotation about an external axis, with rotation about an internal axis, and get motion like the MOTL.
Emphasis in the original text.
Exactly…and no contradiction, for those familiar with the English language.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1435383
Yes, anyone can see that comment, by just scrolling down a tad. You can stop responding, now.
Pseudomod
I don’t study animations. Worthless job, as is shown by the ridiculous MOTL/MOTR stuff, of which none depicts the reality.
Fantastic contribution. Worth talking to you, as always.
A note on the “MOTL/MOTR” stuff Binny is talking about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Readers might note how Geometry Graham always skips the emphasized bit.
“Tidal locking” is the same kind of nonsense. It’s a belief, probably from astrology, that doesn’t pass the “sniff” test.
If a moon is actually rotating on its axis, gravity can not stop it.
Fantastic contribution, Pup.
I’m sure the always constructive Geometry Graham applauds it.
I never skip it. In fact I frequently point out that “Spinners” believe “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once more:
Every time he appeals to the concepts of his pet GIF he fails to mention that this is a GIF about spin-orbit lock.
At least now (for a limited time only perhaps) he’s willing to concede that all he got is his impressions that the Moon does not spin.
It’s just a GIF of two different motions that happen to be fundamental to the debate. It comes from the tidal locking page, but I could have made my own GIF of the two motions independently. It wouldn’t have changed anything. The motions are what’s important, not where it comes from.
Gaslighting Graham does not always minimize why he appeals to his pet GIF, but when he does he still does not mention that this is a freaking GIF illustrating the very thing he denies.
Anything I say and do will always be wrong, according to Little Willy. My, has that got old. My guess is that this pointless back and forth will have to end with a PST. Otherwise he will just go on and on, indefinitely.
Gull Graham can stop playing the victim now.
One way would be to stop responding.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
binny…”Corrections during launch for offset of the launch point from the orbital plane of the orbiting vehicle are minimized by use of the near equatorial lunar orbit mentioned previously and by selection of the landing point with consideration of the stay time and the rotational rate of the moon…”
***
You obviously did not read much of either document, you were more concerned with a text search looking FOR rotation.
It states in the first document that the reference frame is based on the lunar orbiter. Once again, it will be using a gyro system to orient it to the stars, not the Moon. Therefore, the reference to rotation is a reference to the Moon rotating about the Earth and not a rotation about a local axis.
You need to get it that the Moon is moving at about 1 km/s in its orbit. The orbit for the lunar orbiter in the second link is the lunar equator. Since the orbiter is referenced to the stars, the Moon will appear to be rotating since the orbiter will see different facets of it wrt the stars. What it is seeing , however, is the Moon moving past the stars in its orbit.
No local rotation.
Robertson
I overlooked your ridiculous answer, based on the usual 100% denial of evidence.
When the author writes
” … with consideration of the stay time and the rotational rate of the moon … ”
then he means THE ROTATIONAL RATE OF THE MOON, Robertson, whether you like it or not.
Your reference frame idiocy is completely useless.
Geometry Graham displays once again his psychology more than a mastery of logic, or even geometry.
The fact that the Moon spins has NOTHING (H/T Pup) with how we perceive the phenomenon. It has EVERYTHING to do with how we get a coherent model based on physics.
NOBODY cares about Moon Dragon crank psychology. At least for now. When they’ll be able to publish a model, we’ll see.
So where is their physical (better yet, numerical) model in which the Moon orbits but does not spin?
"Geometry Graham displays once again his psychology more than a mastery of logic, or even geometry."
A simple insult, to be ignored.
Gaslighting Graham does not always ignores an insult, but when he does that’s the only thing to which he responds.
Petty nonsense, to be ignored.
Gaslighting Graham does not always ignores a comment, but when he does he responds to it.
If I don’t let you know I’m ignoring your comment, how would you know I’m choosing to ignore it, and not just absent from the debate for some reason?
Gaslighting Graham does not always ignore a comment, but when he does he responds to it.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
REMINDER
Almost if not all celestial bodies known to mankind spin:
https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24933181-200-where-does-the-spin-of-celestial-objects-come-from-the-big-bang
… and last not least, something strange in the accretion disks of young stars was / is responsible for the spin:
” If these potential wells and all the matter falling into them had all been perfectly spherically symmetric (that is, symmetric along any axis) then there would be no spin.
However, when one atom doesn’t fall towards the very centre of the well, it produces a tiny torque, which becomes accentuated as the clump of matter collapses.
This is due to the conservation of angular momentum, observed when a figure skater spins faster as they pull in their arms. “
Braindead bin. gravity can NOT produce torque on a celestial body.
You know NOTHING.
Wanna bet, Pup?
If you stop commenting for three months, I will tell you how.
I get enough of your immature nonsense, worthless willard. Why would I want more?
Alternatively, Pup, do the Pole Dance Experiment.
“The big bang gave linear motion. Gravity turned it into orbital motion.”
***
Whatever happened to science where scientists were willing to admit they don’t know? Sorry, I forgot, not knowing doesn’t get a scientist any funding.
Still, you have to be seriously desperate to offer a lame theory like the Big Bang. Only wee willy could believe such nonsense.
“Whatever happened to science where scientists were willing to admit they dont know?”
Whatever happened to non-scientists that were willing to admit that there is a lot of science that they don’t know much about?
The list of things that are true because the non-spinners have declared them to be true, just keeps on growing.
‘Orbit is defined as a rotation
‘A rotation cannot be defined’
‘A rotation used to be defined by Madhavi as a circular movement around an axis, but that is no longer true’
‘Axial tilt does not require an axis to exist’
‘The non existent axis doesnt point to a fixed point among the stars anymore’
‘The non existent axis changes its tilt by 13.36 degrees’
‘The tilt of the orbital plane must be the reason for the majority of the libration in latitude.’
Unfortunately none of these truths have any evidence to back them up.
Troll Nate, we really don’t need any more evidence of your confusion, but thanks anyway.
Oooh you skewered me there….and yet, still no evidence supplied.
The CO2 content in earth’s atmosphere is very small to consider CO2 as the earth’s climate danger.
–
Actually, CO2 does nothing to earth’s climate.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ozone is only a trace gas in the atmosphere with a concentration of 0.3 ppm, nevertheless it traps 98% of incoming UV light.
Why do you hate science?
RuFuS, CO2 is NOT ozone.
Why do you hate science?
C00kie is not big on consistency.
Why does he hate logic?
>CO2 is NOT ozone.
And that’s a good thing because, whilst stratospheric ozone is highly desirable, it is an injurious pollutant in near-surface air.
“Ozone is only a trace gas in the atmosphere with a concentration of 0.3 ppm, nevertheless it traps 98% of incoming UV light”.
***
Then why to people get skin cancer?
“Ozone is only a trace gas in the atmosphere with a concentration of 0.3 ppm, nevertheless it traps 98% of incoming UV light.”
–
*****
Ozone does not trap incoming UV light !
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Allow me to clarify by being more specific then. Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs most (98%) of the UV-B.
Allow me to refute your false science, RuFuS,
Ozone does NOT absorb in the UV range. OXYGEN absorbs UV and converts to ozone. Ozone mainly absorbs/emits in the near IR and IR ranges.
Because you asked; UV-C is mostly absorbed by photo-dissociation of OXYGEN, and UV-B is mostly (98%) absorbed by the resulting Ozone.
Believe what you wish.
Thanks for (partially) correcting your error, RuFuS.
That’s better than no correction.
Believe what you wish, but why do you hate science?
“Allow me to clarify by being more specific then. Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs most (98%) of the UV-B.”
–
****
Ozone does not absorb UV-B !
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
As you wish.
The 98% which is allegedly said gets absorbed by ozone has never been emitted by sun.
Ozone in stratosphere does not absorb something that is not emitted by sun.
–
The story about ozone absorbing UV-B is just an early 20th century assertion, which is never been confirmed.
–
Now the story about ozone is widely used to support another never proven assertion, about the CO2 trace gas in earth’s atmosphere being the planet earth’s climate changer !
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Have you ever seen a temperature profile of the atmosphere?
Above the tropopause, temperature rises in the stratosphere due to absorp-tion by this “early 20th century assertion” you claim has never been confirmed.
Believe what you wish, but don’t deny science.
“Above the tropopause, temperature rises in the stratosphere.”
–
*****
Another assertion – interesting, how do you measure the temperature of the almost vacuum, how do you measure the temperature of the not existing gasses ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It’s interesting that you ask those questions considering that Dr Roy Spencer’s post at the top of this page gives you a clue as to how that might be done.
You should try reading Dr Spencer’s posts, if for no other reason then, out of courtesy.
Believe as you wish, but don’t deny science.
Science is refuting conjectures, right ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
On January 18 at 8:57 AM You wrote “Science is all about confirming conjectures.”
Now you are saying “Science is refuting conjectures, right ?”
You have supported two diametrically opposed positions in the span of five days.
That is the definition of trolling, so I must bid you farewell.
Maybe you just don’t understand science, RuFuS.
See, science can be either confirming or denying conjectures, depending on the conjectures.
Thanks, Christos. Most of us know that oxygen absorbs UV and converts it to ozone. If no UV got through we could not tan. Enough of it gets through to give serious burns and cancer.
Gordon Robertson says:
January 17, 2023 at 8:04 PM
An easier way to put this is that the Man in the Moon always faces the direction normal to its instantaneous tangential velocity (i.e. perpendicular to the tangent). This is consistent with how race cars move.
Now let’s test this model for longitudinal libration against the observed value.
The semi-major axis of the Moons orbit is 384,400 km,
semi-minor is 383,800 km,
giving an eccentricity of 0.0559.
The focal points are thus 21,469 km to either side of center.
Maximum deflection will occur when the Moon coincides with the intersection of the orbital path and semi-minor axis, e.g. at the 12 oclock position.
Plugging 383,800 and 21,469 into the arctangent function gives an angle of 3.2 degrees maximum deflection. The observed deflection is 6.9 degrees, over twice as much.
Another problem with this model is that the normal line does not constantly intersect any single point throughout the orbit. It intersects each focus twice per orbit and the center four times per orbit and that’s it.
How does Gordon define an external axis of rotation which is constantly moving, and what is his physical justification for it doing so?
Finally there is the matter of angular velocity. Whether one defines the axis of rotation internally or externally, any rotation has a velocity. Therefore it has angular momentum.
A race car travelling an elliptical path at a constant speed experiences constantly changing angular momentum. An object in orbit constantly changes speed as well, adding another component to that change. Changing angular momentum requires torque. For the race-car that torque is straightforward to describe.
In Gordon’s model, what is the physical mechanism by which the Moon’s angular momentum changes as it orbits in its elliptical path?
All that nonsense just to end with your confusion about “angular momentum”, braindead brandon.
You could have saved your keyboard time by just saying you don’t understand any of this.
Having no answers to the serious issues with Gordon’s model, C00kie is reduced to saying stuff.
I was referring to your confusion about angular momentum. I always enjoy your ignorance of physics.
Note that C00kie still doesn’t state what the “confusion” is. Nor does he provide a reference to substantiate my “confusion”.
He just says stuff. Because he has NOTHING.
A “race car travelling an elliptical path” has no angular momentum. Moon has no angular momentum. You have NO understanding of the relevant physics. And you can’t learn because you’re braindead brandon.
Not for the first time, C00kie gets confused who is who in these conversations.
Let him find a physics textbook which states that an object changing orientation with respect to an inertial reference frame has no angular momentum. If he does he gets a Cracker.
He won’t be able to because there are none.
He has NOTHING.
The reason you wouldn’t find nonsense like that in a physics book is because physics books ain’t for idiots.
Just like you couldn’t find in a physics book that ice cubes can’t boil water.
Some things just don’t need to be spelled out….
Quite right C00kie, no physics textbook would contain the nonsense you and Gordon spew that an object rotating about any axis doesn’t have angular momentum.
Prove me wrong and you get Cracker.
When an immature troll misrepresents me, there’s no further need to prove him wrong.
Clintionary
‘no further need to prove’
-Clint has neither the facts nor the ability to prove..
Similar to:
‘You don’t understand any of this’
-Clint doesnt understand any of it.
Troll Nate, I always forget about you, so thanks for the reminder.
You know NOTHING about science, so I always laugh when you attempt it, like when you claimed 4ea 1-sq. meter plates absorbing 240 W/m^2 would mean they absorb 3840 W!
You braindead cult idiots make this so much fun.
Everyone here uses the Clintionary to translate what you say into to English
“You know NOTHING about science”
– Clint knows nothing about science.
Clint-speak is an easy language to learn.
Rather than do all the math, why don’t you simply draw it then confirm it? Draw an ellipse with its two focal points. Draw a line from each focal point to the intercept of the semi-major axis. The axis is the bisector. Confirm that a line orthogonal to that line is the tangent line.
Now do it at apogee and perigee. The radial line is parallel to the major axis. I’m confident that if you try orbital positions in-between those positions the bisector of the angle will be the radial line that is orthogonal to the tangent line at that point.
There is another way to reason this. The major axis, a, and the semi-major axis, b, are what give the ellipse its shape wrt to a circle. With a circle, a = b = 1, leaving the circle equation: x^2 + y^2 = r^2.
It’s an interesting exercise. the ellipse is defined as all point where the distance from each focal point to a point on the ellipse is constant. I have not verified this but that would suggest the bisector of the angle formed is the radial line to any point on the ellipse.
With regard to your point about angular momentum, you need to explain how a body like the Moon with only linear momentum can acquire an angular momentum. Remember, a car has a steering wheel that directs the tires to turn the curve of a track. It depends on tire resistance to turn and if it’s not there the car will go straight off the track in a tangential direction.
A rotating mass attached to a rigid connecting rod has an angular momentum because it has a torque delivered by the connecting rod. The Moon has no such torque. Both have an angular velocity, w. The Moon has no angular velocity.
Gordon,
> Rather than do all the math, why dont you simply draw it then confirm it?
I did the math to test how close your model comes to observation. The result is less than half the observed value. None of what you write in your lengthy reply addresses that discrepancy.
> I have not verified this but that would suggest the bisector of the angle formed is the radial line to any point on the ellipse.
I take it that you mean every line normal (or perpendicular, or orthogonal if you wish) to a tangent on the ellipse passes through the center of the ellipse. That’s only true for a very special sort of ellipse: a circle. Otherwise it isn’t true.
Thus your model lacks a single axis of rotation and the whole OMWAR concept collapses in a heap.
> A rotating mass attached to a rigid connecting rod has an angular momentum because it has a torque delivered by the connecting rod. The Moon has no such torque.
Torque is necessary to *change* angular momentum. Lack of torque does not mean lack of angular momentum.
My previous argument on this point stands without amendment.
Your model has serious issues. Try actually addressing them in your next response.
"…the whole OMWAR concept collapses in a heap."
Don’t be silly, Brandy Guts. OMWAR just means "orbital motion without axial rotation", or "orbit without spin". Both sides of the debate have their own idea of what it is…so the concept cannot possibly collapse in a heap, unless you’re trying to say you don’t think there’s any such thing as "orbit without spin" – which would be truly bizarre and make absolutely no sense.
"Thus your model lacks a single axis of rotation…"
Gordon doesn’t see the moon as rotating about an external axis. He still sees it as one single motion ("orbiting") but he describes that as translational, not rotational. Yes, I know, I know…
Glossing Graham Glides over the fact that Gordon’s model at least provides some longitudinal libration, albeit less than half of what is observed while OMWAR provides ZERO.
But he’s open-minded to the possiblity that a model which performs worse than the given alternative is really the best one.
We should all aspire to Geometry Graham’s Gullibility!
Brandy Guts shows his stupidity again. I literally just explained to him what OMWAR was, but he repeats his confusion in another comment, showing that he cannot learn a thing!
You don’t seem to understand what OMWAR is, Brandy Guts. OMWAR isn’t the “Non-Spinners” model of a ball on a string. OMWAR is simply “orbital motion without axial rotation”. The “Spinners” think it’s motion more like the MOTR, and the “Non-Spinners” think it’s motion more like the MOTL. So the “Non-Spinners” model for OMWAR might be the ball on a string, and the “Spinners” can’t decide what their model for it is, but you are still using the term wrongly.
If OMWAR can explain both observed lunar librations, now would be the time for Gymnastically Gibbering Graham to do it.
Since you’re still using the term incorrectly, what you’re asking makes no sense. Try again.
If [whatever he wants to call his model of lunar motion] can explain both observed lunar librations, now would be the time for Gymnastically Gibbering Graham to do it.
Sweet weeping Ge$u$ on the Gibbet.
Just trying to help you understand the absolute basics, Brandy Guts.
As for your request…well, I no longer do requests. Unless you agree to call me DREMT for the rest of the time you comment here.
His bullsh!t called out for what it is, Galloping Graham Gyrates away, victorious in his own mind yet again.
If you say so, Brandy Guts.
And there are plenty of other sources that make the mechanism crystal clear:
DREMT will need to make sure and cover his eyes to ignore all of these.
“Libration in latitude results from a slight inclination (about 6.7) between the Moon’s axis of rotation and the normal to the plane of its orbit around Earth.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
“The latitudinal libration of the Moon occurs because its axis is tilted slightly, relative to the plane of its orbit around the Earth; this makes the Moon’s north and south poles apparently alternate in tipping slightly toward the Earth as the Moon moves through its orbit.”
https://www.britannica.com/science/libration
https://www.wwu.edu/astro101/a101_lunarlibration.shtml
Just so many for the TEAM to ignore.
“What about latitudinal librations? These motions mainly result from the 7-degree tilt of the Moon’s rotational axis relative to its orbital plane (like seasons on the Earth).”
https://sparky.rice.edu/public-night/libration.html
“The lunar libration in latitude is due to the Moon’s axis being slightly inclined relative to the Earth’s axis. From our angle we can at one time peek over the north pole of the Moon, and then later in the lunar month we peek under the south pole.”
https://www.wwu.edu/astro101/a101_lunarlibration.shtml
Troll Nate has found 4-5 different links about “libration”, and he still can’t understand it.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Libration is NOT an actual movement of Moon. Libration is an APPARENT motion, as observed from Earth. The illusion of movement comes from Moon’s elliptical/slanted orbit. It has fooled astrologers for centuries, and continues even today.
Yes, Clint, you are very much right !
Except that Pup is wrong, Christos:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
Please stick to drive-bys.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1436078
Pseudomod
I know it might be useless because
– you probably won’t understand the text
and because
– even if you would understand it, you wouldn’t accept it.
Nonetheless, try to at least understand Eckhardt’s intro of his paper
Theory of the libration of the moon
Eckhardt, D. H.
Moon and the Planets, vol. 25, Aug. 1981, p. 3-49.
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1981M%26P….25….3E&letter=0&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=3&epage=3&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf
The librations in latitude is wonderfully explained.
*
I hope you won’t start reading this like did Robertson years ago, as I uploaded my translation of the intro of Lagrange’s treatise
Théorie de la libration de la Lune
in English
Theory of Moon’s libration
and this dumb ignoramus stopped reading immediately after the title and wrote:
” Do you see what I mean, binny? Lagrange’s treatise is about libration, not about rotation! “.
The 7 pages long intro contained the word ‘rotation’ 18 times…
*
Hopefully you take some longer time before giving up.
Apologies: I forgot the dumb scanner.
https://tinyurl.com/568vv5mf
Thanks, but I don’t need an explanation of the libration in latitude.
I need an explanation for the differing accounts of the explanations of the libration in latitude.
Why do some accounts mention the inclination of the lunar orbital plane as part of the explanation, and some do not?
> Yet so many sources mention the tilt of the moons orbital plane with respect to the ecliptic as being part of the explanation for the libration.
I’m pretty sure they’re wrong. The reason being that inclination of an orbital plane is essentially arbitrary; one can set the reference plane to be whatever is most appropriate for the situation. For instance, the most common reference plane for artificial Earth-orbiting satellites is Earth’s equatorial plane.
For latitudinal libration all that matters is the axial tilt of the body with respect to its orbital plane. For the ball on a string, its axis of rotation is always perpendicular to its orbital plane no matter whether that orbital plane is horizontal with respect to the ground, perpendicular to it, oriented north, south, east or west, etc., and thus it will have zero latitudinal libration. Zero longitudinal as well.
"I’m pretty sure they’re wrong."
Then that’s an awful lot of online references that are wrong. Have a look for yourself. Even the Wikipedia entry mentions:
"The 6.7 deg depends on the orbit inclination of 5.15 deg and the negative equatorial tilt of 1.54 deg"
If it’s a mistake, then it’s one that’s been propagated all over the internet.
> Then thats an awful lot of online references that are wrong.
The are an awful lot of references that state the Moon rotates on its own axis, yet you reject all of them.
Even you should be able to figure out the right answer here, Geometry Graham.
So the right answer is: you’re rejecting all the references that state the libration of latitude is mostly due to the lunar orbital inclination, due to your confirmation bias; and you wrongly believe that is what I do with the references stating the moon rotates on its own axis?
Yes.
Now can you fault my argument or not.
I’ll just let the readers conclude as they wish, Brandy Guts.
I should clarify, my “yes” answer refers to:
> youre rejecting all the references that state the libration of latitude is mostly due to the lunar orbital inclination
not the rest of Guileless Graham’s complex question.
> Ill just let the readers conclude as they wish
Galloping Graham punts again.
Yes, I punt the ball hundreds of yards up the field and straight into that goal. What a win.
Does that mean next time you reject all the references which state the Moon rotates on its own axis I can declare vict0lly!!!, Generous Graham?
Well, that would be a non-sequitur, but it’s up to you.
I’m in desperate need of a synonym for hypocrite that begins with the letter “G”.
[DREMT] …and you wrongly believe…
[BRANDY GUTS] Yes.
> and you wrongly believe
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1436168
Oh, you slipped that into the discussion without me even noticing.
Again I repeat, can you fault my argument or not.
Or is it to be more quibbling, Gibbering Graham?
What argument!? You want the references involving the tilted orbital plane to be wrong…OK. Great.
> What argument!?
Gimballing Graham Gaslights himself again.
The point I’m making is that I don’t consider that you’ve made any valid argument.
Gerber Graham needs to be spoonfed. Let’s try again.
Imagine your head can rotate like Regan MacNeil’s. Attach a string to your nose, the other end of it to a ball. Make your head do the whirly thing. Note that no matter whether your head is perfectly perpendicular to the ground or not, the ball does not appear to change orientation in front of your eyes.
Conclusion: orbital inclination does not explain latitudinal libration.
This is *simple* Geometry. I can’t make it any simpler for you.
Oh, you were talking about your 2:58 PM comment. I had thought you were talking about your 3:23 PM comment, which is why I questioned that you had made any valid argument. Yes, of course I can see why it might seem like the orbital inclination shouldn’t matter to the libration in latitude…hence what I wrote in the main section of this comment, that the entire current thread is in response to:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1436078
So I did wonder why you were trying to explain back to me in your 2:58 PM comment what I had already taught you.
The thing is, it might not be so simple. Astronomy rarely is. There might be something we’re missing. That’s why I try to keep an open mind.
[Genial Graham] I try to keep an open mind.
[Geometry Graham] The internal axis is non-existent.
I keep more of an open mind than do any of the "Spinners", Brandy Guts.
So open that you accept a model which utterly fails to explain observed reality.
It’s not something to be proud of.
See?
🤦
Brandy Guts seems very, very obsessed about “models”. The idea is that the ball on a string is a model of “orbit without spin”, not that it’s supposed to exactly model the moon’s motion…he’s got himself into a right old state recently.
Obviously both the ball on a string, and the moon, keep the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit. Yes, there are various small differences, but that doesn’t change the fact that OMWAR, out of the two possible options, is as per the MOTL. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
🤦🤦
Brandy Guts, please stop trolling.
Thanks for the win, Genial Graham.
Argument Loser Brandy Guts, please stop trolling.
Gracious Graham does not always declare VICT0LLY!!!11111, but when he does it isn’t trolling.
#2
Brandy Guts, please stop trolling.
More confusion from braindead brandon: “For the ball on a string, its axis of rotation is always perpendicular…”
The ball on a string has no axis of rotation because it has no axial rotation. Just like Moon.
> The ball on a string has no axis of rotation
Non-spinners define it as an external axis. C00kie can’t even keep his own dogma straight.
Such a Cl0wn.
Some Non-Spinners use different terminologies trying to explain things to braindead Spinners. But, it’s always futile. That’s why I only use “rotating” (or “spinning”) for axial rotation.
The ball-on-a-string is only not rotating, same as Moon.
Yeah, but it has no axis of rotation internal to the ball itself. Which is what you were talking about, if you were to be honest with yourself.
Regardless how you define the rotational axis, it will be perpendicular to the plane of orbit.
That is all that matters for the issue of latitudinal libration. The fact that the real Moon exhibits it is another nail in the coffin for your external axis of rotation model.
No wonder you are Gyrating away from the issue with your silly mind-probing.
Hard for a non-existent axis to be perpendicular to the orbital plane or otherwise, Brandy Guts. It’s non-existent.
Which part of “Regardless how you define the rotational axis” didn’t you understand, Grammar Graham.
Define it how you wish. Tell me that it isn’t perpendicular to the orbital plane of the ball, or shut up.
The internal axis is non-existent. Which would be the axis pertinent to this discussion.
> The internal axis is non-existent.
Except that the real Moon exhibits a latitudinal libration consistent with an internal axis of rotation that is not perpendicular to its orbital plane.
As usual, Geometry Graham has no explanation for this. For reasons unknown his ball on a string wriggles back and forth on an internal axis tangent to its orbital path, and despite this he is WINNING!!!!1111
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1435557
And how does that explain latitudinal librations, Grasping Graham? Where are the calculations showing the pertubations which result from the gravitational influences of various other celestial bodies?
Or is Bill just saying stuff again.
Which part of the libration in latitude do you think needs explaining? The part supposedly due to the moon’s tilted orbit or the part supposedly due to the moon’s tilted “axis”? I thought the part supposedly due to the “axial tilt” was quite clearly explained in Bill’s comment. The moon moves that way in its orbit due to the effect of the Sun’s gravitational pull.
We all agree that the moon moves as it is observed to move. What we are looking for are explanations as to why. Just saying that the moon moves as though it has an axis of rotation that remains oriented towards the same fixed star throughout the orbit is a description, not an explanation.
🤦
“Just saying that the moon moves as though it has an axis of rotation that remains oriented towards the same fixed star throughout the orbit is a description, not an explanation…”
…and I’m not even sure if it’s an accurate description. Since nobody has been able to so far come up with a simple explanation as to how the moon’s so-called “pole stars” have been determined.
https://tenor.com/vniC.gif
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Since nobody has been able to so far come up with a simple explanation as to how the moons so-called pole stars have been determined.”
Baloney.
Why does Gaslightig Graham start so many new threads on such worthless crap?
He uses this blog like it’s his own personal toilet roll.
Gaslightig? Who’s Gaslightig?
Why does Gaslightig Graham respond with so many new comments with so many worthless questions?
He uses this blog like its his own personal toilet roll.
This old argument winner has won far too many argies to be lowering himself to Little Willy’s level today.
Argument winner? Who’s Argentinian?
Argies, with a hard "G" sound. Short for arguments.
Readers already noticed that Gaslightig Graham was short of arguments.
“For” not “of”. Almost.
Gaslightig Graham is short of argument again.
Little Willy wants an argie about nothing again.
Gaslightig Graham gaslights again.
You wish.
Gaslightig Graham gaslights more and more.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1436249
Yes, that is a link to a comment I made. Well done.
(－‸ლ)
Little Willy pokes himself in the eye.
Gregarious Graham imitates Mike Flynn.
Little Willy, please stop trying to troll.
Pretty clearly this Moon issue is over. The Spinners have lost. Many of them no longer comment about the issue, and the ones that do only offer repetitive, diversionary nonsense.
They’ve never been able to come up with a viable model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”, which means they had NOTHING from the start. The last straw was when they realized their own cult’s nonsense resulted in a change in the imaginary spin axis of over 13°!
It’s time for them to clean up the wall. They’ve thrown so much crap against it, it’s a real mess.
Pup, Pup,
Unless and until they produce a model of the motion of the Moon, Dragon cranks can’t win.
But if you did the Poll Dance Experiment, who knows?
Try it.
Here’s a viable model for OMWAR, C00kie:
https://youtu.be/Ye8mB6VsUHw?t=12
Enjoy.
“Pretty clearly this Moon issue is over”
Glad to hear it. Now you can leave us alone.
“Pretty clearly this Moon issue is over. The Spinners have lost“.
Absolutely, Clint R. Now, maybe they can leave us, and it, alone…instead of following us around everywhere we comment leaving bitchy little remarks.
grammie clone wrote:
Yes, the No-Spin cult lost, since they can’t explain “Libration in Latitude”, which is easy to demonstrate without complicated math or equipment.
There could be a "libration in latitude" for a moon moving like the MOTR, Swanson.
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting a little more.
Suppose the MOTR’s internal rotational axis was inclined by 6.7 degrees to its orbital plane, and this axis pointed towards the same spot on the celestial sphere throughout the orbit…you would have a libration in latitude for the MOTR as viewed from Earth.
grammie pups, Yes, one would see more of the North Pole end on one part of the orbit and less on the opposite part, but then one would not see the same view of the Moon because your MOTR is not rotating, according to you.
"…but then one would not see the same view of the Moon"
True. You’d even see the MOTR rotating on its own axis, directly, from Earth.
Glad you agree that the MOTR could have a libration in latitude. Thus you should logically agree that the existence of a libration in latitude does not prove that an object is rotating on its own axis, or not.
Geometry Graham is correct that a libration in latitude does not prove oblique axial rotation *in and of itself*, but not as a result of his “logic” here because under his model, MOTR *is* spinning on its own axis.
…and under Swanson’s model, it isn’t. Yet he agreed that the MOTR could have a libration in latitude. Thus he should logically agree that the existence of a libration in latitude does not prove that an object is rotating on its own axis, or not.
Irrespective of what others say, you are still responsible for your own logic, Geometry Graham. And since MOTR is spinning according to you, your “logic” flops.
As for ES, he said “your MOTR is not rotating”, which indicates some confusion on his part and not necessarily any logical inconsistency.
…but it’s not irrespective of what others say. That’s the point. It was dependent on the fact that Swanson had agreed the MOTR could have a libration in latitude, and that he thinks the MOTR is not rotating on its own axis. Geez Louise you people have to try and pick holes in anything.
The MOTR is not rotating, has no rotational axis nor a North or South Pole, and no libration.
It doesnt explain anything about our Moon’s libration.
grammie pups fails to understand what I wrote.
Yes, if there is a tilted axis, then one would see more of the NP on one half of the orbit than on the other side. BUT, the non-rotating MOTR does not result in the Moon’s real Libration in Latitude, where an observer sees the effect of the tilt while the Moon’s rotation results in one side being viewed. Besides, it’s the location of the rotational axis which defines the NP and SP locations.
The No-Spin cult can’t have it both ways, either the Moon rotates with a tilted axis or an observer won’t observe the real Libration in Latitude.
Take a long, tall glass. Move it around the outside of a circular table. In the center of the table, have a video camera that can rotate on its own axis to follow the motion of the glass. Make the glass move as per the MOTR. Now, tilt the glass a fraction. Keeping the axial tilt always oriented towards the same point in the room, move the glass in a circle again, as per the MOTR.
Watch the footage from the camera – oh look, a libration in latitude! You can see more of the top of the glass at some points, and more of the bottom of the glass at others.
The MOTR could display a libration in latitude.
> Geez Louise you people have to try and pick holes in anything.
You say the funniest sh!t sometimes.
Define any axis on MOTR that you want. Set your point of view at the center of the orbit.
As MOTR circles around you, the endpoints of your chosen axes will *appear* to move horizontally across the face but stay stationary in the vertical. So even though you’ve arbitrarily defined latitude bands out of the orbital plane, MOTR won’t actually look like it’s nodding up and down.
The MOTR glass would look like it was nodding up and down, and rotating on its own axis.
Geometry Graham flunks another one. The points where his poles meet the surface will trace circles exactly parallel with the orbital plane. Same for any axis he cares to define. The only up down motion an observer would see is due to parallax because the circles are not concentric. Because the distance of the Moon to Earth relative to its diameter is quite large, that parallax is quite small.
The MOTR glass would look like it was nodding up and down, and rotating on its own axis, Brandy Guts. Do the experiment for yourself, if you don’t believe me.
Since you’ve done the experiment how about you show us the footage.
grammie pups continues to fail geometry. His latest delusion ignores the fact that the rotation of the MOTR does not present the same face toward the observer, so his result has nothing to do with the Moon’s “Libration in Latitude”.
No, I haven’t done the experiment. I don’t need to. I can visualize it all just fine without actually doing it. It’s you that seems to have doubts.
So…off you go.
> I havent done the experiment.
How did I know.
"His latest delusion ignores the fact that the rotation of the MOTR does not present the same face toward the observer"
Ah, so you agree that the MOTR is rotating on its own axis. Excellent.
Swanson, the relevant point is, can you see the bottom of the glass, at some points, and then the top of the glass, at others? Yes, you can. So that’s a "libration in latitude". It doesn’t matter that you can see all sides of the glass.
> MOTR is rotating on its own axis
Notice how Grammar Graham inserts words ES did not write.
I just go with my knowledge of the vocabulary of the person I’m talking to, Brandy Guts. Swanson doesn’t specify "on its own axis", he always uses "rotate" to mean "rotate on its own axis".
If I’m wrong, I’m sure Swanson can correct me.
However, if he meant "the rotation of the MOTR" as in rotation about an external axis, then he necessarily agrees that the MOTR is rotating about an internal axis as well, anyway. He would have to have said, "the translation of the MOTR" in order to stick with the "Spinner" way of looking at things.
So it’s not looking good for Swanson, either way.
> if he meant “the rotation of the MOTR” as in rotation about an external axis, then he necessarily agrees that the MOTR is rotating about an internal axis as well
If by whiskey Guzzling Graham means “the non-rotation of MOTL” as in non-rotation about an internal axis, then he necessarily agrees that the MOTL is not rotating about an external axis as well.
That doesn’t follow, Brandy Guts. Bless you. You try so hard, and fail every time.
Of course it doesn’t follow Goofball Graham. That was the point.
…but what I said does follow. Since you have agreed that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL, you should understand that if you are describing motion like the MOTR as involving rotation about an external axis, you must also describe it as rotating about an internal axis.
“Now, tilt the glass a fraction”
DREMT is just clueless.
A glass has a defined axis of symmetry.
A spherical planet does not.
A planetary axis is only defined by its rotation. The MOTR does not rotate, and thus has no axis, no poles, and no rotation.
Any serious responses? Swanson, anything more to add?
Anyone going to argue with Brandy Guts?
“Geometry Graham is correct that a libration in latitude does not prove oblique axial rotation *in and of itself*…”
grammie pups still fails geometry. His mental model requires moving a glass around a circular table like his MOTR cartoon. That motion requires rotating the glass wrt his central camera observation point, one revolution per transit. The glass does not rotate around it’s central axis while the camera records a different side at each point around the table and thus can not represent the correct motion of the Moon.
The resulting motion does not represent the Moon’s Libration in Latitude.
Swanson has absolutely no understanding of the point being made, bless him. He’ll keep responding, no doubt.
We seek an alternative explanation for our Moon’s libration from the TEAM, something different from the standard model which requires the Moon to have axial rotation.
But they have none to offer.
Instead they try to discuss something completely different, a non-rotating body with no axis of rotation and no libration.
They can discuss that different thing all they want but it can’t help explain what we see OUR rotating Moon doing. Thus it is pure obfuscation.
