Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January 2023 was -0.04 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is down from the December 2022 anomaly of +0.05 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 13 months are:
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2022 | Jan | +0.03 | +0.06 | -0.00 | -0.23 | -0.13 | +0.68 | +0.10 |
| 2022 | Feb | -0.00 | +0.01 | -0.01 | -0.24 | -0.04 | -0.30 | -0.50 |
| 2022 | Mar | +0.15 | +0.27 | +0.03 | -0.07 | +0.22 | +0.74 | +0.02 |
| 2022 | Apr | +0.26 | +0.35 | +0.18 | -0.04 | -0.26 | +0.45 | +0.61 |
| 2022 | May | +0.17 | +0.25 | +0.10 | +0.01 | +0.59 | +0.23 | +0.20 |
| 2022 | Jun | +0.06 | +0.08 | +0.05 | -0.36 | +0.46 | +0.33 | +0.11 |
| 2022 | Jul | +0.36 | +0.37 | +0.35 | +0.13 | +0.84 | +0.55 | +0.65 |
| 2022 | Aug | +0.28 | +0.31 | +0.24 | -0.03 | +0.60 | +0.50 | -0.00 |
| 2022 | Sep | +0.24 | +0.43 | +0.06 | +0.03 | +0.88 | +0.69 | -0.28 |
| 2022 | Oct | +0.32 | +0.43 | +0.21 | +0.04 | +0.16 | +0.93 | +0.04 |
| 2022 | Nov | +0.17 | +0.21 | +0.13 | -0.16 | -0.51 | +0.51 | -0.56 |
| 2022 | Dec | +0.05 | +0.13 | -0.03 | -0.35 | -0.21 | +0.80 | -0.38 |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.14 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for January, 2023 should be available within the next several days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Zero Point Zero
https://youtu.be/2V3CfD8TPac
It is -0.04 C on the 1991-2020 baseline, but +0.10 C on the old 1981-2010 baseline. You’re prediction from 2020 that the next dip would go below zero (on the 1981-2010 baseline) didn’t happen. It only went down to +0.07 C on 2021/04. It didn’t happen on the 2nd (+0.16 C on 2022/02) nor the current (+0.10 C as of 2023/01) dips either. We are looking for a -0.17 C anomaly for it to happen in 2023/02. Will the next update provide at least some redemption of your prediction?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2020-0-48-deg-c/#comment-454034
So, 28 years to go?
I think next month is fun enough.
But 30 years into the future, a lot could change and within
5 years might useful.
But in hundred years, not much going to happen. It will still in an Ice Age, and still too cold.
One reason to make ocean settlements could be so you live in the tropical ocean and it would like living in a tropical island paradise.
I think ocean settlements should have surfing beaches and freshwater lakes- otherwise, why do it?
There could be more practical reasons for it- such as suborbital spaceport.
BGDWX,
It hasn’t dipped yet, or step-changed, as I like to call it after (Murray Salby). It is still oscillating between about 0 and 0.5C. The last step-change occurred in 2013-14.
When will the dip happen?
Will THIS year contain an El Nino?
I don’t know.
When will the dip happen? The next step change might be up again. Only God knows.
I prefer up or stay here. I don’t want cold. People will die in cold, ask GB.
Hope is a poor way to try and predict the future.
Enjoy your sticky July down there, you’ll get more of it.
really! we are at the climate prediction level? i could have sworn we were still projecting. but i guess we gave up on doing that correctly so we leapt to the nostra damas prediction technique
Let the madness begin!!!!
Im a little surprised. I thought that it would a positive anomaly thanks to the atmospheric river, but it looks like La Nia is still in effect.
As noted in the last few reports, the extratropical warmth, especially in the NH, during this multi-year La Nia episode has been a remarkable feature that has kept the global average near or above zero since commencing in late 2020.
What happened to this warmth that he is referring to? Did it just go away? If you really want to understand whats causing global warming, you want to find out what it is.
What would the alarmists say if all the anomalies of 2023 were negative?
Hunga Tonga. Year without summer.
The preppers are ‘glass is empty’ mentality but they are not wrong.
I think the cooling influence from Hunga Tonga is going to be on the low side. It only released 0.5 MtSO2 into the atmosphere.
“I think the cooling influence from Hunga Tonga is going to be on the low side. It only released 0.5 MtSO2 into the atmosphere.”
Doesn’t matter, oceans carry the climate in the long run anyway.
Just the top tier of the ocean holds as much energy as the entire atmosphere.
The evidence says it does matter. Pinatubo released 20 MtSO2 and it cooled the planet several tenths of a degree C. Tambora released 100 MtSO2 and it caused “the year without a summer”.
Have you seen any documentation of the temperature effects of Tambora? I notice UCAR estimates it caused the earths average temperature to drop 3 degreesC but they don’t explicitly say if that was for a full year or for 3 months (the missing summer) and they don’t provide a reference to the statement.
I have a copy of Elizabeth & Henry Stommel’s book “Volcano Weather: The Story of 1816, the Year Without a Summer” which I bought decades ago. There are copies available on eBay. There are other works, such as the AMS published book, “Early American Winters, 1 & 2” which you might find in a university library somewhere.
Hmmm did you read it? If so the answer must not be in there.
“The evidence says it does matter.”
bdgwx –
I know, I don’t disagree – but it’s short-term. I was referring to long-term in my comment.
We will never find out.
All 2008 anomalies are negative. 2023 may be like 2008.
2008 was both a La Nina year and was close to center of the UAH anomaly baseline (nominally 2005) which is known to have a trend component of about 0.13 C/decade.
In 2023 the expectation value is about 0.20 C considering only the trend and the projection is a return to El Nino neutral conditions by summer.
If half the months of 2023 are below zero on the UAH anomaly data that would be surprising. All 12 months below zero seems really improbable absent a significant volcanic eruption.
About as middling January figure as it’s possible to get. Equal 20th warmest January out of 45.
Coldest January since 2012, and 5th coldest this century. (Before 2001, it would have been 3rd warmest.)
Monckton’s pause now starts in August 2014.
“Monckton’s pause now starts in August 2014.”
I do enjoy these updates.
Climate is really a long term thing. I would classify even the multi-dedadal oscillation we saw operating throughout the 20th century is more weather related and internal, with the exception of a mild correlation of the temperature dips with the solar cycle. The past 300 years is associated with an exceptional reduction in the solar activity once every approximate 100 years.
We also saw the end of the Maunder Minimum and the subsequent warming after that. . . .noting that the LIA didn’t end for a 150 years later as the ice caught up with the temperature.l Evidence of longterm feedback?
I don’t expect that cooling will occur in the next century on the basis of those observations. But an extended pause probably should be expected the question is more when did that pause occur. With the record solar cycles of the last half of the 20th century warming robustly occurred on the heels of a solar grand maximum that the effects of which might be felt, like the LIA for 100 maybe 150 years hence do to long term effects of changing ice cover that has been the hallmark of climate over the last 450,000 years.
All this agonizing data manipulations of he says this and she says that is definitely under lain with some climate change of natural and/or anthropogenic origins.
But we are making a mistake, IMO, trying to guess the outcome of the science over time and respond to real problems we face and we know the cause of like particulate pollution, water pollution, water policies, protection of biodiversity and wildlife habitat, while we work to build a better world. Top notch scientists tell us we have nothing to fear from CO2. The greening of the continents tell us that is so. It even helps a little water go further in feeding people. All the hand wringing about migrating populations isn’t a new worry. All one has to do is take a trip to the La Brea Tar Pits museum in Los Angeles and check out what lived here just a few thousand years ago when the ocean sea level was about 350 feet lower than today. But we have our panties all in a twist over 2 or 3 millimeters of annual sea level rise. At 3mm/year it would take 35,000 years to duplicate the sea level rise that occurred in the last 12,000 years. Saying sea level rise is well within the range of normal is mostly an understatement. If the rate rose to 10mm/year yeah that would be a concern. A meter of sea level rise in a 100 years. It wouldn’t be something to panic about but it certainly would merit efforts at mitigation.
Of course that took a 9C rise in temperatures to cause it to average around 9mm/year.
So can we say a degree temperature rise changes the rate of sea level change by 1mm/year? Yet we have been predicting for almost 50 years about a meter of sealevel rise in a 3rd of a century and have gotten over the same period of time (50 years) probably less than 1/10th of that.
Do we at some point call out science on that? What point would it take?
How is the Moncton pause calculated?
I’m pretty sure that it is done by working out the longest trend that has a flat or negative slope up to the most recent monthly anomaly.
Monckton used to swear by RSS. No surprises why – because it once had the lowest trend and could be relied on to provide the longest time period of flat or negative trend.
I am willing to bet $1000 that Monckton now swears by UAH, and employs these data now for his ‘analysis’, UAH now having the shallowest trend.
well from a natural warming perspective who knows how long. but you can bet the odds that there will be some flat period between the warming and cooling to allow for feedbacks to layout. but that doesn’t rule out sudden cooling following sudden warming. a pattern like enso nobody can figure out either.
“Top notch scientists tell us we have nothing to fear from CO2. ”
Let’s be honest. Its a relative handful of outliers who are doing so.
If you focus only on what contrarians say, and then DEFER to their expertise, while ignoring the expertise of all others, then you will confirm your biases.
Its a high proportion of the older more experienced scientists Nate. Young scientists have found brown nosing it leads to lots payola and publication with private yellow coffee table editions so they can further their careers while really coming up with nothing at all.
Fortunately there are tons of credible scientists working diligently on the issue without fanfare. Outliers hardly. thats just another lie you have bought into. No way can you establish your claim there. I realize you didn’t pull it out of your arse. You just pulled out of somebody elses.
“high proportion”
Hoo Haa Hee!
Seems to be a miswiring of the ‘hopes and dreams’ side of your brain over to the ‘facts’ side.
No career pressure on the older folks. . . .they have made their mark. Lindzen, Happer, Curry, Christy, Plimer, Akasofu, Michaels, Spencer, Idso, and Bengtsson to name a few.
So what fraction of total ‘older’ climate scientists is this handful that you can name?
Hint: its a teeny-tiny fraction.
In any case, its ageist and generally unwise to assume that only the older members of a scientific field know what they are talking about.
I wasn’t suggesting that Nate. I was referring to a difference that there is no question about. . . .less dependence AKA more independent.
An important virtue when so much money is flying around the heads of those still trying to make a go at a career.
“so much money”
C’mon, none of these guys are getting rich. They are merely funding their research. Most of the funding supports students. Even so, grad students are basically poor throughout their 20s.
The fact is that science is mostly done by people who like science, are very curious about the world, and are motivated by the idea of making a new discovery.
If they were primarily motivated by $$, they would choose a different field, or work in the corporate world.
i am not talking money. if getting rich is what was required by the people who have a lack of independence then corporations wouldn’t be a problem either. you don’t fear the generals you fear the private, corporals, and sergeants.
“i am not talking money.”
Oh, could fooled me?
“An important virtue when so much money is flying around”
i wasn’t talking about money in their pockets. but the money around them. money funding all their friends and their projects and doing ‘good’ for the ‘team’. that is the most common and pernicious lack of independence. do you suffer from that?
“i wasnt talking about money in their pockets.” but the money around them. money funding all their friends and their projects and doing good for the team. that is the most common and pernicious lack of independence. do you suffer from that?”
Again, as explained, science needs money to function.
The desire for funding, to keep the work going, to fund the team, as you say, pushes people to get results, be creative, and publish.
Consistent funding flows to the most productive scientists. Those who are most published, most cited.
This has been the model for funding US science for a long time.
There is no evidence that this approach produces bad science. You havent shown any.
Science has been very beneficial to the country, to the economy, to health, defense etc.
Just look at the fundamental biomedical science that was funded for years, and when COVID hit is was ready for prime time, to quickly produce new vaccines, and testing.
Most science is funded just find. It goes south though when politics are injected.
Then you need independence. It was found independence, not in research, but in science accepted for policy which is always an interpretation of research results. It why we constantly challenge you and you can’t bring the research forward that shows CO2 controls the climate. Anybody with any knowledge of physics knows that it is unknown if CO2 controls the climate. Thats why you can’t offer up anything that amounts to research that establishes CO2 as the climate control knob.
And of course scientists with split loyalties working for institutions that are being reward billions in studies on how to deal with climate change are the ones in your institution who has a close eye on any CO2 researcher. . .so in gangs of they they ascribe to Al Gore’s impending disaster and are perfectly happy deceiving the public on the true state of the science.
Nate always likes to throw out Manabe and Wetherald as the evidence that CO2 controls he climate. And of course the Nobel Committee just awarded Manabe with a Nobel Prize on his work. Manabe of course was stunned noting that the Committee had never before given the award for the ”application of physics”. He said: ”Usually, the Nobel Prize in physics is awarded to physicists making a fundamental contribution in physics.”
They just skipped over giving the Nobel Prize in Physics to the person who proved out the GHE actually works.
Manabe also said: If you look at the list of past winners, they are amazing people who have done marvelous work, he said. In contrast, what I have been doing looks trivial to me. But Im not going to complain!
He missed his George C. Scott moment.
And still you offer no evidence that this approach produces bad science. Just more ranting.
Oh Nate I never said there wasn’t tons of good science. It has just slowed down a bit in the last 3 decades due to growing corruption.
There has been a huge corrupt diversion of science funding into political projects masquerading as science projects just on the lie that the science is settled regarding climate change. Its a lie like the CIA claiming that the surface of Mars is paved with diamonds and setting of a diamond rush to get to Mars.
that doesn’t mean there are not as many brilliant scientists around doing great work. Its just a comment that the dirty intrusion of politics into science is not a good thing. We need to change that and move towards a better steered policy that makes funding decisions not based on ”what my institution is going to get for what” but instead a more transparent independent approach with a high level of transparency. It can be done, I know it can be done. Right now its more a ”good ol boys club”. Those multi-thousand dollar funding bills are nothing but books of corruption. It doesn’t take thousands of pages to set funding priorities. It takes thousands of pages to ensure the money goes to an exact place. And thats the problem. A far better solution is to have many of these decisions decided by an independent service like the civil service based upon priorities transparently laid out by Congress so that the civil service knows what the policy should accomplish and then goes about processes to identify the best ways to spend the money. Viola the Good Ol Boys Club is now out of the loop.
So no with few exceptions I don’t blame the scientists. They are human just like every other human and are going to do what it takes for them to succeed.
“There has been a huge corrupt diversion of science funding into political projects masquerading as science projects just on”
Sure Bill, when you dont have science answers for science results you dont like, this is the convenient, lazy answer. They must be corrupt.
Are you a Flat Earther? Thats their answer to.
OK so you don’t see earmarks and bills thousands of pages long that specify pork projects for supporters as corruption. Fine. You are just fine with the fox guarding the hen house. Or is just you are too stupid to think of a way to improve it?
Science, as with most endeavors requires funding. Then it must be corrupt, is your basic speculation.
But science is about finding facts, publishing them, and is subject to criticism, replication and testing. Corrupt science is unlikely to survive this process.
The proof is the modern world we have.
Nate says:
The proof is the modern world we have.
———————–
yes it is an amazing and wonderful nation we live with a great deal less corruption than seen in other nations. that lack of corruption hit its highest levels of success upon the establishment of a career civil service in the late 19th century where expertise was considered in consultation with outside experts (contractors). that continues today. i have been one of those outside experts/contractors and written a large number of white papers as a paid consultant. papers taken in consideration by the government experts in the civil service or by consulting committees established by the government.. that is an excellent model that was in place a long time before i was involved and many thousands of consultants still do that and i remain one albeit in a self-reduced time commitment. i probably would have stopped years ago but i still have the passion to pursue objectives not yet reached.
and yes there is a ton of corruption pounding on the political doors threatening to invoke specific measures that would benefit a few at the cost of the many and it comes from all sides. academia provides some of best and some of the worst. its not all one side and none of the other. independence is important and consulting work is no different. one on the inside can see the corruption far easier than on the outside
Fortunately, there have been studies on the scientific consensus of AGW, and the result is that between 80% and 97% of experts in related fields are satisfied that the science on AGW is sound.
This number increases as you turn the dial up towards more and more expertise on the subject, rather than just anyone who is in a related discipline (but doesn’t actually study climate).
So yes, there are a handful of qualified experts who have some criticism of the mainstream view.
None of these qualified experts doubt the GHE is real, or that AGW is real. They mainly question the degree to which it is a concern, or rail against the media and policy presentations.
Let’s be clear about Monckton – he is not an expert in the related fields.
And he clearly swapped from RSS, which he used to laud for its superior scientific credibility, to UAH, which no doubt he is now lauding for its superior scientific credibility.
And the fact that he made this jump as soon as UAH changed versions and got a lower trend than RSS – is purely coincidental.
Now, about that bridge – you interested?
barry says:
”This number increases as you turn the dial up towards more and more expertise on the subject, rather than just anyone who is in a related discipline (but doesnt actually study climate).”
I see that claim being made but I don’t see any support for why that matters. Seems to me the folks more on the outside simply are more vocal about their true position (see why later). And I say that because good science stands on its own legs and one does not need to be a specialist to see when thats the case. (that is the opinion of Will Happer one of the very top atmospheric scientists)
barry says:
”So yes, there are a handful of qualified experts who have some criticism of the mainstream view.
None of these qualified experts doubt the GHE is real, or that AGW is real. They mainly question the degree to which it is a concern, or rail against the media and policy presentations.”
Whatever Barry. Not exactly support for what the debate is about.
As I see it, its a mistake to say that the GHE doesn’t exist, or that its impossible for GHG to be involved in it, or that its impossible that GHG could create a GHE. Much depends upon the state of the atmopsphere before GHG are introduced and that hasn’t been resolved to any kind of satisfactory manner.
A scientist must choose what he is going to research and individual scientists make those choices based upon what opportunities are presented to them.
So how do we go about that? Well each one of us learned as a youth to
tell white lies to polish the apple for our parents and our teachers.
In fact, we learn quickly that we must weigh the consequences between what we and/or others gain from the lie and the punishment of getting caught and we build our life strategies based upon that..
Obviously every scientist looking for opportunities is presented with opportunities to polish the apple.
I am sure you are just as quick to realize that if say you read a study from the employed scientists of a fossil fuel company but its a universal fact not limited to fossil fuel companies.
If I have learned anything from 30 years of being professionally involved in either the impacts of or the making of policy based on science is that every voice matters. Any place it doesn’t I can guarantee you poor policy will be the rule rather the exception.
It is a huge problem when one constituency dominates the narrative. And its a huge problem in far more ways than you have thought of. How about the advancement of science? Fossil fuel companies have been driven out of climate science. That’s a huge loss to science. thats because good science stands on its own. False science is science that doesn’t stand on its own legs. Thats not science. And that also is universal and not limited to fossil fuel companies.
barry says:
”Lets be clear about Monckton he is not an expert in the related fields.
And he clearly swapped from RSS, which he used to laud for its superior scientific credibility, to UAH, which no doubt he is now lauding for its superior scientific credibility.
And the fact that he made this jump as soon as UAH changed versions and got a lower trend than RSS.”
This is truly laughable. Monckton has a scientific mind. If the science is good he will recognize it when it is. Again Happer and how science is best understood when it is really settled, not when somebody says it is. Lindzen, Curry et al will all tell you that. As an auditor of things I am not an expert in knows that to be true also. All I need to be convinced of the ”media popular version of the CO2 controlled climate” is a blueprint with full transparency on how every action has been made and how it leads to the next action. But here I am years later after first asking for it and have nothing to show for it but rhetoric from people in places where such rhetoric is rewarded when one is agreeable with the entire group. No doubt each of these groups have moles. Moles biding their time for something they can sink their teeth into. Meanwhile they are going to smile and continue to delve in their work and give the most non-evasive agreeable answers they can personally feel comfortable giving to not upset their apple cart.
Its the quiet ones I like to question. Why are they not screaming apocalypse at the top of their lungs. And I never reveal who they are. What I want from them is some pointers, where to look to find the evidence. Once I find it I can continue to protect the quiet one by just saying I found it over there in that file cabinet or whatever.
the noisy ones? Hard to get much out of as they stay focused entirely on the ladder climbing exercise they are on. Its actually somewhat of an argument for socialism vs a competitive system. The problem is that you have to maintain choice and that can be very difficult in a social system of any large size where one can just leave and start up elsewhere. And every social system dedicated to socialism will do its best to prevent you from doing just that.
If you think thats all BS then you don’t have any experience in the field or you do and you are lying.
\
“Obviously every scientist looking for opportunities is presented with opportunities to polish the apple.”
As usual Bill, not being a scientist, gets the motivations of scientists exactly backwards!
Scientists understand that to get recognition, they need to pave a new road. To make a genuine discovery, to win the Nobel, which most strive for, means they need to upset the apple cart.
exactly Nate and if you were one you would need you need a lot of resources to do that. So to do that you polish the apple and then hope to upset the apple cart and make the institution who believed you even more famous cause its not their apple cart you are upsetting. Fact is most scientists don’t sacrifice their integrity but their isn’t a need to unless your science skills are on the cusp then one might focus on being a rainmaker instead.
Or, or, here’s another more plausible possibility: Bill has no idea what he is talking about.
Obviously Nate is totally naive.
Nate thinks that because somebody has a science degree he is incorruptible and has zero incentives towards corruption.
Talking about a babe in the woods!
Stick to the science, quit reading people’s minds.
Nate the science is there on this topic. Take any large group of people and you will probably find a mass murderer, a number of con men, a number of people with high integrity.
This is all well known in the psychological sciences. And I am not reading your mind I am reading your posts that deny this fact.
When you don’t have the facts or the science on your side, you search for ways to attack the messengers, the scientists.
So you speculate that they must be driven by corruption.
We say where is the evidence? You cite your anecdotal ‘experience’, and amateur psychology.
The thing about your experience is its yours, and no one elses. It is full of your biases that are quite plain. And you are not a scientist.
IOW, in this debate, its just not convincing.
Believe your doctor but always verify what he tells you. You can have some faith in your doctor because he owes you a legal obligation to give you the best advice. Never believe anybody who doesn’t.
Just sage advice so that you don’t end up a sucker.
UAH should have the shallowest trend since it is UHI free.
Different topic.
Tell Barry that.
RSS is also UHI free and doesn’t have the shallowest trend. No doubt we are about to hear some very scientific pronouncements on motive.
Just checked at WUWT. Sure enough Monckton has switched to UAH.
i stick with uah because they make easy to use their data. they parse it and make it incredibly easy to download and use. i was with uah when RSS had the lowest trend for the same reason.
the difference hardly amounts to anything and whichever is right nobody will ever feel the difference. i don’t have any idea why you guys get a knot in your panties over it.
RSS is less accessible?
https://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/
It’s not hard to get usable data for all of them.
In any case, it makes a difference which dataset you use – RSS unlaces your hand-wave about UHI and lowest trends in satellite data.
What actually energizes me is motivated misinformation about science.
I explained what I meant about accessibility Barry and you just ignored it.
How do I get US48, US49, Ocean, Land etc?
Well I don’t know why you need US48 AND US49, but you can get land-only, ocean only, and at various latitude bands including the poles at RSS, as well as the continental US.
Here are those right from the page I linked you.
https://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_v04_0.txt
https://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Ocean_v04_0.txt
https://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v04_0.txt
You can also get temperature data on the page I linked for the lower stratosphere, middle troposphere, and for the total troposphere.
And you also get the previous version (v3) for all these values from that one web page.
Now that you’ve been assisted on that, let’s return to the fact the UHI is not the reason Monckton switched from RSS to UAH. He simply followed the lowest trending data set.
barry says:
”Well I dont know why you need US48 AND US49, but you can get land-only, ocean only, and at various latitude bands including the poles at RSS, as well as the continental US.”
look if i were involved in this professionally i would consider other options. I sometimes go into using relational databases to tease out specific stuff. today one can lay this out in a GIS mapping layer over other GIS datasets. The variations are almost endless. I got to using UAH purely for the accessibility feature. by accessibilty i mean how much processing work has been done for me in a single file so i don’t have play with multiple files. i use both us48 to compare with uschn conus. i have used us49 with uscrn. each one brings something to the table with the least effort. i started using uah probably 15 years ago but didnt waste time on the blog. i have winding down my commitments to 5 customers and work less than half time.
Bill insists supporters of AGW are always biasing their science with their politics.
But insists opponents of AGW are never biasing their science with their politics.
Not credible.
As shown by his and Monckton’s trust in UAH, without a real science rationale.
I never said anybody isn’t biased Nate. You are overplaying your hand here.
We all have biases based upon many things. What we have been taught (inculcation) and what we might personally benefit from such as promises of opportunity, promotion, raises, what our jobs depend upon, how expansion of our job responsibilities will improve promotion opportunities, increases in personal power and authority, fame. The list is nearly endless. When its a crime people weigh the risks of being caught against the rewards of not getting caught. Bad behavior increases when there aren’t punishments for it. If you are not violating a crime, or there are no standards of practice where you could lose your license to practice, and it is unlikely your boss will fire you for bad behavior that benefits your boss.
Its not difficult to see for whom the incentives of intentionally acting in a biased way works much more positively. Its not black or white though. And it actually exacerbates the problem when you have the science being done by employees of instutions who are raking in mitigation research dollars by the truckload. That is a situation that should not exist and it is the fault of government, politics and the natural bias that arises from that is allowed to go on. Its no different than the rampant corruption of the 19th century where you bought your postmaster seat. Competence didn’t matter it was whether you were a loyal party member or how much you paid the guy making the appointment.
That is why the civil service was invented. And we find ourselves today moving away from that expectation of independence back to granting power to politicians to sell favors without getting their hands dirty on the money. only a few have earned my disrespect. the reason they happen to be on one side has to do with incentives being loaded almost exclusively on one side. i know there more than a few ol pols hanging around on the skeptic, guys who earned disrespect in previous tobacco wars i just haven’t run into any thing from them. and not having independence standards in place to disincentivize bad behavior certainly is somebody elses fault
You’re again triggered into pontification, Bill. But nobody ordered that, and nobody reads it.
Well the guidance at the top has not been good.
The messaging has been terrible. I wouldn’t doubt for a second that climategate wasn’t one of the major drivers for Brexit. You guys don’t seem to have a skeptical bone in your bodies collectively.
And do I care that much? I care about having a civil service and government information system built on integrity and a dedication to science. I care about this nation making the best choices. I have no personal concerns about the cost of energy. I live in a place where I can get by with total energy costs for me of around $150 a month, including gas for my regular size pickup truck with the large v8 option. I have everything I need around me and seldom drive more than 15 miles. When I travel I generally fly free from the frequent flyer miles I pile up servicing my clients. So energy costs mean practically nothing to me.
So I have no axe to grind other than for this nation to do the right thing for my children’s sake.
What is your motivation to post in here. If I were fearful of a couple of degrees warming (from now) I still don’t think I would behave like you waving my hand at any hint of skepticism. I would want to know ever more ardently that my fears were justified. So what is your motivation?
Real skepticism is not built on ignorance of the science, and substituting political biases and conspiratorial thinking for science.
This is like the defense attorney in a murder trial saying don’t pay attention to the CSI evidence, because the people in the CSI labs might be corrupt.
No sorry, you have to have direct evidence of such corruption happening in this case, otherwise its just BS speculation, and the jury should ignore it.
Nate a CSI lab is independent. Its like the civil service. they don’t have divided loyalties.
You guys go on and on about science ordered by corporations, and you should. But its like you think that your side doesn’t have any shit that stinks.
Career guys in the civil service are insulated from politics. As one said to me last year when I asked one to try to get something done for me. So you want the guys who are paid to get it right to do the work.
His response was in humor he know, I know, a lot of people know what really goes on. if you don’t then you must believe every thing your political party says.
And by no means does it mean that if you work for a university your work is going to be biased.
Independence means also the appearance of independence which is a far higher standard. The appearance standard if nothing else is crucially important if you want the public to believe in you.
Its a weird thing though when you agreed that Hansen stretches his credibility. I don’t think for a second he has a conscious bias. He just has a vivid imagination and it just rolls off his tongue. You claim he has said things I know he has said. I think it is pretty clear he got fired. Not for wrong doing but stretching credibility with his actions and loose lips. No way anybody is going to say that but I have seen it done many times. A smart guy getting canned because he is too controversial. NASA wants credibility and think finally they got to enough. Its also possible they read him the riot act and he chose to leave so he could still express himself the way he likes too.
but he had compiled a long list of predictions that were clearly not coming true. I changed my opinion on him when he opposed cap and trade. Prima facie evidence he wasn’t on the money train. That was a big move on his part against an administration initiative. That could have been what got him fired too.
My father retired from a great job because he was told to cut his hair and shave off his beard. Some industries like the aircraft industry are really sticks in the mud. But that was a long time ago. Times change.
The jury should ignore your not-science speculation about individuals motivations. It is a red herring.
Science is not a cult of personality like politics sometimes is (as with Trump).
As a field, it moves on, with a focus on what the evidence shows, as opposed to what’s in the mind of individuals like Hansen.
A good example of that is Einstein. When he doubted quantum mechanics, physics moved on without him, based on the overwhelming evidence in support of quantum mechanics.
Science didn’t move on past Einstein. Correlation isn’t causation. Science still wrestles with what Einstein was wrestling with. Quantum Mechanics isn’t yet the answer to what light quanta is.
Einstein decried against ‘spooky action at a distance’. But if you think about it you are a huge advocate of the photon theory of objects radiating in all directions equally. And of course quite a while ago when I brought up the fact that it might work more like electricity you mocked me. Thats the old theory of aether a medium upon which light travels which can be nothing more than ‘spooky action at a distance’.
Thats nothing to be ashamed of as it was rejected by Einstein, but einstein didn’t reject it because he believed in the photon theory you believe in, which would be a good reason by itself to reject it. He decried photon theory itself too. He recognized that light quanta had the characters of both so he was not going to settle for a solution that picks sides. The big question of backradiation is what becomes of the energy. It can’t warm the warmer object. We have discussed this. if anything it has to act like insulation. But insulation is not known as consisting of just radiation.
” Quantum Mechanics isnt yet the answer to what light quanta is.”
More man-splaining physics to physicists. You never learn.
And changing the subject.
Nate thinks he is smarter than Einstein.
Its really quite simple in basic structure. The debate that is.
One you had wave theory, the classical theory. A search for aether. Somebody thought they had found it. Later it was revealed the researcher was dealing with such a weak signal his claim was disallowed as bias.
On the other hand you have photon theory (the particle theory) We have discussed at length and stuff doesn’t add up about backradiation.
And of course a third theory, mathematics and statistics that prompted Einstein say God does not play dice. And jeered the statistical weirdness as “spooky action at a distance”. But QM kept finding new stuff still Einstein wasn’t moved because intuitively its not about statistics but its about something physical known as the nature of light quanta.
Einstein died and before he died he threw one last stone and said:
”Every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what light quanta is, but they are wrong.”
This spooky action at a distance could be something akin to aether. We hardly know anything about it other than our experiments are suggesting there is something there. Of course Nate thinks its just math and statistics. Which makes no sense because that is a tool and not a thing. Nate and the other spinners in here have almost a common disease of confusing their tools with things. They learn the form of physics in the tools they use. They rote learn the equations and the math, they never give 5 minutes of thought to what is real and what is symbolic. Rote learners with little understanding of the actual nature of things. So they confuse rotations because the equation tells them what axis the moon rotates on. They ignore what they can see because they so much elevate the form of their craft over reality.
Einstein was not one of those rote learners. Heck its probably why they are in here rather out there discovering new physics.
“Of course Nate thinks ”
Again Bill erroneously thinks science is whatever an individual thinks it is.
The EVIDENCE tells us that ‘spooky action at a distance’ is what actually happens, and that quantum mechanics has gotten it right.
There is a very active field of research on entangled photons, quantum communication, quantum computing.
But Bill’s intuition is that its all wrong.
Science will file your opinion where it belongs, and carry on.
No Nate I am expressing Einstein’s point of view on the matter and combining it with my auditing experience of how people tend to elevate form over substance.
There is little question that QM is leading to discoveries via math but the big prize is yet to be earned is the actual substance of that which performs in a manner for which QM is able to get things right. There almost certainly is a limit to what QM can predict and limit mostly likely overcome upon learning of the substance. Currently it is characterized as the theory of everything. A theory that would unite all the worlds of electromagnetics. I am no expert on QM at all. So I am merely seeing Einstein’s intuition as an indicator of what I know to be true of how vast populations of people elevate form over substance. In the audit world that needs to be trained out of graduates. Government doesn’t know any other way. But auditors in it with their lives on the line have to perform at a higher level so audit firms hire the best, and not always do they hire accountants. They hire top experts in the fields where they do their work to combine a consulting practice together with an audit practice and the knowledge of each works to enhance the performance of the other. So what I am saying here is that its OK for a physicist to be married to his tools. Most physicists toil in labs where excellent knowledge of those tools and the dedication to plow through the calculations is rewarded And it is more than OK they never learn about the actual substance of the world as they live in a world of physics. Some professions though work in real diverse worlds. Doctors, Accountants, Engineers, Investment advisors, auditors, and plethora of other profession where their job isn’t just to follow the forms of their trade but to reach beyond those limits For a physicist that is research. . . .you know the component of knowledge that you can’t produce for AGW or rotations, or apparently the substance underlying QM. . . .the substance Einstein was striving for. I am going with Einstein on this one because of my experience and how he overturned Newton mechanics. Yes indeed I expect a rich future of QM but I am talking about reaching beyond QM whic seems to happen on a regular basis throughout history where the tools we learn to describe the universe find their limits.
“No Nate I am expressing Einsteins point of view on the matter”
Gee what are his views on the internet and smart phones?
His views were ignorant of the recent discoveries. If he were around today he would have to confront all the newer experiments showing that spooky action at a distance actually happens, and that quantum mechanics has been repeatedly confirmed.
“and combining it with my auditing experience of how people tend to elevate form over substance.”
Weird, given that in this discussion you are philosophising and I am promoting the view experimental evidence is what matters.
Nate says:
No Nate I am expressing Einsteins point of view on the matter
Gee what are his views on the internet and smart phones?
————————
Thats not a good analogy Nate. In Einstein’s time he was wresting with two physical theories wave theory and particle theory and trying to figure out what sort of thing light quanta is.
QM is just a mathematical symbolic representation of the nature of light. It doesn’t fully describe it. It does a good job of estimating what it is capable of in at least a limited sense.
Those were the topics throughout the second half of Einsteins lif
, not internets and smart phones.
If you believe it has been resolved you would just be on Einstein’s dummy list today.
More form and no substance from our Auditor.
Einstein was a genius but not correct about everything. Which is true of most geniuses.
Up to about age 45 he was the leading light in quantum physics. After that he was not, and he famously doubted QM afterword.
One of his later works to question it was called Einstein Podolsky Rosen effect, EPR, that brought up ‘spooky action at a distance’ and suggested this was real problem for QM.
The paper turned out to be helpful in that it stimulated theory and experiments (later) that ultimately proved it wrong.
The ‘spooky action at a distance’ turned out to be reality. And it is now a field of research.
As an amateur unaware of these developments, all you know is Einstein was a genius, and thus you defer to his authority.
Nate the test for QM isn’t the fact that QM sort of predicted entanglement, the test is if QM can move beyond that. If it can then Einstein was wrong about the limits of QM.
AFATIC what can be termed a ‘medium’ on which this entanglement occurs completely destroys photon theory. Though people won’t actually being doing that until what happens in the first paragraph becomes a reality.
