Home/BlogSUMMARY: A simple time-dependent CO2 budget model shows that yearly anthropogenic emissions compared to Mauna Loa CO2 measurements gives a declining CO2 sink rate, which if continued would increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations and presumably anthropogenic climate change. But accounting for ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) activity during 1959-2021 removes the decline. This is contrary to multiple previous studies that claimed to account for ENSO. A preprint of my paper (not yet peer reviewed) describing the details is at ENSO Impact on the Declining CO2 Sink Rate | Earth and Space Science Open Archive (essoar.org).
UPDATE: The CO2 model, with inputs and outputs, is in an Excel spreadsheet here: CO2-budget-model-with-EIA-growth-cases.
I decided that the CO2 model I developed a few years ago, and recently reported on here, was worthy of publication, so I started going through the published literature on the subject. This is a necessary first step if you want to publish a paper and not be embarrassed by reinventing the wheel or claiming something others have already “disproved”.
The first thing I found was that my idea that Nature each year removes a set fraction of the difference between the observed CO2 concentration and some baseline value is not new. That idea was first published in 2013 (see my preprint link above for details), and it’s called the “CO2 sink rate”.
The second thing I found was that the sink rate has (reportedly) been declining, by as much as 0.54% (relative) per year, even after accounting for ENSO activity. But I only get -0.33% per year (1959-2021) before accounting for ENSO activity, and — importantly — 0.0% per year after accounting for ENSO.
This last finding will surely be controversial, because it could mean CO2 in the atmosphere will not rise as much as global carbon cycle modelers say it will. So, I am posting the model and the datasets used along with the paper preprint at ENSO Impact on the Declining CO2 Sink Rate | Earth and Space Science Open Archive (essoar.org). The analysis is quite simple and I believe defensible. The 2019 paper that got -0.54% per year decline in the sink rate uses complex statistical gymnastics, with a professional statistician as a primary author. My analysis is much simpler, easier to understand, and (I believe) at least as defensible.
The paper will be submitted to Geophysical Research Letters for peer review in the next couple days. In the meantime, I will be inviting the researchers who live and breathe this stuff to poke holes in my analysis.
They will have nothing to eat, but they will have plenty of solar panels
https://youtu.be/9xChl-4k7Sg
At least BOM has admitted the problem is La Nina and not climate change. That’s a plus.
Meantime the capitalist pigs are driving up the price of food because there’s a higher demand. The same mentality had Standard Oil selling oil to the Nazis during WW II till Roosevelt kicked their butts. Their justification was that free enterprise must prevail above all. Ergo, it’s fine to sell to your enemy.
clint…”…the Moon issue is literally as simple as a ball-on-a-string”.
***
Exactly. However, it requires a mind with clarity and awareness to see that. A mind full of conditioning and fearful of contradicting authority, has a meltdown when confronted with such a simple model.
rlh, with a master’s degree, is reduced to the repetition of a parrot. Willard rushes off to Wiki to find red-herring arguments. Bob d is reduced to tribbling his lips while Binny becomes so outraged he is reduced to dribbling.
The rest hide out in an imaginary 4th dimension of reference frames. Even NASA.
C’mon, Gordo.
Pup said time and time again that the ball-on-string was a mere analogy for an orbit without spin.
There is no Moon issue, only a Moon Dragon Crank issue. That issue is quite simple. Those who disbelieve that the Moon does not spin have to explain why the Moon actually moves at 1.022 km/s.
You won’t find that causal explanation in definitions of pure rotation or with airplane analogies.
Think.
> Those who disbelieve that the Moon does not spin
Those who disbelieve that the Moon spins, of course.
Everybody else has an explanation for the 1.022 km/s – it comes from the Moon itself.
The explanation is easy for the 1.022 km/s. It is the close to the average speed of the Earth in a circular orbit.
Consider mean distance to Moon = 385000 km. Add 6371 km for radius of Earth = 391,371 km.
Circumference of circle = 2pi.r = 6.28 (391,371 km) = 2,457,309 km for orbital path. Divide by 27.3 days to get 90029.63 km/day. Divide by 24 = 3751.23 km/hr and by 3600 = 1.04 km/second.
If you want the tangential velocity = v =sqrt(GM/r)
v = sqrt[(6.743 x 10^-11 m3/kg.s^2)(5.072 x 10^24kg)/391,371km)
convert km -> m = 391,371,000 m = 3.91371 x 10^8 m
v = sqrt[(8.7386 x 10^5)m^2/s^2]
= sqrt 87.386 x 10^4 m^2/s^2
=9.35 x 10^2 m/s
approx 935 km/s.
Since the two values are pretty close it tells you the Moon does not speed up as it moves through its orbit. That is consistent with a constant linear velocity/momentum.
What happens is the Moon’s momentum has more of an effect at certain parts f the orbit allowing it to extend the orbit into a slight ellipse. That means it covers slightly more distance in the same time which allows the orbital speed to be slightly higher than the tangential velocity.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Come on, Gordo.
You are supposed to say where that velocity comes from. In the case of the ball on string, it is easy. It is you who does the work with your body. For your analogy to apply, you would have to say that the Earth exerts the same kind of work through gravity.
Think about it. According to your story, gravity works sideways.
Pure magical thinking.
Robertson never heard about Kepler’s laws…
I wrote:
” Robertson never heard about Keplers laws … ”
This is not true; retracted.
typo…”approx 935 km/s.” should be 935 metres/second.
willard…”You are supposed to say where that velocity comes from”.
***
It came with the package. When the Moon was captured it already had the velocity. The BOS is controlled by the tension on the string. The Moon has its own momentum and just needs redirection by Earth’s gravitational field.
Cool story,, Gordo!
Now, all you need is to explain how that gravitational field completely stopped the Moon from spinning without any physical attachment like a string and you are ready for publication.
It’s easy enough to prove the ball on a string is rotating on its own axis.
I have already provided said proof.
Not possible, it is restrained by tension n the string. If it rotated on its axis it would wind itself up in the string.
No it wouldn’t, as it is rotating just exactly as fast as the string.
The far side of the ball moves farther each revolution than the near side, since their vector velocity would thus move them farther apart with each revolution, the ball has to spin.
bob, the ball on a string can legitimately be described as not rotating on its own axis. Just a fact about kinematics for you to deny.
… when viewed from the center of the ball’s orbit.
DREMPTY,
No, that’s not a legitimate description.
I have proven that it does rotate on its axis.
… inertially.
Wrong, Ball4 and bob. When viewed from outside the ball’s orbit, kinematics dictates there are two ways to describe the motion of the ball on a string:
1) Translating in a circle, whilst rotating on its own internal axis.
2) Rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own internal axis.
DREMT is wrong again; still hasn’t learned from Clint R:
1) … inertially when viewed from “outside of its orbit”
2) … when viewed from “inside of it orbit”
No, I’m not wrong, Ball4. Curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) and rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) are different motions. As Madhavi states, you have to be careful not to confuse the two.
I repeat:
When viewed from outside the balls orbit, kinematics dictates there are two ways to describe the motion of the ball on a string:
1) Translating in a circle, whilst rotating on its own internal axis.
2) Rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own internal axis.
> Curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis)
Pic or it did not happen.
Still wrong DREMT 8:35 am as it is DREMT not being careful since 1) and 2) per Clint R are from different observation locations as I wrote and are observing the same motion: all per Clint R.
You’re wrong, Ball4, and I’m right. The only way you could be correct is if curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) and rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) were the same motion – motion like the MOTR. They’re not, however, as Madhavi confirms. The former is like Fig. 2(a) and the latter is like Fig. 2(b). As Madhavi warns, you must not confuse the two, which is what you are doing.
https://mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
The ball on string is 2(b): rotation shown on rectangle’s own axis proving the ball (& rectangle) rotating when viewed outside the orbit as illustrated so DREMT remains wrong per Madhavi from the get go.
Refer to Clint R’s past comment to reveal the viewer’s location if the same ball (& square) motion is not observed rotating on its own axis: 2) … when viewed from “inside of it orbit” in this case from point O.
Both Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 2(b) are presented to the reader as though they are observing the motion from outside the orbit. The ball on a string would be moving as per Fig. 2(b). That is rotation about an external axis, point O, with no rotation about an internal axis (internal axis rotation is prevented by the solid rod connecting the rectangle to point O).
As I noted before, you could also describe the motion of the ball on a string as curvilinear translation in a circle, plus rotation about an internal axis (at the same rate, and in the same direction). This description, as with the “rotation” description, would be “as observed from outside the orbit”.
The only way that Ball4 could possibly be correct is if rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) and curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) were the same motion…motion like Fig. 2(a), or the MOTR. They are not, as Madhavi confirms.
You are wrong as always, DREMT, in Madhavi 2(b) internal axis rotation of the rectangle is forced to one 360 per orbit by the solid rod connecting the rectangle to point O as viewed per Clint R’s comment “outside of its orbit”.
Now learn from Clint R AND Madhavi. Clint R had 2(b) rectangle motion correctly stated also when viewed “inside of it orbit” one observes only one side of the rectangle the same face of the rectangle during its orbit. Just like the ball on string and a lunar observation from Earth.
Listen and learn.
“You are wrong as always, DREMT, in Madhavi 2(b) internal axis rotation of the rectangle is forced to one 360 per orbit…”
That could only be the case if curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) and rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) were the same motion, motion like Fig. 2(a), or the MOTR. If that were the case, what would be the purpose of drawing Fig. 2(b) in the first place, and making the point of saying not to confuse curvilinear translation with rotation? Your reading of Madhavi is utterly nonsensical.
Fig. 2(a) has NO rectangle axial rotation on its own axis so the purpose of 2(b) is to show the rectangle with axial rotation on its own axis, both as viewed from outside rectangle’s orbit in Madhavi’s 2D world. This motion has stumped DREMT since Madhavi was introduced.
DREMT is still wrong not having correctly learned motion from Madhavi & correctly learned observation location from Clint R. Pity.
You are still not getting it, Ball4. In your world, if (as observed from outside the orbit) Fig. 2(b) shows rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, then motion like Fig. 2(a) would have to be rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. However, in reality, Fig. 2(a) shows curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis), and Madhavi warns not to conflate curvilinear translation with rotation.
“… then motion like Fig. 2(a) would have to be rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.”
No. Wrong again DREMT. Each rectangle is both spinning & not spinning on its own axis at same time depending on location of observation. It is not my world, DREMT. You remain wrong as usual. There is no such inference because you do not yet understand that all motion is relative.
As Clint R pointed out some time ago, for both rectangles in figures 2(a) and 2(b) location “inside of it orbit” or “outside of its orbit” (Clint R’s terms) in their Madhavi 2D world determines whether the viewer sees one face or all faces of the rectangle thus observes rotation on the rectangle’s own axis or no rotation on the rectangle’s own axis.
All motion really is relative in the real 3D world, there is no hedging on all. DREMT won’t be correct until that is basically understood by DREMT.
I wrote:
"…if (as observed from outside the orbit) Fig. 2(b) shows rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, then motion like Fig. 2(a) would have to be rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis."
and you responded:
"No. Wrong again DREMT."
Perhaps you can explain which of either Fig. 2(a) or Fig. 2(b) shows rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, as observed from outside the orbit. You either answer, or concede that I’m correct.
That’s actually a good question for once DREMT 1:33 pm. Listen and learn from Clint R who, in the lunar case, pointed out some time ago the spin or no spin on own axis differs due location of observation.
When Clint R work is applied & observed in Madhavi 2D world as you write, rectangle in Fig. 2(a) shows rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, as observed from outside the orbit; then using Clint R words some time ago “Since it does not spin, it always keeps the same face toward the … outside of its orbit” HOWEVER, Fig. 2(a) would have to be a rotation about its own axis as observed from, as Clint R wrote, “inside of it orbit” to which per Clint R rectangle 2(a) “presents different faces”.
Again, All motion really is relative in the real 3D world, there is no hedging on all. DREMT will be wrong until basic relativity is understood & correctly used by DREMT.
“…rectangle in Fig. 2(a) shows rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, as observed from outside the orbit”
Wrong, Ball4. Rectangle in Fig. 2(a) shows curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) as observed from outside the orbit, and Madhavi specifically warns not to confuse curvilinear translation with rotation, which is what you have done.
Therefore only the rectangle in Fig. 2(b) can show rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, as observed from outside the orbit.
Curvilinear translation and rotation about an external axis are different motions, Ball4.
Madhavi is not the one confused since: “Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.” remains true only for “certain types of curvilinear translation”.
DREMT is the one remains relatively confused since spin “as observed from outside the orbit” is HOWEVER not same as spin observed from “inside it orbit” (Clint R terms last in quotes).
DREMT, once again your relativity application 2:40p pm is wrong, as Clint R pointed out, rotation of the rectangle in 2(a) depends on the location of observation. The rectangle in 2(a) is both spinning and not spinning on its own axis depending on location of observation “inside of it orbit” or “outside of its orbit” per Clint R who correctly applied relativity unlike DREMT.
Curvilinear translation in a circle and rotation about an external axis are different motions, Ball4. You can repeat yourself endlessly, but you’ll still be wrong.
Sure, I agree 2 different motions in that “Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.” That has nothing to do with DREMT being wrong about relativity and Clint R correct about location of observation.
No, you don’t agree, Ball4…because from your comments it can only be deduced that you think curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) is the same motion as rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis). You appear to believe they are both like the motion shown in Fig. 2(a).
Appear? No. I really do agree with Madhavi. DREMT continues to dance around “no rotation” or “rotation” on own axis in the 3:53 pm comment being determined by relativity thus location of observation as Clint R pointed out long ago.
DREMT just refuses to accept relativity and that Clint R was correct on location of observation so DREMT will be the one to remain wrong without that acceptance.
Well if you agree with Madhavi then you should not think that curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) is the same motion as rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis), and that they are both like the motion shown in Fig. 2(a). After all, Madhavi drew in Fig. 2(b) so that you could distinguish one from the other.
I have not written such DREMT, I agree with Madhavi that 2(a) and 2(b) “rotation” distinguish motion of the Madhavi rectangles on their own axes.
Clint R added the correct location of observation “inside of it orbit” and “outside of its orbit” meaning some time ago that DREMT refuses to accept. DREMT’s dancing sure is entertaining though.
This discussion has gone on long enough for everyone to see that you are the one dancing away from your own words, Ball4. The more you squirm, the more you project it onto me. You are very transparent.
