The fate of the Earth?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Partially crystalline materials
Next: Speciation Process: Excrement Color Skin Proven Harmful (Poverty, Crime and Disease)
From: oriel36 on 13 Sep 2009 19:05 On Sep 13, 9:53 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > On Sep 13, 7:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> oriel36 wrote: > > >>> Tell me how long it takes the Earth to turn once and remind me just > >>> how desperate the situation is. > >> The earth rotates exactly 360° in 86,164.09+ seconds. It's a direct > >> observation anybody can make and is referred to a sidereal day. > > > Your open response, that will exist without objection, is the sound of > > Western civiliisation rotting itself from within for even though all > > planetary facts such as dimensions and rotational characteristics are > > organised around rotation through 15 degrees every hour and once in > > 24 hours,the empiricists have organised around the 23 hours 56 minute > > 04 second value.I know of no nightmare worse than this one,not so much > > the reasoning which goes into the 'sidereal time' value but the > > absolute absence of any authority to deal with this urgent matter > > effectively even with the enormous sprawling history of clocks and > > longitudes,the equable day/calendar system and all the history that > > supports the 24 hour value. > > > The 'predictive' nature of Ra/Dec observing which determines > > astronomical events like an eclipse within the equable 365/366 day > > calendar system cannot be used in tandem with the Earth's planetary > > dynamics for it loses all references to daily and orbital > > characteristics for all types of geological,climatological and many > > other purposes but that is not the worst part,it is the wanton glee of > > continuing with something which is intellectually perverse and amounts > > to pure treason against Western achievements and traditions. > > > I personally do not know how any of you live with yourselves for even > > though I consider the darkness period of Western involvement in > > celestial/terrestrial phenomena is now over,at least the mantra spout > > 'scientific method' cult,there has to be an authority to pick up the > > pieces and halt the ridiculous spread of this new social tyranny > > which uses climate to introduce stealth taxes under the guise of > > scientific inquiry. > > > I watch as you draw your 'sidereal time' conclusion without the > > slightest sense of what is lost or excluded and know all too well the > > same cult outlook has now descended on the climate conclusion ,not so > > much the conclusion itself but the liberties which it allows the > > opportunistic to thrive.Again,the ideology which cannot affirm the > > most basic of all planetary facts such as daily rotation in 24 hours > > conceals something which conceals a type of treason that reduces > > Western achievements to dust and erode its goodness and the ability to > > be genuinely productive. > > Nevertheless, the earth rotates exactly 360° in 86,164.09+ seconds. Western achievements and traditions have pretty much the same status as a country and to defy the basic 24 hour value for rotation through 360 degrees and the information it contains on planetary dynamics,dimensions and rotational characteristics is out and out treason and even if I am justified in assigning you and many like you a fool's pardon,it still leaves no authority to determine the scale of corruption which is rotting all the goodness people are capable of for the sake of destructive late 17th century agendas that exist only in the imagination of mathematicians. How,for goodness sake,can people bypass the sprawling history of the equable day/calendar system or clocks and the longitude problem to arrive at a value which attempts to force right ascension into an isolated motion ?.What have astronomers since antiquity or present day kids done to deserve a distortion that is so intrinsically damaging that there is no known precedence in living memory other than being on par with the holocaust of sixty years ago.None of you get it for whatever reason,it is not the simple fact itself but the entire chain of reasoning which sets investigators on one course whereas the 'sidereal time value has the 'big bang' as a logical conclusion or rather the lowest possible astronomical level to which reasoning can descend. > It's a direct observation anybody can make and is referred to a > sidereal day. For a solar day (86,400 seconds) the earth rotates > about 361° and everybody knows this from the ancients to the present. > > You, Gerald are "out of sync" with the rest of the world. I really like to know what people think they are doing by considering me a madman for demonstrating that the Earth turns 15 degrees every hour and turns once in 24 hours with all the information of different rotational speeds corresponding to 1 deg/4 minutes of rotation - http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables/table02.html It is not the fate of the Earth that matters presently,it is the descent through indoctrination of intellectual standards to either outright fraud or pure unbridled speculation with all novelty and no substance and our kids will suffer from lack of leaders with the intelligence and courage needed to tackle the mantra spouting cult and subsequently back from this self-inflicted intellectual oblivion.