It means that photons do not have to emit in all directions. And the entire argument for why they had to is they had no communications with a distant star. Yet what is entanglement? Spooky action at distance? What distance? Without a medium light/energy just had to be emitted on some potentially endless journey with no destination in mind a potential exchange of energy with nothingness. So much for backradiation!
“what can be termed a medium on which this entanglement occurs completely destroys photon theory”
Sorry, wrong, auditor-troll. Einstein showed no medium for light exists in vacuum. And discovered the photon.
All we get from you is pontificating on form. Where is the substance?
Einstein did not discover the photon. He got the Nobel Prize in Physics for discovering the photoelectric effect. The word photon wasn’t invented until well after his discovery and Einstein didn’t approve of the word because it suggested a particle.
einstein discovered the photoelectric effect in 1905 and was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1922. Gilbert Lewis coined the term photon in late 1926.
Technicallly, his understanding of the term was that it described a carrier of radiant energynot a particle of light per se: I therefore take the liberty of proposing for this hypothetical new atom, which is not light but plays an essential part in every process of radiation, the name photon. In that sense, his concept differed from Einsteins 1905 quantum theory of light, but photon came to be used to describe what Einstein originally termed light quantum.
So you will have to invent yet another argument to support your case Nate. Your latest argument was a lie.
“Einstein didnt approve of the word because it suggested a particle.”
Again you get it all wrong auditor.
He discovered the photon but didnt give it the name. He certainly showed it to be a particle, with quantized energy and momentum.
“Einstein pointed out that many anomalous experiments could be explained if the energy of a Maxwellian light wave were localized into point-like quanta that move independently of one another, even if the wave itself is spread continuously over space.[10] In 1909[51] and 1916,[53] Einstein showed that, if Planck’s law regarding black-body radiation is accepted, the energy quanta must also carry momentum p = h /λ , making them full-fledged particles. This photon momentum was observed experimentally by Arthur Compton,[54] for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1927”
“Nate the test for QM isnt the fact that QM sort of predicted entanglement, the test is if QM can move beyond that. If it can then Einstein was wrong about the limits of QM.”
Where did you find these made up Fizuks interpretations, Bill? It is quite the nonsense.
The whole point is that QM perfectly explains entanglement, which is found to be non-local, which is entirely opposed to Einstein’s view.
well you are wrong nate.
here is einstein’s position and what hoped to accomplish.
”Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings us closer to the secret of the Old One. I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice.”
what he was looking for.
”Indeed, for the last 30 years of Einsteins life (even including the last moments just before his death on April 18, 1955), his scientific endeavors were committed to this vision as he focused on finding a unified field theory. Among other things, such a theory was to unify gravity (as described by Einsteins very own general relativity) and electromagnetism (as described by Maxwells equations), and most importantly, it was to rid physics of the ‘quantum uncertainty’.”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/einstein-and-the-quantum/
so thus the old master rigged the game the worst outcome for him is. . . .so you ignoramuses haven’t managed yet to rid physics of the ‘quantum uncertainty’. and the best alternative is somebody finds a way to rid physics of the ‘quantum uncertainty’ and Einstein predicted it. LOL!
also there is no spooky action over distance. the action across distance is just two identical systems that were once together then moved apart and there is no faster than the speed of light communications going on.
https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2022/04/14/spooky_action_at_a_distance_not_a_chance_827017.html
Once again the auditor tries to man-splain technical stuff that he doesnt actually understand.
Einstein was wrong about the uncertainty principle, which has stood the test of time and every experimental test.
Such facts don’t matter to you, instead you defer to Einsteins authority. You, of all people, should understand that authorities are not always correct.
“the action across distance is just two identical systems that were once together then moved apart and there is no faster than the speed of light communications going on.”
Not quite. The two entangled particles don’t have definite properties when they are together, such as polarization if photons.
When polarization on one axis is measured in one, the other far away particle will have the same polarization on that same axis.
But experiments show that the polarization is not a ‘hidden variable’ that existed when they were together. It only became realized when measured. The effect is non-local in that both particles are entangled and end up with the same polarization.
It is a subtle non-locality, but it cannot be used for faster than light communication.
In any case this is fully explained by quantum mechanics, and Einstein predicted such non-local entanglement was impossible. But he turned out to be wrong.
Nate you are arguing with me when I gave you a reference that denies the medium exists. there is weirdness there all admit to that. But the understanding of that weirdness has not be resolved despite what some people may think.
Nobody foresaw Newton being subsumed by Einstein until Einstein did it. The same will happen to Einstein and QM. In fact, Einstein wanted to be the guy that did it. perhaps nobody ever will. but none of that is evidence as to if it can or cannot happen. i am putting mine down on it will. i assume you have yours in your usual place.
Bill this thread is a good example of you confidently stating a lot of nonsense, being corrected, looking things up, and having to walk most of it back.
How bout avoiding having to walk things back by NOT posting stuff that you havent fact-checked in the first place?
Might boost your credibility ratings. Just a thought.
Nate you are the one walking stuff back. Spooky action at a distance has no substance in science, so you feel free to define it any way you want like you were some kind of Einstein mind reader.
You claimed spooky action at a distance had been proven. I said if it has been proven then maybe the photon model is all wrong.
Well it turns out the issue of if spooky action at a distance has been proven. . . .it turns out you are wrong and you are just stubborn enough to continue to insist it is for the seemingly only reason is that you are a ‘team player’ and you believe science is a big popularity contest. That shows up in everything you post about Nate.
“I said if it has been proven then maybe the photon model is all wrong.”
Maybe you just made that up.
The experiment studies photons.
Nothing wrong with the photon model. Einstein was right about them.
Einsteins photon model is why he scoffed at ”spooky action at a distance”. Is there a medium for spooky action to occur over distance that isn’t light could undo the photon theory but for now it remains safe. Only the spectators in the magician’s audience is believing in the magic. The contrarian I linked you to suggested it was encoded in the pair akin to an enigma machine so that once one was revealed the other would reveal the same despite the enigma machines not being connected.
Einstein saw the original suggestion as being a challenge to all he had discovered. His reaction was. . . .uh. . . .sort of how it works on this forum. Somebody suggests something for which he has no support and bingo it draws a scoff.
Now you are reading Einstein mind? Just stop.
“encoded in the pair ”
One the main discoveries in the experiments was finding that there was no encoding. No hidden variables.
The measurement influences the outcome in a non-local way for both particles. It was surprising to many.
Wow Nate you don’t know the first thing about science literally! One cannot discover that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. All you can do is discover Santa Claus isn’t exactly what you suspected him to be.
Quite literally spooky action at a distance won’t be spooky action at a distance when they actually figure out how it works. So the PR guys are just jerking your chain when they say spooky action at a distance has been observed.
The less you know about a subject the more ad-hom grenades you throw. That’s how trolls operate.
It might be an ad hom, but the first thing to know about science is it can’t prove non-existence. Some morons who think they are scientists would disagree.
“experiments was finding that there was no encoding.”
Again this will likely be over your head.
QM can put particles in a superposition of two states. The famous Shrodingers Cat is representing that.
The particle is not in one state or the other, until it is measured. For the cat until the box is opened. Then it acquires a definite one or the state, and the measurement influences the process.
The experiments can determine whether the particle and its far away partner had acquired the state prior to the measurement when the partners were together.
This is what the physics shows.
But with your deep knowledge of quantum entanglement, perhaps you know better.
Nate says:
QM can put particles in a superposition of two states. The famous Shrodingers Cat is representing that.
The particle is not in one state or the other, until it is measured. For the cat until the box is opened. Then it acquires a definite one or the state, and the measurement influences the process.
—————————
Obviously if the particle only displays a state when measured, how is it determined its not encoded? The whole idea of encoding is so as to not reveal the state until measured, but how do you examine a particle for an ”encoded state”.
Obvioously also, by virtue of the link I provided, not every scientist agrees with you. What they may have tested is only that the particles can be widely separated. But if only two states are possible maybe they have what is akin to male and female particles.
I am not saying its not interesting and that somebody with a brilliant mind could create quantum computing on the basis of what has been learned but beware of extrapolating too far. Science moves one step at a time and some steps are a total surprise and overturn what went before. I have the distinct feeling all you are doing is extrapolating in a largely undisciplined fashion. I could be convinced otherwise but it would require you to tell me how it actually works and if experience is any kind of teacher that simply ain’t going to happen.
” I could be convinced otherwise but it would require you to tell me how it actually works ”
Good of you to admit that you don’t know how it works, yet you have been certain throughout this thread that I’ve got it all wrong.
I don’t see how I can explain it to you if I “don’t know the first thing about science”!
Well if you knew how it worked you could tell me. I admit I don’t know how it works. So do you expect me to take your word for it? Nope thats what you do wrong all the time and jump the gun on settled science. Of course when you find out you were wrong you still will never admit it. What have you admitted to getting wrong in here?
Seems to me when you do you go bury your head in a blanket and reemerge talking about something else.
” I admit I dont know how it works.”
Good, now try to understand why your posts throughout this thread were based on ignorance.
i realize i don’t know everything. i don’t have a degree in physics. but i do have a degree and extensive professional experience in how to investigate a complex problem in both finance and natural systems along with a building career and that included a practical education in construction, electrical, and solar systems engineering 4 years as a philosophy and logic major. So with 9 years of college education and 50 years of applying that education directly into all those mentioned fields i am not a master of any of them except for the investigation and research areas. . . .i can learn anything.
you though have a big problem as you clearly don’t know what you don’t know. thats what makes a little knowledge oh so dangerous. what i have is a solid grasp on what i don’t know, and professional experience and training on how to find out what i don’t know along with a keen and experienced nose for how to cut through the crap.
so that brings me full circle back around to you. einstein may be in some minds considerably wrong about the distance portion of his private statement but by spooky action he meant that he wasn’t buying that QM statistics were the essence of nature and by extension he believes God doesn’t play dice. so einstein hasn’t been proven wrong because his comments need to be taken in full context. he may never be proven wrong. myself as well as most people are believers in free will as opposed to determinism. einstein’s physics remained deterministic though he also had a sense of God’s plan. philosophically these points aren’t reconcilable. the argument between evolution and creation for example: the two different ideas are both compatible and controversial at the same time. the controversy is simply now they can be compatible and the infinite number of ways they could be compatible when only one way would be right. they are compatible and only when you find how they are compatible will you be knowledgeable and the controversy will end. when one becomes truly aware of that he is just beginning to comprehend just how ignorant we are and how so many can be stupidly oblivious of that fact.
Look, Bill, this is all hand-waving based on some famous Einstein quotes, not actual science.
Science is empirical knowledge. It is based on observations, theory, and testing that theory against further observations.
Einstein, or anyone, can have a theory, but if it doesnt hold up against the observations, its wrong. He understood that very well.
He developed General Relativity theory, and he knew it was likely correct when he used it to calculate a mysterious unexplained part of Mercury’s orbital precession rate. A tiny difference from what Newton’s laws predicted. His theory miraculously agreed with the observed deviation.
But he knew that wouldnt by itself convince others, thus he made specific predictions about new observations that could test his theory. Like the shift in the stars positions near the sun, seen only during a solar eclipse. Like gravity waves.
And only when his predictions agreed with observations did anyone accept his theory. The testing of it continues to this day.
Black holes were predicted by others using his theory, though again, he didnt think they existed. Collisions of black holes and the specific gravity waves they produced were predicted, and recently amazingly observed. Thus far they agree with GR predictions.
“There is no evidence that this approach produces bad science. You havent shown any.”
Where’s the beef?
But Bill thinks further blather on the subject will be convincing.
This seems out of place. I have no idea what you are blathering about.
“Yet we have been predicting for almost 50 years about a meter of sealevel rise in a 3rd of a century”
Uhh not that I recall. Can you find and quote such predictions from almost 50 y ago, or more recently?
Nate claims there is nothing to worry about.
So yet another completely made-up Bill claim bites the dust. He tries to change the subject.
Anybody who has been paying attention knows it to be true. Just because you havent been paying attention doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. I am not your personal librarian and stupid claims by stupid people is going to settle the uncertainties surrounding climate change anytime soon. So why bother? OTOH some of your claims such as how CO2 works would settle the issue, yet you don’t see it important enough to make such a case. Oh well. . . . Nice try!
“Anybody who has been paying attention knows it”
You’ve said similar when called upon to validate your claims before.
So you owe Nate corroboration from a serious source saying a meter sea level rise in a third of a century, and me a quote from Hansen saying el Nino is the new normal.
well here is a quote by james hansen he also has a paper published on it. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/22/sea-level-rise-james-hansen-climate-change-scientist
and there was the 1988 Salon article about him looking out his office window and saying the west side highway would be under water in 20 years. later whitewashed over by the environmental reporter annd revised to 40 years back in 2001. https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=100&&n=627
and of coarse the westside highway was and still is more than 2 meters, probably 3 meters above sealevel. https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/stormy-weather-salon.pdf
and of coarse we have a PNAS where he suggests climate change increase the frequency of strong el ninos. i still have to look for his new normal quote but it arose surrounding so-called study which really was nothing except for hansen first discovering the pdo about 11 years after it had already been discover.
this is almost as much fun as laurel and hardy piano movers!!
Hey, thanks for the Guardian article! It’s about Hanses, so am I going to get my quote…?
“The IPCC has predicted a sea level rise of up to one meter by 2100, if emissions are not constrained…..
Hansens latest work has proved controversial because it was initially published in draft form last July without undergoing a peer review process. Some scientists have questioned the assumptions made by Hansen and the soaring rate of sea level rise envisioned by his research, which has now been peer-reviewed and published.
Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, said the revised paper still has the same issues that initially “caused me concern”.
“Namely, the projected amounts of meltwater seem large, and the ocean component of their model doesnt resolve key wind-driven current systems (e.g. the Gulf Stream) which help transport heat poleward,” Mann said in an email to the Guardian.
“I’m always hesitant to ignore the findings and warnings of James Hansen; he has proven to be so very prescient when it comes to his early prediction about global warming. That having been said, I’m unconvinced that we could see melting rates over the next few decades anywhere near his exponential predictions, and everything else is contingent upon those melting rates being reasonable.”
Nope, I’m not going to get the el Nino new normal quote today.
But here is Hansen from 50 years ago… sorry, 7 years ago, making a sea level prediction that the IPCC and other climate scientists rejected. Your claim is technically corroborated, but metre level sea rise in a 3rd of a century is not the mainstream view, so your claim is also technically a straw man.
Bill ignores this part:
“The IPCC has predicted a sea level rise of up to one meter by 2100, if emissions are not constrained. Hansen, and other scientists, have argued the UN bodys assessment is too conservative as it doesnt factor in the potential disintegration of the polar ice sheets.
Hansens latest work has proved controversial because it was initially published in draft form last July without undergoing a peer review process. Some scientists have questioned the assumptions made by Hansen”
And 2016 is nowhere near 50 y ago.
Bill ignores this part:
‘assuming a doubling of CO2’ in 40 years from 1988.
Obviously that won’t happen because human emissions did not follow that path.
Any individual scientist can say whatever they want. In Hansen’s case, he has focused on political activism in his retirement, similar to Roy Spencer and some others.
His views on short-term sea-level-rise are outliers in the field.
James Hansens CO2 models are still at the heart of every every model the IPCC runs. He is obviously wrong about sea level rise and IPCC so-called position which I suspect is out the flawed AR3 assessment or remains a fringe position is also wrong.
Bottom line is the overall NASA estimates since 1900 show hardly any acceleration beyond starting in a valley and ending in a peak on an oscillating scale so projecting 4 mm to continue is a long reach and no doubt based on ”settled science” which actually doesn’t appear to be so settled. Eyeballing the data and considering natural fluctuations in the rise of sea level over the past 100 years. It is hard to endorse anything over another 1/2 foot of sea level rise by 2100. NASA must be using a Ouija board or one of their CO2 models.
Its getting embarrassing far beyond James Hansen. And where do you get that Roy is an activist. If he is you probably can’t name anyone anybody has heard anything about on climate who isn’t an activist.
This quote for Michael Mann is absolutely hilarious!
”Im always hesitant to ignore the findings and warnings of James Hansen; he has proven to be so very prescient when it comes to his early prediction about global warming.”
Hansen predicted the earth was in danger of runaway warming and becoming like Venus and now Michael Mann thinks he is “so very prescient” because the earth warmed for 45 years. LMAO. I suppose thats how it started for Nostradamus. Some crank thought is first prediction was so very presceint. ROTFLMAO! Seriously don’t you think that is freaking hilarious. I mean its so obvious that anybody licking Hansen’s butt so enthusiastically has to be doing so because they don’t want to offend Hansen and/or the legions of Hansen benefactors that Mann has built his career on telling them what they want to hear.
Nate says:
February 5, 2023 at 6:31 AM
Bill ignores this part:
The IPCC has predicted a sea level rise of up to one meter by 2100, if emissions are not constrained. Hansen, and other scientists, have argued the UN bodys assessment is too conservative as it doesnt factor in the potential disintegration of the polar ice sheets.
Hansens latest work has proved controversial because it was initially published in draft form last July without undergoing a peer review process. Some scientists have questioned the assumptions made by Hansen
And 2016 is nowhere near 50 y ago.
—————-
So you are maintaining that Hansen who has been spouting off about this for 40 years just decided it was that dire 6 years ago?
LMAO. We have enough information to know that the IPCC prediction is statistically unlikely based what we know about everything much less Hansens radical predictions.
What probability would you assign to ‘disintegrating ice sheets’ Nate? its fine to fear what you fear, but as scientist you are supposed to stay within the realm of evidence that is statistically significant you aren’t supposed to just dream it up.
“James Hansens CO2 models are still at the heart of every every model the IPCC runs.”
This is just pure, hand-waving rhetoric based on nothing.
This is how you lie to yourself. And like this:
“Hansen who has been spouting off about this for 40 years”
Hansen has NOT been claiming multimetre sea level rise by 2100 for 40 years.
This is how you lose touch with reality and just make stuff up, weaving bits of facts together until you have a lazily acquired narrative that you can pass off as something you actually investigated.
A few years ago Hansen made a sea level rise prediction that was out of step with the rest of the climate community.
And so naturally this is what you rely on to corroborate your fabrication that,
“we have been predicting for almost 50 years about a meter of sealevel rise in a 3rd of a century”
Stop hand-waving, Bill. It’s too easy to expose it.
then why haven’t you? all are doing is challenging me to do your work for you which if i do its not going come out as you hoped. you have me slightly intrigued by how far out on a limb you are going to try to win and almost meaningless point. Maybe I have been too tough on you if you are so desperate for a victory. Hmm let me think about. If you keep climbing out further making more claims that you have no idea are true or not Heck you might get me working. Give it a try. i am curious how bad you can make me look.
Bill says:
“James Hansens CO2 models are still at the heart of every every model the IPCC runs.”
FALSE and simplistic. Hansen is one of thousands of climate scientists whose work is summarized in the IPCC reports.
“He is obviously wrong about sea level rise and IPCC so-called position which I suspect is out the flawed AR3 assessment or remains a fringe position is also wrong.”
Bullshit. Conflating one scientist’s view with the consensus view.
His most recent views on sea level rise are far outside the consensus.
“Bottom line is..”
And what follows is a bunch of politics-infused blather, not science.
Bill you need to realize that mixing these two together in a grievance stew is just not going to be convincing to anyone.
The current analyses, eg, Church and White of the tide gauges, and of the satellite measurements by various groups, show that there has been significant acceleration in the sea level rise.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.png
“https://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/styles/max_1300x1300/public/2022-11/gmsl_2022rel2_seasons_rmvd.png?itok=LzE4Pgpc”
Acceleration of SL rise in the recent satellite data.
“but as scientist you are supposed to stay within the realm of evidence that is statistically significant you arent supposed to just dream it up.”
Scientists are human and not infallible.
They may have accomplished great things in their career, eg Hansen, Newton, Tesla, but also can go off the rails later in life, as Tesla did in getting into mysticism and talking to the dead with radio waves.
In the case Hansen, and Roy, they have veered off of science into political activism, and their science has at least the appearance of being less objective. Hansen’s recent work on SL rise is considered to be an outlier.
But that’s ok. Science carries on and the best ideas survive.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/styles/max_1300x1300/public/2022-11/gmsl_2022rel2_seasons_rmvd.png?itok=LzE4Pgpc
Link to recent SL rise acceleration.
so that says by 2050 and what everybody is panicking about highways disappearing under water; sea level will have risen 4 inches.
Its been 4 inches of rise in the satellite era.
If the recent rate of rise stays steady we will get another 5 inches by 2050 and 14 inches by 2100.
If the current rate of acceleration continues (0.084 mm/y^2), we will get another 7 inches by 2050 and 24 inches (2 feet) by 2100.
But this is the worldwide average. Certain locations are getting much higher rates.
“Hansen predicted the earth was in danger of runaway warming and becoming like Venus”
FALSE, he never did that.
He was an expert on Venus GHE. He projected modest warming over the coming decades, the amounts depending on emission scenarios. He predicted the global spatial pattern, and sea-ice decline as well.
He didn’t commit on whether these effects would be, on balance, harmful.
And what then happened over the next 4 decades matched quite well to his projections, within error.
“and now Michael Mann thinks he is “so very prescient” because the earth warmed for 45 years. LMAO. I suppose thats how it started for Nostradamus. Some crank thought is first prediction was so very presceint. ROTFLMAO!”
Bill suggests an equivalence between successful data-and-physics-driven predictions and mysticism.
This shows that Bill JUST DOESN’T GET how science differs from religion and magic.
Nate says:
”If the current rate of acceleration continues (0.084 mm/y^2), we will get another 7 inches by 2050 and 24 inches (2 feet) by 2100.”
Well the US and the European Union have decelerating emissions. Are we expecting China and the rest of the world to not participate before 2100?
Bottom line here is that almost all deceleration in the US has arisen from technological advances. For example my electricity consumption went down almost 50% from installing all LED lighting after it had gone down by over 30% switching to a tankless water heater. Of course others mileage will vary as I have minimal space heating and cooling needs. Cooling is handled by a couple of fans and heating, before this year, usually was confined to 2 or 3 months and only maybe an average of less than 10 degrees. Obviously once you turn the appliance on most people go for more than what they need and forego simple remedies like a sweater or extra blanket. Which brings us around to how do you get people to cooperate. Do you have any idea how that is done?
Yes, its uncertain. A certain amount of warming is baked in, even if emissions decelerate. Melting of the land ice sheets is being initiated by the present warming, will accelerate with further warming, and is not probably not easily reversed.
But sure, all we can do is slow and then reverse growth in emissions.
” For example my electricity consumption went down almost 50% from installing all LED lighting”
Great. Thanks to govt incentivising this effort.
Another problem is the developing world is getting richer, growing in population, and wants all that energy consumption that we enjoy.
“He was an expert on Venus GHE”
Lol. To funny…
Hansen, J.E. (Ed.), 1975: The Atmosphere of Venus. NASA SP-382. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
“Lacis and Hansen 1974
Lacis, A.A., and J.E. Hansen, 1974: Atmosphere of Venus: Implications of Venera 8 sunlight measurements. Science, 184, 979-983, doi:10.1126/science.184.4140.979.
Venera 8 measurements of solar illumination within the atmosphere of Venus are quantitatively analyzed by using a multilayer model atmosphere. The analysis shows that there are at least three different scattering layers in the atmosphere of Venus and the total cloud optical thickness is ≳ 10. However, because of the nature of the observations it is not possible to determine the vertical distribution of absorbed solar energy, which would reveal the drive for the atmospheric dynamics and the strength of the greenhouse effect. Future spacecraft observations should be designed to (i) measure both upward and downward solar fluxes, (ii) include measurements of the highest cloud layers, and (iii) employ narrow-band and broad-band sensors.”
Oh well.
Frankly,
Anyone who thinks Venus atmosphere has been heated to its current temperature by solar irradiation is an idiot.
It is this baloney that is the entire basis for the nonsensical ‘GHE’
Sure whatever you say, PhilJ.
Yet again Nate misses his Golden Opportunity to showcase the evidence supporting his view of how the GHE works. Oh well, its a pattern! Either Nate is a bumbling idiot who just parrots his daddy’s rhetoric or or he is a liar.
And Bill keeps complaining that the I never discuss the GHE theory:
” Ask them to actually explain how that works knowing the rules of thermodynamics and they bow out of the room.”
While simultaneously complaining that I diascuss the GHE theory too much:
“Nate always likes to throw out Manabe and Wetherald as the evidence that CO2 controls he climate. ”
This is a paper that explains the GHE mechanism in detail and Bill and I have discussed it several times!
Bill’s opposing grievances are still battling it out for supremacy.
ok nate stop lying and right now describe the mechanism and how you know it is correct.
Will you ever tell us your alt-definition of rotation that we’ve asked you for so many times?
Until you do, you don’t get to make DEMANDS on anyone else!
Nate since I asked first you go first and stop prevaricating and trying to change the subject since you can’t do it and you have been lying that you can.
We’ve been asking you for at least a month, Bill.
Now stop lying and evading.
Thats not the topic of this subthread Nate. Take that request to where it belongs. And stop stalling and prevaricating as we know you are lying when you can show how within the framework of established atmospheric sciences the GHE works.
I admit I don’t know but I am not the one selling a theory here.
Here is article Cortes Current from 2021 claiming 1 meter by 2050 and 3 by 2100.
https://cortescurrents.ca/the-launch-of-cortes-cpr-climate-plan-for-resilience/
“With the record solar cycles of the last half of the 20th century warming robustly occurred on the heels of a solar grand maximum”
Why are you saying the opposite to the facts?
https://tinyurl.com/2b86tqhl
Solar cycles generally declined through the latter half of the 20th century.
so what that was after more than 200 year climb to get there. look at the entire trend.
https://tinyurl.com/2p8p6xt6
imagine how steep it would be if started 100 years earlier with the no spot maunder minimum!
You said that prior to the satellite temp data era there was a cooling trend.
I guess the sun doesn’t make much difference to long-term global temps then?
An amateur might get that impression.
So might an expert.
i certainly don’t think so. one would not be an expert if he thought he could spot a 33yr cooling cycle consisting of ocean current variabilty in a 280 yr linear trend line of increasing solar cycle activity. maybe though he would get ever so slighty more curious about a multi-century LIA recovery though. that would make sense.
An expert might examine two direct pieces of evidence:
https://tinyurl.com/mrx48rsx
https://tinyurl.com/4z8pcemp
and conclude that because solar activity has declined in the period that the earth has warmed, that there might not be much solar influence on global temperatures, or that other factors easily overwhelm solar influence.
Indeed, this is what many experts have concluded.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/solar-events-news/Does-the-Solar-Cycle-Affect-Earths-Climate.html
And what do you know, they did it the same way I did.
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
The IPCC also comes to this conclusion.
So I’m not sure what experts you are thinking of, Bill. Do they do climate research?
“Moncktons pause now starts in August 2014.”
Seems I was wrong. For some reason he’s kept the start as September 2014 and so it only increased by one month. I’m not sure if this is a mistake on his part or if I’ve misunderstood something about his method. The trend from August 2014 to present is slightly below 0.
Well it’s a neg slope from August whether you use OLS or ARMA 1,1 regression, so he may well have erred.
What is his method?
With Cowtan’s trend fitter, indeed we get a trend of 0 from mid 2014, but the error bar is +- 0.5 degC/decade.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
IOW the error bar is 3 x larger than the long term trend!
So the ‘Monckton pause’ is almost meaningless.
Monckton doesn’t care about the error bar, and yes, it’s meaningless. But hilarious to think some people are captivated by his nonsense.
In NZ we are having a very wet summer with a lot of flooding.
I would be interested in anyone’s comment as to whether this has anything to do with the Tongan eruption.
Below is a link to a youtube video suggesting it has been influential in the rainfall in Australia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAf9llte0WE&list=LL&index=6&t=264s
Thanks in advance.
There is some discussion that Hunga Tonga is causing floods in Australia, drought in Argentina, and cold weather in Brazil.
Furhter, the timeline comparing Tambora means that North Hemisphere will start seeing effects (if any) during planting season. It could be another year without summer as occured with Tambora.
No one seems to know for sure. There is a lot of discussion about much lower Sulpher Dioxide than Pinatubo but much higher water vapor in the stratosphere than has ever been observed before. Will it cause warming due to GHE or will it cause cooling due to increase in albedo.
Here is one video that is informing my views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZtRKbTdQVw&ab_channel=OzGeographics
The Hunga Tonga underwater volcano appears to have a different impact than that attributed to Tambora or the smaller Pinatubo. There was evidence of a strong upper level cooling in the Southern Hemisphere soon after. Another point to consider is that Tambora erupted soon after another event, so it’s effects are added to the earlier one.
FYI, there is a report just out today of an underwater eruption near Epi island, Tonga. The area appears to be near that of KUWAE, which erupted in ~1454 CE and caused a strong global cooling, often mistakenly associated with general cooling of the Little Ice Age.
hmmm, 400 years of cooling from major volcanic eruptions should followed with 300 years+ of warming recovery from fewer major volcanic eruptions. . . .right? the possibilities of natural causes to explain recent warming multiplies!
Gee, Bill, if only the IPCC thought of that.
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-9-2.html
you mean while the ipcc was selling the idea of hundreds of years of warming devastation from feedback after emissions were curtailed from stuff like melting glaciers it didn’t occur to them that the melting glaciers today could be feedback from effects curtailed hundreds of years ago instead of CO2 today and they only thought to look for contemporary effects?
Like I said this is funnier than a laurel and hardy piano moving skit. And of course Nate should be right along with a punch line and say any scientist that would suggest that must be a crank. LMAO!
You just pick and choose which bits of the IPCC suit your narrative. Proxy data good. Attribution bad. Whatever works on the day, huh?
Well there are certainly differences between proxies and attribution studies.
As you should know correlation is much easier to establish than cause..
When looking for success one has to ask is the sample randomly selected and is it diverse enough to avoid the classic problem of proxies of them potentially being a better representation of a different variable than what one is looking for. So finding a variety of proxies is one way around that.
Attribution? I haven’t seen hardly any independently peer reviewed studies on that. Its easy to spot independently reviewed studies. . . .they don’t ignore the obvious. . . .like conspiratorially allowing a ‘hide a portion of the data’ to get through and then having an email exchange that confirms the conspiracy. Or ignoring similar periods that can’t be explained by the sought after correlation.
Those guys would be in prison if there were a legal requirement for them to not do stuff like that. A good number of financiers are in prison for doing the same thing with a lot less evidence of them conspiring to do it because in the professional trades and in business its illegal.
So there is always the peer review that goes on after publication you can rely upon when the reviewer does a good job of documenting the bias. And that applies across the board. I have no compelling interest on either side of the debate. I would object as heartily about following a mandated energy policy built on any skeptic theory. Quite simply the science simply isn’t there yet and thats the only reason politics dominates.
actually it would be a good idea to require swear ins by authors of scientific papers used to make public policy that their work was preformed in accordance with standards (to be promulgated via cooperation between leading scientists appointed by scientists and confirmed by government) and government could also promulgate standards and assign criminal penalties for violation of those standards and/or any conspiracy to do that.
“Attribution? I haven’t seen hardly any independently peer reviewed studies on that.”
There are entire IPCC chapters on it, with hundreds of peer-reviewed papers referenced.
AR4 Ch 9 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
AR5 Ch 10 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional
Your ignorance is not an argument. What hand-wavy BS will you pollute the board with now?
well if you are impressed by 100 of peer reviewed studies i am not impressed with you. if there was one really good one in the whole lot they could have a much shorter bibliography section. brevity and getting to the point is a good quality. if you bothered to read them. give me the best you have. i will read it and give you my impressions.
” i will read it and give you my impressions.”
Translation: I will read the abstract and dismiss it with a flimsy excuse.
You have a track record, Bill.
well IF the abstract lays out a stupid study would you not call a spade a spade? you nervous about that? one has to wonder why one needs a 100 studies on one topic. so they can impress with numbers of studies rather than facts? do you have an explanation?
I see, Bill. You would prefer summaries of the state of the science to ignore the body of literature on a given topic in favour of picking just a couple of studies.
The things ‘skeptics’ say just gets weirder and weirder.
On a different day another ‘skeptic’, possibly also Bill, will complain that the IPCC didn’t examine enough scientific studies.
It’s like ‘skeptics’ spin a wheel to tell them what asinine remark to serve up in the moment.
“IF the abstract lays out a stupid study would you not call a spade a spade? you nervous about that?”
No. The key phrase I mentioned is “flimsy excuse.”
A good example of that is when you dismiss the pioneering paper , Manabe and Weathereld, 1967, not on its science, which you likely don’t understand, but on your speculation that it must have been influenced by Climate Change politics.
Politics from > 1990 transported back to 1967!
The key word here is FLIMSY.
It is firmly established that doing any work to find real science papers to show you is a total waste of time, Bill.
You will not read them. You will not understand the science in them. You will not look at the merits of the science in them. You will instead use political/conspiracy/BS theory to appraise them.
Total waste of time. You reap what you sow.
A (non-exhaustive) list of major volcano eruptions which happened after the Medieval Warming Period:
– 1257 Samalas, Indonesia, VEI 7
– 1280 Quilotoa, Andes, VEI 6
– 1452/3 Kuwae, Vanuatu, VEI 6+
– 1477 Bárðarbunga, Island, VEI 6
– 1563 Agua de Pau, Açores, VEI 5
– 1580 Billy Mitchell, Solomon Island, VEI 6
– 1586 Kelut, Island, VEI 5
– 1600, Huaynaputina, Peru, VEI 6
– 1641, Mount Melibengoy, Philippines, VEI 6
– 1650, Kolumbo, Greece, VEI 6
– 1660, Long Island, Papua New Guinea, VEI 6
and, between all these, about 35 eruptions with VEI 3-4.
And in the last 300 years compared to I would assume to be the 500 year period from 1200-1700 leaving out of course the estimated 150 years of positive glaciation feedback which resulted in an extended relatively flat low temperature variation period of time.
“which resulted in an extended relatively flat low temperature variation period of time.”
Could you please indicate the data behind your understanding?
In a world where ‘skeptics’ decry even the instrumental record, it would be good to know which data they think is sound.
ipcc proxies
“400 years of cooling from major volcanic eruptions should followed with 300 years+ of warming recovery ”
The observed effects of volcanoes, thus far, has been quite brief cooling episodes and recovery in < 5 years.
So the above comment about hundreds of years of cooling and warming are not supportable by any facts.
I tend to agree with Nate. Swanson and Bindidon most likely are on the wrong scent going a bit overboard on trying to pooh pooh natural sunlight received change. But hey they should have realized that if volcanos are the reason they have to follow the same rules. . . .400 years of cooling followed by up to 400 years of recovery. If anything ice cores suggest that Milankovitch warming occurs faster than cooling.
“If anything ice cores suggest that Milankovitch warming occurs faster than cooling”
Massive ice sheets covering land masses took millenia to advance and recede.
The only comparable ice sheets present today are in Greenland and Antarctica, and have been relatively stable.
Hunter wrote:
Hunter, those are your denialist “rules” which don’t agree with the data. No doubt that the Sun Spot variations influence climate, but there’s more to it than that. What we know about the MWP and the LIA is mostly anecdotal records of the extreme periods, not the average, coupled with proxy data with questions all around.
For example, the disappearance of Norse colony in Greenland has been cited as proof that the MWP lasted until ~1200, yet, we know that there are records from the Eastern Settlement to 1408. They were a typical colony existing on trade with Norway to provide many items they could not manufacture and the trade collapsed after the Black Death arrived. Iceland, on their main trading route, was late to the party, the plague not appearing until 1402-4 with a large mortality resulting. Bottom line is that their fate is unknown.