No dancing by me DREMT, since I’m consistently quoting verbatim Clint R on location of observation “inside of it orbit” and “outside of its orbit”, Madhavi on distinguishing “rotation” on rectangles own axes, and DREMT’s need to learn relativity that all motion is relative in showing DREMT to be wrong about motion.
You are very transparent.
Graham, please stop trolling.
Since you agree with me that a ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own axis, as observed from outside the orbit, Little Willy, one wonders what your problem is.
Since you agree that with Gordo that the Moon could be described as a translation, Graham, I am more than happy to include you amongst all of those who hold that the Moon spins!
Ah, you’re just trolling. Got it.
One more time, Robertson guesses, invents, distorts the history of Science until the result fits his permanently scienceless narrative.
*
He writes:
1. ” He is referencing libration with his reference to tiny movements. ”
Mayer’s treatise contains the word “Libration” ONLY ONCE:
https://books.google.de/books?jtp=52&id=EJqRdI1nLI4C&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Libration&f=false
Original text in 1750 German:
” Endlich kam Dominicus Cassini auf die rechte Spur. Es fiel ihm ein, diese Erscheinung, die man bis dahin die Libration des Monds nennte, durch die Umwlzung des Monds um seine Axe zu erklren; … ”
Translation:
” Finally Dominicus Cassini got on the right track. It occurred to him to explain this phenomenon, which until then had been called the libration of the Moon, by the revolution of the Moon about its axis; … ”
Mayer’s treatise has nothing to do with libration – except that like Cassinis, he explains it with Moon’s spin (but with much more accuracy and precision).
*
He writes:
2. ” Meyer failed to understand that his tiny movements were associated with orbital effects related to a slightly eccentric orbit. ”
Click on ‘Page 57’ and you read further in the original text:
” Man mute die Erscheinungen auseinander wickeln, und diejenigen, welche von der Umdrehung des Monds um die Axe entstehen, von denen damit vermischten und von der ungleichen Bewegung des Monds um die Erde verursachten absondern. ”
Translation:
” One had to unravel the phenomena, and separate those arising from the Moon’s revolving about the axis, from those mingled with it and caused by the unequal motion of the Moon about the Earth. ”
*
Robertson is a simple-minded, ignorant boaster who
– knows nothing about Cassini’s, Newton’s, Mayer’s, Lagrange’s, Laplace’s and all their successors’ knowledge;
– thinks he can place inventer Tesla above REAL scientists like those aforementioned, on the basis of a superficial, narrow-gauge pamphlet.
*
And above all, the boaster fails to explain how it is possible that the German Mayer in 1750, the Russian Habibullin in 1963 and (among lots of others) e.g. the French Calamé in 1976, all managed to detect Moon’s spin by using completely different observation tools and completely different observation data evaluation techniques, and obtained perfectly similar results.
Grrr
Read in the original text on page 57 of Mayer’s treatise
” Man mußte … “
Bindidon, you didn’t have a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” in all that rambling.
Until you’ve got a workable model, you’ve got NOTHING.
The evidence grows that you don’t believe anything you wrote above, Clint R.
All these ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ replies look too artificial, too synthetic.
You endlessly repeat the same nonsense and never argue.
You are a troll.
I merely go with science and reality, Bin. That way I don’t have to make stuff up, like you do.
Until you’ve got a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, you’ve got NOTHING.
Ancient astrologers that are clearly wrong ain’t science.
” Ancient astrologers that are clearly wrong aint science. ”
Including Newton, of course, who confirmed in 1726, just before dying, Cassini’s theory he had understood and acknowledged in… 1675.
Yes, Clint R: ancient astrologer Newton was clearly wrong.
Bindidon, if you’re trying to use Newton to elevate Cassini, you’re just headed for another FAIL.
Newton’s work proved gravity would affect a body as demonstrated by a simple ball-on-a-string. One side of the body would always face the inside of its orbit, and the front side would always face the direction of travel.
If the body were also spinning, then we would see all sides of it from inside its orbit.
Let us look in Book III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV in the third (and definitely last) edition of his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
https://tinyurl.com/ycokq9ys
which he published in 1726, just before dying (the first one was published in 1687, the second one in 1713).
There he writes:
Quoniam enim Luna circà axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circà Tellurem periodum suam absolvit
Translation:
For the Moon uniformly revolves around its axis in the same time as it completes its period around the Earth …
*
This, Clint R, is exactly what Cassini found out, and was described by ‘ancient astrologer’ Newton in 1676 in a letter to ‘ancient astrologer’ Mercator.
*
As I wrote above, Clint R: according to you, ‘ancient astrologer’ Newton was clearly wrong.
Different translations from translations can be confusing. In some places, Newton mentioned “relative to the stars”. So what was he actually referring to?
Since Newton was unclear, you are welcome to believe whatever you want. Beliefs aren’t a violation of science, until proven wrong. But the ball-on-a-string proves your beliefs wrong. That’s why you reject it. You reject science and reality.
Clint R
” Different translations from translations can be confusing. In some places, Newton mentioned ‘relative to the stars’. So what was he actually referring to? ”
*
This is, from your side, not far from dishonesty because it has been endlessly discussed during years on this blog.
Here is, for the umpteenth (but certainly not last) time, what Newton wrote in his original Latin text:
” 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′. ”
Translation:
“Jupiter certainly revolves with respect to the fixed points in 9.56 hours, Mars in 24.39 hours. Venus in about 23 hours, the Earth in 23.56 hours, the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the Moon in 27 days, 7 hours 43′. ”
*
He writes just one sentence below so no one (Robertson and you included) can misunderstand and misrepresent his words:
” Maculae in corpore Solis ad eundem situm in discus Solis redeunt diebus 27 1/2 circiter, respectu Terrae; ideóque respectu fixarum Sol revolvitur diebus 25 1/2 circiter. ”
Translation:
” The spots on the Sun’s body return to the same position on the Sun’s disk in about 27 1/2 days, with respect to the Earth; and with respect to the fixed points the Sun revolves about 25 1/2 days. ”
*
Under ‘fixed points’ everybody having some knowledge understands the ‘distant stars’, whose position does not change compared to the celestial bodies in the Solar System.
Right? Or do you want to destillate some skepticism about that too?
*
Even the dumbest person understands here that the lunar spin deniers intentionally distort Newton’s words, by insinuating that by ‘with respect to the fixed stars’, he could well mean motions, where in fact he only means motion periods.
*
And even the dumbest person understands here as well that, when Newton mentions ‘revolves’ with regard to Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth and the Sun, and gives values corresponding to their respective rotation period, he will certainly not mean, with the value 27 days, 7 hours 43′ in the same sentence, Moon’s orbiting period.
*
How long will you continue to distort this discussion, Clint R?
Till you die?
Yes Bin. as I stated, Newton was referring to the stars, aka, “fixed stars”, aka “inertial space”.
You can believe that Newton believed Moon rotated on it axis. You get to believe whatever you want to believe. The problem arises when you reject reality to protect your cult beliefs.
” … as I stated, Newton was referring to the stars … ”
And? What do you mean with that evidence? What is your conclusion?
Spare us your ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ and your ‘ball-on-a-string’.
My “conclusion” Bin, is that you don’t know anything about orbital motion, and you can’t learn.
You are completely immersed in your cult’s false beliefs. That’s why you have to reject reality. That’s why you can’t provide a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
At least you have some soothing music for bedtime:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo-aQIX9ois
” You are completely immersed in your cults false beliefs. ”
Thanks for confirming how you view the work of ‘ancient astrologers’ Cassini, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, Beer & Maedler, and all those who followed them till nowadays: as a cult propagating false beliefs.
If you were able to technically and scientifically contradict all them, I would understand you after having read a successful contradiction from your side.
But you are no more than a cheap polemicist, only able to distort, discredit, denigrate and … lie.
Keep further ball-on-a-string-ing, Clint R. That’s all you can do.
I can’t take credit for debunking your cult’s ancient astrology, Bin. The credit goes to the simple ball-on-a-string. That simple analogy destroys all your Moon rotation nonsense.
Reality always wins.
You almost had him this time, if you only tried a little bit harder he would have come to your side
My side?
I have no side here, babbling Edog.
I’m just trying to defend Science, instead of filling the blog with feces like you do.
binny…”[Meyer]One had to unravel the phenomena, and separate those arising from the Moons revolving about the axis, from those mingled with it and caused by the unequal motion of the Moon about the Earth.
***
There is nothing to unravel. Had he focused correctly on the orbital issues he would surely have reached the conclusion that the Moon cannot possibly rotate on its axis while keeping the same side pointed at the Earth.
He could have visualized the orbital path as a highway on which he was riding CCW around the Earth on the Earth-Moon orbital plane. If he was sitting in a seat looking out the left windows at the Earth it would always be on his left all the way around the Earth. At no time could the bus rotate on its COG since he would no longer be looking at the Earth but getting a 360 degree visual of the stars.
Had he visualized himself sitting on a large ball, where it meets the string, as a giant hurled the ball around his head, he would find himself always looking at the giant’s head through the entire orbit. Bob D. is too obtuse to see that.
This is not rocket-science, it’s very straight-forward for those who want to see the obvious. Cassini, Meyer, and LaGrange were far to rigid in their thought processes to see it. And you are so hung up on an appeal to authority that you refuse to look.
” Cassini, M[a]yer, and La[g]range were far to[o] rigid in their thought processes to see it. ”
Pseudoscience genius and absolute dumbass Robertson forgot to add Newton and Mercator in the list behind Cassini.
*
Robertson reminds me once more Kurt, my lady Rose’s uncle, who over ten years ago endlessly repeated like Robertson the same things about everything.
He has peu à peu stopped blathering for now about two years, he is silent all the time and absently looks through us into the distance when we visit him in the old people’s home.
If they only built more solar panels
https://youtu.be/_K8L5lKWDI0
bobd…”Parallel only applies to lines, not to curves.
You cant claim curves are parallel”.
***
Don’t be so obtuse, Bob, I just explained it to you using basic calculus re tangent lines.
Even Wiki agrees…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_curve
Let’s get back to you perverting the definition of curvilinear translation, where any line segment you draw on the body must maintain the same orientation.
That doesn’t work for the Moon, therefor since the Moon is not moving as a curvilinear translation, nor a linear translation, then it must be rotating.
And your tangent lines are rotating, so what you have attached them to is also rotating.
That works for any three points on a body, you can draw three parallel lines, no matter what the body is doing, the three lines will remain parallel.
That proves nothing.
binny…”[Newton]Jupiter certainly revolves with respect to the fixed points in 9.56 hours, Mars in 24.39 hours. Venus in about 23 hours, the Earth in 23.56 hours, the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the Moon in 27 days, 7 hours 43′.
***
It’s clear what Newton is saying vis a vis revolution, Revolution refers to an orbit and each body does revolve in it orbit relative to the stars in said times.
The Moon is the outlier in that statement. The other bodies do rotate about their axes but none of them keep the same face pointed at Sun, the central body. The Moon does not revolve about the Sun. It’s clear from that obvious point that Newton was using the word ‘revolves’ to indicate orbital motion and not in relation to a rotation about a local axis.
However, we must not confuse revolution with rotation. The Moon revolves about the Earth and while it is revolving, its orientation is changing wrt the stars, if they are the fixed points. The Moon does change orientation wrt the stars at a rate of 27 days, 7 hours, and 43 minutes.
Some people are confusing that change of orientation through 360 degrees with rotation about a local axis.
As I said before, I think a lot is lost in the translation from old English, to old Latin, back to modern English. I say that because Newton was clear in Principia that the Earth moves with a linear velocity and the motion is curvilinear.
” Its clear what Newton is saying vis a vis revolution, Revolution refers to an orbit and each body does revolve in it orbit relative to the stars in said times. ”
Now we definitely see here that Robertson has reached the highest possible level of ignorance, arrogance and stupidity.
Now, thanks Robertson, we all know that for example, Earth orbits around the Sun within 23.56 hours.
*
On the same page of his Principia, Newton wrote:
” Quoniam enim Luna circà axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circà Tellurem periodum suam absolvit
Translation:
” For the Moon uniformly revolves around its axis in the same time as it completes its period around the Earth ”
*
Now we all know that there is no way at all to get him to reasoning instead of ‘robertsoning’.
He will certainly invent something new to distort what Newton wrote above.
*
From now on, apart from a final statement about Mayer’s work, I’ll leave this meaningless discussion in the hands of people like Norman, bobdroege etc, who are patient enough to endlessly reply Robertson’s idiocies like:
” As I said before, I think a lot is lost in the translation from old English, to old Latin, back to modern English. ”
This is the most impolite statement with regard to persons like Newton I have ever read.
bob d…”No it wouldnt, as it is rotating just exactly as fast as the string.
The far side of the ball moves farther each revolution than the near side, since their vector velocity would thus move them farther apart with each revolution, the ball has to spin”.
***
Bob…you have outdone yourself with stupidity. How does the ball rotate while under tension from the string?
Come on, admit it, you are the janitor at the nuclear plant.
Don’t call me stupid when you can’t understand basic eighth science.
The ball is rotating under tension from the string because the string is rotating.
I no longer work at the Nuclear Power Plant, now I make antimatter.
That’s even more stupid.
Gordon,
Yes, you are stupid, if you don’t know it’s possible to make anti-matter.
Also I can change one element into another, that’s just what I do.
So, you should be wealthy by now, changing lead into gold.
Might be easier to change mercury or platinum to gold since they are right next door on the periodic table. I can see a similarity between platinum and gold but how does one explain the difference between mercury and gold.
Why is mercury a liquid? Hint: electrons and electron bonds.
I told you, electrons rule the universe. Without the little beggars everything would fall apart and there would be no light.
Gordo might appreciate:
> the speed of the plane is not what keeps it flying
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/27603/do-pilots-adjust-the-aircrafts-flight-path-to-allow-for-the-curvature-of-the-ea
willard cherry-picks an answer to suit his warped sense of reality. Here’s another response…
“There is no adjustment needed as the aircraft will naturally follow the curvature of the earth without any input from the pilot. This is because the aircraft flies through the atmosphere which also follows the curvature of the earth”.
Same answer as I got from a pilot a while back. I asked him if he had to adjust for altitude due to the Earth’s curvature. He said no.
