AGWists are sore losers
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
Next: DISCOVERY OF BRIGHT GALAXIES IN THE DISTANT UNIVERSE AND A VARIABLE GRAVITATIONAL 'CONSTANT'
From: Eric Gisse on 28 Jul 2007 03:34 On Jul 27, 7:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: [...] Watching this guy mewl about global warming is especially amusing since he cannot even understand basic orbital mechanics.
From: kdthrge on 28 Jul 2007 14:19 On Jul 28, 2:34 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 7:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > [...] > > Watching this guy mewl about global warming is especially amusing > since he cannot even understand basic orbital mechanics. I forgot more orbital mechanics than you will ever know eric, Heres one for you, If GMm/r^2 is the force of gravity, then basic Newtonian physics tells you that,, kinetic energy equals force times distance of applied force. So GMm/r^2 x R (in cm) gives one the potential energy at any mean orbital radius, which is therefore GMm/R. If the known mean orbital radius is known, then subtraction or addition from this value of GMm/R, gives the energy change from the potential energy level of the mean orbital radius, and the applied force at any point on the ellipse and the resultant velocity at any point of the ellipse. The orbital velocity will always be a product of the cosine of the arc at radius and the gravitaitonal force which diminishes as an inverse square to distance. This results in Keplers law, a^3 = p^2. Just as Newton confirmed, a circular orbit is not possible as is stated in Kepler's first law. You are a stupid little twit, eric. The one thing I was taught proper in school was orbital mechanics. You need to stay in your twitville world. L = r x p is the angular momentum of a flywheel and has nothing to do with orbital mechanics, dweeb. That there are other dweebs like you in the theoretical sciences is probably why only half of the missions to Mars have been successful. KDeatherage
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 28 Jul 2007 17:09 On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:19:39 -0700, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Jul 28, 2:34 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 27, 7:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> [...] >> >> Watching this guy mewl about global warming is especially amusing >> since he cannot even understand basic orbital mechanics. > >I forgot more orbital mechanics than you will ever know eric, > >Heres one for you[...] Since you seem interested in this, show quantitatively what happens to Kepler's 2nd law, in situations with an arbitrary, and continually varying, radial acceleration that may vary on 1/r, 1/r^3, or any other centrally directed, arbitrary force or repulsion law or artifically induced acceleration always along the radial line in either direction. I'll link you to my web page on the subject, if that helps. Or we could get into discussing not-necessarily conservative, holonomic dynamical systems developed through Hamiltonian equations of motion and momentum conjugates. But I've no idea why you bother with any of this, regarding global warming. (1) You are not an authority on the subject, and; (2) even if you were, science fact isn't determined by authority. Humans appear to respond often to it. But they shouldn't. And science processes work fairly well to quench this otherwise ignorant tendency. So what's your point, regarding global warming? Jon
From: kdthrge on 28 Jul 2007 17:24 On Jul 28, 4:09 pm, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:19:39 -0700, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >On Jul 28, 2:34 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 27, 7:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> [...] > > >> Watching this guy mewl about global warming is especially amusing > >> since he cannot even understand basic orbital mechanics. > > >I forgot more orbital mechanics than you will ever know eric, > > >Heres one for you[...] > > Since you seem interested in this, show quantitatively what happens to > Kepler's 2nd law, in situations with an arbitrary, and continually > varying, radial acceleration that may vary on 1/r, 1/r^3, or any other > centrally directed, arbitrary force or repulsion law or artifically > induced acceleration always along the radial line in either direction. > I'll link you to my web page on the subject, if that helps. Or we > could get into discussing not-necessarily conservative, holonomic > dynamical systems developed through Hamiltonian equations of motion > and momentum conjugates. > Orbits are always an ellipse. As such, the application of the gravitational force is always affecting velocity either to increase or decrease the velocity. Even this is why the circular orbit is impossible, because the force of the acceleration induces an increasing velocity or decreasing velocity and cannot induce the non changing velocity to maintain a circular orbit. For half of any orbit, velocity is increasing as distance to the source of gravity diminishes. For the other half of the orbit, velocity is decreasing as distance from the source of gravitiation increases. With this in mind one can see that to increase the force in the direct line of travel, will add energy to the orbit or mean momentum. This causes a higher rate or velocity than the previous mean velocity and it's equilibrium to the gravitational force of the mean orbital radius through the ellipse. This causes eccentricity to the orbit. This eccentricity change has less area than the previous orbit. If this eccentricity fades, the area of the orbit does not and the newer orbit is of less area. But ol irritated eric, still insists that L = r x p and anyone that doesn't agree is stupid. KDeatherage
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 28 Jul 2007 18:11
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:24:03 -0700, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Jul 28, 4:09 pm, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:19:39 -0700, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >On Jul 28, 2:34 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Jul 27, 7:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> >> Watching this guy mewl about global warming is especially amusing >> >> since he cannot even understand basic orbital mechanics. >> >> >I forgot more orbital mechanics than you will ever know eric, >> >> >Heres one for you[...] >> >> Since you seem interested in this, show quantitatively what happens to >> Kepler's 2nd law, in situations with an arbitrary, and continually >> varying, radial acceleration that may vary on 1/r, 1/r^3, or any other >> centrally directed, arbitrary force or repulsion law or artifically >> induced acceleration always along the radial line in either direction. >> I'll link you to my web page on the subject, if that helps. Or we >> could get into discussing not-necessarily conservative, holonomic >> dynamical systems developed through Hamiltonian equations of motion >> and momentum conjugates. > >Orbits are always an ellipse. At first, I thought this merely a definitional proposition from you. One may define orbits to be that way and then, of course, they are. But that's merely a matter of definition. Then I read more below from you and realized you aren't using 'ellipse' in the general meaning that includes 'cicle,' but specifically to exclude circular motion. You are simply wrong on that score. >As such, the application of the >gravitational force is always affecting velocity either to increase or >decrease the velocity. You conflate the meaning, it seems, of the idea of "increase or decrease" with "affecting velocity." Velocity is not a scalar value. The scalar concept of "increase" and "decrease" is not a term to use well with vector quantities. You need to learn this, I think, before you start going on with "This is... therefore that," clauses. Learn some math and then some physics. >Even this is why the circular orbit is >impossible, because the force of the acceleration induces an >increasing velocity or decreasing velocity and cannot induce the non >changing velocity to maintain a circular orbit. What kind of bullshit is this? This deeply frightens me, that folks can be so ignorant in the face of so much excellent knowledge to tap and then imagine so strongly that they aren't. >For half of any orbit, >velocity is increasing as distance to the source of gravity >diminishes. For the other half of the orbit, velocity is decreasing as >distance from the source of gravitiation increases. And you use this logic to suggest that circular orbits are not possible? Seems to me you are trapped in your own circular logic, no pun intended. >With this in mind one can see that to increase the force in the direct >line of travel, will add energy to the orbit or mean momentum. This >causes a higher rate or velocity than the previous mean velocity and >it's equilibrium to the gravitational force of the mean orbital radius >through the ellipse. This causes eccentricity to the orbit. This >eccentricity change has less area than the previous orbit. If this >eccentricity fades, the area of the orbit does not and the newer orbit >is of less area. > >But ol irritated eric, still insists that L = r x p and anyone that >doesn't agree is stupid. I think you are in absolutely no position to comment on anyone else's discussion of orbital mechanics. Jon |