Not only that, but the relative strength and range of the so-called MWP is not well characterized in the data, though some denialist have claimed it was strong and global, based on sparse proxy data, which has been a subject of ongoing debate for almost 20 years.
E. Swanson says:
”Not only that, but the relative strength and range of the so-called MWP is not well characterized in the data, though some denialist have claimed it was strong and global, based on sparse proxy data, which has been a subject of ongoing debate for almost 20 years.”
Yadda yadda yadda Swanson. Everything in climate is subject of ongoing debate Swanson. If you want to set bar so low you are calling yourself a denialist also. Get a life!
well there is the well published case of a norse farmhouse being discovered recently emerging from a retreating greenland glacier. Sort of prima facie evidence of a continuing LIA recovery.
Hunter, I found your lack of attention to dating rather annoying, after I spend considerable effort working with some of the data and publishing my results. So, Mr. Auditor, what work on the MWP or the LIA have you undertaken and then published the results? All I’ve seen from you is unorganized regurgitation of other people’s stuff. Come on, put up or shut up, guy!
Corrected link and Another One.
submit to the IPCC. I am sure they will peer review it for you and maybe you can get in their next report. I don’t have the time to peruse the work of every crank on the planet. You got one exception and when done I told you what I found wrong with it. take it for what it’s worth is to you.
Hunter obviously has no clue how scientific publication works. The IPCC does not do peer review of submitted papers before publication.
He says:
I don’t know what he means by “You got one exception”, perhaps he thinks his comments regarding my GPE demo were meaningful. BTW, I had no intention of publishing that work, as it only demonstrated established engineering principles, so no “peer review” necessary.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter obviously has no clue how scientific publication works. The IPCC does not do peer review of submitted papers before publication.
———————-
gee maybe thats why they let so many crap papers through like hockey stick and the hide the decline graph.
Hunter drifts away from replying to my Letter to the Editor, perhaps he needs a view beyond the free first page seen in the links. HERE’s my Figure 1 in color, which is on the second page. Notice that in my version, both the MWP and the LIA appear less prominent and the LIA does not extend much beyond 1800. The effects of volcanoes, such as the 1257 Samalas, 1452/3 KUWAE and 1600 Huaynaputina eruptions, may be apparent.
Seems you are looking at when the temperature recovered. It was my impression that the traditional measure of the end of an ice age was when the ice stopped advancing and began a retreat signalling the start of the largest positive feedback mechanism.
In fact the graph doesn’t paint a clear picture of what a recovery should be temperature wise. Should it be when the MWP advance left off? That would put it via more raw version of UKmet having only undergone one round of warming adjustments around the mid 1990’s
Hunter wrote:
Yes, I was working with the temperature data, re-analyzing Loehle’s data which others often claimed to show the dates of the MWP and the LIA. There is lots more proxy data made available since, including glacier advance and retreats. Make of it what you will, my analysis suggested that the MWP was a small excursion and the LIA was not a continuous period of colder than average temperatures. The temperatures after 1800 were near average, but began to increase from ~1900-1950.
You are welcome to pick any definition of “Ice Age” you want, if it matches the data. But, the LIA didn’t hold a candle to the real extent and depth of the ice cover at LGM some 20,000 years BP.
Yes and thank goodness for that.
There indeed is a significant temperature rebound any way you want to look at it.
Certainly under current feedback theory the entire temperature recovery period you graph with the exception of the last uptick in temperatures covers a transition period from negative to positive feedback with glacial ice being the measure. So as I do with analysis on large systems one can expect flat periods in a sine wave that you represent in a rectangular form. the flat period would be expected to occur to some degree in feedback theory as system momentum changes direction. First there is some deceleration of the positive feedback from a cooling influence followed by an acceleration of the positive feedback from warming influence. And thats the pattern you see in the LIA recovery.
But of course there are other factors at play also which makes it noisy. The AGW narrative is the LIA ended and the industrial revolution began. Which in my view has as much credibility except that we have no history of seeing such a pattern repeating itself. But can’t penalize it too much for that. The problem only comes in when people start assigning certainty numbers to it. You can read reams of work from Judith Curry on that. And in my profession they spend a lot of time in the apprentice phase, post education, engraining that into you as part of your job is to assess certainty to the 95% and above levels.
Hunter troll wrote:
Hunter troll has never identified what “large systems” he analyzes. He mentions “flat periods…in a rectangular form”, perhaps referring to the data from VIAU, et al., which was binned in 100 year time periods and was thus plotted as a bar graph. I must presume he hasn’t read my letter.
Hunter further talks about “a transition period from negative to positive feedback with glacial ice being the measure”, ignoring the fact that the changes in areas covered by glacial ice are far less than albedo changes over flat land and ocean covered by snow and ice. How does he think his “positive feedback” supposed to work?
BTW, Hunter troll, what is your profession, specifically, what industries do/did you work for?
cycles depending upon their variability can look like a sine wave. You have a period of upward acceleratio followed by a deceleration then an acceleration in the other direction. the tops and bottoms look like flat lines if you do linear trends. The sides have trends up and down. It can look like turning a switch on and off and the current measured in changes and in times the switch is on or off.
So in a feedback system one might not expect things to change right way. Feedback is something that gives the system momentum that is difficult to change. AGW scientists characterize the climate system in that way, though they seem to avoid talking about the implications of it when it doesn’t fit the narrative they have laid out. They seem kind of ‘not smart’ in that way. This is bread and butter audit and investigation stuff, to them its like a 90 foot red arrow 10foot thick pointing ‘go this way’.
Hunter mumbles something about “cycles”, “sine waves” and “feedback”, while he refuses to answer my question regarding his technical background to make such judgements.
It sounds like he still hasn’t bothered to read my Letter to the Editor. If he wants to, but can’t find a copy, I will mail him one, if he sends me his real name, address, work history and a phone # so I can contact him. I promise I won’t tell anyone who you REALLY are or reveal your other details, unless, of course, pinged by Uncle Sammy’s crew.
well at least swanny i am not hawking sideways forcing of atmospheric gases arising from gravity
Maybe the Hunter boy never did read this article before:
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks
Gifford H. Miller & alii (2012)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050168
*
A few paragraphs out of the paper’s abstract
” Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures over the past 8000 years have been paced by the slow decrease in summer insolation resulting from the precession of the equinoxes.
However, the causes of superposed century-scale cold summer anomalies, of which the Little Ice Age (LIA) is the most extreme, remain debated, largely because the natural forcings are either weak or, in the case of volcanism, short lived.
Here we present precisely dated records of ice-cap growth from Arctic Canada and Iceland showing that LIA summer cold and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 AD, followed by a substantial intensification 14301455 AD.
Intervals of sudden ice growth coincide with two of the most volcanically perturbed half centuries of the past millennium.
A transient climate model simulation shows that explosive volcanism produces abrupt summer cooling at these times, and that cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed.
Our results suggest that the onset of the LIA can be linked to an unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg.
The persistence of cold summers is best explained by consequent sea-ice/ocean feedbacks during a hemispheric summer insolation minimum; large changes in solar irradiance are not required. ”
*
Of course: as I posted a link to the article years ago, the Robertson genius visibly didn’t even read the paper, but he knew it was wrong…
Maybe some ‘Skeptics’ behave a bit less dumb this time.
Perhaps it is useful to show how the Samalas eruption of 1257 compared to what many people today still consider to be the largest eruption of the last 20,000 years: Tambora (1815).
*
Source of the great A.D. 1257 mystery eruption unveiled, Samalas volcano, Rinjani Volcanic Complex, Indonesia
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1307520110
*
From the abstract
” Polar ice core records attest to a colossal volcanic eruption that took place ca. A.D. 1257 or 1258, most probably in the tropics.
Estimates based on sulfate deposition in these records suggest that it yielded the largest volcanic sulfur release to the stratosphere of the past 7,000 y.
Tree rings, medieval chronicles, and computational models corroborate the expected worldwide atmospheric and climatic effects of this eruption. However, until now there has been no convincing candidate for the mid-13th century ‘mystery eruption’.
Drawing upon compelling evidence from stratigraphic and geomorphic data, physical volcanology, radiocarbon dating, tephra geochemistry, and chronicles, we argue the source of this long-sought eruption is the Samalas volcano, adjacent to Mount Rinjani on Lombok Island, Indonesia.
At least 40 km3 (dense-rock equivalent) of tephra were deposited and the eruption column reached an altitude of up to 43 km. Three principal pumice fallout deposits mantle the region and thick pyroclastic flow deposits are found at the coast, 25 km from source. With an estimated magnitude of 7, this event ranks among the largest Holocene explosive eruptions. ”
*
Here is the graphic Samalas vs. Tambora comparison:
https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.1307520110/asset/4124ff30-3cbb-426e-84d4-35874b24c454/assets/graphic/pnas.1307520110fig03.jpeg
Read the article, it is amazing.
Hunter troll, jumps on Gordo’s latest anti-science bandwagon, instead of replying to the topic of discussion or to my request. OK, Gill, Here’s a debunking of Gordo’s latest stupidity.
bin, possible. anything is possible, but the warming began in time with a return of solar activity. i have long maintained that there are lots of ways for climate to change an a few ways to foil even measuring how much it is changing. . . .as we see playing out in the post after this one.
so its quite likely in my view that some of the larger climate excursions seen in between milankovitch cycles are like a random walk and made up of multiple factors that perchance align with the same climate effect sign. and yes some amount could be due to ghgs but i am banking not much from co2. its a new wild card and if warming actually does become clearly unprecedented i will consider it further.
from an auditor perspective starting out calling it unprecedented as the primary argument instead of laying out how it does operate within the established framework of physics had a very loud Freudian flair to it.
Solar wind
speed: 408.7 km/sec
density: 10.61 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 65
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 137 sfu
Updated 01 Feb 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.72×1010 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.4% Elevated
https://www.spaceweather.com/
–ALL QUIET: Today, solar activity is low. There are five small sunspots on the solar disk. All of them are stable and quiet, posing no threat for strong solar flares.–
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
30 January – 25 February 2023
Solar activity is expected to be low, with a slight chance for
M-class flare activity (R1-R2) on 30 Jan – 02 Feb. Solar activity is
likely to reach moderate levels with the return of Region 3184 (S13,
L=180) on 03 Feb and remain there throughout the rest of the outlook
period, due to the flare potential of numerous returning M and
X-class producing regions. ”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Have not given Jan sunspot number, but it will be high:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
Jan sunspot: 143.6
[Cycle 24 seems to have one month slightly higher, 146.1]
Exactly, it was in Feb 2014.
La Nina is slowly weakening, but the amount of heat in the ocean is low.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202302.gif
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Texas turns into an ice rink.
SSW very strong.
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/pole10_nh.gif
The average temperature of the stratosphere at 10 hPa above the North Pole is currently that of mid-summer.
As a retired weatherman, I would like to let everybody know that I am by far more opinionated than I am knowledgeable when it comes to atmospheric science. My opinion about human-caused global warming is that it is grossly exaggerated.
What I would like to find out from the scientists who comment on Dr. Spencer’s site is this. How many of you agree with President Biden that climate change is the greatest threat to humanity?
Climate change policies are a great threat to humanity than climate change.
That’s what I think.
Greenhouse gases are real. CO2 is increasing. Global warming is real to some unknown extent. Anthropogenic Climate Change is possible, but extremely difficult to distinguish from natural variability on every time scale known (month to month, year to year, decade to decade, century to century, etc.). Climate Crisis is a political term with no scientific backing.
I have another thought. All of the hype is about increased warming of the lower atmosphere where water vapor dominates the greenhouse effect. The most significant effect of increasing CO2 is probably increased plant growth rates and cooling of the upper atmosphere. The increased instability in the atmosphere also should lead to more convective activity and latent heat transfer in the upper atmosphere from thunder storms. That could have a significant and yet unknown effect.
I disagree.
Newscorp and other populist megaphones that promote Newtspeak is the main threat.
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
“I am by far more opinionated than I am knowledgeable…”
That’s a very mature statement, Rob. It likely means you know much more than many others that only have opinions and beliefs.
“How many of you agree with President Biden that climate change is the greatest threat to humanity?”
Let’s go Brandon.
Let’s go Brandon is right – hopefully for no more than two years. I have nothing against renewable energy. But I think the people who produce electricity for a living should be the ones to determine what our energy mix should be – not bureaucrats. Shutting down our primary source of energy without having the alternatives set in place does nothing but create hardship for the working class. I feel quite fortunate that I am retired now, and no longer have to worry about commuting costs.
Im not aware of shutting down of primary sources. The mix of energy sources has been changing, gradually, and largely market driven. Renewables have gotten cheaper, nuclear is expensive and has other problems, and coal is dirty and not as cheap as gas.
Rob Mitchell says: How many of you agree with President Biden that climate change is the greatest threat to humanity?
The thing about global warming is that is geologically fast, but relatively slow on human timescales.
It’s likely to be a big problem for someone else and more so a few generations hence. This allows our generation the luxury of living without the worst consequences hence the ability to selfishly rationalize our near term policy choices.
I’d characterize it more as a great test of human civilization than as some immediate threat.
Mark B, Earth has been in a “global warming” trend since the 1970s. This is verified by the UAH global graph at the top. Before that, Earth was in a “global cooling” trend. Earth oscillates from cooling to warming based on natural variation. We don’t know enough about all the natural variation, yet. (Some believe this latest warming trend is ending, with the peak having occurred in 2016. Time will tell.)
What we know for certain is CO2 can NOT heat the planet.
“Before that, Earth was in a ‘global cooling’ trend.”
Which pre-satellite data are you relying on here? What data do you think is sound enough to support your opinion? Is it Had.CRU?
barry says:
Which pre-satellite data are you relying on here? What data do you think is sound enough to support your opinion? Is it Had.CRU?
———————–
yes had-c-rut1
https://tinyurl.com/djaxn7pm
The evolution of Had.CRU global temp data.
that does show the evolution it just shows the end result of fiddling with the data.
So you confirm you rely on Had.CRU to confidently announce that Earth was in a global cooling trend pre-satellite data, and not one post later, after I post a graph of Had.CRU data, you announce that the data is unreliable – ‘fiddled with’, in your own words.
I didn’t think you would reflexively disparage the source for your own claim so quickly, but I knew you would do it at some point.
I’ve bookmarked these posts to remind you from time to time how opportunistic your argumentation really is.
there was no judgement call in any thing I said. I have no opinion on that. I have been using the Uk dataset for all my longterm looks at temperatures since 2006.
I don’t have overly confidence in it but I don’t know anything else that would be better. On the data fiddling comment. . . .auditors don’t like fiddled data it means a lot more work on their part. You need as an auditor to understand the source of everything.
for anomalies I would rely first on raw thermometer measurements. It would be nice to know if the data had been collected consistently but beyond that who cares when they read the thermometer as long its a few hours after sunset and before dawn.
if there isn’t consistency then one is mostly just have less confidence in general. . . .thus the natural aversion of auditors to data that was so bad it needed fixing pretty much by guesswork. we see that kind altered documentation and at a minimum its going to spur some recommendations to management to ensure a permanent fix to the problem even if it doesn’t affect the audit report.
Further when politics an a lack of independence is in the pictures with universities fiddling with the data there are more concerns of bias and even possibly out and out misrepresentation. More auditor concerns.
I will give you scenario. When Kevin Trenberth said the temperature returns were a ‘travesty’ because they were embarrassing their efforts at prediction. That sends a loud message go find some errors that will fix the problem. And indeed a lot of bright minds figure out ways to find errors that result in too cool of temperatures being recorded. But did any bright minds work on finding temperatures that were recorded too high? Likely not one guy is going to get a pat on the back and the other is going to get grimaces as he walks about the office. it just human nature.
You positively cited Had.CRU to make a point, then ripped it as soon as I countered with the same source.
I understand you’re trying to give some nuance on the matter here, but this post-facto rationalizing is entirely unconvincing on its face, as well as the details of your remarks.
The criticism you gave of Had.CRU was as opportunistic as the reliance on it to make a point just a couple of posts earlier.
It’s the same thing Gordon does with Clausius – cite to confirm second law, then tell everyone Clausius got a few things wrong whenever he is cited to skewer Gordon’s claim.
Same with the anti-GHE nuts here. They claim UAH is better because Roy Spencer and Jophn Christy have smarts and integrity above and beyond anyone else. But then Roy is pitied by them for not understanding things well enough when he is quoted telling ‘skeptics’ to drop the silly anti-GHE stuff.
In fact it was Clint who made the point, but you supplied the confirming data, Bill.
I think the next glaciation will be the big test for human civilization.
Rob Mitchell: How many of you agree with President Biden that climate change is the greatest threat to humanity?
As the world’s population rises to near 8 billion, the increasing inequalities are a great threat to economic growth, social stability, and individual well-being.
Billions of people without access to:
Clean/secure water: 0.7 2.1.
Adequate sanitation: 1.8.
Electricity: 0.95.
Clean cooking: 2.6.
Sufficient/secure food: 0.8 2.
Safe and secure housing: 1.2.
Any education: 0.264.
Internet: >4.
Should a “first-world” lifestyle be the goal for everyone?
How about this – why don’t we just quit telling the Third World what type of energy they should use? Wouldn’t natural gas be a lot better than wood fires and dung?
Yes, nat gas has higher energy density and lower carbon content than wood or dung, which results in cleaner and more efficient combustion.
Generally speaking it is cheaper to burn nat gas compared to wood or dung on a BTU basis. The problem is nat gas is only found in certain locations in the world and it is not easily, or cheaply, transported to remote regions.
It soon will, Tyson. You’re building LNG shipping facilities as we speak. That may not bode well for the price you’ll pay for it. Check Cali these days.
I don’t know about you, but if I was of the opinion that we should not tell the poor what to do, I wouldn’t ask rhetorical questions about how much better would be the very thing that I get more than everyone else, except perhaps the ZZs.
Yes Willard, contradictions abound as in, “this statement I’m making is false.”
Wholes NATGAS dropping like a rock against the dollar. Harbinger of major recession.
“Harbinger of major recession.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/03/jobs-report-january-2023-.html
Biden can’t even do a recession right!
Jobs are the last indicator to fall during a recession or depression. I think depression is on the way. Biden doing everything he can to help it.
Or, to put it another way, it is the last indicator to top.
Don’t gaslight yourself.
I’ve seen my share of recessions:
Trump 2020
Bush II 2007
Bush II 2001
Bush I 1990
Reagan 1981
Carter 1980
Nixon 1973
Nixon 1968
Eisenhower 1960
Recessions lag policy. You’ll note most of those occurred at the beginning of a new administration, so you want to ask, who set the policies in the previous administration? Others had special circumstances, like the implosion of the mortgage bubble brought on by the Democrats CRA in 2007, or the reckless response of their minions (Fauci et al.) to the COVID crisis in 2020.
Bart at 1:46 PM.
You’ve lost the plot.
Unemployment typically precedes a recession, as businesses reduce their workforce during an economic slowdown. Other factors, such as consumer spending, manufacturing output, and housing starts, can also be considered to be leading indicators of a recession and should be evaluated together with unemployment to form a more comprehensive view of the economy.
I’m not going to engage in a pissing contest about politics. I’m a Quant.
Keep the rubber side down.
“Recessions lag policy.”
While correlation is not causation, I do remember Thatcher’s newly introduced deflationary policies precipitated a sharp UK recession.
No, no. Employment is usually the last indicator to top.
Not sure what you mean by gaslighting. Government can only harm an economy. Reagan, 81, really? With Biden, spending has gone into overdrive, inflating the balloon, more regulations, opening the border putting more stress on our welfare state. But, in reality, it has been 100 years of progressive policy, and Republicans helped, too. Income Tax, Federal Reserve fractional banking, how Senate elected, Social Security, New Deal, Great Society, etc. Were mostly progressive ideology. Bigger government is better.
This will be the top of all tops, the Mother of all Depressions. It will make the Fall of Rome look like child’s play. You guys won’t have to worry anymore about Climate Change. You’ll have other things to worry about.
The GOP *never* reduced the size of the gubmint, Troglodyte.
You are fooling yourself with Newscorp crap.
With these guys the thing, whatever it is, is always coming, soon.
The great cooling is coming, soon, you’ll see.
Leftist tyranny is coming, soon, you’ll see!
Now a great depression is coming, the leftists have been working on it for 100 years. Now its just around the corner. You’ll see!
Leftist tyranny is already here. Did you check what you have to pay for everything. And outside of the political centers you have blackshirted fascist mobs terrorizing people and huge mob program to get people fired for the most ridiculous of reasons.
Bill, the commie health system we have over here is far cheaper than the capitalist one in the US.
It’s also more humane. You don’t get turned away if you’re poor, and people don’t have to avoid the doctor to avoid poverty.
Out of interest I checked the price of a box of Lyrica in the US.
$291 on average, without insurance.
In Australia, it’s $14, whether or not you’re on medical insurance.
The average cost of giving birth in a hospital in the US, if there are no complications, is $8,000.
In Australia it’s anywhere from 0 – $1500 in the public health system.
What in God’s name is wrong with the US health care system?
It depends on how the climate changes.
Clearly, the historical record shows that humans flourish when the climate is warmer. Just check out the anecdotal history from the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period.
Humans struggle to survive when climate is cooler. Europe lost half its population during the Little Ice Age.
A cooling climate on the scale of the Little Ice Age, or worse, an end to the interglacial period, is the greatest threat to humanity. There is no way to attribute cooling to human activity.
I’m pretty sure Biden thinks its global warming when he speaks of climate change as the greatest threat. He and the rest of the warmists are profoundly wrong. The resulting climate policies are a much greater threat to humanity than any warming scenario ever could be.
> Europe lost half its population during the Little Ice Age.
You’ll never guess why:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death
First comes famine, then comes plague, then comes social unrest, then comes war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315%E2%80%931317
In fairness, the toll of the Black Death might have been overestimated:
https://college.georgetown.edu/news-story/has-the-black-deaths-impact-been-overstated-new-medieval-data-complicates-understanding/
“climate change is the greatest threat to humanity?”
NO.. The greatest threat to humanity at the moment is the RESPONSE to the non-problem of CO2 based climate change (which is unmeasured because it is immeasurable).
Net Zero idiocy and all the accompanying other woke nonsense is destroying economies and societies around the world.
Wind and solar are destroy once pristine landscapes, and causing huge economic costs to consumers.
The greatest threat to humanity is ourselves. We have the propensity to destroy ourselves. I often wonder if God has placed this “defect” in humankind as a check on opulence, like the lemmings marching off the cliff. “I want to come to America because I want to come to a country where the poor people are fat.”
Finally a negative anomaly again! It was about time, wasn’t it?
We had 3 below 0 in 2021, and one last year, so not to surprising given the ongoing La Nina.
Watch the red line.
Are you saying the red line will rise or fall in the next few months?
Second half of year..
So in the first half of the year it will continue downwards?
Flatish.
Now you.
There’s usually a lag of at least 3-4 months between ENSO and their effects showing up in the satellite data. Since the current La Nina is still ongoing for about one more month, I suspect we will see low anomalies through May.
With relatively low sea ice levels at both poles these anomalies are likely a few tenths of a degree warmer than they would be with more normal sea ice values. Antarctica gets a lot of solar energy in January.
During a strong La Nina, Antarctic temperatures drop, but sea ice melts more strongly as warm water from the western Pacific is transported toward the poles.
So what does all this tell us?
1, AGW is a flawed theory
2. Natural variability over powers AGW (through natural cycles such as ENSO/SOLAR etc) meaning AGW theory may be valid but its impacts are far weaker than predicted
3, The strength/impacts of AGW can vary from strong to mild due to some unknown process
3, An alternative I have not thought of
If La Nina lasts until April, it could be extended if solar activity continues to jump like this.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
Thank you.Wanted this 2 years ago but better late
than never!
???
Nate
” ??? ”
*
He probably means this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x9jsQs8XkGkj4wT9FtrWaiy-LzIPbT3s/view
Oulu neutron count is kinda inverse of solar activity and doesn’t look so ‘speaky’.
Connection to La Nina???
My comment not good enough for your site Roy, ok well enjoy your quaint little echo chamber
Oh, my
The UAH6.0 global temp anomaly is currently at -0.05C, with a 44-year warming trend of 0.13C/decade, compared to CMIP6.0 computer model current projections of 1.42C, at a 30-year projected warming trend of 0.37C/decade (3 TIMES observations)
CMIP6 computer model projections, upon which global governments are basing their environmental and energy polices and wasting $10ps of trillions, are completely devoid from reality.
Moreover, global temperature anomalies will likely soon be on a declining trend for 30 years as the Pacific and Atlantic reenter their respective 30-year cooling cycles.
Under the rules of the scientific method, the CAGW hypothesis has already been disconfirmed because hypothetical projections have exceeded observations by more than 2 standard deviations for a statistically significant duration (30+ years).
CAGW is dead.
“Under the rules of the scientific method, the CAGW hypothesis has already been disconfirmed…”
CAGW was DOA. The nonsense should NEVER have gone on this long, with massive waste of funding. Budgets should be slashed, and bureaucrats prosecuted.
It was all about funding/agenda. Hopefully people will learn.
grammie clone wrote:
Yes, hopefully people will learn, but not from the lies and disinformation produced by anti-science trolls like you.
E. Swanson, why not provide us with your best example of “lies and disinformation” that I have produced.
That would be better than your immature insults and false accusations, wouldn’t it?
He can’t. He is terrible and scientific documentation. So you shouldn’t take it too negatively as he is just projecting in a Freudian sense. Not sure how to say it sensitively these days. . . .challenged?
” … best example of ‘lies and disinformation’ that I have produced. ”
*
No problem here is the latest one known to me:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1432782
You are a specialist in disinformation, Clint R.
You are even able to intentionally mistranslate and hence distort the words of one of our greatest scientists: Isaac Newton.
Sorry Bindidon, but that’s an example of reality conflicting with your false beliefs.
Is that all you’ve got?
Wrong.
It’s an example of how you warp a scientific text to fit your pseudo-skeptical ‘ball-on-a-string’ narrative.
But as usual, you even deny this simple evidence.
You remind me of those children who, when their mother catches them snacking on jam – even with their finger in the jar – they just say, ‘No, Mom, I’m not snacking on the jam’.
When will you ever become an adult, Clint R?
Bin, you’re obsessed with protecting your cult, but you know NOTHING about the science. If someone explains the science to you, you call them “liar”. You don’t want reality.
Now you jumped in here to help Swanson, who has apparently left the bulding. And you will troll here all day, with insults and false accusations. I’ve learned the only way to get rid of trolls is to hit them with some science. They hate that. (Ask troll Norman about adding photons.)
Swanson made 3 diagrams.
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
ALL are wrong. Your job, since you believe you understand the relevant science, is to identify what is wrong in each diagram. I don’t believe you can do it. Prove me wrong.
I won’t hold my breath….
Clint R baby
None of Swanson’s graphs are wrong. What is wrong is your tremendous ignorance about the motions of celestial bodies.
I won’t go any deeper here because I don’t want to go through this pointless discussion again and avoid infecting this thread as well.
Feel free to continue this discussion there for example:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#submit
That’s the right corner for you to post further nonsense.
Very good, Bin. Don’t finish what you start. Head for the door. Run. Head for the hills.
Reality always wins.
“Current projections” are not past projections. Cannot compare to historical rise. Plus surface vs troposphere. Apples and oranges.
This analysis shows good agreement for recent projections with observations.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-16264-6&ved=2ahUKEwjylZfO6vb8AhUPElkFHWg1Bi0QFnoECBQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0uF3a0jO6dRMmZpMyeXBsW
Don’t you think its odd that they would be comparing only ‘land’ based temperature patterns to co2 models that project a global effect?
We know the northern hemisphere is warming faster than the southern hemisphere by a ton which would seem to be a Milankovitch type solar effect rather than an evenly distributed CO2 effect.
Using land gives a 2:1 boost for the northern hemisphere which is about 40% covered by land whereas the southern hemisphere is only about 20% land.
Piss poor political science I would say. They must be lobbying for a lot more money in their budget. . . .using the educational exemption they get.
Bill makes his usual mashup of made up science and politics. Can’t take it seriously.
The analysis shown by Nate has few to do with CO2, even if as usual it mentions it as a primary cause for global warming.
It concentrates on that warming.
It is therefore correct to reduce it, in a first step, to land temperatures when sea surface data is not as well simulated by most models as the authors had wished:
” Climate model simulations of surface temperatures are tipically compared with observation-based datasets of surface temperatures, but these are usually built considering measurements of air temperature over land and sea surface temperature (SST) over oceans.
Such inconsistencies between observed and simulated datasets can account up to 25% of the differences between them.
Since many of the CMIPs GCMs used in the present study do not have available the SST variable (tos), and bearing in mind that the human population lives exclusively over land areas, the present study will focus over land areas only. ”
*
Thus, this critique by the Hunter boy (who criticizes even Newton when needed – but without any scientific proof of what he claims, of course) is irrelevant.
Bin, i noticed that you did a dance and pirouette around the point I made.
Namely how can you offer up a conclusion that the models were within a range of accuracy using a proxy that that obviously isn’t well simulated. Aren’t they trying to evaluate that rather than assume it?
If one were to answer the first obvious question of an explanation for the difference between the N and S hemispheres and other similar relevant questions one could then move on to looking at how the results conform to the assumptions embedded in the models.
A good study should first reveal how they treated aberrations in the observations that aren’t born about by the main theory behind the models it would be on the way toward being an informative study.
Typically that would then be done by a weighting factor, document it, and explain how the weighting was arrived at.
You know like Roy and John do when they do this kind of analysis.
Oh thats right this is a Portuguese study probably aimed at their politicians who know nothing about science right? i Sheeesh!
“If one were to answer the first obvious question of an explanation for the difference between the N and S hemispheres ”
And as usual, Bill thinks science doesn’t know stuff if HE doesn’t know stuff.
Hint: ocean has a much higher heat capacity than land.
Hint#2 Arctic amplification. The Arctic is mostly sea ice, which can easily be melted.
The Antarctic is mostly ice on land. Lots of it. It is an ice box for the SH.
And… an ice box kept cold by the circumpolar currents.
” And as usual, Bill thinks science doesnt know stuff if HE doesnt know stuff. ”
Yeah. Just have a look on his views about Newton 2 threads earlier… amazing.
thats right nate. but the whole southern hemisphere is warming much slower, ocean and land.. that means a good deal of the warming is regional, not global and the global sampling doesn’t address that heterogeneity. statistics like means and averages is only meaningful for homogenous samples.
So its not a mystery for science, Bill. Just stop wasting people’s time with this nonsense.
so do you have an explanation why global warming isn’t global?
well simulated means it changes depending upon what data set you use and how you kriging the data?
We see time and again without exception how the process of processing the data adds to the warming.
Why is that? The concept of an anomaly and a forcing applied by an evenly distributed gas should let us know how much warming has occurred globally by looking at a few thermometers when the assumption is that otherwise the climate would be cooling.
The US has a Climate Reference Network that is so well designed everybody feels compelled to applying kriging and gridding to get it right. Something very wrong here. Do we really know so little about climate that we can’t even design a true reference network? Yet we allow folks to apply algorithms to start favoring one thermometer over another until viola warming has been located!!
And of course it doesn’t matter that the work is being done by institutions that have billions and billions of dollars at stake in modeling and recommending solutions to the crisis. No that has no influence whatsoever in the judgmental processes involved in kriging and gridding data. Why should it? Its just dollars and the guys doing it are all fully committed to altruism.
Then there is the vast universe of ‘settled science’ upon which dedicated scientists can unconditionally rely upon in making judgement calls. This is all there giving everybody a clean conscience regarding their work. And their work is then used as cover for politicians to allocate more rewards for a job well done.
So meanwhile the entire population is set down for their induction haircuts as we enter into this noble endeavor of a war on climate.
Hunter wrote:
That statement implies conclusion depends on which data set you select. As we all know, there’s more than one data set extracted from the MUSU/AMSU data. The UAH LT exhibits a global trend of 0.13 and SH trend of 0.11 K/decade while the RSS global is 0.21 and SH is 0.16 k/decade. Those trends do not represent surface data, which one would expect to be greater.
Looks to me like the warming is infact global, it’s just that the SH is warming slower, as expected, due to the large much larger fraction of ocean in the SH, AS YOU WELL KNOW.
The rest of Hunter’s political rant is pure BS, thus ignored.
well then it appears that swanson agrees that some effort should be given to reducing the observed warming via an algorithm that considers the diffs between the nh and sh as being the fruit of a different tree until such time explanation for that could be found and the algorithm improved but . . . .nope! such algorithms are only allowed when they increase the warming, such as select kriging and gridding algorithms that conform to the expectations of settled science. It is scientifically required that practitioners honor ‘settled science’ such as how much warming is expected from emissions.
and of course it is expected because ocean currents are different in the southern oceans. but we are not talking about a study that at all focuses on the ocean. i think swanson needs to get up to speed here on the topic being discussed.
Hunter wrote:
There’s more to the problem than a “forcing applied by an evenly distributed gas”. You need to also consider the seasonal effects, especially in the cryosphere, as well as ocean currents. The geography of the Arctic and the Antarctic are vastly different, so that fact alone would lead a serious investigator to think the two hemispheres would have different warming rates.
Of course, you want your desired algorithm to produce “reducing the observed warming”, which is a gross assumption, asserting that the out come of any method of data analysis must be reduced warming. But, heck Gill, you have experience “auditing” something (building energy audits?), so maybe you could tackle the question yourself and publish your results. That’s called science.
thats the point!
if they dont know how these different environments interact why do they pretend they know? they are perfectly happy to krige between them.
Hunter, You use the wording “different environments” when I was referring to “different processes” operating within and between the various portions of the atmosphere-ocean system. Temperature measurements are one way to quantify the states of these processes at various locations and times and statistical techniques are used to analyze these data.
You appear to object to KRIGING, which is a method of interpolation used to analyze the available temperature data, given limited spacial coverage. I’m not intimately familiar with the technique, but it appears to have found use in other areas of statistical analysis besides climate data. As the WIKI article points out, there is a theoretical basis for using Kriging, which you should be attacking, if you can work with the math.
“so do you have an explanation why global warming isn’t global?”
It is global, just happening at different rates and that’s been explained here and everywhere else in this debate.
Either you’re a noob or you’re playing dumb. Either way, the person you’re likeliest to convince is yourself.
“The US has a Climate Reference Network that is so well designed everybody feels compelled to applying kriging and gridding to get it right.”
As usual, Bill is completely fabricating that kriging is used by everybody on the USCRN data.
Blow-hards wave their wafty hands and voila! Alternative facts. Known by old-timers as ‘insubstantive rhetoric’.
not accelerating
sub-2.0 ECS
trillions wasted
Citation needed for those trillions.
You may like:
China Reduced Air Pollution in 7 Years as Much as US Did in Three Decades
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-14/china-s-clean-air-campaign-is-bringing-down-global-pollution#?leadSource=uverify%20wall
Total BS article Willard.
Currently China’s average PM 2.5 is over 30 and the US is under 10.
Worse the comparison is based upon where monitoring sites are located which are predominately in areas of concern at least in the US.
To make such a comparison there needs to be some comparison between how it is monitored.
If that stands up then China is still 3 times worse than US (e.g. not even close US levels)
Further the comparison for China is slower than the article claims for the US 40% China, 44% US.
And the data for China is 2013 to 2020
the data for the US 1970 to 2000. US PM 2.5 standards weren’t put in place until 2000 and the US decline was due to the increasing cost of coal energy vs primarily the cost of energy from oil and natural gas.
Can’t you find articles that actually come from a credible source?