Any serious responses?
Anyone going to argue with Brandy Guts?
“Geometry Graham is correct that a libration in latitude does not prove oblique axial rotation *in and of itself*…”
Have no answers? Wanna keep obfuscasting? Just pretend no said anything.
Troll Handbook Chapter V section 3
No? Nobody has anything serious to contribute? OK then.
grammie pups fails to reply, showing no interest in any serious contribution which points out that his MOTR cartoon (and derivatives) has nothing to do with the Moon’s motions, particularly, the Libration in Latitude.
See? Told you he’d keep replying.
> Since you have agreed that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL, you should understand that if you are describing motion like the MOTR as involving rotation about an external axis, you must also describe it as rotating about an internal axis.
I understand the logic, Graham. However, as I have pointed out before it leads to the absurdity that a cyclist’s feet are rotating with the pedals as their a$$ in the saddle does not. Or that the side bars on a steam locomotive are rotating even though they are fixed at both ends.
You have to think about what’s physically occurring. In the CSAItruth video, for instance, the MOTR is clearly recreated as the composition of two rotations, one about an external axis and one about an internal axis. That is unequivocal, as far as I’m concerned. That is simply how it’s been engineered. Two motions.
Now, if you performed a similar experiment, but with an XY plotter, to recreate the motion of the MOTR, and it simply moved the pen around in a circle and on the end of the pen you’d stuck a "model moon"…you’d be justified in describing that as a translation in a circle. It’s what’s actually physically happening. Just one single motion.
So the challenge is…what’s physically happening with "orbit without spin"? Is it physically correct to describe "orbit without spin" as motion like the MOTL, or the MOTR? A rotation about an external axis…or a translation in a circle…
grammie pups wrote:
Of course, we see grammie again makes no attempt to admit his total failure to model the Moon’s Libration in Latitude. And, I expect that grammie will continue his usual cartoon BS
OK, Swanson. Whatever you say.
“youd be justified in describing that as a translation in a circle. Its whats actually physically happening. Just one single motion.”
I’ll give DREMT points for realizing (unlike Bill) that there is more than one way to produce the MOTR motion.
The video mechanism with 2 cancelling rotations is not the only method. It could be 12.
> Is it physically correct to describe “orbit without spin” as motion like the MOTL, or the MOTR?
MOTR, because orbit with spin is the physically correct way to describe MOTL:
https://youtu.be/zs7x1Hu29Wc?t=168
The fragments continue with the same *two* motions they had the instant before the disc shattered: a translation and a rotation both centered on their respective COMs.
Ugh. OK, Brandy Guts (can’t be bothered to get into that again).
Sorry Geometry Graham, if you’re going to invoke Physics you must be prepared to Phace it.
“(cant be bothered to get into that again).”
In general the rule is DREMT is not to be bothered with contradictory facts, especially if he had no answers for them before.
Next month that’s going to be the fate of the latitudinal libration discussion.
Brandy Guts, if that settles the issue for you, then good for you. Personally, I think it’s absurd to divide a solid disc up into an infinite number of imaginary parts that are all rotating on their own axes, just because the disc itself is rotating on its own axis. All parts of the disc, before disintegration, are just rotating about an axis in the center of the CD, and not on their own internal axes. When the disc disintegrates, the parts fly off rotating on their own internal axes, and:
"The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different."
The tangential velocities of the parts of the body thrown off are different because they were rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, before disintegration.
“”The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.”
Tesla quote that never made sense.
Because angular motion = rotation = different tangential velocities on opposite sides of a body.
In essence he is saying rotation is not due to rotation because its due to rotation.
“All parts of the disc, before disintegration, are just rotating about an axis in the center of the CD, and not on their own internal axes.”
Sure, DREMT is saying if the pieces are part of a solid body rotating around its center, then it would be appropriate to say the parts are rotating around the center.
Thus if the Moon were part of a large solid disk rotating on its center, it might be appropriate to say it is rotating around the center.
”
When the disc disintegrates, the parts fly off rotating on their own internal axes”
Thus if we remove the Moon from its solid disk DREMT would say it is rotating on its own internal axis. That would be appropriate.
Well, once again, if nobody has anything serious to add, I guess that’s that…
Unacknowledged contradictions are built into the non-spinner scenario.
Now, of course, I would agree that the pieces flying off rotating, from the shattered disk in this beautiful video, have a different motion from the Moon. They have had part of their motion, the one holding them in orbit around the center, removed.
We could do the identical removal from the Moon’s motion, by shitting off gravity. Then the Moon would fly off tangentially, spinning on its own axis, just like the pieces from the shattered CD.
The motion that has been removed from both is the ORBITAL MOTION. The motion of orbiting around the center.
But is noteworthy that in both cases, with orbital motion removed, what remains is AXIAL ROTATION.
This clearly demonstrates that ORBITAL MOTION doesn’t contain any ROTATION.
And this makes physical sense. Because the force holding a body in orbit is a radial force, which simply bends the PATH of the body through space without changing its ORIENTATION..
Rotation is not part of orbital motion, except in some people’s imagination.
‘shitting off gravity’ Freudian slip!
Obviously meant ‘shutting off gravity’
…once again, if nobody has anything serious to add, I guess that’s that…
“nobody has anything serious ”
Whenever someone posts some some logic/facts that he has absolutely no answer for, DREMT covers his eyes and puts fingers in ears, and tries to pretend nobody posted any logic/facts that he has no answer for.
This is his ‘tell’. And we win the hand every time.
Just for the benefit of anyone reading:
“Non-Spinners” do not think “orbital motion” contains “spin”, or rotation about an internal axis. “Orbit” and “spin” are separate motions. I don’t know how many times this needs to be repeated.
A CD disintegrating has nothing to do with gravity being switched off. There is absolutely no relationship between the two scenarios.
So this is why I await a serious response. I’ve seen nothing so far to take seriously.
…and just to reiterate, for the thousandth time, the “Spinners” do include orientation in their concept of “orbit without spin” – they see it as motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the same fixed star, throughout. That is orientation! So they need to stop pretending that they keep orientation out of “orbit”, because they do not.
Shorter Gyrating Graham:
> Personally
JUst to reiterate, for the 47TH time, because some people just won’t listen, ORBIT is path thru space with no orientation or rotation rate specified.
That is why one has to add specifiers to the word, like ‘without axial rotation’ to SPECIFY the state of rotation of the body.
Without this ADDITIONAL information, the rotation state of an orbiting body is UNKOWN.
Astronomers do not know the rotation state of a body in orbit, just from the word ORBIT.
While not knowing makes some people quite uncomfortable, so they assign a rotation state, even its axis, to a body in orbit before learning what it is.
Oddly enough, these people call themselves Non-spinners.
…just to reiterate, for the thousandth time, the “Spinners” do include orientation in their concept of “orbit without spin” – they see it as motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the same fixed star, throughout. That is orientation! So they need to stop pretending that they keep orientation out of “orbit”, because they do not.
“A CD disintegrating has nothing to do with gravity being switched off. There is absolutely no relationship between the two scenarios.”
Well let’s see, when the CD disintegrated, the parts flew off with rotation appearing to conserve angular momentum.
Similarly if gravity switches off the Moon will fly off conserving angular momentum by continuing to rotate with the same rate.
So there is no obvious difference between the two situations.
The key point is that orbiting requires a radial force, which only curves the PATH of a body thru space and not its orientation.
"Shorter Gyrating Graham"
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“That is orientation! So they need to stop pretending that they keep orientation out of orbit, because they do not.”
Some people confuse themselves through great efforts.
Orientation is not specified by the word ORBIT. Just as gum chewing is not specified by the word WALK.
On the other hand if we specify ‘walk while chewing gum’ then the gum chewing is known.
This could not be simpler.
…to reiterate, for the thousandth time, the “Spinners” do include orientation in their concept of “orbit without spin” – they see it as motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the same fixed star, throughout. That is orientation! So they need to stop pretending that they keep orientation out of “orbit”, because they do not.
” So they need to stop pretending that they keep orientation out of orbit, because they do not.”
Some people simply cannot stop themselves from telling others what they think, even when others correct them.
They just keep declaring over and over, that something they WANT to be true, IS TRUE, as if that would change the facts.
It seems to be a serious, incurable condition.
It reminds me of the behavior of toddlers insisting, over and over, that ‘it is NOT bedtime’.
Some people get stuck in the toddler state of maturity.
…reiterate, for the thousandth time, the “Spinners” do include orientation in their concept of “orbit without spin” – they see it as motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the same fixed star, throughout. That is orientation! So they need to stop pretending that they keep orientation out of “orbit”, because they do not.
The question is whether one motion entails the other, Grammar Graham, not whether the description of an object’s motion includes one, both or either.
* neither
Great, wonderful, incredible, now please let’s stop talking.
DREMT has earned the LAST WORDING consolation prize again, for soldiering on in his beliefs against all facts and logic.
Now come and claim this prestigious award.
My stalker displays his usual hypocrisy…
The spinners are creating a false distinction that demonstrates vividly the inconsistencies in their belief system.
Here they point out in a video an exploding cd that the pieces spin away from the spinning axis.
however what is happening here is some of the angular momentum of each piece is converted to linear momentum or else the cd would not explode apart but would remain together rotating around the central axis.
So in effect they want to cherry pick when a rotation is a rotation and when it is not a rotation by cherry picking angular momentum they want to consider to be linear momentum. So the result is inconsistency in the application of their belief system. . . .a religious like transcendency that they can pick and choose as they please.
Bringing forth and supporting this ‘beautiful’ video as support for their spinner argument merely confirms how confused they are.
And how willing they are to anoint whatever they like as being a rotation without giving it any critical thought to it whatsoever.
“angular momentum of each piece is converted to linear momentum”
Bill just cannot do physics right.
“Bringing forth and supporting this ‘beautiful’ video as support for their spinner argument merely confirms how confused they are.
And how willing they are to anoint whatever they like as being a rotation without giving it any critical thought to it whatsoever.”
Exactly, Bill. “Spinners” find “evidence” for their cause in just about anything, regardless of the reality.
The TEAM is saying that if the pieces are part of a solid body rotating around its center, then it would be appropriate to say the parts are rotating around the center.
When the parts are no longer part of a solid body and independently rotating, the TEAM agrees the parts are spinning on their own axis.
But although the Moon is rotating, and not part of a larger body rotating around its center, it somehow escapes this same logic.
The TEAM seems to have no rationale for treating the Moon differently.
Exactly, Bill. “Spinners” find “evidence” for their cause in just about anything, regardless of the reality.
So the TEAM has no answers, rebuttals, just ad-homs.
They seem to have finally hit a dead end.
…Bill. “Spinners” find “evidence” for their cause in just about anything, regardless of the reality.
Nate says:
”When the parts are no longer part of a solid body and independently rotating, the TEAM agrees the parts are spinning on their own axis.”
All you are doing Nate is denying that a rotation around an external axis doesn’t exist. Yet you flip back and forth claiming angular momentum around and external axis and then disclaiming it.
You can solve your dilemma as long as you do what Tim suggests and stop winging it intuitively and actually do the math like any good physics teacher would tell his student to do in the lesson he is teaching.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1439368
“you flip back and forth ”
Not at all. Angular momentum is conserved. That’s consistent.
When you KEEP saying nonsense like ‘angular momentum is converted to linear momentum’, it just shows that you have a poor understanding of this topic.
As Tim noted, to you:
“The net linear momentum is still zero; the net angular momentum about the center is still 2 x (ML^2)(omega). Nothing is converted in to anything by simply releasing them.
Do the math! Dont just intuitively wing it.”
Seeing as how apparently you guys missed 7th grade algebra I did the math for you here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1439567
You did the math correctly, Bill, (kudos) and Tim agreed with you.
But then you left your lane and crashed into the median,
“an orbiting object with a spin on its center of mass at the same rate as the orbit rotation equals:
b) is Lorb+2Lspin”
This makes no sense.
…“Spinners” find “evidence” for their cause in just about anything, regardless of the reality.
The lesson here is be careful who you tag-team with.
…find “evidence” for their cause in just about anything, regardless of the reality.
Nothing to say but need to get in the last word anyway? You get the prestigious Last Wording Just for Last Wording Award.
Now come and get it!
…“evidence” for their cause in just about anything, regardless of the reality.
> unless youre trying to say you dont think theres any such thing as “orbit without spin”
REMINDER:
Almost if not all celestial bodies known to mankind spin:
https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24933181-200-where-does-the-spin-of-celestial-objects-come-from-the-big-bang
…and even though the "Spinners" believe that almost if not all celestial bodies in the Universe spin, they still of course have to have their own idea of what "orbit without spin" is…and once again, it’s motion like the MOTR.
… because that is the only way that makes sense!
“orbit” describes only the path of the COM.
“spin” describes only the orientation.
The moment you try to include orientation as part of “orbit”, you will fail to accurately describe objects in elliptical orbits. You will fail (as Gordon did) to accurately predict longitudal libration.
The “Spinners” do include orientation as part of “orbit”, Tim. The MOTR keeps one side oriented towards some distant fixed star throughout the orbit. You still don’t get it, and never will. Oh well.
No, we don’t. We say orientation is a separate issue. Both MOTR and MOTL have THE SAME ORBIT in our thinking. The COM follows the same path at the same rate, based on gravity and the masses involved (or based on someone’s programming in this case).
*After* we have described “orbit” using mass and gravity, *then* we address orientation.
"No, we don’t."
Yes, you do.
"We say orientation is a separate issue."
No, you logically cannot.
"Both MOTR and MOTL have THE SAME ORBIT in our thinking."
As in ours. You’re not getting it, Tim, and you’re utterly ineducable on any issue. Both sides of this debate include orientation in their idea of what "orbit without spin" is. The "Spinners" think "orbit without spin" is motion like the MOTR, and the "Non-Spinners" think "orbit without spin" is motion like the MOTL. Both the MOTR and the MOTL have their own specific orientation which the object maintains throughout the orbit. Thus both sides include orientation in their own concept of "orbit without spin".
You can’t say "orientation is a separate issue" because as soon as you decide that movement like the MOTL involves "rotating on its own axis", for whatever reason, you are automatically saying that "orbit without spin" is like the MOTR. I don’t know how to get this concept across to you any clearer than I have done over the past couple of weeks, but you refuse to even try to understand.
“I dont know how to get this concept across to you any clearer ”
Here’s one way. Explain what “orbit without rotation” means for an elliptical orbit. Instead of us repeating the same old discussions for perfect circles, expand to show how your definition applies in a new setting.
That’s just it, Tim, it’s not "my" definition. It’s "the" definition. "Revolution/orbit" is defined as a rotation about an external axis. Look up definitions of "revolution/orbit". If you find that it just says "movement along a path, or trajectory", then that supports neither "Spinners" nor "Non-Spinners". Both sides can agree that an orbiting object is moving along a path, or trajectory. However, some definitions do mention "rotation about an external axis". I’ve linked to them before. What the "Spinners" need are definitions mentioning "translation". Good luck with that.
So you are admitting that the definition you are using ONLY applies to circular motions.
How on Earth do you come to that conclusion!?
People use elliptical orbits as an example of rotation about an external axis, Tim. Go to the Wikipedia page on rotation, for instance. The Earth’s orbit around the Sun is given as an example of rotation about an external axis…
[GEOMETRY GRAHAM] “Revolution/orbit” is defined as a rotation about an external axis.
[ALSO GEOMETRY GRAHAM] People use elliptical orbits as an example of rotation about an external axis
Five years of this crap.
Still unable to concede that an orbit cannot only be a rotation. Pure rotations only happen in circular motion.
“People use …”
I don’t care what ‘people use’. ‘People’ use all sorts of terms carelessly in different circumstances.
ATM I care what *you* are using.
Must a “rotation” involve a circle? Is “rotation” identical to “orbit” or is there a difference?
Oh, and by all means, if it’s easier for you, Tim, go with Little Willy’s idea that "orbit without spin" is a general plane motion. That idea also supports the "Non-Spinners".
“Revolution/orbit” isdefinedas a rotation about an external axis. Look up definitions of “revolution/orbit”. If you find that it just says “movement along a path, or trajectory”, then that supports neither “Spinners” nor “Non-Spinners”
We did look them up, and showed you the first 5. NONE agreed with your claimed definition. The agreed with our oft stated definition.
Your claim is proven FALSE.
Sorry no amount of wriggling will undo that.
So, just to repeat, by the way, re definitions:
"If you find that it just says “movement along a path, or trajectory”, then that supports neither “Spinners” nor “Non-Spinners”…"
I’m not sure why anyone would pretend that definitions that only mention "movement along a path, or trajectory", support the "Spinners", but just in case someone thoroughly dishonest should come along who tries to pretend that these definitions do somehow support them, I’ll just remind readers that both groups obviously agree an orbiting object moves along a path, or trajectory…thus definitions saying such obviously do not support one group over another.
Either general motion helps Moon Dragon cranks or Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again.
I know where my money is!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1433152
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1433313
That wasn’t a meaningful rebuttal then, and isn’t now…
Geometry Graham gaslights a little more.
But since he insists, let’s point out the equivocation:
Notice how he conflates the rotation-as-orbit and the rotation-as-spin. Since the Moon’s orbit is independent from its spin, his conclusion does not follow. Which is obvious if we look at his pet GIF. Both the Moon on the right and the Moon on the left orbit the Earth.
So at best Moon Dragon cranks can produce an equivalent model, in which the Moon would not spin.
Have they ever produced such model?
No, they haven’t.
And so Geometry Graham loses again.
“”If you find that it just says movement along a path, or trajectory, then that supports neither Spinners nor Non-Spinners’
Some people try to tell others what they have believed all this time, as opposed to using their statements.
Spinners have never suggested that an orbit is DEFINED as having a specified rotation rate of 0 or any other. This is simply FALSE and a strawman.
Spinners have always maintained that orbit and rotation are separate motions, just like walking and chewing gum are.
The FAILED non-spinner attempts to redefine ORBIT as an Orbit-with-Synchronous-Rotation, is as ridiculous as redefining WALKING as walking-and-chewing-gum-synchronously.
"Notice how he conflates the rotation-as-orbit and the rotation-as-spin."
I don’t. I deliberately make the point that any rotation involved in the general plane motion will be rotation about an external axis, because the movement we are defining as a general plane motion in this case is "orbit without spin".
Remember, "Non-Spinners" have always maintained that "orbit" and "spin" are two separate motions, just like walking and chewing gum are.
> “Non-Spinners” have always maintained that “orbit” and “spin” are two separate motions
Grammar Graham drops an “always”.
Yep.
Grammar Graham obviously doesn’t cop to the problem.
The key is his 1+1 trick.
There is no "1+1 trick".
The "1+1 argument" is specifically, and only, the argument that you cannot combine rotation about an internal axis with rotation about an external axis and end up with motion like the MOTL.
You have agreed that this argument is correct.
> You have agreed that this argument is correct.
Gaslighting Graham plays fast and loose with another’s words again.
I have agreed that MOTL can be described as rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
I have not agreed that that is the *only* way to describe MOTL, and I certainly have not agreed that it is at all correct to describe the motion of the real Moon that way.
"I have not agreed that that is the *only* way to describe MOTL, and I certainly have not agreed that it is at all correct to describe the motion of the real Moon that way."
I didn’t say you had, Brandy Guts. Calm down.
Gerber Graham needs to be spoonfed again.
I do not agree with the statement: “you cannot combine rotation about an internal axis with rotation about an external axis and end up with motion like the MOTL.”
Greasy Graham should stop saying that I do.
You said:
"Adding axial rotation to rotation about an external axis not resulting in motion like MOTL is not in dispute as far as I’m concerned."
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Perhaps he should the quote, this time more slowly.
It may not mean what he makes it mean.
Oh, I’ve read it plenty of times, thanks…
…but if Brandy Guts wants to change his mind and suddenly argue that you can combine a motion with one that he already agrees can be described as “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”, and somehow still end up with only the latter, then he’s welcome to make a fool of himself.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more:
Perhaps in Dragon cranks’ universe, “is not in dispute” means “I agree with you”, and “as far as I’m concerned” means “I believe and am willing to stand a trial of fire for it.”
Who knows with Gaslighting Graham?
Well, usually, if somebody disagrees with something, it’s “in dispute”, and if they don’t disagree it’s “not in dispute”.
You’re correct, I must’ve had some kind of brain-fart last night.
Just a reminder; you have agreed that MOTL can *also* be described as translation in a circle with axial rotation.
Which means you must agree that the real Moon’s orbit can be described as translation in an ellipse with axial rotation.
The sticking point is that you don’t agree that the motion of the real Moon can *only* be described that way. THAT is the point I am trying to get across to you.
"You’re correct, I must’ve had some kind of brain-fart last night."
No problem. I’m just glad that unlike some, you can concede points. Otherwise it makes any sort of progress in the discussion impossible.
"Just a reminder; you have agreed that MOTL can *also* be described as translation in a circle with axial rotation."
That’s correct…but it’s only the right way to describe it if "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR.
"Which means you must agree that the real Moon’s orbit can be described as translation in an ellipse with axial rotation. The sticking point is that you don’t agree that the motion of the real Moon can *only* be described that way. THAT is the point I am trying to get across to you."
Well, that’s not really it. See above. The moon discussion is not really about the moon…it’s just that the moon is a convenient example of a body that is orbiting without spinning. What the discussion is really about is: "what is orbital motion"?
There are two separate motions:
1) Orbital motion (or simply "orbit", or "orbit without spin", or OMWAR).
2) Axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis).
The debate is over 1). It’s a debate over what 1) is. Does that make sense? When we think of something that’s orbiting, but not spinning, how does it remain oriented? Is it like the MOTL, or the MOTR? Obviously, if it’s like the MOTR, then the MOTL (and our moon) can be described as orbiting and rotating on its own axis. However, if it’s like the MOTL, then the MOTL (and our moon) can be described as orbiting and not rotating on its own axis…and the MOTR can be described as orbiting and rotating on its own axis…but it doesn’t end there. It extends to all orbiting bodies.
So the Earth, for instance, from the "Non-Spinner" view, is orbiting whilst rotating on its own axis 365.25 times per orbit. Whilst from the "Spinner" view, it’s orbiting whilst rotating on its own axis 366.25 times per orbit.
The "axial rotation" is not the difference between those two different rates, for the Earth. The difference simply comes down to how "orbit without spin" is conceived, by either group. "Axial rotation" then just has to be kept separate from the "orbital motion".
This is what I struggle to get across to people. I read it back, and it seems poorly explained. I know what I mean – but it’s so hard to get the concept across to others. Let’s see how that goes, anyway.
> Thats correctbut its only the right way to describe it if “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR.
> The moon discussion is not really about the moon
There are 1,925 instances of “Moon” and 191 instances of “lunar” on this page at time of writing.
There is you saying that you sincerely believe the real Moon is not rotating on its own axis.
There is the title of your song to the same effect.
I’d say it’s very much the topic of this discussion.
> When we think of something thats orbiting, but not spinning, how does it remain oriented?
A non-spinning foot on a non-spinning bicycle pedal provides the torque necessary to overcome the friction of the pedal’s bearing against its spinning axle.
> It extends to all orbiting bodies.
Circular models don’t apply to elliptical orbits. You tacitly acknowledge this when you say MOTL != the real Moon.
It is now very clear.
The Moon debate is not about the Moon.
The question if the Moon spins rests on how we should define orbital motion.
Five years of trolling to support private spychology.
And Generous Graham always concedes points.
It just so happens that he is almost always right.
> Thats correct … but its only the right way to describe it if “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR.
I’ve given physical examples why it is incorrect to describe MOTR as orbit without spin.
I’ve given physical examples why it is more correct to describe MOTL as orbit with spin.
You know what they are. Maybe it’s time for you to be as open-minded as you say seriously deal with them.
Well, that obviously didn’t go down very well.
But, like it or not, the moon discussion really isn’t about the moon. Of course the word "moon" gets thrown around a lot, as I said, it’s the main example and anchor point for the discussion…and it’s certainly all the "Spinners" seem to care about, and they account for a lot of the comments under this article on the subject. Still, I would maintain that the discussion is actually about what "orbit without spin" is.
Yes, "Spinners" think it’s like the MOTR. "Non-Spinners" think it’s like the MOTL. Yes, real orbits are not circular…and still, the principle remains the same. There is "same face of the object remains oriented towards some distant, fixed star" and then there is "same face of the object remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit".
"I’ve given physical examples why it is incorrect to describe MOTR as orbit without spin."
Interesting…does this mean you’re a "Non-Spinner", then?
[Wink…I’m sure it was just another brain-fart]
> real orbits are not circularand still, the principle remains the same.
One does not simply draw an ellipse with a compass.
> Im sure it was just another brain-fart
T’was.
OK, Brandy Guts. Think I might be nearly done for the month. It does get tiring after a while.
“But, like it or not, the moon discussion really isnt about the moon.”
Yep, its no longer about the Moon, because the non-spinners cannot win that one on the facts.
So its about something that isnt actually debatable, because Orbit and Rotation are defined as they are, and not subject to one’s personal feelings.
…it does get tiring after a while…
Readers might profit from this bit:
> *After* we have described orbit using mass and gravity, *then* we address orientation.
Courtesy of Mighty Tim.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
tim…I have explained longitudinal libration and dremt has explained latitudinal libration. You just don’t get it.
No Gordon, you don’t get that your explanation simply is not accurate. Your model predicts the WRONG amount of libration.
Models, schmodels. The only "model" that really counts is your "model" for what "orbit without spin" is. The "Non-Spinners" have the ball on a string. What do the "Spinners" have? Just numerous examples of motion like the MOTR that indicate it is not the true concept of "orbit without spin".
“The only “model” that really counts is your “model” for what “orbit without spin” is. ”
In science, what really counts is what works. Yours doesn’t. Ours does. You can argue philosophy as to which pleases you more or is more intuitive to you. But until you can match the ‘non-spinners’ in accurately predicting libration, you are ‘musing’ and not ‘doing science.’
Tim, these phony arguments surrounding libration are literally all the "Spinners" have. They’ve lost the argument on absolutely every other aspect of the issue, and so they just keep coming back to libration over, and over, and over again.
Just because you can’t get your head around the idea of the moon’s movement being comprised of just one motion doesn’t mean that it can’t be true. If astronomy had developed with a MOTR on its doorstep, rather than a MOTL, and we had all the intricate details that we do of all the perturbations to the orbit for the various reasons that exist for our moon, that you wouldn’t be the one sitting here being asked to explain how it could possibly be "just one single motion"!?
What if our hypothetical MOTR had a "libration in latitude", for instance? If you think that would be impossible, you’re mistaken.
“im, these phony arguments surrounding libration are literally all the “Spinners” have. Theyve lost the argument on absolutely every other aspect of the issue, and so they just keep coming back to libration over, and over, and over again.”
He
The TEAM seems to acknowledge they’ve lost the arguments on libration. The ones which show the Moon has a tilted rotational axis, and its orbit and rotation are TWO separate motions.
They say thats ‘all we have’. Even so, if we’ve established the Moon has a rotation on its axis, and its orbit is separate…what’s else is there?
Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more.
The main argument Team Science has is factual:
It has a shit ton of numerical models of the motion of the Moon.
How many model Team Moon Dragon Cranks have?
Zero.
In fairness, it must be conceded that to model an orbit without angular momentum is not that easy.
There was meant to be a "who’s to say" somewhere in that last comment. Maybe place it just before "that you wouldn’t be the one sitting here…"
…then it will read better.
Oh, and just in case anyone was confused, I’m not saying the "Non-Spinners" lost the battle on libration. Far from it. It just seems to be all the "Spinners" have left. They keep coming back to it over and over again.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights more and more more.
The main argument Team Science has is factual:
It has a shit ton of numerical models of the motion of the Moon.
How many model Team Moon Dragon Cranks have?
Zero.
In fairness, it must be conceded that to model an orbit without angular momentum is not that easy.
…and if astronomy had developed with a MOTR on its doorstep, instead of a MOTL, there would be a "shit ton" of numerical models of the motion of the MOTR. Would it then appear difficult for the "Spinners" to defend the concept that movement of the MOTR was comprised of only one motion, what with all the intricacies and perturbations inherent in any real orbit?
Geometry Graham has been told repeatedly that his idealized circular models are not realistic descriptions of how real celestial objects move. Any issues applying them to real orbits are his and his alone.
"Whoosh!", went the point.
You have no point, Gyrating Graham. Just endless trolling with toy models that you cannot make work with real orbits.
I’ve got four points that are correct, regardless of your own personal opinion on whether the moon rotates on its own axis, or not:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis.
2) "Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL.
3) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
4) "Revolution/orbit" is defined as a rotation about an external axis.
There are "Spinners" in agreement with me on each of the four points, though no one "Spinner" agrees with me on all four together at once. Once I have agreement from all of the regular "Spinners" who comment here on points 2) and 3), I will never comment on the issue again. Brandy Guts, you already agree on 2)…so really you should understand 3) by now…
Let Geometry Graham apply his four points to the acid test of how the Moon actually moves around the Earth.
If he can’t or won’t, he should stop pretending that they have any practical application to the Moon issue.
I’ll do as I please, eternally.
That’s what I thought, Gasping Graham.
The four points completely transcend the moon issue. You’re so short-sighted…oh well, never mind.
Grammar Graham’s four points would actually have to apply to the real motions of the Moon for them to transcend that issue.
In fairness, BG, the four points also transcend any kind of rational argument too!
You’re so short-sighted…oh well, never mind.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights more and more more more.
The main argument Team Science has is factual:
It has a shit ton of numerical models of the motion of the Moon.
How many model Team Moon Dragon Cranks have?
Zero.
In fairness, it must be conceded that to model an orbit without angular momentum is not that easy.
Little Willy is desperate to talk about angular momentum, again…perhaps Clint R or Gordon can babysit him on that. I’m getting a bit bored with constantly looking after Little Willy and his identical twin baby brother Brandy Guts…
Gaslighting Graham gaslights more more more more.
The main argument Team Science has is factual:
It has a shit ton of numerical models of the motion of the Moon.
How many model Team Moon Dragon Cranks have?
Zero.
In fairness, it must be conceded that to model an orbit without angular momentum is not that easy.
It’s funny how all the "Spinners" seem to have a different idea of what their "main argument" is.
It’s funny how Gaslighting Graham gaslights once again.
“Im not saying the “Non-Spinners” lost the battle on libration. Far from it. It just seems to be all the “Spinners” have left. They keep coming back to it over and over again.”
There was not much to debate.
In the end, the many valid sources made the case on latitudinal libration for us.
Your lack of any rebuttal of these sources, or any rational argument as to why they must be wrong means that issue is resolved.
No gaslighting here, Little Willy. Just look at the different "Spinners" piling on, all certain that their issue is the clincher.
Gyrating Graham continues to ignore that he alone is responsible for the failure of his own arguments.
Brandy Guts says some more words. Who next?
Is or is not Greasy Graham implying that because other people say different stuff that his arguments must be correct?
No of course not. How else could he Gaslight if he did?
Perhaps he is *just* doing this or *simply* doing that.
I’m implying that you "Spinners" can never actually agree on anything. You actually disagree amongst yourselves on several fundamental points of the debate…and, of course, "Spinner" never argues against "Spinner".
Keep those false accusations coming, though, Brandy Guts.
‘4) “Revolution/orbit” is defined as a rotation about an external axis.’
We can always tell when DREMT is losing, badly. Because he loses it and goes into full-throttle troll mode.
So he tosses BS like this, to the wind
I’ll just leave this here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1437000
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1425291
OK, Little Willy. Thanks for your contribution.
Geometry Graham forgets the magic words.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
😊
Well, that made him happy.
Geometry Graham forgets the magic words.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
THE MOON DRAGON CRANK SECRET
By really wishing that the Moon does not spin, the Law of Attraction will make it stop from spinning.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“The big bang gave linear motion. Gravity turned it into orbital motion”.
***
There was no Big Bang Willie, the theory is one of the worst ever perpetuated in science.
C’mon, Bordon.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Grand Solar Minimum update
https://youtu.be/cAJrL9W5w3M
Science in action…
Since our Gaslighting Graham insists, let’s point out the equivocation:
Notice how he conflates the rotation-as-orbit and the rotation-as-spin. Since the Moon’s orbit is *independent* from its spin, his conclusion does not follow. Which is obvious if we look at his pet GIF. *Both* the Moon on the right and the Moon on the left orbit the Earth.
So at best Moon Dragon cranks can produce an equivalent model, in which the Moon would not spin.
Have they ever produced such model?
No, they have not.
And so Geometry Graham loses again.
"Notice how he conflates the rotation-as-orbit and the rotation-as-spin."
I don’t. I deliberately make the point that any rotation involved in the general plane motion will be rotation about an external axis, because the movement we are defining as a general plane motion in this case is "orbit without spin".
Remember, "Non-Spinners" have always maintained that "orbit" and "spin" are two separate motions, just like walking and chewing gum are.
> “Non-Spinners” have always maintained that “orbit” and “spin” are two separate motions, just like walking and chewing gum are.
… except for when 1+1 != 1, which isn’t a trick, it’s *just* an illustration that shouldn’t apply anywhere else because … reasons.
There is no "1+1 trick".
The "1+1 argument" is specifically, and only, the argument that you cannot combine rotation about an internal axis with rotation about an external axis and end up with motion like the MOTL.
You have agreed that this argument is correct.
"Orbit" and "spin" are two separate motions. I’ve never argued otherwise. If you think I have, quotes and links, please.
DREMT weirdly thinks people can’t walk without chewing gum.
If you think I have, quotes and links, please.
You think to be in orbit requires another independent motion: rotation. Same idea.
They make equally as much sense, and have an equal evidence.
"Orbit" and "spin" are two separate motions. I’ve never argued otherwise. If you think I have, quotes and links, please.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1425291
That is not a link to me arguing that “orbit” and “spin” are not two separate motions. You won’t be able to find a link to me saying that, because I never have. “Orbit” and “spin” are two separate motions.
Check Gaslighting Graham lying his way through it all.
When the CSA Truther moves the clock arm to simulate the Moon’s orbit, it makes the Moon spin.
One motion includes both rotations.
Were orbit and spin truly independent, that would not be the case.
The 1+1 trick exploits the same fallacy. It presumes that as a body orbits, that body’s orientation follows along. Otherwise the refutation is trivial.
The fact remains that the external rotation is related to the center of mass, whereas the internal rotation is related to orientation of the face. Since this is what happens in reality, so much the worse for Geometry Graham’s misconception.
“When the CSA Truther moves the clock arm to simulate the Moon’s orbit, it makes the Moon spin.
One motion includes both rotations”
No. It’s one single motion, “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”. So it does not include both rotations. It is only the external axis rotation. The internal axis rotation is controlled separately, via the moon motor. The external axis rotation is the “orbit”, and the internal axis rotation is the “spin”. So, I am keeping “orbit” separate from “spin” and you are the one trying to blend them together!
“The 1+1 trick exploits the same fallacy. It presumes that as a body orbits, that body’s orientation follows along. Otherwise the refutation is trivial.
The fact remains that the external rotation is related to the center of mass, whereas the internal rotation is related to orientation of the face”
None of that is correct in any way, Little Willy.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
January 25, 2023 at 7:18 PM
“Orbit” and “spin” are two separate motions. Ive never argued otherwise. If you think I have, quotes and links, please.”
So you say, but then you insist that orbit IS a rotation:
‘4) Revolution/orbit” is defined as a rotation about an external axis.’
This is no evidence that to orbit, IOW to follow a path, requires a body to rotate, as you claim here.
Just as to walk doesnt require gum chewing. They are independent motions.
