The fate of the Earth?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Partially crystalline materials
Next: Speciation Process: Excrement Color Skin Proven Harmful (Poverty, Crime and Disease)
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Sep 2009 17:55 oriel36 wrote: > > Checking the accuracy of a watch using the Ra/Dec system where a star > returns 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier to the same meridian each night > is just a wonderful timekeeping average based on the calendar system > and can be enjoyed when appreciated in that light but only the dumbest > would launch into a conclusion that it represents a basis for > planetary dynamics in spite of thousands of years of astronomy > dictating that the reference for theannual motion of the Earth is the > return of a star to a meridian while the Sun provides the reference > for the daily motion of the Earth. > > The same guys who can't tell you what distance does the Earth's > Equator cover through 360 degrees of rotation are the same ones > promoting 'time travel' , the 'big bang' and now with those stupid > concepts played out are moving into the climate arena. > Why should I care? What's important is that 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. The only guy that's got a problem, is you, Gerald!
From: dow on 16 Sep 2009 18:17 On Sep 16, 2:54 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 16, 5:05 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > > > > > > > "dow" <williamsdavi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:1d74de8a-22a6-4429-addd-fa759768bc36(a)o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com.... > > 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. > > ============================================== > > http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov > > > The ball is travelling in a perfect straight line (without friction, an > > artefact of doing the experiment on the earth's surface). > > There is no such animal as Coriolis "force". > > > So they will have a non-zero angular velocity, even in the > > rotating frame, for almost all of each orbital revolution. > > =============================================== > > There is no such animal as Coriolis "force", so your "so" > > doesn't follow. > > =============================================== > > > The point is that there is a unique non-rotating frame in which the > > objects fall directly toward each other. > > =============================================== > > The point is, you said > > "The lateral component need not exist if the frame of reference is > > rotating in an absolute sense". > > Now you say 'will accelerate "sideways" as they fall toward each > > other, because of the Coriolis force.' > > > Which is it? > > =============================================== > > All other frames are > > rotating, in an absolute sense, and the behaviour of the objects is > > different. > > > =============================================== > > When Newton said: > > LAW I. > > Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right > > line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed > > thereon, > > he was not talking about rotating frames. > > You are. > > > > 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. > > =============================================== > > He'd laugh at all of you, as I do. Newton was a scientist and mathematician, > > not a modern cosmologist who mumbles Coriolis "force". > > Newton was indeed a mathematician and would not have had the ability > to spot the dangers of projecting the Earth's rotational geometry into > space and coming to a conclusion which beggars belief in attempting to > force right ascension into the isolated dynamic of daily rotation > insofar as it equates a rotating celestial sphere with a stationary > Earth and a rotating Earth with a stationary celestial sphere.They > knew of this observation back in the early 16th century and looked at > it with horror and eventually came up with the arguments for planetary > dynamics to account for the observation - > > "And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the > center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that > the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see-- > through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot > be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and > a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference > nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa > > Today they embrace the horror as the 'big bang' and celebrate what men > once ran from ,all because Isaac did not spot the flaw of the > equatorial coordinate system which helps astronomers keep their > telescopes tracking objects within the 365/366 day calendar system. > > As far as it goes,I have yet to see a single dynamicist ,apart from > Mach,come within a hundred miles of what Isaac was actually doing so > laugh all you will,you are still running inside the cage Newton > created for you or rather the celestial sphere cage constructed by > Flamsteed.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - In a rotating frame of reference, there are centrifugal forces. When you ride on a fairground roundabout and feel yourself being pushed outward, the force that pushes you is a centrifugal one. Less well known are the Coriolis forces that also exist in rotating frames of reference. In the earth's northern hemisphere, which rotates counterclockwise, Coriolis forces push winds to the right. The result is that winds do not blow directly into an area of atmospheric low pressure. They circle around it, so the low pressure is to the left of the wind as it blows. To an observer in a non-rotating frame of reference, the effects of the wind going in circles and you being pushed outward on the roundabout are explicable without invoking centrifugal or Coriolis forces. To this observer, the forces do not exist. If this observer claims to have a privileged position and insists that everyone else must agree with him, then centrifugal and Coriolis forces are illusary. But those of us who live on a rotating planet and find it convenient to use a frame of reference in which the ground is stationary experience centrifugal and Coriolis forces that are very real to us. It's all relative. dow