Gill, Gill,
You’re supposed to meet Bordon’s auditing standards, and you’re just saying stuff once again.
Here:
https://aqli.epic.uchicago.edu/news/chinas-clean-air-campaign-is-bringing-down-global-pollution/
I notice that the Univ of Chicago isn’t quoted for the article’s title nor what you highlighted about the article. Perhaps they have more credibility than Bloomfield or You.
Gill, you goose.
The story was on that report.
LOL! Willard Willard Willard
The story was not on the report. The report (a news report) was on the Bloomberg story. Title of the Report ”In the News:
Then it refers you to Bloomberg for the full article.
Worse the organization reporting on what is in the news is. . . .wait for it. . . .yep an initiative funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies.
Its one hand washing the other.
Nothing wrong with that it just part of credential building all foundations and not-for-profits do so they can have more appeal to the Norma Desmonds of the World rubbing shoulders with billionaires for charitable purposes. But don’t bring it into a blog on science. Fact is China did reduce their pm 2.5 levels according to their monitoring systems to the levels that the US started out with in 1970. So going forward China can compare their shutdown authoritarian state successes in the area with the US successes voluntarily achieved by Americans over the 20 years from 1970 to 2000. We know an authoritarian state can do that easily by fiat or a cultural revolution in the blink of an eye.
The question is will they? Their problem started with while the US was reducing their PM 2.5 levels voluntarily the China regime was building coal plants and handing out coal burning furnaces right and left to the population taking their PM emissions to sky rocket high levels. All they have to do reverse that is stop handing out coal to put in the furnaces. meanwhile after us standards went into place us pm 2.5 has continued its decline as coal increasingly becomes less competitive in the marketplace.
C’mon, Gill:
Don’t be (like) Bordon.
that was my point willard. greenstone didnt make a stupid comparison. the bloomberg press did. and cause bloomberg funds a propaganda organization at u of c, it reported the news of the news.
this goes on all the time and is used as fodder for monetary support and political favors and you bring it in here like it was science.
Gill, Gill,
You don’t have a point.
You are simply rope-a-doping from one to the next.
Please learn from (your) Master Bordon and start a new thread as if nothing happened.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Its amazing how the quality of the discussion deteriorates when just one troll enters the discussion.
Oh, Kennui.
Don’t be so hard on Gill.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Are you trying to steal Grahams job?
Please carry on, Swenson. I can’t be here all the time, and somebody needs to ask him to stop trolling.
“Citation needed for those trillions.”
lol is this your first day learning about climate? troll better
Can’t substantiate, so mocks, and ironically calls the person asking for substantiation a troll.
SSW brings arctic air to the US. Temperatures in C.
https://i.ibb.co/SRwYwyQ/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-02-210954.png
A quick perusal of Roy’s graph at top of page shows a flat trend from about 2000 – about 2014. It’s actually 1998 – 2014 statistically.
Suddenly, in 2014, the red-running average line took off for a max in 2016, and it never came back down. It oscillated around 0.22C. That means, in effect, the heat re-circulated by the 2016 super-EN has never gone away.
Why???
Same thing happened following the 1998 super EN to a lesser extent. There was an initial rebound to the previous trend line then it shot back up in 2001 where it leveled off at the current baseline.
That’s 0.2C unaccounted warming following the 1998 EN followed by another unaccounted 0.2C warming following the 2016 EN. Couple that with the 1977 0.2C unaccounted warming that lead to the discovery of the PDO, and you have 0.6C of unaccounted warming in the past 46 years.
Diehard alarmists will claim that abrupt warming is due to CO2 but that does not explain why CO2 increases gradually and the warming does not.
It’s almost as if the super ENs are acting like a hot water pump, distributing heat that has accumulated in Tropical ocean waters, fooling us into thinking there has been a sudden warming since 1970.
“That means, in effect, the heat re-circulated by the 2016 super-EN has never gone away.
Why???”
That’s not undissipated EN heat, that’s just the slowly accumulating heat over the long term punctuated by ENs, making it look like step-jumps.
Because if you have periodic oscillations on a long-term trend, it looks exactly like step jumps. Just ask Roy.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-it/
Gordon, the 2014 warming was due to a reduction in clouds. This allowed solar energy to heat the oceans. Takes awhile for the oceans to cool. The current cooling trend from 2016 is -0.24 C / decade.
“It’s almost as if the super ENs are acting like a hot water pump.”
Which would mean the global temperature should step-up after a super el Nino.
Here’s global temps around one of the largest on record – 1878.
https://tinyurl.com/4y9stzft
No step-up.
There was also a strong el Nino in 1972/73.
https://tinyurl.com/53vk9p9h
There appears to have been a brief step DOWN following that el Nino.
What about the famous 1998 el Nino?
https://tinyurl.com/bdehrtxu
Once again there is a significant step DOWN after the el Nino, whereafter the temps resume at a higher level.
It’s almost as if there is a long, slow rising trend, punctuated by el Ninos and la Ninas.
China will lose half its population by the end of the century and the ripple effects will be catastrophic
“The country’s shrinking population is a grim omen for the rest of the world
China’s population is shrinking. While the massive country is still home to 1.4 billion people nearly one out of every five people on Earth China’s National Bureau of Statistics announced that its population shrank in 2022, falling by roughly 850,000 people.”
https://news.yahoo.com/chinas-shrinking-population-grim-omen-110400765.html
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
This will be a far worse crime than compared to when China leadership starved tens of millions of Chinese.
The world is not over populated. Despotic leaders from beginning of time, thought they had a over population problem- and it tended to be
due racism and ignorance [and/or broadly, governmental corruption], as it does today.
gb…”China will lose half its population by the end of the century and the ripple effects will be catastrophic
The countrys shrinking population is a grim omen for the rest of the world…”
***
That was their plan, wasn’t it. A long time ago they began limiting families to one child.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/one-child-policy
New warming theory. There is no anthropogenic warming, all we have is natural variability due to ocean oscillations spasmodically recirculating heat, albeit at regular intervals over a century.
The satellite data used by UAH picks up 95% of global temps while land thermometers are picking up select temperatures that are skewing the global average upward of what it actually is. Climate models have exaggerated it even more.
“The satellite data used by UAH picks up 95% of global temps”
It picks up more like 1% of global temps. You’re only thinking in 2 dimensions.
Many believe it is the most accurate representation of global atmospheric temperature change.
Yes, many denialist believe that UAH LT is more accurate than the RSS TLT, since the UAH results indicate less warming, which confirms their anti-science world view.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Climate Scientist reacts to the Son of Lobster
https://youtu.be/1kICRre1cmc
Thx for a funny moment.
Linking to another propaganda video? Stop it, Wiltard.
You are replying to Binny, Troglodyte.
Is there something you want to tell me?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c1ubXY6B3o
North Korea Sends Soldiers To Ukraine
I love the Russian “ad” which asking American to fight in Ukraine {on Russia’s side].
It seems only people they will get are FBI agents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_cjujecPsE
An Invitation to the Future
Jordan Peterson seems to talking about Torah and I been reading
about it, recently.
He has 5 questions. How make most energy cheaply and to most people.
It seems one could also, how can live with least energy for most people.
Make two points, over last century we become more energy efficient and point two, we have been taxed to death.
Part of tax is inflation. So, if don’t count loss value of money due
to inflation, everything is becoming cheaper.
A purpose is taxes, is to make people work more. And if working more
you going to use more energy.
So, part of using the least energy, is not being taxed as much.
And huge part of tax money is being used for public education- which has always been failure, and seems to be getting worse.
So, to keep it really simple, home school or have alternate education
which kids learning stuff they need to learn about. They should know 3 or 4 different languages plus Math and critical thinking and history and etc. Home schooling is already taking off. Public schools are dangerous, a huge waste of time, and teachers lack wisdom.
Of course another huge waste money has making solar and wind power and a large amount of military which hasn’t won any wars.
Also a lot money is wasted on drugs and medical care.
And of course there are ways of living which use less energy- and living somewhere warmer, one aspect of that.
Too bad for the naysayers:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wind-and-solar-were-eus-top-electricity-source-in-2022-for-first-time-ever/
Cheap and can only get cheaper.
Wonky Wee Willy,
What training did you take to enable you to see into the future?
Can you look into the future and tell me if it worked? I’d like to be able to know what the future holds.
You really are a fool, arent you? Do you really believe anybody who claims that they can foresee the future (better than a 12 year old child) is not delusional?
Rhetorical question of course, SkyDragon cultists obviously believe that they can predict the future – some even claiming that “experts” can divine the future by “dissecting the past”.
All a bit “woo-woo” for me, but SkyDragon true believers prefer faith to fact.
Mike Flynn,
What are you woo-wooing about?
You’re just a little Sky Dragon crank who kept braying the same thing over again for more than ten years!
Keep braying.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You can’t really look into the future at all, can you?
By the way, SkyDragons are the seriously deluded cultists who ascribe heating properties to CO2, and believe that humanity is going to be “toasted, roasted and grilled”, according to one senior SkyDragon cultist. Complete nonsense, of course.
For the past four and a half billion years, the Earth has cooled – neither CO2 nor any other “greenhouse gas” was able to prevent the cooling.
Sad for you, but true.
Others can make up their own minds whether you live in a strange SkyDragon fantasy disconnected from reality, or not. You can’t even describe this mythical GHE, can you?
Keep looking ridiculous – it suits you, obviously.
“For the past four and a half billion years, the Earth has cooled neither CO2 nor any other greenhouse gas was able to prevent the cooling.”
Ever confused Flynnson thinks insulated warm things SHOULD NEVER COOL.
He’s like the Texan who never turned on the heat in his house (because it was insulated), and this week his pipes froze and burst.
Poor Schlub.
Nate likes to use these ad hominems and the move along nothing to see here memes cause he actually can’t explain how the GHE works.
Thats normal science which has been put on extended hold in favor of propaganda and institutional bribery, with whole pages ripped right out of the book on the military industrial complex.
Please leave fallacy fluff to your master, Gill.
Otherwise you will make the same errors identifying them than he constantly makes.
Does Bill agree with troll Swenson, that the Earth’s cooling over billions of years tells us something about the GHE?
What?
Well it is on the list of potential theories. Many folks have made efforts allegedly correctly estimate the greenhouse effect on various planets using this theory.
And I haven’t heard any one find an error even though it at least some years ago was on a website.
So unlike you Nate I don’t just handwave those ideas away without proof.
Nate,
Maybe you could try describing the GHE? Everybody could have a good laugh, when your bizarre explanation doesnt agree with four and a half billion years of experience!
SkyDragons think they are clever, refusing to describe the GHE and its effects, and then demanding anyone who questions their religion prove that something that has never been described – doesn’t actually exist!
Go on – is the GHE supposed to make the planet hotter, or colder? Or a bit of both, or possibly neither?
You can’t actually say, can you? Maybe you should investigate a field known as “science”. It involves something called the “scientific method”, apparently anathema to SkyDragon cultists.
Give it a try – you might find facts more interesting than faith!
What are you braying about, Mike?
The GHE has been explained here many times. Each time, Swenson apparently puts it in his brain’s spam folder.
“your bizarre explanation doesnt agree with four and a half billion years of experience!”
Please explain Swenson, exactly how the 4.5 billion years of cooling ‘doesn’t agree’ with the existence of a GHE?
We know you won’t offer anything, because these are not mutually exclusive phenomena.
As you and I discussed several times, the GHE provides some insulation to the Earths surface. Insulation doesn’t prevent cooling, it merely slows it.
Anyone mindlessly arguing that the thin layer of atmospheric GHE insulation SHOULD have stopped the Earth’s cooling over billions of years, is willfully ignorant of heat transfer.
That qualifies Swenson. And possibly Bill too..
Swenson says:
Nate,
Maybe you could try describing the GHE? Everybody could have a good laugh, when your bizarre explanation doesnt agree with four and a half billion years of experience
—————————-
Nate won’t do that as he knows it will get criticism for being nothing more than a hunch. Its described as an accumulation of heat in the atmosphere by CO2 which in turn is prevented from radiating to space by CO2. Ask them to actually explain how that works knowing the rules of thermodynamics and they bow out of the room.
The theory has been discussed here many times, Bill. And with YOU. Obviously you don’t retain such information.
You just need to look at the past:
“From the first half of 2021 to October 2022, household electricity prices have risen 114% on average.” Nov 14, 2022
It will get worse.
It sure will:
Gas in Estonia: +559%
Gas in Netherlands: +328%
Gas in Italy: +329%
Gas in Austria +433%
Gas in Denmark: +353%
Incentive to end the war in Ukraine the western Ukrainians started. Get rid of Zelensky and get someone in their who knows what he’s doing.
C’mon, Bordon.
Not that ZZ crap again.
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
Well at some point reality is going to need to dawn.
Secessionist sentiment in the Donbass has been markedly present since the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Russian invasion is just the latest year in a saga that has been going on for 30 years. The truth be known that the Donbass population don’t want to be either Ukrainian or Russian. But what is going on there has more similarities to Vietnam which ultimately didn’t want to be either American, Russian, or Chinese.
And the sooner the world recognizes that the sooner a solution can be had. . . .much to the chagrin of the ambitions of the powerful nations of the world.
And so once again Bordon and Gill share an opinion.
But who is the dombest ass?
you got shares invested in dombass grain harvests lil will?
Oh, Gill:
http://static.producer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Ukraine_Wheat_Web_Area_Map.jpg
You really are not good at this.
what does that map have to do with you having shares in donbas grain production. are you saying they dont have a grain business? that would be the definition of stupid considering you have a map in hand and when it comes to ‘grains’ wheat is in 3rd place in ukraine.
Exactly, Gill.
You have no idea.
bill…”And the sooner the world recognizes that the sooner a solution can be had. . . .much to the chagrin of the ambitions of the powerful nations of the world”.
***
Unrest in that part of Europe precedes the formation of the Ukraine when the USSR formed it as a CSSR. They have never been able to agree on anything in that area.
The best solution to this war, IMHO, is to get an international committee to hear grievances. Don’t know if Russia would go for that but the might if they had a seat with the right of veto.
I know one thing, Ukrainian nationalists will never go for that.
“The truth be known that the Donbass population dont want to be either Ukrainian or Russian.”
That would seem to be one key pathway to ending this war- and it could have been reached months ago.
And in some version that will eventually be part of how this war ends.
“The truth be known that the Donbass population dont want to be either Ukrainian or Russian.”
I would simply point that Russia has attempted to annex various territories in Ukraine that it could take by force, beyond the Donbass. Putin has stated his belief that Ukraine is not a sovereign nation. He thinks it needs to be part of a Russian empire, while what the people of Ukraine want is of little concern.
Let’s start a fund to contribute to Wiltard’s Econ 101 class.
Teach me, Troglodyte.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Grand Solar Minimum update
https://youtu.be/L1-pc7NdHOE
The temperature of the troposphere rises during El Nio when evaporation in the Pacific increases. Several temperature zones need to be distinguished:
temperature near the Earth’s surface, troposphere temperature and temperature near the tropopause. They can vary depending on solar insolation, the ENSO cycle and changes in the amount of ozone in the tropopause (depending on UV radiation).
https://i.ibb.co/Zz03h4P/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f024.png
Also it was omitted the planets’ having spherical shape and the planets’ surface having different levels of roughness. The planets’ spherical shape and the planets’ surface roughness play a major role in solar irradiation- planet surface interaction processes.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The alarmists don’t put thermometers in the ‘rough’ (rugged) areas nor do they have any in the open, flat regions.
California has 3 thermometers all located near the warmer oceans. They use 4000 thermometers to cover the oceans, all located in submersible containers that are subject to ocean spray and moisture.
” … the war in Ukraine the western Ukrainians started. ”
Robertson is such a disgusting liar.
Europe has known for 30 years that the main objective of the extremely aggressive Russian nomenklatura (of which Putin is nothing but a figurehead) is to reinstall the USSR.
It started in Chechnya in 1994, continued in Georgia in 2008, and then started again in 2014 in Crimea, Ukraine.
*
Russia is the aggressor in this war, even the official media openly admit that, even if they still try to maintain the lie with the special operation (спецоперация) for the alleged denazification of Ukraine.
What they actually want is the annihilation of Ukraine, and not the ‘rescue of our oppressed Russian brothers’ in Donbass.
However, anyone in Russia who dares to speak of war on the streets or on blogs faces up to 15 years in prison. Because of this, and also because of the mobilization for the war against Ukraine, which affects particularly unwelcome minorities, hundreds of thousands of Russians have fled to Turkey, Central Asia or Georgia.
*
Unlike Ukraine, which held democratic elections (where neo-Nazis got just 1% of the vote), Russia is a dictatorship where any pro-democracy opposition is publicly repressed.
What urgently needs to be denazified is the upper class in Russia, which is completely corrupt and oppressive in its own country.
“What they actually want is the annihilation of Ukraine, and not the rescue of our oppressed Russian brothers in Donbass”.
***
Then why is it they got the Donbas region and set up camp there? And why did they want only the Donbas region?
The answers are all there for anyone interested. In 2014, a protest began in the Ukraine for a democratically-elected president decided to take Russian aid rather than join the EU. His reasoning was sound to me. The EU required economic sanctions as a price for joining. Russia, meantime, offered him a better deal, and he took it.
There were peaceful protests at first and that is the right of citizens in a democratic society. What followed is neither a right nor is it acceptable. Armed nationalists joined the protest, as scumbag terrorists often do, and began shooting at police. That culminated in them charging the presidential residence, forcing him to flee.
Can you imagine that happening in the US, Canada, the UK, or Germany? No way, the army would have been called in immediately. In the Ukraine, the army did nothing. They stood by and watched a democratically-elected president run off in a coup.
Following that coup, the people of the Donbas area revolted. They had voted as a block for the president and were a might peed off that he had been run off by Ukrainian nationalists who vehemently disagreed with anything Russian, or for that matter, anything non-Ukrainian. Most eastern Ukrainians are Russians who were displaced when the Ukraine was formed in its modern version. The nationalists are white supremacists by admission.
Russia took no action for 8 years, even though Ukrainians in the Donbas area pleaded with them for help. The Russians were obviously waiting to see what would develop but when Kyiv started playing dirty, sending neo-Nazi divisions into the Donbas, committing atrocities, the Russians called foul.
When Putin attacked, the reason he gave was to run off the neo-Nazi divisions and to secure the Donbas regions so the local could vote for their autonomy.
I don’t know his motivation nor do you. However, the western media has painted the Russian invasion as you have described it and those views are based on bs. There are journalists and professors who have attempted a truthful explanation of what has happened but they are censored by the western media.
“When Putin attacked, the reason he gave was to run off the neo-Nazi divisions and to secure the Donbas regions so the local could vote for their autonomy.”
So why did they go for Kiev?
And you believe Putin and his government?
You obviously believed them when they said that there was no invasion coming and not even any plans to invade?
How many people voted for that autonomy? Any idea?
As for the rest of your pro-russian fantasy history, one has to ask: How much does Putin pay for such propaganda?
When the bickering was a ceaseless litany of rancour.
So, the January TLT anomaly was just under the most recent 30-year average. Long la Nina? Or proof that CO2 is convenient ju-ju for the left?
We’ll be here every week to update you on the crisis.
Now, stay tuned to hear a word from our sponsor.
[https://youtu.be/czddutbfz28]
Olive oil. Who does not like it? Warriors from ancient times used it as sunscreen. Freedom Fighters use it to prepare their Keto meals.
Yet:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/climate-change-could-make-parts-of-lebanon-too-hot-for-producing-olive-oil/
I never get Tyred of olive oil.
If global temperatures rise in line with your expectations.
Nature always bats last, Richard.
Facts do.
If they exist.
Are you trying to claim facts do not exist?
No, Richard.
I’m claiming that facts aren’t as solid as you may presume:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Im claiming that facts arent as solid as you may presume:”
Well, that’s a masterpiece of meaningless waffle, isn’t it?
You still can’t name anyone who values your opinions, can you?
I claim that you can’t even prove that you are not suffering from delusional psychosis, like Michael Mann (a legend in his own lunchbox).
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“I’m claiming that facts aren’t as solid as you may presume”
I count historic records as facts.
You count?
In lots of bases.
They all belong to us.
Sure. In your mind only.
Memes are not in my mind, Richard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Human civilisation is an adaptive complex system, a mesh of tightly coupled networks and feedback loops of food and water, raw materials and manufactured goods, energy, money, information, people . . . there are fears that under an unprecedented strain this complex system could collapse. And if it did, it would stay collapsed.”
Stephen Baxter
“. . . there are fears that under an unprecedented strain this complex system could collapse. And if it did, it would stay collapsed.”
***
Sheer pseudo-science.
1)who fears this?
2)what proof do they have?
3)where is the source of your quote?
4)who is Stephen Baxter. Did his brother Jim, play for Glasgow Rangers and Sunderland FC?
Hopefully, Stephen is not the noted science-fiction writer from the UK. Then again, I realize you don’t differentiate between science and science-fiction.
I learned a nifty trick from Jim Baxter, how to fake an attack on a player so he coughs up the ball, or at least loses control. That was in the day when soccer required skill.
1) I fear it, as do many others.
2) Every previous civilization on Earth has collapsed. Why would ours be uniquely immortal?
3) Its from Xeelee:Vengeance. I used the quote because it effectively summarises a real fear.
“if it did, it would stay collapsed”
That’s a resources problem. As a civilization we built in steps. Stone technology, then copper, bronze, iron, oil and now much rarer materials. We are the first in 4 billion years to mine them and disperse them.
If we go down, our successors would be able to rebuild to iron and coal technology but not beyond. The resources would be too dispersed for them to rebuild what we think of as modern technology.
Ent lives in fear because he rejects reality. He’s afraid of his own shadow. He believes he’s a scientist, but he doesn’t have a clue. He believes passenger jets fly backwards.
He’s not all there, with a couple of marbles missing and a few screws loose.
But, he’s fun to scare.
BOO!
EM,
You wrote that you are fearful. You are perfectly free to feel any emotion you want. Some people cannot help themselves, and are fearful without reason – they have a phobia.
Maybe you have a rational reason for your fear, but you cannot explain the reason, can you?
Certainly not a mythical GHE, which has no part in heating or cooling the planet – it cannot even be described!
I feel sorry that you are feeling fearful, but I cannot affect your ability to control your emotions. I suppose that there are people who feel elation when they see apparent “greening” due to increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Maybe you could join your local Society of the Fearful, and sit around with fellow sufferers cowering in abject terror from an unknown future. Only joking, you share a delusion common to SkyDragons. Coal is evil, gas is evil, oil is evil, and there is world wide conspiracy to persecute the noble Climate Warriors, in their religious crusade to kill every human being on the planet by removing CO2 and H2O from the atmosphere.
Pack of delusional fearmongers, wouldn’t you agree?
“I never get Tyred of olive oil”.
***
Better watch it, wee willy, Olive is Popeye’s girlfriend.
He’s strong to the finich,
Cause he eats his spinach,
He’s Popeye the sailor man.
Peep, peep.
Fair.
Don’t worry, Barry, none of us skeptics are reading a whole lot into a fraction of a degree below the baseline. Unlike you alarmists, however, we don’t accept the theory that warming will go on forever, or that a cooling spell won’t hit us suddenly.
My fear is that a sustained cooling period could lead to crop failures in areas we rely on for food production. We are not prepared for such a disaster due to our current focus on global warming.
“Dont worry, Barry, none of us skeptics are reading a whole lot into a fraction of a degree below the baseline.”
TallDave’s response to this month’s anomaly.
“not accelerating
sub-2.0 ECS
trillions wasted”
could not find a reference to Tall Dave, do you mean Tall Bloke?
***
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
Probably a good guess:
https://tinyurl.com/yhkwt4ab
“Modern humans are not immune to the threat of extinction, but it will not come from todays warm, moist atmosphere or from the gas of life, carbon dioxide.
It will probably come from the next glacial climate cycle of this era, where long bitter glacial eras are separated by short warm periods. These global weather cycles are triggered by changing orbits in the solar system.”
Well, Russia has bad govt and is pretty cold and they aren’t extinct, yet.
It seems the problem will it would stop being the best of times- and getting stuff like nuclear wars. North Korea is worse than Russia or Mongolia, but they making nuclear weapons. A poorer world will make nuclear wars more common.
There is little about any governments to be optimistic about- they seem going full bore towards a fall of Rome, kind of thing.
But this what governments do, and possibly, will forever do.
In terms of climate, cooling is gradual. It’s like ancient Romans worrying about the future US
I have rarely seen a contrarian insists so much on But Religion while speaking in tongues:
https://climateball.net/but-religion/
More so that Bit Life has also religolous undertones:
https://climateball.net/but-life
The link is next to his name in my comment.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1441147
The comment is just upthread.
Yes, it’s the ‘skeptics’ that read a lot into monthly anomalies.
“not accelerating
sub-2.0 ECS
trillions wasted”
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
me:not accelerating, sub-2.0 ECS, trillions wasted
barry: “Yes, its the skeptics that read a lot into monthly anomalies.”
lol no all that’s been true for years
troll better, this is sad
A bit of clarity will help you make whatever point you were trying to make, Dave. Were you trying to say that you don’t make much out of a single monthly anomaly, or that you do?
UAH Global data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/02/uah-global.jpeg
UAH Tropical data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/02/uah-tropics.jpeg
Thanks, Richard.
Somewhere on the blog I saw an info about stratospheric sudden warming (SSW) which occurred during January above the north polar regions, at an altitude corresponding, if I well recall, to 10 hPa (~ 25 km).
This does not seem to have affected the lower stratosphere (LS) layer observed by UAH:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFZCRuzrcpatPcVNsVhMWyhsjWB1KCPS/view
As we can see, the latitude bands 60N-82.5N rather show anomalies below the baseline.
SC 25 update , still in lockstep with SC24
https://i.postimg.cc/qvfHjYqH/231.jpg
Let’s put that hump in perspective.
https://tinyurl.com/mrx48rsx
And tipping the cap to our host…
https://tinyurl.com/4z8pcemp
From the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/02/03/new-england-polar-vortex-cold/
And that was computed by an European weather model!
But when they show cold, models are always good, aren’t they?
Bindiclown sees a historical cold record getting broken –
gets instantly triggered into mental climate zshittattack
Oooh, here is he again, the ankle biting dachshund stalker.
Nice to see your usual, aggressive school boy nonsense.
Binny,
Still claiming you can see the future by drawing pictures of the past?
No wonder you are back to your witless trolling. How about a description of the GHE, or is that too hard?
Is the GHE supposed to heat a planet?
Oooooh! Questions, questions!
Haaah, the dumb Flynnson stalker is blathering again.
Lacking as usual anything relevant to say, he is saying something irrelevant.
Carry on, Flynnson, carry on.
By the way, you arrogant twat: I posted a link to a good article on GHE, but since you lack valuable knowledge, you of course discredit and denigrate everything.
Binny,
Still claiming you can see the future by drawing pictures of the past?
No wonder you are back to your witless trolling. How about a description of the GHE, or is that too hard?
Is the GHE supposed to heat a planet?
Oooooh! Questions, questions!
yep those weather models are pretty 3 days out. . . .but of course they aren’t using co2 as the primary variable
The models are known to be of limited accuracy the further out in the future they go.
The thing you miss Binny is this extreme cold is occurring long after climate alarmists predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by now. They told us kids would never see snow again.
The cold air drifts down from the Arctic and the climate alarmist idiots fails to grasp the fact that the Arctic gets brutally cold each year because there is little or no solar input for much of the year. There is nothing to stop this cold air and a trace gas in the atmosphere will do nothing to alleviate it.
The real question is why this 3 year+ La Nina happened and why it interferes with the Arctic Vortex. Something in the stratosphere is influencing the Vortex, and something interferes with that, hence the Vortex gets upset and breaks off into frigid air parcels that drift south.
Robertson
You are and keep a complete idiot knowing nothing and hence permanently inventing stuff.
The warming at the north Pole has NOTHING to do with the Sun; otherwise the South Pole would behave similar.
It is due to the warm ocean currents coming from the Tropics which can’t reach the South Pole as they are blocked there by the circumpolar currents.
If you had a normally working brain you would see that even in the UAH LT data, kilometers above the surface, the Arctic ocean areas are warming more than those above the land within them, whereas in the Antarctic, the inverse happens.
@Bindion you say that “The warming at the north Pole has NOTHING to do with the Sun; otherwise the South Pole would behave similar.”
The Northerna Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere are far from identical with regards to land mass is it? THerefore you have little support in that the poles would behave similarly.
We laso know that solar activity influences the stratosphere which of course affects the polar vortex, so you have little support for your claim.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273117703001509
Sunny boy’s monthly report for SC25 vs SC24: February 2023
1. SSN
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hR2WPoQZlvdLCXwhpG8ffbJqTgNSdVBU/view
2. Solar flux F10.7 cm (absolute)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x9jsQs8XkGkj4wT9FtrWaiy-LzIPbT3s/view
3. Bremen Mg II composite index (280 nm)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12IUC1az1SmpAr-2l3PYy1fEGnKzc-1Ye/view
(Mg II has different cycle positions and durations)
*
Recently I was intrigated by the good correlation between the inverted Oulu neutron count and the other solar activity measurements, what was confirmed by an article:
Time Lag Between Cosmic-Ray and Solar Variability: Sunspot
Numbers and Open Solar Magnetic Flux
Sergey A. Koldobskiy & al. (2022)
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11207-022-01970-1.pdf
Here is a trial to get the lag between SSN and Oulu NC.
4. Inverted Oulu neutron count
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GlQPlmaj7jvD497i_N0ipzX_-aVGKpSk/view
Again: The cycle positions and durations differ here greatly from SSN.
*
The difference between SSN/F10.7/Mg II and Oulu is very large: the latter shows a significantly weaker SC25 compared to SC24.
The article about Oulu wasn’t the right one.
Here it is:
Short- and Mid-term Periodicities Observed in Neutron Monitor Counting Rates throughout Solar Cycles 2024
A. López-Comazzi and J. J. Blanco (2022)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac4e19/pdf
From the intro:
” After entering the heliosphere, galactic cosmic rays are continuously modulated by the change in solar wind and the associated heliospheric magnetic field.
Because of this, the cosmic-ray flux is at maximum during intervals of minimum solar activity and likewise their flux is at minimum during intervals of maximum solar activity (i.e., when the number of sunspots is at the maximum).
Thus, cosmic-ray flux is anticorrelated to the solar activity, measured by the sunspot number (SSN), with perhaps some time delay caused by irregularities in the interplanetary magnetic field. “
What makes you think anybody here is contented to follow your slow learning curve about the sun ???
Single-month ENSO 3.4 averages for the past 5 months:
Sep -1.07
Oct -0.99
Nov -0.90
Dec -0.85
Jan -0.74
There is a reasonable chance that February will drop below the La Nina threshold, though that won’t be enough to take D-J-F below that threshold.
ENSO 3.4 averages for the three La Nina “seasons” (Jul-Jun):
2020-21 -0.82
2021-22 -0.85
2022-23 -0.89 (7 months, Jul-Jan)
I would expect 2022-23 to fall to -0.5/-0.6 by June.
Very strong SSW at 10 hPa over the North Pole.
https://i.ibb.co/qFZYjkL/pole10-nh.gif
….
“Analysis of the rate, mass and energy fluxes of small-scale jetting in the Suns atmosphere supports the proposal that the ubiquitous, small-scale jetting activity driven by magnetic reconnection can account for essentially all of the mass and energy lost by the Sun to the solar wind. Essentially, the mass and energy escaping the Sun through the estimated number of jetlets per day is equal to the mass and energy the Sun loses daily to the solar wind.”
http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/Show-Article.php?articleID=183
The global sea surface temperature appears to be falling.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
A detached part of the polar vortex over eastern Canada. Temperature in C.
https://i.ibb.co/K6TRQqj/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-04-033306.png
So here is the question for all you folks who think you know something. Will normal bullets penetrate the Chinese spy balloon? Is it possible that rubber will be flexible enough to absorb the energy of bullets over a large area? What is the equation? Hint: It must include either the flexural modulus or the tensile modulus in some way.
Given some of the boneheaded and hyperbolic comments I’ve seen about the spy balloon, I keep thinking of that scene in “Don’t Look Up” in which the guy is trying to shoot down the approaching comet with a rifle…
The F-22 has a publicly rated service ceiling of 65,000 feet (actual could be much higher and secret) and does carry a 20 mm cannon. I would have tried tracer rounds to possibly burn through. We do not know if they tried anything such as that. The final shoot-down was clearly done with a missile that seems to have hit the payload and not the balloon itself. Report are that the payload landed in 47 feet of water.
Right wingnuts: “How DARE Biden not shoot down the Chinese balloon?”
Biden: “Hold my ice cream.”
Tyson, please stop trolling.
–The New Pause lengthens again: 101 months and counting
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
As the third successive year of la Nia settles into its stride, the New Pause has lengthened by another month (and very nearly by two months). There has been no trend in the UAH global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies since September 2014: 8 years 5 months and counting.
As always, the New Pause is not a prediction: it is a measurement. It represents the farthest back one can go using the worlds most reliable global mean temperature dataset without finding a warming trend.–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02/03/the-new-pause-lengthens-again-101-months-and-counting/
It should be noted, no government has done anything to cause this lack of warming, unless you count wasting money claiming they doing something about it. They wasted trillion dollars and are continuing
to rob people of trillions of dollars of more money.
The only thing they managed to do is to make electrical power to cost
more money- this does cause more people to die.
No one can argue the government is capable of causing more deaths, but such misery, is not effective at lower CO2 emission.
What does lower CO2 by measurable amount has switching greater use of natural gas- but this related to technology and markets and governmental actions have more oppose to it, rather doing anything to encourage it. Another thing which has lowered CO2 emission has been using nuclear power, and western government are about opposing than enabling nuclear energy use.
Instead the trillion of dollars wasted has been on ineffective solar and wind- and burning wood.
Willard’s trumpeting all that solar and wind as a great European success.
It extends beyond Europe, Troglodyte:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/30/us-coal-more-expensive-than-renewable-energy-study
What a lousy time to be a troglodyte!
I’m on coal power and paying $.10/kw. Also, using natural gas and paying less than $.40 per therm. What are you paying? Genius.
In the global climate hell of California and within the small waste land of solar and wind energy, I am paying about $.15 per Kwh, though if I using too much power, it would be $.33 per Kwh.
If I was using electric heated hotwater and electric stove/oven, I would paying more around $.33 per Kwh. Also I don’t have an electric
car. New houses are required to have solar panels- and not a lot new houses are being built. Endless room to build new houses or more solar [not sure about wind]. Getting enough water is a larger concern- water shortages flip the local govt into Nazism.
Still no snow. More rain is suppose to be coming. None of the California, “it doesn’t rain but it pours”, here- but in other parts
of CA, apparently they got that in spades.