I can use my phone to find a curvy walking path from point A to point B.
I can follow the path, a series of positions, my phone will track my progress and show me my position on the path.
My rotation/orientation is of no relevance to my position/progress in following the path.
My phone has an App to measure my rotation rate, but it is an independent motion.
‘The 1+1 trick exploits the same fallacy. It presumes that as a body orbits, that bodys orientation follows along.’
Yep that is quite true.
If the TEAM wants to assert that a body’s orientation follows along as it moves along its orbital path, then it CANNOT also assert that orbit and spin (ie rotation) are independent motions.
Sorry they cannot have their cake and eat it to.
Are some “Spinners” still conflating rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, do you think? Surely not, five years on!? That would be completely unforgivable at this late stage in the proceedings. I’ll assume nobody reading would take such a thing seriously.
Are some non-Spinners still confused about what rotation is?
Surely they are not going to deny that all this time they have been arguing that as a body orbits, that body’s orientation follows along?
Ie Newton’s cannonball, etc.
Surely they are not going to deny that this feeling/intuition is THE basis for their invention of orbit = rotation.
Whether they wanna call it spin or rotation, it is still orientation changing, in their view, to follow the orbital path.
I’ll assume nobody reading would take such a thing seriously.
Nobody reading should expect anything else than gaslighting from Graham.
Another false accusation to add to the pile.
Poor Grievance Graham.
Forever the victim.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
> any rotation involved in the general plane motion will be rotation about an external axis
Geometry Graham fails again.
It is trivial to think of counter examples.
The wheel of a car in motion.
A screw.
Pup figure skating.
The long and the short of it is that the Moon has both an orbit and a spin. The orbit is complex. The spin is also surprisingly complex. The two together gives us what is usually called the motion of the Moon.
Five years of trolling and Gibberish Graham only has word games.
…any rotation involved in this particular general plane motion will be rotation about an external axis, because the movement we are defining as a general plane motion in this case is "orbit without spin".
“Without spin” means there can be no spin, Little Willy. It is a motion devoid of rotation about an internal axis that we are describing here. Why does your brain always seem to fail at the very first step?
Gaslighting Graham just can’t help himself.
The reality we want to describe is the Moon’s motion.
Moon Dragon cranks just can’t simply assert that the Moon does not spin by definition alone.
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham does not realize the scope of what he said, i.e. “any rotation involved in the general plane motion will be rotation about an external axis,” for it’s quite possible to imagine a general plane motion that involves a spin.
…but the motion we’re describing does not involve a spin. It’s “orbit without spin”.
Geez.
As discussed we looked up definitions of Orbit and showed the TEAM a half dozen. All definitions agree that to Orbit is follow a path or trajectory. None define it as a rotation.
“If you find that it just says ‘movement along a path, or trajectory, then that supports neither Spinners nor Non-Spinners”
So here the non-spinners clearly appear to understand this information about how Orbit is, in fact, defined and not defined.
But then they turn right around and again declare:
“4) Revolution/orbit is defined as rotation about an external axis”
So readers: what can we conclude from this contradictory behavior?
Are the non-spinners delusional? Habitual liars? Trolls? All of the above?
What say you neutral observers?
Just a wee reminder, for the benefit of any readers:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1427450
Readers might appreciate this comment by Mighty Tim:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1428081
Sure, readers are encouraged to read through the entire discussion, and come to their own conclusions.
Just a wee reminder, from that comment by Mighty Tim:
Five more years of trolling and perhaps Geometry Graham might accept that angular velocities and steady rates are not a part of geometry.
…readers are encouraged to read through the entire discussion, and come to their own conclusions.
Readers might recall that a point has no dimension, thus no face,
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Once in a while one of them climate zombies wakes up
https://bit.ly/3Hu1jmT
As we know, or should know, there are extremists on all sides.
Moon does not rotate about an internal axis. All moons in solar system stopped rotating long time ago.
We have already established that facts don’t matter to Christos.
Don’t try to kid us with your ridiculous turncoat attitude, Vournas.
You have shown all the time moon spin periods on your web site, e.g. on the page
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444383819/448752897
There we see
” Our Moon has a slow enough rotational spin. ”
You very certainly did NOT mean Moon’s orbit at the time you wrote that, did you?
*
And here are other examples, pasted out of your own original text:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/165g1ZcRCgVkfYBbkKGGFILcA-JPQbwkz/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N4v5M7td7NuT3xsXm9W2KMgm1BXQqegT/view
*
Your butt-kissing of this laughable, absolutely scienceless lunar spin denial is simply afflicting.
Christos,
Your drive-bys are not supposed to be trolls.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Also, the Earth’s GHG warming is a fictitious science.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
Perhaps you try to learn a bit, by reading e.g.
Experimental Verification of the Greenhouse Effect
Hermann Harde, Michael Schnell (2021)
http://hharde.de/index_htm_files/Harde-Schnell-GHE-m.pdf
” We present quantitative measurements for the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide under comparable conditions as in the atmosphere and we compare them with radiation transfer calculations.
Our experiments allow clear detection of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, at the same time they show its limited influence with growing concentration of these gases. “
And, the Earths GHG warming is a fictitious science.
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
And, the Earths GHG warming is a fictitious science.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
Are you able to scientifically disprove Hermann Harde’s and Michael Schnell’s results?
Or are you just boasting like Robertson, Clint R, Flynnson etc?
Bindidon, that’s the advantage of all the past discussions here — we know you don’t understand ANY of the science. You swallow your cult’s nonsense with no interest in facing reality.
Got a viable model of OMWAR? How about supporting your cult’s nonsense that fluxes simply add with a valid technical reference?
No?
You’ve got NOTHING.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Liberate yourself.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
All planets and moons in solar system are solar illuminated all the time (except for short eclipses), and all planets and moons in solar system have their diurnal cycles.
–
Planets in solar system orbit sun, and they also rotate about their own internal axis.
–
Moons in solar system orbit sun, and at the same time, moons in solar system orbit their mother planets.
–
It is a different thing planet is, it is different from what a moon is.
Planets rotate on their axis – moons do not rotate on their axis.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Not all moons are in 1:1 spin-orbit lock, Christos.
I thought we already been over this.
AFAIK, all moons which are in observable spin-orbit lock do rotate.
Under the condition of course that we agree that under ‘moon’ we understand those celestial bodies we could name ‘planetoids’ in opposition to much smaller ‘asteroids’.
Jupiter has several moons, but only the four Galileans are known to be in spin-orbit lock.
The same is valid even for Pluto which seems to have three moons
https://solarviews.com/eng/plutomoons.htm
but of which only Charon has a noticeable size.
A moon that always has one side facing the inside of its orbit is NOT rotating on its axis.
See how simple it is?
Oh Clint R! Nicht schon wieder dieser Unsinn.
Newton has explained that our Moon, which has always one side facing the inside of its orbit IS rotating on its axis.
See how simple it is to trust Newton, instead of misrepresenting him?
Wrong again, Bin.
You keep hiding behind Newton. You keep taking him out-of-context. Your reference — Proposition XVII. Theorem XV. — is NOT about axial rotations as being discussed here.
Look at the title: That the diurnal motions of the Planets are uniform, and that the libration of the Moon arises from its diurnal motion.
The subject is “diurnal motion”. IOW, day/night, or Sun/no Sun. What Newton was describing was how day/night occurs on celestial bodies. In all cases, both planets and Moon, day/night occurs due to the face presented to Sun. And, which face is presented to Sun is due to a planets rotation and Moons orbit. You’re trying to misrepresent Newton, as you try to misrepresent people here.
At most, you could say Newton was loose in his terminology. But you have to remember, Newto was writing for people that understood the basics, not braindead cult idiots….
Wanna bet on what Newton says, Pup?
I have the authoritative translation.
Say yes,
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
And Clint R continues misrepresenting Newton, by intentionally omitting the rest of Proposition XVII. Theorem XV, showing that Newton very well talks in it about rotation.
So woeful, so cowardly…
Here is the full text below what you wrote.
*
” With respect to the fixed stars Jupiter revolves in 9h 56m, Mars in 24h 39m, Venus in about 23 hours, the earth in 23h 56m, the sun in 25 1/2 days, and the moon in 27d 7 h 43m.
That these things are so is clear from phenomena.
With respect to the earth, the spots on the body of the sun return to the same place on the sun’s disc in about 27 1/2 days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25 1/2 days.
Now, since a lunar day (the moon revolving uniformly about its own axis) is a month long [from the footnote: is equal to a lunar month, the periodic time of the moon’s revolution in its orbit], the same face of the moon will always very nearly look in the direction of the further focus of its orbit, and therefore will deviate from the earth on one side or the other according to the situation of that focus.
This is the moon’s libration in longitude; for the libration in latitude arises from the latitude of the moon and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic.
Mr. N. Mercator, in his book on astronomy, published in the beginning of the year 1676, set forth this theory of the moon’s libration more fully on the basis of a letter from me. ”
*
The same text originating from Newton’s original in Latin I can show in French and German; it is available also in Russian, in Swedish, in Italian, in Japanese and in Dutch.
*
You can’t change what New ton wrote, Clint R.
Pseudomod
There is currently one troll in action, and that is Clint R, who persistently misrepresents Newton, be it by omitting what he wrote, or even by brazenly modifying what he wrote, e.g. in
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1432782
Sorry Bin, but you’re still taking Newton out-of-context. You believe he’s saying something he’s not. Newton was taking about “diurnal motion”, which in the case of Moon is due to its orbit, but the planets actually spin. Newton even made it clear — “with respect to the fixed stars”.
You just don’t have the background in science to understand any of this. How many times have we had to explain the simple ball-on-a-string to you? I doubt if you understand it yet. Did you ever do the simple coffee cup experiment? Where’s your model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”?
You weren’t able to solve ANY of the simple physics problems, and you still cant understand the simple 13.36° change in the imaginary spin axis angle. That much change clearly indicates the axis is imaginary. Moon is NOT spinning.
It’s all very simple. You’ve got NOTHING.
“Look at the title: That the diurnal motions of the Planets are uniform, and that the libration of the Moon arises from its diurnal motion.
The subject is diurnal motion. IOW, day/night, or Sun/no Sun. What Newton was describing was how day/night occurs on celestial bodies. In all cases, both planets and Moon, day/night occurs due to the face presented to Sun. And, which face is presented to Sun is due to a planets rotation and Moons orbit. Youre trying to misrepresent Newton, as you try to misrepresent people here.”
Apart from the wrong part ‘and Moons orbit’, this is a shockingly intelligent, logical post from Clint. It shows what he is capable of. Odd that he CHOOSES to post thoroughly dumb BS most of the time.
grammie clone wrote:
Perhaps that’s because there isn’t any change in the orientation of the Moon’s rotational axis. It points toward one location in the stars, so there’s no “13.36 change” from one side of the orbit to the opposite. That’s what causes the Moon’s “Libration in Latitude”, a fact which your cult continues to ignore, even presenting an physically impossible “model”.
The model isn’t physically impossible, Swanson. Do the experiment for yourself. You could have a libration in latitude with the MOTR, which "Spinners" think is not rotating on its own axis.
Sorry, grammie pup, your “model” presents different side views of your tilted glass as it is moved around your table, just like your stupid MOTR cartoon. That proves it’s a bogus model for the Moon.
Swanson is having trouble visualizing the problem with his cult’s imaginary spin axis. So is most of his cult. There’s an easy way to help:
Get off your keyboard Swanson, and tie a short string to a coffee cup handle. Nail the other end of the string to the center of a table. (Don’t worry about ruining the table — this is for science.)
Now move the cup in a circle, keeping the string tight so that the handle always faces the nail. Once you learn how to make that motion, put a pencil in the cup so that it leans to one side. Tape the pencil so that it can not move. Note the angle and direction the pencil points. Let’s say it points north at an angle of 25° to the vertical.
As before, move the cup in a circle to the other side of its orbit. Note the change in the angle. If done correctly, the pencil will now be pointing south at an angle of 25°. A change of 50°.
(Once you get it, you can use the imaginary value for the lean, ie, 6.68°. The exaggerated angle is only to make it easier for the braindead to understand.)
Swanson commented the same time as I did. He must be my clone.
The problem is, my clone doesn’t understand MOTR.
He doesn’t understand anything about this issue.
Not a very good clone….
"Sorry, grammie pup, your “model” presents different side views of your tilted glass as it is moved around your table, just like your stupid MOTR cartoon."
I know it does, Swanson. You see all sides of the glass. The point is that you also see it "nodding up and down", in other words, there’s a libration in latitude. As I literally just said to you, you can have a libration in latitude with the MOTR, which "Spinners" think is not rotating on its own axis.
"That proves it’s a bogus model for the Moon."
It’s not meant to be a model for our moon. Gosh, you are slow.
grammie and clone, “Libration in Latitude” refers to the motions of the Moon, therefore your MOTR can not produce same, as you noted:
.
The visual effect is caused by the rotation of Moon’s axis which is tilted wrt the orbital plane.
"Unbelievably Stupid Failure" Swanson (USF Swanson), the libration in latitude is simply a perceived up and down "nodding" motion. You would get that with the glass, which moves as per the MOTR. "Spinners" think the MOTR is not rotating on its own axis. Put it all together, and you should conclude that the libration in latitude does not prove axial rotation. Or, you could just argue it out with Brandy Guts, who has already conceded:
"Geometry Graham is correct that a libration in latitude does not prove oblique axial rotation *in and of itself*…"
“put a pencil in the cup so that it leans to one side. Tape the pencil so that it can not move. ”
This demo does not produce the ‘nodding the head’ motion that the Moon’s North Pole has, so it as not the right model.
Why show us a model/demo that doesnt do what it needs to do to account for the Moon’s motion??
> you could just argue it out with Brandy Guts
Grammar Graham could include the bit where I pointed out how *his* conclusion didn’t follow from given premises.
Geometry Graham could also acknowledge how his model fails to produce the correct amount of longitudinal libration and how his conception of latitudinal libration is wrong.
He might even concede that the ability of Sebastian’s model to better reproduce both apparent motions of the real Moon is strong evidence for the correctness of its assumptions, but this discussion isn’t really about the real Moon according to him, even when it is.
Why show us a model/demo that doesn’t do what it needs to do to account for the Moon’s motion??
It’s NOT a model/demo of Moon’s motion, braindead Nate. It demonstrates how an imaginary spin axis angle changes when there is no axial rotation.
Braindead cult idiots can’t understand any of the science. They believe passenger jets fly backwards, ice cubes can boil water, and a moon can orbit, spin, and keep one side facing the inside of its orbit, all at the same time! That’s what happens when you’re braindead.
Thanks for being such a good example.
That’s all wrong, Brandy Guts. By the way, have you met Swanson? He thinks the libration of latitude proves axial rotation of the moon. You don’t. Since you’re in directly opposing positions, how about either of you showing a l’il bid o’ integridy and actually arguing it out amongst yourselves?
Or you can both just dump all your pent up frustrations and hatred onto me, as usual.
Pup, Pup,
Please send the video of how you can create this effect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f_21N3wcX8
Alternatively, send the video of you doing the Pole Dance Experiment.
You can ask Garage Graham to add a music track.
“Its NOT a model/demo of Moons motion, braindead Nate. It demonstrates how an imaginary spin axis angle changes when there is no axial rotation.”
If it doesnt do what the Moon does, then it illustrates what a pencil taped to a cup does, which is utterly fascinating, but irrelevant to the discussion!
Greasy Graham again Gyrates away from his own failures by trying to stir up controversy that doesn’t exist. Swenson asserts that the Moon’s latitudinal libration is due to its axial tilt, with which I agree, so we do not have directly opposing positions.
Grammar Graham should also note that I wrote *a* libration in latitude, not *the* libration in latitude. It’s the nature of *the* particular librations (plural) of the Moon and the changing solid angle it subtends all in *combination* which strongly suggest an elliptical orbit with an oblique axial spin synchronous with its orbital period.
If Swenson disagrees with that, I’m happy to hear why.
***
Now to Geometry Graham’s latitudinal libration fail.
Rather than a complicated rig with a camera in the center and a drinking glass orbiting it, set the drinking glass in the center of a lazy susan canted at some angle from the vertical using coins, washers or whatever is handy to provide support. Place a brightly colored sticker anywhere on the rim of the glass.
Mount a camera on a tripod a suitable distance away. Start the camera and rotate the lazy susan at least a full 360 degrees, then stop the camera.
Review the footage and note that the sticker oscillates *back and forth* in a *horizontal* motion, which is the characteristic of a longitudinal libration, not a latitudinal one.
As a bonus, note that this is a niftly little proof that MOTR is *not* rotating on its own axis.
Lol, Brandy Guts’ arrangement proves nothing at all. My setup would show the glass "nodding" up and down.
I also note that he slithers away from his own words and his obvious disagreement with USF Swanson. What can I say? "Spinner" will never argue against "Spinner". All too predictable.
grammie pups says:
The Moon’s actual motion displays A, but not B, since B results in different sides being presented to an earthly viewer.
Grammie pups fails geometry again, but is so lost in his lunacy that he can’t admit his failure.
Geometry Graham fails to realize my lazy susan setup exactly reproduces the *apparent* motion of MOTR as seen from the center of its orbit.
Brandy Guts…imagine the MOTR glass at different points around the table, as seen from above. At 12 o’clock, say, it is tilted away from the camera. At 6 o’clock, it will be tilted towards the camera, because you are keeping the tilt oriented in the same direction throughout the movement. As it moves around the table, the camera will pick up an apparent "nodding" up and down movement. You are talking about the fact that at 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock, you will be viewing the tilt of the glass from its side. So you are talking about an apparent "shaking" side to side movement (like a libration in longitude). However, that is only due to the fact that we are talking about a long, tall glass. If you had a sphere, with prominent markings (like craters) on it, you would see those markings moving across the face of the sphere but you would see an up and down movement of the markings too. The libration in latitude. You would see no libration in longitude.
Swanson is still light years away from grasping the point that’s being made.
> At 12 oclock, say, it is tilted away from the camera. At 6 oclock, it will be tilted towards the camera
At best the difference in distance will result in a parallax effect, which I’ve already covered. The closer to the camera to the glass the more pronounced the effect. At the distance we are to the Moon relative to its diameter, parallax effects of this sort are minimal.
It’s not a parallax effect, Brandy Guts. Maybe you should actually do the experiment. Or even your own experiment!
The only difference between what I’m describing in my experiment, and the current explanation of the libration in latitude for our real moon, is that the real moon always keeps the same face pointed towards that "camera". Whereas in my experiment, the glass moves like the MOTR. Everything else is exactly the same, though. You have an orbital plane (the table) and the glass (moon) is moving around that, whilst being tilted at a slight angle from perpendicular to the orbital plane. The tilt is being kept oriented in the same direction throughout the motion.
> Its not a parallax effect
Then it’s completely in your imagination, Geometry Graham. A circle viewed on edge is a line.
"A circle viewed on edge is a line"
Yes, indeed, Brandy Guts. From the camera’s POV that table appears flat. However, the glass is standing up from that flat table, nearly perpendicular to it, in full view of the camera. When the glass is on one side of the table, it’s leaning away from the camera, and when the glass has moved around to the other side of the table, it’s now leaning towards the camera, because the tilt is kept pointing in the same direction, throughout. The camera has rotated on the spot, in the center of the table, to follow the motion of the glass.
What are you failing to understand?
> When the glass is on one side of the table, its leaning away from the camera, and when the glass has moved around to the other side of the table, its now leaning towards the camera, because the tilt is kept pointing in the same direction, throughout.
Understood all that when you first proposed this scenario, Geometry Graham.
When the glass is leaning toward the camera, the top of it is the same distance from the table as when the glass is leaning away from the camera.
There is no change in vertical position.
Therefore no latitudinal libration.
When the glass is tilted towards the camera, you can see some of the top of the glass. When the glass is tilted away from the camera, you can see some of the bottom of the glass.
With the libration in latitude for the real moon, when the supposed “axis” is tilted towards the Earth, you can see more of the lunar “North Pole” and surroundings. When the supposed “axis” is tilted away from the Earth, you can see more of the lunar “South Pole” and surroundings. At least, that is the way it is currently explained.
Latitudinal libration is NOT explained by being able to see the far side of the Moon, Geometry Graham.
"Latitudinal libration is NOT explained by being able to see the far side of the Moon, Geometry Graham."
What’s happening here? Why are you twisting what I’m saying? The result of the librations is that you are able to see some 59% of the moon’s surface. So that is a small percentage of the "far side" of the moon that you can see as a result of libration. Libration in latitude will account for a part of that.
With my MOTR glass, you see both sides of the glass in full, of course.
In your example we can see ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the Moon, Geometry Graham.
Pick any point. Track its progress across the screen. It will not deviate in the vertical direction.
Look at the apparent motions of the real Moon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f_21N3wcX8
Pick any point. It will move in both horizontal and vertical directions.
The movement in the vertical direction is the latitudinal libration. Your scenario doesn’t have it. Period. Full stop. End of story.
"In your example we can see ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the Moon, Geometry Graham."
Obviously…because it’s moving like the MOTR.
"Pick any point. Track its progress across the screen. It will not deviate in the vertical direction."
Yes, it will, Brandy Guts. You will see some of the top of the glass at some points, and then some of the bottom of the glass at others.
"The movement in the vertical direction is the latitudinal libration. Your scenario doesn’t have it. Period. Full stop. End of story."
Yes, it does. Period. Full stop. End of story.
“…tie a short string to a coffee cup handle… put a pencil in the cup so that it leans to one side …”
A moment’s thought should reveal to anyone the problem with this analogy. And why Clint is confused about 13.68 degrees.
The string, table-top, and tape all constrain the orientation of the pencil. they apply strong torques to the pencil. these torques can continuously realign the pencil’s orientation.
There is no string or table-top or tape acting on the moon. Gravity acts throughout an object, providing an inward force, but no force or torque to enforce an alignment on the moon. Thus if the moon is leaning one way it will stay that way.
Tim, the moon is orbiting/rotating/revolving around earth in the only kind of rotation there is for that. The axis of the moon’s rotation around the earth would have an imaginary spin axis
perpendicular to its orbital plane if it were not for the gravity of the sun and the other celestial bodies in the universe perturbing that rotation.
So is this your genuine argument for why the moon does not rotate around the earth? Or would you imagine another reason for it if the moon’s orientation equatorial plane was parallel to its orbital plane?
You might start with telling us if you think the MOTL is a single motion rotation so the rest of us can see where your position starts from and it doesn’t appear that you are vacillating in anyway you see possible like a number of other spinners are doing.
“Lol, Brandy Guts arrangement proves nothing at all. My setup would show the glass “nodding” up and down.”
while showing us ALL sides of the moon.
IOW NOT showing us OUR Moon’s libration behavior.
We have providing a model that does account for our Moon’s libration, explained in several valid sources, which show how axial tilt produces our Moon’s libration, nodding the head, wobbling side to side, while showing us the same face.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1436071
The TEAM have not rebutted these sources.
What we ask for is simple. For the TEAM to show us a model that actually produces our Moon’s libration.
Thus far they have showed us bottles and pencils and cups that fail to do that.
“if it were not for the gravity of the sun and the other celestial bodies in the universe perturbing that rotation.”
In the baking contest, Bill’s cake didn’t rise, he blamed Jupiter’s gravitational pull.
Needless to say, he didnt win the contest.
In science, as in baking, if your theory or model doesnt work, you lose. It has to explain the observed phenomena.
The spinner (astro-physics) model does just that for the Moon’s librations.
Bill weirdly thinks tossing out a fancy word, perturbations, somehow excuses his model’s failure to explain the observations.
Thats not science, its just BS.
The “Spinner’s” brains just don’t work properly when it comes to anything that goes against their belief system. I’ve clearly explained enough times now how the moon’s libration in latitude could be explained from the “Non-Spinner” perspective. I pointed out that with my MOTR glass, the only difference is that the real moon keeps the same face to the “camera” at all times:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1438554
So, keep the same face of the glass to the camera at all times. Now you have your explanation for the real moon’s libration in latitude…and because the “Spinner’s” didn’t think the libration in latitude proved axial rotation of the glass when it was moving as per the MOTR, they should understand that it doesn’t prove axial rotation of the glass when it moves as per the MOTL.
However, they will continue to refuse to understand. That is what I predict.
“I pointed out that with my MOTR glass, the only difference is that the real moon keeps the same face to the camera at all times:”
So the TEAM refuses to accept the Spinner model that reproduces the whole enchilada: ALL of the Moon’s observed libration effects, even with the same side facing the Earth, just as we observe the Moon to do.
They think that a model that will never actually reproduce the Moon’s observed libration behavior is, somehow, good enough, and should be accepted anyway by their opponents.
They just don’t understand that LOSING, over and over, is not winning.
Are they delusional? In deep denial? Or just trolling?
All of the above?
What say you neutral observers?
Some of them are so blinded by that belief system that they fail to even read entire comments, their brains blocking out the details that they don’t want to hear…
grammie pups wrote:
grammie fails at geometry again. Viewing the same side (i.e., rotating the glass similar to the MOTL cartoon), always presents the same view of his pencil and the top of the glass to the observer at the middle of the table. grammie still doesn’t understand the Moon’s Libration in Latitude, which alternately views more of the NP and then of the SP while presenting nearly the same side to the viewer.
After years of blasting stupid BS, grammie still doesn’t understand any of this.
Swanson conflates what I have been writing with what Clint R has been writing. Because he is an idiot.
“”In your example we can see ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the Moon, Geometry Graham.”
Obviouslybecause its moving like the MOTR.”
Some people don’t get that this does not reproduce what is observed with the real Moon. Not even close.
They do not understand that the MOTR has NO rotation, while the real Moon does have rotation.
So, all around, this demo is an utter failure.
But the TEAM wants to count this as a success?
They are delusional.
Bill says: “Tim, the moon is orbiting/rotating/revolving around earth in the only kind of rotation there is for that. ”
I can’t decipher your point here. You almost seem be saying ‘the moon moves the way the moon moves’ which is uninformative.
“So is this your genuine argument for why the moon does not rotate around the earth?”
No, this is a counter-argument to the idea I was addressing. The moon would NOT move ‘like a pencil in a coffee mug’. If you (or a coffee mug) are holding a pencil, the only way to change the tilt is to apply a torque. Clint has previously been adamant that gravity cannot apply a torque on the moon, so gravity CANNOT tilt the moon the way he imagines in his coffee mug analogy.
My ultimate point here is the that people arguing against the textbook understanding of the moon’s orbit are clueless. Their arguments are not self-consistent.
Bill says: “You might start with telling us if you think the MOTL is a single motion rotation ”
This is the wrong question to ask — for two distinct reasons.
1) The same physical motion can be described in multiple different ways. MOTL could be described as …
* a rotation about the center of the earth
* a translation in a circle + a rotation about the center of the moon.
* a combination of x & y translations + a rotation about the center of the moon.
* etc.
There is no unique answer.
2) The real moon does not move in a perfect circle like the animation, anyway. No matter how we choose to describe the animation, it is unrelated to describing how the moon actually moves.
The real moon does NOT have a ‘single motion rotation’. The COM moves in an ellipse with varying angular velocity around the earth; the moon rotates around the COM with a constant angular velocity. Two distinct motions.
Tim, please stop trolling.
#1 –
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Exactly, Binny.
Since celestial bodies spin, chances are that moons do too.
Is there any reason for moons of Moon’s or of Charon’s size not to be celestial bodies?
They all share the same origin: a young star’s accretion disk.
Some scientists, e.g. Gordon MacDonald, have proposed that these accretion disks account for both orbit and spin.
Maybe this is in the following paper, I’m too lazy to check:
https://tinyurl.com/bdhycjd~c (oh no: tinyURL creating a d~c! Please remove the tilde)
*
Another very interesting paper written by Arbab I. Arbab, a Sudanese professor for experimental physics:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/A-Arbab/publication/306255599_Spin_-_orbit_coupling_in_gravitational_systems/links/5b87f2b1299bf1d5a731f8ea/Spin-orbit-coupling-in-gravitational-systems.pdf?origin=publication_detail
Bindidon says:
They all share the same origin: a young stars accretion disk.
Some scientists, e.g. Gordon MacDonald, have proposed that these accretion disks account for both orbit and spin.
———————–
Yep thats a theory of how celestial body’s came to rotate on external axes indeed!
Gill, O Gill.
*Spin* has a specific meaning here:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24888/why-does-each-celestial-object-spin-on-its-own-axis
Willard some of the celestial bodies from accretion disks spin.
Our moon doesn’t spin.
Gill, Gill,
Repeat after me:
“In general yes, everything rotates.”
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Thus, when writing this, Vournas admits that he told us rubbish on his web site concerning not only
– moons rotating like planets
but also
– the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
because it contains numerous references to moon spin (and NOT orbit) periods.
Thanks for the clarification, Vournas.
Bindidon, people that understand the relevant science understand what CV is talking about.
You will NEVER understand it.
I even understand the reason why Vournas suddenly changed his view.
Do you?
What “view” are you conjuring up now, Bin?
Read his documents, think, and you will understand the reason for his hopeless balancing act.
I read your comments Bin, and you clearly don’t understand ANY of this.
Hey, Pup:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24888/why-does-each-celestial-object-spin-on-its-own-axis
Enjoy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Bindidon, here it is how you will know, if you have landed on planet or on moon…
If there is a planet day-night hanging in the sky, you are on a moon.
If there is a moon moving in the sky – you are on a planet then.
Also, if there is nothing like those above in the sky – you are on the far side of a moon.
–
****
It is a different thing planet is, it is different from what a moon is.
Planets rotate on their axis moons do not rotate on their axis.
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1437867
I’m sad of getting all the time these primitive, ignorant replies in which Newton’s words are permanently misinterpreted and misrepresented.
This is simply too boring; thus I leave Clint R, the Pseudomod, Robertson and the Hunter genius in their childish denial corner, not without asking how they can, as supposed adult persons, even deny real experience like shown in these documents:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/JCHoubolt1961LunarOrbitRendezvous19780070033.pdf
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/nasa_tn_d_2795.pdf
https://downloads.spj.sciencemag.org/space/2021/9897105.pdf
*
Also, these smart boys should explain to us how it is possible that the 1750 and 1976 calculated lunar rotation periods were identical to within five decimal places (27.32166 days) despite
(1) observational tools
– small telescope with micrometer along with a metronome versus lunar laser ranging
and
(2) observation data processing techniques
– spherical trigonometry versus second-order differential equations
were completely different.
*
Imagine if dumb deniers like Clint R, the Pseudomod, Robertson or the Hunter genius would have been responsible for the lunar descent and ascent procedures in the Apollo 11 mission and, despite warning from their subordinates, gave the order to ignore the rotation of the Moon, which would have resulted in a catastrophe in the ascent of the LM because the LM and the orbiting CSM could not have come together.
The ascent point was, after 21h30 stay time, many hundreds of kilometers away from the landing point due to Moon’s rotation (4.7 meters/second).
*
This dire eventuality is reminiscent of the Space Shuttle Challenger and Columbia disasters caused by NASA officials who deliberately ignored warnings issued in the hierarchy below them.
*
I leave these ignoramuses alone with their arrogant idiocy now.
Yes Bindidon you start whining about inspecific violations of the laws of Newton.
If you want to have an ‘intelligent’ discussion you should bring up what Newton discovered and the evidence he used to establish him to be correct and throw that into the discussion instead of waxing poetically about vague and inspecific insults to your hero.
Bindidon won’t be gone long, Bill. He’s a devoted cultist. If he ever stopped believing in his false religion, what would he have?
He just needs more time to make up crap, like his assertion that Apollo 11 was affected in any way by a fictitious lunar rotation.
Hey, Pup:
https://climateball.net/but-religion/
When will you do the Poll Dance Experiment?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Is that a bet, Gill?
Let me see the odds you give me.
Willard please stop trolling.
Your loss, Gill.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Bill doesnt seem to know what Newton discovered. Asks people to teach him the ways of the force.
Hunter boy
Thanks for the superficial blah blah confirming all your other posts.
If you were able to come up with something more valuable than your stupid ‘… he failed to grasp…’ then we would see it.
Not only do you not understand anything of what Newton wrote, but also what his many, many followers who understood him very well have achieved: from Mayer to the astronomers of the Kazan Observatory and now to the Chinese Chang’e 5 team.
Bindidon had a weak moment when he hinted that he was leaving the Moon discussion. He even had a temporary brush with reality:
This dire eventuality is reminiscent of the Space Shuttle Challenger and Columbia disasters caused by NASA officials who deliberately ignored warnings issued in the hierarchy below them.
Bin has finally started to realize the corruption and perversion within his cult.
Flat Moon prove
its the fizzix stupid
https://youtu.be/k1kjeWJRg2Q
Even if we mostly disagree: thanks for the good catch.
Yep, nice video for those who still want to learn.
Fraudkerts is back at it again.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1438602
First, the change in angle is 13.36°, not 13.68°. Not a big mistake, but it gets worse.
Fraudkerts doesn’t understand the coffee cup/pencil — much too technical for him. Fortunately we have the very simple ball-on-a-string. So just paint a red dot on the ball where the imaginary spin axis pole would be and a blue dot on the top of the ball where the vertical axis through CoM is. Then orbit the ball half way around its orbit and notice the red dot is now on the other side of the blue dot.
Now if only fraudkerts could correctly add 6.68 to 6.68….
grammie clone is playing with his ball again:
grammie clone shares the same lack of understanding as grammie, as he appears unaware that his cartoon view does not allow him to view the blue dot if it is marked on the side of his tethered ball opposite the string. Absolutely NOT like the Moon’s Libration in Latitude.
grammie & clone (still) understand nothing about this.
Swanson, do you know a responsible adult that can help you with this?
Pup,
Did you know that you could do the Poll Dance Experiment?
grammie clone said something about adults but he has no answer to my critique, so he loses. When will he grow up?
Swanson…Clint R and I are two different people. We are arguing two completely different things about the libration in latitude. As far as I’m concerned, I’ve explained how it works from the “Non-Spinner” way of looking at it. The camera can see more of the top of the MOTR glass when it is at one position around the table, then when it has moved around to the opposite side of the table, the camera can see more of the bottom of the glass. That apparent “nodding” motion the camera records is a libration in latitude.
Now, if you keep the tilt of the glass the same, throughout the orbit, but also keep the same side of the glass facing the camera throughout, you would record a libration in latitude similar to our real moon. You would still see more of the top of the glass at one point in the orbit, and more of the bottom of the glass at another, but you would always be seeing the same side of the glass throughout. Since you “Spinners” think the libration in latitude the MOTR glass demonstrates does not prove axial rotation, you should think the same for the MOTL glass.
“Now, if you keep the tilt of the glass the same, throughout the orbit, but also keep the same side of the glass facing the camera throughout, you would record a libration in latitude similar to our real moon. You would still see more of the top of the glass at one point in the orbit, and more of the bottom of the glass at another, but you would always be seeing the same side of the glass throughout.>
Gee it would be great if the TEAM would follow this simple logic to its obvious conclusion: that they could accomplish this dual goal by simply having the glass rotate around the tilted internal axis.
Since you “Spinners” think the libration in latitude the MOTR glass demonstrates does not prove axial rotation, you should think the same for the MOTL glass.
Huhh???
The TEAM refuses to follow their OWN simple logic to its natural conclusion that could easily explain the Moon’s libration.
Why?
Does DREMT REALLY not understand that this:
“keep the tilt of the glass the same, throughout the orbit, but also keep the same side of the glass facing the camera throughout”
describes orbiting while rotating around an axis with a fixed tilt?