From: Androcles on 16 Sep 2009 19:48 "dow" <williamsdavid65(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6612a866-2af1-4a31-b160-c8285d239986(a)r33g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... On Sep 16, 2:54 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 16, 5:05 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > > > > > > > "dow" <williamsdavi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:1d74de8a-22a6-4429-addd-fa759768bc36(a)o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > > 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. > > ============================================== > > http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov > > > The ball is travelling in a perfect straight line (without friction, an > > artefact of doing the experiment on the earth's surface). > > There is no such animal as Coriolis "force". > > > So they will have a non-zero angular velocity, even in the > > rotating frame, for almost all of each orbital revolution. > > =============================================== > > There is no such animal as Coriolis "force", so your "so" > > doesn't follow. > > =============================================== > > > The point is that there is a unique non-rotating frame in which the > > objects fall directly toward each other. > > =============================================== > > The point is, you said > > "The lateral component need not exist if the frame of reference is > > rotating in an absolute sense". > > Now you say 'will accelerate "sideways" as they fall toward each > > other, because of the Coriolis force.' > > > Which is it? > > =============================================== > > All other frames are > > rotating, in an absolute sense, and the behaviour of the objects is > > different. > > > =============================================== > > When Newton said: > > LAW I. > > Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a > > right > > line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed > > thereon, > > he was not talking about rotating frames. > > You are. > > > > 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. > > =============================================== > > He'd laugh at all of you, as I do. Newton was a scientist and > > mathematician, > > not a modern cosmologist who mumbles Coriolis "force". > > Newton was indeed a mathematician and would not have had the ability > to spot the dangers of projecting the Earth's rotational geometry into > space and coming to a conclusion which beggars belief in attempting to > force right ascension into the isolated dynamic of daily rotation > insofar as it equates a rotating celestial sphere with a stationary > Earth and a rotating Earth with a stationary celestial sphere.They > knew of this observation back in the early 16th century and looked at > it with horror and eventually came up with the arguments for planetary > dynamics to account for the observation - > > "And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the > center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that > the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see-- > through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot > be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and > a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference > nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa > > Today they embrace the horror as the 'big bang' and celebrate what men > once ran from ,all because Isaac did not spot the flaw of the > equatorial coordinate system which helps astronomers keep their > telescopes tracking objects within the 365/366 day calendar system. > > As far as it goes,I have yet to see a single dynamicist ,apart from > Mach,come within a hundred miles of what Isaac was actually doing so > laugh all you will,you are still running inside the cage Newton > created for you or rather the celestial sphere cage constructed by > Flamsteed.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - In a rotating frame of reference, there are centrifugal forces. ======================================== Show me where, in this movie: http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov (Forget Kellerher, everyone has tried to straighten him out, he has no idea what a frame of reference is; he's just impossibly stupid).
From: dow on 16 Sep 2009 23:21 On Sep 16, 7:48 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > "dow" <williamsdavi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > In a rotating frame of reference, there are centrifugal forces. > > ======================================== > Show me where, in this movie: > http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov > I would guess that the radius of the merry-go-round in the movie is about 1.5 metres,and it is turning at about 1.5 radians per second. So, in a non-rotating frame of reference, the people sitting around its edge are experiencing a centripetal acceleration of 1.5^3 m/s^2, which comes to about 3.3 m/s^2, or 1/3 g. In the rotating frame of reference in which the platform is stationary, the people would be experiencing outward centrifugal forces of about one-third of their weights. To counteract these forces, they are all leaning inward. Some of them are also holding on to the rails, to avoid being pushed off the platform by the centrifugal force. This is clearly visible in the movie. If the ball had simply been put on the platform, stationary in the rotating frame of reference, it would of course have rolled toward the edge, propelled by centrifugal force. But the movie was made to demonstrate Coriolis forces, so this wasn't done. dow
From: oriel36 on 17 Sep 2009 01:50
On Sep 16, 11:17 pm, dow <williamsdavi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 16, 2:54 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 5:05 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > > > > "dow" <williamsdavi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:1d74de8a-22a6-4429-addd-fa759768bc36(a)o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com.... > > > 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. > > > ============================================== > > > http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov > > > > The ball is travelling in a perfect straight line (without friction, an > > > artefact of doing the experiment on the earth's surface). > > > There is no such animal as Coriolis "force". > > > > So they will have a non-zero angular velocity, even in the > > > rotating frame, for almost all of each orbital revolution. > > > =============================================== > > > There is no such animal as Coriolis "force", so your "so" > > > doesn't follow. > > > =============================================== > > > > The point is that there is a unique non-rotating frame in which the > > > objects fall directly toward each other. > > > =============================================== > > > The point is, you said > > > "The lateral component need not exist if the frame of reference is > > > rotating in an absolute sense". > > > Now you say 'will accelerate "sideways" as they fall toward each > > > other, because of the Coriolis force.' > > > > Which is it? > > > =============================================== > > > All other frames are > > > rotating, in an absolute sense, and the behaviour of the objects is > > > different. > > > > =============================================== > > > When Newton said: > > > LAW I. > > > Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right > > > line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed > > > thereon, > > > he was not talking about rotating frames. > > > You are. > > > > > 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. > > > =============================================== > > > He'd laugh at all of you, as I do. Newton was a scientist and mathematician, > > > not a modern cosmologist who mumbles Coriolis "force". > > > Newton was indeed a mathematician and would not have had the ability > > to spot the dangers of projecting the Earth's rotational geometry into > > space and coming to a conclusion which beggars belief in attempting to > > force right ascension into the isolated dynamic of daily rotation > > insofar as it equates a rotating celestial sphere with a stationary > > Earth and a rotating Earth with a stationary celestial sphere.They > > knew of this observation back in the early 16th century and looked at > > it with horror and eventually came up with the arguments for planetary > > dynamics to account for the observation - > > > "And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the > > center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that > > the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see-- > > through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot > > be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and > > a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference > > nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa > > > Today they embrace the horror as the 'big bang' and celebrate what men > > once ran from ,all because Isaac did not spot the flaw of the > > equatorial coordinate system which helps astronomers keep their > > telescopes tracking objects within the 365/366 day calendar system. > > > As far as it goes,I have yet to see a single dynamicist ,apart from > > Mach,come within a hundred miles of what Isaac was actually doing so > > laugh all you will,you are still running inside the cage Newton > > created for you or rather the celestial sphere cage constructed by > > Flamsteed.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > In a rotating frame of reference, there are centrifugal forces. When > you ride on a fairground roundabout and feel yourself being pushed > outward, the force that pushes you is a centrifugal one. Less well > known are the Coriolis forces that also exist in rotating frames of > reference. In the earth's northern hemisphere, which rotates > counterclockwise, Coriolis forces push winds to the right. The result > is that winds do not blow directly into an area of atmospheric low > pressure. They circle around it, so the low pressure is to the left of > the wind as it blows. > > To an observer in a non-rotating frame of reference, the effects of > the wind going in circles and you being pushed outward on the > roundabout are explicable without invoking centrifugal or Coriolis > forces. To this observer, the forces do not exist. If this observer > claims to have a privileged position and insists that everyone else > must agree with him, then centrifugal and Coriolis forces are > illusary. But those of us who live on a rotating planet and find it > convenient to use a frame of reference in which the ground is > stationary experience centrifugal and Coriolis forces that are very > real to us. > > It's all relative. > > dow You have these ideas built up in your heads about 'rotation to absolute space' ,frames of reference' and things like that which are a million miles away from the way Isaac used them so that none of you ever escape the wordplay surrounding his junk. "Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, inust be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real." Einstein Newton's absolute/relative space has nothing to do with aether,real or imagined,his relative motions translated into true motions was supposed to be the empirical breakthrough into structural astronomy where he goes directly from observations into modelling hence - "It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton So,you have this trainwreck based on right ascension which mathematicians conjured up as 'absolute space' and believe in terms of 'sidereal time',you have the complete distortion of the methods and insights of the great Western astronomers which determine that the difference between apparent motion (retrogrades) and true motion (the Earth's planetary dynamics) is based on a change of perspective rather than that dumb idea of relative/absolute space. " For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde (relative space). But from the sun they are always seen direct (absolute space) ," Newton Again,you all are nowhere close to knowing what Isaac was distorting but such an approach to and resolution for apparent retrograde motion is laughable considering that retrogrades represent the planetary orbital dynamics of the Earth as it overtakes the outer planets in our respective orbits around the Sun - http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif Your indoctrination is so great that you can't see the Earth's motion in that time lapse footage and would justify Isaac' silly framehopping hypothetical observer on the Sun which gives you the 'frames of reference' nonsense thereby mathematicians think they have perspectives above that of God and man.What you have done to yourselves is no concern of mine,people are offered the chance to work productively and return to perspectives which are every bit as exciting than the novelistic speculative junk now passing itself off as astronomy by relying on intepretation and backed up by the original astronomical methods and insights. |