From: dow on 13 Sep 2009 19:36 On Sep 13, 4:26 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear dow: > > "dow" <williamsdavi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:0e633f6f-580f-4e66-a9a7-6bb4cf005b37(a)g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > ... > > > I said (but you decided to ignore) that the planet > > will spiral outwad, keeping the eccentricity of its > > orbit constant, *if the loss of mass from the star > > is very slow compared with the orbital period of > > the planet*, so only a tiny fraction of the mass > > of the star is lost during each revolution of the > > planet around it. Obviously, a sudden loss of 90% > > of he star's mass does not satisfy this condition. > ... > > This was in my Orrery articles, which were very > > thoroughly read and critiqued by many people. > > The editor of the magazine, Greg Neill, went so > > far as to re-do the entire calculation, using a > > completely different method from mine. I did an > > iterative simulation of the planet's path as the > > star's mass changes. Greg did an iterative > > numerical integration of a function that would > > show any changes in eccentricity. (I don't > > believe there is any general analytical method > > to solve the problem. Numerical iteration is always > > > required.) > > As it is in most modern *anything*. Fluid mechanics too. > > > In the end, Greg's conclusion was the same as > > mine. *Under the conditions I specified above*, > > the eccentricity of the orbit (measured at the > > perihelion of each revolution) remains constant. > > Frankly I suspect the physics behind said analysis. Unless you > assume significant tidal bulging on both the Earth and the Sun, > such "circularizing" will occur exceedingly slowly (more slowly > than mass loss), and will not save Earth from being roasted. What "circularizing"? The process of spiralling has nothing to do with bulges. > > > Like several readers who wrote in to say so, I > > was surprised by this conclusion. Initially, I had > > expected the eccentricity to change, using vague > > reasoning such as yours. > > ... instead of vague assertions to authority, and "well I am not > going to provide a reference here to published works..." I have referred to my own published articles in The Orrery magazine. The first was in issue number 53 (December 2003), Page 1. This was the one in which I described the simulation, including a full listing of the computer program, that showed that, under the conditions I have specified, a planet spirals outward without altering the eccentricity of its orbit. In the following issue (#54, March 2004) on page 6, Greg Neill's description of his own verification is published. Also, on the first page, is a second article of mine in which I looked at cases in which the rate of loss of mass from the star contains a periodic component that is synchronized with the motion of the planet. In this situation, the eccentricity of the orbit does change. Under rather peculiar circumstances, this may happen in reality. I agree that referring to things that I wrote myself may not be a very convincing appeal to authority. However, the best authority is reality, not published works. If you really want to see what happens without taking my word for it, then do what Greg did. Use your computer to compute. Make it do the necessary calculations or simulations. (They're far too long to do by hand.) Don't imitate Greg or myself. Start from scratch. I am sure you know the basic science. Write a computer program to figure out what happens. > > > But, in science, hunches often turn out to be wrong. > > And just as often they turn out to be right. "Just as" often? I wouldn't bet on it. Sometimes they do, of course. dow
From: Peter Webb on 13 Sep 2009 21:15 "dow" <williamsdavid65(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:0e633f6f-580f-4e66-a9a7-6bb4cf005b37(a)g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... On Sep 12, 9:47 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "dow" <williamsdavi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:88b4d30b-b67d-44c1-8230-ded0d6fc2835(a)k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 11, 10:16 am, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear dow: > > > On Sep 10, 9:09 pm, dow <williamsdavi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 10, 8:44 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > dow wrote: > > > > > It is now thought that the sun probably will not > > > > > engulf the earth and moon when it becomes a > > > > > red giant. The loss of solar mass to the solar > > > > > wind will reduce the maximum radius of the > > > > > sun and will also cause the earth's orbit to > > > > > spiral outward. Both effects will reduce the > > > > > probability of the earth beig engulfed. > > > > > The solar mass loss due to the solar winds > > > > probably won't be significant *until* the Sun goes > > > > red giant. Current solar winds don't even represent > > > > a fraction of a percent of total solar mass over the > > > > billions of years of Sun's existence. > > > > The process of going red giant won't be > > > instantaneous. > > > We hope. We've not seen it happen that way elsewhere... > > > > The sun will swell over a period of millions of years. > > > The process will be accompanied by an increase > > > in the rate of loss of material to the solar wind. > > > With less energy driving the efflux, are you sure? Have we seen other > > red giants spewing contents? > > Hard to see, but theory says it must be so. > > > > > > By the time the sun is getting close to engulfing > > > the earth, a lot of mass will have been lost, > > > reducing the maximum radius of the sun, and > > > also causing the earth's orbit to have spiralled > > > outward. > > > Er, no. Earth's orbit, neglecting other factors, will become more > > elliptical, moving both further from our current average distance, and > > *closer*. We have the "wrong" angular momentum for this distance and > > a less massive Sun, to "spiral out". > > Er, no. See my last message. Are you just guessing, or do you have > calculations to back up what you say? Lots of people read my Orrery > articles, and nobody showed that I was wrong. > > ___________________________ > I know you are wrong. If the Sun suddenly lost 90% of it mass, then the > Earth would move into a highly elliptical or hyperbolic orbit, with its > minimum distance from the Sun 1 AU and a velocity at that distance the > same > as it is now. This is conservation of kinetic energy plus angular > momentum. > > Therefore the ellipticity of an orbit is not preserved if the body being > orbitted loses mass. > > If nobody pointed out this simple thought experiment proves your > simulations > are incorrect, its probably because nobody read your article.