They still simply refuse to understand…
One would think that grammie pups would actually try out his simple models before posting. Go for it, grammie! Slide the tilted glass around the table with the same side facing your camera! Post a video! You will be famous!
So DREMT really doesnt understand that
“keep the same side of the glass facing the camera throughout”
means rotating the glass?
Really?
> means rotating the glass? Really?
Yes, really, Nate. He’s finally recreated the actual motion of the real Moon apart from the elliptical nature of the orbit.
Yes, I’ve recreated the actual motion of the real Moon, Brandy Guts…and, just like how you think the MOTR glass isn’t rotating on its own axis whilst it displays a libration in latitude, I think the MOTL glass isn’t rotating on its own axis whilst it displays a libration in latitude. None of you seem to get what I’m trying to explain.
Any of the arguments about how you’d "have to rotate the glass on its own axis" in order for the camera to always see the same side of the glass would be just the same without the tilt. You could make the same argument without the "axial tilt". It would be a terrible argument, because as we know, the question is – as always – whether you consider the movement to be a "rotation about an external axis" or not. Just because you’d have to turn the glass with your hands doesn’t mean you can’t consider that it’s actually turning about an axis in the center of the table.
grammie can’t understand that experimental evidence refutes his model results.
Here’s another version of your story. Take a big can of beans (or soup) and draw a smiley face on one side. Add a shim of some sort taped on the other side to cause the can to tilt toward the smiley. Place something to mark the center of a table and move that can around the edge keeping the smiley face facing the center. While viewing from the opposite side across the center, what do you see?
Come on, troll, you can do it. Your mommy won’t complain too much as you seek scientific truth.
You are miles behind everybody else, Swanson. Miles behind. Try to keep up. Go back to my first post on the MOTR glass issue, and read through up until now. It’s not my job to help confused old men out of their mental funk.
“Any of the arguments about how youd “have to rotate the glass on its own axis” in order for the camera to always see the same side of the glass would be just the same without the tilt. You could make the same argument without the “axial tilt”. ”
Yes you could rotate the glass without the tilt, then you would keep the same side facing the camera. But would NOT have any head-bobbing libration.
Or you could keep the tilt, but NOT rotate the glass, and you would see the head-bobbing but ALL sides of the glass. This is your MOTR demo.
Or you could do both. Tilt the glass and rotate the glass around this tilted axis, then you would have head-bobbing libration AND you would see only ONE side of the glass. This reproduces what we see the Moon doing.
And it is exactly what you are saying needs to be done here:
“Now, if you keep the tilt of the glass the same, throughout the orbit, but also keep the same side of the glass facing the camera throughout, you would record a libration in latitude similar to our real moon. ”
Sorry but you logically showed that the spinner model is necessary!
The point keeps going over the heads of all these confused old men…
Describing yourself perfectly here.
And notably not offering any counterargument.
Sorry that you have inadvertently become a Spinner.
…point keeps going over the heads of all these confused old men…
grammie pups wrote:
grammie suggests that this latest version of the cartoon story disproves the Moon’s rotation around an internal axis. But, grammie again appears unable to comprehend the geometry involved.
Perhaps further thought would convince him that keeping the “tilt” wrt the table the same while moving it around as he specifies keeping the same side facing the camera results in the camera always viewing the same end of the glass. He is just rotating the tilted glass around a vertical axis, which is not what happens with the Moon’s Libration in Latitude.
No, Swanson. God, you are thick. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered somebody so stupid in all my life. The tilt of the glass faces the same direction throughout the orbit.
Yes, so DREMT does appear understand that the rotation would need to be around a tilted internal axis.
He has arrived at the spinner model of libration!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1438808
For those not stuck in deep denial, this would be an Aha! moment. But alas not for DREMT.
He is just going to pretend this never happened.
Nate says:
”Yes, so DREMT does appear understand that the rotation would need to be around a tilted internal axis.
He has arrived at the spinner model of libration!”
Another intuitive leap of faith by a spinner who hasn’t done his homework and completed the math problems.
DREMT understands this because he studied Tesla.
Nate Do The Math! The tilt of the axis of the moon in no way changes its rotation around an external axis. Since 1995 all such things have been attributed to perturbation theory and is typically if not always manifested physically by a precession that has no effect on the angular momentum of the rotation.
It’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever witnessed on the Internet.
When angular momentum remains constant you always have a rotation. When angular momentum varies you may or may not have a rotation.
"It’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever witnessed on the Internet."
What is, Brandy Guts? The fact that you’re all still missing the point I made…and that you don’t understand that this isn’t a new point? I made the exact same point re the MOTR glass years ago. It’s like you all think I don’t understand how the "Spinners" explain the libration in latitude. I do. It doesn’t prove axial rotation of the moon, though.
Just like how you "Spinners" don’t see the MOTR glass as rotating on its own axis, despite the fact it exhibits a libration in latitude, the "Non-Spinners" don’t see the MOTL glass as rotating on its own axis, despite the fact it exhibits a libration in latitude.
DREMT is just going to pretend that he didn’t just rediscover spinner logic!
And Bill is off on an acid trip..
The "Spinners" are going to pretend I didn’t make this exact same argument years ago, thus proving that I’ve always understood their explanation for the libration in latitude. The "Non-Spinners" explanation would be pretty much exactly the same…for us it’s just a question of the way the moon remains oriented relative to the orbital plane whilst it orbits. Think how you guys as "Spinners" would explain the motion of the MOTR glass. You would not mention an "axis of rotation", because you don’t believe it’s rotating on its own axis. Nevertheless, you observe a libration in latitude.
> What is
Geometry Graham plays dumb again.
> It doesnt prove axial rotation of the moon, though.
I don’t think I’ve seen any spinner claim that it does *in and of itself*.
Those of us who are scientifically literate understand that models derived from *multiple lines* of observational evidence which successfully explain past behavior and produce accurate predictions of the future are the “proof” of a theory’s correctness.
That we have successfully soft-landed on the Moon many times over ought to be “proof” enough, but some people are simply allergic to reality.
More insulting drivel from Brandy Guts…
…you’ve all failed to refute the point I’m making re the MOTR glass. You in particular have gone to enormous lengths to try to obfuscate the simple problem. That didn’t work for you. Oh well.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1439436
It’s fascinating to watch them, all at different stages of understanding, but none of them truly grokking what I’m saying. As we’ve seen down-thread, even The Mighty Tim is apparently confused by the tilted glass demonstration, claiming that it doesn’t correctly model the libration in latitude! Meanwhile, some of the "Spinners" up here seem to get that it does, both for motion like the MOTL and the MOTR, but can’t get the point that if you can have a libration in latitude for a motion where they (as "Spinners") don’t think the object is rotating on its own axis, then a libration in latitude obviously doesn’t prove axial rotation!
Then we’ve got Brandy Guts, who was apparently convinced that my MOTR glass demonstration was some kind of "trick"…
“Ive always understood their explanation for the libration in latitude.”
Bwahahahhaha.
“The “Non-Spinners” explanation would be pretty much exactly the same”
Oh, we’ve been agreeing all this time, then?!
“for us its just a question of the way the moon remains oriented relative to the orbital plane whilst it orbits.”
Again, anyone saying they understand and agree with the spinner explanation would say no such thing!
…think how you guys as "Spinners" would explain the motion of the MOTR glass. You would not mention an "axis of rotation", because you don’t believe it’s rotating on its own axis. Nevertheless, you observe a libration in latitude. So, how would you explain it? What exact words would you use to explain the libration in latitude you observe?
MOTR has an axis of *apparent* rotation perpendicular to its orbital plane when viewed from the center of its orbit, Geometry Graham. The direction of that *apparent* spin is exactly opposite of (retrograde to) its orbital motion.
Hence the non-spinner description of MOTR as being rotation about an external axis with opposite spin about an internal axis.
That the latter motion is only *apparent* ought to be a clue that MOTR isn’t *really* spinning on its own axis, but here we are.
"MOTR has an axis of *apparent* rotation perpendicular to its orbital plane when viewed from the center of its orbit"
If the axis of rotation were perpendicular to its orbital plane, how would you explain the MOTR glass’ observed libration in latitude? You couldn’t.
> the axis of rotation
*Apparent* axis of rotation, Grammar Graham.
In the CSAItruth video, there is nothing "apparent" about the internal axis of rotation for the moon, when it’s moving as per the MOTR. It really is rotating about an internal axis.
Hop on your bicycle, Geometry Graham, and tell me with a straight face that your feet are rotating while your a$$ in the saddle is not.
If the pedals locked so they were physically unable to rotate on their own axes, the cyclist would have a bigger problem…
Yep thats what happens when you don’t maintain your bike.
“how you guys as “Spinners” would explain the motion of the MOTR glass.”
Done that. It doesnt account for the Moon’s motion, so why keep harping on this failed model? What is the point.
Meanwhile you happened upon a model that works to explain the Moon’s motion, and it turns out to be internal rotation on a tilted rotational axis.
So now what? There is no alternative model that works.
“none of them truly grokking what Im saying”
You’re SO misunderstood! Just stop being ridiculous.
You had your chance to explain the Moon’s motion with a Non-Spinner model, failed, and rediscovered that that Spinner model works perfectly.
Now you need to stop arguing.
“MOTR has an axis of *apparent* rotation perpendicular to its orbital plane when viewed from the center of its orbit”
Thats otherwise know as using a rotating reference frame!
Brandon you were so right when you said:
“Its one of the funniest things Ive ever witnessed on the Internet.”
Despite all their lulzing, the "Spinners" still couldn’t shake the feeling that they were missing something important…
What could be more important then DREMTs discovery of the tilted lunar axis? All else was chaff to throw us off the scent.
…maybe a point that was made years ago, that they missed way back then, as well:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-472363
Even back then DREMT was confused about axial tilt, thinking that a Moon WITHOUT any rotation can reproduce our Moon’s observed motion. It didnt then, and it doesnt now.
But when he realized that the Moon must be rotating on a tilted axis to reproduce our Moon’s motion and latitudinal libration, he was finally thinking clearly.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1439096
But alas, only too briefly…
…and, because they were too stupid back then to understand the point being made, just as they are today, DREMT had the last laugh, at the “Spinners” expense…
DREMT:
Nobody understands me! Its because everybody is stupid.
…because they were too stupid back then to understand the point being made, just as they are today, DREMT had the last laugh, at the “Spinners” expense…
grammie and his clones have been repeating the same mistake made years ago. They are trying to produce both the variable vision of the top and bottom of an object tilted to a plane as it is moved horizontally around a table while presenting the same side to the center of the table. But, as should now be obvious, their attempts have led to failure.
Yet, given these repeated failures, they continue to claim that the other explanation, rotation around a tilted axis, is wrong. Sorry, trolls, you are the one that’s wrong, since your models can’t replicate the Moon’s librations.
Swanson, my model involving the MOTL glass has replicated the moon’s libration in latitude, completely, as both Brandy Guts and my stalker agree. You’re so behind in this discussion. The MOTR glass, on the other hand, replicates the libration in latitude, however all sides of the glass are presented to the camera. The point being made is, if you can replicate the libration in latitude with an object that the "Spinners" think is not rotating on its own axis (the MOTR glass) then the "Spinners" should understand that libration in latitude does not prove axial rotation, with the MOTL glass!
grammie pups, Look at THIS GRAPHIC.
Your challenge for today is to pick the version which best represents the actual motion of the Moon’s Libration in Latitude.
“my model involving the MOTL glass has replicated the moons libration in latitude, completely”
IOW the Spinner model, and only the Spinner model can explain the Moon’s motion.
DREMT rediscovered it yesterday, thus he now claims it as his own. While also claiming that his discovery, perversely, supports the Non-spinner model.
It is really a tour-de-force of denialism.
Swanson, I have nothing to prove. You need to prove that you have actually caught up with the discussion, and can follow the argument I’ve made.
> model involving the MOTL glass has replicated the moons libration in latitude, completely, as both Brandy Guts and my stalker agree
Grammar Graham engages in another bit of breathtaking dishonesty.
“The point being made is, if you can replicate the libration in latitude with an object that the “Spinners” think is not rotating on its own axis (the MOTR glass) then the “Spinners” should understand that libration in latitude does not prove axial rotation, with the MOTL glass!”
OMG. There is only one way to replicate the Moon’s observed motion, with the Moon having a tilted internal axis of rotation. After long
denial DREMT arrived at this logical conclusion yesterday.
This falsifies the ENTIRE BASIS of the non-spinner narrative, that that Moon does not rotate on its own axis.
We’re sorry there is no partial credit given for any non-spinner model that fails to reproduce the full Moon motion.
grammie pups, I asked for a simple answer. Since you can’t be bothered to face reality, you lose again.
Besides, grammie wrote:
Last time I checked, you were promoting the MOTR version. It was your grammie clone that was pushing the MOTL version, you know, the one with his cup tied to string attached to a nail in the center of the table.
"Last time I checked…"
Yes, Swanson, you don’t check the discussion regularly enough. That’s the problem. You don’t seem to pay attention to anything that isn’t directed at you, specifically, or anything that is written by anybody else, towards me.
The MOTL glass model keeps the tilt of the glass oriented in the same direction, throughout the orbit, same as the MOTR glass model. The only difference is that the MOTL glass keeps the same face towards the camera throughout the orbit, where the MOTR glass obviously does not. Both the MOTL glass and the MOTR glass display a libration in latitude, i.e. you can see more of the bottom of the glass at some points in the orbit, and the top of the glass at others. "Spinners" should understand by now that if they can see a libration in latitude with the MOTR glass, and they think that glass is not rotating on its own axis, that libration in latitude does not prove axial rotation.
Brandy Guts, you can take your false accusation and shove it where the sun don’t shine, sunshine. You said:
"He’s finally recreated the actual motion of the real Moon apart from the elliptical nature of the orbit."
I suppose you now want to back away from your words, as usual…
Perhaps Geometry Graham can explain how he can keep the same face of his Gyrating Glass oriented toward the center of its orbit without rotating it on its tilted axis.
I can certainly point you in the direction of where I originally dealt with that:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1439410
Geometry Graham overlooks the fact that his usual arguments about his Gyrating Gif fall apart when he introduces an axis that is not perpendicular to the orbital plane.
If you’re going with rotation rather than translation, then the only axis of rotation for the MOTL is external to the moon itself. That doesn’t change with the MOTL glass just because the object moves around the orbit tilted a certain way wrt the orbital plane. Think how you would describe the motion of the MOTR glass, without mentioning the word "axis"…you know, the line of questioning that I was getting at @ 12:37 PM and 1:16 PM yesterday, Brandy Guts…when you changed the subject as quickly as you could…
“”Spinners” should understand by now that if they can see a libration in latitude with the MOTR glass, and they think that glass is not rotating on its own axis, that libration in latitude does not prove axial rotation.”
Nope. No partial credit given for failed non-spinner models
That would be the first two in Swanson’s diagram.
The first is your MOTR, it has nodding head libration, but the one side of the moon doesnt stay pointed to the Earth.
The second is Clint’s, it has no nodding of the head libration but the same black side faces the Earth.
Only the third is correct and matches the Moon’s motion. It has nodding head libration and the same black side faces the Earth throughout.
This is also the Spinner Model. Anyone with working eyeballs can clearly see that the rotation of the body is around the tilted axis.
But apparently not DREMT, he continues in deep denial:
“the only axis of rotation for the MOTL is external to the moon itself. That doesnt change with the MOTL glass just because the object moves around the orbit tilted a certain way”
Is he really so dumb? Just suffering severe confirmation bias? Or just trolling?
What say you readers with working eyballs?
Grammar Graham continues to struggle discerning an *apparent* axis of rotation from a *real* axis of rotation. To the extent his trick works, it’s only because he arbitrarily defines an axis which is not normal to MOTR’s orbital plane.
He should think about how he would use the CSA Truthers’ rig to keep the same face of his tilted glass oriented toward the center of the orbit.
Hint: he would need a third motor.
“To the extent his trick works” which is not at all.
I do like your motors challenge. How would he do it?
Ah, the "Spinners". They continue to struggle discerning an *apparent* axis of rotation from a *real* axis of rotation. To the extent their trick works, it’s only because they arbitrarily define an axis which is not normal to MOTL’s orbital plane.
They should think about how they would use the XY Plotter rig to keep the same face of their tilted glass oriented towards the center of the orbit.
Hint: God knows how many motors they would need. There’s probably several involved with the XY Plotter just moving the glass in a circle.
Thanks, Nate. What he’ll probably do instead is point out that you and I disagree, and/or that my invoking the CSA rig means I agree with their argument.
We shall see.
Well I was wrong on everything except that he Gyrated away from needing a third motor.
You saw. I’ve given my response.
And your response doesn’t address the question, Galloping Graham, just like I knew it wouldn’t.
Another distraction from the utter failure of the non-spinner model. The xy plotter has no z motion, which is required to simulate the Moon’s motion.
A gyroscope spinning and tilted would have to be attached to the xy plotter pen, which would be drawing an elliptical orbit.
The Earth with its tilted axis is a fine model for the Moon’s motion. Just need to adjust its rotation rate to 1rev/365 days, well and adjust its eccentricity.
Actually, it does, Brandy Guts. I made the point that the number of motors to exactly model the motion was irrelevant, as both sides of this argument might need more motors than the number of motions that we’re each claiming the moon has. "Spinners" are claiming that the moon’s movement is comprised of two motions, yet for one of their motions alone (the orbital motion) they need the XY Plotter to move the object in a circle, or ellipse, which is going to involve more than one motor.
To keep the same side of the moon pointed at the Earth only requires one motor in the CSAItruth video. Of course, to keep that moon "tilted" in the right direction throughout the motion might require some additional contraption to be added with its own motor. I wouldn’t say that means anything more than the "Spinners" contraption needing more than one motor to perform "orbital motion".
Actually simpler. Just attach a motor to xy pen with its axel tilted in one direction. Attach Moon to this axel.
As the xy pen draws an ellipse, the motor rotates the Moon once on this , which remains pointed in the same direction throughout the orbit.
” as both sides of this argument might need more motors ”
False equivalence.
Only one side (until yesterday) claimed ‘one motion’.
""Spinners" are claiming that the moon’s movement is comprised of two motions"…
…and "Non-Spinners" are claiming that the moon’s movement is comprised of just one motion, "orbiting". Of course, nobody said that this one motion had to be simple, and free of any perturbations due to the gravitational pull of other celestial bodies, etc…
> Of course, to keep that moon “tilted” in the right direction throughout the motion might require some additional contraption to be added with its own motor.
Geometry Graham Grasps a Glimpse of reality, but Grammar Graham preemptively Gyrates away from it.
He could mount one of these on the Truther rig and might figure it out.
Why “tilted” is in “scare quotes” when he proposed a tilted glass in the first place is anyone’s guess.
Brandy Guts, please explain what you meant by this comment:
"Geometry Graham is correct that a libration in latitude does not prove oblique axial rotation *in and of itself*…"
Then maybe explain why you’ve since gone on and on about libration in latitude as if it does prove axial rotation.
“Of course, nobody said that this one motion had to be simple, ”
Yeah so ‘One Motion’ can mean anything at all.
Its a thing of beauty for trolls to keep bringing up.
grammie pups wrote:
grammie is still wrong about his “models”. Look again at my graphic. The top is your MOTR and the middle is your MOTL delusion. The middle graphic clearly presents only one polar region to the observer, that for the south pole. Neither the first or second graphic matches reality. The bottom graphic, with the tilted rotating axis, does agree with the observations, so that’s the best explanation.
No, you complete and utter twat. The middle graphic is what Clint R has been describing, not me. Clint R and I are two different people, you utterly stupid, obnoxious piece of shit.
> Then maybe explain why youve since gone on and on about libration in latitude as if it does prove axial rotation.
Grammar Graham does not always see implications in what he reads, but when he does you can be pretty sure they’re not actually there.
Geometry Graham could think about what the Man in the Moon would look like if he were actually nodding his head and compare that to the apparent motion caused by oblique axial rotation.
If he can’t think of a third way to get a head-nodding motion that keeps the Man in the Moon facing the camera, he might consider one or the other options “proven”.
Brandy Guts does not always see the obvious implications in what he writes, but when he does you can be pretty sure he’ll deny that they’re actually there.
He could think about what the MOTR glass would look like if it was actually nodding its head and compare that to the apparent motion caused by oblique axial rotation.
If he can’t think of a third way to get a head-nodding motion that keeps the glass turning in front of the camera, he might consider one or the other options “proven”.
See, your illogic cuts both ways!
Swanson accurately explains the 3 diagrams.
DREMT loses his mind:
“No, you complete and utter twat.”
As I said, being dragged by logic of the Spinner model has turned him into a basket case.
"The top is your MOTR and the middle is your MOTL delusion. The middle graphic clearly presents only one polar region to the observer, that for the south pole. Neither the first or second graphic matches reality. The bottom graphic, with the tilted rotating axis, does agree with the observations, so that’s the best explanation."
Swanson…you’re correct that the top graphic corresponds most closely to my MOTR glass. However, as I explained, the middle graphic is not my MOTL glass. The middle is Clint R’s explanation. It’s so obvious that you’ve not been following what I’ve been saying, throughout. The bottom graphic, of the three, corresponds most closely to my MOTL glass.
Once again…both the MOTL glass and the MOTR glass display a libration in latitude, i.e. you can see more of the bottom of the glass at some points in the orbit, and the top of the glass at others. "Spinners" should understand by now that if they can see a libration in latitude with the MOTR glass, and they think that glass is not rotating on its own axis, that libration in latitude does not prove axial rotation.
Geometry Graham really ought compare the motions of the orange and green stickers when he keeps the Man in the Moon facing the camera vs. when he does not.
In only one scenario do the stickers appear to move in the vertical. Guess which.
grammie, It’s true that your clone presented a suggested demonstration for the MOTL, but it was YOU who wrote:
I agree that your quote was in fact “complete and utter twat”.
HERE’s a perfect example of what happens when one ignores physics, even briefly.
Swanson…my MOTL glass model corresponds most closely to your bottom graphic, OK? I never intended it to resemble the middle graphic. That’s why I clarified to you that:
"The MOTL glass model keeps the tilt of the glass oriented in the same direction, throughout the orbit"
You just weren’t listening!
It’s like talking to a brick wall.
Gated Graham gaslights a little more.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
” The bottom graphic, of the three, corresponds most closely to my MOTL glass.”
Indeed it is the only one that matches the Moon’s motion. And it clearly shows rotation around a tilted internal axis for anyone not in a Cult.
And again, the first diagram is only proof that rotation around a tilted axis is required to match the Moon’s motion.
There is no partial credit for half-way there that the first two models obtain.
…it’s like talking to a brick wall.
grammie pups, I can’t find your precise description of your moving glass like the MOTL, Is it THIS ONE or, is there another version BEFORE THIS ONE for the MOTR?
Swanson, in your first link, I clearly say:
"The MOTL glass model keeps the tilt of the glass oriented in the same direction, throughout the orbit…"
In your second link, I also clearly say:
"Now, if you keep the tilt of the glass the same, throughout the orbit…"
I’m not sure how much clearer I had to be!? My MOTL glass model corresponds most closely to your bottom graphic. My MOTR glass model corresponds most closely to your top graphic.
Once again…both the MOTL glass and the MOTR glass display a libration in latitude, i.e. you can see more of the bottom of the glass at some points in the orbit, and the top of the glass at others. "Spinners" should understand by now that if they can see a libration in latitude with the MOTR glass, and they think that glass is not rotating on its own axis, that libration in latitude does not prove axial rotation.
Geometry, grammie, geometry!
Is that your way of acknowledging you were wrong, Swanson?
Is there any way Geometry Graham can realize his definition of latitudinal libration is fatally incomplete, and that the real Moon’s axial rotation also causes other distinguishing apparent movements?
My definition of the libration in latitude is completely fine, thanks. It’s you that seems confused, by your stickers. Oh well. Keep responding, I’ll eventually just PST you when I get bored of your incessant yammering.
Geometry Graham could nod his head up and down facing a mirror then notice his nose follows suit.
Then he could observe his tilted glass model of MOTR and notice that any point he chooses will only appear to move from one side to the other.
Then he could look at the Man in the Moon and see that his nose appears to move both up and down and left and right.
How the Man in the Moon can nod his head without apparent up and down motion is a stretch only Gumby Graham could make.
"Then he could observe his tilted glass model of MOTR and notice that any point he chooses will only appear to move from one side to the other."
Obviously wrong, but never any point in talking to you. Just assume you’re correct, and stop responding to me.
Geometry Graham would have us believe that this is a nodding motion.
Silly Git.
The motion required to achieve the Moons full appearance from the Earth is quite simple. The logic is inescapable. Rotation on a tilted axis while orbiting.
But the Non-spinners keep expecting some sort of credit for showing this result cannot be achieved with a non-rotating Moon.
It is really quite baffling.
Lol at Brandy Gutsplease stop trolling.
Thanks for the win, Galloping Graham.
Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to correct my previous comment, which left out the three dots, for some reason:
Lol at Brandy Guts…please stop trolling.
That’s better.
Can I count each PST as a win, or just the first time, Generous Graham?
You can count as a win whatever you please, Brandy Guts. Reality will always know you lost.
Lol at Brandy Guts…please stop trolling.
Generous Graham is VERY Generous.
Lol at Brandy Guts…please stop trolling.
The non-spinners are ready to git outa Dodge. They’ve had a particularly bad month.
Well, time to get out of here…what a great month.
And also according to you, you are God-like.
Sorry God gets physics..
…time to get out of here…what a great month.
There are so many things wrong with Clint’s response.
The simplest to explain is that his ‘blue dot’ on the ‘vertical line’ would always be perpendicular to the orbit and hence always be at the exact top as by the person spinning the ball. A ‘blue dot’ painted on the moon would likewise always be at the exact ‘top’ of the moon as seen from earth. No libration of latitude! Oops!
There are plenty of free planetarium apps. Stellarium is one that lets you observe from the moon. As expected, the view from the spin axis (the north pole) shows the stars moving in circles around the zenith once per month. Not shifting 13.38 degrees. One might try to argue that a program designed to accurately show astronomical motions just messed up the moon. But the program accurately shows librations when viewed from the earth, so it knows the correct motions of the moon. And other programs show the same effects.
Wrong again, Fruadkerts.
It’s 13.36, not 13.38. But, your getting closer. Arithmetic can be hard.
And libration isn’t a factor here, as you can view the ball from above.
What will you try next?
And yet your “blue dot” remains exactly at the top of the sphere, meaning no libration of latitude. Trying to focus on a minor typo doesn’t solve your bigger error of removing libration of latitude.
the fact that the moon’s orbit is elliptical does not change the angular momentum as shown by Casini. The speed changes but it does so in unison with changes in the ‘r’ factor such that angular momentum remains constant throughout the rotation.
And of course the orbital tilt doesn’t change the angular momentum either so its just a perturbation that has nothing to do with the angular momentum of the rotation.
Bill keeps on trying to force nature to conform to his preconceived notions of what planetary motion should be.
His model just dosnt work for planetary motion. So he tries a little duct tape (perturbations) to hold it in place, but it all unravels when compared to observations.
Take a math class Nate so you can do the math.
As fascinating as a pencil taped to a cup is, its motion isnt like the Moon’s. It does not nod its head, as the Moon does.
So Clint’s obsession with it, and the 13.46 degrees, is baffling.
Correct braindead Nate, Moon does not have a handle. Or a head.
Or a tail.
Clint has helped us understand how to NOT simulate the Moon’s libration.
Weirdly he thinks this somehow helps his cause.
Geometry Graham’s Latitudinal Libration Trick Revealed
In this comment he replaces MOTR with a water glass canted at a small angle from the vertical.
If the initial state of the system has the top of the glass tilted toward the camera, the top rim of the glass will appear as an ellipse. The point lying on the rim of the glass closest to the camera will appear lower than the corresponding point furthest from the camera.
Now move the glass 90 degrees in its orbit while NOT SPINNING it, and the two points on the rim closest and furthest from the camera will appear superimposed one behind the other, i.e. at the same height from the table.
Move the glass another 90 degrees through its orbit so that it is 180 degrees from the first position. Now we have the inverse situation with the closest point to the camera above the point furthest.
This is the apparent nodding motion to which Geometry Graham refers. There is also an apparent rocking motion clockwise and counterclockwise along the line-of-sight axis.
The trick can be seen to good effect in this scene from Superman II.
The illusion works because the rings are essentially featureless and we can’t see the apparent rotation around the axis perpendicular to the table.
So let’s add some features. Go back to the starting position. On the point closest to the rim attach a fluorescent orange sticker and a fluorescent green one on the point furthest. The orange sticker will appear to be lower than the green one, aligned with axis perpendicular to the table.
Now orbit 90 degrees counter-clockwise. The green sticker will appear to the right of the orange one, but their vertical positions will not have changed — they’re the same distance from the tabletop over the course of the entire orbit.
Continue the orbit for a full cycle. The apparent motions of the stickers will be side to side in opposing directions with NO VERTICAL MOVEMENT.
Now watch this video of the Moon. Pick a point near the center of the full Moon with the video paused and put your finger on it. Play the video. Notice how that point appears to move in the vertical. THAT is what is meant by latitudinal libration.
Geometry Graham’s model is busted. Back to the drawing board with him. I hope he has a good eraser and plenty of paper.
Brandon, do you understand “libration” yet?
Lunar libration is due to observation from Earth. Moon is NOT making those rocking motions.
You’re grasping at straws, again.
Do you understand “appears to move”, C00kie?
There *are* librations due to real changes in the lunar motion, the so-called physical librations, but their effect is minuscule … no more than 100 seconds of arc of actual rotation, about 1 second of arc as seen from Earth.
Fascinating stuff really. Pity you’re not actually interested in it.
The bottom line is, lunar libration has NOTHING to do with the fact that Moon is NOT rotating about its CoM.
Find some more videos you don’t understand.
Yes, that’s fascinating indeed.
Reading this history overview paper prepared at Kazan Obs in Russia
http://selena.sai.msu.ru/Symposium/kazan.pdf
is 1,000 times more interesting than what these poor deniers are spitting out of their sick minds.
Some here do not want to understand that all these observations of e.g. the lunar spin and its irregularities are contributions to projects like
The JPL Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides DE440 and DE441
Ryan S. Park & al.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/abd414
which are indispensable in the calculations of spaceship orbits in interplanetary missions (beginning with the determination of translunar and near-lunar trajectories).
As minute anomalies in the Moon’s rotation as forced and free librations may seem to us, they all have an impact when you need extreme precision.
In the same vein, an interesting detail in the paper’s introduction is that the fixed points used to obtain absolute celestial coordinates are no longer Milky Way stars; in between, it seems, much more distant objects are needed:
” The current ICRS realization is achieved by VLBI measurements of the positions of extragalactic radio sources (i.e., quasars) defined in the Third Realization of the International Celestial References Frame (ICRF3; Charlot et al. 2020), which is adopted by the International Astronomical Union (IAU). ”
Yeah.
As I predicted earlier, they continue to refuse to understand.
Bin is back! I knew he couldn’t leave it alone.
And he’s got some more “papers” from his cult. The “papers” support the cult nonsense.
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
But poor Bin STILL has no viable model of OMWAR.
Brandy Guts, as I explained to you before:
When the glass is tilted towards the camera, you can see some of the top of the glass. When the glass is tilted away from the camera, you can see some of the bottom of the glass.
With the libration in latitude for the real moon, when the supposed “axis” is tilted towards the Earth, you can see more of the lunar “North Pole” and surroundings. When the supposed “axis” is tilted away from the Earth, you can see more of the lunar “South Pole” and surroundings.
What you see in my MOTR glass experiment is exactly what you should expect to see. The only difference is that you see all sides of the glass. I already covered that here, however:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1439096
…and further up-thread.
Now, if you had any scientific curiosity, you might study this:
https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Fapp.box.com%2Fs%2F37jqqhs9i6z70dxbsh9ftl7sf6u7qr7s
…and think about what you said re the “side to side” movement. As you can see in the diagram, at one point in the orbit the so-called “axis” leans away from the Earth. Then, 180 degrees of the orbit later, the “axis” leans towards the Earth. Think about the position of the “axis”, and what you would see of it from the Earth, at 90 degrees and 270 degrees, though. You should be seeing the tilt of the “axis” “from the side”. We should be seeing a “side to side” movement of the moon’s “Poles” as a result of the so-called “axial tilt”, as well as just a “nodding” up and down movement.
The green and orange stickers do not change height from the tabletop *until* you *rotate* the glass on its axis to keep the same face of it pointed toward the camera.
With the glass moving as per the MOTR or the MOTL – when the glass is tilted towards the camera, you can see some of the top of the glass. When the glass is tilted away from the camera, you can see some of the bottom of the glass. You don’t seem to understand that this is the libration in latitude. Other "Spinners", discussing this further up-thread, do understand it, however. Perhaps you should take this up with them.
Cult Leader grammie pups continues to ignore geometry, writing:
When his tilted glass is moved like the MOTL cartoon, the initial appearance of tilt is repeated at all other viewing positions, whereas the motion of the MOTR does show some of the top or bottom as the glass rotates.
So, grammie, have you tried the soup can test yet? Glass is sort of fragile, so we wouldn’t want to risk breaking any of your mommy’s fine glassware, would we?
Swanson is still hopelessly behind on the discussion.
Guilt-Free Graham gently gaslights a little more.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
> When the glass is tilted away from the camera, you can see some of the bottom of the glass. You dont seem to understand that this is the libration in latitude.
If Grammar Graham could not substitute his own definitions of things he could not win as many arguments. He also persistently substitutes not understanding for disagreeing. (And elsewhere he even substitutes agreeing for disagreeing!)
Sorry for your loss, Brandy Guts. You went to such a tremendous effort to try to undermine my example, only to prove that you don’t even really understand what the libration in latitude actually is. I’ll gladly bathe in eternal victory, once again, if you insist.
While Glorifying his own Grandeur, Gracious Graham could review the concept of necessary but not sufficient.
When they’re reduced to these sort of deliberately vague rebuttals, we know it’s game over for them.
DREMT continues in deep denial. Having arrived HIMSELF at the Spinner model being the ONLY LOGICAL way to explain the Moon’s observed motion, he tries desperately to claim this helps the non-spinner cause, or to back away from it, or to pretend it somehow doesnt involve axial rotation, and insists that everyone must be stupid if they don’t grok his twisted erroneous thinking!
All in all, he’s become a basket case.
Gerber Graham is encouraged to review the green and orange stickers comment and spoonfeed himself this time.
Brandy Guts, nobody else is with you on the stickers thing. Everyone else gets that the libration in latitude is the observation that you can see more of the top of the glass at some points in the orbit, and more of the bottom of the glass at others. Just like with the libration in latitude for the real moon, when the supposed “axis” is tilted towards the Earth, you can see more of the lunar “North Pole” and surroundings. When the supposed “axis” is tilted away from the Earth, you can see more of the lunar “South Pole” and surroundings.
In this thread, I’m more interested in what anyone has to say about the observation I made in the last paragraph of my 5:36 AM comment from yesterday.
On top of again confusing disagreeing with not understanding, Grammar Graham adds an ad populum argument.
That the poles of the tilted axis appear to move from side to side is not in dispute, and has no bearing on my argument.
"That the poles of the tilted axis appear to move from side to side is not in dispute, and has no bearing on my argument."
Yeah, I don’t really care about your argument, Brandy Guts. I don’t really care how you choose to delude yourself on that issue. Please continue for the rest of your life thinking you are correct, if you wish. I’m not going to bother with it.