As long as the pilot makes sure his air speed is enough to keep him at constant altitude, gravity does the rest. If he is over the North Pole and sitting uprights he is still sitting upright when he gets to the South Pole.
Come on, Gordo. All the answers more or less tell the same story, e.g.:
For some reason this made me think of you.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1357345
Quand l’adulte montre la lune du doigt, l’enfant regarde le doigt.
No one could better describe the ‘ball-on-a-string’.
…which you agree is not rotating on its own axis.
… as viewed from the center of the orbit.
No, Bindidon never specified location of observation. He has simply agreed, many times in the past, that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. Since I’m always visualizing the motion as though I’m located outside the orbit, I’ve always assumed Bindidon does the same.
You are wrong, DREMT, as noted correctly by Clint R.
How could Clint R have noted the unspoken thoughts of Bindidon? Bindidon has stated the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, and has not specified location of observation.
Is Ball4 trying to misrepresent my words, AGAIN?
As Clint R pointed out, accurately stating the observation reveals the viewers location.
So if anybody says that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, and clarifies that their location of observation was outside the orbit, you will simply tell them that their location of observation was inside the orbit…and so your trolling continues. Oblivious to the difference between rotation about an external axis and curvilinear translation in a circle…
Go with Madhavi DREMT or remain wrong otherwise. Clint R can get viewing motion correct, but DREMT still shows no sign of understanding.
According to Madhavi, curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) is motion as per Fig. 2(a), and rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) is motion as per Fig. 2(b). This proves you wrong, and me right.
https://mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
No DREMT, listen and learn from Clint R “inside of it orbit” & Madhavi 2(b) since Madhavi 2(a) is irrelevant to ball on string.
Not irrelevant, Ball4, because the motion of the ball on a string can be described in two ways, as observed from outside of its orbit:
1) Curvilinear translation in a circle, plus rotation about an internal axis. So that is motion like Fig. 2(a) plus rotation about an internal axis.
2) Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis. So that is simply motion like Fig. 2(b).
The only way you could be correct is if curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) and rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) were the same motion, motion like Fig. 2(a) or the MOTR. We know they are not, since Fig. 2(b) exists, and Madhavi specifically mentions not to get the two motions confused, which is the mistake you are making.
dremt…I think the definition given for curvilinear translation in some text books is myopic. The example they give in the pdf you posted is a restricted version of motion. They show a blob with a line on it and when the blob moves, they claim the line has to move in parallel to it orginal position. That’s an unreasonable restriction to place on curvilinear motion.
Translation is not restricted to such motion. Translation means simply that a particle moves from point A to point B. If it moves along a straight line, it is called rectilinear translation. If it moves along a curved path it is curvilinear translation.
Expanding the point to a rigid body is no different. A rigid body is a collection of points moving together. If the body is uniform, like a disk or a sphere, its motion is represented by a COG at the centre of the object.
If I have a circular disk located with its COG at 0,0 on the x-y plane, and I move it along the x-axis to 5,0, it’s COG has translated in a straight line, therefore the body has performed rectilinear translation. It is a natural outcome of that motion that all points on the disk move parallel to the x-axis, hence to each other.
If that same disk with its COG at 0,0 now moves along a circle with radius = 5 and centred at 5,0, the COG is now performing curvilinear translation. All rigid bodies are defined based on the motion of their centre of gravity. If the body is rotating about the COG at the same time, that is a different matter, but it does not affect the fact that the body is translating.
It surprises me that the textbook to which you linked does not go into that re rigid bodies. As I pointed out to Norman a while back, many preliminary textbooks tend to dumb things down for beginner students. I have found that such dumbing down can mislead students into a false understanding.
This is where you have to look into the problem deeper. How does the body move, how is it propelled, and how does it move along the circle?
Suppose the circle is a monorail track and the body is monorail car. Suppose the x-y plane is horizontal and the circle of track lies on the horizontal plane. When the car moves, it is restricted to move along the circular track, therefore all parts of the car must move in parallel at any instant along the track.
If you track the car with a radial line from the centre of the circle through the car, all points on the car will complete one revolution of the track in the same time. That’s the second requirement of translation that all points must move with the same velocity. It should be speed, not velocity, since we are talking about the length of the track divided by the time it takes to orbit it and not the instantaneous linear veleocitis of each particle in the body.
Spinners argue that the outside of the car moves faster than the inside of the car but that has nothing to do with it. In order for all points on the car to complete a revolution in the same time, the outside points must move faster than the inside points. Otherwise, the car would fall apart.
Gordon, if describing motion like the MOTL, or Fig. 2(b), as “curvilinear translation with no rotation about an internal axis” helps you get across to some people the concept that how a ball on a string moves can be described as one single motion, regardless of reference frame, then carry on, by all means. I have found that describing motion like the MOTL, or Fig. 2(b), as “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”, has helped me get across that concept to a couple of people who have gone on to be quite regular commenters in the moon discussion. So it has been useful to me to go with the textbook descriptions, and keep “curvilinear translation with no rotation about an internal axis” as motion like Fig. 2(a), or the MOTR. There has been less pushback that way…
…then again, maybe Clint R is right, and you can’t really apply kinematics to orbital motion in any case…
…at the end of the day, “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL. That is what we’re ultimately trying to get across to people. I just want to go about it whichever way is most efficient to get as many people to understand as possible, without getting them “lost in reference frames” along the way. I think the rotation route is simplest, because most people can understand the idea of an object being swung around an external axis, without rotating on its own internal axis. So that’s what I go with.
dremt…”I have found that describing motion like the MOTL, or Fig. 2(b), as rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, has helped me get across that concept to a couple of people who have gone on to be quite regular commenters in the moon discussion. So it has been useful to me to go with the textbook descriptions, and keep curvilinear translation with no rotation about an internal axis as motion like Fig. 2(a), or the MOTR. There has been less pushback that way”
***
I have no dispute with you and I get your point re the KISS principle. However, I have no interest in what the spinners think. My interest is purely in the science. I studied this stuff in engineering physics classes and I know that rotation about a local axis requires an angular velocity about that axis. MOTL proves there is no such angular velocity about the Moon’s axis.
Can you see my point? This is an academic argument for me and I have no interest in converting spinners who lack the ability to see the truth. As you have seen, they have more of an interest in perverting science than understanding it.
This perversion goes all the way to the top. I have pointed out several times that EE profs and books teach that electrical current flows from positive to negative. They are doing it to maintain a paradigm formed circa 1925. They don’t care that it is wrong. Meantime, technical/technology colleges teach the opposite.
I agree the MOTL correctly displays rotation about an external axis with no local rotation. However, the real, general definition of curvilinear translation agrees with that too.
I described the MOTL orbit using curvilinear translation a while back. If you can recall, I suggested using Irfanview to break the gif into separate jpeg images. With individual images you can follow a dark spot on the Moon around the orbit every so many degrees and confirm that tangential lines perpendicular to a radial line, drawn at the near side, the COG, and the far side, all run parallel to each other.
What we have is the Moon rotating around Earth’s centre (presuming circular orbit) on a radial line with 3 perpendicular lines turning in parallel to each other. Since the Moon’s COG is the middle perpendicular line and the other two are moving parallel to it, it’s impossible for the Moon to be rotating about the COG.
Where our theories differ slightly is in the real action of the Moon. It’s not rotating about the Earth due to an attachment due to gravity. It has its own linear momentum and acts as an independent body. All gravity does is redirect that linear momentum every instant into an orbital path.
I have no problem seeing that as rotation about an external axis but in reality it is a body moving in a straight line that is being redirected into an orbital path. You won’t find such a condition in our terrestrial environment.
> I have no dispute with you
C’mon, Gordo.
You and Graham do not read the same geometry book.
Either one of you is right.
The other would then be wrong.
Show us what you got!
It’s an interesting point that rectilinear translation, in a straight line along the Earth’s surface, will be understood to be rectilinear translation, even though there must be a slight curve due to the curvature of the Earth. So, say there was a road which somehow went all the way around the Earth’s equator. A car drives in a straight line, 100 yards down the road. All engineers agree that motion is rectilinear translation. The car drives 100 miles in a straight line, down the road. Most agree that is still rectilinear translation, though some might be mentioning the curvature of the Earth. The car drives 1000 miles in a straight line. Now more are mentioning the curvature of the Earth. The car circumnavigates the globe. Now everyone mentions the curvature of the Earth. Now, somehow, it was definitely not rectilinear translation all along…
…at what exact point along the road does the motion stop being rectilinear translation?
I can understand your point when considering the actual orbital motion of the moon. The trouble is we use these analogies for which rotation about an external axis is definitely the appropriate description for the motion. A ball on a string, a wooden horse on a carousel, the chalk circle on the carousel…these are all rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis. It would make no sense to describe these as translational motion with no rotation about an internal axis. So then if you switch descriptions when you get to the actual orbital motion of the moon, you are just opening yourself up to attack from “Spinners”, who as we all know have no interest in understanding, and are just out to score points any way they can.
It is more than an interesting point, Graham.
It is a point that contradicts your position and makes Gordo a spinner,
…you are just opening yourself up to attack from “Spinners”, who as we all know have no interest in understanding, and are just out to score points any way they can (as Little Willy demonstrates, although technically he’s a “Non-Spinner”).
Gordo,
Have you ever noticed how Graham talks of spinners but never of spin? You need to make him understand that the concept of spin does not reduce to geometric concepts like translation, and that he needs to come up with a physical mechanism as to why the Moon stopped spinning.
I know you often try to play the physics guru here. Try your magic on him.
Tidal locking.
You might have a case DREMPTY,
If you could point me to where Madhavi says this
“(with no rotation about an internal axis)”
I don’t think she does.
She also says this
“Any plane motion which is neither a rotation nor a
translation is referred to as a general plane motion.”
And gives the example of a rotating wheel, which is a better analogy for the motion of the Moon than the ball on a string.
So the motion of the ball on a string or the Moon is not one single motion, it’s an example of general plane motion, or a combination of two motions.
per Madhavi.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1357451
DREMPTY,
Madhavi does not support your claim that the object is rotating about an external axis without rotating about an internal axis.
Now you are lying.
Gordo,
Beware that tidal locking is also called a spin-orbit lock. You might wonder why. Here is why. A spin-orbit lock occurs when
> one of the objects reaches a state where there is no longer any net change in its rotation rate over the course of a complete orbit. In the case where a tidally locked body possesses synchronous rotation, the object takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner. For example, the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth, although there is some variability because the Moon’s orbit is not perfectly circular.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Notice the important bit: no net change in the Moon rotation rate. That should make Graham realize that this is a physics puzzle, not a geometric one. As our wannabe physics guru, that is an important point to remind him.
Also, pleaee make Graham understand that when he suggests that the Moon is in a spin-orbit lock, that makes him a spinner. Technically at least.
Fig. 2(b) has to be rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis), bob. If it were rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, then that would make motion like in Fig. 2(a) or the MOTR rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis)…but we know that Fig. 2(a) is curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis), and Madhavi warns not to conflate curvilinear translation with rotation. You are making the mistake Madhavi warns about.
There is also the transmographer, which proves me correct, as well as the diagram of rotation about an external axis that I linked to further upthread. You are just in denial, bob.
Great job, DREMT. Throw their own crap back in their faces.
When braindead bob says someone is “lying”, that means he knows he’s out of ammo.
And now you’ve got worthless willy trying to pretend he understand this!
Great job.
“In the case where a tidally locked body possesses synchronous rotation, the object takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner.”
…which, from the “Non-Spinner” perspective, means “just revolving, not rotating on its own axis”. Hence the tidal locking physical mechanism can explain how the moon has stopped spinning.
Gordo,
A word of caution –
When you will teach him some physics, Graham may try to dodge the fact that a spin-orbit lock happens when one of the bodies has no net change in its rotation rate over the course of a complete orbit.
You might need to explain to him that if the Moon does not spin, he might need to appeal to something else than a spin-orbit lock, which, as the term suggests, is an interlocking of two rotation rates.
In other words, you would have to tell Graham that he needs to explain how the tides stopped the Moon from spinning completely.
Good luck!
Hence the tidal locking physical mechanism can explain how the moon has stopped spinning … as moon is observed from “inside of it orbit” per Clint R.
Good job Clint.
"Graham may try to dodge the fact that a spin-orbit lock happens when one of the bodies has no net change in its rotation rate over the course of a complete orbit."
So if the rotation rate remains at nil per orbit (which the "Spinners" would incorrectly label as once per orbit), then the moon is tidally locked at a 0:1 spin/orbit rate.
DREMPTY,
When accused of lying it’s best not to double down and add more lies.
“Fig. 2(b) has to be rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis)”
You know you are adding the “with no rotation about an internal axis”
Because you can’t show me where Madhavi says that.
So you are continuing to lie about that.
“If it were rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, then that would make motion like in Fig. 2(a) or the MOTR rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis)but we know that Fig. 2(a) is curvilinear translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis), and Madhavi warns not to conflate curvilinear translation with rotation. You are making the mistake Madhavi warns about.”
No I am not making the mistake Madhavi warns about, because I am not claiming there is any rotation in fig 2a.
“There is also the transmographer, which proves me correct, as well as the diagram of rotation about an external axis that I linked to further upthread. You are just in denial, bob.”
No, you are lying about the transmographer because you don’t understand the math underneath the hood, there needs to be two equations to produce that graphic, because there are two rotations, one about the origin and one about the center of the body.
Yeah, keep on lying.
So which of the two motions, Fig. 2(a) or Fig. 2(b), shows rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, as observed from outside of the orbit, bob?
Maybe you boneheads could tell me where the point O, as in Madhavi fig 2b, is with respect to the Moon.
Where is the Moon attached such that its motion is like fig 2b?
Sigh…OK, bob, so which of the two motions, MOTR or MOTL, shows rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, as observed from outside of the orbit?
A question is not an answer, Graham.
Try again, this time with more feeling.
Since you agree with me that a ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own axis, as observed from outside the orbit, Little Willy, one wonders what your problem is. bob argues that it cannot, you see. Perhaps you and him should discuss it.
Since you agree with Gordo that the orbit of the Moon could be described as a translation, Graham, it is an honour to welcome you amongst the team that holds that the Moon spins!
Perhaps you and him should discuss it.
Perhaps you should discuss this claim with Pup, Graham:
> Tidal locking is easily debunked.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1354044
You and bob go first.