It seems have enough water for couple years, and might get enough for 10 years
Check this out, Troglodyte:
https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/data/averageenergyprices_selectedareas_table.htm
Why would you lie about public information?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
There is no current pause unless the past super El Nino gets smoothed out and the pause extends back to 1996 or so. All we are seeing now is a long sojourn from the largest El Nino recorded into a mild extended La Nina. That isn’t a climate pause. But if as some think its timely for declining climate temperature trend, if the underlying climate length mean temperature from the beginning of Monckton’s pause doesn’t in the next decade go positive, the pause from 1996 will be extended as the return to a significant warming trend did not approach a climate length warming. Itself wasn’t a break in the 1996 pause but instead was a weather aberration that created a long warming trend via a record setting El Nino/weather aberration sitting conveniently at the end of ‘the pause’. Having a pause in the first place remains as an unexplained aberration. If a climate length (18yr) step up in temperatures results post El Nino then one might argue the 18 year pause wasn’t long enough to measure climate and you might need to bump up your definition of climate to say 40 years with an assessment of a sustained trend at least 40 years long to rip it away from the oscillations seen all the way back to 1700. 17 yrs IMO is too short and the reason I think that is that it is clear an ENSO cycle could effect such a trend and may have back at the end of the last pause spanning the super El Nino of 1997 to the large La Nina of 2008 That 11 year span is well within the ENSO cycle and able to dominate it. The span from the 1996 – 2022 spans El Nino peaks and shows a positive trend if it can maintain that trend as the La Nina plays out one might have an argument the AGW is overriding natural weather trends. Until then IMO, thats a very weak argument. But it still has to deal with solar changes being at the heart of the climate change we have seen. We are 14 years into weak solar activity and should have started seeing evidence of cooling and arguably have with the current Monckton pause and we need to be a little patient, watch the sun and see where it goes. If it returns to higher activity we could still be in the LIA recovery. If it doesn’t for say cycle 25 and 26 we should see some cooling if its not being overridden by AGW. 3 consecutive low cycles in the past have produced cooling. The Maunder and Dalton minimumss and one in the early 20th century that doesn’t have a name but probably should. Will our current low solar activity get through 3 cycles? If it does that will be a great test of solar influence. It takes a while because it takes about a decade for upper ocean change which is longer than the time that low solar cycles maintain low activity. They get a bump with the beginning of a new cycle then go to a minimum again where evidence is seen then you add the 3rd cycle and the evidence extends to climate length proportions. The formula is 10 years ocean heat uptake delay + a two decade long climate warming trend gives you 30 years. Obviously LIA recoveries will be much longer so the question being answered is if something else is overriding climate length aberrations in solar activity which I think is good evidence of something else influencing climate. But the jury is out if we will see a full length experiment. Actually thats not my idea. I recall a top solar scientist arguing that point back in 2006 in an article when it became apparent that something unusual was afoot with the sun.
With 90%+ of the energy imbalance ending up in the oceans one would expect any reductions in solar input to show as pauses in the increase of ocean heat content, synchronised with the variations in surface and atmospheric temperatures.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ocean-warming/
No pauses.
Best guess. The “pauses” are caused by local variations, aka weather, ENSO etc. These mostly occur in the surface and atmosphere. The bulk ocean is much less prone to short term variation and better shows that the underlying long term warming trend continues.
EM,
These “energy imbalances” caused the planet to cool for four and a half billion years, did they?
Or are you talking about some other recently invented “energy imbalances” which you can’t actually distinguish from the cooling ones?
Very hush-hush. I know, if you told me, you’d have to kill me.
Pity, I’d like to know about the new physics you claim to have discovered.
Hate to till you this but we’ve been in a pause since 2016. Except for a brief spurt of unknown warming in 2015, that’s 25 years of flat trends.
Entropic man says:
”Best guess. The pauses are caused by local variations, aka weather, ENSO etc. These mostly occur in the surface and atmosphere. The bulk ocean is much less prone to short term variation and better shows that the underlying long term warming trend continues.”
Best guess? Great! Bottom line here and this is critical. We don’t know how heat transports through the oceans. We have no idea of the bottom 50% of the ocean is warming or cooling. They were able to detect some remnants of MWP warming in certain quiet pool areas of the Pacific Ocean. That means there are going to be a lot more areas cooling from the LIA. Heat rises, cold sinks.
So yeah through ARGO we can see some transport in general from the shallow ocean to the mid depths. But from the mid depths down we don’t know. Loss of sea ice is believed to me one of the major feed mechanisms for cold brines to the bottom of the ocean. Not only is the surface openned up to freezing and evaporating winds but low sea ice is associated with far greater winter freezes and the brines squeezed out of the water in forming freshwater ice is both very cold and very salty dropping like a rock to the bottom of the ocean.
If fact this effect is believed to be a possible reason that navigational channels in the arctic opened during world war II, froze shut again in the late 1940’s not to open up again until 2007.
That actually comes out about right when you reverse the questionable adjustments to the unexplanable 1930’s and 40’s warming to remove some tenths of a degree which would put you within about 2/10ths of a degree in 2007 when the channels reopened. So now we are in a holding pattern to see if the subsequent largest El Nino on record in 2014-15 is the only reason we have a positive trend over 2007 or not.
bill…”…LIA recoveries will be much longer…”
***
According to Syun Akasofu, it should re-warm at 0.5C/century from the LIA. That’s from 1850. If he’s right, we should keep warming till 2050, depending on whether the LIA cooling was 1C or 2C.
Of course, if the solar cycles do cool us, that should complicate matters.
That sounds about right. It took close to 500 years to cool and the cycle is considered to be about 800 years per some recent literature. But the length of the cycle is quite uncertain and its uncertain that there is a cycle because of limited reps that are currently dated. And its uncertain when exactly it started. But science has been building a lot of theory on limited reps, much more limited than any audit partner I know of would allow. But its not their money at stake so why not go for it.
We are now 320 years on recovery since the apparent last forcing event (Maunder) ended in 1700 that made up the period (1 of 3 such events in the cooling period). So is there a flat period before we start seeing grand minimums heralding a cooling phase? Who knows as you go back in history the data that is available to determine the impacts of these events get sparser and sparser. They don’t leave clear evidence like dinosaur bones.
OTOH. Maybe we are due for multiple grand maximums before seeing more grand minimums. It is not clear what happened between the Roman Optimum and the MWP but there is a gap their of 800 years or more, perhaps a thousand.
I am going to hang in there with Dr. Akasofu. We need to learn a lot more about climate than what we see its yoyo advocates have been able to bring up here or any other place I have looked.
Not Algore Tuna?
Hey Biden, where’s China’s balloon?
Son of a B, Wiltard!
https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/electricity-price
That’s almost 4 times what I pay! You Europeans are such an example.
The fossil fuel lobby spends a fortune on campaign funding for US politicians.
Having purchased the politicians the fossil fuel companies enjoy high subsidies, low taxes and lax pollution legislation.
Hence your low prices.
Ent, maybe the reason you hate the USA is due to your envy?
Our oil and gas and coal companies pay way more taxes than yours.
Funny how leftists call tax deductions “subsidies.” Do Brits have tax deductions? Do British corporations have tax deductions? Oh, I wonder if wind and solar have “subsidies?”
Funny how troglodytes cannot grasp that two subtractions equal an addition.
Wiltard,
You wrote a simple mathematical concept. Do you claim to understand Berry’s theory? I don’t believe you.
Wiltard and Ent have indeed falsified that two negatives equal a positive.
ent…”The fossil fuel lobby spends a fortune on campaign funding for US politicians”.
***
Hasn’t done them much good, Biden shut down oil and gas explorations and the Keystone pipeline.
Entropic man says:
”The fossil fuel lobby spends a fortune on campaign funding for US politicians.
Having purchased the politicians the fossil fuel companies enjoy high subsidies, low taxes and lax pollution legislation.
Hence your low prices.”
None of which is true. EM’s daddy sends him this BS and he just believes without verifying if its true like the good little boy he is.
Only somebody who doesn’t anything about accounting and how what oil companies pay in taxes is essentially no different than any other business. Oil depletion allowance is a big one held up as both a subsidy and a tax break (they even want to double count it).
What an oil depletion allowance is is when an oil operation begins to search for and develop area of oil deposits they are required to capitalize the expenses of building the infrastructure to meet the accounting principle of matching expenses to revenues. A manufacturer does the same for the building and machinery in a plant to build widgets.
When revenues start coming in the company then is supposed to allocate those expenses on the basis of their expected lifetimes. For buildings and machinery it is figured out how long the building and machinery will last and allocate those expenses against the revenues being recieved to arrive at a net profit (only considering those capitalized expenses) and oil company does based upon estimated oil reserves that will be extracted from the work they did to identify the oil bearing deposits. Again a logical method of matching expenses to revenues and as the oil is depleted they can finally deduct some of the expenses that went into finding, buying, and developing infrastructure to extract and move the oil.
Wackos on the left count this as a tax break one day and the next day they call it a subsidy. Its all the same well expected BS from the wacko left. And shoot we even have Entropic Man who doesn’t know is A from his elbow about how accounting is supposed to work acting as a marketing front for the wackos peddling their wacko theories.
And yes the fossil fuel industry spends a lot on lobbying. But generally they spend about 1/2 as much per unit GDP as average. Thats not because the don’t spend a lot its the fact that fossil fuels makes up about 5% of the US economy and their lobbying efforts can enjoy economies of scale. e.g. they are not a small industry which would have to pay a larger portion of their contribution to GDP.
Troglodyte,
How are subsidies related to Ed’s crap again?
A subsidy is a policy that promotes economic and social benefits, by the by. Tariffs, loans, services, goods, etc. Does not matter much.
To seek a clearer concept is to look for trouble. If provide a tax break on buyers often become a direct money transfer to producers.
Oh, and I’m still waiting for your economic lessons.
Should be fun!
you might get one if you give a specific example of a fossil fuel industry subsidy provided by the federal government in the past decade.
I would get lessons if I taught you, Gill?
Must be a slow Sunday.
Fossil fuel industry subsidies provided by the federal government:
Direct:
(1) Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction (26 U.S. Code 263).
(2) Percentage Depletion (26 U.S. Code 613).
Indirect:
(1) Last In, First Out (LIFO) Accounting (26 U.S. Code 472).
(2) Foreign Tax Credit (26 U.S. Code 901).
(3) Master Limited Partnerships (Internal Revenue Code 7704).
McGoofin,
Those are called Tax Breaks. All industries get investment tax breaks. A subsidy is when the government pays you to do or not do something, as when the government pays farmers not to plant crops.
The renewable energy industries get subsidies. They get money transferred from taxpayers to them to defray the cost of their products because if the government didn’t do it, no one would buy them.
The Earned Income Tax credit is another type of subsidy. The Federal Government takes money from taxpayers (people who pay taxes) and gives it to people who file but pay no taxes but receive subsidies.
You don’t know how a tax credit works, do you?
The amount of the EITC is based on the individual’s or family’s earned income and number of qualifying children. The credit can be claimed on the individual’s tax return and reduces the amount of federal income tax owed.
Educate yourself!
No, your tax payment is zero, and the government sends you a check. That isn’t a tax credit; that is a subsidy.
“…your tax payment is zero”
I can use Intangible Drilling Costs to reduce my tax burden to zero. In fact I can make my amount of tax owed negative and carry it forward to future years.
Don’t gaslight yourself.
If every troglodyte gets a “tax break” for being a troglodyte, Troglodyte, that means non-troglodytes are financing troglodytes.
Say I’m the only guy from whom you can get apples. You can buy them @2$. But Tyson can get them for one buck. He has a Swell Yuy Tax Break.
Tell me you don’t get that you’re financing the tax break.
TYSON CHICKEN MCMUFFIN says:
Fossil fuel industry subsidies provided by the federal government:
Direct:
(1) Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction (26 U.S. Code 263).
(2) Percentage Depletion (26 U.S. Code 613).
Indirect:
(1) Last In, First Out (LIFO) Accounting (26 U.S. Code 472).
(2) Foreign Tax Credit (26 U.S. Code 901).
(3) Master Limited Partnerships (Internal Revenue Code 7704).
—————
You might want to learn what a subsidy is as none of those are subsidies.
1)Intangible drilling costs are defined as costs related to drilling and necessary for the preparation of wells for production, but that have no salvageable value. These include costs for wages, fuel, supplies, repairs, survey work, and ground clearing. They compose roughly 60 to 80 percent of total drilling costs.
2)What is Percentage Depletion? Percentage depletion is a tax provision that allows oil and natural gas producers to recoup some of the costs involved in exploring for and producing oil and natural gas. It is only allowed for independent producers and royalty owners.
3) LIFO a method of allowing deductions for the cost of sold inventories, like when a fossil fuel company buys fossil fuels from a driller.
4) Foreign Tax Credit allows a company to deduct a pro-rata tax already paid to another government. If this was not done, companies might be liable for everything they make in taxes. It is designed to be fair among nations.
5)MLPs are just a different business structure. One of the problems with forming a corporation is profits are taxed twice. Once when earned by the corporation and again when assets are transferred to a share holder. The logic of it is corporations have few requirements of distributing cash to shareholders and profits could remain untaxed in a corporation theoretically forever as the corporation shifts hands and invests in new businesses. MLP are not taxed at the MLP level but instead at the level when assets are distributed to the partners. Further unlike corporate stock holders limited partners cannot participate in management decisions and thus cannot evade taxes on the basis of simply deciding that you don’t want to take money out of the business.
Thus limited partnerships tend to be ‘project’ focused where the intent is to make money from one limited partnership and then start another with another limited partnership. So rules apply to MLPs to limit doing that within one MLP.
Bottom line McMuffin is its an ‘income tax’ taxes are never paid on revenues, unless its sales tax or vat. Here you pay higher rates because its on profits not revenues. All the things you listed were the rules regarding how to account for costs. The government doesn’t want you to take too many deductions so these rules establish how many of your costs you can deduct by doing what is known cost to revenue matching.
In fact, you have it backwards. If these rules weren’t in place companies would never have to pay taxes because all they would have to do is buy more stuff and deduct it. and you morons think its a subsidy!!! Sheesh!
And you still won’t get subsidies from the Government unless you are one of the chosen. Big Fossil Fuel isn’t one of the chosen.
Yep we have some really talented and knowledgeable people in here telling us what a tax subsidy is.
One would think one would understand why the IRS has rules restricting what costs can be deducted from gross revenues to arrive at profits. they must of been taught this was a subsidy by their political daddy.
When Tyson Chicken McMuffin files his first tax return I hope he gets a good tax advisor.
TL;DR
“You might want to learn what a subsidy is as none of those are subsidies.”
I thought you were an accountant!
The tax deduction is the subsidy, not the cost itself. Think!
You don’t seem to understand that tax deductions improve the bottom line and enable industry to drill more wells, thus subsidizing the activity.
Here’s a good auditing test for you:
Take away all those subsidies and see what happens to supply; will it increase, decrease, or be unchanged. The answer will tell you whether they are subsidies or not.
Gill, Gill,
Perhaps should refresh your MLP-fu:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4435999-mlps-and-the-biden-tax-proposal-what-you-need-to-know
For Canucks it changes little, but I still got a call from my broker.
Speaking of which, you do not get to rule over what is a subsidy. That is the WTO to decide. And of course they include what you try to exclude.
Nice try, tho.
As any good auditor would know:
The first MLP was Apache Oil Company, launched in 1981.
MLPs don’t pay corporate income tax at the state or federal levels.
To qualify for these tax benefits, MLPs must earn at least 90% of their income from “qualified sources,” such as natural resources.
Qualifying natural resources include:
Oil, gas and petroleum products.
Coal and other minerals.
Timber.
Any other resource that is depletable under section 613 of the federal tax code.
Industrial source carbon dioxide.
Ethanol, biodiesel and other fuels (transportation and storage only).
yes tyson that is correct. mlp partners pay state and federal taxes at the partner level.
it appears you switched to a credible source for information on this. that is a good move on your part. keep up the good work.
Glad to see you agree that the MLP structure is a subsidy to Oil & Gas drilling activities.
willard you don’t understand the issues. what biden is trying to do isn’t to charge oil companies more taxes he is trying to limit sources of capital for fossil fuel production. Most likely whether successful or not less taxes will be collected. Let me explain why. I worked on a number of limited partnerships over the years and regular c corps.
You have a large pool of potential investors trying to decide where to put their money. You have working people feeding their IRAs and then you have retirees looking to move their money into some higher and quicker paying assets so they can fund the costs of their retirement.
So while there is a lot to it this will be choices I will consider by way of example.
The former worker with his 401k will invest in a corporate structure because he is likely to have a smaller tax bite out of his earnings and he will leave that capital in the corporation to go and earn more money on the money he didn’t take out of the corporation so he has a chance of having higher earnings and only pay more taxes maybe years down the road when he cashes in.
But the retired guy wants investments that pay now so he can have the money and party. So thats what a MLP does. It passes profits back to the owner at a much higher percentage than does the corporation. He may just get the profits and his investment stays to make more profits. But its a different strategy than one where you make money on profits that are taxed at a lower rate in the corporation and the original investment plus the profits are used to make more profits.
So hopefully you can see the difference in the structures and why they have them there. It makes for more choices for investors to fit what their needs are. Corporations will also use this strategy to line up corporate investors not interested in also managing the company who are pursuing different projects based upon location, opportunity etc.
Sp when you decide to tax MLPs differently mostly what you do is change investor strategies.
one of the more famous limited partnerships was hillary’s whitewater investment, which was a pass through entity designed initially to lose money and pass those losses through to bill and hillary to shelter their fat salaries from taxes back when it was legal to net ones income from paper losses in investments that the investor hoped would eventually make money. but of coarse the scheme was to use government insured deposits to put up the bulk of the investment in cash as aloan to the limited partnership, allow the limited partners b&h too book all the losses sheltering their salary income and pay back the loan and hpoefully make profit to when the unerlying real estate assets were sold. pretty nifty huh? it was very popular. doctor lawyers,man it was the way to go. so popular in fact the investors were making their investment back just in tax savings and that caused cautious investment to be thrown in the wind. it started the end to the savings and loan industry as the loans went bad and the limited partners had protections from being responsible. none of that is legal today.
as far as a subsidy is concerned it really isn’t evading double taxation was more of a subsidy to the c corps as back in the day when personal income taxes could be up to 90%. Today personal taxes could be almost double the corporate tax rate. So if you didn’t distribute the income the rich investor pays far less than with a pass through. The poor investor if he buys a few shares might pay more taxes by paying corporate tax now and is far less apt to benefit in the end when he will have to pay taxes on it when its distributed.
The rich guy wins with corporate double taxation, the poor investor eats his lunch out of paper bag.
So I had my druthers I would make all profits pass through profits as its far less regressive. One can argue over the rates. But limited partnerships are always available no matter what they do here, again the only guy affected is the guy with less connections who has to buy his investments through the exchange. the vast majority of partnerships are outside the exchange. what this about is trying to wean people off the capitalist system the least rich common worker sort so he will be more receptive to communist pie in the sky promises. now you got the facts.
Climate model reports – coldest air in 66 years
https://whdh.com/weather/
this is the coldest winter I have endured in a while in Vancouver, Canada, and we live in a banana belt climate compared to Boston.
Sorry – where was the climate model in your link?
link expired
The link works fine. Of course no climate model contains a single day’s forecast.
This climate model walks on high heels
GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/4/death-toll-rises-as-chile-reels-from-wildfires-driven-by-heatwave
what’s your point???
C’mon, Bordon.
Read the title again –
An update.
On the Grand Solar Minimum.
Is that clearer this time?
Again, what’s your point?
Come on, Bordon.
To update.
You know what an update is?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
Here is a great primer demystifying the greenhouse effect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8
It’s also my permanent answer to your interminable query.
barry, that’s merely your cult’s nonsense “cutified”. There’s nothing new. It is NOT any “proof” of the bogus GHE.
The video compares Earth to an imaginary sphere. They claim that, because Earth is 33K warmer than an imaginary sphere, it will be even warmer with more CO2. There’s NO valid evidence of that claim. Putting more emitters in the system allows more emission to space.
Earth is the temperature it’s supposed to be. If it gets hotter, it cools more.
That CO2 traps heat is a proven fact, Pupperino.
https://youtu.be/bX4eOg2LaSY
Sky Dragin cranks like you are an endangered species.
CO2 doesn’t “trap heat” any more than wind traps air.
Unfortunately for serially uneducated Clint R, wind does trap air, just with different meteorological physics than added atm. CO2 warms the troposphere and equally cools the upper atm. regions with physics that Clint R can’t understand as usual.
Did you ever find your “real 255K surface”, Ball4?
Never lost it, Clint R.
Riiiight.
You claimed you had it. But you were afraid to produce it because you knew it’d be shot down.
B4 returns with his voodoo science. CO2 traps heat and brightness temp. LOL.
ball4…”…wind does trap air…”
***
Wind is air, you nimrod.
Ahhh…I observe poor uneducated Gordon admits also hasn’t studied meteorology enough to know how wind does trap air while Clint R chooses to also remain in the dark.
Of course, SPA still admits not understanding brightness temperature physics nor the physics of how added well mixed CO2 warms the earthen lower midlatitude troposphere and equally cools the upper atm. regions.
Meteorology 101 is still way…WAY beyond these commenters intellectual reach but their entertainment value remains intact.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
barry…please, that is one of the most infantile, idiotic explanations I have ever seen. As if that’s not bad enough they pick a German airhead with a toffee nose English accent to present it.
Her first conclusion is that trapped infrared warms the greenhouse but she does not supply the mechanism. Exactly how does recycled infrared increase the temperature of the greenhouse?
Then she moves on to the atmosphere and compares it to a greenhouse made of glass to CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere. Note that she does not claim the same for the 0.04% CO2 in the greenhouse. Therefore she is comparing the glass in the greenhouse to a trace gas in the atmosphere as the heat trapping agents.
Neither does she reveal that IR is not heat. There is no way that IR trapped in a greenhouse can bounce around and raise the temperature of N2/O2, because neither absorbs IR. In essence, she seems to be claiming that reflected IR from the glass is being re-absorbed by CO2/WV molecules in the air. Such a recycling of IR to raise the temperature in the greenhouse is clearly perpetual motion.
R. W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2, explained the problem in 1909. The greenhouse heats simply because the heated molecules of air cannot escape due to the glass. Greenhouse operators control the temperature in a greenhouse by opening windows. On larger systems, they have temperature controlled motors opening and closing the windows.
barry,
I don’t bother wasting my time looking at YouTube flights off fancy.
Are you too incompetent or lazy to copy and paste an actual scientific description of the “greenhouse effect”, or can’t you find one anywhere?
You can’t “demystify” or “explain” something you haven’t described, can you?
I gather from Clint R that your idiotic video is just more nonsense, involving imaginary spheres and all the rest. The Moon, being on average exactly the same distance from the Sun, shows precisely the effect of no atmosphere. Surface temperatures are both hotter and colder than on Earth. Just basic physics. No mythical GHE involved.
Keep denying reality, if it makes you happy. Reality does not change.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1442197
What’s good about it is that it takes you through 3 stages of understanding. You’ve been taken through many more stages but your head is buried in ideological sand.
It’s hilarious that you talk about denying reality, when the ‘greenhouse’ effect is well-understood, mainstream science, and your view is from the whacky world of cranks.
It’s really simple.
The Earth emits IR to maintain thermal balance with the incoming energy of the sun that warms it.
With no atmosphere the IR would go straight to space unimpeded.
But Earth’s atmosphere includes gases which strongly absorb IR in the spectrum emitted by Earth. The presence of GHGs slows the rate at which upwelling IR escapes the planet to space.
Any object receiving continuous energy that has its rate of thermal emission slowed must perforce become warmer.
The video goes into a bit more detail.
One of the most successful predictions of climate models (Manabe & Wetherald 1967) was that the stratosphere would cool while the surface warmed. And this is exactly what we’ve observed.
If the sun or multidecadal oceanic patterns caused the warming, the stratosphere should warm along with the troposphere. But that’s not what’s happened.
The earliest climate models correctly predicted a fingerprint og AGW before it was observed.
Not only does the description make sense, it’s been corroborated by observation.
barry…”Any object receiving continuous energy that has its rate of thermal emission slowed must perforce become warmer”.
***
Yes, but what causes that effect? It’s not a trace gas causing it. Newton explained it long ago in his law of cooling. The rate of cooling is dependent on the temperature difference between a surface and its environment.
The environment is 99% nitrogen and oxygen, and only 0.04% CO2. Explain how that 0.04% affects the rate of cooling.
"The environment is 99% nitrogen and oxygen, and only 0.04% CO2. Explain how that 0.04% affects the rate of cooling."
Empirical measurements of gas absorp.tion profiles through spectroscopy tell us that nitrogen and oxygen are virtually transparent to IR at the peak spectrum emitted by Earth, while GHGs like water vapour, CO2 and CH4 absorb IR strongly in the emission spectrum most intensely emitted by the Earth. CO2 most strongly absorbs at 15 micrometers, which is right on the most intense spectra that Earth emits at.
That’s why the 2% of the atmosphere that is GHGs (incl WV) controls the radiative cooling of the surface.
While oxygen is transparent to upwelling IR, it is opa
barry,
Maybe you could describe the GHE, as you claim to know so much about it.
Then, people could relate it to your “explanation”, which makes no sense at all.
For example, you wrote – “Any object receiving continuous energy that has its rate of thermal emission slowed must perforce become warmer.”
The Earth has received continuous sunlight for four and a half billion years, and has cooled. Are you talking about some different GHE, which makes things hotter?
Maybe you are “really simple”, and don’t realise that you are claiming to “explain” something that you can’t even describe. Your GHE doesn’t even seem to stop the surface cooling each night, or in winter! Slow cooling is cooling – not getting hotter, as you seem to be claiming without actually saying so.
You don’t seem to understand basic physics. Just appealing to the authority of other SkyDragon cultists is unconvincing. You can’t even describe the GHE – there is no description of the “greenhouse effect” phenomenon, in “mainstream science”, political “science”, social “science”, or any other sort of “science”.
Try again – include some facts next time.
Swenson, your understanding is so determinedly piss-poor that it’s a mug’s game trying to engage with you. Pointing to the diurnal cycle as proof that CO2 doesn’t influence the average temperature of the surface? This galactically stupid remark is born of intransigence, not reason. Similarly, trotting out the witless rejoinder that the Earth was very hot when it first formed as some kind of retort to what is happening in the modern era is head-crushingly dumb.
No, the GHE has been described and explained to you many times. You just suffer from a strong case of reflex denial.
Which is why you repeat these inanities over and over and over.
Gordon,
"The environment is 99% nitrogen and oxygen, and only 0.04% CO2. Explain how that 0.04% affects the rate of cooling."
Empirical measurements of gas absorp.tion profiles through spectroscopy tell us that nitrogen and oxygen are virtually transparent to IR at the peak spectrum emitted by Earth, while GHGs like water vapour, CO2 and CH4 absorb IR strongly in the emission spectrum most intensely emitted by the Earth. CO2 most strongly absorbs at 15 micrometers, which is right on the most intense spectra that Earth emits at.
That’s why the 2% of the atmosphere that is GHGs (incl WV) controls the radiative cooling of the surface.
While oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to upwelling IR, they are opaque to incoming UV radiation from the sun, luckily for us. They play little role in the ‘greenhouse’ effect, but mitigate incoming solar radiation.
Graph showing lower trop temp evolution compared to stratosphere.
https://tinyurl.com/3xzzvncz
That’s AGW leaving its fingerprints in the atmosphere.
barry,
Are you trying to say that AGW is due to the GHE without actually describing what you mean by either term?
Good try for a SkyDragon cultist, I suppose. No wonder people are starting to lose faith in SkyDragon prophecies of imminent Thermageddon!
Got anything else?
“Are you trying to say that AGW is due to the GHE”
There’s only so much rope you can give dullards before calling it a day. Nobody could write something this stupid after all these years and be remotely sincere.
If you take out the volcanoes, then the stratospheric cooling becomes a lot less.
Yes, I read this dumb ‘skeptic’ talking point years ago.
Taking out the 2 volcanic pulses in the satellite record does not change the fact that the stratosphere has been cooling while the surface has been warming.
Nor does it change the fact that this was predicted in 1967 under AGW, BEFORE the effect was recorded.
I didn’t completely waste 20 minutes because I was amused. A video for dummies with gross misstatements and simplification is only going to educated one group of people. Figure out which group that is. The atmosphere is very complex, weather is very complex, and therefor, so is climate. For example, latent heat at the surface from evaporation and in the atmosphere as condensation (rain) is a very significant effect. There is an effect with altitude and density variability, but it is extremely complex. One molecule in 2400 is not going to “control” anything. It simply contributes one of many complex factors. Water vapor, which is influenced by many different factors including ocean effects, causes the predominate greenhouse effect locally, regionally, and globally. Period. Done!
tim s…WV makes up 0.31% of the entire atmosphere. Can’t see it making a difference to global temps.
That’s because Gordo doesn’t understand the physics of atmospheric radiation though he is right about one thing, you can’t “see” water vapor.
You have to be careful using a psychrometric chart because they typically are in weight percent so you have to multiply by 1.61 to get mole percent (volume percent). Anyway, 0.31% absolute humidity is -7C dew point (DP). That is very dry. Even if you use weight percent it is -4C. Vast areas of the earth are above 1% at the surface (7C) most of the time. The tropics range from 2% (17C DP) to 4% (28C DP) all of the time. Your 0.31% for the “entire” atmosphere really just shows how much more influence CO2 has at higher altitude and very cold climates.
David Dubyne is warning of year without summer due to Hunga Tonga.
Does any of it make sense?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcLzjSCKCUE&ab_channel=Adapt2030
He never makes any sense. Hardly any sulphates made it to the stratosphere from that eruption. Have you considered following a scientist for your science instead of an economist?
Ken
This can’t make much sense in my opinion since the Hunga Tonga eruption was poor in SO2 emissions, unlike for example El Chichón (1982) and Pinatubo (1991).
Huge SO2 emissions reaching stratospheric heights produce corresponding aerosols that heat the stratosphere and weaken solar radiation to the surface.
If I understand correctly, Hunga Tonga has been emitting huge amounts of water vapor, which seems to lead to the opposite phenomenon: the stratosphere is cooling as a result.
No idea what then happens at the surface :–)
Bin, you don’t understand your own cult’s nonsense, and you don’t even try to keep up.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere
Clint R
You didn’t understand anything of what the people wrote, let alone of what I wrote.
You are simply too busy with discrediting others.
*
From your source:
” This extra water vapor could influence atmospheric chemistry, boosting certain chemical reactions that could temporarily worsen depletion of the ozone layer. It could also influence surface temperatures. Massive volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa and Mount Pinatubo typically cool Earths surface by ejecting gases, dust, and ash that reflect sunlight back into space. In contrast, the Tonga volcano didnt inject large amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere, and the huge amounts of water vapor from the eruption may have a small, temporary warming effect, since water vapor traps heat. The effect would dissipate when the extra water vapor cycles out of the stratosphere and would not be enough to noticeably exacerbate climate change effects. ”
*
Your source says exactly what I say: while Pinatubo and others like Krakatoa (but much more Tambora and Samalas) ejected huge amounts of SO2, thus warming the stratosphere and cooling the lower troposphere down to the surface, Hunga Tonga ejected huge amounts of water vapor, thus cooling the stratosphere and warming the lower troposphere down to the surface.
*
You should learn to read, Clint R.
The atmosphere is nothing like a ball-on-a-string.
Yes Bin, that was the link I supplied. It’s not my job to understand it for you.
” Its not my job to understand it for you. ”
But that you don’t need to, Mr Ball-on-a-string!
It would be enough for you to understand it for yourself.
The atmosphere is nothing like a ball-on-a-string.
Bin, as usual, you’re not making much sense. But I enjoy your obsession with the ball-on-a-string, especially since you can’t understand it.
Binny,
More NASA ignorance –
” . . . depletion of the ozone layer.”
Ozone is formed at high altitudes by high energy UV photons interacting with O2 molecules, forming O3, initially.
The UV is emitted by the Sun, and the high altitude atmosphere always contains O2.
NASA employs dimwits – but I suppose that is part of their role, employing otherwise unemployable highly qualified dimwits.
Go on, tell me how the “ozone layer” is formed, if you disagree with me. Or just whine about stalkers, arrogance, and dachshunds, if you find reality too much for you.
Idiot sauerkraut.
Here is a UAH comparison of the lower troposphere (LT) to the lower stratosphere (LS):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gC_g3NQQi-J2GQMwXX8a04QpOAUk-SUj/view
You see the difference between what happened in LS and LT ~6 months after the 1982/1991 eruptions and 2022.
Btw, neither Chichón nor Pinatubo led despite their SO2 emission power to anything comparable to a ‘year without summer’ like happened in 1816 after Tambora in 1815 or in 1258 after Mt Samalas in 1257:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1307520110
Now take out the volcanoes.
So you lose a couple of spikes and still have a downward trend.
Do you have a point?
Depends what is meant by summer. I’m happy with 20C and overcast. Could do with a summer without 30C weather.
Never lost it.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Exceptionally, the Wash Post won’t be discredited by the usual people, as it reports very cold temperatures:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/02/04/mount-washington-wind-chill-record/
https://tinyurl.com/yyznrnrb
Minus 108 F wind chill: that’s -78 C! Wow.
Luckily I don’t live near the Berlin located 20 km above, but near a completely different one, with currently mild -3 C.
Do you realize that wind chill is totally made up number , not an actual measurement ???
you dumbkopf
You have as usual no knowledge, only insults.
Wind chill is a measured value, you poor guy.
binny…that’s at the top of Mount Washington, a notoriously cold place in the wind. Many people have died up there from exposure when they hiked to the top and got caught in bad weather.
The elevation is over 6000 feet (a bit over 1900 metres). From Wiki…”…the Mount Washington Observatory recorded a windspeed of 231 miles per hour (372 km/h) at the summit, the world record from 1934 until 1996. Mount Washington still holds the record for highest measured wind speed not associated with a tornado or tropical cyclone…”
Anybody involved in weather station measurements and having GHCN daily data on disk knows at which altitude the station there is located:
USW00014755 44.2667 -71.2994 1910.2 NH MT WASHINGTON
Wow, better don’t mess with this guy, he’s got data on disc
gb…”In the global climate hell of California and within the small waste land of solar and wind energy, I am paying about $.15 per Kwh, though if I using too much power, it would be $.33 per Kwh”.
***
In comparison, here in British Columbia, Canada, we are charged a flat rate of $42.42 for a 60 days period, and 13.266 cents per Kwatt/hour.
Last night, when I filled up, gas was $1.76/litre. That includes a carbon tax of 40 cents or so.
https://www.fortisbc.com/about-us/corporate-information/regulatory-affairs/our-electricity-utility/electric-bcuc-submissions/electricity-rates
In high price gasoline in California paying about $4.50 or $1.19 per litre, or in Canadian dollars $1.59 per liter.
$.15 per Kwh in Canadian dollars is about $.20 per Kwh
You have cheaper electrical power and I would guess, more than 1/2, is from Hydro power.
And as I dimly recall, Swedens get even higher portion of electrical power from Hydro, than you guys get.
gb…I would say about 99% comes from Hydro power.
We have a few private dams on rivers and the Bunsen thermal station which runs off fossil fuels but I doubt if they account for more than 1%
bill h…”I am going to hang in there with Dr. Akasofu”.
***
Me too. I had heard of Akasofu before his comment that the IPCC had erred by not including re-warming from the LIA. I had read one of his books on the solar wind, a field he pioneered. Therefore, I presume he knows a thing or too about variations in the solar output.
What I like about Akasofu is his unassuming nature. He does not flaunt his credentials, he simply states his case, which is pertinent to the IPCC and their error. Surprisingly, or maybe not surprisingly, a leading climate alarmist who had considered him a friend, criticized him for the statement. He did not elaborate on what was wrong with Akasofu’s claim, he simply dumped on him for stating a truth contrary to IPCC propaganda.
Yep a lot ugliness out there. Imagine getting fired for using the wrong word or pronoun. canceled for not using the right pronoun. Judith Curry had to give up her academic career as the push back she was getting was limiting her ability to publish.