So, you’re saying that the "poles" of the tilted "axis" appearing to move from side to side is not in dispute? I would say that it is in dispute though…I’ve never heard it said that there is any apparent side to side movement of the moon as a result of the axial tilt. It’s supposedly only an up and down "nodding" movement. Right? Whereas the libration in longitude is the "side to side" movement, and that has a supposedly different cause altogether. Something doesn’t add up.
“the supposed axis is tilted towards the Earth, you can see more of the lunar North Pole and surroundings. When the supposed axis is tilted away from the Earth, you can see more of the lunar South Pole and surroundings.”
Yes this is the correct description of your glass rotating on its tilted axis.
“In this thread, Im more interested in” changing the subject away from this no good very bad day for non-spinners.
"I’ve never heard it said that there is any apparent side to side movement of the moon as a result of the axial tilt"
That’s missing some square quotes around the "axial tilt". Maybe even a "so-called" for good measure.
“Its supposedly only an up and down “nodding” movement. Right?”
No it is actually both a side to side and back and forth head bobbing movement.
https://youtu.be/3f_21N3wcX8
Better..
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Lunation_animation_April_2007.gif?20070219020337
So, in full, this is what I was intending to write:
"So, you’re saying that the "poles" of the tilted "axis" appearing to move from side to side is not in dispute? I would say that it is in dispute though…I’ve never heard it said that there is any apparent side to side movement of the moon as a result of the so-called "axial tilt". It’s supposedly only an up and down "nodding" movement. Right? Whereas the libration in longitude is the "side to side" movement, and that has a supposedly different cause altogether. Something doesn’t add up.
> Its supposedly only an up and down “nodding” movement.
Now instead of dropping his onlies, Grammar Graham adds one that was never there.
[continued]
The real Moon’s axial tilt causes both an apparent side-to-side and apparent up-and-down motion on every point *except* the poles, which only appear to move side-to-side.
OK, Brandy Guts. Well, I’ll let you argue that out with other "Spinners".
Grammar Graham should review what Nate says at January 30, 2023 at 4:02 PM and explain how that disagrees with what I wrote in my previous comment.
Oh, I don’t know about my stalker that I no longer respond to, Brandy Guts. I was just talking about "Spinners" generally. All the ones I’ve talked to that have previously argued the libration in latitude is strictly an up and down "nodding" motion, the cause of which is the so-called "axial tilt" of the moon, and that the "side to side" libration in longitude is a different motion with a different cause, unrelated to the "axial tilt". Maybe some of them can argue with you, if they should feel a sudden pang of integrity somewhere within their blackened souls.
And so Grammar Graham wins another argument because someone he can’t bother to quote directly allegedly said something to contradict me.
Wonders truly never cease.
…or you could just look up “libration in latitude” and “libration in longitude” and then contact those who wrote the relevant articles you find and argue with them, instead.
“All the ones Ive talked to that have previously argued the libration in latitude is strictly an up and down “nodding” motion the cause of which is the so-called “axial tilt” of the moon,”
So that’s it. Somebody said something so it must be accurate, the whole story!
“the “side to side” libration in longitude is a different motion with a different cause, unrelated to the “axial tilt”.”
Anybody with a bit of intelligence and integrity would understand that it should not be easy to visually isolate one motion from a combination of two motions.
…you could just look up “libration in latitude” and “libration in longitude” and then contact those who wrote the relevant articles you find and argue with them, instead.
Gyrating Graham can’t handle the arguments set before him so he attempts to distract by referring to something else.
Nothing to handle.
Gyrating Graham Gallops away a little more.
If you say so, Brandy Guts.
La Nina effect , plus bonus epic computer modelz failure
https://youtu.be/KtjeNvTwYeU
Is it not interesting to see that while
– some commenters are literally stalked by the lunar spin denial squad with replies ranging from ‘… he failed to grasp …’ up to ‘braindead cult idiot’ insults,
– commenter Eben is silently ignored when writing on January 27, 2023 at 11:52 PM:
” Flat Moon prove
its the fizzix stupid ”
and presents a video
https://youtu.be/k1kjeWJRg2Q “.
pretty good explaining that the Moon spins and is in synchronous locking due to tidal forces exerted on it by Earth.
*
How is that possible?
Anyone who sees something surprising here doesn’t quite understand how this blog works: most of the posters denying the Moon’s spin also are GHE and global warming deniers, and also supporters of the idea of a Grand Solar Minimum that might happen in the near future.
And that’s why Eben’s comment upthread didn’t get a similar reaction as commentators like Tim Folkerts, Brandon R. Gates, Nate, E. Swanson, Bobdroege, Willard, Bindidon, etc. regularly experience.
*
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Lunar Spin deniers secretly hope that Eben, like Vournas, will one day become a turncoat and change his meaning 180 degrees.
Yes, those poor, hard done by "Spinners". However do they cope with all that stalking and abuse!? In no way is it entirely the other way around.
Bin, the description phrase “braindead cult idiot” is NOT an insult. This has been explained several times. You claim to be a language expert, but you are unable to grasp simple English.
The “cult” comes from willingly accepting what the cult says, without question. The “idiot” part comes from denying reality. And the “braindead” part comes from not being able to learn.
You accept your cult’s nonsense without question. You reject reality. You can’t learn. That makes you a “braindead cult idiot”.
That’s not an insult, it’s just accepting reality.
I was sure to obtain replies having nothing to do with what I wrote.
Confirmed.
In physics class when one starts spouting ”braiddead cult idiot” nonsense the professor tells the student. . . .Do the math!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1439357
More of the ”braindead cult idiot” stuff enters the discussion when somebody draws a line of a given distance and locked in place on the moon. Little does this person know that the angular momentum around the point at the end of the line changes as the moon speeds up and slows down as the radius changes during an elliptical rotation to keep the angular momentum constant as the moon changes speeds. Do the Math!!
Oh, Gill.
willard didn’t take any math. You are in the wrong forum Willard.
Gill, Gill,
Angular momentum comes from physics, not maths.
Identifying the proper discipline matters for the success of your putdowns.
Willard if you don’t know math you don’t know physics. I said do the math and you refuse. The only explanation is you can’t do the math.
Seems obvious you never took a physics class as math is a prerequisite for physics.
Gill, Gill,
Algebraic operations are not that hard, even less so for ninjas.
You’re just Very Proud of your new Bordonism.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Little does this person know that the angular momentum around the point at the end of the line changes as the moon speeds up and slows down as the radius changes during an elliptical rotation to keep the angular momentum constant as the moon changes speeds. Do the Math!!”
Bill declares bizarre stuff while on another acid trip.
Tells others to do the math.
Bindiclown still doesn’t get it that he is just the room’s punchin bag
I thought it was Bordon, Eboy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I have come to realize that many people are trying to apply intuition from their everyday experiences when thinking about the moon. They are thinking too mechanically. They try explaining the moon with analogies like
* a horse on a MGR — but there is no post bolted to a rigid platform
* a car driving around a track — but there are no tires to align the moon
* a ball on a string — but there is no string applying forces and torques to the moon
* a glass on a tilted platform — but there is no platform with friction to tip the glass various directions.
* … the list goes on
I am not saying these analogies don’t have some merits as a starting point, but they all imply frictions and forces and torques that don’t exist for the real moon. They give a false sense of how the moon ‘ought’ to behave.
Gravity pulls straight inward, on all bits of the moon. No friction. No torque.
If you want a mechanical analogy, think of this contraption toward the edge of a MGR platform: https://www.jscarnivalrides.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Human-Gyroscope-4.jpg. Think of a large yellow ball the size of the yellow inner frame representing the moon in the middle. Think of frictionless pivots. This will give a pretty simple, accurate, mechanical description of the moon.
For example, start with a non-rotating MGR with a non-rotating ball. If you want to moon to rotate on its axis, you have to give a brief push (apply a torque) to the orange ring, causing it to rotate on its axis at a constant rate. With no push on the orange ring, the moon will not start rotating on its axis. Even if the MGR starts, the north side of the ball will keep facing north as the platform rotates under it. If you want one side to face inward al the time, you give the ball a push to start it rotating on its axis, then start the MGR to get the platform rotating on its axis.
Fraudkerts starts off with “They are thinking too mechanically.” Then presents his mechanical contraption he found on the Internet!
If he’s trying to use his contraption as a model of Moon, he fails as Moon has an elliptical orbit.
If he’s trying to use his contraption as a model of OMWAR, he fails because his imaginary “frictionless axis” reveals that there is rotation about the axel to keep one side always facing north.
Fraud always fails. Reality always wins.
The point for those who missed it is that if you are going to use a mechanical model, at least choose one accurate enough for your purposes.
This contraption actually does work for an elliptical orbit. Put it on the back of a truck driving in an ellipse at appropriate speeds, and you get exactly the right motion, recreating libration of longitude perfect;y. The same cannot be said for a ball on a string or a MGR horse.
This contraption also correctly explains libration of latitude — where both the ’tilted glass’ and ‘pencil in a cup’ fail. Tilt the yellow-orange axis a few degrees; spin the orange ring at some rate, turn the MGR platform at the same rate, and you get perfect libration of latitude
Tim, the tilted glass does not fail to correctly explain libration in latitude.
Yeah it does fail. The glass sits on a ’tilted platform’ that applies a continuous torque to the glass. The real moon has no such torque.
Alternately, you could picture the ‘glass’ as formed by the cylinder between the two red circles here, with the sphere tilted a bit on a flat platform.
http://www.grad.hr/geomteh3d/prodori/sfva4.png
But whether we have the sphere attached to and rotating with the platform (like MOTL) or we have the sphere maintaining a constant orientation (like MOTR), there is no libration. The ‘top of the sphere’ remains exactly at the top.
There will only be libration of latitude with the moon orbiting, but rotating on an internal axis tilted with respect to the plane of the orbit.
Either way, the ‘glass on the tilted platform’ fails to accurately describe libration.
Tim, the tilted glass does not fail to correctly explain libration in latitude.
Exactly Folkerts, “libration” has NOTHING to do with the fact that Moon is NOT rotating on its CoM axis. Hope we don’t have to remind you of that again….
Since you “missed it”, both the MGR horse and the ball-on-a-string accurate model revolving without rotation. It’s not that hard to understand, unless you’re braindead.
” “libration” has NOTHING to do with the fact that Moon is NOT rotating on its CoM axis. “
Whether you accept the spinner or the non-spinner view of ” NOT rotating on its CoM axis”, this is wrong.
* a ‘pencil in coffee mug” has no libration. (not rotating for non-spinners)
* the MOTR has no libration (not rotating for spinners)
The moon has to rotate about an internal axis that is NOT aligned with the plane of the orbit to create libration of latitude.
“Libration” has NOTHING to do with the fact that Moon is NOT rotating on its CoM axis.
Moon does NOT have to rotate to be viewed as having libration of latitude. Libration has NOTHING to do with the fact that Moon is NOT rotating on its CoM axis.
This constant fixation on useless examples lacking any relation to the reality of Moon’s motions is no less annoying than the selective denial of specific parts of Newton’s knowledge.
Exactly Bin. Your cult should cease the useless examples and you should cease misrepresenting Newton.
Bindidon is the one disrespecting Newton. He doesn’t understand torque.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Gravity pulls straight inward, on all bits of the moon. No friction. No torque.”
Now Tim simply resorts to claiming there is no gravity creating torque on the moon because I assume he actually believes the pull on the moon is at the center of mass as they teach in college and they explain the equation for Lorb a point mass.
But Tim torque is a necessity for angular momentum so your claim is effectively there is no angular momentum for the moon’s orbit. Yet such an angular momentum is universally recognized by scientists. That in fact is the problem with the Lorb equation there is no ‘r’ variable in it.
The angular momentum is Lorb+Lspin. Its just a convenient fact that the difference between the angular momentum of an orbiting body and a non-orbiting spinning uniform sphere is Lorb.
But you guys take this shortcut and start making all sorts of crazy claims.
Fact is Lorb does not equal the sum of the angular momentum of each particle in the moon orbiting another body. No spin function in this calculations. And the mean point of that torque is not at the center of the moon!! Thats why there is torque on the moon.
There is more angular momentum in the more distant half of the moon than their is in the closest half. Do the math. Use a 3 point object. One point at the center of the moon, one most distant particle, and one closest. the mean angular of those 3 particles is greater than the angular momentum of the central particle.
Here is the equation:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
that should have been ”the mean angular momentum of those 3 particles is greater than the angular momentum of the central particle.”
And because of the fact that the outer particle has more angular momentum than the inner particle that produces a torque as long as the force from the external axis is in place.
the CD that flew apart the chunks fly off in a straight line each rotating on its axis as those chunks retain some angular momentum.
Truly blow the cd apart into fine dust and virtually all the angular momentum will be converted to linear momentum. Do the math! Don’t just intuitively wing it.
> torque is a necessity for angular momentum so your claim is effectively there is no angular momentum for the moons orbit
Torque is necessary for a *change* in angular momentum, Bill. Just like force is necessary to *change* linear momentum.
In a frictionless environment, mind. In an application like a DVD player or merry-go-round, constant torque is required to overcome friction of the bearings and atmosphere.
> the outer particle has more angular momentum than the inner particle that produces a torque as long as the force from the external axis is in place.
Assuming both particles are of equal mass, they have the same angular momentum because they are changing orientation at the same angular velocity. The outer particle has more kinetic energy by virtue of it having greater instantaneous linear velocity. Finally, centripetal force is not a torque.
That said, you *are* correct that gravity produces torques on celestial bodies due to tidal deformations and other inhomogeneities, and yes perturbations from outside bodies. Those torques have the effect of changing their angular velocity about the internal axis of rotation, orbital velocity, axial precession, and apsidal precession to name but a few.
Brandon claims:
”Torque is necessary for a *change* in angular momentum, Bill. Just like force is necessary to *change* linear momentum.”
Yes more torque is required to change the angular momentum. But it also needs to be constant for it to stay as angular momentum instead of linear momentum. Keep in mind torque is a momentum or force applied to the end of lever attached at the other end to a fixed axis.
This disintegrates the spinner argument. And you all intuitively know it talking about ‘solid’ objects within which a torque exists.
For those confused about momentums and forces keep in mind that a car coasting into a lever arm provides torque on that lever arm. If the car becomes attached to the end of the lever its momentum will be converted to angular momentum. If it just impacts it and slips off it will continue to coast in a straight line and the torque will be removed form about the fixed axis the lever arm was attached.
I am amazed that all your confusion was related to not understanding torque. Any garage mechanic understands it better than you guys.
> it also needs to be constant for it to stay as angular momentum instead of linear momentum
Sounds like Bordonese gobbledygook, Gill.
Torque is a rate of change in angular momentum. If you increase it, you won’t get linear momentum. Neither will you get linear momentum if you decrease it.
What you need is a straight direction, i.e. a translation.
“its momentum will be converted to angular momentum.”
Linear momentum and linear momentum are two different concepts, with two different units. This is a wrong as saying force can be converted into energy or length can be converted into area.
“But [torque] also needs to be constant for it[?] to stay as angular momentum instead of linear momentum. ”
A 0.5 kg ball is attached to the end of a 1.5 m rod that is fixed at the other end. The ball is moving 3 m/s. What is the angular momentum of the ball? How much torque require to maintain this angular momentum?
Do the math. Do the math.
Done right here!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1439567
“Truly blow the cd apart into fine dust and virtually all the angular momentum will be converted to linear momentum. ”
No, the net linear momentum will still be zero, just like before. And the net angular momentum will still be L = I(omega) = 1/2 MR^2 (omega). [at least until air resistance or walls of the room come into play]
Try a simpler example .. two particles of mass M at the ends of a rod of length 2L spinning about the center. The net angular momentum of the two particles about the center is 2 x (ML^2)(omega). The net linear momentum of the two particles is zero. Release them at the some time. The net linear momentum is still zero; the net angular momentum about the center is still 2 x (ML^2)(omega). Nothing is ‘converted’ in to anything by simply releasing them.
Do the math! Dont just intuitively wing it.
Watch the video Tim. The pieces are clearly flying off in linear directions. If they still possessed the angular momentum of an object rotating around an axis they would continue to do that.
Do the math and refresh what you are seeing by the experiment. I thought you watched the video. Tim is a science denier.
“The pieces are clearly flying off in linear directions. If they still possessed the angular momentum of an object rotating around an axis they would continue to do that.”
You are the one who needs to understand what angular momentum is and to ‘do the math’.
Consider a particle of mass 2 kg moving horizontally in the x-direction with y = 3 m moving at 4 m/s.
Show that L = rxp measured from the origin is constant at 24 kg*m^2/s.
Done!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1439567
If you actually agree, then you are agreeing that a particle moving in a straight line at constant speed has constant angular momentum. That is a step in the right direction at least.
no i don’t agree.
it would have a constant zero amount of angular momentum since the radius of its rotation is zero and stays at zero.
Gill, Gill,
Zero *is* constant.
If angular momentum is a change of rate, what is an angular momentum of zero?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“torque is a necessity for angular momentum ”
No. Torque is necessary for a CHANGE in angular momentum (just like force is required for a CHANGE in linear momentum). A constant angular momentum (like either Lorb or Lspin for a moon) requires no torque.
“Its just a convenient fact that the difference between the angular momentum of an orbiting body and a non-orbiting spinning uniform sphere is Lorb.”
No, that is the ‘parallel axis theorem.” It is required by how angular momentum is defined.
“Fact is Lorb does not equal the sum of the angular momentum of each particle in the moon orbiting another body. ”
Of course! The sum of the angular momentum of each particle in the moon would be the total L = Lorb + Lspin.
[Also, I could have gotten into tidal forces and torques, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.]
lol, we simultaneously posted almost the same response, Tim.
Fascinating how two people who know a bit of physics spot the same errors and present the same corrections.
More fascinating still is how Pup & Geometry Graham disappear when Gill takes one for the Moon Dragon crank team.
I’m right here. Haven’t disappeared anywhere. I think I’ve mentioned several times before that I haven’t yet made up my mind re "angular momentum and orbital motion" so I tend to keep out of such discussions.
[Geometry Graham] Im right here.
[Grammar Graham] I tend to keep out of
🤦
OK, well if you’re going to specifically call me out, maybe don’t be surprised if I respond.
Ghostly Graham does not always refuse to discuss angular momentum, but when he does he’s right here.
…well if you’re going to specifically call me out, maybe don’t be surprised if I respond.
Geometry Graham a right here, still hesitant to opine on a simplistic question.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkerts says:
”No. Torque is necessary for a CHANGE in angular momentum (just like force is required for a CHANGE in linear momentum).”
Tim that is a lame excuse of an argument. For the moon to be in rotation torque is required. You said:
”but they all imply frictions and forces and torques that dont exist for the real moon.”
Well torque is there and you don’t see it. A practical explanation of torque is a force or momentum on a lever arm fixed to an axis. Thus to put the spin on a ball the ball must have some dimensions for a lever arm to exist on the ball. If that force results in a motion or the motion has momentum for a rotation to exist that lever arm must still be in place. (e.g. for a spin on an internal axis the outer most particles of the object must have some momentum or a force to create the torque. Since that is conserved the lever arm has to exist at all times and intact object/system has a rotation. Blown an object apart the lever arm is gone and so is the angular momentum. But the energy of the momentum is perserved as linear momentum. The individual chunks will still have some angular momentum based upon the lengths of the levers in the objects. But the smaller you divide the object up, more angular momentum gets converted to linear momentum because of the diminishing ‘r’ factor. (for the slow speed folks ‘r’ is the lever in an angular momentum calculation)
For all this to come together for you you must do the math. I see nobody doing the math. And without math you don’t have physics.
The math is easy as I pointed out. I gave a simple math problem you can build on. Along with the link to the equation for each particle.
Use a 3 point object. One point at the center of the moon, one most distant particle, and one closest. the to particles away from the center particle are equidistance away from the center. the ‘mean’ angular of those 3 particles is greater than the angular momentum of the central particle because the spin element of Newton’s equation is actually part of the mean orbital angular momentum of the orbit. Newton had to have known this to reduce his equation to a simpler form.
Here is the equation:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
For the moon nothing but torque is constantly present due to angular momentum actually being a momentum or force on one end of a lever that the other end of the lever is fixed to an axis. And I say nothing else is necessary for a rotation. For the moon some other motions may appear due to perturbation theory regarding the sun and other celestial objects.
“For the moon to be in rotation torque is required. “
Perhaps I understand the point you are trying to make.
I am considering the moon as a whole. Both Lorb and Lspin for the moon are constant and there is no torque applied by gravity.
You seem to be considering the L for an individual rock on the moon. Let’s measure L for that rock from the center of the orbit. When the rock is on the far side of the moon, it is moving faster and has a larger distance, so L = rxp is larger. When the rock is on the near side of the moon, it is moving slower and has a smaller distance, so L = rxp is smaller.
But gravity did not do this! “r” is always the vector straight out from the center to the rock. “F” is always straight in. torque = rxF is always zero due to gravity!
Only internal forces from adjacent rocks apply a torque. Not gravity, which is what I claimed.
“the mean angular of those 3 particles is greater than the angular momentum of the central particle “
Yes. In accordance with the central axis theorem. If you have never gone through that math, I encourage you to try!
because the spin element of Newtons equation is actually part of the mean orbital angular momentum of the orbit.
No, Lorb and Lspin are two different ideas. The ‘simplified form’
at hyperphysics is purely Lorb, treating the object as a point mass following an ellipse. Lspin is in addition to this.
Tim says:
”the mean angular of those 3 particles is greater than the angular momentum of the central particle ”
Yes. In accordance with the central axis theorem. If you have never gone through that math, I encourage you to try!
—————————–
Tim you haven’t done the math yet. There is no ‘point mass’ being used in the spin element of the angular momentum of the moon.
I gave the reference materials for a particle orbiting the moon.
Your claim is effectively a point mass at the center of the moon is equal to the orbital angular momentum of the moon.
So if you have 3 particles in orbit that are respectively 3, 4, 5 meters distance from the external axis each rotating at 1 revolution per second and each with an equal mass of 1kg. The Lorb element for the Newton shortcut equation for a orbiting mass is 3 grams orbiting at 1rps at 4 meters and gives an lorb of 301.59.
Meanwhile the Lspin for the 2 particles of 1 kg, rotating around the central particle at 1rps, and a distance of 1 each equals 12.57.
But if you actually take the sum of each particle and apply the Lorb equation to each particle rotating around an external axis and add them together you get an angular momentum of 314.16
301.59+12.57=314.16
This is easy stuff. Newton invented the Lorb+Lspin equation for a uniform sphere as a simplification of trying to sum the angular momentum of every particle and now people have started believing the pull on the moon is pulling the center. By further analyzing the situation the actual mean center of pull on the moon by the earth is a bit offcenter and bit further from the axis than the center of the moon.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
So by all means do the math, confirm my work, and if I made a mistake point out what that mistake is.
Tim says:
”because the spin element of Newtons equation is actually part of the mean orbital angular momentum of the orbit.
No, Lorb and Lspin are two different ideas. The simplified form
at hyperphysics is purely Lorb, treating the object as a point mass following an ellipse. Lspin is in addition to this.”
Yes as my math shows ‘treating the object as a point mass’ produces an erroneous angular momentum for an object rotating around an external axis.
So if you want to insist on your point view as we have saying forever. . . .it applies to ALL rotations on external axes and they don’t exist in your mind because you want to break them down to an Lorb that doesn’t represent anything except as you guys say a translation.
If you want to make the MOTL 2 motions, then you have to deal with the fact that point masses don’t exist so what you are doing is rotating a fictional object and producing a fictional rotation.
You seem to be agreeing with me (while thinking we disagree).
We can find the total angular momentum by either:
a) finding the angular momentum of each particle and summing these.
56.55 + 100.53 + 157.08 = 314.16
L1 + L2 + L3 + … = Ltotal
b) finding the orbital angular momentum of the CoM and adding the spin angular momentum around the COM
301.59 + 12.57 = 314.16
Lorb + Lspin = Ltotal
Both are the same value, which is exactly what I was saying. Note that the second method is generally much easier. For example, if the masses were rotating about their CoM at 2 rev/s while the CoM was still orbiting at 1 rev/s, method 1 would become nearly impossible, while method 2 would be trivial.
Method 2 also has the advantage that Lorb and Lspin are each constant. There is no gravitational torque* to change either of these.
“By further analyzing the situation the actual mean center of pull on the moon by the earth is a bit offcenter and bit further from the axis than the center of the moon.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp“
That diagram has nothing to do with the ‘mean center of pull’. It is about the “angular momentum of a particle”. Particles in this context do not have extent, and the pull is exactly at the location of the particle.
In any case, for a spherically symmetric moon, the pull on the moon is also symmetric and there is no gravitational torque about the center of the moon. This is (relatively) easy to show.
[* NOTE: For tidally distorted moons, there can be a net torque if the moon is not already tidally locked, but this is a different, more subtle issue).
Tim Folkerts says:
We can find the total angular momentum by either:
a) finding the angular momentum of each particle and summing these.
56.55 + 100.53 + 157.08 = 314.16
L1 + L2 + L3 + = Ltotal
b) finding the orbital angular momentum of the CoM and adding the spin angular momentum around the COM
301.59 + 12.57 = 314.16
Lorb + Lspin = Ltotal
Both are the same value, which is exactly what I was saying.
———————————
Thats correct but you are missing the dilemma. The angular momentum of an object rotating on an external axis is a) or b)
a) is Σmvr
b) is Lorb+Lspin
so if you want to put a spin on these orbiting particles
you have to add Lspin
Such that an orbiting object with a spin on its center of mass at the same rate as the orbit rotation equals:
a) is Σmvr + Lspin
b) is Lorb+2Lspin
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#alm
Tim does the math, and the proper accounting.
“301.59 + 12.57 = 314.16
Lorb + Lspin = Ltotal”
Bill does WEIRD accounting and math while on yet another acid trip…
“an orbiting object with a spin on its center of mass at the same rate as the orbit rotation equals
b) is Lorb+2Lspin”
Tim corrects Bill on his diagram:
“http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
That diagram has nothing to do with the mean center of pull. It is about the ‘angular momentum of a particle’. Particles in this context do not have extent, and the pull is exactly at the location of the particle.”
But Bill ignores this sensible advice and and reposts diagram!
No Bill, you are creating a dilemma where none exists.
“Yes as my math shows treating the object as a point mass produces an erroneous angular momentum for an object rotating around an external axis.”
But I (and the rest of physics) aren’t treating anything as a point mass! We are treating the object as either:
a) individual masses summing angular momentum
Σmvr
b) a point mass for orbital angular momentum and an extended object spinning around its CoM
Lorb+Lspin
where Lorb = MVR and M =total mass, V = speed of CoM and R = distance to CoM
and where Lspin = Σmvr and m = one bit of mass, v = speed of that bit relative to the moving CoM, and r = distance from Com to that bit of mass.
Both correctly give 314 kg*m^2/3 for the angular momentum.
“if you want to put a spin on these orbiting particles…”
Those orbiting particles already HAVE spin in your example. They are rotating relative to the CoM once per second.
Read those chapters in a physics textbook again. Learn what Lorb and Lspin mean. Go through the derivation of the parallel axis theorem/
You have to understand, Bill, that Tim doesn’t believe there’s any such motion as "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis". I know…just let that sink in for a moment. Tim believes that as soon as something is rotating about an external axis, it’s automatically rotating about an internal axis as well!
Now, Tim correctly agrees that movement like the MOTR can be described as being comprised of two motions. So, those two motions will be rotation about an external axis in one direction, and rotation about an internal axis, in the opposite direction. That’s all good, and correct. He gets that. So he understands the concept of -1 internal axis rotations. He just rejects the idea of 0 internal axis rotations. How crazy is that!
So to Tim, the MOTL is +1 internal axis rotations per external axis rotation. Then the MOTR is -1 internal axis rotations per external axis rotation. He just sort of…skips the entire concept of zero! So he counts down through +n, +3, +2, +1 internal axis rotations per external axis rotation, pretends zero doesn’t exist, and then resumes counting through -1, -2, -3, and so on.
It’s because he has a PhD, you see. That means he can forget the sort of rules that apply to us lesser mortals, like the existence of the concept of zero, and so on.
So in the process of getting his PhD he married his favorite equation here.
As the particles of any rotating disk, like the chalked circle on the mgr could simultaneously be ‘described’ as orbiting the mgr axis and/or rotating on their centers of mass. Hmmmm. That ultimately makes Tim a Non-spinner! Or at least one trying desperately to keep one foot in each boat.
I think we need to welcome Tim to the Non-spinners club. Maybe hold a party!
Dremt, you are off on your usual tangent about “one motion” and “two motions” and words and semantics.
The issue is simple:
1) define what is meant by ‘rotation about an axis’
2) see if something fits that definition
3) see what useful predictions can be made.
I define “rotation about an axis” as “maintaining a constant distance from the axis and changing orientation relative to that axis.”
Yes, the MOTL fits that definition.
This let’s me accurately predict the angular momentum using both approaches.
You have no definition, which lets you say pretty much anything you want!
So, by Tim’s own definition, the MOTL is rotating about an external axis…and basic logic dictates that (unless you’re going to do away with the concept of zero) the MOTL will be the one that is "rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
Tim’s PhD blinds him to the obvious truth of that, but part of him can see the logic in it, and so he tries to bluff his way out by accusing me of arguing "semantics"!
> basic logic dictates that (unless youre going to do away with the concept of zero)
🤦
As usual, Little Willy has nothing worthwhile to contribute.
“and basic logic dictates ..”
This is where DREMT always goes astray. He has no definition of what he means by rotation, and uses his weak intuition instead.
Or maybe after all these post, DREMT is ready to actually say what constitutes “a rotation about an axis” in his world.
Rotation a motion around a fixed axis.
It’s not intuition, Tim. We just went with your definition of rotation, and concluded the MOTL was rotating about an external axis. There has to be a motion where a body rotating about an external axis has no rotation about an internal axis, otherwise you could not have rates of internal axis rotation of 0.5 times per external axis rotation, for instance, or indeed anything between zero and one. Your jump between +1 for the MOTL and -1 for the MOTR is obviously wrong, you’re just unable to admit it.
“We just went with your definition of rotation”
The one that have to deny the rest of the time to support their narrative!
They have no shame for the glaring contradictions baked into their non-spinner POV.
“Rotation a motion around a fixed axis.”
By that definition, a MGR is not rotating because the MGR’s axis is moving with the earth.
By that definition, the earth is not rotating because the earth’s axis is moving around the sun.
By that definition, the bit in my drill is not rotating if I wave my hand around.
Tim Folkerts says:
I define ”rotation about an axis as maintaining a constant distance from the axis and changing orientation relative to that axis.”
dremt said you were playing semantics. Does the moon have rotational kinetic energy? And if so why does that not make the moon’s motion a rotation?
Nate says:
”They have no shame for the glaring contradictions baked into their non-spinner POV.”
What contradiction Nate?
I will ask you like I asked Tim. Does the moon have rotational kinetic energy on an external axis?
Are you on board with Tim that the MOTL has a +1 rotation on a central axis and the MOTR has a -1 rotation on a central axis.
“Does the moon have rotational kinetic energy on an external axis?”
I will answer your question if you tell us your alternative definition of rotation (to Madhavis) and where you found it.
Seems simple enough, and we’ve only asked you about a dozen times.
Bill, note that my stalker, unlike Tim, does agree that one of the ways the MOTL’s motion can be described is "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis". He directly disagrees with Tim, but will of course never dare argue any point with him. "Spinner" will never argue against "Spinner". Them’s the rules.
Bill ponders: “Does the moon have rotational kinetic energy? And if so why does that not make the moons motion a rotation?”
Yes, the moon’s motion around its own axis is indeed a rotation and the moon has rotational KE = 1/2 I (omega)^2.
The moon also has additional kinetic energy related to its orbital motion.
Bill defines: “Rotation a motion around a fixed axis.”
By that definition, a MGR doesn’t rotate because the axis is moving with the earth.
By that definition, the earth doesn’t rotate because the axis is moving around the sun.
By that definition, a bit in my drill doesn’t rotate if I wave my hand around.
Rotation does not require the axis to be ‘fixed’.
“Rotation a motion around a fixed axis.”
Also note that even if we consider a post staked into the ground as a “fixed axis”, I could walk in a square around the post and that would fit this definition.
Definitions in science and math need to be precise in order to have a common language to communicate.
DREMT: “We just went with your definition of rotation, and concluded the MOTL was rotating about an external axis. “
Yes, that much is in accordance with my definition.
“There has to be a motion where a body rotating about an external axis has no rotation about an internal axis”
Why???
If you actually went with my definition, you would not conclude this. If every point of the body is maintaining a constant distance from the external axis, then every point in the body is ALSO maintaining a constant distance from every other point within the body. Thus we can choose a moving axis through ANY point in the body, and the body is rotating about that axis at exactly the same rate as it rotates about the external axis.
This is the contradiction Nate pointed out. You can’t say you are using my definition, but only use half the time when it is convenient for your (false) arguments.
Tim asks:
“Why???”
…but ignores that I already explained why in the comment that he’s quoting from…and in previous comments to him.
He then goes on to try to read my stalker’s mind. One problem with that attempt is that as I pointed out to Bill, earlier, my stalker is on record as having agreed that one of the ways the motion of the MOTL can be described is “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”.
Tim Folkerts says:
Bill defines: ”rotation a motion around a fixed axis.”
”By that definition, a MGR doesnt rotate because the axis is moving with the earth.
By that definition, the earth doesnt rotate because the axis is moving around the sun.
By that definition, a bit in my drill doesnt rotate if I wave my hand around.
Rotation does not require the axis to be ‘fixed’.”
————————
1) -you just called out your own definition as you stated it must remain a fixed distance from the rotating object.
2)mine is that the object must have an unbroken connection to and control the distance is from the object.
3)and your drill bit is not properly fixed in the drill’s chuck.
4) and mgrs are usually very well fixed to the ground otherwise it would be traveling like a spinning top around the fairgrounds
5) being fixed doesn’t necessarily mean what some narrow minded bigot wants it to mean just because he lacks any argument with any real physical justification for his narrow minded point of view. . . .usually a symptom of snobbery.
here is a breakdown of mehanical physics which path do you think the moon’s motion belongs on?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html#mechcon
and here is a physics breakdown of concepts in physics that relates to rotational motion. Which concepts do not apply to the moon’s orbital motion?
DREMT, you don’t get to CLAIM to use my definition, then NOT actuallay use my definition.
Tim, you don’t get to ignore the concept of zero when it suits you.
Bill, it seems we agree that rotation is a circular motion about some line we call the axis. (If you don’t agrees about the ‘circular’ part, there is no point continuing.)
It seem the only actual point of contention is your use of the word “fixed”. What do you mean by “fixed” — how can we tell if an axis is ‘fixed’? I suspect you will have a hard time coming up with a clear definition. For example, if I hold a spinning bike wheel in my hand is the axis ‘fixed’? What if I walk in a straight line? What if I walk in a circle? Does it matter if the axle is horizontal vs vertical?
looks like I forgot to give the link to rotational elements so you could pick the ones out that aren’t relevant for orbital rotations in general.
So here you go: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/circ.html#rotcon
And yes we disagree on uniform circular motion as being a standard.
Oft times definitions don’t amount to good classifications. When it comes to rotations and elliptical motions. . . .I can’t think of any that would qualify as a rotation other than Keplerian Elliptical orbits. So obviously you can’t say ‘elliptical motion’ but as I and DREMT points out many many scientists include Keplerian orbits withiin the definition of rotation. I am well aware of and have stated many times in the past that astronomy having not yet advanced to the stage of creator of worlds really has no significant need to not include active attitude control systems in the small worlds they do create as these devices have to usually deal with atmospheric resistance. But they did study the need for it and have launched a few things, just that it doesn’t provide them cost effectiveness to go all in.