- Hide quoted > text - > > - Show quoted text - I said (but you decided to ignore) that the planet will spiral outwad, keeping the eccentricity of its orbit constant, *if the loss of mass from the star is very slow compared with the orbital period of the planet*, so only a tiny fraction of the mass of the star is lost during each revolution of the planet around it. Obviously, a sudden loss of 90% of he star's mass does not satisfy this condition. It's easy to prove that a sudden loss of 50% or more of a star's mass, which can happen in an explosion, will cause planets that were in circular orbits around it to escape. This was in my Orrery articles, which were very thoroughly read and critiqued by many people. The editor of the magazine, Greg Neill, went so far as to re-do the entire calculation, using a completely different method from mine. I did an iterative simulation of the planet's path as the star's mass changes. Greg did an iterative numerical integration of a function that would show any changes in eccentricity. (I don't believe there is any general analytical method to solve the problem. Numerical iteration is always required.) In the end, Greg's conclusion was the same as mine. *Under the conditions I specified above*, the eccentricity of the orbit (measured at the perihelion of each revolution) remains constant. Like several readers who wrote in to say so, I was surprised by this conclusion. Initially, I had expected the eccentricity to change, using vague reasoning such as yours. But, in science, hunches often turn out to be wrong. Load up some programming language and tackle the problem yourself. dow ___________________________ I stand corrected and apologise. Indeed, if the mass loss over time is small enough, then the planet cannot possibly enter an elliptical orbit due to rotational symmetry - there is no asymmetry in the boundary conditions which could rise to an asymmetric orbit - ie no physical parameter which selects a special vector which corresponds to the major (or minor) axis of the ellipse. If the problem and boundary conditions all have rotational symmetry, then so do all solutions. If you accept this argument, then its pretty trivial to work out the orbit, as there is only one unknown (the value of r). Conservation of energy plus conservation of angular momentum will uniquely determine the solution.
From: tj Frazir on 13 Sep 2009 23:19 is in the hands of the 6.3 billion farmable acres that feeds 6 billion people but not much more. i giant drought from ww3
From: dow on 13 Sep 2009 23:45
On Sep 13, 9:15 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > I stand corrected and apologise. Indeed, if the mass loss over time is small > enough, then the planet cannot possibly enter an elliptical orbit due to > rotational symmetry - there is no asymmetry in the boundary conditions which > could rise to an asymmetric orbit - ie no physical parameter which selects a > special vector which corresponds to the major (or minor) axis of the > ellipse. If the problem and boundary conditions all have rotational > symmetry, then so do all solutions. > > If you accept this argument, then its pretty trivial to work out the orbit, > as there is only one unknown (the value of r). Conservation of energy plus > conservation of angular momentum will uniquely determine the solution. Thank you for the apology, which of course I accept. However, I think you are being over-optimistic in expecting to be able to calculate the orbit from conservation laws, except in the case where the orbit is exactly circular, for which I posted the calculation a couple of days ago. Angular momentum is conserved in the system under discussion, but energy is not! Matter is being driven off into deep space in the solar wind, and the energy that is required to do this is lost from the system. As you pointed out, if there is an explosion that abruptly blows away half the mass of the star, a planet that was in circular orbit wll find itself in an escape trajectory. The gravity of the remainder of the star is insufficient to hold it. However, if half the mass of the star is lost slowly, the planet will spiral out to an orbit with twice the radius of its initial one, and will not escape. If the explosion blows away only a small part of he star's mass, then the planet's orbit will change from a circle to an ellipse, with the point where the explosion occurred at the perihelion. If another explosion occurs when the planet returns to perihelion, the eccentricity of the orbit will increase. A long sequence of such explosions will lead to the orbit becoming very elliptical, and finally to the planet's escape. (This is one of the cases in which the rate of loss of mass from the star has a periodic component that is synchronized with the planet's motion, which I mentioned produce a change in the eccentricity of the orbit.) So the final trajectory of the planet depends not only on how much mass is lost from the star, but also on the history of the mass loss. However, in the special case where the rate of loss of mass is very small, so only a tiny fraction of the mass of the star is lost during each revolution of the planet, and where there is no periodic component of the mass loss that is synchronized to the planet's motion, the orbit spirals outward, without changing its eccentricity. The dimensions of the orbit, e.g. its semi-major axis, are inversely proportional to the remaining mass of the star. When I started this investigation, I had a hunch that the orbital eccentricity would increase as the star lost mass. I thought this might be an explanation of the very eccentric orbits of many of the "hot Jupiters" that orbit other stars. When my simulation showed that the eccentricity would not change, I was disappointed. But I published it anyway. After writing the first of these Orrery articles, I did dream up a couple of mechanisms by which the star might lose mass in a periodic way that is synchronized to the planet's motion. In the second article, I discussed these. Conceivably, but I suspect not very probably, these may explain the elliptical orbits of the hot Jupiters. Time will tell.... dow |