Three us, seventy one months of trolling, and our Moon Drsgon cranks cannot keep their story straight,
Graham disagrees with Pup and with Gordo on the single semantic issue he is willing to discuss.
The reason this goes on so long is because there are still people who don’t accept that the ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own axis. You could help with that, Little Willy, but you choose to troll me, instead.
DREMPTY
“SighOK, bob, so which of the two motions, MOTR or MOTL, shows rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, as observed from outside of the orbit?”
Violation of sighing rule #1, you are only allowed to sigh when you are right.
And I thought you claimed reference frames don’t matter.
Yet here you are using a reference frame.
And again, the rotation about the external axis don’t matter, only rotation matters.
Try and figure out which Moon is rotating.
It’s not hard, just use your eyes.
It’s the one that does not stay pointing in the same direction.
OK, bob, since you won’t answer, I will just answer for you: you think that the MOTR is the one that is rotating about an external axis whilst not rotating about an internal axis, as observed from outside the orbit. That is wrong, because “Spinners” would describe the motion of the MOTR as being curvilinear translation in a circle, with no rotation about an internal axis, and as Madhavi notes, you should not confuse curvilinear translation with rotation about an external axis. You are wrong, bob. A ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own axis, as observed from outside the orbit. You are one of the only people left on this blog who still doesn’t get that.
Please stop putting words into the mouth of Bob, Graham, and please answer his question about point O.
He either thinks rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is like the MOTR, or he thinks it’s like the MOTL. Since he doesn’t agree with you and me that it’s like the MOTL, he must think it’s like the MOTR. Not putting words in his mouth, just working by process of elimination (and going by what he’s said before). I asked him the question first, he has dodged it twice now. The moon is obviously not physically attached to any point O by any rigid rod, Little Willy.
“According to Madhavi….This proves you wrong, and me right.”.
Madhavi also states:
“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).”
A reminder for those who invoke Madhavi to support their hypothesis that the Moon, in its elliptical orbit, is somehow rotating around the Earth or the barycenter…..
This proves them wrong.
For the 47th time.
As we know, trolls will ignore all such inconvenient facts.
I will stop commenting on the moon issue forever if both bobdroege and Ball4 will publicly acknowledge that I am right, and they are wrong, about how a ball on a string (note: a ball on a string, not the moon) can be described as not rotating on its own axis, as observed from outside the orbit. That’s all I ask. I don’t even care about the moon any more. If anyone here can help get those two to admit that they were wrong, I swear I will never discuss the moon issue again. So, it’s up to you guys.
DREMPTY,
If you are going to use Madhavi as your source, you need to make sure you quote her correctly.
This is what you said she said:
“Madhavi notes, you should not confuse curvilinear translation with rotation about an external axis.”
This is what she actually said:
“Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.”
So you are again lying.
And by the way, I am ignoring any rotations about any external axes or orbits or revolutions, and just concentrating on which one is rotating on an internal axis, whether from inside the orbit or outside the orbit.
The Moon on the left is the one that is rotating about an internal axis, and the Moon on the right is not rotating.
And I will never admit I am wrong when I am right. The ball on a string is rotating on its own axis through the ball, because it does not point in the same directions as you revolve it around your hand.
So just the ball on a string, which is rotating on its axis, as proved by mathematics and the video of the astronaut letting the string go.
I’ve not been lying about a single thing, bob. Madhavi says "Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation", yes indeed. Now think about what that can mean. Could Madhavi mean "rotation about an internal axis should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation"? No. That would make no sense. There is no way you could confuse the two. Madhavi can only mean "rotation about an external axis should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation". You have to actually engage the brain, bob. Think about what has been drawn out in Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 2(b).
I know I’m right. Always have been, and always will be. As most of your fellow "Spinners" on here agree, the ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own internal axis, as observed from outside of the orbit. They just lack the integrity to argue it out with you. Oh well.
The ball on a string cannot be described as not rotating on its own internal axis, as observed from outside of the orbit since, being outside the orbit, one observes all faces of the ball as the ball spins once per orbit.
DREMT has always been wrong as shown in Madhavi 2D illustrations. Oh well.
You and bob are wrong, and I’m right (well, not just me, most of the "Spinners" on here bar you two agree with me, as well as the "Non-Spinners", of course).
DREMPTY,
Madhavi may have been talking about curvilinear translation alone something like a French curve, you remember those?
That would be curvilinear translation that is not a rotation.
DREMPTY,
You just admitted that you misquoted Madhavi.
We call that lying around these parts.
Think about what has been drawn out in Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 2(b). Try not to be desperate.
> He either thinks
I doubt the point O thinks, Graham.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
Sure thing, but you are the one getting desperate.
Fig 2a is curvilinear translation.
Fig 2b is a rotation about a fixed point.
Here I will quote Madhavi
“Because each particle moves in a given plane, the rotation of a
body about a fixed axis is said to be a plane motion.”
and
” Any plane motion which is neither a rotation nor a
translation is referred to as a general plane motion.”
Since with the ball on a string, any line segment drawn through the ball does not point in the same direction as the ball is swung around, unlike any line segment drawn on the rectangle in fig2a,
and since the ball on a string is not fixed to a point on the ball,
the motion of the ball on a string can be described as general plane motion.
Which means it is a combination of two things, not one.
So it’s not orbital motion without axial rotation.
Sorry Charlie.
The ball on a string moves as per Fig. 2(b), bob. A rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis).
… only as viewed from “inside of it orbit.” as was previously explained.
DREMPTY,
You claim
“The ball on a string moves as per Fig. 2(b), bob. A rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis).”
2b is rotation about an internal axis, the axis goes through point O, which is part of the rotating object.
So you are saying that a ball on a string rotates around a point inside the ball!
That’s what I have been saying all along, the ball on a string is rotating about an axis through the ball.
I am glad we finally agree and the subject is settled.
No, bob. Point O is at the center of revolution. The ball on a string is rotating about its own “point O”, which is also at the center of revolution. The one single axis of rotation for the ball on a string does not go through the center of the ball itself (all “as observed from outside the orbit”, Ball4).
… so from outside the ball’s orbit all faces of the ball can be seen during each ball orbit thus the ball is observed spinning on its own axis from there (just like the Madhavi 2(b) 2D rectangle).
No, Ball4. What can be argued is that as observed from outside the orbit, the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, which does not go through the center of the ball itself. Learning is pretty hard for you, huh?
The ball has rotation on its own axis ball radius r and orbits at radius R. Two axes of rotation observed outside as in Madhavi 2(b) 2D rectangle so DREMT remains wrong.
Paint a 1 on ball hemisphere toward center. Paint a 2 on ball hemisphere opposite center. Observe 1,2 per orbit from outside the ball’s orbit; observe only the 1 labeled hemisphere per orbit from “inside of it orbit” as previously correctly pointed out by Clint R.
You just do not understand rotation, Ball4. It is as I said in my previous comment. Learning is pretty hard for you, huh?
Study Madhavi illustrations 2(a) and 2(b) to learn what I wrote 9:53 pm is fully consistent with them. I know that is pretty hard for DREMT but it can be done.
As observed from outside the orbit, there is only one axis of rotation for the rectangle in Fig. 2(b), located at point O. I refer you to my previous comments, which settle the issue. I’m right, you’re wrong. The message “I’m right, you’re wrong” will now be repeated, until you stop responding to me.
DREMT is right, there is only one axis of rotation for the rectangle in Fig. 2(b), located at point O as observed from point O “inside of it orbit”.
I said “as observed from outside the orbit…” you relentless, tedious troll.
I’m right, you’re wrong.
DREMTPY,
“No, bob. Point O is at the center of revolution.”
No, Madhavi says it’s a rotation, not a revolution.
You can’t even read the caption of the figure.
You are lying again.
“I know Im right. Always have been, and always will be.”
But not about the main argument that has polluted this blog for 5 years, that the Moon does not rotate on its axis.
“Revolution” is just another word for “rotation about an external axis”, bob.
Point O is part of the body DREMPTY.
Point O is external to the main body of the rectangle. Same as your hand twirling the ball on a string is external to the ball itself. As observed from outside the orbit, it can be argued that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation – at your hand.
Yet from outside of the orbit, all 1,2 faces of the ball are observed so the ball is rotating on its own axis, DREMT remains wrong, there are r and R radii of rotation observed from outside the orbit.
I’m right, you’re wrong, Ball4.
But it’s connected to the main rectangle.
It’s just an example of a rotation, not what you are trying to make it to win your internet points.
Points denied.
…and the ball on a string is connected to your hand, via you holding the string. The point is, as observed from outside the orbit, it can be argued that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation – at your hand. I win the points, and the argument that we have had over several years, bob. As painful as that is for you to admit: I was right, and you were wrong.
Yes you win your internet points, spend them wisely.
But fig 2b and the ball on a string are not equivalent.
And the ball on a string and the orbit of the Moon are also not equivalent.
"But fig 2b and the ball on a string are not equivalent."
Of course they are.
"And the ball on a string and the orbit of the Moon are also not equivalent."
There are certainly differences, yes.
I thought the ball and the string were two different objects, Graham.
Please advise.
…and you can think of the rectangle and the rod connecting it to point O as being two separate objects if you like.
I certainly *could*, Graham, but why would I do that?
Or any mechanical engineer, for that matter.
Look at the diagram, and the dotted lines. They trace out the path of the rectangle, not the path of the rectangle plus rod.
Not that any of this remotely matters, or changes anything.
Sorry…the black curved lines, not dotted lines.
Ah, I see. If the rectangle and the rod is taken as a whole, then I’m not sure how the ball-on-string and fig 2b are equivalent.
The rectangle-with-a-rod has one attachment, and the ball-on-string has two.
Also, how does any of this relate to a spin-orbit lock, again?
There are not two axes of rotation in Fig. 2(b). Which is all that matters.
I thought you said that the ball on string and the rectangle with rod were equivalent, Graham.
They are, in the sense that there are not two axes of rotation in Fig. 2(b), and there are not two axes of rotation with the ball on a string. Which is all that matters.
> There are not two axes of rotation with the ball on a string
Only if you spin it very fast, Graham.
Or if the chord is not cut.
Only if.
Not the same thing as with a rectangle-with-a-rod.
Which means you can’t simply count axes of rotation to think of the problem in terms of physics.
Only if you spin the rectangle very fast, Little Willy.
Or if the rod is not broken.
Only if.
There, that’s just as nonsensical as your response to me.
> Only if you spin the rectangle very fast
No, Graham. You can move it as slow as the hour hand of a clock.
This is a rigid body.
Of course if you spin it really really really fast you might break it.
There is no meaningful difference between the rectangle and the ball on a string, Little Willy. Obviously the ball on a string is always taken to be revolving, so that the string is taut. You are just desperate, beyond anything I have ever seen. Please stop trolling.
Indeed there is a meaningful difference, Graham:
https://physics.appstate.edu/catalog/1-mechanics/1d-motion-two-dimensions/ball-string
Equilibrium speed. Weight. So many concepts you very seldom use!
You trying to make no sense makes no difference whatsoever to that fact.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
And so Graham reveals once again that he’s not here to discuss a problem of physics, but to troll by misreading geometry definitions.
He soldiers on.
#3
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
How about a lazy Susan, Graham:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFkqOBq94Gk
#4
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Bindidon is so obsessed with Moon that he’s probably got the words to this hit song memorized:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo-aQIX9ois
” Bindidon is so obsessed with Moon … ”
Utterly wrong, as usual.
Any intelligent commenter immediately understands that not Moon’s motions are for me of interest, but solely the trial to defend Science (be it historical or contemporary) against the anti-science endlessly propagated on this blog by a few Ignoramuses (because it lacks any moderation).
Sorry Bin, but you’re wrong. You’re obsessed with defending your cult.
If you were really interested in science, you would realize you have NOTHING. You don’t have a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. That means you don’t even understand how gravity affects an orbiting body.
And, you reject reality. Did I mention that you can’t learn?
Put it all together and you’re just another braindead cult idiot.
Pseudomod
” … which you agree is not rotating on its own axis. ”
Stop kidding all the people with that evident nonsense.
*
I’ve often enough stated that I don’t care at all about all these stoopid ball-on-a-string, MGR, coins and MOTL/MOTR idiocies because they are NOT AT ALL representative of a discussion about the rotation of the Moon.
Why do you dissimulate that all the time, Pseudomod?
*
If you want to discuss the rotation of the Moon in a scientific way, then manage to learn how e.g. MATLAB works, and use their differential equation solver
https://de.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/ode45.html
which helps you in numerically describing
– Moon’s orbit around Earth;
– Moon’s rotation around its polar axis.
All you need is to search for the differential motion equations, formulated by numerous scientists since centuries.
MATLAB has a wonderful display component which you can use to integrally represent Moon’s complex orbit and rotation motions.
*
I’m not sure, however, that you would have any interest in doing such job.
Not so much because you very probably wouldn’t be able to; much more because you ideologically reject the result you would obtain.
…and still, you have stated plenty of times now that you agree the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. That might not be important to you, but it is important to many here.
Poor Bin. He tried to hide behind his ancient astrologers. But that failed.
Now, he’s trying to hide behind “differential equations”, that he can’t even begin to understand.
The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string has him beat. That’s why he has to ignore/discredit/deny it. He doesn’t realize that the simple analogy came from Newton’s work.
Newton realized, from his newly developed calculus, that every molecule of Earth would have a “string” tied to every molecule of an orbiting body. That’s how gravity works. So as the orbiting body tried to pass Earth, due to its linear velocity, all of the “strings” would hold the body and steer it in its orbit. The result of all the “strings” would be one “string” between each of the centers of mass. Hence, the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string indicates “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
If the orbiting body is not rotating about its axis (no axial rotation), then one side always faces the inside of its orbit, one side always faces the direction of travel, one side always faces the direction it just came from, and one side always faces outward. Just like Moon.
… as observed from “inside of it orbit” (Clint R terms).
Great job Clint.
Thanks, but I really can’t take any credit for other’s work.
It was your own work Clint! Great job.
Ball4’s trolling again.
Not quite curiously, the Pseudomod never asks those to stop trolling whose trolling perfectly fits his own narrative.
I rarely ask you to stop trolling, Bindidon.
That doesn’t contradict what I wrote above at all.
Just making my own observation.
Asking is not observing, Graham.