But it does appear we have a lot in common here with no response on 1 through 5 nor the branch of mechanics that orbits belong in.
And regarding torque. Keplerian orbits with eccentricities >0 have almost constant torque. It is small but consistently lays a hand upon the lever 4 times an orbit. Keplerian orbits with eccentricities =0 fits all your criteria except for the presence of torque and they are clearly in the category such as the MOTL. So I am calling you out on throwing out irrelevant criteria.
The TEAM dances around it, but STILL is unable to come up with a REAL, coherent definition of rotation.
They claim to know it when they see it, but are unable to articulate what it is. In science that is a losers argument.
That would bother most people. Particularly those who use the word so often, and insist that others are not using it right.
In the world of a few years ago, when facts mattered, these guys would have lost this debate by default.
“And regarding torque. Keplerian orbits with eccentricities >0 have almost constant torque. It is small but consistently lays a hand upon the lever 4 times an orbit. ”
It is really quite astonishing how often Bill uses physics-y words, but puts them together to create total nonsense.
FYI, torque changes the angular momentum of a body, which is Newton’s 2nd law of rotation.
So if these bodies in orbit have constant angular momentum (and they do), then they have NO TORQUE applied on them.
And yet he persists in trying to man-splain physics to those who understand it. And in doing so mangle it.
What is Bill’s problem?
Is he insane? Addled? Severely disabled with DK syndrome? Just trolling? All of the above?
What say you neutral readers?
Bill, the trick is obvious. They want us to define “rotation” for the 200th time just so they can shriek, “See! A rotation is in a circle, but an orbit is an ellipse!”
That’s all it is. It has nothing to do with any of the reasons they purport to be asking for.
It’s ridiculous.
“Its ridiculous.”
How DREMT endlessly needles Tim about the pedantic semantics of the MOTL motions is actually ridiculous.
But asking the TEAM for the most basic thing, the definition of a word that they use regularly in this debate, is deemed too much! They are being harassed to death!
There is very good reason we keep asking for this.
You guys define Orbit as a rotation, without a definition of rotation itself! Nor provide a definition of Orbit that agrees.
It is simply circular fiction.
Lacking a definition of rotation from a reputable source that agrees, while using the not-agreeing standard definition from Madhavi whenever convenient, is simply a contradiction.
In the normal world of honest debate, you guys lose.
yep, these guys are so stuck in the mud and inculcated they all to a man would fail as engineers for failing to gasp the obvious. Tim seems to have kind of stepped out of line in recognizing the motl as a single motion while nate continues to argue for two motions in the face of evidence it is one motion that is commonly separated into two components in cases that simplifies the analysis because of i believe it might be newtons formula for the momentum of a rotating uniform sphere around an external axis. it is amazing how much additional effort it takes for them to close the logic and recognize all keplerian orbits belong in the classification.
…the trick is obvious. They want us to define “rotation” for the 200th time just so they can shriek, “See! A rotation is in a circle, but an orbit is an ellipse!”
That’s all it is. It has nothing to do with any of the reasons they purport to be asking for.
It’s ridiculous.
And why does Bill keep answering the question by showing a source
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html#mechcon
that doesnt define rotation at all!
Yes, rotating things have angular momentum, as do some not rotating things.
Yes rotating objects have angular motion, described by kinematic equations. As do some objects that are not rotating.
Example: an asteroid flies past the Earth. It has angular momentum. Its path is bent by Earth’s gravity into a curve, which is describable as angular motion. But it does not end up orbiting the Earth. It is not a rotation.
BTW this is called gravity assist, and used to boost speeds of spacecraft.
Translation from Bill-speak
‘inculcated’
– People who understand technical stuff that Bill doesn’t are said to be inculcated.
” They want us to define ‘rotation’ for the 200th time just so they can shriek, See! A rotation is in a circle, but an orbit is an ellipse!”
Does he mean they HAVE defined it 200 times?? Where? When?
Or does DREMT mean that he is accepting that the Madhavi definition as valid, and thus Orbits are NOT rotations?
Or is he going to try to have it both ways?
Nate what you fail to recognize is that definitions are not science nor have anything to do with the reality of science. Physics is as it names implies about physical reality and the elements of what makes something have a physical characteristic. Definitions are mere semantics and are used for training scientists. In themselves they say nothing about physical reality. The same can be said about inanimate shapes. In physics its the physical concepts that matter. Thats what matters in all the links from actual top notch scientists we have given you over the course of this super extended lesson to bring the remedial students along. And yet many still remain stuck in the mud not able to beat their way out of a paper bag toward understanding what physics is actually about. . . .just mired in the language of physics.
I realize that land bound scientists only deal with cirucular rotations and celestial scientists find it convenient to split one motion into two conceptual components and have adopted a synonym of rotation to make it clear if they are talking about spin or revolution (both of which fit in the category of rotation).
So rather than define rotation how about a conceptual map of the physical realities of rotation instead? Something that actually classifies what a rotation is.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/circ.html#rotcon
So I will ask you which ellipse describing a physical concept does not belong to orbits in the 2nd diagram on this page?
"Tim seems to have kind of stepped out of line in recognizing the motl as a single motion while nate continues to argue for two motions…"
It’s actually weirder than that. Both of them accept that movement like the MOTL can be described as being comprised of one motion. However, only Nate agrees that the "one motion" is "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis". Tim seems to think the "one motion" is "rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis"! It’s his inability to understand why this is wrong that holds him back from truly understanding any of the "Non-Spinner" arguments. It all comes down to that, for Tim. That’s why I brought it up again. He’s never going to get what you’re saying until he groks that there’s such a motion as "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis", and that it’s motion like the MOTL.
“Its ridiculous.”
Asking your debate opponents to back up their oft-stated assertions with facts and evidence, is deemed ‘ridiculous’.
Revealing that your debate opponent’s assertions are contradictory is deemed ‘ridiculous’.
These are deemed unfair tactics in a debate.
Yes, neutral observers, it is quite baffling.
“Nate what you fail to recognize is that definitions are not science nor have anything to do with the reality of science. ”
Bill, it should be very easy to define a word that you use regularly in this debate. Not doing so is what a loser does, who has no definition that works for their argument, and thus must keep evading the question.
All scientific papers have to define the terms they use, or use terms that have universally agreed upon definitions.
Else they would fail to effectively communicate their findings to all others, which is essential in science.
Well nate a true physics definition for the concept of a rotation should include all the physical elements that related to it. I just did that and you continue to ignore it.
Geometry Graham is gaslighting again, and Gill, well, who knows what Gill does.
“Well nate a true physics definition for the concept of a rotation should include all the physical elements that related to it. I just did that and you continue to ignore it.”
Where did you define it? A definition is not a vague assemblage of associations.
It should be EASY to define this word. It was very easy for us!
The fact that it isnt easy for you is quite telling, Bill.
By this absence, you are admitting:
‘I cannot define this word because to do so would invalidate my argument’
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Its actually weirder than that. Both of them accept that movement like the MOTL can be described as being comprised of one motion. However, only Nate agrees that the “one motion” is “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”. Tim seems to think the “one motion” is “rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis”! ”
That is weird. I am getting confused. Which one still believes that a synchronous rotation can be sustained without an auxiliary power source?
Yep, it’s weird all right! As far as I know, they both still believe "synchronous rotation" is not really "synchronous rotation" at all, but "synchronous translation and rotation" – in other words, they think our moon is translating in an ellipse whilst rotating on its own internal axis. I don’t know about auxiliary power sources.
i keep hearing homage to a single motion motl. yet a synchronized rotation would be two separate rotations in sync ala the motr or the hst.
the motr doesn’t exist, its a fiction. the hst exists with an auxiliary power source.
Troll Handbook: Not doing well? Losing all around?
Just subtly change the subject.
You guys forgot the subtly part.
Shameless. Pathetic.
Nate says:
Just subtly change the subject.
You guys forgot the subtly part.
Shameless. Pathetic.
———————-
i wasn’t talking to you nate. i was waiting for you to respond to how i defined rotation within the realm of physics; before you once again claim i had not done so. now you are not so subtly changing the subject.
catch up and then you can perhaps end my confusion on where you currently stand
"…yet a synchronized rotation would be two separate rotations in sync"
Exactly, Bill! "Synchronous rotation" is a complete misnomer, as both sides of this debate should agree.
Glad to see Gill and Geometry Graham agreeing that *spin-orbit lock* is the most appropriate term
There is hope.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Here we go with the confusion about kinetics, kinematics, and celestial motions.
Any competent PhD in physics would understand the differences. That’s why we know Fraudkerts is such a fraud.
Oh boy. Clint’s science/ad-hom ratio is approaching 0 again.
The “rules” change when there is no “connection”. That’s why Moon has no REAL angular momentum. Concepts like “rigid body” matter.
Angular momentum is L = r x p
Period.
L = r x p if there is a mechanical connection. Otherwise, it’s just meaningless math.
So why do you choose two angular momentums for what you recognize to be a single motion?
Not two angular momenta. Two different ways to calculate/describe the one angular momentum of the object.
Like if walk at 1 m/s in the x-direction on a ship heading at 1 m/s in the y-direction, I could describe that equally as 1 motion at 1.4 m/s @ 45 degrees, or as two motions (1 m/s)i^ + (1 m/s)j^.
Well that makes you a non-spinner. Non-spinners have openly acknowledged there are benefits from describing it that way. I brought that up probably in the first couple of comment sections on this topic. In fact I praised Newton for having had the vision that you can breakdown a single motion into such a beautiful equation that has so many good uses like the space program does for entering orbit and then getting their bearings for a landing instead of simply one trajectory that would have to be so precise of a calculation, even ever so slightly off course would result in failure. Ocean navigators have been doing it that way forevver. The chief function of lighthouses is for the purpose of a way point for recalculating position and course. . . .and they tend to locate them out on points and islands where they will be most useful in fulfilling that task.
“such a beautiful equation that has so many good uses”
Yes. Then you ought to TRY to apply these equations correctly. That is one of the points of learning physics, the key one for engineers.
But you dismiss doing so as inculcation.
thats a lie nate. i have been recognizing the distinction of the analysis of a rotation from the existence of it since i started participating in this and i have insisted that you make the error of viewing the form of analysis as being the substance of that which is being analyzed.
elevating form over substance is the number one finding of auditors in the field of finance an example would be presenting tax returns as evidence of financial position. what you pay taxes on is similar to financial reporting but there are fundamental differences that are very often material. elevating form over substance is the topic of most philosophical qurstions, is a field where engineers must provide for explaining why physicists will often fall short of becoming successful engineers, etc.
Gill, Gill,
You are ranting again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“L = r x p if there is a mechanical connection. Otherwise, its just meaningless math.”
Clint declares yet another law of physics is not valid. Pretty soon there will be nothing left in the field.
Thanks for quoting me correctly, troll Nate.
It’s not my fault you can’t understand it, is it?
yep that ‘r’ needs to be more than a concept.
hey nate this is the branch of physics within the realm of mechanics! i linked a graph on that that you complained about. perhaps you should read it.
Gill, Gill,
R is just a variable.
It refers to a position.
Are you suggesting that an object can haz no position?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“yep that r needs to be more than a concept.”
Bill is being weird again.
r is measurable distance. That is more than a concept.
Where o where is a graph?
Time for thoughts on 2023′
-Negatives are lower than expected Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent for January.
Coupled with a fill in the Southern Oscillation index to 13.1 from the low 20’s.
Also the unexpected resistance to global temps dropping mid and late last year.
The first month or 2 months data colors the pattern for the whole year. A warm start will put it back up in the top 5 years.
Positive signs are a huge year 2022 of wetness for Australia which has had the other half of the Pacific Ocean dumped on it that California missed.This should have caused more humidity for the last 6 months and next 3 months which will lead to both a decrease in sea level and in global temperature.
Give us a temp rise to 0.19C UAH and put me out of my commentating misery.
I haven’t checked the forum in a while and was surprised to see in excess of 4500 posts on the monthly temperature report. Since I have a script see who’s running up the post count on a thread, here’s where it’s at. Carry on
Total Posts: 4560
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team : 933
Willard : 873
Nate : 350
Bill Hunter : 314
Clint R : 283
Gordon Robertson : 275
Brandon R. Gates : 232
Bindidon : 205
Swenson : 180
Antonin Qwerty : 137
RLH : 121
Tim Folkerts : 118
gbaikie : 91
barry : 91
E. Swanson : 65
Ireneusz Palmowski : 41
Eben : 38
Entropic man : 35
Christos Vournas : 33
Thanks, Mark B. Your surprise surprises me even more.
Suppressing any posts related to the lunar spin denial will let the count come back to a quite decent size.
Tim denies the moon rotates around the earth. I think that kind of dates his science education.
Well …
1) In astronomy, “rotates” means “on its axis” and “revolves” means “around another object”.
2) In math, “rotate” means “in a circle”.
In neither sense does the moon “rotate around the earth”.
for you tim all that implies is subservience to modes of analysis which usually relate to some disassembly of reality. you can if you wish to elevate your inculcated forms and misidentification of what a rotation entails, which you already admitted to, and play your semantic game. but i am not buying it while i have consistently supported analysis that can be useful sometimes but not always as demonstrated with the 3 particles in rotation around an axis not at the mean position of those particles.
and your claim in math rotate means in a circle is a poorly formed limitation. i showed you the physics realm of rotations that includes orbits and all those realms use math to compute them.
also its probably short sighted to limit such rotations (whether synonyms are used to differentiate or not. one master word should be included and most often that is rotation and the synonyms used to diferentiate spin and revolution are typically used by the more disciplined.
so brings back to the fact you haven’t yet made a rotational motion physics-based distinction between spin and revolution beyond the one made in astronomy thats there to help clarify what project an astronomer might be working on. you asked for that . i provided it and you continue to ignore it.
Come on, Gill.
You sound like Bordon again.
If you and Little Willy refrained from starting so many new threads on the moon issue, Bindidon, my guess is the count would go down substantially.
Now you move into plain denial even of your own contribution:
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team : 933
This is incredibly dishonest.
Over 170 of your comments contain only your usual, 100% useless bullshit:
” XXXX, please stop trolling. ”
*
I would say: if you, Clint R, the Hunter boy, Swenson and Robertson wouldn’t be here, then the blog would look less insane, less pseudoscientific.
"Over 170 of your comments contain only your usual, 100% useless bullshit, XXXX, please stop trolling."
Exactly! There’s so much work I have to do just trying to keep the trolls under control. There’s probably also a huge number of my comments where I’m just repeating the last sentence or so of a previous comment, because I’m constantly being stalked by various weirdos who don’t listen the first time. So my actual contributions to the blog are far fewer than 933…it’s not as bad as it looks.
Still, as I said, if you and Little Willy refrained from starting so many new threads on the moon issue, Bindidon, my guess is the count would go down substantially.
The real trolls on this blog are Clint R, the huntsman boy, Swenson, Robertson and… yourself.
Due to your absolutely one-sided views, you are the antithesis of a moderator.
If you would at least stop trying to do what you are absolutely failing at, that would be a first improvement in the situation.
Bin, please stop trolling.
Bindidon says:
”The real trolls on this blog are Clint R, the huntsman boy, Swenson, Robertson and yourself.”
Bindidon has no clue what bias is. no wonder he is so confused.
“Theres so much work I have to do just trying to keep the trolls under control. Theres probably also a huge number of my comments where Im just repeating the last sentence or so of a previous comment, because Im constantly being stalked by various weirdos who dont listen the first time.”
Hmmm, a person keeps repeating the same actions over an over regardless of the lack of any desired effect.
Insanity? OCD?
And perhaps he should get more sleep. His posting here appears to be all hours of the day with at most 3 hour gaps.
I’ve noticed that my stalker keeps following me around, everywhere I comment, writing snide little remarks that have absolutely no effect, other than perhaps making himself look bad.
Hmmm, a person keeps repeating the same actions over and over regardless of the lack of any desired effect.
Insanity? OCD?
Leading you by logic to the spinner model is something
…the ideas he gets into his head…talk about delusional…
[GORILLA GRAHAM] I’ve never gaslighted.
[ALSO GORILLA GRAHAM] …the ideas he gets into his head…talk about delusional…
When do you sleep? Looks like not enough.
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
G
#2
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
asli
#3
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
gh
#4
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
t
#5
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
i
#6
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
n
#7
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
g G
#8
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
Poor Gaslighting Graham.
We Make Him Do It.
Who or what makes you do it, troll?
Gaslighting Graham rips off his shirt again.
Just answer the question, Little Willy.
Dragon cranks have been trolling this site for more than a decade.
Pup under various sock puppets.
Bordon as Bordon, sometimes team tagging with Gill.
Gaslighting Graham has only been trolling this website over Moon issues for five years.
So, in other words: We Make Him Do It.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more.
In other words. he and the other Dragon cranks are the ones trolling this website.
And they have been doing so for a long time.
…in other words: We Make Him Do It.
In other words, Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Maybe even down to 933 minus 873. . . .60posts!
You forgot to count your comments, and the ones from Pup, Bordon, and Mike Flynn.
Are you sure you ever been an auditor, Gill?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Just the top 10 trolls account for about 3000 posts
Oh, Eboy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I am finally fed up with responding to unscientific nonsense written by the lunar spin deniers and have stopped doing so – except for one thing: when one of them wrongly accuses me.
*
Upthread, Hunter wrote, on January 29, 2023 at 2:11 PM:
(1) ” Bindidon is the one disrespecting Newton. ”
(2) ” He doesnt understand torque. ”
Let’s start wit (2) as it matters way less than (1).
*
(2) Over 50 years ago I learned before moving to the university what ‘moment de torsion’ means. Years later in Germany, I understood the difference between ‘Drehmoment’ and ‘Drehimpuls’.
Did Hunter ever use a tool named ‘Drehmomentschlüssel’? I did, when working as a student in repair shops during holidays, he he.
But Hunter comes along and sez ‘He doesnt understand torque’… that is of the same vein as when he claims I would be ‘unable to grasp the simple fact that the non-spinner position is: yes the moon rotates. It rotates on the COM of the earth’ !
What Hunter himself failed to understand (as opposed to Newton, who of course did), was the way how astronomers Cassini and later Mayer computed the inclination of the lunar spin axis, despite a wonderful translation of Mayer’s German text in Englsih by the Dutch scientist Steven Wepster.
Continued…
(1) And what he above all really failed to understand, is that with his claim (which he is absolutely unable to prove, let alone would he conversely be able to disprove the lunar spin), Hunter himself is the one of us two who disrespects Newton!
Because Newton explained the lunar spin in his Principia (Book III, Prop XVII, Th. XV).
When it came to the perturbation theory that explains the tilt of the axis calculations I believe that they established that Newton was wrong.
But thats all irrelevant because you haven’t ever established a reason why the tilt of moons axis defines the moons motion around the earth as not being a rotation.
So you want to do instead some fancy song and dance with no numbers no physically significant attributes that sets the moons motion apart from a rotation that is being perturbed like every other rotation in the world is perturbed.
You are so totally married to form over substance in practically every topic you take on screaming like an idiot ‘blaspheny!!. You treat the ancient scientists like God’s. Not just Saints who were imperfect but Gods. And you read science texts with all the skepticism of a fundamental bible thumper grasping on to every word of your Gods as being immutable.
In fact the only zealots that seem to still be around that exceeds your level of zeal are those Islamic Fundamentalists who would just as soon be off with your head for the ‘crime’ of blasphemy.
Pretty crazy stuff!!
Hunter boy
” When it came to the perturbation theory that explains the tilt of the axis calculations I believe that they established that Newton was wrong. ”
1.1 Once more, your belief! And of course: no source for ‘they established that Newton was wrong’.
1.2 Newton never calculated anything in that context, Hunter boy.
He just understood that Cassini was on the right way.
And what about Newton’s successors: Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, Beer/Mädler and so many others until those in the XXth century, who used star-calibrated Moon photography and recently LLR as observation tools?
Did ‘they’ establish that all of them were wrong?
Who the heck is ‘they’, Hunter boy?
Come out with a real source instead of writing your personal opinion all the time.
*
2. ” But thats all irrelevant because you havent ever established a reason why the tilt of moons axis defines the moons motion around the earth as not being a rotation. ”
What is that for a nonsense, Hunter boy?
Where the heck did I ever claim such a nonsense? Never did I anywhere.
What I conversely ask is: what about using ‘to orbit’ for orbits, and ‘to rotate’ for rotations about an interior axis, by the way avoiding unnecessary confusions?
The two motions have NOTHING in common – except the fact that they very probably have the same origin, namely garavitational effects within young stars’ accretion disks.
3 ” So you want to do instead some fancy song and dance with no numbers no physically significant attributes that sets the moons motion apart from a rotation that is being perturbed like every other rotation in the world is perturbed. ”
Same nonsense as above.
With a hint on lunar physical librations, I only wanted to show that there is a fundamental difference between optical, apparent and physical, measurable librations.
*
You permanently keep in your confused polemics.
you make a lot of claims there bin. and as usual you back none of them up. i am not going to delve into your morass of unattributed name dropping. long ago i asked you to provide a source that explicitly supports your spinner position from your entire gallery of names you like to drop and you failed miserably and provided none. now you want me to show you a newton mistake. lol! he made many. some corrected but not all. if you don’t already know that then you are not a reliable Newton observer.
Bindidon announces his retreat, again.
But, just like the first time, he’ll be back….
November and December were both impressive drops, so expecting some slight rebound for January, say +0.11C.
Can’t have temps go straight down….
It’s the Sun stupid
Cycles Cycles and Cycles
https://youtu.be/pbSAQzSpX-w
Bills asks: “here is a physics breakdown of concepts in physics that relates to rotational motion. Which concepts do not apply to the moons orbital motion?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html#mechcon”
That is indeed an excellent question. The problem is, you are asking the wrong person.
Classical mechanics is indeed a vast, intricate, interwoven web of ideas. Those ideas are joined theoretically and supported by centuries of experiments.
And after learning that web of knowledge, every physics professor and every NASA engineer has firmly concluded that the moon DOES rotate on its axis. That Ltotal = Lorb + Lspin is correct. Every textbook and (almost) every website agrees that the web of classical physics can only conclude that the moon is rotating.
So you are the one who needs to find an error. You need to show what everyone else has done wrong. Which one or two or three bits in that web are do not apply to the moon? Which one or two or three bits can be removed without the whole web collapsing?
So, once again, a “Spinner” starts another new thread on the issue, ensuring more days of pointless discussion. They can’t let it lie, but they’re certain the reason for the prolonged moon discussion is all the “Non-Spinners” fault.
And after learning that web of knowledge, every physics professor and every NASA engineer has firmly concluded that the moon DOES rotate on its axis.
Yeah, it’s called a “cult”.
So you are the one who needs to find an error. You need to show what everyone else has done wrong.
We know what “orbital motion without axial rotation” looks like, from the ball-on-a-string. That simple model tells us Moon is NOT rotating. A more technical illustration involves vectors, but indicates the same result.
grammie pups wrote:
Perhaps because people who deny physical reality are potentially dangerous and their lies must be stopped before they cause harm to others.
Swanson admits: “Perhaps because people who deny physical reality are potentially dangerous and their lies must be stopped before they cause harm to others.”
Exactly, that’s how NASA killed 14 astronauts. NASA’s budget needs to be cut by 50%. That will stop some of the nonsense.
Lol.
Reality is a hard teacher.
You’re wrong, you pathetic sack of shit.
grammie pups, As usual when he has no reply, leaves the field, cursing loudly. Hey clown, we all have our occasional failures, but most of us learn from them, but only after admitting our errors.
"As usual when he has no reply"
I replied up-thread. Three times.
"leaves the field"
I haven’t gone anywhere.
"Hey clown, we all have our occasional failures, but most of us learn from them, but only after admitting our errors."
You’re the one that’s wrong, though, Swanson. The question is, will you admit to your errors? I tried to tell you over, and over, and over again that you were not following the discussion. You just didn’t listen to what I was trying to explain…and now you look like an idiot.
Looking back at grammie’s posts, he wrote:
Well, it appears that grammie has become a “spinner”, since the bottom graphic has been the spinner’s basic model for many months. With the Moon rotating around a fixed, tilted axis, it can not also be rotating on an external orbital axis at the same time, since the two are not parallel. Basic geometry, grammie!
This is how Swanson acknowledges he’s been wrong for the last few days…
"With the Moon rotating around a fixed, tilted axis"
It’s not. Here, I’ll run the point by you yet again:
Both the MOTL glass and the MOTR glass display a libration in latitude, i.e. you can see more of the bottom of the glass at some points in the orbit, and the top of the glass at others. "Spinners" should understand by now that if they can see a libration in latitude with the MOTR glass, and they think that glass is not rotating on its own axis, that libration in latitude does not prove axial rotation.
Swanson is pathetic. He’s the one that claimed he “built satellites”, but knows nothing about orbital motion.
And, he’s as desperate as he is pathetic. He’s latched onto libration as somehow being “proof” Moon is rotating. He overlooks the fact that libration in NOT a real motion. He also forgets the video from the LRO, which show NO libration at all!
Swanson is a perfect example of a “braindead cult idiot”.
yes. what spinners universally need to recognize is that within the realm of known physics the motr cannot exist as any kind of non-rotating object. the only way an object in space can exist as a non-rotating object is for it to be all alone in space and that would assure that it wouldn’t even be a moon.
Our new Moon Dragon crank trio is at it again.
Next they will blame us.
grammie pups admitted he’s been wrong, but now back tracks, trying to “spin” his previous reply to wriggle out of the bind. If the Moon’s motion includes a rotation around a fixed internal axis, which is what the lower option of my graphic presents, then IT CAN NOT ALSO BE ROTATING AROUND A FIXED EXTERNAL AXIS.
Keep on jiving, maybe Hunter won’t notice the conflicting motions. Don’t that rotational momentum is a vector quantity. The Moon rotates around a tilted axis thru it’s CM while it “revolves” in an orbital path around the Earth-Moon barycenter.
I also doubt you have gone back and redid the GPE with proper measurement and documentation either Swanson. If you would learn something about insulation you might be able to figure out what the GHE actually is. The problem is that there is a huge self interested cabal fully invested in something else entirely.
"grammie pups admitted he’s been wrong, but now back tracks"
No, Swanson, you are the one that’s been wrong! You haven’t followed the discussion…from the very beginning you’ve been miles behind everyone else. I tried to tell you that repeatedly. You didn’t listen. Then I prove that you missed a couple of occasions where I tried to clarify to you what I was getting at, and you still don’t acknowledge your mistake! You’ve thoroughly earned the description I gave you at 9:33 AM…and up-thread. You just don’t listen…ever.
Swanson doesn’t have a clue about the issues. He tries to fake it, but always fails.
He can’t understand the simple change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, and his three versions are all WRONG.
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
The middle one is the closest to reality, but it is even flawed.
“If the Moons motion includes a rotation around a fixed internal axis, which is what the lower option of my graphic presents, then IT CAN NOT ALSO BE ROTATING AROUND A FIXED EXTERNAL AXIS.”
Indeed so! Are they really that blind and stupid? Blinded and stupified by their deeply held beliefs? Or just trolling?
What say you intelligent readers with working eyeballs?
And then this ill-logic:
“If they can see a libration in latitude with the MOTR glass, and they think that glass is not rotating on its own axis, that libration in latitude does not prove axial rotation.”
The point of libration is to see the Moon with its synchronous rotation, keep the same side toward Earth but also exhibit a wobbling motion so that we see just over 50 % of its surface.
Modeling this libration behavior is either reproduces this behavior or it doesnt. It is like being pregnant. There is no half-way pregnant, and no half-way right modeling of the Moon’s appearance.
"If the Moon’s motion includes a rotation around a fixed internal axis, which is what the lower option of my graphic presents, then IT CAN NOT ALSO BE ROTATING AROUND A FIXED EXTERNAL AXIS."
Look at the top graphic. Do those with working eyeballs see an axial tilt? Obviously. Now, how can there be an axial tilt if the object is not rotating on its own axis?
This is the same logic that "Spinners" are applying to the bottom graphic…
“Youve thoroughly earned the description I gave you at 9:33 AMand up-thread.”
Some very sore losers think attacking the messenger will make the message that they have lost the debate go away.
It won’t.
Dear readers…
…did Swanson, or did Swanson not, get the wrong end of the stick over what I was arguing, right from the start?
Yes, you’re right…he did…and that’s why I had a go at him.
“. Now, how can there be an axial tilt if the object is not rotating on its own axis?”
OMG
The point of this modeling exercise is to determine whether a rotation around an external or internal axis produces the observed lunar libration.
Showing us an object with neither, because it is NOT rotating at all, CANNOT address that issue!
True it is the TILT of the axis that produces the latitudinal libration. And that TILT must be remain in the same direction as the body rotates.
In any rotation, it is only the points on the axis that do not move during the rotation. Thus the only way to keep the TILT in the same direction during rotation is for the rotation to be AROUND THE TILTED AXIS.
Once again…look at the top graphic. Do those with working eyeballs see an axial tilt? Obviously. Is the tilt remaining oriented in the same direction throughout the orbit? Obviously. Now, how can there be an axial tilt if the object is not rotating on its own axis?
This is the same logic that "Spinners" are applying to the bottom graphic…
Dear readers,
Is Gaslighting Graham gaslighting again?
No need to answer.
We all know he does.
I’ve never gaslighted.
grammie pups struggles to obscure the picture, writing:
grammie insists on ignoring the most basic requirement for properly describing the Moon’s motion, that of keeping one side facing the viewer. Sorry, the eyes have it, the top view DOES NOT DO THIS. Score another loss for the No-Spin Cult.
It’s not about describing the moon’s motion, Swanson. You’ve missed the point again, because you’re not very bright. I’ll repeat:
Look at the top graphic. Do those with working eyeballs see an axial tilt? Obviously. Is the tilt remaining oriented in the same direction throughout the orbit? Obviously. Now, how can there be an axial tilt if the object is not rotating on its own axis?
This is the same logic that "Spinners" are applying to the bottom graphic…
“Once againlook at the top graphic.”
And thanks to Swanson again, for creating this clarifying graphic.
“Do those with working eyeballs see an axial tilt? Obviously. Is the tilt remaining oriented in the same direction throughout the orbit? Obviously.”
True, and the top graphic is the MOTR. It has no external or internal axis of rotation.
It has no rotation!
“Now, how can there be an axial tilt if the object is not rotating on its own axis?”
No sequitur for a non-rotating body.
“The axis of rotation is a line of its fixed points.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_(mathematics)
They are FIXED in that they maintain the same velocity, have zero relative velocity between them, and remain always oriented in the same direction.
Thus if a body is in motion (rotation and translation) only the points on the axis will maintain the same velocity. And only that line of points on the axis will keep the SAME ORIENTAION.
That is what we see in the 3rd figure. Only the points on the tilted axis are FIXED points. They MUST BE on the axis of rotation.
…the "Spinners" seem to be starting their train of thought from their irrational certainty that the MOTR is not rotating on its own axis, and then building an argument based on that. Unfortunately, since we know that they’ve already conceded that the MOTR can be described as rotating on its own axis, they have no justification for making this initial assumption. Thus their train of thought derails itself, and the rest of their argument crashes and burns accordingly.
“Unfortunately, since we know that theyve already conceded that the MOTR can be described as rotating on its own axis, they have no justification for making this initial assumption. ”
OMG, the excuses are getting flimsier and flimsier.
In the past All of us, (well, the majority of us) agreed that a planet with rotation is a rotation wrt the INERTIAL frame of the stars.
The MOTR has no observable rotation wrt the inertial frame. Clearly only observable rotation can have any effect on the observable motion of the Moon, which is what this discussion is about.
If people want to imagine that that the MOTR has multiple cancelling rotations, they can, but that is irrelevant to this discussion of the Moon’s observable motion.
…the "Spinners" are still confused about reference frames! No wonder they’re not making any progress.
They first need to grok number 3) on the 4-point list:
3) Reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.
By which, just to be clear, it is meant that some people believe the MOTL can be described as rotating about an internal axis wrt an inertial reference frame, and not rotating about an internal axis wrt a rotating reference frame. They also believe the MOTR can be described as not rotating about an internal axis wrt an inertial reference frame, and rotating about an internal axis wrt a rotating reference frame. Those people are wrong.
The “Non-Spinners” seem to be starting their train of thought from their irrational certainty that the MOTL is not rotating on its own axis … etc.
Thus the best Grammar Graham is Going to Get out of this line of argumentation is a draw. Also, be very wary of the “seem”.
Now “Spinners” know some things:
1. A bicycle rider’s feet spinning with the pedals while their a$$ in the saddle does not is absurd.
2. A feature of a spinning object is that their particles move at different velocities while a non-spinning object’s particles all move at the same velocity (or don’t move at all).
Thus we know that MOTR is NOT SPINNING, and contrary to Geometry Graham it is thus entirely reasonable to assume so as the beginning of a valid argument.
"The “Non-Spinners” seem to be starting their train of thought from their irrational certainty that the MOTL is not rotating on its own axis … etc."
Absolutely not, Brandy Guts. I made no argument with that as an assumption, in this exchange.
Most of the semi-rational "Spinners" have conceded in the past that the MOTR can be described as "rotating about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions". Thus, they have no business in treating a non-rotating MOTR as a basis for any argument.
I’m not including you as a semi-rational "Spinner", Brandy Guts. We all know what you’re like.
“They also believe the MOTR can be described as not rotating about an internal axis wrt an inertial reference frame, and rotating about an internal axis wrt a rotating reference frame. ”
People can also believe in Bigfoot, the Lock Ness Monster, or any other non-observable thing they want.
But just like the MOTR and its imagined cancelling rotations, these are of NO relevance to this discussion.
It is only the 3rd figure that reproduces the observed motion of the Moon.
All agree that the 3rd figure has rotation. About what axis is the issue.
As discussed above, the axis is located by finding the FIXED points. The only fixed points that maintain their orientation and have 0 relative velocity are those on the tilted axis indicated.
If the axis of rotation was external, through the Earth, and perpendicular to the orbital plane, then one would get figure 2.
> in this exchange
Geography Graham gives a perfect example of how one can hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time.
The "Spinners" remain as delightfully confused as ever. The second of Swanson’s diagrams shows what would it would look like if the moon’s tilt did not remain oriented in the same direction throughout the orbit. However, the current wisdom is that the tilt does remain oriented in the same direction throughout the orbit. So, to compare MOTL with MOTR, we’re looking at comparing the bottom diagram with the top diagram. Both have a tilt that remains oriented in the same direction throughout the orbit.
Now, look at the top graphic. How can there be an axial tilt if the object is not rotating on its own axis?
This is the same logic that "Spinners" are applying to the bottom graphic…
> How can there be an axial tilt if the object is not rotating on its own axis?
We could always turn MOTR into a drinking glass tilted on its side, Geometry Graham.
OK, Brandy Guts.
“Now, look at the top graphic. How can there be an axial tilt if the object is not rotating on its own axis?”
Desperate times calls for ever increasing ridiculousness.
The top body has NO axis of rotation because it has NO rotation.
Period.
It has an AXIS of SYMMETRY. Because it was made that way, eg, like a clay pot made on a pottery wheel.
A spherical body like the Moon does not have that cylindrical symmetry and if at rest, has no axis.
It only acquires an axis by rotating on it, as the Earth does. The axis is DEFINED as the only points FIXED while the rest of the body moves around it.
Thats what the figure 3 body has.