Regarding IPCC one has to be very careful there. IPCC by its very nature is a political arm of an organization that wants to run an international hegemony. . . .and they view the issue of climate change as the stirrup they need to climb into that saddle. But the world is not ready for an international government and won’t be until the people of all nations have the same rights. Something not likely to happen soon.
but the IPCC is continually putting out better information that does not comport with the brasher propaganda that has been spread round. Its actually become a darn good resource for skeptics. The Summary for Policy Makers is still junk, don’t pay any attention to that. Thats written by politicians of the member states not scientists. Thats the part the UN hopes is all you read.
ENSO 3.4 single-month averages:
Sep -1.07
Oct -0.99
Nov -0.90
Dec -0.85
Jan -0.74
There is a significant chance of re-crossing the La Nina threshold in February, given that the last two weekly averages were -0.6. But that should not be enough though to take the three-month D-J-F average across the threshold.
12-month ONI averages for the last three ENSO “seasons” (Jul-Jun):
2020-21 … -0.82
2021-22 … -0.85
2022-23 … -0.89 (7 months, Jul-Jan)
I would expect 2022-23 to be about -0.6 or -0.5 by the time the 12 months ends.
BTW – for those who insist on referring to this data:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
a word from the source (NCAR):
“NCEP/NCAR Global Reanalysis Products – For ancillary use only – not recommended as a primary research dataset. It has likely been superseded by newer and better datasets.”
In any case, that reanalysis data is model-based, and we know just how much the disagreeable contingent love their models.
These are the official sources:
(Weekly): https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst9120.for
(Monthly):
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
(3-Monthly … ie. ONI): https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/oni.data
AQ,
You do realise that making predictions is difficult, particularly where the future is concerned?
Only joking – anybody who writes meaningless nonsense like “But that should not be enough though to take the three-month D-J-F average across the threshold.” Is trying to appear smart, but not succeeding all that well.
Maybe you could try describing the GHE, for more laughs!
Perhaps you will care to explain why that sentence is meaningless.
More likely you won’t have a clue so you will find another distractor.
AQ,
Because it has no meaning – that’s what “meaningless” means.
Have you managed to find a description of the GHE yet? Is it supposed to heat the planet, cool the planet, or make no difference at all?
You can’t even figure that out, can you?
You’re working late these days Mikey. Are they paying you double time?
AQ,
Does your comment indicate that you can’t describe the GHE, and you have to resort to the usual SkyDragon cultist diversionary trolling?
[chuckling at dimwitted cultist]
It is the opening post of the thread which sets the topic, so the only “diversionary trolling” has come from you. Most people who have nothing to contribute to the topic at hand (ENSO here) keep their mouth shut. But of course then you would have nothing to say.
I’ll wait for you to continue to say nothing about the thread’s topic, ie. to continue trolling.
AQ,
You wrote the following complete comment –
“Youre working late these days Mikey. Are they paying you double time?”, and claim that this comment is relevant to Dr Spencer’s post?
Really?
Ah well, I might as well return you to the topic behind his post, and reiterate –
“AQ,
Because it has no meaning thats what meaningless means.
Have you managed to find a description of the GHE yet? Is it supposed to heat the planet, cool the planet, or make no difference at all?
You cant even figure that out, can you?”
Which concept do you need assistance with Mikey?
Do you not understand the concept of a three-month average?
Do you not understand which consecutive months D-J-F are?
Do I need to explain that the La Nina threshold for ENSO 3.4 is -0.5C?
Do you need an explanation of “threshold?”?
Do you need help with “the”?
I will be happy to assist with your education to allow you to understand that very simple sentence.
#2
Haaah, the dumb Flynnson stalker is blathering again.
Lacking as usual anything relevant to say, he is saying something irrelevant.
Carry on, Flynnson, carry on.
*
By the way, you arrogant twat: I posted a link to a good article on GHE, but since you lack valuable knowledge, you of course discredit and denigrate everything.
All you are able to post here is your endlessly boring blah blah:
” Maybe you could try describing the GHE, for more laughs! ”
Qui rira en dernier rira plus fort, say the Frogs.
Binny,
Still no description of the GHE to be found?
There might be two, you know. One which cools the planet, and one which heats the planet – both equally imaginary!
Maybe you could link to “a good article” on both? Then I can ignore two links at one go.
Carry on.
Day by day Flynnson is getting dumber and dumber.
I’m amazed, to say the least.
Binny,
Still no description of the GHE to be found?
There might be two, you know. One which cools the planet, and one which heats the planet both equally imaginary!
Maybe you could link to a good article on both? Then I can ignore two links at one go.
Carry on.
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor is:
Φearth = 0,47
Φ is the planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor (the planet surface spherical shape and the planet surface roughness coefficient).
–
Φ(1 – a) is the planet surface coupled term (it represents the NOT REFLECTED portion of the incident on planet surface solar flux, it is the portion of solar flux which gets in INTERACTION processes with the planet surface).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
On the marvellous page
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443779687.html
we can see (a comma was replaced by a dot):
” Earth is on average warmer than Moon not only because of the Earth having 29.53 times faster rotational spin. ”
According to Vournas’ new meaning, Moon has no spin, like all moons.
Thus Earth has no rotational spin because 29.53 * 0 = 0…
Day/night, Bin. Day/night.
What does your ridiculous “Day/night, Bin. Day/night.” have to do with what I wrote about Vournas’ sentence?
Nothing.
” Earth is on average warmer than Moon not only because of the Earth having 29.53 times faster rotational spin. ”
Try to think, Clint R, before you show off with your usual nonsense.
Clint R says:
February 5, 2023 at 8:19 AM
Day/night, Bin. Day/night.
–
Thank you Clint!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bin, you always need to remind yourself that you don’t understand ANY of this. You can’t even understand your own cult’s nonsense.
You’re just going to have to learn to be content being a braindead cult idiot. That’s not going to change.
Let’s introduce to the very POWERFUL the Solar Irradiated planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
When comparing the various different planets’ and moons’ (without-atmosphere, or with a very thin atmosphere, Earth included) when comparing the surface temperatures, the Solar Irradiated Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon emerged:
Planets’ (without atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere) the mean surface temperatures RELATE (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ SIXTEENTH ROOT.
( N*cp ) ^∕₁₆
or
[ (N*cp)∕ ⁴ ] ∕ ⁴
Where:
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin.
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
This discovery has explained the origin of the formerly observed the planets’ average surface temperatures comparison discrepancies.
The difference of rotation speed between Earth and its Moon is the most important factor in our computation of their respective warming!
–
*****
Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon and because Earths surface is covered with water.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos writes: “Our Moon does not rotate about its own axis.” so according to Christos’ ill-conceived eqn. the lunar N is zero so that eqn. computes to zero.
Back to your studies Christos. I recommend passing the pre-req.s to gain proper admittance to study in a first college course in meteorology & successfully passing the exams therein.
“Christos writes: Our Moon does not rotate about its own axis. so according to Christos ill-conceived eqn. the lunar N is zero so that eqn. computes to zero.
Tidally locked moons, have a day and night.
If tidally locked to sun, they don’t. So you could have said a tidally locked planet could be zero.
So, if Earth was tidally locked with Sun, what difference does it
make?
Well, Earth could still have tilt or could say it has zero or very little tilt. Or you could say it has more of tilt.
Let’s zero the tilt {we get another zero- the current tilt on Earth make a large different in Earth average temperature}.
But I think trying to determine Venus average surface temperature when it only gets 1 AU distance sunlight, would be more interesting.
So, rather then move a planet, which makes things complicated, Venus can get solar shade which reduces the sunlight to 1 AU distance, sunlight.
Such a shade could made by a simply have 1 trillion people living in Venus orbit and having laws requiring not more is shaded. Or one could make a solar shade- which could cost less than 1 trillion dollars to put it there, there there would also be operational or maintenance cost depending on how long it was maintained {though the shade could be solar panels, getting a profit of trillions of dollar per year. But to keep it simple, assume governments just waste 1 trillion dollar to make something which shades the sun- and the something could be dust [available vast quantities in our solar system].
” Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon… ”
Wow!
Suddenly, Moon’s rotation is again onboard… :–)
Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon and because Earth’s surface is covered with water.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I don’t know, B4. If I had to bet on who made better grades in Physics class, I’d have to bet on Cristos.
How much are you willing to bet, Troglodyte?
You were replying to Christos, BTW.
The 6.9L pickup driver manifestly didn’t understand what was going on, but nonetheless feels some need to bet. Wow.
What about reading comments, Anderson?
If you’d read them you’d understand that the guy you tout as an authority on Physics claims one thing in some comments but its exact opposite in others.
And you would bet on such a guy? Seriously?
He can read it.
How about six months self banishment from the board?
I don’t know, Bindi. Ed Berry studied Physics at Caltech, the same department as Feynman, and you guys somehow question his physics. You don’t have a good track record.
I thought you were talking about Christos, Troglodyte.
You alright?
I was, but I wanted to warn you that your judgment in evaluating someone’s credentials or abilities has not been good. You’ve questioned Berry, Salby, Lindzen, and Happer, and others.
Alternatively, Troglodyte, you wanted to deflect toward your pet guru.
“Youve questioned Berry, Salby, Lindzen, and Happer, and others.”
Only our experts should be questioned, then?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I miss the days when the air was clean, and sex was dirty.
If your air isn’t clean you are living in the wrong place. And the wrong place can be downwind from a campfire. We have made tremendous progress on clean air. Certainly some more to do but the efforts need to be on developing nations who tend to do it the wrong way.
water pollution is a problem. And the most important issue isn’t the ocean which beyond non-biodegradable plastics doesn’t have serious pollution problems. Excessive attention is paid to the almost non-existent problems with mercury. Mercury problems in the past were seen in rivers and other water bodies where mercury could build up to toxic levels.
Its only popular because it can be used to attack the use of coal. but levels are incredibly low in the ocean and simply there is no science to suggest they are a problem.
But there are serious water problems much more deserving of our efforts and the problems today mostly arise from agriculture with fertilizers being the biggest problem. Pollution issues disproportionately affect small bodies of water. lakes, estuaries, rivers and creeks. Fertilizer affects even out to sea at river mouths. These issues are the issues deserving of dollars, inventive thinking, and ways to mitigate the concentration of pollutants in small bodies of water which can sometimes be relieved down to healthy levels with simply ensuring enough water exchange.
But in our political world often the best solutions are resisted by those who we think are trying to fix the problem. The reasons are obvious. If they allow a fix the problem they are out of a job so they bellyache about this and that which would help clean up the problem and not give in while trying to achieve some ‘perfect in their eyes’ never going to happen or impossible solution. And the ignorant continue to send them money even though they are accomplishing nothing. . . .its all about the rhetoric.
Sir, this is a Starbuck’s.
You might like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Company
Where were you in 2016?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You have drawn attention to an example of American Free Enterprise at its finest!
Mind you, NASA’s accomplishments (including killing civilian astronauts by preferring fantasy to fact), shows that “delays, cost overruns, safety violations and shoddy work” show the ability of the public sector to match, if not exceed the standards set by private enterprise.
The UK is trying hard – “At least seven broken bolts on the submarine’s reactor chamber were glued on instead of replaced, the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) told the newspaper. They originally broke due to overtightening, The Sun reported.”
Oh well, no harm done.
Maybe you believe there is a viable form of government, somewhere, that manages to avoid delays, cost overruns, safety violations, and shoddy work in either the private sector, the public sector, or both.
You definitely live in a bizarre SkyDragon fantasy. Do you think you could sell tickets to WillyWorld?
Maybe you could paste a copy of the GHE description – either the one that warms the planet or the one that cools the planet? Could you come up with a description of a GHE that does precisely nothing at all? You could defend that one – while the world laughs at you.
Off you go. Give it a try.
Mike Flynn,
I skipped your comment.
Could you bray using less words?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You have drawn attention to an example of American Free Enterprise at its finest!
Mind you, NASAs accomplishments (including killing civilian astronauts by preferring fantasy to fact), shows that delays, cost overruns, safety violations and shoddy work show the ability of the public sector to match, if not exceed the standards set by private enterprise.
The UK is trying hard At least seven broken bolts on the submarines reactor chamber were glued on instead of replaced, the UKs Ministry of Defence (MoD) told the newspaper. They originally broke due to overtightening, The Sun reported.
Oh well, no harm done.
Maybe you believe there is a viable form of government, somewhere, that manages to avoid delays, cost overruns, safety violations, and shoddy work in either the private sector, the public sector, or both.
You definitely live in a bizarre SkyDragon fantasy. Do you think you could sell tickets to WillyWorld?
Maybe you could paste a copy of the GHE description either the one that warms the planet or the one that cools the planet? Could you come up with a description of a GHE that does precisely nothing at all? You could defend that one while the world laughs at you.
Off you go. Give it a try.
Mike Flynn,
I still skipped your comment, but faster this time.
Could you bray using less words?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The air is a lot cleaner today than it has ever been.
1)During the days of coal burning fireplaces, coal burning locomotives, etc., home exteriors in the UK were stained black. When I visited London at one time, there were steam cleaning buildings. One side of one building was a stained black colour and the other side had bright red bricks and cream-coloured mortar where it had been cleaned.
2)Every where you went at one time, you were assaulted by the exhalations of smokers. I recall standing in night clubs with my eyes watering from second hand smoke and my nose stuffed up. When I got home, my hair was matted with tar from cigarette smoke, my clothes reeked of smoke, and I had trouble sleeping due to my sinuses being clogged with cigarette products.
3)At one time acid-rain was an issue. Emissions mixing with rain were causing acidic conditions that could corrode paint jobs, not to mention one’s lungs.
4)Cars have been required for some time to carry pollution cleaning devices.
5)Streams and rivers have been cleaned up to help the return of fish.
The list goes on, yet enviro-loonies are still not happy. Now they want fossil fueled vehicles stopped.
Bindidon, please define the “AXIS of ROTATION”.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Why don’t you search yourself for an answer?
https://www.google.com/search?q=axis+of+rotation+definition&newwindow=1&hl=en
A more or less useful answer from the Quora corner:
Kim Aaron
spacecraft mechanical engineer
” When a rigid body is rotating, there is a line that all the parts are turning about.
The parts farther away from that line travel on larger circle around that line, so they are moving faster. Parts closer to the line follow smaller circles and move more slowly as a result.
Points right on the line do not travel at all. they just turn in place. That line is the axis of rotation for this rigid body. ”
*
Feel free to search for others!
“Points right on the line do not travel at all. they just turn in place. That line is the axis of rotation for this rigid body.
–
Wonderful, Bindidon!
Is that yours definition of the “AXIS of ROTATION” too?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes.
Vournas
Εφόσον είναι ή ήταν συμπατριώτης του, θα μπορούσατε να προσπαθήσετε να τον πάρετε στα σοβαρά:
https://tinyurl.com/ypcekwht
christos…”Wonderful, Bindidon!
Is that yours definition of the AXIS of ROTATION too?”
***
Christos…Binny and his fellow cult members will try to tell you they accept that definition yet insist that a ball on a string is rotating about its internal axis as well. They cannot explain how that can be true if the string is preventing the ball from rotating about its internal axis.
If a locomotive is running on a circular track, to change its direction, you have to drive it onto a turntable to turn it around (rotate it 180 degrees around its internal axis), or you have to pick it up with a crane and rotate it 180 degrees. The spinners think that a locomotive moving on a circular track is rotating the locomotive about its internal axis in the same way as the turntable or the crane can rotate it
We non-spinners don’t know how to make them understand that the Moon moves in the same way as the ball or the locomotive. The mode of motion is not the same but the curvilinear motion is the same.
Put a tall enough pole at south or north lunar pole, and the top of
pole is always in sunlight [on side of it]. Put solar panel which spins to face the sun, and it always has solar power [same amount of solar power, except when Earth blocks the sunlight [and get a red and weak sunlight coming thru Earth’s atmosphere].
Now, add an impossibly large disk on the pole, say 100 meter or 100 km in diameter, which you could sundial or clock face which you mark the hours, minutes, Earth days on. Or one could say all timezones of the moon can marked upon the face of disk.
Say it’s 100 km in diameter or 314.159 km in circumference, and every 1/2 km along the circumference, you had solar panel which could spin and always face towards the sun. So every 314 x 2 = 628 solar panels
and get constant sunlight of about 1360 watts per square meter, unless another solar panel blocked the sunlight or the Earth blocked
the sunlight. And all the electrical power could be send 50 km distance to center of pole.
Now, don’t need the tall pole or impossibly large disk, instead you have solar panels in the lunar surface which are about 50 km from
the pole. And can give solar panels in all time zones and give a grid electrical power close to 100% of the time. Solar power that doesn’t
require much energy storage.
Though Mars is bigger than Moon and more distance between time zones.
This can’t done with Earth, because of a lot of reason- you could do long distance and cover few time zones, but near polar regions on Earth, because the atmosphere, don’t get much solar energy. Though distance between time zones in Europe are shorter as compared to Africa. Mars despite being at distance of the sun that gets 60% less sunlight can get better solar energy for grid electrical power than Europe or better than any place in Earth surface.
Any spot/location on Mars gets about 12 hours of what is called peak solar hours on Earth [which at best is about 6 hours]. And elevation or topography [above average elevation] could be significantly more than 12 hours, the distance separating the time zones is less and significantly distance nearer polar region.
it is absolutely definitely true that the particles on the back of the moon have significantly more angular momentum than the particles on the front of the moon.
Further the mean value of the angular momentum on the moons particles is not found in the particles at the center of the moon but instead is found in particles closer to the backside of the moon than the frontside. finally the angular momentum of the particles at the center of the moon is not anywhere near zero as spinners believe.
bill…”…the particles on the back of the moon have significantly more angular momentum than the particles on the front of the moon”.
***
Strictly as a point of interest, not presenting an argument or trying to refute your point, just food for thought. The Moon is always moving with a linear momentum which is bent into a curvilinear path by Earth’s gravitational field. I have argued that it cannot have an angular momentum because it only ever has a linear momentum. The Moon is always trying to move in a straight line.
I have argued further that angular momentum can apply only to a rigid body connected rigidly to an axis. Such a body is constrained to move along a curve, therefore its velocity is constrained to a curved path, hence its momentum is the same. Since it is connected by a radial member to the axis, the radial velocity determines the angular momentum. That’s because the angular velocity is determined mainly by the change of angle of the radial connector with the x-axis.
It is possible to measure radial velocity long a circumference in m/s but in practice it is the change in angle of the radial member wrt the x-axis that determines radial velocity and acceleration.
In other words, we are talking about a torque featuring a force applied to the radial connector about the axis. The Moon has no such torque. It carries its own linear momentum as a natural phenomenon and is incapable of following a curved path on its own.
I realize this may be at odds with what is taught in some textbooks and I am questioning their theories. That’s especially true for a radial line rotating about an axis with a vector representing a mass at the end of the radial line.
It is claimed there is an acceleration even though there is no change in velocity, with the change of acceleration being based on the change in direction of of the vector. That’s wrongheaded, IMHO. If you do vector calculus using the first and 2nd derivatives representing vector velocity and acceleration, The vector direction is based only on the unit vectors representing the x,y, or z components of the vector.
The length of the vector, representing the magnitude of the vector is a scalar quantity, and it is the scalars that are used to determine whether or not a vector has constant velocity or is changing. For a constant velocity, the scalars are constant, therefore the vector is a constant and has no acceleration, even though the unit vectors are changing direction.
Come on, Bordon.
If you claim that the Moon only has linear momentum, you indeed contradict what Gill just said.
my response to that is you use the relative term rigid as a delineator of angular momentum i would argue if the path bends its rigid enough.
Rigidity only applies to bodies here.
Our Moon is not exactly rigid, but as a first approximation we could make it so.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Rigid isn’t an absolute term it is a relative term.
Rigidity sufficient to produce angular momentum is simply: If the path bends its rigid enough. If the path does not bend it was not rigid enough.
Gill, Gill,
All you need to have angular momentum is a closed system.
A fluid can haz angular momentum.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
binny…”Points right on the line do not travel at all. they just turn in place. That line is the axis of rotation for this rigid body”
***
This guy is describing a body rotating about an internal axis. Suppose this body is not rotating about an internal axis but is rotating about an external axis? Suppose it has an ‘x’ on it indicating the inside face of the body and that the ‘x’ must always point at the external axis as the body rotates about it.
Here’s another one that fits better with some people’s narrative:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_Introductory_Physics_-_Building_Models_to_Describe_Our_World_(Martin_Neary_Rinaldo_and_Woodman)/11%3A_Rotational_dynamics/11.05%3A_Rotational_dynamics_for_a_solid_object
Binny,
Newton did it a long time ago. “Newton’s cannon” example describes the orbit and orientation of the Moon – with amendments due to the presence of the rest of the universe – resulting in an elliptical non-circular orbit.
It doesn’t matter really, does it?
No fact changes because of our most firmly held beliefs.
You might be arguing just for the sake of argument.
The paper at your link confirms that a body can ‘rotate’ about an external axis. In this case a mass is rotating about an external axis and it is not said to be revolving or orbiting.
The article also references the case where a dumbbell is rotating about a COM. It states that all points on the dumbbell sphere are moving in circles about the COM. It’s the same with the Moon rotating about the Earth as its axis.
There is no mention in the article of the dumbbell sphere also rotating about a local axis.
C’mon, Bordon.
You don’t need a textbook to “confirm” that an object can rotate around an axis that is external to it.
You’re just trying to deflect from torques, which DESTROY whatever point to which Moon Dragon cranks might still cling.
Whiffling Wee Willy,
More meaningless piffle, in an attempt to appear intelligent?
You wrote –
“Youre just trying to deflect from torques, . . .”
Oh dear, you have no intent of explaining what “torques” you are babbling about, have you?
You can’t even describe the GHE, and now you are a self proclaimed authority on “torques” which you can’t describe, either!
Indescribably obscure I suppose.
Keep trying to troll – you might succeed some day.
wee willy wanker…there are no torques involved in the Moon’s rotation about the Earth.
At the link to which Binny referred, they show a rigid body rotating about an external axis but fail to mention how that is possible in a terrestrial environment. I guess it could be done using electromagnets, etc., but it’s simply not a common phenomenon. A tornado may come close except it moves all over the place.
Torque has nothing to do with anything related to the lunar orbit. If you think it has, that make you a Dorque.
Mike Flynn,
“The gravitational torque between the Moon and the tidal bulge of Earth causes the Moon to be constantly promoted to a slightly higher orbit and Earth to be decelerated in its rotation.”
Suck it up.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
More about it
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
When 9 people go around Moon, Dear Moon, where will people go, next?
To the lunar surface- or maybe go to another planet.
There first has to a test launch of the super heavy Starship which
could happen in a month time, and before this, the 33 engine static
test fire.
This static fire seems more exciting, then the test launch, and by exciting, I mean, more worrisome/terrifying. Can 33 engine lit successfully, and what happen if this successful.
What happened when less than 1/2 of engines were lit, it chewed up the fire resistant “concrete” and solution to this, appear to be
throw a lot water at it- a water deluge system. Something every other large rocket uses and I am not sure why, such a thing was not tried
earlier- anyhow, if this is done, will the water deluge system do, enough. It seems the 33 engine is not next, it seems got to test the water deluge system with less than 33 engines, maybe 12 again or maybe 16. The water deluge system add one more complication- and perhaps that is reason, for not using it in first place, trying to see if you don’t need this added complication is just the way Musk, rolls- maybe if far enough from the ground, it wouldn’t need it- and so, worth the try.
Anyhow it’s possible the water deluge system, will make the 33 engine test fire, less exciting- or cause more problems.
I thought one could use a grate type thing made of copper pipes with about ton water per second running thru it- and could even do this, even if the rocket exhaust was hitting ocean water rather than land and concrete on it.
After the 33 engine test fire, one can hope that at lift off the clamp downs, lets go properly, so it can clear the tower, and thereafter, it’s less exciting- in terms of worries.
And then at some point, we get Dear Moon and does that lead to other things.
It seem Dear Moon could far interesting to kids. There is so much space in the Starship and got the crew with it’s various kinds artists. Of course there could problems- people can get sick in space, and all kinds panic could ensue, there some merit with the steely eyed pilots.
–The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) occurred about 20,000 years ago, during the last phase of the Pleistocene epoch. At that time, global sea level was more than 400 feet lower than it is today, and glaciers covered approximately:
8% of Earths surface
25% of Earths land area
33% of Alaska–
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-does-present-glacier-extent-and-sea-level-compare-extent-glaciers-and-global-sea-level
–Today, glaciers cover approximately:
3% of Earths surface
11% of Earths land area
5% of Alaska. —
Of course tundra is not glaciers:
Distribution. The global extent of the tundra biome is considerable, accounting for roughly 10 percent of Earth’s surface.Dec 8, 2022
And tundra is on land, and also got polar sea ice, which is not tundra or glacier. Also just frozen mostly lifeless rocky wastelands, isn’t tundra {though loosely speaking you might just call it tundra}.
“Tundra is the coldest of all the biomes. Tundra comes from the Finnish word tunturi, meaning treeless plain. It is noted for its frost-molded landscapes, extremely low temperatures, little precipitation, poor nutrients, and short growing seasons. Dead organic material functions as a nutrient pool.”
Or you should not call vast dry rocky areas of Antarctica, tundra- but somebody, might, cause different people define things differently.
But without any doubt, people don’t know how cold and dry Earth is, at the present time.
They are told we are in an Ice Age, but they ignore reality.
Humans in general spend a lot effort, ignoring reality,
gb…”glaciers covered approximately:
8% of Earths surface
25% of Earths land area
33% of Alaska”
***
That’s a lot different than the picture often painted of a planet with a mile of ice covering it. 8% of the surface covered with ice is not a lot and the 25% of land area tells us that 8% was mainly in mountainous terrain, since the surface area would include vertically elevated surfaces,
The 33% in Alaska tells us the ice was in the mountains where one would expect to find it.
We need to remember that ice for glaciers comes from snowfall. There is a limit to precipitation and the idea that enough exists to build ice to a level of a mile is wonky thinking to me.
I did some of the maths for this years ago.
A 1mm change in sea level is a volume change of 360 cubic kilometres. A 120 metre sea level drop would release 4.3*10^7 cubic kilometres of water or 10 million cubic miles.
That’s enough to bury the USA three miles deep, or 18% of the total land area 1 mile deep.
EM,
Im not sure what your point is.
Marine fossils are found at over 6,000 m above present MSL.
Oil is being brought up from 12,000 m below present MSL.
This would indicate a minimum change of 18,000 m in MSL locally over the years.
In relation to ice, there is ice more than 4,500 m thick in Antarctica – none more than about a million years old or so. Previously, the continent had verdant flora and fauna according to the fossil record.
Things change – and continue to do so. The future is unknowable. Still no description of the GHE which apparently is responsible for both planetary heating – and planetary cooling!
Complete nonsense – pardon me why I snigger at delusional SkyDragon cultists.
“The picture often painted of a planet with a mile of ice covering it. ”
Another denialist straw man from Gordon.
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
Literally nothing out of the ordinary is happening at all.
If you mean warming and climate are the same old, same old, I agree. Nothing out of the ordinary going on.
barry…”Empirical measurements of gas absorp.tion profiles through spectroscopy tell us that nitrogen and oxygen are virtually transparent to IR at the peak spectrum emitted by Earth, while GHGs like water vapour, CO2 and CH4 absorb IR strongly in the emission spectrum most intensely emitted by the Earth. CO2 most strongly absorbs at 15 micrometers, which is right on the most intense spectra that Earth emits at.
Thats why the 2% of the atmosphere that is GHGs (incl WV) controls the radiative cooling of the surface”.
***
You are missing the point of Newton’s Law of Cooling. The rate of cooling of the Earth’s surface depends on the temperature of the atmosphere in contact with the surface. However, that part of the atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium with the surface therefore no heat can be transferred.
But wait!!! Air in contact with the surface is always changing its temperature. As cooler air descends to the surface it absorbs heat, and comes to an equilibrium state where heat transfer should stop. But, that heated air expands into the cooler air above it as a parcel and as it does, the cooler air from above descends underneath it and lifts it.
As the cooler air gets underneath the parcel it contacts the surface, and now you have a temperature differential. That colder air absorbs more heat and the cycle repeats. Furthermore, that cycle produces convection without which, according to Lindzen, the surface could rise to 70C.
It’s the entire atmosphere that causes the rate of cooling at the surface and that atmosphere is 99% N2/O2. The nitrogen and oxygen are mainly responsible for surface cooling, not trace gases.
My objection to CO2 having any effect on warming is its limited ability to absorb only about 5% of surface radiation. I think radiation at terrestrial temperatures is an inefficient means of cooling the surface. Like in a residential home, cooling comes from conduction through walls and subsequent convection outside the wall whereas radiation is a minor form of heat loss.
For me, the GHE and AGW theories are based on immature conjecture. By immature, I mean scientists have leaped to conclusions before looking at the problem closely and before fully developing the theories. Furthermore, much of the theory related to radiation is due to the limitation of climate models, which required heat transfer via radiation to implement the differential equations upon which the models are based.
Conduction and convection in the atmosphere are far too complicated to model hence they are minimized or ignored.
That’s why Tyndall’s good work has been misinterpreted. His discovery that molecules like CO2 can absorb surface radiation has mislead modern scientists into skewing their alarmists theories toward radiation.
“Conduction and convection in the atmosphere are far too complicated to model hence they are minimized or ignored.”
Incredible ignorance.
Radiative-convective climate models have been mainstream since the 70s. EG,
“Climate modeling through radiative-convective models”
Ramanathan and Coakley (1978)
barry,
You dont agree with the IPCC which stated that it is not possible to predict future climate states. Presumably you have good reason, and even more presumably, you are not going to why.
Unfortunately, Ramanathan and Coakley were deluding themselves when they wrote their paper, as it is not possible to predict the future state of a chaotic system. The approximate present does not imply the approximate future in a deterministic chaotic system – such as the Earth and its components.
Carry on dreaming – other SkyDragons will non doubt applaud, whilst everybody else is laughing at your silliness.
As usual, your comments are divorced from reality, having characterised neither the IPCC not my own opinions correctly. A never-ending font of disinformation flows from your posts.
For instance, the IPCC rightly said it cannot predict a future climate state, but can predict the probability distribution of future climate under given scenarios.
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.”
AGW ‘skeptics’ disinforming about climate is old news.
barry,
You quoted “Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the systems future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.”
Prediction of probability is pointless, and even the IPCC are only aiming towards this – in the future, of course. Anything to keep the funding flowing!
Ensembles of model solutions are completely worthless – averaging computer simulations of chaotic systems tells you nothing about the future. It is just an exercise in futility, carried out by SkyDragon cultists who believe they can see the future more clearly than your friendly neighborhood fortune-teller!
Even Gavin Schmidt has recently resorted to blaming the failure of models on – people, who don’t behave as Gavin thinks they should. Gavin is one of your heroes, I suppose.
You can’t even describe the GHE, can you? You just claim I’m being unfair for pointing out this inconvenient truth. Oh well, occasionally life’s like that – neither right nor fair.
Wriggle off, like the valueless worm you are.
“Prediction of probability is…”
Not what they said.
There’s really no hope for you when you can’t even read the words accurately, let alone understand the concepts, and explaining it to you is beginning to feel condescending.
You are a text-book example of denialism. Can’t faithfully report what you’ve read or been told, always through a distorting filter of your reflex contrarianism.
barry,
You are really bobbing and weaving, now.
Here’s your quote – “prediction of the probability distribution of the systems future possible states” which, as I said, is an exercise in futility.
A characteristic of deterministic chaotic systems is that the approximate present provides precisely no information about the approximate future. That is why the IPCC reluctantly admitted that it is not possible to predict future climate states!
Keep wriggling – nobody can predict the future, any better than a fortune teller. Not you, not Governments , not the best and the brightest. Sad, but true. Idiot SkyDragons can guess as well as anybody, and like anybody, occasionally guess right. Occasionally!
Keep on with your fact free nonsense.
You can’t even describe your GHE, can you? How pathetic is that? You might as well keep whining about “deniers”, even though can’t actually describe what they are supposedly “denying”!
swenson…”You are really bobbing and weaving, now”.
***
Barry excels at that kind of avoidance. If he was a boxer, he’d work the ropes, sticking his head outside of them to avoid ever being hit. Of course, the ref would eventually disqualify him.
If you corner Barry, he will never reply directly to your point, he will evade and obfuscate, reply to what he imagines the question to be.
Alarmists are built that way, they believe in a point and they are not going to be budged from it, no matter what evidence is presented to them to the contrary.
I made a claim to Barry that climate models ignore convection. He immediatey ran off to an authority figure and posted a link to an article on that. He made no attempt to demonstrate his understanding
swenson…”You are really bobbing and weaving, now”.
***
Barry excels at that kind of avoidance. If he was a boxer, he’d work the ropes, sticking his head outside of them to avoid ever being hit. Of course, the ref would eventually disqualify him. Or, the other guy would reach over the ropes to hammer him, only to be disqualified.
If you corner Barry, he will never reply directly to your point, he will evade and obfuscate, replying to what he imagines the question to be.
Alarmists are built that way, they believe in a point and they are not going to be budged from it, no matter what evidence is presented to them to the contrary.
I made a claim to Barry that climate models ignore convection. He immediately ran off to an authority figure and posted a link to an article on that. He made no attempt to demonstrate his understanding of what the article said about convection and it was hidden behind a paywall.
Barry has the religion and there’s no way to converse with him.
“I made a claim to Barry that climate models ignore convection. He immediatey ran off to an authority figure and posted a link to an article on that.”
I posted a link to a paper on a radiative/convective model made in 1978.
In order to counter your misinformed comment that climate models don’t consider convection.
This was one of the earliest radiative-convective GCMs. Most full GCMs are radiative-convective models.
The GCM the Hadley Centre has developed has had convection in it for decades.
https://tinyurl.com/2zoo76pq
The GISS climat5e model has included convection for decades.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019MS002025
Gordon, you spout non-stop BS. Easily disproven by referencing the scientific literature.
barry…”the IPCC rightly said it cannot predict a future climate state, but can predict the probability distribution of future climate under given scenarios”.
***
They had to amend such wording when expert reviewer Vincent Gray pointed out the obvious….unvalidated models cannot predict. That forced the IPCC to get out their thesaurus and find the word ‘project’, in lieu of ‘predict’.
That’s how the shysters got around their claim that climate cannot be predicted. Not only can the models not predict, they can’t even project very well, since the IPCC creates several possible scenarios that ‘might’ happen.
Your unwavering support of IPCC chicanery marks you as a seriously gullible type.
No one ever claimed GCMs could predict the temperature of the globe on a given day/week/month/year.
The IPCC statement reflects what GCMs can and can’t do. But because it includes the words, “cannot predict”, it is interpreted by unskeptical skeptics to mean that the IPCC has admitted models are useless.
And unskeptical skeptics are the type to assign motives to verbiage as part of their ‘reasoning’.
There is a big difference between rationality and rationalising.
thats ok. curry reports that the ipcc in ar6 has begun the process of disregarding the climate models by lowering the estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity.
in management speak what that says to the modelers is get ur shit together. a message never to be ignored. it can cost your school a ton.
btw, excellent interview. they covered a lot of points i have been making. . .integrity, transparency, welcoming of skeptic debate, following the emerging science instead of ignoring it, stop harming the less fortunate, recognize the good side of emissions.
And as usual, you’ve gone off on your own talking point.
Robertson is just profoundly ignorant – convection has been an intrinsic feature in AOGCMs for decades.
barry,
You wrote –
“Robertson is just profoundly ignorant convection has been an intrinsic feature in AOGCMs for decades.”