Please do *us* the commenters of this blog a favour and learn the difference.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Pseudomod
” … and still, you have stated plenty of times now that you agree the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. ”
1. This is a pure lie.
I mentioned that only once. YOU repeated that ad nauseam.
2. I repeat
Ive often enough stated that I dont care at all about all these stoopid ball-on-a-string, MGR, coins and MOTL/MOTR idiocies because they are NOT AT ALL representative of a discussion about the rotation of the Moon.
Why do you dissimulate that all the time, Pseudomod?
*
If you want to discuss the rotation of the Moon in a scientific way, then manage to learn how e.g. MATLAB works, and use their differential equation solver.
But… you’ll never want.
Newton’s Principia, Book III, Prop. XVII, Theor. XV, 3rd edition 1726, before he died:
” Quoniam enim Luna circà axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circà Tellurem periodum suam absolvit ”
Translation:
For the Moon uniformly revolves around its axis in the same time as it completes its period around the Earth
No one can erase what Newton wrote.
No, Bindidon, you definitely mentioned it more than once. Please stop falsely accusing me of lying.
Feel free to show us the places.
There is no “us”, Bindidon. How would I find the examples now, amidst a mass of multiple-thousand-comment discussions? You have certainly said it more than once, because after the original time you said it, I called on you at least a couple of times to reiterate it, which you did, because various people didn’t believe it.
Show it to me and Binny, Graham.
Now that you got your *us*, if you give Binny his cite I might give you the one where Pup agrees with B4.
And if you do it with a smile I might even toss in a quote or two from Gordo disagreeing with you about geometry.
I have seen and remember the quote Ball4 regularly trolls about. Clint R said nothing that I wouldn’t have agreed with, and I definitely disagree with Ball4 – Ball4 just endlessly twists and misrepresents Clint R’s words because Ball4’s a boring, relentless troll. You support Ball4 because you are a boring, relentless troll yourself.
Then refrain from telling US things like
” … and still, you have stated plenty of times now that you agree the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. “
So I am guilty of lying until proven innocent!?
I quote Clint R verbatim unlike DREMT.
Well you are a limey, isn’t that the case in your legal system?
No, Ball4, you quote-mine Clint R.
No quote mining, DREMT, as I omit nothing essential from Clint’s comment & do not distort Clint’s original meaning. Clint R’s original comment is available to all interests on this site for verification.
…and the fact that Clint R himself said on this same site that you were misrepresenting him counts for nothing, I suppose?
Not misrepresenting unless Clint R writes that his long ago comment “inside of it orbit” & “outside of its orbit” was wrong which Clint R hasn’t yet done. Clint R has actually in these post comments repeated the same intent.
DREMT is just dancing for entertainment and fishing around catching nothing.
Link to and quote the full comment.
The reason Ball4 has to constantly make things up, including perverting my words, is that he has NOTHING. He’s the cult idiot that STILL hasn’t provided his bogus “real 255K surface”.
He just makes things up, then disappears for awhile, only to return and make up more nonsense. He’s another perfect example of a “braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll”.
Nothing? No. I have quoting verbatim Clint R on location of observation “inside of it orbit” and “outside of its orbit”, Madhavi on distinguishing “rotation” on own axes, and DREMT’s need to learn relativity that all motion is relative.
It is Clint R that usually has nothing except evident great laughing stock obviously wrong physics, name calling, and ad. hom.s.
Oh, and Clint R admits can’t even understand the location of the planetary measured 255K surface! Even though explained many times with links to the data. Pity.
Let’s just settle this right now…
…Clint R: do you think that the moon rotates on its own axis as observed from outside of the orbit?
(See what I mean about Ball4?)
If one understands orbital motion, Moon is NOT rotating about its axis from ANY viewpoint. That’s the advantage of the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. If the ball were actually rotating on its axis, while being swung in a circle, the string would wrap around the ball.
I’ve learned to keep the discussion ONLY on the ball-on-a-string. Trying other ways to explain “orbital motion without axial rotation”, only opens up new ways for the cult to pervert reality. When they claim the ball is not rotating, it shows how willing they are to pervert and distort.
Ball4 is an anonymous troll that gets a thrill out of attempting to pervert reality. That’s why he hides behind cover, taking shots at others. He’s a coward, long worshipped by his cult.
Clint now: “Moon is NOT rotating about its axis from ANY viewpoint.”
Clint previously: “So Sun, being outside Moon’s orbit, “sees” all faces of Moon, during Moon’s orbit.”
L.O.L.
“If one understands orbital motion, Moon is NOT rotating about its axis from ANY viewpoint”.
Perfectly clear, Clint R. Thank you.
So, Ball4 has been relentlessly misrepresenting Clint R for the past…what, a year? I’m not even sure how long it’s been. In any case, people have been banned from this site for less.
Ball4 is a disgrace.
No Clint misrepresentation at all DREMT. I quoted Clint R verbatim.
It’s now certainly obvious that Clint R can’t keep stories straight being an entertainer not physics knowledgeable. Clint would rather just call commenters names & change screennames after being banned, twice.
> I have seen and remembered
Then it should not be that hard to find it back for *us*, Graham.
Research and report.
“So Sun, being outside Moon’s orbit, “sees” all faces of Moon, during Moon’s orbit”
Explain how this simple statement of fact equates to Clint R saying that the moon rotates on its own axis as observed from outside of the orbit? You can’t…because it doesn’t. You misrepresented Clint R, repeatedly, for months, Ball4.
See how the trolls operate. Now come the false accusations.
When they’re exposed, they get desperate.
Clint R correctly explained some time ago DREMT, no need for me to repeat. Remember, the internet never forgets
And DREMT, recall again, I quoted Clint R verbatim. You need to argue with Clint R, not me. But beware if you do so, entertainer Clint will start to call DREMT names.
The internet will indeed never forget that you just failed to provide an explanation, Ball4, then insinuated that Clint R previously argued the moon rotates on its own axis as observed from outside the orbit, which I know he never did.
Like Willard quoted DREMT on Clint’s previous explanation: > I have seen and remembered
DREMT is just frightened to debate Clint’s explanation & words I quoted verbatim because DREMT would then get called names and suffer ad. hom.s from the entertainment specialist who can’t keep his stories straight aka Clint R.
I don’t need to debate this:
“So Sun, being outside Moon’s orbit, “sees” all faces of Moon, during Moon’s orbit”
because I agree with it. It does not mean the moon rotates on its own axis, as observed from outside the orbit. The fact you think it does just reveals your ignorance of the “Non-Spinner” position.
Not sure about the Internet, Graham, but *I* sure will not forget that hand waving to spin-orbit lock does not amount to an explanation of why the Moon would stop from spinning, Graham.
More so that the spin-orbit lock, ad usually understood, explains why it did not.
Well, you are pretty thick.
The society of astrophysicists must be quite thick too, Graham, for they hold that the spin-orbit lock makes the Moon spins at the same rate it orbits the Earth.
Go right ahead, revolutionize physics. Eboy will be impressed.
“for they hold that the spin-orbit lock makes the Moon spins at the same rate it orbits the Earth.”
Which from the “Non-Spinner” perspective translates to:
“…makes the moon not spin whilst it orbits the Earth”
Worthless willy, why don’t you get one of your “society of astrophysics” to come on here and we’ll teach him about orbital motion. He may not understand any of it.
It’s like the PhD physicist that comes here sometimes but doesn’t know how to find the energy of a photon. And, there’s one that believes two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface can heat it to 325K!
So much for your lame “appeal to authority”.
Other than your incessant trolling, you’ve got NOTHING.
Translation is no explanation, Graham.
I agree. The well-known, often-discussed physical mechanism behind tidal locking is the explanation.
The “tidal locking” nonsense is part of the Moon nonsense. “Tidal locking” is easily debunked. Gravity cannot produce a torque on Moon.
The fact that Moon is NOT rotating means that is was never rotating.
Graham and Pup, please coordinate your non-responses better.
Willard, please stop trolling.
In a manner of speaking
I just want to say
That I could never forget the way
You told me everything
By saying nothing
Little Willy
Is a troll
[GRAHAM] The well-known, often-discussed physical mechanism behind tidal locking is the explanation.
[PUP] “Tidal locking” is easily debunked. Gravity cannot produce a torque on Moon.
And?
Perfectly clear, Graham. Thank you.
What is? That we disagree? Yes. So what?
[GRAHAM] If anyone here can help get those two to admit that they were wrong, I swear I will never discuss the moon issue again. So, it’s up to you guys.
[ALSO GRAHAM] What is clear? That we disagree? Yes. So what?
Willard, if you weren’t such a worthless troll you would stick with the subject you presented.
Where is even ONE of the “society of astrophysicists” you mentioned? Just get one to come here and explain how gravity can torque Moon.
That would be fun.
(There might be some other questions too.)
The topic of this sub-thread is Binny’s challenge to Graham that he quotes and cites him, Pup.
Do keep up.
I told you, Little Willy. You argue it out with bob first, about the ball on a string, and then I will argue with Clint R about tidal locking.
That’s a lame answer, worthless willy. Especially since I’m responding to your comment on this sub-thread!
You can’t stand by your own comments, huh?
Just like a worthless troll.
Please stop conflating the actual topic with your riddle du jour, Pup.
If you could explain to Graham why he is wrong about the spin-orbit lock, that’d be great.
Yet another lame answer from worthless willy.
You cant stand by your own comments. Get one of your “astrophysicists” here to explain how gravity can torque Moon. Or, tell us yourself, in your own words.
You can’t do it. You’re just a worthless troll.
If I answer your silly question, Pup, will you stop commenting for 90 days?
Your riddles are riddled with so much ridiculous red herrings that it would only be good riddance!
Gosh, where did you ever get that idea, worthless willy?
Not only are you ignorant of science, you’re a copy-cat. And, you can’t stand by your own comments. That’s why you’re such a worthless troll.
Here you go!
“Get one of your astrophysicists here to explain how gravity can torque Moon. Or, tell us yourself, in your own words.”
A torque on the Moon results when the center of gravity is not lined up with the center of mass.
This happens every orbit when the Moon librates because the rate of rotation and the rate of revolution don’t always match because the orbit is elliptical.
That’s funny, bob. If you’re going to be braindead, you might as well be funny too.
Did you ever say who helped you with the vectors problem?
“Did you ever say who helped you with the vectors problem?”
I could but I won’t.
Do you want to compare ACT and SAT math scores?
Do you not understand how the Earth exerts a torque on the Moon.
Perhaps we could start with Newton’s law of universal gravitation.
Next Pup will tell us that the tidal torque CANNOT decelerate the Earth spin.
And Graham will wash his hands over that nonsense.
Yeah, there’s a lot of science you have to claim is wrong, if you start off claiming the Moon does not rotate on its axis.
The three stooges have climbed a whole hill of stupid.
You don’t have to "deny" tidal locking in order to think the moon does not rotate on its own axis, bob.
DREMT, you must have missed the debunking of the tidal locking nonsense:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-555062
Worthless willard and bob have worked themselves into another corner this morning. Neither can produce any correct physics to show how Earth can produce a torque on Moon. Braindead bob would be unable to provide a free-body diagram of his “theory”.
All they’ve got is trolling and word salad, as usual.
It doesn’t need to be debunked, though, in order to think the moon does not rotate on its own axis. That’s the point I’m making to bob. If we accept tidal locking theory as being correct, for the sake of argument, then if the moon was at one point rotating on its own axis, that’s the explanation for what slowed its rotation to zero times per orbit. The tidal locking mechanism is the "braking" that slowed the moon’s axial rotation to nil. The consensus viewpoint is that the moon’s axial rotation was "locked" at a rate of once per orbit…but, seen from the "Non-Spinner" perspective, "once per orbit" is zero times per orbit.
The alternative view (if not believing in tidal locking theory) is to think that all "tidally-locked" moons never rotated on their own axes at some point in the dim and distant past. I find that harder to believe than believing in tidal locking theory. Each to their own. I do accept that it’s a "belief", though..
That’s perfectly logical, DREMT.
I’m interested in the fact that their nonsense is all linked, and each part is anti-science. So, it’s fun to keep the cult off balance by debunking each part separately.
The fun increases when they try to make up more nonsense to cover their nonsense!
Clint R thinks that because objects on the Moon fall at the same rate, even though the forces on them are different debunks anything.
I have already explained how a torque on the Moon can result from the force of gravity.
Repeated explanations are 50 bucks.
Also available for fifty bucks are simple experiments that can be performed in you own kitchen that will show how gravity can provide a torque on an object.
DREMPTY,
“You dont have to “deny” tidal locking in order to think the moon does not rotate on its own axis, bob.”
Yeah, you do, because tidal locking is the case where the rotation period equals the orbital period.
If the rotation rate is zero, then the orbital period is zero, where does the Moon go then?
By the way, you are still refusing to define what you think rotation about an internal means.
We are waiting.
“Yeah, you do, because tidal locking is the case where the rotation period equals the orbital period…”
…which, from the “Non-Spinner” perspective, means zero axial rotations per orbit.
One is zero and one is 27 days.
Which are equal,
Yeah, Right.
[NIKOLA] It is not a matter of *definition* as some would have it.
[GRAHAM] which, from the “Non-Spinner” perspective, means
Not really a deep thinker, are you bob?
Do you have anything else than the ad hominem, the ad misericordiam, and the ad nauseam, Graham?
If bob genuinely cannot work out for himself how tidal locking can function from the “Non-Spinner” perspective, then let him admit that. Then I’ll decide if I can be bothered to waste further hours of my life in babysitting him on the subject. Really, anybody who claims to be able to understand the “Non-Spinner” position, should get it. It’s not difficult.
If Graham cannot grasp that Bob, as someone who studied physics for real, can see through Dragon Cranks smokescreens, then perhaps he should try for another 72 months of trolling,
It’s not difficult. In fact, I have already explained it to the point most people would understand.
… where DREMT goes wrong, cg of Madhavi rectangle 2(a) illustrates one axis of cg rotation and as Madhavi then illustrates DREMT hasn’t yet comprehended there are 2 axes of rectangle cg rotation in 2(b) “rotation” as viewed from “outside of its orbit”.
You are off-topic, and behind the times, Ball4. I think you might be the only commenter left now who doesn’t accept that, as observed from outside the orbit, the ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own axis. Good luck.
Nah,
I’m still with Ball4, the ball on a string is still rotating on its own axis no matter where it is viewed from.
Then, if the Moon is not rotating, then there is no tidal locking.