Well, as we’ve been stuck at the stage of repeating ourselves for the last several comments, I guess that’s that. The arguments have been made, people can conclude as they wish.
With the last, desperate argument that the "Spinners" have to offer entirely demolished, I guess the "Non-Spinners" can simply levitate with self-satisfaction into an everlasting bliss of eternal victory. God himself looks up at me and says, "well done, dad".
Figure 3 is the only one that moves like the Moon, and the only one whose motion we need to understand.
Figure 1 is obviously the wrong model. So people can talk and speculate all they want to about it, but the purpose for that is to obviously to obfuscate and distract us from the key issue.
That issue is the observation of our Moon’s rotation around a tilted rotational axis.
While Genuflecting Graham Glorifies His Own Godliness, let’s remind everyone that non-spinners still don’t have a model which replicates the motions of the real Moon, and yet they are somehow still winning.
And that’s the ‘tell’ that DREMT knows he has lost and has run out of flimsy excuses. He gives himself an over-the-top pat on the back for his ‘victory’.
Confirming he is a narcissist who is only here to troll
"While Genuflecting Graham Glorifies His Own Godliness"
It was a joke, Brandy Guts. Lighten up.
DREMT, indeed you can declare victory at any time. (I have.) They’ve got NOTHING.
They didn’t even know their imaginary spin axis didn’t work until we explained it to them. Several, including Swanson and Bin, didn’t even know what the claimed angle was, let alone the change. They don’t understand their own cult’s nonsense.
Braindead Brandon is trying to make a big deal of a computer program that models Moon. When they get the model right, we would agree with it. But Brandon doesn’t understand modeling gravity does NOT prove Moon spins. He grabs onto anything he believes will work, but can’t come up with a simple model of OMWAR!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Pup,
Only one thing would work for you.
Doing the Pole Dance Experiment.
When will you?
grammie clone wrote:
Your “proof by ascertain” doesn’t work when your results don’t agree with the facts. Like any criminal facing overwhelming evidence, claiming innocence doesn’t work in court, as the Trumpy guy’s lawyers found out with their ~60 court cases regarding the 2020 election.
And, let me remind you that there is no change in the direction of the Moon’s axis of rotation, so there’s no “angle” involved. That’s exactly what the third panel shows.
> modeling gravity does NOT prove Moon spins
Ask Geometry Graham about “in and of itself”, C00kie.
Thanks for proving me right, Swanson. You don’t understand your own diagrams.
Brandon, I’m glad you’re using DREMT as your technical support. He’s taught you a lot. Like me, he’s a rock-solid Non-spinner.
"That’s why this is so much fun."
Clint R, it is indeed…so much fun! With the new month’s temperature update article out, I guess that’s it for the comments here.
That, as they say, is that. Just a few PSTs to do, when duty calls.
All good things must come to an end.
[GORILLA GRAHAM] I’ve never gaslighted.
[ALSO GORILLA GRAHAM] You’ve missed the point again, because you’re not very bright.
Two correct statements, one handsome argument winner.
[GORILLA GRAHAM] I’ve never gaslighted.
[ALSO GORILLA GRAHAM] You’ve missed the point again, because you’re not very bright.
[FOREVER GORILLA GRAHAM] Two correct statements, one handsome argument winner.
Some Little Willy’s have no sense of humour.
[GORILLA GRAHAM] Some Little Willy’s have no sense of humour.
[ALSO GORILLA GRAHAM] You’re wrong, you pathetic sack of shit.
Sorry, that should have been:
Some Little Willies have no sense of humour.
Shorter Graham: he can’t resist gaslighting a little more.
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
“t, I guess thats it for the comments here.”
The TEAM looks happy that this no-good-very-bad-month for them is over.
…all good things must come to an end.
Shorter Graham: he cant resist gaslighting a little more.
#2
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights lightly.
#3
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights lightly.
#4
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights lightly.
#5
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights lightly.
#6
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights lightly.
#7
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights lightly.
#8
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights lightly.
#9
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
G
#10
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
as
#11
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
l
#12
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
i
#13
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
ght
#14
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
in
g G
#15
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
ra
#16
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
ham
#17
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
[GORILLA GRAHAM] I’ve never gaslighted.
[ALSO GORILLA GRAHAM] Some Little Willy’s have no sense of humour.
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#2
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1.
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#3
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1 –
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#4
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#5
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#6
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1 –
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#7
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1 –
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#8
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1 –
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#9
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1 –
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#10
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#11
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#12
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#13
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
G
#14
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
a
#15
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
s
#16
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
l
#17
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
i
#18
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
gh
#19
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
t
#20
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
ing
#21
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
Gr
#22
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
aham
#23
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
Mighty Tim answers Gill’s bogus question about angular momentum.
Geometry Graham tries to blame Mighty Tim instead of realizing that Gill spouts bogus crap.
But he sure remains open about angular momentum, pending that we’re not talking about the angular momentum that obtains via the Moon spin, for he denies that the Moon spins!
Blah, blah, blah, G-word Graham is bad, G-word Graham is bad, blah, blah, blah…
[G-WORD GRAHAM] There’s so much work I have to do just trying to keep the trolls under control.
[ALSO G-WORD GRAHAM] Blah, blah, blah
Yeah, you’re right…I should have just said:
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
[MT] Gill, you’re wrong about angular momentum. Here’s why.
[GG] Look at me!
[W] GG loses his shit every time angular momentum is mentioned.
[GG] Blah, blah, blah
[W] What a wonderful moderator.
[GG] Blah, blah, blah
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
– Mighty Tim
nobody wants to take that gorilla on! the people that may have to do it is when they hire graduates with no relevant experience.
I am sure you mean to mean something with that, Gill.
But what?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
can’t help you ther willard. some things in life one can only learn by some experience.
Looks like you can’t help yourself either, Gill.
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#2
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#2
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#3
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1.
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#4
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1 –
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#5
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1 –
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#6
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#7
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1 –
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#8
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#9
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#10
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#11
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#12
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
#1
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#13
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
I am sure you mean to mean something with that, Gill.
But what?
#14
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
G
#15
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
a
#16
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
s
#17
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
l
#18
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
i
#19
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
ng
#20
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
Gr
#21
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
tim carefully navigates around the issues of orbital rotation and provides no reply to the definition i provided of rotational motion within the realm of physics and mechanics nor pointed out what was wrong with that take.
“no reply to the definition i provided of rotational motion within the realm of physics and mechanics ”
Really? you provided a definition of rotation? Please state that definition concisely here.
he looked at the wrong link to answer the question. tim is so confused he probably doesn’t know what room he is in. for that question he was supposed to consult the second frame of this link.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/circ.html#rotcon
I am not the one who posted a link on Jan 31 and expected someone to follow it on Jan 30.
in any case, there is no link at the new link that defines “rotation”. We are still waiting.
And you KNOW that if you contacted the people at hyperphysics providing your go-to physics info, that they would definitely say that the moon rotates.
sure it defines it in terms of physics. Not some unscientific dictionary. Anyway we previously provided you with dictionary definitions you rejected also. So what do you want? I know! You simply will refuse any definition given while you have no definition that explicitly excludes orbits.
Gill, Gill,
The title of that page is Circular Motion.
Even you should get what this means.
Bill, my working definition of rotation has not changed.
Rotation about an axis is motion with constant distance from that axis and changing orientation relative to the inertial frame of the ‘fixed stars’.
This excludes orbits because they are not constant distance from an axis.
This includes the moon because all parts of the moon maintain constant distance from an axis drawn up through the poles of the moon.
“Anyway we previously provided you with dictionary definitions you rejected also.”
Providing multiple, inconsistent definitions and going with whichever suits at the moment does not suffice. We want to know how YOU are defining rotation in THIS context. Do you agree with my definition? Do you propose some refinement? Do you have some other, completely different definition in mind?
Tim, when you’re ready to accept that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL, you’ll be ready to take your first ever baby steps onto the long road to beginning to understand the absolute basics of the "Non-Spinner" position. Until then, you will remain lost in a delusional world of your own arrogant certainty in your programming.
In short: you’ve been bettered, pupil.
When you are ready to define what you mean by “rotation about an axis”, then we will be ready to determine what constitutes:
* “rotation about an internal axis”
* “rotation about an external axis”
* “rotation about an internal axis with no rotation about an internal axis”
I am still using:
Rotation about an axis is motion with constant distance from that axis and changing orientation relative to the inertial frame of the fixed stars.
What are you using?
Sorry, pupil, you haven’t conceded that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL. You’re still clinging to your idea that the concept of zero does not apply. Once you accept that zero exists, and thus the motion "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" must exist, then you will be ready to begin your long journey of learning.
Let me know when you’re ready to accept that zero exists.
It might occur to Gnumeric Graham that a positive 1 spin plus a negative 1 spin equals zero, thus MOTR does NOT SPIN.
It just gets more and more pathetic, as time goes on. Now they’re arguing that to describe the MOTR as rotating on its own internal axis in the opposite direction to its rotation about an external axis, means that it’s not rotating on its own internal axis!
This from another guy that agrees with me that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" exists, and of the two possible options, is motion like the MOTL. He’ll say anything to argue against me, and nothing to correct Tim and help him out from his mental funk.
thats funny. two simultaneous motions on the same axis. LOL! These spinners sure have there head way up where the sun doesn’t shine.
Tim Folkerts says:
”I am still using:
Rotation about an axis is motion with constant distance from that axis and changing orientation relative to the inertial frame of the fixed stars.
What are you using?”
Rotation about an axis is motion with a distance limited from that axis and changing orientation relative to the inertial frame of the fixed stars
and the known mechanics of any such control will overcome any preexisting momentum on the central axis of the object unless that motion on the central axis is supplied by another power source. . . .making the implications of your definition for elliptical orbits non-functional and thus overly prescribed. sounds like you need a new doctorate.
tim has a completely different start up plan for elliptical orbits with eccentricities unequal to zero than for those equal to zero and the private contractors are giggling licking their chops at their luck at having drawn an academic with no experience as they excitedly add extra change order line items and bonus power packs. the contractor reps are going to celebrated like conquering Roman Legates marching back into corporate headquarters.
Gill, Gill,
Pay attention:
Two conditions:
C1. Constant distance from an axis, i.e. an isometry.
C2. Change of orientation, otherwise it’s a translation.
Is that still too complex for you?
“a distance limited from that axis ”
So if I walk in a triangle around a pole, I am “rotating around that pole??? That distance is “limited”.
If that is all the more precise your definition is, it is pretty much useless.
Also note that YOUR definition say the moon IS rotating about an axis drawn through the poles of the moon. A crater on the moon has a ‘limited’ (ie constant) distance from that axis and changes orientation relative to the fixed stars.
Tim is still mixing up reference frames and refusing to acknowledge the existence of the concept of zero…
[GORILLA GRAHAM] I’ve never gaslighted.
[ALSO GORILLA GRAHAM] Tim is still mixing up reference frames and refusing to acknowledge the existence of the concept of zero
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
Bill, you can turn the discussion personal and petty and political if you want. I could giggle back and engineers who are excellent at designing widgets but clueless about real science. Or we can discuss science.
I am distinguishing between elliptical ORBITS and circular ROTATIONS. Two different concepts.
The moon orbits around the earth in an ellipse — with varying distances and varying angular speeds around the earth. The moon rotates on its axis in a circle — every part of the moon maintains a constant distance from the axis and has a constant angular speed around the axis. Two different concepts. Two different motions. There is simply no rational way to say these two different things are ‘one motion’ for the moon.
that was my point. failure to properly assess command and control is the hallmark of incompetent leadership.
Tim Folkerts says:
a distance limited from that axis
So if I walk in a triangle around a pole, I am rotating around that pole??? That distance is limited.
——————–
i changed that from a ‘distance controlled from that axis’ and missed changing ‘from’ to ‘by’.
so criticism taken and thank you for pointing out my mistake.
but if you are walking in a triangle you aren’t the axis.
“but if you are walking in a triangle you arent the axis”
No. I am the object ‘rotating’ and the pole is the axis. And the motion is ‘controlled’ (by my brain or perhaps by walls limiting where I can move). It still fits your definition.
And the moon still fits your definition. A rock in the moon is at a controlled distance from the axis. The orientation of the rock changes relative to the axis. That rock (and every other rock) rotates around the axis; the moon as a whole rotates around the axis.
i changed that from a distance controlled from that axis and missed changing from to by.
so criticism taken and thank you for pointing out my mistake.
but if you are walking in a triangle you arent the axis.
Tim Folkerts says:
No. I am the object rotating and the pole is the axis. And the motion is controlled (by my brain or perhaps by walls limiting where I can move). It still fits your definition.
And the moon still fits your definition. A rock in the moon is at a controlled distance from the axis. The orientation of the rock changes relative to the axis. That rock (and every other rock) rotates around the axis; the moon as a whole rotates around the axis.
————————
The correction was: ‘distance limited by that axis'(a fixed axis).
What the difference between my definition and your definition is that a rotation around an axis is something that has a physical connection to that axis.
If you are walking around any old pole in the ground there is no fixed axis, no fixed point around which the rotation occurs due to some kind of physical connection with the axis.
Your definition: ”Rotation about an axis is motion with constant distance from that axis and changing orientation relative to the inertial frame of the fixed stars.”
It would seem your definition would allow somebody to walk around any old pole in the ground and call that an axis and your movement around it a rotation, not mine.
Mine would not because there is no physical-based compulsion to rotate on it. Your definition would allow it.
And indeed you can walk in a triangle if you want but I see no basis for calling that a rotation based on my definition. What is your criteria for rotating on an external axis. You failed to even address the issue in your definition.
Near as I can tell you consider nothing as a rotation unless the rotation is a perfect circle. Or do you have some error tolerances for say a piston engine where the rod bearing rotates in an imperfect circle around the crankshaft ( because the forces of gravity cause an ever so slight elliptical shaped motion in the direction of the ground)? Your definition would seem to only allow a rotation to exist by an object either alone in its own universe or in a universe with only two objects? Perhaps you can elaborate on that?
Gill, Gill,
When you say that “a rotation around an axis is something that has a physical connection to that axis” you are making Nate win.
For then an orbit does not involve a rotation defined that way.
Willard the only thing one could implay from your reply is that Gravity is not physical and thus it must be spiritual/emotional/philosophical in nature. Newton would be shocked at your ignorance.
Gravity may be somewhat ethereal in nature in that we cannot pin point its nature, but we sure as heck feel its physical presence.
Are you suggesting that when Tim is moving around a rod, spiritual forces carry him, Gill?
Silly goose.
“What the difference between my definition and your definition is that a rotation around an axis is something that has a physical connection to that axis.”
This seems to add an odd ‘motivation’ requirement to the idea of rotation. It seems you are saying that if I connect a toy car to a pole with a string so that the car goes in a circle, then the car is rotating around the pole. But if I program the car to drive in a circle, then it is not rotating around the pole. Even though the motion is identical.
Bill, mathematically a rotation must be a perfect circle (by my stated definition). Practically, I allow for measurement uncertainly and a little ‘play’ in the motion.
I would still love to hear you say that — by your definition — the moon is rotating. The various rocks that make up the moon are compelled to move around the axis ‘fixed’ to the moon’s north and sout poleh.
tim f…”mathematically a rotation must be a perfect circle (by my stated definition)”.
***
Even Wiki has a better definition…
“Rotation, or spin, is the circular movement of an object around a central axis. …..
If the rotation axis passes internally through the body’s own center of mass, then the body is said to be autorotating or spinning, and the surface intersection of the axis can be called a pole. A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.
***
In particular…”A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles”.
Ergo, a rotation can be defined about an internal axis or an external axis.
Dremt was correct.
C’mon, Bordon.
Compare and contrast:
[MIGHTY TIM] Rotation about an axis is motion with constant distance from that axis and changing orientation relative to the inertial frame of the fixed stars.
[THY WIKI] the circular movement of an object around a central axis
Don’t you have any shame, like any shame at all?
Gordon quotes wikepedia:
“Rotation, or spin, is the circular movement … A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun …”
Did you notice this source contradicts itself? The earth’s orbit is not a circle.
This is two different uses of the word ‘rotate’. Which one would you like to actually use? You are welcome to use whatever you like, but you are not welcome to use them as if they are interchangeable”.
“Ergo, a rotation can be defined about an internal axis or an external axis.”
I have been saying both of these exist throughout the entire discussion. If we stick to the definition that includes circular movement, then:
* the real moon is rotating on its own (internal) axis. Since this axis goes through the moon’s poles, we could also use the word “autorotating”.
* the MOTL is autorotating about an (internal) axis through the center of the cartoon moon.
* the MOTL is rotating about an (external) axis though the center of the earth.
* the MOTR is not rotating about any axis.
Tim Folkerts says:
This seems to add an odd motivation requirement to the idea of rotation. It seems you are saying that if I connect a toy car to a pole with a string so that the car goes in a circle, then the car is rotating around the pole. But if I program the car to drive in a circle, then it is not rotating around the pole. Even though the motion is identical.
————————-
Well I have been talking about specific kinds of rotations. Rotations around a fixed axis. . . .you know like a ‘real’ axis as opposed to an imaginary axis.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Bill, mathematically a rotation must be a perfect circle (by my stated definition). Practically, I allow for measurement uncertainly and a little play in the motion.”
And how do you define ‘play’?
”I would still love to hear you say that by your definition the moon is rotating. The various rocks that make up the moon are compelled to move around the axis fixed to the moons north and sout poleh.”
Yes they are but they are not being compelled to do so by that axis. This is fundamental to the discussion by Madhavi that enginneering concerns itself with mechanical designs. Madhavi delineates between translations and rotations on a fixed axis.
She confines her discussion to real axes around which circular motion is objectively seen. She cautions about confusing this with curvilinear translations around which a different circular motion is objectively seen. In between she leaves a lot of territory uninvestigated. Its pure straight lines and circular motions around a fixed axis. This is a necessity because so many engineering jobs will be on devices that follow these simple rules. She leaves untouched huge amounts of territory in-between to be problems for future generations to solve.
Sure if you want to talk about imaginary axes and not worry about any mechanical design issues your definition can be as loose or as strict as you wish it to be. In fact there is tremendous opportunity there for teachers to inspire young minds by teaching kids you don’t have to be locked inside of a box.
This discussion began with the ideas of Tesla and he was mightily criticized because he wasn’t giving the required ”club” high signs where the science there is celebrated and honored and damn anybody who ever questions it.
well it is clear you are a member of the club. and i would say that you go along consistently with the club on every matter discussed in here.
well the club like every single club, institution, corporation, party has rules for it members demonstrating that tribalism remains the bleeding heart of all human relations and will remain so exclusively based upon club leadership expectations and special interests. and that further this whole discussion is about dominance of an imaginary ”subjective” ideal on your part and reality-based ”objective” point of view on my part. which do you think better represents ”science”?
Tim contradicts his previous statement that the movement of the MOTR can be described as being comprised of two motions.
…and he contradicts his previous statement that movement like the MOTL can be described as being comprised of only one motion.
Gaslighting Graham lightly gaslights again.
No, I stated two facts.
Bill seems unclear on what a real definition is ad where to find it.
Let’s review:
-A list of synonyms is NOT a definition.
-An out of context usage of the word in a sentence in a Wikipedia page is NOT a definition.
-A list of associated concepts is NOT a definition.
-A Venn diagram of connected subjects is NOT a definition.
A helpful guide: Actual definitions are best found in:
-Dictionaries
-Encyclopedias
-Glossaries
-Textbooks
-Scientific literature.
-College course lecture notes.
“he confines her discussion to real axes around which circular motion is objectively seen. She cautions about confusing this with curvilinear translations around which a different circular motion is objectively seen. In between she leaves a lot of territory uninvestigated.”
Not at all.
She clearly states that “Any plane motion which is neither a rotation nor a translation is referred to as a general plane motion.” and “A general plane motion can always be considered as the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
“Tim contradicts his previous statement that the movement of the MOTR can be described as being comprised of two motions.”
My phone can detect rotation. If I stand with it on the MOTR, it will detect no rotation.
I never understood why we should care about two IMAGINARY cancelling rotations that can never be observed and are thus never falsifiable? Nor how we can know that it is just TWO and not 12.
Whereas, for the MOTL, the rotation can be detected with my phone. And ALL of us (well except maybe Gordon) agrees that this body has rotation.
Just a note or two from Johannes von Gumpach’s book:
"We have only to bear in mind the first law of motion – the law of inertia, see S. 13 Note 31 – which makes it the characteristic of progressive circular motion, and consequently of the motion of the heavenly bodies in general, that, in the course of each revolution, and in the absence of all rotation, they should present every point in their surface to all the points of the heavens."
"68. If we were to consider the apparent motion of each point of the lunar disk visible to us, under the supposition of Moon’s rotation about an axis inclined to the ecliptic and fixed with regard to space, combined with her motion in latitude and longitude, and with the effects of the Earth’s rotation and revolution and of the inclination of her axis, we should find that motion to be for each point an exceedingly varied and complicated one. There is, however, no necessity for us to enter into these complications. We will trace only the general path of the two principal points, the assumed poles, having at the same time the by far simplest motion. For it is evident that, if we suppose the north pole r to appear into view in r" (E) on the Moon’s eastern border; to advance, in about a week, upon the disk to o; and, in another week, to disappear again on the western border in r; it must, during that fortnight, have traced the path r" o r; and that, in the course of the next fortnight, the south pole must trace the similar path r’ o’ r”’. But, in reality, the points of the assumed poles, during each revolution of the Moon round the Earth, trace nearly the perpendicular paths b o, o b and a o’, o’ a respectively; which indicates a phenomenon of that purely optical nature, Astronomers claim for the Moon’s libration in latitude, and which is as irreconcilable with her rotation as is the difference between the two periods of rotation and libration."
“… enginneering concerns itself with mechanical designs. ”
There is a WHOLE world out there beyond ‘engineering designs’. That world can and does have rotations!
“Yes they are but they are not being compelled to do so by that axis. ”
So “compelling” is not enough in your book; rotation requires compulsion by an axle. So when I drive down the street, the tire on my car rotates, but if I simply roll it down the hill (or toss the tire into the air with some spin), it is not rotating because it not ‘compelled by an axis’??
“[Tesla] wasnt giving the required “club” high signs where the science there is celebrated and honored and damn anybody who ever questions it.”
You (and several others here) have an odd sense of how science works. That science is some vast cult composed of Americans and Soviets; Nazi and Jews; Christians and atheists; fresh grad students and and long-dead professors. A cult where the ‘secret knowledge’ is published for everyone to see.
Acclaim is given to those who DO discover new things. Nobel Prizes are given to those who question the current wisdom! For discovering x-rays and the photoelectric effect and neutrons and superconductivity and the Bohr model and transistors integrated circuits and the cosmic microwave background. And a hundred other things.
Any comment on your self-contradictions, and total inability to acknowledge the concept of zero, pupil?
Gaslighting Graham lightly gaslights again.
#2
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
“Tim contradicts his previous statement that the movement of the MOTR can be described as being comprised of two motions.”
No. You just fail to comprehend. maybe this will help.
Suppose you were the programmer tasked with creating the animation for MOTR.
The simplest way would be to program that image of the moon to translate around in a circle. So the motion *could* be described as being ‘comprised of one motion’. Ie the result of one set of instructions.
Another way would be to program the image to rotate around the center of the screen, then add an additional counter-rotation (within that rotating frame) to the disk of the moon. More complicated but it could be done. So the motion *could* be described as being ‘comprised of two motions’. Ie the combined result of two sets of instructions.
But the actual, net motion cannot be described as rotating about any axis (at least not in a non-rotating, inertial frame). The MOTR is keeping the same face the same way always.
Tim admits that the movement of the MOTR can be described as being comprised of two motions, a rotation about an external axis in one direction, and a rotation about an internal axis in the opposite direction, then throws that understanding away on the basis of his confusion about reference frames. He’ll never get why they don’t resolve the issue, no matter how clearly I explain it to him. He’ll always believe he’s in the right. Oh well.
Gaslighting Graham still lightly gaslights while refusing to acknowledge the existence of the concept of equivalence.
#3
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
Maybe someone can explain the meaning of this out of context quote from some not linked book.
Von Gumpach sounds like a kook even in the 1850s. Not surprising that the TEAM defers to his authority.
https://societyforthehistoryofastronomy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Bulletin-32-Aut-2019.pdf
“Von Gumpach was a prolific writer. A sample list of his many
publications appears in the box at the end of this article. While
most of them appear to be academic in nature, the astronomical
ones (most of which appear to have been written while he was
resident in Guernsey) at least seem to be rather pretentious
attempts to challenge accepted scientific opinion, and lacking
rigorous scientific argument.”
“His letter on the subject of The
True Figure and Dimensions of the Earth to the Astronomer
Royal, George Biddell Airy is a case in point. Von Gumpach claimed that he had based his conclusions on a
number of the reported meridian arc measurements, together with
reported pendulum observations. He calculated that because of
Newtons erroneous theory 10,000 human beings the
majority of them British sailors had perished, and that property
worth between 25 and 30 million pounds had been lost. He urged
Airy to propose an expedition to measure the earths equator. He
estimated the losses at sea, resulting from Sir Isaac Newtons
theory of gravitation and the present system of astronomy, as
applied to the practical purposes of navigation, to amount, in
round numbers, to at least five hundred human lives, and a
million pounds sterling worth of property, annually.”
Quote from the von Gumpach:
“It has fallen to my unenviable lot, to recognise
a series of hitherto unnoticed facts in astronomy, constituting
discoveries, to which, for number and importance, the history of
Science presents no parallel, and involving to use the words of
Sir John Herschel in reference to one of these facts ‘the total
subversion of all that is now considered to be established
science:’ that is to say, the complete destruction of the Theory of
Universal Gravitation, and of the entire system of modern
Theoretical and Physical Astronomy.”
His crank theories would have found a happy home here.
Tim Folkerts says:
So ‘compelling’ is not enough in your book; rotation requires compulsion by an axle. So when I drive down the street, the tire on my car rotates, but if I simply roll it down the hill (or toss the tire into the air with some spin), it is not rotating because it not compelled by an axis??
———————
Wrong! On this topic you haven’t produced a single publication yet. All get is spew coming out of your head. Don’t flatter yourself by alluding to papers that agree with you.
As to what is a rotation and what is not, the focus of this discussion has been on mechanical rotations. In particular rotations on fixed axes. Not imaginary axes you can draw just about any place.
Which brings us to which axis does the moon rotate on. The gist of your argument is astronomy tells its fans that the moon rotates on its own axis, which by your argument is a fact because you can imagine it to be there. yep you are a God alright! imagine it and it will be done.
Tim Folkerts says:
You (and several others here) have an odd sense of how science works. That science is some vast cult composed of Americans and Soviets; Nazi and Jews; Christians and atheists; fresh grad students and and long-dead professors. A cult where the secret knowledge is published for everyone to see.
Acclaim is given to those who DO discover new things. Nobel Prizes are given to those who question the current wisdom! For discovering x-rays and the photoelectric effect and neutrons and superconductivity and the Bohr model and transistors integrated circuits and the cosmic microwave background. And a hundred other things.
—————-
But only after they prove it. Before that it looks like the Climategate emails trying to get people fired, cancelling them, urging people do everything in the power to prevent publication, denying them data, etc.
Heck this forum is an example of what its like when folks are anonymous. Its brutal. You can pretend to be part of a cooperating group of scientists who openly consider competing opinions but thats only because you aren’t part of such a group.
Bill should ask any engineer friends what a rotation is. They understand that it has a precise meaning, else it would not be a useful concept in engineering.
And the fact that he still can’t find a precise definition that works for him should bother him.
Oh, I realize I forgot to leave a link to the book:
https://books.google.de/books?id=CItaAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
As we have seen above, this guy was an 1850s crank. His attempts to discredit Newton’s laws failed back then. His theories have had 170 y to catch fire, but they havent.
Why should we take what he thought about the Moon seriously?
Anyone else wondering why my stalker that I no longer respond to keeps commenting? Who is he directing his remarks to? Does anyone care about his opinion? Since he’s just a worthless, argument losing failure, why should anyone take what he has to say about the moon seriously?
Yep what fascists do when they have no valid arguments; they start disparaging the messenger who doesn’t agree with them. We have seen Nate do it over and over.
Someone posted a crank 1850s Moon theory. I have commented on it and provided background on its author. Those people think I should be censored or what?
Next it will be book banning like Florida?
And I call out Bill for again having no definition of rotation, and declaring one isn’t needed, so he calls me a fascist.
Then he admonishes me for attacking the messenger!
The irony and the morony!
Yes, Bill…absolutely nothing matters but the arguments made. Nothing else matters, whatsoever. It doesn’t matter if the author wrote other things that are considered nonsense. That doesn’t mean what the author wrote about the moon is nonsense. It doesn’t matter if the author is considered a crank. It doesn’t mean what the author wrote about the moon is wrong. It just doesn’t matter at all if the author did this or that wrong in their life. It really doesn’t affect their arguments in any way. The book is what the book is. I’m not saying it’s perfect. I’m not saying it’s the word of God. I’m not saying there aren’t parts I’d probably disagree with. I’m just saying it’s an interesting read.
It’s a book, an entire book, written from the “Non-Spinner” perspective. So far, all we’ve really had is Tesla’s articles. There’s a lot more in the book than is in those articles. It’s interesting to hear from a “Non-Spinner” who is fully aware of the librations in longitude and latitude, who is making the argument that those librations do not prove the “Spinner” viewpoint correct, and who in fact claims that the “Non-Spinner” viewpoint can more accurately account for those librations than the “Spinner” viewpoint. It’s interesting to hear a meticulously researched account into all the arguments made by the various “Spinner” astronomers of the time, and where exactly their logic breaks down, with a reasonably balanced critique of some of the “Non-Spinner” authors of the time, as well, where necessary. It’s surely worth the time just to spend a couple of days reading.
Nate says:
And I call out Bill for again having no definition of rotation, and declaring one isnt needed, so he calls me a fascist.
Then he admonishes me for attacking the messenger!
The irony and the morony!
———————————–
Nate I didn’t call you a fascist at all. I merely pointed out that attacking the messenger was a fascist tactic. I figured you would apologize and move on not wanting to be like a fascist. Guess I was wrong.
“Nothing else matters, whatsoever. It doesnt matter if the author wrote other things that are considered nonsense. That doesnt mean what the author wrote about the moon is nonsense. It doesnt matter if the author is considered a crank. It doesnt mean what the author wrote about the moon is wrong. It just doesnt matter at all if the author did this or that wrong in their life. It really doesnt affect their arguments in any way.”
Oh, ok. The TEAM wants people to read a whole book by some guy. His bio or background doesnt matter. Just trust DREMT and read it people!
In a murder trial an expert witness is called by the prosecution. Is it unfair for the defense to bring up his bio? Is it unfair to bring up the fact that this witness’s views are considered to be crank, outlier views by his peers? Is it unfair to point out other nutty, discredited claims made by this witness?
Does the jury have a right to know?
Meanwhile if the TEAM wants readers to be convinced by this book, perhaps they could find and quote the most compelling arguments? Otherwise this is just an exercise in deference to a poor ‘authority’.
Thus far, the only quote given is lacking context and completely indecipherable, and requires readers to just accept that this dude knows what he’s talking about!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1441613
“As to what is a rotation and what is not, the focus of this discussion has been on mechanical rotations. “
From where I sit, the discussion is about what constitutes “rotation” and whether the moon meets the criteria for rotation. Not per se about mechanical rotations of merry-go-rounds or ferris wheels or tires.
And from where I sit, if my head remains upward and my face remains northward, there is no way I have made a 360 degree rotation about any axis (ignoring the motion of the earth). I can’t understand how that should be controversial, but clearly some feel an object can rotate while maintaining a constant orientation.
"From where I sit, the discussion is about what constitutes “rotation” and whether the moon meets the criteria for rotation…"
…and that’s where you go wrong, Tim. The discussion is actually about "what is orbital motion without axial rotation"? MOTL or MOTR? That’s it. Nobody needs to define "rotation". Everyone knows what axial rotation is. The discussion is instead about what "orbital motion" is. You come at the whole thing backwards, and wonder why you get nowhere.
“Nobody needs to define “rotation”. Everyone knows what axial rotation is. ”
Clearly not! Otherwise this conversation would not go on for 100’s of posts. If ‘everyone knows’ then you would not have such a problem defining “rotation”.
Everybody knows what axial rotation is, Tim. The debate is over what OMWAR is. MOTL or MOTR. The reason there are thousands of posts is because people like you don’t listen.
“Nobody needs to define ‘rotation’. Everyone knows what axial rotation is. The discussion is instead about what “orbital motion” is.”
Ok its this:
“4) Revolution/orbit is defined as ‘rotation about an external axis'”
Bwahahaha!
“Nobody needs to define ‘rotation’. Everyone knows what axial rotation is.”
Yep, everybody knows it is what Madhavi said it is:
“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”
Oh wait! Its actually NOT defined that way, says the TEAM, but offers no alternative.
So actually, everybody doesnt know what axial rotation means.
The TEAM is reaching new heights of achievement in self contradiction and dishonest debating.
Everybody knows what axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis) is, Tim. The debate is over what OMWAR is. MOTL or MOTR. The reason there are thousands of posts is because people like you don’t listen.
“The reason there are thousands of posts is because people like you dont listen.”
As DREMT beautiful demonstrates not listening, and its unfortunate effects.
…knows what axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis) is, Tim. The debate is over what OMWAR is. MOTL or MOTR. The reason there are thousands of posts is because people like you don’t listen.
As he adds to the thousands of unnecessary posts.
…what axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis) is, Tim. The debate is over what OMWAR is. MOTL or MOTR. The reason there are thousands of posts is because people like you don’t listen.
Gill, Gill,
The title of that page is Circular Motion.
Even you should get what this means.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“The debate is over what OMWAR is. MOTL or MOTR. ”
You can debate those two cartoons all you want. Until you have an answer for OMWAR for an elliptical orbit, you got nothing. Until your theory can accurately predict libration for the real moon in a real elliptical orbit, you don’t understand orbital motion and/or axial rotation.
The standard explanation is simple and accurate. “Orbital motion” tells us the position of the COM, and nothing more. “Axial rotation” tells us the orientation relative to the stars, and nothing more. Treating these as two separate concepts a) agrees with theory, and b) agrees with observation.
You are completely ineducable, Tim.
“The standard explanation is simple and accurate. “Orbital motion” tells us the position of the COM, and nothing more.”
Incorrect. If you believe this is the case, find a reference to “orbital motion” which mentions the CoM. I’ve never seen such a reference produced. You just make stuff up and claim it as “standard”!
““Axial rotation” tells us the orientation relative to the stars, and nothing more.”
Incorrect. Both “Spinners” and “Non-Spinners” concept of “orbital motion” already gives us the orientation. “Spinners” see “orbital motion” as being movement like the MOTR. “Non-Spinners” like the MOTL. Both of these have orientation already specified. “Axial rotation” is then kept separate from this motion.
“Treating these as two separate concepts a) agrees with theory, and b) agrees with observation.”
Both “Spinners” and “Non-Spinners” treat “orbital motion” and “axial rotation” as two separate concepts.
“Both Spinners and Non-Spinners concept of orbital motion already gives us the orientation. Spinners see orbital motion as being movement like the MOTR. Non-Spinners like the MOTL. ”
Uggh, Spinners have repeatedly tried to educate people on how ORBIT is defined, and how it JUST DOESTNT SPECIFY orientation or rotation rate, at all.
But some keep insisting it does. And keep telling us what we believe is not what we say we believe.
They are actually ineducable.