Is that why the AOGCMs are a complete waste of time, effort, and money?
Do you not agree with the IPCC that it is not possible to predict future climate states? The IPCC hasn’t even figured out how to calculate probabilities that future climate states will resemble anything in particular!
Or do you know better?
Idiot.
Flynnson with his usual crap that science can’t do any of the things that they in fact do.
What I agree with is that Robertson is profoundly ignorant of AOGCMs.
Going further, he is profoundly ignorant of the general topic, save some talking points his mind has retained from blogs.
Your comment is just semantics Barry. There is more than one way to ignore convection in climate models. It doesn’t mean that its not even modeled to any level. Its typical horse blinder science where the uncertainties in the way of current theory is ignored and uncertainties in support of current theory is embraced like a long lost lover.
Speaking of semantics, Bill…
No, Gordon made an error of fact, easily disproven.
You have made a word salad that is impossible to test.
“It’s the entire atmosphere that causes the rate of cooling at the surface”
The dry lapse rate is 9.8 K/km, and with moist convection that reduces to 6.5 K/km.
Radiative cooling is solely the province of GHGs.
You appear to be trying to bury the GHE under a smokescreen of concepts. Convection doesn’t make it disappear, and nitrogen and oxygen are not GHGs – your initial point, lest we forget.
barry,
Don’t be stupid. There is no GHE, so there is nothing at all to be buried.
You make the ignorant and fatuous statement “Radiative cooling is solely the province of GHGs.”. You dimwit – everything cools by emitting energy – radiation.
Convection, advection, conduction are just old-fashioned terms used to tell white lies to people who don’t need to know any better.
You can’t even define the GHE, so complaining that others don’t understand it, is a bit rich!
Keep trying to supplant fact with fantasy – NASA tried, and managed to kill innocent people. At least nobody sensible is going to take much notice of you, and if a few SkyDragons worry themselves to death, or have apoplectic fits denying reality, too bad. Why should I care?
barry says: Radiative cooling is solely the province of GHGs
That’s why we know Earth cannot warm much. Too many GHGs.
Excellent. You’ve admitted that Earth radiatively cools via GHGs. If only Swenson-kin would wake up.
For you, GHGs slow the rate at which Earth radiatively cools to space (no GHGs = upwelling IR going straight to space unimpeded). More GHGs = slower rate of radiative cooling, which combined with continual input from the sun leads to warmer surface.
It’s really not hard.
barry,
More nonsense – you wrote “More GHGs = slower rate of radiative cooling, which combined with continual input from the sun leads to warmer surface.”
You fathead – after four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, the surface has cooled!
Do you have to put a lot of effort into being stupid, or were you born that way?
Slow cooling results in a fall in temperature – that is called “cooling”, by everyone except delusional,SkyDragon cultists, who call slow cooling “warming”.
Donkey.
“after four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, the surface has cooled!”
This nonsense talking point is still nonsense.
A hot surface 4 billion years ago has zip to do with the GHE in present times.
You come off like a crank every time you roll out this extraordinarily dumb comment.
Well, you ARE a crank.
barry,
The Earth cooled. Nothing stopped it. Try and tell anyone that the GHE is a recent phenomenon, and be prepared to describe it. You might have to speak rather loudly to be heard over the laughter!
Are you still claiming the Moon cooled because of GHG’s in its atmosphere? Sounds like fantasy to me, just like claiming neither oxygen nor nitrogen radiate IR.
Have you considered sending your brain back for recalibration?
At last, something new.
“Are you still claiming the Moon cooled because of GHGs in its atmosphere?”
Never said that.
You’re as much a crank now as you were before you made that up.
Might as well stop telling me what I think. You get it wrong every time.
barry,
No, that was a question. I don’t attempt to read minds.
Feel free to tell everyone how you think the Moon cooled – not having an atmosphere at all.
You can’t describe the GHE. Maybe you can do better explaining how the Earth cooled – with GHGs in the atmosphere for billions of years!
Or just keep whining about what you didn’t say – you refuse to state what you believe, and refuse to say anything that can be verified by experiment.
Typical SkyDragon cultist.
barry, you’re half way there. You agree that CO2 cools the planet, but you twist that to claim that is slows the cooling??? You go on to then claim more CO2 means more “slowed cooling”.
CO2 cools the planet. Stop. More CO2 means more cooling the planet.
The non-radiative gases “slow the cooling”, i.e. act as insulation.
Yes, Pup.
In the Sky Dragon Cranks’ universe, non-radiative gases are the ones responsible for the radiative properties of the atmosphere…
🤦
That is not what is being argued, Little Willy…
“The non-radiative gases “slow the cooling”, i.e. act as insulation.”
🤦
Yes…and that is not correctly represented by what you said at 3:47 PM.
Readers who can’t grok Gassy Graham’s gaslighting might profit from this dictionary:
“non-radiative gases” => non-radiative gases
“to slow the cooling” => having a radiative effect
“act as insulation => having a radiative effect
In Sky Dragon cranks’ universe, “The non-radiative gases act as insulation” means that non-radiative gases have a radiative effect.
🤦
Woebegone Wee Willy wrote –
“Yes, Pup.
In the Sky Dragon Cranks universe, non-radiative gases are the ones responsible for the radiative properties of the atmosphere”
Delusional SkyDragon cranks like Wee Willy think that oxygen and nitrogen do not radiate IR in proportion to their temperature, making SkyDragons either stupid, ignorant, or completely detached from reality! Or all three, most likely.
Even blundering Barry claims that the Earth has cooled due to GHGs, but refuses to commit himself to saying whether GHGs also warm the Earth. Diabolically clever, these deranged SkyDragon cranks – or so they think!
Good for a laugh, anyway.
They worship a GHE which they cannot describe, but provide differing “explanations” of how it works – all requiring rejecting reality in one way or another! You want planetary cooling? The GHE. Planetary heating? The GHE.
What a joke – hence the laughter.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Woebegone Wee Willy wrote
Yes, Pup.
In the Sky Dragon Cranks universe, non-radiative gases are the ones responsible for the radiative properties of the atmosphere
Delusional SkyDragon cranks like Wee Willy think that oxygen and nitrogen do not radiate IR in proportion to their temperature, making SkyDragons either stupid, ignorant, or completely detached from reality! Or all three, most likely.
Even blundering Barry claims that the Earth has cooled due to GHGs, but refuses to commit himself to saying whether GHGs also warm the Earth. Diabolically clever, these deranged SkyDragon cranks or so they think!
Good for a laugh, anyway.
They worship a GHE which they cannot describe, but provide differing explanations of how it works all requiring rejecting reality in one way or another! You want planetary cooling? The GHE. Planetary heating? The GHE.
What a joke hence the laughter.
““to slow the cooling” => having a radiative effect
“act as insulation => having a radiative effect“
Wrong.
🤦
***
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
You can leave a facepalm emoji as much as you like, it won’t change the fact that what you said is wrong. The non-radiative gases are the planetary insulators because they “hold onto the heat” better than the radiative gases do.
🤦
If you think of the pathways that heat can flow through the climate system, and what causes the biggest delay to that heat flow…obviously the non-radiative gases constitute a much bigger delay than the radiative gases. N2 and O2 cannot radiate very efficiently, and so ultimately end up losing energy mostly through collisions with other molecules. The vast majority of which will be other N2 and O2 molecules. So, collectively, those N2 and O2 molecules are “holding onto the heat” far, far more than the GHGs are.
🤦🤦
Every facepalm emoji is another concession. Thanks for an easy win.
Readers might infer that every PST from Gaslighting Graham is a concession.
🤦🤦🤦🤦
Absolutely not.
Four more concessions, from Little Willy.
Of course Gaslighting Graham gives me free wins.
Thanks for an easy win. Your total lack of any kind of counter argument at any point in the proceedings is what made it so easy.
Yes easy victories DREMT. Smart gracious opponents verbally concede. Less gracious losers leave the room. Morons act like morons making a fool of themselves by not conceding or leaving the room; they stick around resort to ad hominems and generally making a bigger fool of themselves. Willard does absolutely the best job of making a bigger fool of himself on the entire board. 2nd place isn’t even close.
🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦
Yes, Bill, with Little Willy you just have to ask him to please stop trolling, in the end. Any other course of action results in a never ending pointless back and forth. He’s just another boring, relentless troll.
Gaslighting Graham lightly gaslights again.
🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Yes easy victories DREMT.” “Thanks for an easy win.”
The rules of debate have apparently changed since I was in school.
Back then having solid facts, logic, reasoning was the key to winning.
Now all you have to do is declare that you’ve won, and you win?
So we’ve already arrived at the Idiocracy?
…Willy, please stop trolling.
There’s really no answer to such a colossal misreading and misunderstanding of the basic concepts and context of my remarks. Obviously the subject is the radiative cooling of the Earth to space, which is primarily a function of GHGs. Clearly you don’t WANT to know anything about this beyond your 3 talking points, so please consider only contributing when you have something new and on-topic to offer.
Yeah, I’m kidding. Like you’re going to actually do that!
barry,
Don’t try and weasel your way out. You’ve been caught out being a dill, but you still want people to think “cooling” somehow results in warming!
All matter above absolute zero radiates IR.
From one of the SkyDragon appeals to authority –
“The Stefan-Boltzmann law, a fundamental law of physics, explains the relationship between an object’s temperature and the amount of radiation that it emits. This law (expressed mathematically as E = σT4) states that all objects with temperatures above absolute zero (0K or -273C or -459F) emit radiation at a rate proportional to the fourth power of their absolute temperature.”
Oxygen, nitrogen, CO2, NH4, bananas – you name it, when it gets hotter, it radiates more. Matter varies in emitting and conversely, absorbing radiation . As an example, CO2 may absorb 1750 times as much IR as oxygen and nitrogen. However, with only 4 molecules per 10,000, oxygen and nitrogen both absorb and emit more total energy than CO2!
Go on, deny a few facts. Don’t accept any facts if they are inconvenient.
Don’t blame me because you can’t even describe the GHE – I didn’t make you stupid, you did it all by yourself.
GHGs are responsible for the radiative cooling of the planet and nitrogen and oxygen are not. This is am empirically observed fact however you might try to avoid it.
For someone who believes the GHE hasn’t been described you’re awfully desperate to keep refuting it.
Just stop being a drongo, mate. Stop fooling around with non-sequiturs and reflex talking points and let the grown-ups discuss this.
barry,
Nitrogen and oxygen radiate IR, whether you believe it or not.
If you are trying to say that the Earth’s cooling is solely due to the presence of GHGs, I’ll point out that the Moon’s surface gets considerably cooler than the Earth’s with nary a GHG to be found!
You are an ignorant SkyDragon cultist.
By the way, I don’t need to “refute” the GHE, unicorns, or your vast intellect – none of them exist.
What’s your next explanation for the Earth cooling? Too much CO2 and H2O?
“If you are trying to say that the Earths cooling is solely due to the presence of GHGs”
It is the primary route of radiative cooling. If there were no GHGs the planet would cool directly from the surface to space.
“I’ll point out that the Moons surface gets considerably cooler than the Earth’s with nary a GHG to be found!”
That’s because there is no GHE to keep the surface of the moon warmer at night. GHGs slow the rate of heat loss to space.
Please stop trying. You don’t have the capacity.
barry,
You are definitely getting confused.
You wrote – “It is the primary route of radiative cooling. If there were no GHGs the planet would cool directly from the surface to space.”
The planet does cool directly from the surface to space. That enables satellites to take IR pictures of the surface – and of course, pictures using visible light, which contains energy, whether you like it or not. Slow cooling is not heating, you dolt! The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and continues to do so. No wonder you can’t describe the GHE, if you believe it causes cooling. Or do you believe that the GHE heated the Earth? Or both? You seem a bit reluctant to commit yourself.
Now you have GHGs being “the primary route of radiative cooling” (not true, but moving right along), what role do GHGs play in supposed planetary warming? Multi-purpose GHGs, which warm and cool simultaneously?
I don’t believe you can back up your wondrous GHG fantasy with reproducible experiment, but feel free to try!
barry says:
It is the primary route of radiative cooling. If there were no GHGs the planet would cool directly from the surface to space.
Thats because there is no GHE to keep the surface of the moon warmer at night. GHGs slow the rate of heat loss to space.
Please stop trying. You dont have the capacity.
——————–
obviously its you lacking the capacity.
i agree the surface would cool directly to space without ghgs but the surface is only one part of the planet and only one element of climate.
ghg speed up the cooling of the atmosphere. Without ghg how does the atmosphere a key component of climate cool? It seems to me that since the surface currently emits 40w/m2 directly to space without any ghg the atmosphere would emit 0w/m2 directly to space. And since ghg actually moderate the temperature of the surface there would be lots of opportunity to heat the atmosphere with 1349w/m2 heating the surface on the path of the sun the earth would heat to boiling temperatures on this path and heating a lot of air that would have no means of cooling.
you will be on a platter that cooks your feet during the day freezes them at night. and 24/7 your head will be in a convection oven and you are telling me i will be cooler. i think dead and burnt might be more accurate of a description.
bill h…” Without ghg how does the atmosphere a key component of climate cool?”
***
That’s an alarmist gotcha. The alarmists want us to believe that the temperature of the atmosphere and the surface are controlled by a trace gas. Otherwise, the GHG and AGW theories fall apart.
Our bodies have no problem cooling when exposed to air. We can slow the transfer of heat to the air by wearing clothes but clothes don’t affect radiation. Radiation will pass through clothing much faster than a hot knife though butter. In fact, radiation will pass through the wooden exterior of homes. We can receive radio signals through walls. Therefore cooling of our bodies is not related to radiative cooling nearly as much as to direct conduction to air.
Newton’s law of cooling tells us the rate of cooling of the surface is related to the temperature of the atmosphere. It says nothing about CO2 or WV, therefore I presume the temperature of the atmosphere is based on the 99% that is N2/O2.
“The planet does cool directly from the surface to space.”
Indeed, there is a small window in the spectrum emitted by Earth where GHGs do not absorb IR, so some IR does escape directly to space (about 12% of total).
Which is why I said GHGs are “the primary route of radiative cooling” for Earth.
No amount of mis-directed nit-picking is going to change that fact.
“path of the sun the earth would heat to boiling temperatures on this path and heating a lot of air that would have no means of cooling.”
No means of cooling??
First off the surfaces can radiate heat directly to space and cool. And the surfaces can conduct heat to and FROM the atmosphere and create convection currents which move (advects) heated air from warm areas to colder ones, from equator to the poles.
Nate says:
path of the sun the earth would heat to boiling temperatures on this path and heating a lot of air that would have no means of cooling.
No means of cooling??
————————
Isn’t that the theory of why the thermosphere is so hot? The fact that monotomic oxygen and nitrogen can’t cool until reaching high levels of energy? That they absorb high frequency light and therefore can only emit high frequency light and can only equilibriate at extremely high temperatures of thousands of degrees? Or has that theory been overturned. I haven’t been trying to keep up on that.
You dont appear to be responding to me.
it absolutely was.
barry…”Theres really no answer to such a colossal misreading and misunderstanding of the basic concepts and context of my remarks”.
***
I quoted Newton’s Law of Cooling to you, which negates your claim that CO2 determines the cooling rate of the surface, yet you failed to respond with a scientific answer that would cast doubt on Newton’s law.
I went into detail with my support of Newton’s law and you failed to rebut my explanation.
There is no misreading or misunderstanding of your basic comment and contexts of your remarks, they are simply wrong, and you are not willing to discuss them scientifically.
Newton’s Law of Cooling.
The rate of heat loss of a body is directly proportional to the difference in the temperatures between the body and its environment.
True enough, though WRT radiative cooling the temp difference needs to be small for this to hold.
So, the surface loses heat to the atmosphere, and the atmosphere loses heat up through the layers of the atmosphere and eventually to space.
The temperature gradient through the troposphere is warm to cool from surface to tropopause.
If the atmosphere warms, or the height at which thermal emissions from Earth match solar input rises, the surface must therefore warm.
Richard Lindzen points out in his article you linked for us, that more GHGs raise the height at which the atmosphere radiates IR to space, and therefore according to the lapse rate, the surface must get warmer, resulting in about 1C warming from a doubling of CO2 [disregarding feedbacks].
Lindzen has himself calculated the 1C from doubling of CO2 in various papers.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/brian_f_farrell/files/99_role.pdf
he quotes in this paper of his the greenhouse effect – see point 3.
https://sci-hub.ru/10.1175/1520-0477(1990)071%3C0288:sccgw%3E2.0.co;2
Basically saying that without the GHE, the Earth’s surface (diurnal average) would be 18C cooler.
And in most of Lindzen’s papers critiquing climate models and offering his own, he constantly refers to radiative-convective models by other researchers.
Because unlike internet blowhards, Lindzen is quite aware that convection is a standard feature in general circulation models.
Yes, convection is a part of the models, but:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/nikolov-zeller-reply-eschenbach/comment-page-2/#comment-17442
You see, Gordon? DREMT knows that convection is included in GCMs, as does the guy commenting at a blog that DREMT cited as a reference.
Yes the models have convection. Existing convection. What they do is restrain convection for transferring more heat until the radiation captured at the top of the atmosphere is radiated back to the ground then convection is allowed to transfer water into the atmosphere to make it even warmer. So actually within climate models convection is the most important element. But to obtain their ends heating within the atmosphere is disallowed as it doesn’t bring more heat into the atmosphere. So what you have for backradiation is ”spooky action at distance” for some reason heat captured by CO2 isn’t allowed to be reabsorbed by anything but the surface.
I am being factitious here but this is the reality of gridded climate models, microprocesses within the atmosphere conform to a rigid religious belief despite science knowing that collisions of molecules in the atmosphere contribute to a far larger proportion of heat transfer than radiation. Since this theory has never been blueprinted, for good reasons as it would seem very highly likely that it might look a little more than preposterous laid out quantitatively on paper or all to see, they skip over that part and have CO2’s current portion of one degree of warming simply magically transferring from TOA to the surface where it allegedly will do more dirty work of evaporating water which of course cools the surface but will soon be up there with the CO2 molecules warming the surface more.
And of course all that completely explains Nate’s prevarication here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1445517 also.
And the University’s reaction to all this: They need a bigger computer.
And of course all that gobbldegook completely explains whats on the mind of troll Bill in this moment. And thus can be safely ignored.
barry, Gordon is unlikely to be paying any attention to comments this far up-thread, which is why your delayed response comments to him (four days late, in this case) are always a bit "troll-y". I just thought you might be interested in the comment linked to, since it relates to what you were discussing. Sure, convection is included in the models, but…
Nate says:
”And of course all that gobbldegook completely explains whats on the mind of troll Bill in this moment. And thus can be safely ignored.”
And of course Nate who didn’t ignore it felt compelled to stand outside of it directing traffic away from it saying: ”Move along folks, nothing to see here.”
Now if he would just do that with all his posts.
“I just thought you might be interested in the comment linked to, since it relates to what you were discussing…”
No, it’s a different point entirely.
And it’s a comment in a blog. I can point you to plenty of those, but why on Earth would either of us waste time with such sources?
So, off-topic and poor reference. Nope.
Lol. OK, barry. So, I could have written the comment out in my own words, and you would have had to deal with what I said, but because I left the comment as written by the original author, you don’t have to deal with it.
“And of course Nate who didnt ignore it felt compelled ”
Bill forgot to mention that his post called ME out in a thread I wasnt posting in. Sneaky!
Then complains when I respond!
Re: comment from Tallbroke:
“B_Happy says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:56 pm
Wayne, I would not take Dr Nikolovs word for it that convection and radiative transfer are decoupled. These models treat the earths atmosphere/ocean/ice caps as a 3D grid (ie a set of boxes) and each box influences its neighbours both spatially and in time ie the calculations of pressure and temperature etc in one box at one time are fed into the calculations of the pressure etc of both that box and its neighbours at the next time step. Does that sound to you as if they are decoupled? “
Don’t forget to read through all the responses, barry:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/nikolov-zeller-reply-eschenbach/comment-page-2/#comment-17472
Nikolov responds but at every OTHER time step of these model
and “B_Happy says:
In other words they are coupled..do you not know what this means?”
BTW B_Happy is quite correct here.
So, barry…from Ned Nikolov’s first comment:
“I would like to clarify something important. I am NOT saying that “within the atmosphere radiative transfer is decoupled from heat exchange ( conduction and convection ).”… On the contrary, in the REAL atmosphere radiative transfer is coupled to (happens simultaneously with) convection! Since convection is MUCH more efficient than radiation in transferring heat, globally, it completely offsets on average the warming effect of back radiation. So, the long-wave back radiation does NOT heat the surface in reality…
“In climate models, however, radiative transfer is NOT solved simultaneously with convection. As a result, changes in atmospheric emissivity (due to an increase of CO2 concentration for example) lead to the calculation of positive heating rates (degree per day). These rates are produced by the radiative transfer code due to the fact that it is solved independently (outside) of convective processes. The heating rate predicted by the radiative transfer code are then passed onto the thermodynamic (convective/advective) portion of the model, and get distributed around the globe causing the projected warming.”
What the later comments go onto establish is that Dr Nikolov is quite correct, climate models do not solve radiative transfer simultaneously with convection.
Nikolov says:
“There is NO experimental evidence from the free atmosphere that increasing CO2, water vapor or any other so-called greenhouse gases has ever caused an increase in temperature. We have proxy records of CO2 and global temperature going back more than 65M years. These data sets show that CO2 has ALWAYS lagged temperature changes. ”
This is a very dumb strawman argument!
This is like observing that the seasonal warming causes the ocean to warm and outgas CO2. Then concluding that CO2 can’t produce warming.
Because we KNOW that warming causes outgassing of CO2, and the evidence shows that solar driven deglaciation did that!
But that says nothing about whether the reverse can happen, that CO2 increase (from an external source) can cause warming.
“On the contrary, in the REAL atmosphere radiative transfer is coupled to (happens simultaneously with) convection!”
This is a really very ignorant comment, or intended to obfuscate ignorant readers.
Simulations involve discrete time steps. They are not, by definition, instantaneous! A change that happens in one time step is applied to the conditions in the NEXT time step. This is quite standard.
And so what?
As long as the time-scales of interest are much longer than the time between steps, this doesn’t affect anything! And the time-scales of interest in climate change are LONG.
And Nikolovs statement that
“We have proxy records of CO2 and global temperature going back more than 65M years. These data sets show that CO2 has ALWAYS lagged temperature changes.”
is wrong.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23646
“Very large release of mostly volcanic carbon during the PalaeoceneEocene Thermal Maximum”
“The PalaeoceneEocene Thermal Maximum1,2 (PETM) was a global warming event that occurred about 56 million years ago”
“This leads us to identify volcanism associated with the North Atlantic Igneous Province10,11, rather than carbon from a surface reservoir, as the main driver of the PETM.”
FYI, again, poor choice of ‘authorities’ to defer to.
“Nikolov and Zeller publish a paper in a new open access journal called Environment Pollution and Climate Change launched by an Indian publisher which subsequently faced multiple charges of deception from the Federal Trade Commission relating to the companys claims of peer review and marketing practices. The journal was at the time edited by an advisor to the Heartland Institute, Dr Arthur Viterito.
The paper The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory and a Proposal for a Hopeful Alternative suggested the well-established theory of greenhouse warming was fatally flawed. Professor Steve Sherwood, the director of the Climate Change Research Center at the University of New South Wales in Australia, reviewed the paper and told DeSmog:
“The paper is laughable. It is so riddled with unsupported, fantastic and or unintelligible claims, arranged in a disorderly fashion and sprinkled liberally with innuendo.”
Referring to the journal and several papers it had published, Professor Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University and a vocal opponent of climate science denial, told DeSmog: “This isnt science. Its politically motivated denialist garbage.”
He added: “:Such sham journals make a mockery of the scientific process and must be exposed for what they are. Associating in any way with this pseudo-journal would endanger ones scientific reputation. Keep your distance from this toxic mess.”
“Nikolov and his colleague Karl Zeller, who used to work together at the forest service, were the subject of controversy when they were caught trying to published a paper under pseudonyms Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez multiple times from 2014 to 2016. [4]
Nikolov and Zeller have tried to challenge the accepted greenhouse gas theory on climate change, instead suggesting that atmospheric pressure is the cause for warming. Professional climate scientist Scott Denning described their theory as too simple and said it ignores elements of thermodynamics. However, the two argue that their papers were unfairly rejected not due to the science, but because of their association with the climate change denial blog network. [5]”
https://www.desmog.com/ned-nikolov/
Try to remain on-topic if you do decide to respond, barry.
“Radiative cooling is solely the province of GHGs.”
There is also dust and ice and other particles.
And I got to mention, the tons dust from Space.
But the main thing about Earth is the amount sunlight it absorbs due to it’s transparent ocean that covers 70% of surface of Earth.
And the tropical ocean is a heat engine which absorbs the most sunlight and heats the entire planet.
Gordo blurts out another example of his delusional physics. writing:
Sounds rather like convection, except for one big problem: Where does the cooler air come from? Warm air at the surface rises, cools, then returns to the surface to be warmed again. Yes, it’s a cycle, but what process cools the air? Hint: It’s called radiation heat transfer to deep space and the only mechanism available is the GHG emissions from the air.
Swanson, you dimwit,
All matter radiates energy, cooling is the result, unless the energy is replaces.
Oxygen, nitrogen, water vapour, CO2, all gases, no exceptions radiate energy.
All cool if allowed to do so. Removing the CO2 and H2O from a sample of air makes precisely no difference to the temperature. Liquid oxygen, liquid nitrogen and liquid water demonstrates what happens to gases when they are allowed to cool.
And no, Swanson, there are no “cold rays” involved.
If you refuse to believe that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years (GHE notwithstanding), then I wish you luck with convincing a lot of scientists who believe they know better than you, that you are smarter than them.
Carry on l
swannie…”but what process cools the air? Hint: Its called radiation heat transfer to deep space and the only mechanism available is the GHG emissions from the air”.
***
More pseudo-science from Swannie.
The negative temperature gradient with altitude has nothing to do with radiation. It’s caused by diminishing gravity.
For some reason, in atmospheric physics, they are reluctant to acknowledge the effect of gravity. The equation governing that is the hydrostatic equation…
delta P/delta z = -pg
delta P = change in pressure
delta z = change in altitude
p = air density
g = gravitational acceleration
This is related to the Ideal gas equation…
PV = nRT
If we write it as …
P = (n/V)RT, then n/v = p = density….it becomes…
P = pRT
However, we are looking for the relationship of P to height = z, not T. We want to know how pressure varies with altitude and is written as…
delta P/delta z = -pg
Since g = F/m, this can be written…
delta P/delta z = -(n/V) (F/m)
Here, F = force due to gravity where m = mass of 1 molecule and n = total number of molecules.
Can’t be any more plain. Pressure = P varies with altitude based on air density and gravitational force.
Remember, F = sum of forces and must take into account any upward force due to natural accelerations of the molecules themselves.
However, density is also a function of altitude in that n = number of molecules also varies with altitude.
You cannot separate P and n since they are totally dependent on each other. In a container with n molecules, the pressure is the sum of the forces exerted by each molecule on the container walls. We cannot do that in the atmosphere because there is only one wall.
In a container with constant volume you can say that pressure is a function of n. It’s obvious, the greater the number of molecules the higher the pressure. In the atmosphere, it is gravitational force that varies.
If you read material on this they fail to acknowledge the effect of gravity and they infer an upward force which is not explained. Whereas I agree there is one, it’s not good enough to infer one without explaining what it is.
Also, it is inferred that air above us pushes down on us. At sea level the pressure of that air is claimed to be 15 pounds/ sq. in. If a person’s head is 1 sq. foot, which is 144 sq. in. the downward pressure should be 2160 pounds of force.
I think this is nonsense and needs to be investigated further. Air does not exert a downward pressure, it’s molecules are too far apart to be counted as a mass. If that was the case, all air molecules would be trapped right at the surface, which is not the case. Air molecules obviously have an upward force to balance the force of gravity otherwise they could not be spread out over a vertical column.
Goofy Gordo wrote some more delusional physics:
A compressed gas exhibits forcing in all directions, called pressure. Ever heard of a mercury barometer? The height of the column is a direct function of the pressure on the surface of the reservoir, as the inside of the tube is first evacuated. Gordo fails physics again.
He coasts past a reference to temperature vs. altitude, suggesting that the cooler temperatures aloft are due exclusively to lower pressure. Well sure, as his rising parcel of warm (and moist) air expands adiabaticly, it cools. On the other side of the convection loop, the descending air parcels are compressed and warm. The result would be that there would be no difference in temperatures at the surface if the only process were adiabatic cooling and warming. There must be further energy loss from the rising warm air parcels to provide the cooler air back at the surface.
swannie…”A compressed gas exhibits forcing in all directions, called pressure”.
***
I’m goofy??? Gorsh!!!
That’s even worse. A sideways pressure of 15 pounds/in^2 would mean a pressure on your chest per square foot of 2160 pounds. You would not be able to breath.
Besides, pressure as defined in a container is the sum of the forces exerted on the walls by gas molecules. The tires on a typical car have a pressure rating of 30 PSI, which is double the claimed atmospheric pressure. Even if the tire drops to 15 PSI, the tire will look pretty flat but it will still support 1/4 the weight of a car.
Here’s a test for you. Get a 4000 point vehicle, where each tire is supporting 1000 lbs, remove the tire and have someone lower it onto your chest. See if there’s a difference between that and air pressure allegedly with a pressure of 15 PSI.
Of course, you could get someone to stick a hose in your mouth from an air compressor and inflated your lungs to 30 PSI, and see if that helps.
Get a 4000 point vehicle…
is obviously…
Get a 4000 pound vehicle…
With this latest round, Gordo proves he is an even worse nut case than I ever imagined. Humans and other animals live at the bottom of an ocean of air, so the air pressure has no impact on us, as long as we are healthy. We are like fish swimming in the ocean that have no clue about water, since they live in it all the time.
ent…”A compressed gas exhibits forcing in all directions…”
***
A compressed gas is in a container. Do you see any container in the atmosphere? Air in the atmosphere is not constrained in any direction other than down, and that applies to only the air near the surface.
***
“There must be further energy loss from the rising warm air parcels to provide the cooler air back at the surface”.
Huh??? The air aloft is naturally cooler with less energy. It is thinner due to a lowered gravitational force and it descends due to gravity when the heated air at the surface rises.
Heated air at the surface is more energetic and is better able to combat the downward gravitational force. As one molecule shoots off from the surface it is replaced by a less energetic, cooler molecule from aloft. Now visualize that with a bazillion molecules acting at the same time.
When a cooler molecule descends to the surface it is heated and gain energy from the surface.
I guess this is too complex for a biologist.
“Air does not exert a downward pressure”
Barometers says otherwise.
Where do I find the direction indicator on a barometer?
AQ,
Subtract the most recent reading from the one before – I presume you can manipulate negative numbers?
You can work out the “direction” from that.
If are confusing a barometer with a compass, generally the vertical instrument is the barometer, and the horizontal one is the compass. Read the manual for the compass, and you will find out how to establish a “direction”.
Neither will be concerned with the mythical GHE, GHGs, or similar nonsense.
Looks like Mikey doesn’t know the difference between pressure and pressure CHANGE. And he believes pressure is a vector quantity. Oh dear.
AQ,
Trying to convince other SkyDragons that you can read minds – again? I suppose anybody who wrote “Where do I find the direction indicator on a barometer?” is exceptionally stupid, or suffering from a mental defect.
I always try to help those less gifted than myself, because they are obviously too lazy or incompetent to look things up for themselves!
Alas, casting pearls before swine just makes me the poorer, and the swine no better off.
Maybe you should give up trying to troll – you’re just not very good at it.
Try harder in future.
Looks like Mikey doesnt know the difference between pressure and pressure CHANGE. And he believes pressure is a vector quantity. Oh dear.
BTW Mikey – your new hours suggest you have moved to W.A.
What was that lottery Perth won a couple of nights ago – I forget?
Anyway, I guess Darwin wasn’t good for your addiction.
AQ,
Trying to convince other SkyDragons that you can read minds again? I suppose anybody who wrote Where do I find the direction indicator on a barometer? is exceptionally stupid, or suffering from a mental defect.
I always try to help those less gifted than myself, because they are obviously too lazy or incompetent to look things up for themselves!
Alas, casting pearls before swine just makes me the poorer, and the swine no better off.
Maybe you should give up trying to troll youre just not very good at it.
Try harder in future.
No scientist claims that air pressure is “pushes down on us”.
Pressure is non-directional.
What IS directional are:
(1) DIFFERENTIAL pressure
(2) the FORCE on a surface due to pressure, normal to that surface.
You have gradient of higher pressure in the downward, direction.
And as a column of air cools, it falls downward. “It” being air density. Or surface air has higher density when colder, and less density when warmer- and if warmer less dense, above it will be warmer and less dense. There variables with still lower with air movement higher in atmosphere. clouds weight billions of tons. cold fronts flowing into warmer, etc- weather.
Which neither challenges what I said nor supports Gordon claim which I was challenging.
AQ,
Presumably you cannot provide support for your claim, but feel free to try.
You SkyDragons really do love a good unsubstantiated assertion, don’t you?
Ah, the joys of the attempted appeal to unstated authority!
Carry on trying to troll. You should get better, if you work hard.
How are you going with finding a description of the greenhouse effect? Does it cool the planet, or make the planet hotter? Consult with your fellow SkyDragons – some say one, some say the other, some say both. What say you, dummy?
ENSO 3.4 for the week centered Feb 1: -0.5
La Nina is almost over.
When we look at
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino12Mon.gif
and
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
we can actually see that the cold source of Nino3+4 is really decreasing.
As MEI’s observation area encompasses that of Nino1+2, we will see how
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
looks like in a few days, when January’s index value is published.
Jan 2023 data is colder than Jan 2022
Year Jan
2022 -1.02
2023 -1.12
When MEI is created from 5 variables, only one of which is temperature, it makes little sense to describe it as “cold”.
Blindsley Hood is a 100 % opinionated Coolista.
His brain is all about showing endlessly that somewhere is colder now than before.
Il est vachement ennuyeux ce mec.
I don’t regard Richard as a coolista, he simply observes the data and reports accordingly. He has a good understanding of the math and statistics in that regard.
Your omission of “the science” is noted, Gordon.
AQ,
Please stop trying to troll.
I like the way you keep leaving these memos for yourself.
AQ,
Please stop trying to troll.
The 5 variables that makeup MEI are all temperature related.
NOAA themselves say it is ‘cold’.
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data has + (implied) and – alongside their figures.
it is already updated
https://i.postimg.cc/6qQ0Crtz/mei-lifecycle-currentc32.png
Thanks.
Don’t thank, send money
Sorry, the money was sent to help earthquake victims in Syria and Turkey.
I have been reading about the demise of La Nina for the past 3 years, mostly from alarmists.
You mean the same way deniers here are trying to predict a permanent La Nina?
AQ,
Define “deniers”, or please stop trying to troll.
Mike Flynn,
Please deny the greenhouse effect for Antonin.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Do four La Ninas in a row count as permanent La Nina?
We’re about to not find out.
Can anyone tell me what the definition of “mid troposphere” here is?
Here are the various weighting functions:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Weighting_Function.png
The troposphere extends from the surface to between 6 and 10 km. Therefore, mid-troposphere should be 3 to 6 km.
The variation is due to the differing altitudes of the troposphere between the Equator and the poles.
Note that the peak of mount Everest is a bit over 8 km. So, a ballpark altitude for mid-Troposphere should be about half the elevation of Everest from sea level at that latitude.
Hi Bindidon!