If you want to define tidal locking as something different from the orbital period matching the rotational period, then
DENIED!
Do you think Graham will ever find out that a frame of reference is not a perspective but a metric, Bob?
“I’m still with Ball4, the ball on a string is still rotating on its own axis no matter where it is viewed from.”
Humorously, that’s not actually what Ball4 thinks. He would argue that as observed from inside the orbit, it is not rotating on its own axis, and as observed from outside the orbit, it is. You’re both wrong, just in different ways. Oh well.
“If you want to define tidal locking as something different from the orbital period matching the rotational period, then
DENIED!”
Just scroll up to my 10:26 AM comment to Clint R, give it a read, and try to understand.
Good 10:26 AM comment, Graham:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1353847
DREMPTY,
It appears that you do not understand what tidal locking means.
It means the orbital period matches the axial rotation period.
If you claim that the axial rotation period of the Moon is zero, and you think tidal locking is valid, that draws the conclusion that you also believe the orbital period is zero.
We have a contradiction to observed evidence here and a failure to communicate.
You have it all wrong bud.
And just read my 10:56 comment is what assholes do.
DREMPTY,
Here is you youtube as requested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yq-Fw7C26Y
"If you claim that the axial rotation period of the Moon is zero, and you think tidal locking is valid, that draws the conclusion that you also believe the orbital period is zero."
Lol.
Yes DREMPTY,
That’s your position.
No, bob. The tidal locking mechanism, according to the consensus viewpoint, brings the rotation rate down to a rate of once per orbit (or, up to a rate of once per orbit). So, from the "Non-Spinner" viewpoint, it brings the rotation rate down to a rate of zero times per orbit (or, up to a rate of zero times per orbit – a negative rate of spin being spin that is in the opposite direction to the direction of the orbital motion).
> from the “Non-Spinner” viewpoint
I thought it was a perspective, Graham:
https://youtu.be/keW4QqRGVN4
Pure trolling, Little Willy.
No U, dearest.
You are supposed to realize that I notice when you get into hermeneutics.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
As usual, you are dreadfully confused.
This time you are confusing the mechanism whereby a body becomes tidally locked with the condition of being tidally locked.
The condition of being tidally locked is where the orbital period matches the rotational period.
If the rotational period is zero, then to be tidally locked, the orbital period must also be zero.
Oh wait, every time I look at the Moon, daytime or nighttime, it’s just hanging there, so it must not be moving, so its orbital period must be zero.
Oh snap!
I am not confused at all, bob. Downthread you go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1359200
Thag,
Now you are losing your grammar skills.
Better hold on to them, you have no science skills for backup.
Unless you want to be in a farside cartoon.
DREMT 9:45 am writes incorrectly: “Humorously, that’s not actually what Ball4 thinks.” since bob means ball inertially rotating on own axis no matter where viewed which is thus way beyond DREMT’s comprehension.
Obviously DREMT must have paranormal skills to write what Ball4 thinks. bob is accounting for the moons accelerated frame which is not in DREMT’s skill set.
Ball4, the basics of rotation will always be beyond you. Wrt an inertial reference frame, the ball on a string can be described as having only one axis of rotation, which does not go through the ball itself.
That’s wrong DREMT, as Madhavi shows & writes “rotation” in 2(b) (& not 2(a)) there are r and R radii thru the two axes of rotation of the rectangle illustrated in 2(b). 2(a) only one axis of cg rotation.
You’ve been told this for over 3 years by various more competent commenters – so we know past any doubt it’s way beyond DREMT’s comprehension; DREMT just doesn’t have the skill set to understand motion & relativity.
You are wrong, and I am right, Ball4. You can keep repeating yourself for the rest of your life, if you like, it will not make you correct. There are not two axes of rotation in Fig. 2(b). Not “wrt an inertial reference frame”, not “as observed from outside the orbit”, not under any circumstances. You are delusional.
Yep, such assertions are worthless; Madhavi illustrations are way past DREMT’s comprehension.
You are delusional.
“You are wrong, and I am right, Ball4.”
Oh, that’s the rule by which we are playing.
Napoleon is already taken, would you like Henry VIII, Joan of Arc, Stalin, or Caudillo Francisco Franco?
How about “Chart Master,” Bob?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
So, you should be wealthy by now, changing lead into gold.
Might be easier to change mercury or platinum to gold since they are right next door on the periodic table. I can see a similarity between platinum and gold but how does one explain the difference between mercury and gold.
Why is mercury a liquid? Hint: electrons and electron bonds.
I told you, electrons rule the universe. Without the little critters everything would fall apart and there would be no light.
Gordon —Changing the subject. You are no better than the Bufoons atIPCC. They claim because CO2 is increasing that is the cause of global warming. You state because co2 is so little it cant cause global warming. Neither provide any proof.
Here you go, Dennis:
https://www.ipcc.ch/
Most obliged.
Print out your IPCC nonsense and put it in your toilet in case you run out of TP.
Give me a mechanism according to which the Moon acts like a plane or a ball-on-string and I will see what I can do, Gordo.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I provided plenty of proof, Dennis. It’s called the Ideal Gas Law.
We can treat the atmosphere as a constant volume in a couple of ways but I won’t go into that to keep this brief. With nR and V constant, we have…
P = (nR/V)T
That makes P directly proportional to T or vice-versa. We kick in Dalton’s law of partial pressures which is part of the IGL. That means, in a mixed gas like the atmosphere the total pressure is the sum of the partial pressures.
We can see right away that CO2 at 0.04% does not account for any significant pressure in the atmosphere relative to nitrogen and oxygen. Since T is directly proportional to P it means CO2 cannot warm the atmosphere any more than its mass percent, which is itself proportional to the partial pressure at about 0.04%.
The nonsense about a trace gas like CO2 absorbing about 5% of surface radiation and transferring it’s tiny amount of heating from that 5% to N2 and O2 is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetuated in science.
Another point, heat transfer can only take place from hot to cold, by its own means. With N2/O2 gathering heat via conduction directly from the surface, why should CO2 being heated by radiation from the same surface, at the same temperature, be warmer than N2/O2?
Alarmist science is fabricated and perverted.
Gordon, IGL is an equation of energy state. IGL doesn’t inform on how the energy state changes. Your energy state change conclusions based on IGL are unfounded and obviously physically wrong.
Yet another red-herring argument from Ball4.
Gordon’s meaning is clear: Gordon has no evidence or physics to support his position.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
” I provided plenty of proof, Dennis. Its called the Ideal Gas Law. ”
This is the same kind of ‘proof’ as what Robertson misrepresents and distorts when talking about the lunar spin: RUBBISH.
Yet another red-herring argument from Ball4.
Yet another empty ad hom insult from Binny. The meaning is clear, he has no physics to rebut my argument.
As you know, if you continue to insult scientists whose results you dislike, with ‘cheating SOB’ or similar, or manipulate what e.g. Newton wrote, you will be the target of even more ad homs.
Stop whining, Robertson.
willard…”Another way of thinking about it is to consider how down changes as the aircraft travels. The weight of the aircraft always acts towards the centre of the earth, and is matched (in level flight) by the lift of the wings”.
***
Weight is the effect of gravity on the plane’s mass. The lift of the wings is dependent on the thrust of the motors. So, if you keep the thrust high enough to cause lift under the wings you will maintain altitude in a normalized atmosphere.
That keeps you flying in a straight line. However, the force attracting the plane toward the Earth follows the curvature of the Earth, which drops about 5 metres per 8000 metres of horizontal distance. It can only move the pane vertically downward about 9.8 metres every second but that has been countered by the lift on the wings.
Note that if you trim the air surfaces and the motor thrust to maintain altitude, the plane will very happily follow the surface at the same altitude right around the Earth. Down is always relative to gravity not the position on the Earth.
If the curvature of the Earth falls off as the plane tries to fly straight, gravity will bend its path naturally into a constant altitude, just as it does the Moon and satellites.
Remember, if you have trimmed the air surfaces and the motors to maintain a constant altitude, that altitude will be maintained as the Earth curves. An altimeter doesn’t care if the Earth curves.
Come on, Gordo.
If planes travel in a straight line, so does the ball-on-string.
One point where your favorite analogy breaks down is that the Moon does not fly though an atmosphere. It has no wings. So there is still no mechanism in your story to make the Moon behaves like a plane or a ball-on-string.
Think about one.
Witless Willard,
You obviously have no clue why Sir Isaac Newton’s hypothetical cannonball had to be fired at an altitude at which there was no atmosphere!
By the way, “straight line” may not mean what you think it means.
Think about it, if you can muster sufficient neurons at one time.
Give it a try. How hard can it be?
Mike Flynn,
You obviously have nothing to say.
Cheers.
Wonky Willy,
So you say, dummy, so you say.
You really have no idea, do you.
Right here, Mike:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1358347
Geez, Witless Willy,
You never stop trying with the pointless exercise of providing pointless links, do you? How would I know it’s pointless? Think about it!
Wriggle away all you like.
Still convinced that gravity doesn’t operate in the absence of an atmosphere?
Donkey.
Mike,
Everything is there:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1358347
Enjoy!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Good to see we have here some experts on Aerodynamix
Did you not claim to be a pilot? How about chipping in?
Good idea, Gordo:
[GRAHAM] The well-known, often-discussed physical mechanism behind tidal locking is the explanation.
[PUP] “Tidal locking” is easily debunked. Gravity cannot produce a torque on Moon.
Which is your favorite version of the Moon Dragon crank credo?
Subject-changers will be subject-changers.
How love in silence becomes Graham’s reprimand.
Subject-changers will be subject-changers.
Graham still does not get why Gordo’s distraction about the “airliner” was to evade Bob’s question:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1351437
But then we all know that Graham would rather spend another 71 months trolling about the true meaning of rotation instead of doing some physics.
#2
Subject-changers will be subject-changers.
“Weight is the effect of gravity on the plane’s mass.”
At least Gordo tries.
Worthless willy, in your own words, how does gravity torque Moon?
You can’t answer because you don’t even understand your own cult’s nonsense.
how does gravity torque Moon?
Moon has Grail measured mascons.
Willard…”How come the Moon moves in an ellipse, if it has constant linear velocity?”
***
Even though I have explained this in detail in the past, Willard is still confused.
A vector must have magnitude and direction. Therefore, a velocity vector representing the Moon on a curved orbit must have magnitude and direction. At any instant, the velocity vector has both, but the next instant the direction has changed a smidgen. It changes because Earth’s gravitational field bends it toward the Earth.
However, at any one instant, the velocity of the Moon has constant magnitude. Ergo, at any point on the orbital path, the Moon has constant velocity but a different direction.
It is that change in orientation/direction of the velocity vector that spinners are mistaking for rotation about a local axis.
willard…”[GR]Weight is the effect of gravity on the planes mass.
At least Gordo tries”.
***
Willard still seems confused. If you stand on a bathroom scale it indicates your weight, not your mass. The number on the scale represents the force your mass is exerting on the scale platform due to gravitational force.
Take the same scale into space and stand on it. It will show your weight as 0 lbs or kilograms. You are then weightless, even though you have the same mass.
Mass is the amount of matter in a container. Nothing to do with weight till a force acts on it.
> is confused
The confusion is all yours, Gordo.
I quoted you to Graham, to show him that you at least try to provide an explanation of why the Moon does not spin in terms not only of geometry but of physics.
I offered no opinion on your quote.
Read properly. Then think.
Mike Flynn,
Cheers.
Little Willy is very unhappy with what I’m discussing on the moon issue. He clearly wants me to start talking about other aspects of it. What, exactly, is unclear. It seems to be the case that Gordon’s comments represent the sort of thing he wants me to talk about. However, from his responses to Gordon over the past few months, we can see that he has no interest in responding substantively to anything Gordon has to say. It’s always just cheap, quick, easy, snide remarks from Little Willy. So what, exactly, would be the point in me making Gordon-like comments? Little Willy offers no incentive to change the topic of discussion onto whatever it is he wants to hear.
Meanwhile, those “Spinners” that still cannot accept that the ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own axis (as observed from outside the orbit) continue to disrupt progress. Little Willy could help with that, but he has no interest in doing anything positive or constructive.
I note Gordon is still evading the question.
Or he is incorrectly maintaining that the Moon has a constant speed as it orbits the Earth.
As it moves in an ellipse, it does speed up and slow down in accordance with Kepler’s laws as it sweeps out equal areas in equal times.
The Moon’s speed is faster when closer to Earth and slower when farther away.
Meanwhile, Graham will not try to settle his disagreement with Pup regarding spin-orbit lock, and he will not try to get Gordo back on his team regarding curvilinear translation.
Until then, etc.
Considering everything “Non-Spinners” have been subjected to over the last few years, it’s unreasonable to expect them to settle their differences before the “Spinners” do. Besides, I have at least spoken to Gordon about the curvilinear translation thing, and I once briefly questioned Clint R on tidal locking. You’ve done nothing, Little Willy.
The Moon Dragon cranks are three guys.
Graham holds that tidal-spin lock explains why the Moon does not spin. Pup rejects that explanation as nonsense.
Graham holds that the motion of the Moon can be described using a single, pure rotation. Gordo rejects that description and says the Moon moves in a straight line, i.e. it is a curvilinear translation.
For 72 months they have been trolling this site, and they can’t get the basics of their story straight.
First sentence is false. Second sentence is misleading; I hold that the tidal locking physical mechanism explains why the moon’s rotation slowed from whatever it was previously, until it stopped rotating on its own axis completely. This is actually only a minor point in the overall debate. Third sentence is partly false, Gordon does not think the moon travels in a straight line. It’s also partly misleading – both I and all "Non-Spinners" hold that the moon can be described as making one single motion – "orbiting". I use "rotation about an external axis" purely because it gets the idea across easier, in my opinion, than Gordon’s route. As a result of all the above, your fourth sentence is false.
Plus, of course, your entire comment is just a distraction from your refusal to cooperate in any positive or constructive way. You are just a lazy, pathetic, tedious, worthless troll, and this site would be a better place without you.
The first sentence is correct, the second sentence is accurate, and the third sentence is true.
Graham’s claim that the spin-orbit lock is only a “minor point” is more than false. Unless and until they provide a physical explanation as to how the Moon “stopped,” Moon Dragon cranks only power through word games.
For now he could try to convince Pup that the Moon stopped. As the captain of Team Moon Dragon, it is the least he could do.