‘The standard explanation is simple and accurate. ‘Orbital motion’ tells us the position of the COM, and nothing more.’
“Incorrect. If you believe this is the case, find a reference to ‘orbital motion’ which mentions the CoM. ”
The standard definitions state an ORBIT is simply the PATH followed by an object through space.
How would we determine with precision, as astronomy can do, whether a planet is on a predicted PATH, which is series of x,y,z points in space?
Or do people think it means ANY part of the body is on one of those xyz positions?
Or would it perhaps mean when the COM of the body is on one of those xyz points?
That sounds much more precise, as Astronomy can do.
I am talking to Tim, and Tim only.
[GROSS GRAHAM] You are completely ineducable, Tim.
[ALSO GROSS GRAHAM] I am talking to Tim and Tim only.
Actually, it’s not even really worth speaking to Tim. Or any of them. None of them will ever be reached…it’s not like anyone’s going to change their mind, now.
This whole "an orbit is just a path" is simply a dodge. It doesn’t matter how you want to dress it up, what words you try to use. If you believe the moon rotates on its own axis, then you believe that "orbital motion" is like the MOTR. Your version of "orbital motion" thus contains orientation, same as everybody else’s. There’s absolutely no way out of it. End of story.
“If you believe the moon rotates on its own axis, then you believe that “orbital motion” is like the MOTR. Your version of “orbital motion” thus contains orientation, same as everybody elses. Theres absolutely no way out of it. End of story.”
No. Everyone else says that BOTH moons undergo “orbital motion”. They follow a path around the central planet. End of story.
We then can — if we want — further examine the orientation. MOTL is rotating on its axis. MOTR is not rotating on its axis.
Maybe reading up on “orbital elements” will help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements
“Everyone else says that BOTH moons undergo “orbital motion”. They follow a path around the central planet. End of story.“
Oh, for God’s sake. You know what I mean, idiot. Both moons are orbiting but only one is “just orbiting”, or “orbiting without spinning”.
“Spinners” think that is the MOTR. Thus your version of “orbital motion” contains an orientation.
“This whole “an orbit is just a path” is simply a dodge. It doesnt matter how you want to dress it up, what words you try to use.”
DREMTS entire argument is about semantics, but now insists it doesnt matter.
“Actually, its not even really worth speaking to Tim. Or any of them. None of them will ever be reached”
DREMT appears frustrated that nobody with any sense is buying his crap.
But still fails to grok that crap is a hard sell.
…both moons are orbiting but only one is “just orbiting”, or “orbiting without spinning”.
“Spinners” think that is the MOTR. Thus your version of “orbital motion” contains an orientation.
“Thus your version of ‘orbital motion’ contains an orientation.”
DREMTs mom: ‘honey its cold, you need to wear a sweater’
DREM: “Oh so I have to wear my BLUE sweater again?”
DREMTs Mom: “Any color is fine”
DREMT “No Mom, the word ‘sweater’ implies BLUE”
DREMTs Mom: “Go to school, you annoying little *&%$*”
….both moons are orbiting but only one is “just orbiting”, or “orbiting without spinning”.
“Spinners” think that is the MOTR. Thus your version of “orbital motion” contains an orientation.
Once again DREMT convinces exactly nobody that his crap smells nice.
But at least he’ll earn the prestigious Last Wording Prize!
…..both moons are orbiting but only one is “just orbiting”, or “orbiting without spinning”.
“Spinners” think that is the MOTR. Thus your version of “orbital motion” contains an orientation.
Orbital elements are the parameters required to uniquely identify a specific orbit. In celestial mechanics these elements are considered in two-body systems using a Kepler orbit. There are many different ways to mathematically describe the same orbit, but certain schemes, each consisting of a set of six parameters, are commonly used in astronomy and orbital mechanics.
A real orbit and its elements change over time due to gravitational perturbations by other objects and the effects of general relativity. A Kepler orbit is an idealized, mathematical approximation of the orbit at a particular time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
DREMT,
Since you claim to know all about orbits and rotations, tells us what it would mean for a moon in an elliptical orbit to be “just orbiting”. What is the generalization of the MOTL for an ellipse?
This month is over, Tim. Try again in the comments under the new monthly temperature update article. Make sure to read through everything I have taught you here, first. When you are ready to accept that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists, and is motion like the MOTL, then perhaps I will be more inclined to re-answer (for the twentieth time) your question.
“I will be more inclined to re-answer (for the twentieth time) your question.”
Surely he could just post a link to one of these 20 repeated answers of the question?
But that would be rather difficult since he never actually answered it!
…month is over, Tim. Try again in the comments under the new monthly temperature update article. Make sure to read through everything I have taught you here, first. When you are ready to accept that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists, and is motion like the MOTL, then perhaps I will be more inclined to re-answer (for the twentieth time) your question.
Two elements define the shape and size of the ellipse:
Eccentricity (e) – shape of the ellipse, describing how much it is elongated compared to a circle (not marked in diagram).
Semimajor axis (a) – the sum of the periapsis and apoapsis distances divided by two. For classic two-body orbits, the semimajor axis is the distance between the centers of the bodies, not the distance of the bodies from the center of mass.
#3
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Need information to complete a study that proves that solar variation completely explains the thermal change in the seas and atmosphere.
Ive spent five years studying global temperatures, CO2, SST, and Sea Heat Flux. When Im done, Ill try and stop by to share what I found to get your thoughts before I share it with the world. Its a bit astounding, which is an understatement. No worries. What I found speaks highly of the incredible work that you and Christy do.
Is the lower troposphere used in your global temperature record have an average over time of about 9,900 meters elevation? A range would also be nice but not necessary.
Can you reply to my e-mail directly so I know that you responded?
bottom line there is no other better physics definition than a definition of all the rotational elements of a rotation possessed by orbits as well. Can you name anything else that meets all that criteria and isn’t a rotation?
Gill, Gill,
Bottom line is that you are a bozo who cannot give a simple definition and now asks to be spoon fed.
wee willy, lacking a scientific response, succumbs to ad homs.
C’mon, Bordon.
Want to bet?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
1) Normally, “rotation” is in a circle, so orbits do NOT meet the standard criteria. But we could consider “elliptical rotation” too, I suppose and say orbits have ‘elliptical rotation”.
2) Can you name any property among “all the rotational elements” that says the moon is NOT rotating around its own axis?
“Can you name anything else that meets all that criteria and isnt a rotation?”
But standard definitions of “rotation” require motion in a circle around an axis. Orbits don’t even meet the basic definition of “rotation”.
Yet, that’s how "revolution/orbit" is defined…as a rotation about an external axis. Oh well.
Because everyone knows what a rotation is, except the TEAM of losers.
…that’s how "revolution/orbit" is defined…as a rotation about an external axis. Oh well.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again:
That an orbit involves a rotation does not imply it is one.
The fact that it’s defined as one implies it is one. However, if you want to go with "orbit without spin" as being a general plane motion, that also supports the "Non-Spinners".
The fact that an orbit may involve a rotation implies that it is more than a rotation.
And of course Geometry Graham forgets about open orbits.
The fact that it’s defined as a rotation implies it is one. However, if you want to go with "orbit without spin" as being a general plane motion, that also supports the "Non-Spinners".
“The fact that its defined as a rotation implies it is one.”
When your only remaining argument is to just keep repeating an obvious LIE, the argument is over, and you have LOST, whether one acknowledges it or not.
The fact that it’s defined as a rotation implies it is one. However, if you want to go with "orbit without spin" as being a general plane motion, that also supports the "Non-Spinners".
a : a path described by one body in its revolution about another (as by the earth about the sun or by an electron about an atomic nucleus)
b : a circular path
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orbit
One is not like the other.
…the fact that it’s defined as a rotation implies it is one. However, if you want to go with "orbit without spin" as being a general plane motion, that also supports the "Non-Spinners".
“However, if you want to go with..”
Here’s a LIE. However if you require TRUTH then…
…fact that it’s defined as a rotation implies it is one. However, if you want to go with "orbit without spin" as being a general plane motion, that also supports the "Non-Spinners".
When viewed from an inertial frame, two orbiting bodies trace out distinct trajectories. Each of these trajectories has its focus at the common center of mass. When viewed from a non-inertial frame centered on one of the bodies, only the trajectory of the opposite body is apparent; Keplerian elements describe these non-inertial trajectories. An orbit has two sets of Keplerian elements depending on which body is used as the point of reference. The reference body (usually the most massive) is called the primary, the other body is called the secondary. The primary does not necessarily possess more mass than the secondary, and even when the bodies are of equal mass, the orbital elements depend on the choice of the primary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
About that recent net positive fusion energy gain claim , did you really believe the hype they produced more energy than they spent to create it ?
https://youtu.be/u-I8r0nH4Jw?t=53
Hunter boy
You wrote above:
” long ago i asked you to provide a source that explicitly supports your spinner position from your entire gallery of names you like to drop and you failed miserably and provided none. ”
*
How is it possible to brazenly write such dumb lies, Hunter boy?
Even when lying you yourself show off as the one who miserably fails.
*
Though being as ignorant in astronomy as you are, Robertson nevertheless has always looked at these sources I posted all the time.
He wrote each time a bunch of nonsense when trying to grasp German or French material but unlike you, he went at least into the documents.
And by accident, you have overlooked all these posts? Hmmmmh.
*
Below you will see a link to a pdf document containing (of course non-exhaustive) lists of links to
– historical documents (Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, Beer/Mädler, Simon);
– contemporary documents (Kopal, Mulholland, Calamé, Koziel, Cappallo, Eckhardt, Migus, Moons, Habibullin, Rizvanov):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
*
2. ” now you want me to show you a newton mistake. lol! he made many. some corrected but not all. if you dont already know that then you are not a reliable Newton observer. ”
And again, words, words, words, exactly like in your previous comment:
” When it came to the perturbation theory that explains the tilt of the axis calculations I believe that they established that Newton was wrong. ”
What a poor example you give us here!
*
Finally, let me give you a link to a document that you will love because it was written a long time ago by a 360-degree Pseudo-skeptic named Johannes von Gumpach (a guy like Robertson, Clint R or yourself):
https://books.google.de/books?id=CItaAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
*
But… here is a reaction to what he wrote on another topic:
The Curious Case of Johannes von Gumpach (1814-1875), by David Le Conte, Bulletin of the Society for the History of Astronomy, Issue 32, Autumn 2019
http://www.astronomy.org.gg/_archive/Von%20Gumpach%20article.pdf
Amazing.
in the universe where science is all about who says what. . . .you can be the proud winner of the debate. the only problem is that isn’t this universe.
Hunter boy
” … the only problem is that isnt this universe. ”
Oh my.
*
I still await the references confirming your proud comment:
” When it came to the perturbation theory that explains the tilt of the axis calculations I believe that they established that Newton was wrong.
1. Who is ‘they’ ?
2. Are you now finally able to show me a link to what ‘they’ wrote, Hunter boy?
Or were you once more simply boasting and… lying, like do all Pseudoskeptics who are
– always quick in superficially discrediting,
but are
– never able to scientifically contradict?
If you want to claim there is no such animal I would entertain putting up a sizeable donation to the winners choice of charities. Then I will gladly provide it for you. But as a debate point there is no point in arguing over a he said, she said about science and who said what about what as it freaking shouldn’t even matter.
binny…”let me give you a link to a document”
***
Why don’t you just write down your proof that the Moon rotates on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth. None of the authors you have referenced have done that. Had they done that, rather than rush off to do math calculations, they might have gotten that it is not possible.
C’mon, Bordon.
Interesting find, Bindidon:
https://books.google.de/books?id=CItaAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
Nice find, Binny:
Gumbach’s opinion seems to conflict with Pup & Bordon’s.
There’s a bit more to the book than just this pointless ongoing dispute over what Newton said or didn’t say.
But wait – there’s more!
Op. Cit.
Just let people read it for themselves, Little Willy.
A man after Gaslighting Graham:
http://www.astronomy.org.gg/_archive/Von%20Gumpach%20article.pdf
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
WILLARD contact russia i am sure they will help you with a gumbach dossier! LMAO!!!
Come on, Gill.
Leave the ZZs to Bordon.
you were looking like you needed some help in your smear campaign. Just suggesting you follow Hillary. . . .worked out for her just great.
Hey Bill,
Looks like teh Donald had three Chinese balloons flying over the US of A. He never shot at them. He hid it from public.
I wonder why. Do you?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Finally, it became 100% clear that the Hunter boy has NO valuable source concerning his claim
” … I believe that they established that Newton was wrong. ”
The ‘they’ very probably are one person: the Hunter boy himself.
you are serious? you hoold yourself up to be a newton scholar and you found him to be perfect. LMAO!!!
brandon…”It might occur to Gnumeric Graham that a positive 1 spin plus a negative 1 spin equals zero, thus MOTR does NOT SPIN”.
***
Hopefully you are not confusing this with the alleged spin of an electron.
The MOTR has to spin to maintain its upright position. What is missing from the gif is that you are looking down on the north pole and see the moon turning at one rotation per orbit.
Think of a chair on a ferris wheel If the chair did not turn on an axle it would not be able to maintain an upright position.
With MOTL you have a side view with no rotation about a local axis. The axis re-orients through 360 degrees per orbit.
The axle turns inside the chair, Gordon. If the chair were spinning people would fall out of it.
If the bicycle pedal were spinning, the rider’s butt on the seat would have to be spinning. Which is simply absurd.
For something to be spinning or rotating about any axis, it needs to be changing orientation.
MOTR is NOT SPINNING.
wrong! its obviously a retrograde spin in the opposite direction of the pedal/chair rotating around the main axis of the multiple pedal/chair system. enabling no net rotation of the feet/body of the rider or the pedals/chairs.
if you don’t recognize them as two cancelling rotations you would be too stupid to design and build the devices and your business would fail due to a lack of customers. thats why we have tenure for academics so they can keep our kids busy filling their minds with nonsense so mom and dad don’t have to.
> two cancelling rotations
means NO ROTATION
nope brandon we can see the wheels turning it is probably a challenge for to figure out why if you believe there is no rotation
You’re wrong again, Brandon.
MOTR is spinning. It must be to cancel its orbital motion. It’s spinning so it can keep the same side facing a distant star. Notice that it presents ALL sides to the inside of its orbit.
MOTL is NOT spinning. That’ why it keeps ONLY one side always facing the inside of its orbit. Just like Moon.
The easiest way to convince yourself that you are just trolling would be to do the Pole Dance Experiment, Pup.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
So according to Gills logic, cars in roundabout crossroads are not rotating,
So beautiful to see Moon Dragon cranks twisting themselves in a pretzel.
we understand how that works willard even if you don’t. it might take a bit more discipline to realize that physics matter regarding each individual methof of producing a rotation. i recognize my definition is going to vary as those mechanics vary. but tim wants to define rotations without regards the fact he has no definition for everything in the real world and wants to allow a ”little play” while failing to note you need a lot of play to fill the gap between rotations and translations.
then you have tim informing the public that the moon rotates on its own axis because he is able to imagine one being there. to me that sounds like bleeding a patient to let out evil spirits.
i have little doubt where some doctor in the middle ages with tim’s dna would be on that issue as well.
Gill, Gill,
However some motion M is produced, either it’s a rotation or it’s not.
That M has been produced through a physical process P is of not relevance whatsoever.
So you can stick your P wherever you wish, as long as it’s consensual.
sure willard it isn’t relevant to if its a rotation or not. i agree.
but it is relevant to what caused the rotation and where the axis of rotation is located.
gee willard why didn’t you think of that? lack of experience? too many hours with your nose in a book?
“but it is relevant to what caused the rotation and where the axis of rotation is located. ”
You raise useful questions.
We know where the Moon’s axis of rotation is located. The Moon shows 12 degrees of polar libration which indicates that the axis is offset 84 degrees from the plane of its orbit. Given the timing of the libration we can identify the position of the poles.
Apart from a small amount of equatorial libration due to its elliptical orbit the Moon always turns the same face towards Earth. This alignment cannot be a coincidence.
Since angular momentum transfer from Earth is gradually moving the Moon outwards in its orbit and increasing its orbital period some active process must be slowing the Moon’s rotation to maintain the alignment.
So what process caused the alignment and what is maintaining it?
We know where the Moons axis of rotation is located.
WRONG Ent. Moon has no “axis of rotation”. Moon is NOT rotating. Your cult has conjured up an IMAGINARY spin axis. But the angle of that IMAGINARY spin axis would change over 13° in half an orbit. That means it is NOT a REAL spin axis.
Apart from a small amount of equatorial libration due to its elliptical orbit the Moon always turns the same face towards Earth. This alignment cannot be a coincidence.
Moon always facing the inside of its orbit is due to “orbital motion WITHOUT axial rotation”.
Since angular momentum transfer from Earth is gradually moving the Moon outwards in its orbit and increasing its orbital period…
Angular momentum does NOT transfer through a vacuum. The claim by NASA that Moon is “gradually moving” away from Earth is NOT scientifically verified.
…some active process must be slowing the Moon’s rotation to maintain the alignment.
Something could be moving Moon to a larger orbit, but one side of it would remain facing the inside of its orbit, due to OMWAR.
Gill, Gill,
Sure what causes the rotation matters.
But not to determine if the motion is a rotation or not.
It is really not that hard.
Besides, do you realize that to focus on the cause of the motion makes Moon Dragon cranks lose?
what do you think I said Willard?
Entropic man says:
”Since angular momentum transfer from Earth is gradually moving the Moon outwards in its orbit and increasing its orbital period some active process must be slowing the Moons rotation to maintain the alignment.
So what process caused the alignment and what is maintaining it?”
the burden of proof on that is on you Entropic Man as the moon has no motion on its rotational axis and there is no process to put it there or to maintain it.
And as you say angular momentum for Earth is changing the moon’s orbit and the process of doing that affects each particle of the moon in orbit in relationship to its distance from earth. Particles with larger orbits have more angular momentum than the particles on smaller orbits each particle gets its due share of angular momentum. If they didn’t then the moon would start rotating on its axis.
Burden of proof?
Research Tidal Acceleration.
This summary will give you an idea and you can follow up in the reference list
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration
Note the evidence that the Moon’s orbital radius has increased from 320,000km to 380,000km over the last 2.5 billion years while Earth’s rotation has slowed from 17 hours to 24 hours.
I don’t have time to do the calculation this weekend, but I bet you an ice cream that the energy lost from the Earth’s rotation matches the increased energy of the Moon’s higher orbit.
Oh, by the way, these are the parameters of the Moon’s orbit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File%3ALunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
Having provided evidence to support my viewpoint, perhaps you might provide supporting evidence for yours.
Gill, Gill,
What you said makes Moon Dragon cranks lose.
Which part of that you do not get?
Ent, you don’t have any science! Basing something on “2.5 billion years ago” ain’t science. Nor is trying to support your cult nonsense with more cult nonsense. Ever heard of “circular reasoning”?
Entropic man says:
Burden of proof?
Research Tidal Acceleration.
——————-
Just another name for what causes rotations around all external axes. If there were no forces to cause an object to rotate around an external axis there would be no Tidal Acceleration! zip, nil, zero! And you want to call it an independent cause when its inseparable from the cause of a rotation around and external axis? Where is the logic in that? Leftist follow-the-leader, government-is-my-daddy logic?
Just askin!
Clint R
“the angle of that IMAGINARY spin axis would change over 13 in half an orbit. ”
Yes, relative to the plane of its orbit the Moon nods back and forth by 12 degrees. You can see it from Earth. When the Moon’s North Pole nods towards us you can six degrees of lunar latitude past the pole.Since the Moon’s orbit is inclined 5 degrees relative to the ecliptic you can sometimes see 8.5 degrees past the pole.
“Moon always facing the inside of its orbit is due to orbital motion WITHOUT axial rotation.
That is an observation, not an explaination. As I said, this cannot be coincidence. What caused this and what keeps it that way?
“Angular momentum does NOT transfer through a vacuum.”
Gravity and frame dragging help. Gravitational slingshots work by converting a small amount of planetary angular and linear momentum into spacecraft momentum. The planet rotates slower and the spacecraft moves faster.
“The claim by NASA that Moon is gradually moving away from Earth is NOT scientifically verified.”
Really? This is a summary, but you should have no trouble linking to the relevant scientific papers.
https://phys.org/news/2022-10-moon-slowly-drifting-earth-billion.html
” Something could be moving Moon to a larger orbit, but one side of it would remain facing the inside of its orbit, due to OMWAR. ”
Again, OMWAR is an observation, not an explaination. If the Moon is moving to a larger orbit its rotation, if any, must be synchronised to its orbital period if it is to remain facing the inside of its orbit. What process is keeping it syncronised?
As the orbital period increases, the Moon’s rotation rate must decrease. This creates an interesting paradox for you. If the Moon’s rotation rate is zero and decreasing, was it zero last year and will it be zero next year?
Its beyond me why you are so confused by this. The fact that the orbit is tilted doesn’t mean the orbit path isn’t on a plane nor that the center of that orbit the earth sits nor that the motion of the moon isn’t a planar motion.
If you want to claim an elliptical motion isn’t a rotation that is one thing but its really hard to see what your point is you are trying to make here.
Ent, you didn’t understand one thing in my comment. You responded with your usual nonsense supporting your cult beliefs. You believe you can pervert reality to fit your beliefs. That’s why you claim passenger jets fly backwards.
No reality or truth for you.
I admit that I wanted to keep more and more away from this lunar spin discussion.
And as for the usual pseudoskeptical nonsense (MOTL/MOTR, OMWAR, etc etc) that is constantly being thrown into this blog, I won’t change my stance.
But when it comes to pure denial of science, I can’t keep away.
*
The most recent denial of science is from the Clint R pseudoskeptic troll, who wrote above:
” The claim by NASA that Moon is ‘gradually moving’ away from Earth is NOT scientifically verified. ”
*
Apart from this ridiculous NASA paranoia: from where does Clint R get such a claim? Who wrote that, and where is the link to an article confirming what Clint R claims?
*
Here is, as one of many examples, an article that explains in detail how laser ranging is done on the moon, including error and uncertainty management, and the levels of precision and accuracy enabled by using LLR:
Millimetric Lunar Laser Ranging at OCA (Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur)
E. Samain & al.
https://aas.aanda.org/articles/aas/pdf/1998/11/ds1427.pdf
It was published in… 1998!
In section 2, page 2 you can read:
” The millimetric data would improve the determination of the increase of the Moon’s distance, presently 3.82±0.07 cm/year, and consequently the estimation of the tides which cause the tidal acceleration responsible for the moving away of the Moon and the slowing down of the Earth's rotation. ”
Where is Clint R’s proof that these measurements are wrong?
*
How could pseudo-skeptic people people ever agree to such measurements if they even doubt the existence of photons?
And vice versa: how can people doubt the possibility of single photon returns if they have never worked in a technical context really using them?
*
The millimetric LLR described above in 1998 as a research target is in fact reality nowadays:
Lunar Laser Ranging: The Millimeter Challenge
T. W. Murphy, Jr.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.6294.pdf
Yes: again more stuff for the denial specialists to doubt about!
Correct Bin, when it “comes to pure denial of science”, you “can’t keep away”.
It’s not enough that you deny science, you actually attempt to pervert it. You don’t realize that your cult science can NOT be defended with more cult science. You must defend with REAL science. For example, if you believe Earth is transferring energy to Moon so that Moon can leave its orbit, then you must provide how Earth can do that, from First Principles.
See, REAL science ain’t about beliefs, it’s about reality.
And again and again and again, like do all Pseudoskeptics: polemic words, words, words… and NO source confirming their cult beliefs.
NO source.
Yes Bin, it takes words to refute your nonsense. But, I always keep it brief, unlike you.
Got any valid sources that support angular momentum can transfer through a vacuum?
NO? Hint: You won’t find any.
That might be the stupidest riddle so far, Pup.
Well done!
Of course I have a source confirming that principle:
Evolution of angular momenta and energy of the Earth-Moon system
Arbab I. Arbab (2018)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0308162.pdf
But… I sincerely doubt that you will be willing to read the stuff till end, let alone that you would be honest enough to accept it.
*
My experience (I’m over 70) is that people who endlessly keep using the word ‘cult’ are themselves hopelessly invaded by some religious cult, especially in the US.
Sorry Bin, that’s only confirmation that you don’t understand science.
Runcorn (1964) has shown that the value of the orbital angular momentum of the Moon at present (L0) to its value 370 million years ago (since Devonian)
You actually believe that is science? Someone can just make something up and you cult idiots will swallow it whole. That ain’t science.
Find some more nonsense like that. That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R
Come back when you become able
– to behave like an adult
– to scientifically disprove what you polemically denigrate.
Bin, trolling is all you’ve got. You can’t understand even the simplest things. You believe that Swanson’s diagrams are all correct. The 3 diagrams are decidedly different so they can NOT all be correct. They can be, and are, all wrong.
But, you can’t understand the simple diagrams.
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
You’re just another braindead cult idiot posing as an ignorant troll.
Another way to look at it and simpler is that the sidereal rotation is an orbital rotation seen from the stars but not seen from object orbited (e.g. it keeps the same face toward the orbited object as does any orbital rotation of an object so you see one less rotation from the orbited body)
The orbital rotation always adds exactly one rotation per orbit. Do you think that is coincidence? Statistical odds of a coincidence are so astronomical as to be totally ridiculous to deny it is a rotation on the orbited body, not its internal axis. If its on its internal axis you will always see it from the orbited body.
And of course our moon and some of Jupiters and other planets only have sidereal rotations and zero rotations on their internal axis.
“Another way to look at it and simpler is that the sidereal rotation is an orbital rotation seen from the stars but not seen from object orbited (e.g. it keeps the same face toward the orbited object as does any orbital rotation of an object so you see one less rotation from the orbited body)”
But they DON’T keep the same face in; there is libration. Indeed, for a highly eccentric orbit, you could see the entire surface of the orbiting moon from the planet.
Orbital motion proceeds at varying angular speeds. Rotation on the axis proceeds at a constant angular speed. These are two distinct, separate motions.
you are confused tim orbital angular velocity only apply to particles on the orbital path spin angular velocity is zero for particles on the spin axis. you can imagine a spin axis any place inside perimeter of the moon.
you can also imagine an orbital axis any where outside of the moon but you will have difficulty engineering one with a single motion. gravity can be used to define orbits for a variety of objects.
the fact you can imagine and define a variety of values does not define two motions anymore than it defines two noses on your face by slicing it in half with one swift cut. all you are doing is defining objects with one motion based upon imaginary reference points.
dremt is saying the motion has a blueprint so it can’t be both one motion and two motions or more motions up to an infinite number of motions at the same time dependent upon how many axes you want to imagine. there is only one physical axis related the motion and you have your panties in a knot because of some minor asymmetry. you might have a wart on one side of your split nose but that still doesnt make it two noses
[TIM FOLKERTS] Dremt, you are off on your usual tangent about “one motion” and “two motions” and words and semantics.
[ALSO TIM FOLKERTS] These are two distinct, separate motions.
Let me clarify. DREMT is preoccupied with whether an animation can be ‘considered one motion’ or ‘considered two motions’; how that animation can be constructed from other motions. I am pointing our that moon is definitely two distinct motions.
I am preoccupied with trying to teach you the basics of the “Non-Spinner” position. You are preoccupied with doing everything in your power not to understand.
Yes two distinct motions, Tim. Smart gracious opponents verbally concede. Less gracious losers leave the room. Morons act like morons making a fool of themselves by not conceding or leaving the room; they stick around resort to ad hominems and generally making a bigger fool of themselves. Gaslighting Graham does absolutely the best job of making a bigger fool of himself on the entire board. 2nd place isn’t even close.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“they stick around”
Yep, this one making 1112 unnecessary posts. Just this month.
…Willy, please stop trolling.
Gill, Gill,
There are no coincidences:
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/celestial/Celestial/node75.html
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“The orbital rotation always adds exactly one rotation per orbit.”
Orbiting produces the effect of the sun appearing to go around the Earth.
The Earth’s orbit of the sun is just adding a solar day to a year. A day can be considered to be the time between solar noons.
It doesnt actually add a rotation to the Earth or to the Moon.
Actually I guess orbiting is subtracting a solar day from the year, because the apparent motion of the sun is around the Earth from West to East.
…Willy, please stop trolling.
Upthread I wrote:
” If the Earth rotated around the Sun once per orbit, an observing device very close to the Sun would always see the Earth showing its same face to the empty focus of its elliptical orbit, just as the Moon does with respect to Earth. ”
*
The analogy is really quite simple to accept, isn’t it?
Yes, but… to this comment (I had overlooked), I obtained as reply:
” An orbit is a rotation. That’s why there is an extra sidereal rotation with every single orbit that appears from some far star if one ignores the orbit just like but not the same as a rotation on an internal axis. ”
*
(1) Where does ‘extra sidereal rotation’ come from?
Rotation periods – and of course those of orbits as well – are measured with respect to a fixed point in space in order to obtain a period independent of the motion of the observing point.
Newton knew that of course, and mentioned that with respect to the fixed stars, the Sun rotates in 25 1/2 days, whereas with respect to the Earth, it rotates in 27 1/2 days.
Yeah, these ancient times ‘astrologers’…
In fact, you just would need to read
Star-calibrated lunar photography by method of separate plates for a determination of the coordinates of lunar control points
Habibullin, Rizvanov and Bystrov (1974)
https://tinyurl.com/2nbpt8fu
to understand the principle; but Pseudoskeptics read and accept only what perfectly fits their narrative. The rest is at best ‘appeal to authority’.
*
(2) Where does ‘from some far star’ come from?
I suppose that the Hunter boy had read a post written by the Flynnson zombie, who indeed used the meaningless expression ‘viewed from the fixed stars’ a while ago.
See Bin, you haven’t learned a thing.
There is NO way Earth could have axial rotation without it being noticed from Sun. ANY orbiting body, that is also rotating, will present different sides to the inside of its orbit. This is what you should have learned from the simple ball-on-a-string.
You don’t understand any of this. You can’t learn. You’re braindead.
Pup,
If Moon Dragon cranks were right, you would not be able to do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Be like a scientist. Try to prove yourself wrong.
” If the Earth rotated around the Sun once per orbit… ”
Don’t you really, really get the simple analogy?
But how is that possible? It is as simple as… the ball-on-a-string.
You’re not making any sense, again.
Please leave gaslighting to Graham, Pup.
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#2
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again:
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#3
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again:
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#4
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again:
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#5
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again:
https://tinyurl.com/these-are-not-the-magic-words
#6
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
G
#7
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
a
#8
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
s
#9
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
l
#10
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
i
#11
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
ght
#12
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
in
#13
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
g Gr
#14
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
aham
#15
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
gent
#16
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
ly
Christos Vournas
You wrote the following:
1. ” Thank you for the very interesting link:
https://tinyurl.com/ypcekwht ”
If I well remember, the answer in such cases is
Παρακαλλώ!
*
2. ” Now, could you please define the difference between rotating and orbiting? ”
I think the problem arises from the misuse of ‘rotation’ which is too general because it encompasses both
– to spin, i.e. when a body rotates about an own interior axis
– to orbit, i.e. when a body moves around another body.
Since spin and orbit are two basically different motions, for which completely different rules are defined: to unify such different motions into the general idea of ‘rotation’ does not help; it supports confusion rather than clears it up.
*
3. ” Does Moon rotate about its local axis, or Moon just orbits Earth without rotating about its local axis?
Because Moon definitely is incapable doing both. Either Moon orbits Earth, or Moon rotates about its local axis. ”
Why should a celestial body like the Moon be incapable of doing the same as a celestial body like the Earth?
If Earth is able to spin and orbit, why not the Moon?
Imagine Earth rotating at the same speed as it orbits Earth, and the Sun being a giant planet you could stay on.
Are you 100 % sure that you would then still see Earth rotating? I think it would behave exactly as does the Moon with regard to Earth.
*
4. ” Since we observe Moon orbiting Earth, there is not any Lunar rotation about its local axis. ”
Who is ‘we’, Christos?
Why, do you think, did so many people in the past and presently understand that if the Moon always shows the same face to us, this is due to the Moon CURRENTLY spinning at exactly the same speed as it orbits Earth?
Do you really believe in the trivial, simple-minded ‘ball-on-a-string’ stuff which Robertson, Clint R, Hunter, the Pseudomod aka DREMT and a few others are telling us?
I prefer to trust the excellent knowledge of people like your compatriot Michalis Moutsoulas and all the others I mentioned in the list below:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
*
The last link in the file is one to a polemic book written by a strange guy named Johannes von Gumpach.
It shows how scientifically uneducated this man has been: he did not even understand why Moon’s synodic, sidereal, tropical, anomalistic and draconic months do not and can not have the same value!
*
No wonder that some people write interesting things about him, e.g.
The Curious Case of Johannes von Gumpach (1814-1875), by David Le Conte, Bulletin of the Society for the History of Astronomy, Issue 32, Autumn 2019
http://www.astronomy.org.gg/_archive/Von%20Gumpach%20article.pdf
” … as it orbits Earth … ”
should read, of course,
” … as it orbits Sun … “
That’s wrong Bin.
If an orbiting body is also spinning you would see the spin from inside the orbit. If you could understand orbital motion, you would know that.
The Internet is an almost infinite source. You can probably find a lot of things you don’t understand. At least it keeps you off the streets….
Clint R
#2
Come back when you become able
to behave like an adult
to scientifically disprove what you polemically denigrate.
Bin, was trolling your life’s ambition?
You can’t understand even the simplest things. You believe that Swanson’s diagrams are all correct. The 3 diagrams are decidedly different so they can NOT all be correct. They can be, and are, ALL wrong.
But, you can’t understand the simple diagrams.
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
You’re just another braindead cult idiot posing as an ignorant troll.
clint…”If an orbiting body is also spinning you would see the spin from inside the orbit”.
***
The Man in the Sun will see all sides of the Earth 365 times per orbit.
As usual, Robertsons ridiculous, dumb, primitive, opinionated blah blah.
He still keeps unable to grasp the evidence, namely that the Moon shows the same face to Earth BECAUSE it spins at the same speed as it orbits around it.
Hence, Earth, when spinning the like, would show to the Sun the same face all the time.
LEARN, Robertson, LEARN, instead of permanently spouting such thickheaded trash!
Take a lesson or two in spherical trigonometry, and try to understand at least the beginning of Moutsoulas’ paper:
https://tinyurl.com/ypcekwht
It’s much harder than Mayer’s but I won’t translate the start of his treatise for you, as it would be plain useless work.
You would denigrate it anyway.
And the Man in Alpha Centauri will see all sides of the earth 366 times per year.
And – no – the Man in the sun will see the two poles only ONCE per orbit, so not “all sides”. He will see only the land between the Arctic and Antarctic circles 365 times per day.
“Observers south of the latitude 29 S can see Alpha Centauri throughout the year because the star is circumpolar, i.e. it never sinks below the horizon. Observers north of the latitude 29 N, however, never see the star because it never rises above the horizon.”
https://www.star-facts.com/alpha-centauri/
So, you only see southern hemisphere of Earth.
Or if you can’t see, it doesn’t see you.
So, when Antarctica in summer, it will lit by the sunlight, and winter, it won’t, but southern Mexico and Cuba will lit sunlight
when it’s there daytime, but can see them during night if looking at
it with longwave IR- or see city lights with visible light.
Clint R
#3
Come back when you become able
to behave like an adult
to scientifically disprove what you polemically denigrate.
Bin, I’m glad to see you taking an interest in maturity. But, trolling is NOT being mature. You need to knock off the insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Also, a key aspect of maturity is accepting reality. Responsible adults do NOT try to deny reality, or pervert it.
Hope that helps.