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 16 Sep 2009 02:03 On Sep 15, 11:03 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > oriel36 wrote: > > On Sep 15, 2:04 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> oriel36 wrote: > > >>> The Earth , as a sphere, will rotate at different speeds from a > >>> maximum speed at the Equator down to zero at the geographical > >>> poles. > >> Actually, that's not quite right, Gerald. the rotation rate of > >> the earth (all parts) is exactly exactly 360° in 86,164.09+ seconds. > > > I told you before,it is not a matter of right and wrong but whether > > that 'sidereal time' value and those who subscribe to the reasoning > > behind it deserve a fool's pardon or treason insofar as Western > > society has traits which rise above cultural or social differences or > > individual countries and the loss of information contained in the 24 > > hour value is so severe that it is far more a crisis than many would > > dare to believe. > > The universe works fine without your complaints, Gerald. Furthermore, > Kepler's, Newton's and Einstein's laws, theories and models work > remarkably well. It appears that you alone, think that there was a > collapse of Western scientific traditions, whereas the history of > science shows otherwise. > When you have the words of John Harrison, the man who first give the world accurate watches,before you explaining how 4 minutes of rotation equates to 1 deg of geographical separation so that the Earth turns once in 24 hours along with all the characteristics of shape and rotation organised around that value and still insist on an alternative value without the slightest sign of objection from anyone else,you can bet there is a major collapse of scientific traditions.I am indeed alone presently within these forums but from a technical and historical perspective,I can back up every single point which restores stability to those areas of investigation which need it most such as planetary dynamics,timekeeping,structural astronomy and anywhere celestial cause meshes with terrestrial effects. > The only catastrophe is your own. You obsess to the point of mental > illness. A world which cannot express basic planetary facts correctly cannot reason properly in any other endeavor.Having shown how the temperature fluctuations for different latitudes from January to July ,denoting orbital points,are governed by the specifics of orbital motion and by affirmed direct observation of Uranus,there is no authority to accept this major modification for the seasonal explanation while at the same time there are many opportunistic people and institutions screaming about global climate and coming to reckless conclusions.You call me mad for promoting the great astronomical principles which are organised around rotation in 24 hours but that says more about your cult than it does about my fight to remove that stupid line of reasoning which gives you your 'sidereal time' value and on which Isaac built his agenda.. And you argue without an adequate understanding of Copernicus, > Kepler and Newton's work. You can even understand the mathematics of > any of those gentlemen. > > It is a real shame you are so poorly educated, Gerald. That book by John Harrison makes for difficult reading as his individual achievement and the effort he put into it meets the rude and dull agendas of the same people you belong to - http://books.google.ie/books?id=8roAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA89&dq=remarks#v=onepage&q=remarks&f=false That same mean spirited acquiescence where they put the first accurate watch in human history in direct sunlight in an attempt to throw off its accuracy is just the same contempt you show now towards the original principles which create the equable 24 hour day/calendar system as a single unit.I do not know how any of you can do it,I truly do not, nevertheless, that is not the point,there have to be Christian souls who cannot accept these errors and falsehoods because it goes against everything that goodness stands for leaving you to remain with worthless late 17th century distortions and manipulations.
From: G=EMC^2 Glazier on 16 Sep 2009 08:47 Ody Earth rotates in 23hr 56 min.4.1 sec. Rate of spin 1030 mph at equator,and 0 at exact center of its pole axis. It is slowing down but have no figures on that. Might just throw this in Axis inclination is 23.5 Angle of orbit to ecliptic 0 Bert
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Sep 2009 10:05 oriel36 wrote: > > When you have the words of John Harrison, the man who first give the > world accurate watches,before you explaining how 4 minutes of rotation > equates to 1 deg of geographical separation so that the Earth turns > once in 24 hours along with all the characteristics of shape and > rotation organised around that value and still insist on an > alternative value without the slightest sign of objection from anyone > else,you can bet there is a major collapse of scientific traditions.I > am indeed alone presently within these forums but from a technical and > historical perspective,I can back up every single point which restores > stability to those areas of investigation which need it most such as > planetary dynamics,timekeeping,structural astronomy and anywhere > celestial cause meshes with terrestrial effects. > It's interesting that you mention Harrison, as he measured sidereal time with stars and earth references! :-o Rotation is absolute! The earth rotates exactly 360° in one sidereal day, and that it rotates about one additional degree (~361° total) in one solar day... and there are no contradictions. Harrison knew this, Newton knew this and almost everybody educated alive today knows this... except for you! > > A world which cannot express basic planetary facts correctly cannot > reason properly in any other endeavor. I fully agree, Gerald. You've got a long way to go before correctly understanding" basic planetary facts". I suggest you start by learning algebra and geometry!
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Sep 2009 10:13 G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote: > Ody Earth rotates in 23hr 56 min.4.1 sec. Rate of spin 1030 mph at > equator,and 0 at exact center of its pole axis. It is slowing down but > have no figures on that. Might just throw this in Axis inclination is > 23.5 Angle of orbit to ecliptic 0 Bert > Herb, I think Odysseus' post was lost on you. He is right when he says: > True in principle, but reference systems like the FK3-4-5 series, and > their successor the ICRF, do seem to be 'fixed' enough for most > practical purposes [of using the "fixed stars" as references]. And, Herbert, you are right... The rotation rate of the earth (all parts) is exactly exactly 360° in 86,164.09+ seconds.
From: dow on 16 Sep 2009 10:43
On Sep 16, 12:14 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > "dow" <williamsdavi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > The lateral component need not exist if the frame of reference is > rotating in an absolute sense. If the frame is rotating, both objects > can initially be stationary in it, but will still end up in orbit > after release. > ============================================ > No they won't, they'll approach as recede from each other. > The Earth approaches and recedes from the Sun, the Moon > approaches and recedes from the Earth. > The frame is rotating by your rules and you don't get to frame jump. If the frame is rotating at a constant speed, the two objects will be stationary when at their furthest distance apart, but will accelerate "sideways" as they fall toward each other, because of the Coriolis force. So they will have a non-zero angular velocity, even in the rotating frame, for almost all of each orbital revolution. The point is that there is a unique non-rotating frame in which the objects fall directly toward each other. All other frames are rotating, in an absolute sense, and the behaviour of the objects is different. > Newton stated that the absolutely stationary frame is the one in > which the sum of the momenta of all the objects within it is zero. > One can arbitrarily assign a velocity to the entire universe if it were > not for the fact that there is nothing against which that velocity > can be measured. Newton wasn't a modern cosmologist. I doubt that he'd have made that speculation if he'd known about cosmological expansion, or the concept of a boundless universe. However, at any given location, such as our own, there is something against which we can measure velocity. This is the cosmic background radiation. To an observer with some velocity, which we can take to be zero, the radiation is essentially isotropic in all directions. To an observer who is moving relative to this zero, the radiation is blueshifted when viewed in his direction of motion, and redshifted in the reverse direction. Einstein said that all linear (as opposed to rotational) motion is relative, with no absolute zero. But Einstein wasn't a modern cosmologist either. The background radiation wasn't known in his time (except, I think, at the very end of his life). dow |