"The first sentence is correct, the second sentence is accurate, and the third sentence is true."
Incorrect.
"Unless and until they provide a physical explanation as to how the Moon “stopped,” Moon Dragon cranks only power through word games."
The physical explanation is the tidal locking mechanism, Little Willy. Why are you so stupid? Think of the tidal locking mechanism as a "brake" on the moon’s axial rotation. If we accept that the moon was rotating on its own axis, at one point in time, that "braking", over a very long period, slowed the moon’s axial rotation until it stopped. The consensus viewpoint is that the moon’s axial rotation was "locked" at a rate of once per orbit…but, seen from the "Non-Spinner" perspective, "once per orbit" is zero times per orbit.
“Think of the tidal locking mechanism as a “brake” on the moon’s axial rotation.”
You’re the one who’s too damn dumb to realize that this “break” does not bring the Moon’s spin to a halt, Graham. The spin-orbit locking is not unlike an “American stop”:
https://youtu.be/2Z02LkRWsK0
Heck, you still cannot write “Moon” properly.
And you’re still trying to evade the fact that Pup rejects the idea that the Moon ever spun.
According to the consensus viewpoint, it brings the rotation rate down to a rate of once per orbit (or, up to a rate of once per orbit). So, from the "Non-Spinner" viewpoint, it brings the rotation rate down to a rate of zero times per orbit (or, up to a rate of zero times per orbit – a negative rate of spin being spin that is in the opposite direction to the direction of the orbital motion).
> So,
There’s no real inference there, Graham.
That spin-orbit locking brings the rotation rate down of the Moon to a rate of once per orbit makes physical sense.
That spin-orbit locking would bring the Moon spin to a halt makes no physical sense whatsoever.
Moon Dragon cranks owe the world more than a verbal defense as to what amounts a complete revision of the laws of physics.
It actually makes more physical sense that a “braking” mechanism would act to reduce spin rate to zero. For instance, brakes on your car cause your car to come to a stop, not to continue forwards at a set, exact speed.
You skipped over that bit, Graham:
Yeah, I watched the video. Do not understand your point, if you indeed have one. Elaborate, in your own words.
Of course Graham plays dumb:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=American%20stop
No, still have no idea what your point is.
Of course Graham still plays dumb:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
No work and all trolling makes Moon Dragon Cranks dull boyz.
Complete the following sentence, in your own words:
“Tidal locking is like an “American Stop”, because…”
When you will go beyond paraphrasing improperly a Wiki page you barely understand, Graham, you might have better chances to boss people around. Meanwhile, have another cookie:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.10833.pdf
If only you showed any interest in a physical phenomenon over which you spent 72 months of trolling.
“The latter are configurations in which the period of the orbital motion of the Moon around the Earth and the period of the rotation of the Moon around its axis (supposed for simplicity to be perpendicular to the plane of the Moons orbit) are equal…”
…which, from the “Non-Spinner” perspective, means an axial rotation rate of nil per orbit.
You could not explain your point. Oh well.
Worthless willy found another link he can’t understand.
The first sentence after Eq 1 begins: “The orbital angular velocities of the two bodies…”. The sentence does on to identify the nomenclature (symbols used). Yet, look at the Fig. 1. The same nomenclature is used for the angles, which are opposite congruent, but labeled as different values!
How many mistakes is that? Like the idiots here, they must believe if they make enough mistakes, it will turn out right!
Worthless willy has no clue about ANY of this. He just finds things he can’t understand and throws them against the wall. He reminds me so much of Norma, I should start calling hims “Norma2”.
And so once again Graham demonstrates that all he cares about is the meaning of words. When was the last time he discussed an equation? Here is one time where Pup ran away and Graham did not come to remind him of his fiduciary duty as Graham’s equation understander:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-749281
More than one year ago. Times fly, even if no work and all fun makes Dragon Cranks rather dull.
> The same nomenclature is used for the angles, which are opposite congruent, but labeled as different values!
BREAKING – Area Crank Discovers that Two Variables Can Haz the Same Value
Very Scientific comment, Pup!
Perhaps you could finally answer Tim’s puzzle:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/can-space-com-teach-us-anything-useful-about-climate/#comment-333425
You had almost four years to study it.
Yes, that was a fun exchange with Folkerts. His attempts to pervert physics are always a hoot.
The comments following get even better, starting here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-749299
#3
Subject-changers will be subject-changers.
All fun and no work from Graham makes him a dull Dragon Crank:
[GRAHAM] What you are forgetting is that we do not need a torque about the ball’s internal axis for the cannonball to move as per the “moon on the left”. All we need is a torque about the external axis. Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the moon on the left. So your point about the attachment point of the string on the tetherball falls flat on its face.
[TIM] What you are forgetting is that your explanation is wrong. You can’t see it because you lack any deep understanding of physics. But you simply are wrong. [Y]our appeal to your own authority for answers does not carry any weight.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-897033
That was eleven months ago.
I almost forgot how he misunderstood what is an appeal to authority.
I’m not embarrassed for putting an idea forward. If it was wrong, it was wrong. It’s not necessarily wrong just because Tim says so, however. Tim did acknowledge that there would be a torque about the external axis, from the force of the cannon. He just said it would not lead to rotation about the external axis. Seems odd given that the cannonball does follow a circular path around the external axis.
Any other random subject changes you would like to bring up out of nowhere, to cover for the collapse of your own argument?
Norma2, you linked to the wrong sub-thread.
But, I enjoyed Nate exhibiting that he didn’t know what torque was. That was another discussion I missed. Good to see it.
Had you read the thread I linked to to the end, Pup. Had you read.
Considering that Graham kept trolling this website for 72 months with Dragon Crank crap, I think Roy’s readers realize that he’s never really embarassed by anything.
Here’s something more sciencey for a change of pace:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9603135.pdf
I show this example for two reasons.
First, “the Moon should not rotate” is not the same claim as “the Moon does not rotate” and I told Graham that the object lesson of this thread was modalities.
Second, the argument does not involve any appeal to the concept of geometry as defined in some random online handbook.
I’m sure Graham would need a hand to read that paper. Perhaps Pup could help. If only Pup read.
"Any other random subject changes you would like to bring up out of nowhere, to cover for the collapse of your own argument?"
Apparently, yes! Little Willy is unbelievably transparent in his trolling.
I note that Graham is still evading Bob’s point:
Yet he still contends not only that the Moon has stopped from spinning, but that spin-orbit locking only slows down the Moon. Both claims which, even if incorrect, go against Pup’s rejection of the very idea of a spin-orbit lock.
Too much fun and not enough work makes Graham a dull troll.
bob’s point doesn’t even relate to tidal locking.
“Graham still does not get why Gordo’s distraction about the “airliner” was to evade Bob’s question.”
Other people’s discussions are not my responsibility, Little Willy.
Goalposts movers will goalposts-move:
[GRAHAM] The well-known, often-discussed physical mechanism behind tidal locking is the explanation.
[ALSO GRAHAM] If we accept tidal locking theory as being correct, for the sake of argument
Do you have any mode besides “attack”, Little Willy?
I accept tidal locking theory. My “for the sake of argument” was for Clint R’s benefit, since I know that he doesn’t. There is really no shifting of goalposts.
Subject-changers will subject-change.
Yes, you do.
No U
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
[GRAHAM] The well-known, often-discussed physical mechanism behind tidal locking is the explanation.
[PUP] “Tidal locking” is easily debunked. Gravity cannot produce a torque on Moon.
Bored, are we?
No rush, Graham.
One day you’ll tell us if gravity can or cannot “produce a torque on Moon,” as Pup puts it.
It’s the reason you’re in that sub-thread, no?
bob d …”I note Gordon is still evading the question.
Or he is incorrectly maintaining that the Moon has a constant speed as it orbits the Earth”.
***
replied August 31, 2022 at 10:41 PM
WillardHow come the Moon moves in an ellipse, if it has constant linear velocity?
***
Even though I have explained this in detail in the past, Willard is still confused.
A vector must have magnitude and direction. Therefore, a velocity vector representing the Moon on a curved orbit must have magnitude and direction. At any instant, the velocity vector has both, but the next instant the direction has changed a smidgen. It changes because Earths gravitational field bends it toward the Earth.
However, at any one instant, the velocity of the Moon has constant magnitude. Ergo, at any point on the orbital path, the Moon has constant velocity but a different direction.
It is that change in orientation/direction of the velocity vector that spinners are mistaking for rotation about a local axis.
> At any instant, the velocity vector has both, but the next instant the direction has changed a smidgen.
C’mon, Gordo. We all know that the velocity vector is a tangent to the path of motion. Check figure 1:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_motion#Uniform_circular_motion
Bob’s question is related to the angular rate, which can only be constant in a circle.
“No rush, Graham.
One day you’ll tell us if gravity can or cannot “produce a torque on Moon,” as Pup puts it.”
I already said I accept tidal locking theory. So you should know the answer to that question already, if you understand tidal locking theory. God, you are thick.
No, Graham. I do not know the answer already. Perhaps you should spell it out.
Who do you think you are kidding but yourself here?
In return, you could try to spin the spin-orbit lock theory the Moon Drsgon crank way once again, and say how it is all a matter of perspective.
Looks like we will have to add Henry Cavendish to the list of scientists being thrown under the bus by our lovely crew of posters who never passed a high school science course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
Yes Virginia, gravity can produce torque.
The idea of tidal locking theory is that gravity can produce a small torque on the moon, acting over geological timescales, due to the formation of “tidal bulges” on the moon which act like “handles” that Earth’s gravity can act on.
Yes, Graham. That’s the usual perspective. At least if you replace a “can” with a “does.”
(Remember, kids – the theme of this thread is MODALITIES!)
Is that the Moon Dragon crank perspective too? If it is not, you still have to clarify which perspective you accept. If you accept both, you still have to say how you manage the incompatibility.
It is as if you did not realize that I knew your tricks.
Now Little Willy pretends he understood all along! Hilarious.
Every time you respond that way you warrant me to pay due diligence to what you say, and more importantly in this case what you don’t, Graham.
And then you complain that you are the victim here.
Lol.
Search for “perspective” on this page, punk.
Let me explain it to you at a level you might be able to understand, Little Willy. I will do the same for bob soon, too, as he will no doubt continue to be confused:
1) Tidal locking mechanism make moon move like MOTL.
2) "Spinner" think MOTL rotate on own axis once per orbit.
3) "Non-Spinner" think MOTL not rotate on own axis.
4) So "Spinner" think tidal locking make moon rotate on own axis once per orbit.
5) "Non-Spinner" think tidal locking make moon not rotate on own axis.
On a separate, but related matter:
1) Some "Non-Spinner" think tidal locking mechanism not work.
2) Some "Non-Spinner" think tidal locking mechanism do work.
3) First "Non-Spinner" think moon always move like MOTL.
4) Second "Non-Spinner" think moon move different to MOTL in past, then over time settle at moving like MOTL, because tidal locking mechanism change moon over time.
Graham,
Allow me to clarify my request:
I want physics, not geometry.
Physics involves concepts like angular momentum and torque, and equations,
At least Gordo tries.
When will you?
Physics is here:
1) Tidal locking mechanism make moon move like MOTL.
It is the same physics for either “Spinners” or “Non-Spinners”.
You emphasized the incorrect bit, Graham:
Tidal locking mechanism make moon move like MOTL.
That part *should* contain physics.
As it is, it does not.
You need to take some time, stop responding to me, and go and learn about tidal locking, Little Willy. Then you will understand why the tidal locking mechanism results in the moon moving like the MOTL.
Dear Graham,
“Make move like” is not exactly a physical predicate.
Try again, this time with more feeling.
No need to try again, I succeeded a long time ago.
Only if by succeeding you mean turning physics into geometry, Graham.
A matter of perspective, or viewpoint if you prefer.
No, the tidal locking mechanism definitely involves physics. Sorry.
I thought you were talking about a rectangle, Graham.
Please advise.
I advise you to please stop trolling.
In return, dear Graham, I advise that you clarify “make Moon move like” in terms of physics, not just geometry.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon
Thank you! I do appreciate your response. My science training is a long time ago so will take the time to understand what you have provided. If the case you present is so water tight why is it not accepted by all those monkey see monkey do scientists
dennis
” If the case you present is so water tight why is it not accepted by all those monkey see monkey do scientists ” ?
Good question.
I think you’re the kind of person who takes a longer time to sort the wheat from the chaff, which is why they end up being the best at it.
dennis…”If the case you present is so water tight why is it not accepted by all those monkey see monkey do scientists…”
***
The problem seems to have emanated from climate modelers who are programming their models with bad science. Not only that, they are using only radiative transfer because model differential equations are much better suited to radiation analysis. Therefore the focus has been on radiation rather than conduction and convection wrt heat transfer.
Radiation is not a good means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures yet these models and the theory make it appear as if heat dissipation via radiative emission is the only heat dissipation occurring. In residential homes, until recently, heat loss due to radiation was completely ignored since it is insignificant. The R-rated insulation used in walls and ceilings is strictly for heat loss via conduction, which is by far the greatest means of heat lost.
R. W. Wood circa 1909 who was an expert in gas technology, including CO2, said he did not think CO2 could warm the atmosphere as claimed. He thought a better explanation was the majority gases N2/O2, gathering heat at the surface via conduction then convection carrying the heat vertically, Because N2/O2 cannot radiate the heat away. The heat will dissipate naturally, however, with altitude.
That fits better with the Ideal gas law where the majority gases, N2/O2, comprising 99% of the atmosphere, account for most of the heating.
If radiation was the end all and be all, when the Earth rotated away from the Sun, all surface heat would be radiated to space. That does not happen therefore some other mechanisms are storing heat and maintaining the Earth’s average temperature at about 15C.
During winter in the northernmost and southernmost parts of the hemispheres, heat is lost rapidly when the Sun no longer shines. In the most extreme locales of the hemispheres during winter, there is no sunlight and everything freezes. However, the Tropics are still receiving full solar energy and they heat the atmosphere and the oceans in the Tropics. That heat is spread poleward by ocean and atmospheric currents, according to Lindzen.
Where I live near Vancouver, Canada, our winter temperatures are mitigated by warm oceans currents from the more tropical regions. Same with western Europe. You won’t see any of that in unvalidated climate models that are entirely focused on heat dissipation via radiation.
What you will see is a fantasy warmig factor for CO2 of 9% to 25%, numbers drawn from a hat. You will also see an imaginary positive feedback in which GHGs magically warm the surface, a constadiction of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Gordon
Feeling pretty comfortable with your proof. How do you explain the 5% difference between input from space and output to space. What role would water vapor and clouds have?
Dennis…I’m not trying to go into the effect of clouds, I am looking at general principles. Water vapour is also a trace gas, accounting for 0.3% of the overall atmosphere. In the Tropics it is claimed to be around 4 or 5 % but N2/O2 is still 90%. When air is heated in the Tropics by the much hotter surface, the higher content of WV is likely a factor. I really don’t think it is nearly as important a factor as AGW alarmists claim.
I think clouds are very important but I have little or no understanding of how they work.
Don’t know where you get the 5% in 5% out from.
I am not trying to present an all-encompassing explanation for an energy budget. My basic interest is blowing holes in bad scientific theories and offering a simplistic alternative. As John Christy of UAH has explained, the atmosphere is far too complex to explain.
I am leaning toward a theory that the Sun has been heating the planet for several billion years. At the same time the hot inner core, which is as hot as the Sun’s surface, has been transferring heat to the surface. Whereas the warming effect is low compared to other heating sources, over a few billion years it has obviously been significantly warming the oceans.
We no longer have a situation where the Sun needs to heat the surface each day to a significant degree because the planet has retained past heating from the Sun. So, we are looking at a maintenance level of heat input and that is a far different case than a home with the furnace turned off in the Canadian prairies at -20C in winter and having to warm when the furnace is turned on.
Basically, some of the surface heating by the Sun these days is dissipated within the atmosphere as heated surface air rises. The IGL again. P is directly proportional to T, as P decreases with altitude, so does T. That is a natural dissipation, no need for it to be compensated by radiation to space.
This is not a contradiction of the conservation of energy. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and in this case of the molecules in air. Gravity packs the molecules closer together at the surface and that closeness leads to an increase in heat. T is proportional to P. As P is reduced with altitude, the molecules move farther apart and heat is reduced/dissipated naturally.
Of course, if that was the only mechanism, it would make no sense re energy in – energy out. Obviously, if energy is injected into the system energy must leave. The argument is over when and how much?
Trenberth/Kiehl tried to balance the energy budget using a very simplistic model. To balance it, they had to have as much energy being back-radiated by GHGs as what was leaving. They seemed oblivious to the fact that energy radiated from a cooler atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the surface.
In other words, like other alarmists, they confused electromagnetic energy with heat. They balanced EM energies while ignoring heat.
I don’t pretend to understand the complexity of heat transfer in the atmosphere between the oceans, solid surfaces, and the atmosphere. Alarmists do pretend and that’s all it is, a pretension.
“They seemed oblivious to the fact that energy radiated from a cooler atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the surface.”
That’s not a fact Gordon, that’s a wrong assertion since the earthen L&O natural surface is a measured as very near black body. Dr. Spencer has even posted experiments proving Gordon is wrong.
Ball4 you idiot,
Dr Spencer has not posted experiments proving that radiation from a colder atmosphere can result in a rise in temperature of a hotter object.
Your wishful thinking is not related to reality.
You might have noticed that the surface cools at night – or even during a solar eclipse!
You might even be aware that the surface has cooled from its initial molten state – regardless of how much atmosphere existed, or its composition!
You are obviously as delusional as the likes of Sagan, Hansen, Schmidt and Mann – to name a few people whose fantasies have been adopted as fact by otherwise rational people.
Ahhh … but the gaseous atm. has warmed in modern times, Mike.
Also to cure some of Swenson’s & Mike’s long held befuddlement, see Dr. Spencer’s posted experiments for some needed learning in: Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still
Ball4 – master of misdirection and stupidity!
The atmosphere gets hotter during the day, and cools during the night. All gases get hotter when exposed to direct sunlight, and cool when the heat source is withdrawn. I’m surprised you didn’t know this.
You also wrote –
“Also to cure some of Swensons & Mikes long held befuddlement, see Dr. Spencers posted experiments for some needed learning in: Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still.”
You fool. Capitalising your word salad won’t convince anybody that you are not, in fact, confused.
In fact, the existence of the Earth’s atmosphere prevents around 35% of the Sun’s radiation from even reaching the surface! You might notice that nowhere does Dr Spencer claim that reducing the amount of energy reaching a body causes that body’s temperature to rise!
That bizarre conclusion is left to climate crackpots of your ilk.
Carry on fantasising.
Thanks for admitting the surface atm. really has warmed “gets hotter” contradicting your previous assertion of just “cooled”.
Thanks also for admitting the gaseous atm. absorbs radiation. Try to work with new found knowledge to understand how radiation from a colder atmosphere can result in a rise in temperature of a hotter object as Dr. Spencer experimentally proved.
Ball4 you nincompoop,
Learn to read. What gets hotter during the day, cools at night.
Your bizarre blathering about a colder atmosphere resulting in the rise of temperature of a hotter object is just the result of your deranged mind.
If you really believe that Dr Spencer said such a thing, you would quote him, but alas, you can’t, can you?
Oh dear, you really are a ninny, aren’t you?
I did quote Dr. Spencer. Just another bad day for Mike contradicting himself then missing an obvious quote.
At the time, I pointed out that Roy’s cooler body was interfering with the rate of heat dissipation in the hotter body.
I don’t recall what Roy said and I won’t get into a discussion trying to question what he said. However, Newton’s law of cooling makes it clear that a cooler environment can affect the rate of heat dissipation in a body. That could be interpreted by some as warming, even though its not. It’s the same argument as putting on a sweater causing your body temperature to rise.
The problem with that argument is obvious. The body produces it own energy internally and that energy is largely heat. If the surrounding air is cooler, the body will lose heat faster. Putting on a sweater interferes with that heat loss allowing the body to warm internally due to a lowered heat dissipation. The inert sweater has no means of raising body temperature.
Swannie inferred that in his experiment with the BP/GP. When his GP interfered with radiation from the BP, the temperature of the BP rose. That was not the lower temperature GP warming the hotter BP, it was the BP rising toward a natural temperature it would have had if all it’s radiation in a vacuum had been blocked.
” Basically, some of the surface heating by the Sun these days is dissipated within the atmosphere as heated surface air rises. The IGL again. P is directly proportional to T, as P decreases with altitude, so does T. That is a natural dissipation, no need for it to be compensated by radiation to space. ”
Robertson is not only in permanent denial of any evidence concerning viruses, lunar spin, Einstein, GPS, Earth/space energy balance, weather stations vs. lower troposphere, etc etc etc.
He is also one of these who never and never accept any contradiction, and hence always comes back with the same utter idiocies.
*
How is it possible to persistently distort the fact that Earth is in space a completely isolated system, that must give back to space ALL energy it obtains from space, i.e. from the Sun?
Is it not absolutely evident that regardless how much heat ‘dissipates’ within the local Earth system, all heat generated from outside by solar radiation MUST BE GIVEN BACK to outside in form of radiation, otherwise the planet becomes inhabitable?
*
How can people on this blog be so gullible as to swallow Robertson’s nonsense like it’s some kind of God-given truth?
> etc etc etc
A complete list might be nice, if only for Dennis’ sake.
Please do the job.
I’m already writing about his next lies concerning R.G. Wood :- )
Binny,
You wrote –
“How is it possible to persistently distort the fact that Earth is in space a completely isolated system, that must give back to space ALL energy it obtains from space, i.e. from the Sun?”
I agree – with the additional information that the Earth radiates a little of its primordial heat as well.
No Greenhouse Effect. The Earth has cooled since its creation, and will continue to do so. Any man made heat is ephemeral, and vanishes to space.
Climate cultists have some bizarre notion that heat can somehow be accumulated in a body, resulting in a rise in temperature, without the associated cooling which must inevitably take place when the heat source is removed.
An example is the cooling of the surface at night, in the absence of sunlight, when climate nutters claim that recorded temperatures should really be other than what they are!
At least you now accept that Baron Fourier was right, in saying that the Earth returns to space all the heat it received during the day, plus a little of that remaining from its creation. Of course, neither Baron Fourier nor such luminaries as Lord Kelvin were aware of radiogenic heating, so their calculations of the age of the Earth, based on measured cooling rates, were, to say the least, a little wide of the mark.
… as are Swenson’s atm. radiation comments.
Ball4,
Try naming someone who believes you . . .
Oh dear,
” At least you now accept that Baron Fourier was right, in saying that the Earth returns to space all the heat it received during the day, plus a little of that remaining from its creation. ”
Me, accepting your nonsensical blah blah?
What’s the matter with you, Flynnson?
Binny,
Don’t blame me if you don’t accept the truth as expressed by Baron Fourier. You might want to ignore the Fourier series, Fourier transforms, and Fourier’s law of conduction as being the ramblings of a deranged Frenchman, but it won’t change the fact that the surface of the Earth has indeed cooled, and all the surface which heats during the day, cools at night, carbon dioxide or no.
Feel free to address me as you wish. I suppose there might be someone out there who cares for your opinion. Your mother, perhaps?
You could always run blubbing to her, if nobody else seems to care.
Carry on.
Old FOurier may have been good at math but he sure sucked at thermodynamics.
In the days of Fourier, nothing was known about electromagnetic energy, in fact, very little was known about heat. In the days of Fourier, they thought heat was a substance called caloric.
Going back to the beginning, if all solar energy was immediately returned to space, the Earth would never have warmed. There is obviously more solar energy stored in the oceans, the surface, etc. than what is returned at any one instant.
Besides all that, most solar energy by far is received in the Tropics. As Lindzen has pointed out, the heat created rises in the atmosphere and is distributed poleward. However, heat in the oceans is also distributed poleward. There is no reason to radiate it away in real time unless there is a temperature differential between the atmosphere and the surface.
“That is a natural dissipation, no need for it to be compensated by radiation to space.
***
I am referring only to air heated at the surface that rises to higher altitudes. As it rises, its pressure drops naturally hence its temperature drops naturally.
Air is 99% nitrogen and oxygen, and according to common knowledge neither can radiate away heat. However, heat in air or any gas can be dissipated naturally in a constant volume system by reducing pressure. No radiation required. he atmosphere has a natural negative pressure gradient built in.
I am not suggesting in any way that radiation to space is not a function of cooling, I simply think the entire process of heating/cooling is far more complex than the simple heat budget and GHE/AGW theories.
Heating/cooling on Earth is a dynamic process that has being going on for several billion years. As Swenson has pointed out numerous times, internal heating must surely be involved in the long term.
bob d …”Do you not understand how the Earth exerts a torque on the Moon.
Perhaps we could start with Newtons law of universal gravitation”.
***
In Principia, Newton II is preceded by words to the effect…’If a force can move a mass…’.
However, if equal forces are applied to both side of the Moon, how can a torque be created? That like you using a torque on a bolt of 25 ft-lbs and me pushing in the opposite direction on the torque wrench lever with the same force you apply. Nothing gets torqued.
> if equal forces are applied to both side of the Moon
Big if, Gordo:
https://earthsky.org/space/moons-bulge-reveals-its-slow-retreat-from-earth/
Gullible Wee Willy.
Don’t you even read what you link to?
“Scientists have theorized that the moon, born hot, rotated fast after its formation and possessed an equatorial bulge much greater in size than it does today.”
Slightly contradictory, wouldn’t you say?
You are an idiot. Every particle of the Moon is falling towards the Earth at exactly the same rate – otherwise the Moon would have torn itself apart long ago!
Here – take a sphere, mount it any way you like, on any axis you choose, using the finest friction free unobtainium bearings. Now try to make it spin, using gravity.
Dimwitted doesn’t even come close to describing your mental acuity.
Feel free to respond by complaining about Mike Flynn.
I thought you said you did not click on links, Mike.
Also, you forgot to spell out the contradiction.
“Here take a sphere, mount it any way you like, on any axis you choose, using the finest friction free unobtainium bearings. Now try to make it spin, using gravity.”
That’s a simple high school physics experiment.
Been there done that, got a B.
Gordon, it is good form to always apply a counter torque when using a torque wrench to tighten a bolt.
Obviously, you have never used a torque wrench.
Gordon,
Obviously you just made a very funny statement.
willard is a glutton for punishment…a true masochist.
“Bobs question is related to the angular rate, which can only be constant in a circle”.
***
Angular rate, as you incorrectly call it, is the rate at which a radial line rotates through 360 degrees. The radial line is perpendicular to the velocity vector of a body moving along a circular path.
At any rate (no pun intended), if the radial line is rotating about 0,0 at a constant rate, it is called angular SPEED although velocity is often used. The radial line in this case has no direction and is simply a scalar quantity. It is the distance covered divided by the time taken to cover that distance. If the radial line changes velocity, it now has an angular acceleration.
It is important to distinguish between the radial velocity of a radial line and the instantaneous velocity of a point rotating on a circle. The point rotating along a circular path is a vector quantity, it has magnitude and direction.
This is where confusion arises with spinners. They claim the outside face of the Moon is moving faster than the inside face, which is true. However, the Moon being a rigid body, requires that all points along a radial line complete an orbit in the same time. That’s why the radial speed is used and not the individual tangential velocities of points on the Moon.
There is no such thing as a general velocity vector for a body following a curved path. The vector must be an instantaneous quantity because its direction changes instant by instant.
This is the egregious error committed by you spinners. You have mistaken the constantly changing direction of the Moon’s velocity vector for rotation about the Moon’s local axis. The velocity vector does rotate through 360 degrees wrt the stars but it is not rotating about the Moon’s local axis.
Meantime, a radial line tracking the motion of the Moon is measured in radians/second. Its speed can change during an orbital period but the Moon’s linear velocity cannot change because that would require the application of a force in the direction of the velocity vector.
Come on, Gordo.
> the orbital angular velocity is the rate of change of angle with respect to time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity
Besides, you might need to return to basics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CBBVGRpQLw
thanks for this detailed article , i just have simple question , does amazon really accept paypal as method of payment ? i tried mant times to pay by paypal but i faild , my friend told me he paid by using paypal , i am really confused
thanks for this detailed article , i just have simple question , does amazon really accept paypal as method of payment ? i tried mant times to pay by paypal but i faild , my friend told me he paid by using paypal , i am really confused
speak for you.
comprare patente di Guida
It’s an amazing and helpful source of information. I’m glad you shared this useful info with us. go here