Thank you for the very interesting link: https://tinyurl.com/ypcekwht
–
Now, could you please define the difference between rotating and orbiting?
Does Moon rotate about its local axis, or Moon just orbits Earth without rotating about its local axis?
Because Moon definitely is uncapable doing both. Either Moon orbits Earth, or Moon rotates about its local axis.
Since we observe Moon orbiting Earth, there is not any Lunar rotation about its local axis.
–
What do you have to say about it?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Efcharisto for the reply, but I’ll answer later on the old thread
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/
because I don’t want to restart that here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1443410
binny replies in an old thread…
“Why should a celestial body like the Moon be incapable of doing the same as a celestial body like the Earth?
If Earth is able to spin and orbit, why not the Moon?”
***
The reason is simple, Binny. The Earth rotates about a local axis while it orbits and shows all sides of itself to the Sun. The Moon only shows the same side to the Earth as it orbits.
It is plainly obvious that the Moon should do the same as the Earth if it rotated about a local axis while it orbits.
Put another way, only an orbiting body performing curvilinear translation could show the same side to the body about which it is orbiting.
C’mon, Bordon.
You seem to forget about Pluto, which does exactly what you deem impossible.
Whacky Wee Willy,
What you wrote may not mean what you wanted it to mean.
Why would you think Gordon has forgotten about Pluto?
Did you want him to mention it for some bizarre SkyDragon cultist reason, or were you just being stupid and attempting to troll?
How are you going finding an explanation for the role of the GHE in the planet cooling for four and a half billion years? Some SkyDragons seem to think that it is due to CO2 and H2O (chuckle), but that would mean that CO2 and H2O can’t heat the planet at the same time!
What’s your view – or don’t you have one?
Feel free to ask me to repeat my comment if you suffer from a comprehension deficit – I’ll type it more slowly for you.
“Why would you think Gordon has forgotten about Pluto?”
***
Pluto is my favourite planet and I’m willing to fight for the right of Pluto to be a planet.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
***
Bordon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pluto-Charon_System.gif
Come on.
Whacky Wee Willy,
What you wrote may not mean what you wanted it to mean.
Why would you think Gordon has forgotten about Pluto?
Did you want him to mention it for some bizarre SkyDragon cultist reason, or were you just being stupid and attempting to troll?
How are you going finding an explanation for the role of the GHE in the planet cooling for four and a half billion years? Some SkyDragons seem to think that it is due to CO2 and H2O (chuckle), but that would mean that CO2 and H2O cant heat the planet at the same time!
Whats your view or dont you have one?
Feel free to ask me to repeat my comment if you suffer from a comprehension deficit Ill type it more slowly for you.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pluto-Charon_System.gif
Easy to see that Bordon is saying stuff.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
As usual, Robertson’s ridiculous, dumb, primitive, opinionated blah blah.
He still keeps unable to grasp the evidence, namely that the Moon shows the same face to Earth BECAUSE it spins at the same speed as it orbits around it.
Hence, Earth, when spinning the like, would show to the Sun the same face all the time.
Keep your curvilinear ball-on-a-string stuff elsewhere, Robertson, stop trashing the blog with your egomaniac nonsense, and finally start learning.
LEARN, Robertson!
binny…”He still keeps unable to grasp the evidence, namely that the Moon shows the same face to Earth BECAUSE it spins at the same speed as it orbits around it”.
***
I have invited all you spinners to offer a scientific explanation of how it is possible for the Moon to rotate exactly once per orbit while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.
Meantime, we no-spinners have offered example after example of equivalent lunar motion which none of you can prove wrong. The ball on a string is the simplest, with a string under tension preventing any possible rotation about the ball’s local axis, yet you spinners continue with your denial, claiming the ball is actually spinning about a local axis even though it can’t.
All you have ever offered are vague references to authority figures. You claim to have a university degree yet you cannot offer a simple explanation of how the Moon rotates exactly once per orbit while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.
Anyone with a lick of sense would immediately query why the Moon is allegedly rotating exactly once per orbit. They would wonder what forces are acting to cause that rather than presuming their are tidal forces causing it. Being unable to find such forces they would turn to an alternate solution, which is there.
It’s called curvilinear translation, the basis of which was announced by Newton when he claimed the Moon moved with a linear motion which is bent into a curvilinear motion by gravity. However, the translator of Principia, being unable to understand the meaning, and having been lead to believe the propaganda about a rotation of once per orbit, misinterpreted Newton to read that the Moon rotated once per orbit.
The theory is plainly stupid, that a body with the mass and linear momentum of the Moon could rotate exactly once per orbital period while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
The Moon tide occurs the same as the Earth tide does to the Earth. Distorts it into a non spherical surface. That causes one side of the Moon to always point inwards. Such is what the science says.
“Its called curvilinear translation”
“Translation: Translation occurs if every line segment on the body remains parallel to its original direction during the motion. When all points move along straight lines, the motion is called rectilinear translation. When the paths of motion are curved lines, the motion is called curvilinear translation.”
Gordon thinks line segments in the Moon are remaining parallel to their original direction as it orbits??!!
He must have some screws loose.
Whatever you want to call it Nate. Doesn’t change the fact that the moon rotates around the earth. If you want to all on your own think of it as curvilinear translation then be my guest, perhaps elliptical motion of planets are simply rotations with a perturbation that causes them to have a certain eccentricity. But as has been established is the moon on the left (by your own arguments) is an example of orbital motion without axial rotation.
From there one can invoke a perturbation theory or one can invoke some fundamental change of the motion of the moon, for which there is so little evidence of that being the case as opposed to a perturbation.
It seems to me to the be the product of small minds that such a fundamental change in the rotational axes can be surmised by the difference between a ‘perfect’ ellipitcal motion and common elliptical motions. I get that you want to judge the world by how its form compares to the tools of the physics trade and thats fine for work in the lab. But the common person has a more intuitive and more correct perception than a physicist that elevates form over substance than the common man.
“The Earth rotates about a local axis while it orbits and shows all sides of itself to the Sun”
The Moon does exactly the same. It just does it once per orbit of the Earth.
the rotates around the earth and exposes all it sides to the sun but not the earth. . . .as specified by the definition of a rotation!
if and only if you add a rotation on the local axis it will show all sides to earth and in all probability will continue to show all sides to the sun as well.
So the sun sees the moon rotating and the Earth doesn’t?
That makes non-spinning moon a function of using Earth as the reference frame, rather than the fixed stars.
But wait, geometrically the moon is spinning WRT Earth, because it changes its orientation WRT a 3-dimensional axis centred either in the Earth’s core, or surface, or the barycentre between Earth and Moon.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Rotation_illus.svg
The error made by non-spinners is to conflate orbital mechanics with geometrical. The argument is that the rotation around a fixed point means that the Moon is not rotating but orbiting.
But in celestial mechanics orbit and rotation are separate items – angular momentum for orbit and rotation are separately determined. Therefore the conflation by non-spinners is incorrect.
In celestial mechanics the moon is rotating because it changes its orientation WRT the fixed stars. The rotation also has angular momentum (so does the orbit, of course).
In geometry the moon is rotating around an external axis.
The latter does not describe an orbit, as the geometric conception is that the Moon is embedded within a rigid body that is rotating around the axis. There is no translation in the geometric model.
barry is stuck between a rock and a hard place…he has agreed before that “revolution/orbit” is defined as a rotation about an external axis, and he keeps linking to that Wikipedia graphic that shows rotation about an external axis involves reorientation of the object wrt an inertial reference frame in only one single motion, about the external axis. Thus, he should be a “Non-Spinner”. The only thing stopping him is his slavish devotion to authority.
“.as specified by the definition of a rotation!”
The mysterious alt-definition of rotation that Bill and DREMT have never managed to find!
Hoo hee haw!
We have discussed this Nate. Its the MOTL. That is the definition of a rotation on an external axis brought to you by a physical demonstration using a perfect example of such.
The question that arises is if the orbit is elliptical does the nature of the motion suddenly undergo a complete restructuring? Especially since such a motion is smooth, relentless in in pursuit of such a form even if parts are somewhat relatively looser (if they are) as one can always identify where that complete rotation is, namely in the sidereal rotation and not the syndotic rotations if any exist at all.
Yet again, Bill can’t simply FIND a DEFINTION of a word.
He dodges by doing an very odd thing, equivalent to showing me a picture of a square and claiming that is the DEFINITION of a rectangle!
An EXAMPLE is not a DEFINITION, and obviously that is a fail.
Clearly it aint easy for Bill to find a definition that fits his erroneous beliefs! But he keeps on believin anyway.
No, DREMT, the rock and a hard place you are trying to photo-shop me into is the conflation of geometric and orbital frames of reference. This is your resting place, not mine.
Using a geometrical frame of reference with Earth as the centre, the moon is rotating around an external axis.
However, this conception sees the Earth/Moon system as a rigid body, with the moon on one edge of the plane of rotation. This is the image presented in the description of mathematical (geometric) rotation.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Rotation_illustration2.svg
Where the non-spinners go wrong is that they conflate this notion of rotation with orbit, which is entirely incorrect. Non-spinners don’t realize that an orbit is not a geometric rotation. In modern astronomy the use of the word ‘rotation’ to mean an orbit has been largely abandoned in favour of using the word ‘revolution’, so as not to confuse the issue.
The wiki entry on geometrical rotation makes the distinction clear: “A rotation is different from other types of motions: translations, which have no fixed points.”
Non-spinners don’t realize that orbit and rotation are two separate motions.
That’s why the Moon has angular momentum both for its orbit and for its spin.
barry, you have already agreed before that “revolution/orbit” is defined as a rotation about an external axis, e.g:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
“A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
“barry, you have already agreed before that revolution/orbit is defined as a rotation about an external axis”
I just spent the last post explaining why a geometric rotation around an external axis is not is not an orbit.
BTW, I was taught in school that rotation and revolution are distinct and separate, and that the former refers to spin on an internal axis, while the latter describes an orbit. I understand rotation has been used to mean revolution as I understand it, but THAT ‘rotation’ is separate from any rotation to do with the Moon’s external axis.
The tether of gravity binding our Earth to the sun does not determine its rotation.
The tether of gravity binding the Moon to the Earth also doesn’t determine its rotation.
The Moon is not on a rigid-body plane with the Earth. It wobbles, as all the planets and satellites wobble in their orbits and inclinations.
An orbit isn’t a geometric rotation. You are conflating these ideas, not me.
amend:
but THAT ‘rotation’ is separate from any rotation to do with the Moons internal axis.
For the umpteenth time, this source can be edited by ANYONE, and is thus unreliable. It also states:
“While revolution is often used as a synonym for rotation, in many fields, particularly astronomy and related fields, revolution, often referred to as orbital revolution for clarity, is used when one body moves around another while rotation is used to mean the movement around an axis.”
“Rotation, or spin, is the CIRCULAR movement of an object around a central axis.”
For the umpteenth time, as this poster knows very well, Orbits are in general not circular!
So these sentences of the article CONTRADICT the quoted one.
Finally the second source is discussing EXAMPLES, NOT DEFINING anything.
“Examples of revolution include”
Clearly compulsive liars just can’t stop lying, and misleading people.
"BTW, I was taught in school that rotation and revolution are distinct and separate, and that the former refers to spin on an internal axis, while the latter describes an orbit. I understand rotation has been used to mean revolution as I understand it, but THAT ‘rotation’ is separate from any rotation to do with the Moon’s [internal] axis."
Yes, and I agree with that. An object that is "revolving" (rotating about an external axis) can be either rotating about an internal axis as well, or not. For example:
The Earth revolves (rotates about an external axis) and rotates about an internal axis, 365.25 times per revolution.
The moon just revolves (rotates about an external axis).
The only way to describe the moon as rotating on its own internal axis is if "revolution/orbit" is instead defined as translational motion. Surely you’ve grasped that, by now?
You could describe the Earth as translating in an ellipse whilst rotating on its own internal axis, 366.25 times per translation in an ellipse.
You could describe the moon as translating in an ellipse whilst rotating on its own internal axis.
Those descriptions would only be correct if "revolution/orbit" is indeed translational motion (meaning, motion like the MOTR). However, as I think you agree (it’s hard to say because you keep wriggling) "revolution/orbit" is instead defined as a rotation about an external axis.
You should be a "Non-Spinner".
And I’ll remind people of one accurate statement by his poster:
“The reason there are thousands of posts is because people like you dont listen.”
The poster keeps reposting the same inaccurate information over and over, while refusing to listen when the glaring flaws in this information are pointed out.
Thus, we get thousands of posts!
” “revolution/orbit” is instead defined as a rotation about an external axis.”
And then they shamelessly repeat the obvious lies.
The first five dictionary definitions of Orbit from a Google search dont mention ‘rotation’ at all.
An orbit is a regular, repeating path that one object takes around another object or center of gravity.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/orbit/#:~:text=Encyclopedic%20entry.,%2C%20asteroids%2C%20and%20manmade%20devices.
An orbit is a regular, repeating path that one object in space takes around another one.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-orbit-58.html
orbit, in astronomy, path of a body revolving around an attracting centre of mass, as a planet around the Sun or a satellite around a planet.
https://www.britannica.com/science/orbit-astronomy
An orbit is the curved path in space that is followed by an object going around and around a planet, moon, or star.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/orbit
The path of a celestial body or an artificial satellite as it revolves around another body due to their mutual gravitational attraction.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/orbit
And thus we get thousands of posts!
Here is the comment where barry agreed that “revolution/orbit” was defined as a rotation about an external axis:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1415301
Perhaps he can argue with himself, and not me.
“You could describe the Earth as translating in an ellipse whilst rotating on its own internal axis, 366.25 times per translation in an ellipse.
You could describe the moon as translating in an ellipse whilst rotating on its own internal axis.
Those descriptions would only be correct if “revolution/orbit” is indeed translational motion”
From the wiki page on rotation:
“A rotation is different from other types of motions: translations, which have no fixed points…”
So, no, a rotation does not include translation.
” “revolution/orbit” is instead defined as a rotation about an external axis”
No, orbital characteristics are not the same as geometric rotation. This is what you are trying to conflate, based purely on the notion that the word rotation has been used (more in the past) to describe an orbit.
You keep ignoring what I’m saying and just repeating yourself.
I believe you are trying to apply something like kinematics to the matter, which doesn’t work. This is from a study on it:
Kinematics is the study of motion of a system of bodies without directly considering the forces or potential fields affecting the motion. In other words, kinematics examines how the momentum and energy are shared among interacting bodies. Many of the interactions discussed in Chapter 1 are two-body interactions, in the sense that they involve two interacting entities: a projectile on a target. One important implication of two-body interactions is that there is a single plane that contains the two interacting particles. As such, there will be no momentum component off the plane of interaction. Therefore, the two bodies emerging from the interaction must be also on the same plane. Two-body interactions are, therefore, two-dimensional. In addition, with only two bodies, one can easily define a center-of-mass around which the incident and emerging particles will revolve. The center-of-mass is such that the total moment of the mass (mass X distance from the center-of-mass) is zero. Consequently, the center-of-mass is also such that the total momentum (mass velocity) is also equal to zero. This facilitates considerably the performance of momentum balance. As such, kinematic analysis is performed in the center-of-mass.
Celestial mechanics is 3-dimensional. The Earth/Moon system is not a rigid body. The 2 bodies are not tethere3d by matter but by gravity.
The reason your model for Moon’s movement is invalid is that it can’t predict the movement of the planets and their moons with nearly as much accuracy as celestial mechanics, which relies on the frame of reference of the fixed stars.
If you were a Neptunian who launched a probe to land on the twilight edge of the Moon on the other side of Earth purely with gravity assist (no course correction, only thrust for descent), you’d never make it if you factored a non-rotating Moon. You would have to account for the fact that the Moon shows all of its sides to Neptune.
Celestial mechanics can account for many degrees of variation and change in orbit, rotation and inclination. Your kinematic model cannot do that. It is 2-dimensional.
If a model can’t make good predictions, what do we do with it, DREMT?
“So, no, a rotation does not include translation.“
I didn’t say it did. You are confused beyond belief, whilst arrogantly trying to condescend to somebody who understands this much better than you do. Re-read my previous comments until understood.
“Here is the comment where barry agreed that “revolution/orbit” was defined as a rotation about an external axis:”
Nope. Let’s quote me from that post.
“The rotation being described here is purely orbit. The word I use do describe the motion is revolution, as I was taught that a rotation in celestial mechanics refers purely to objects rotating about an internal axis, and ‘rotation’ around an external axis i.e. a Moon around a planet or a planet around a star is called a revolution, or orbit.
You would have it that the Moons orientation is a function of its orbit, but I see nothing that confirms your POV.”
And let’s quote a bit more:
“Trying to see how you see it, it looks like you conflate the terminology ‘rotate’ and ‘revolve’. Because an orbit can be described using both words, you see no separate function WRT the moon. Here, though, if we ignore the inertial frame of reference and remove celestial dynamics from the equation, it is simply a rigid body issue, of which the Moon is a particle, and the Earth/Moon system is one unit. That unit is rotating, and the Moon is a part of that rotating rigid body. Just as with the planar object ‘rotating’ around an external axis.
But this is the Moon and the Earth, and the frame that gives us the most explanatory power for the wider celestial system is the fixed stars. The inertial frame of reference has to be applied or our explanation for the Moons movement falls apart once we use the frame of reference you are using to try to explain other celestial motion.”
A geometric rotation of an object around an external axis is not the same as an orbit. On a cartoon level they look the same, but if you use a geometric coordinate system to predict the movement of heavenly bodies, you will fail. You model has no predictive power, therefore no explanatory power.
“I didn’t say it did.”
That’s right, we are agreed. Rotation is distinct from translational movement.
I touched briefly on this because Gordon often speaks about translation being part of the Moon’s movement. For my own benefit, I am dissociating his view from yours, while confirming a point you made.
barry says “nope” and then quotes himself saying:
“I was taught that a rotation in celestial mechanics refers purely to objects rotating about an internal axis, and ‘rotation’ around an external axis i.e. a Moon around a planet or a planet around a star is called a revolution, or orbit.”
Like I said, perhaps he can argue with himself.
You are simply repeating that the word rotation has been used for orbit, and avoiding addressing the points I made.
I’m going to assume that’s because, in your self-confessed experience and insight on this topic, you are unable to.
Let’s check your understanding of the basics:
The MOTL can be described as:
1) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
2) Translating in a circle whilst rotating about an internal axis.
The MOTR can be described as:
1) Rotating about an external axis whilst rotating about an internal axis, in opposite directions, one internal axis rotation per external axis rotation.
2) Translating in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
Agree?
“The MOTL can be described as:
1) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
2) Translating in a circle whilst rotating about an internal axis.”
1) – this can be described as a geometric rotation, but not once you get serious about calculating celestial movement, then you can’t use this model. Fine for a two-dimensional object that does not deviate from its track on a rigid body plane, but invalid for two separate bodies that are not fixed on the one plane. The Moon does not rotate around an external axis like a 2-dimensional object. It revolves around the Earth. It orbits.
2) No, there is no translation. A translation has no fixed point. I’ll repeat the wiki entry on rotation again.
“A rotation is different from other types of motions: translations, which have no fixed points..”
What is happening WRT the MOTL and the MOTR is an orbit, not a translation.
“The MOTR can be described as:
1) Rotating about an external axis whilst rotating about an internal axis, in opposite directions, one internal axis rotation per external axis rotation.
2) Translating in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.”
There is no translational movement with either moon. They are orbiting around a fixed point.
1) The real moon does not perform a geometric rotation. It orbits. The difference is that describing its movement as a geometric rotation has inferior predictive, therefore explanatory power when applied to celestial bodies. The angular momentum of Moon’s spin is in the same direction as its orbit, therefore it can’t be spinning backwards.
2) I would say, “orbiting with no rotation.”
The problem remains – you conflate a geometric rotation with an orbit when they are not the same. An orbit does not require any particular rotation in the orbiting body, which is why our Earth isn’t locked to the sun. Whereas a geometric rotation requires that the ‘orbiting’ body changes its orientation. This is what you are resting your understanding on. Geometrical rotation.
Orbiting is in quotes for a reason, one which you continually overlook. In a geometric rotation, the outer body is not actually orbiting.
Rotation and orbit are separate matters. Plenty of bodies in the solar system rotate at different ratios to their orbit.
IOW, an orbit doesn’t determine the orientation of the orbiting body. Yet this is the premise for your description of the Moon’s orientation as it orbits. This premise fails as soon as you shift focus to the Earth/sun mechanics, for example.
Geometric (kinematic) motion was used to describe the motion of the heavenly bodies up to the late 1600s, when Newton improved the model by introducing gravity. The kinematic model is inferior to Newton’s celestial mechanics, and Newton definitely concluded that the moon rotates in his Principia Mathematica:
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′.
‘Diebus’ means days, ‘hori’ means hours.
I think someone has been suggesting that these values refer to orbits? They don’t, which is why the Sun (‘Sol’) is in that list. These are rotational values. Earth gets 23.56 hours, so obviously Newton is not describing orbits. Except for Venus those values are very close to the modern calculations of rotation for those celestial bodies.
You’re using an outdated model, DREMT.
Actually, I must correct myself on one point.
The MOTR can be assessed as a translational movement, because it doesn’t spin through the movement. Every particle on its body moves in the same direction the same distance. So this could be seen as curvilinear translation.
This is different from the movement of the MOTL, which is not a translation, because not every point travels the same distance.
Why do they not travel the same distance? Because the Moon rotates. The side facing the Earth travels less distance than the dark side.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
See, this is why I check your understanding of the basics, barry…it sucks.
You should have just said that you agree. Plenty of other “Spinners” would.
Now, you corrected yourself on number 2) for the MOTR. On number 1) for the MOTR, you weirdly talked about our real moon? Try again.
If you understand that the MOTR can be described as curvilinear translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis, then you should understand that the MOTL can be described as curvilinear translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis. So, let’s try the whole thing again, shall we?
The MOTL can be described as:
1) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
2) Translating in a circle whilst rotating about an internal axis.
The MOTR can be described as:
1) Rotating about an external axis whilst rotating about an internal axis, in opposite directions, one internal axis rotation per external axis rotation.
2) Translating in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
Agree?
Bear in mind I am not even talking about orbits at this stage. So you can stop with your false accusations about outmoded “kinematic models”.
Barry, I generally agree with what you are saying.
“Geometric (kinematic) motion was used”
More correct here to say ‘Geometric models of motion were used’
Before Galileo, I would agree that a geometric description was all they had, eg Copernican and Ptolemaic models.
Kepler tried purely geometric models first, then developed his laws of planetary motion.
Galileo was the real pioneer of Kinematics, which is still used today in physics to describe motion without reference to forces. It is the relationships between position, velocity and accelerations. He used it to explain projectile motion.
Then Newton explained motions are derived from forces, Dynamics. Used this to derive Kepler’s laws and Galileo’s projectile motion.
And I think you are insightful when you say that DREMT seems stuck in the geometric mode of thinking, which will never properly account for real orbits.
And he is a bully, and insists that others must see things the way he does, no matter how archaic and useless.
He’s behaving like the Church did with Galileo. Think like we do, else we will ban your books, and lock you up!
Oh and barry, note that my stalker agrees that the descriptions 1) and 2) apply for the MOTL and the MOTR.
MOTR:
“1) Rotating about an external axis whilst rotating about an internal axis, in opposite directions, one internal axis rotation per external axis rotation.”
Nope, the MOTR is obviously just a curvilinear translation.
I have described it as having 12 cancelling rotations. To make the point that ANY such cancelling rotations can never be observed, are pure fantasy, untestable, and thus such a model can NEVER be falsified.
It qualifies as religion.
Recall the Church bullied Galileo into saying that he agreed with them, and to recant his Heliocentric and Kinematics view of planetary motion.
Same thing here.
“You should have just said that you agree.”
“…note that my stalker agrees that the descriptions 1) and 2) apply for the MOTL and the MOTR.“
Oh yes, I believe he has some confusion over point 1) for the MOTR which reveals a lack of understanding of the “Non-Spinner” position, generally, even after all this time. Other than that, though, he agrees with the descriptions. Don’t worry, he won’t argue with you about that because you’re on the same “team”. He just spends all his days venting his pent up frustrations on me because he knows I no longer respond to him, so can’t fight back. I know, it’s hard to imagine a worse bully and a bigger hypocrite than my stalker.
Similarly, this statement that you made:
“I was taught that a rotation in celestial mechanics refers purely to objects rotating about an internal axis, and ‘rotation’ around an external axis i.e. a Moon around a planet or a planet around a star is called a revolution, or orbit.”
would lead to paroxysms of rage from my stalker if it had come from me…but you said it, so it’s fine. He’ll just let it pass. He never argues against one of his own.
“I was taught that a rotation in celestial mechanics refers purely to objects rotating about an internal axis, and ‘rotation’ around an external axis i.e. a Moon around a planet or a planet around a star is called a revolution, or orbit.”
Yep I agree. Some may not have noticed the quotes around ‘rotation’ in there when he referred to planetary orbits.
Most will understand that he means that an orbit is not LITERALLY a rotation.
See what I mean?
We ‘see’ what you mean.
Nate says:
MOTR:
1) Rotating about an external axis whilst rotating about an internal axis, in opposite directions, one internal axis rotation per external axis rotation.
Nope, the MOTR is obviously just a curvilinear translation.
I have described it as having 12 cancelling rotations. To make the point that ANY such cancelling rotations can never be observed, are pure fantasy, untestable, and thus such a model can NEVER be falsified.
It qualifies as religion.
———————-
I would agree with a small modification. If indeed you have 12 cancelling rotations and you don’t have 12 unique mechanisms acting as an axis it definitely qualifies as religion.
Where as if you do have 12 unique mechanisms acting as an axis all it is is an engineering challenge.
Any wagers on whether Nate can figure out how that would be observed? But Nate here wants to assert that if a tree falls in a forest and no body was there to hear it the tree did not make a noise when it fell. . . .and heck if it is never observed of course it never fell either.
For Nate things never observed like a cold CO2 molecule warming a hot surface 4 to 12 miles below it can only be determined by his Daddy.
Bill, we’ve been going about it all wrong…apparently if we’d just put scare quotes around the word “rotation” everything would have been fine. So if we had said, “revolution/orbit” is defined as a “rotation” about an external axis, the “Spinners” would have agreed that the moon does not rotate on its own internal axis…
“If indeed you have 12 cancelling rotations and you dont have 12 unique mechanisms acting as an axis it definitely qualifies as religion.”
OK, or if you dont have two unique (observable) mechanisms to produce the assumed two cancelling rotations in the MOTR, then it definitely qualifies as religion.
Perhaps we should start arguing that motion like the MOTL cannot be composed of two motions because they are not individually observable, cannot be tested for, and thus it’s just a religion to suggest that there are any more than one.
grammie pup, the Moon’s rotation is observable, as is that of the Earth. All one would need to do would be to park a long exposure camera near one of the Moon’s poles and take a long duration photograph looking at the stars. Not that that would be easy or cheap, but it could be done.
Go away, Swanson. We’ve already got two "Spinners" up here. No need for any more.
“erhaps we should start arguing that motion like the MOTL cannot be composed of two motions because they are not individually observable”
Not at all. The single rotation IS observable. My phone would indicate it if I was standing on this moon. In fact all of us agree it is there (except Gordon).
The translation is observable, my phone would indicate it. Whether you want to combine those two and describe it as a rotation around an external axis is a matter of preference.
It is not a choice for our Moon, the combined motion cannot be described as just a rotation.
That is the problem that you guys keep evading.
But you could call it a ‘rotation’ if the argument can be over!
If only there was some way that my stalker’s horrendous ordeal of being involved in this one-way argument that he keeps having, where he says the same things over and over again and gets no response, could be over…gee, let me think…what could he possibly do to make it stop!? Surely it couldn’t be as simple as just…staying out of my comments, could it!? Could it!?
From time to time Bill admits there is a GHE and probably some AGW. Then he says things like
“For Nate things never observed like a cold CO2 molecule warming a hot surface 4 to 12 miles below it can only be determined by his Daddy.”
He seems to want to stay friendly with the sky dragon slayers.
“where he says the same things over and over again and gets no response”
Gee I brought up ‘rotation’ doesnt literally mean rotation, and the next thing you know people who are supposedly not responding to me start randomly talking about air quotes!
Weird
And he oddly talks about me and my ‘beliefs’ which he learned somewhere.
“note that my stalker agrees”
Weird that he claims this is a one way conversation!
“So if we had said, ‘revolution/orbit’ is defined as a ‘rotation’ about an external axis, the ‘Spinners’ would have agreed that the moon does not rotate on its own internal axis..”
No, we wouldn’t. I think I’ve seen others argue, as I have, that the geometric model you are using to describe the Moon’s rotation as being around an external axis doesn’t work as well as Newtonian celestial mechanics or relativity to describe celestial movement.
You and I both learned that in astronomy a rotation has a central axis, and an orbit is described as a revolution – two distinct motions.
But here you apply geometric motion to the physics of celestial motion, so you can call an orbit a rotation, and then say the Moon is ‘rotating’ around an external axis, not an internal one.
Unfortunately, the Moon has rotational angular momentum, and not in the reverse direction you try to argue is happening with the MOTR.
Imagine a Moon rotating once per day. Now we apply some braking, and we atch it slow down together as it orbits the Earth.
It slows down until it rotates at the same rate that it orbits. You say it has stopped rotating. I say it has rotated slower.
After a little more time the rotation is even slower, and the Moon appears to be rotating backwards.
But it never changed direction. When it is oriented the same way with respect to the fixed stars, it has no rotational angular momentum in space, but you say it stopped rotating one way and is now rotating the other.
Sure, barry, geometric model, blah blah blah.
For years you were utterly certain that the “Non-Spinners” were geocentrists, all using the wrong reference frame. Now you’ve dropped that (presumably because you’ve finally realized you were wrong), and have just switched to some other false accusation. Now it’s a “geometric model”.
Do you finally agree with 1) and 2) for the MOTL and the MOTR?
Also, you keep claiming the moon has spin angular momentum as if it’s some sort of fact. I thought I explained this to you already:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1415570
“…and to write out an equation for the moon’s angular momentum you have to assume that the moon is rotating on its own axis in the first place. It’s not like the equation itself proves that the moon has spin angular momentum. You have to actually think that the moon has an angular velocity about its own axis in order to put that value into the equation.”
You proudly presented those calculations of angular momentum you had found online as if that was it – case closed.
It’s not wrong to say that your view is geocentric – the axis of rotation in your model is determined by the Earth. And the only places that the Moon keeps the same face to is the vector between the two planets (excluding libration).
Stand on the Moon’s poles and look skyward and you will see the universe rotate. Look at the Moon from any place other than Earth and the vector between the 2 bodies, and you will see all sides of the Moon.
Yes, the view is geocentric.
And yes, it’s only recently that I’ve realized you are conflating a geometric rotation with celestial mechanics, and calling an orbit a rotation.
I’ve just gone to google scholar to find a peer-reviewed paper calculating Lunar spin. How many do you want?
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19730016117/downloads/19730016117.pdf
https://www.raa-journal.org/issues/all/2020/v20n2/202203/P020220324620605736022.pdf
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019JE006312
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jianguo-Yan-2/publication/327162992_Comparison_and_analysis_on_lunar_rotation_with_lunar_gravity_field_models/links/5b83f58892851c1e123595e7/Comparison-and-analysis-on-lunar-rotation-with-lunar-gravity-field-models.pdf
No barry, the view is not geocentric. Good grief, I thought you’d got over that one. No point talking to you if you still believe that, I had thought we had made progress!
Forget it, then, you’re a lost cause.
As soon as I supply studies calculating the angular momentum of the Moon’s spin you run away. Guess it’s lucky for you that I called your view geocentric. I wonder how you would have dodged the point if I hadn’t.
Dealt with, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1446904
It’s not my problem if you can’t understand it.
Fair point about the assumption of angular velocity. But what I’m seeing is the scientific world working with that assumption, and a maverick ‘genius’ on an obscure climate blog operating under a pseudonym telling the world that all the astronomers and flight engineers in the world are wrong and he is right.
If orbit predicted rotation, then all the bodies in the solar system would behave to their parent bodies as the Moon does WRT Earth.
So orbit doesn’t determine spin.
But you say it does.
If the Earth disappeared the Moon would continue to rotate WRT the fixed stars until it likely seeded the sun.
Throw a hammer (a ‘ball on a string’) after rotating your body: upon release the hammerhead will continue rotating at the velocity it did while held, and the wire attached to it will follow. Drag will soon retard the rotation, but immediately after release you will see the rotation occur.
Plenty of examples starting from this time stamp: https://youtu.be/LQcEjeKDby4?t=423
The hammer head has angular momentum in its orbit as well as in the rotation its head experiences. The same with the Moon. Especially so, as it is not tethered to the Earth by anything other than gravity.
What do you call the context in which you think the Moon doesn’t rotate? Kinematic? Geometric? What is the discipline that gives you that result? Because it is not celestial mechanics. Newton understood that the Moon rotates.
“If orbit predicted rotation, then all the bodies in the solar system would behave to their parent bodies as the Moon does WRT Earth.
So orbit doesn’t determine spin.
But you say it does.”
No, I don’t, barry. I have never said that orbit determines spin. Orbit and spin are entirely separate motions. We just have different ideas on what “orbit” is. You can’t get through one comment without misrepresenting my position, then before I even have a chance to correct you, you’re bringing something else up…slow down. Stop writing so many things in each comment.
“Forget it, then, youre a lost cause.”
IOW, he’s not ever going to become a member of the lunatic cult.
Because facts matter to Barry.
Such as this one:
There are no explicit references to rotation, or stated rotation rates, in any of the dictionary definitions of Orbit found.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1446269
But some people here, inexplicably, continue to insist that the word Orbit does define the rotation rate, and sets it equal to the orbital rate!
Obviously such people are living in their own alternative reality.
“Orbit and spin are entirely separate motions.”
Ok.
“We just have different ideas on what ‘orbit’ is.”
I thought we agreed that it was a revolution. One body circling another, tethered by gravity.
I’m curious to know your answer to this thought experiment.
Imagine our Moon is in between galaxies. We set it to rotate at the same rate that it used to orbit the Earth, with the poles in the same configuration. Every 27 days it does a full rotation and on the 27th day it is facing the same part of the universe as the 1st day.
We now move this Moon, with the spin we set, and with the customary axial inclination (poles in the position we remember) into orbit around our Earth.
What happens?
Does it move as our Moon does? Or does it do something different?
I’ll answer that myself, you tell me where it goes wrong, DREMT.
When we, in between galaxies, set a moon spinning once every 27 days or so WRT the fixed stars, and then take it to our solar system and put it in an orbit of the same duration around the Earth (27 days or so), while maintaining the spin it had WRT the fixed stars, and with the polar axis just as our Moon’s is, it will move exactly as our Moon does.
Is there any problem with that conclusion?
barry, “Spinners” see “orbit without spin” as being motion like the MOTR. “Non-Spinners” see “orbit without spin” as being motion like the MOTL. That is what I mean when I say, “We just have different ideas on what ‘orbit’ is”.
If “orbit without spin” is like the MOTR, then the Earth is orbiting whilst spinning 366.25 times per orbit.
If “orbit without spin” is like the MOTL, then the Earth is orbiting whilst spinning 365.25 times per orbit.
Sorry barry, I’m not your test subject. No thought experiments. Not interested.
How about you answer the question I asked at 8:19 PM, yesterday?
Yep we can take this back to chalked circles on the deck of a merry-go-round. Regarding if a motion on an external axis is per the motr or motl.
If the motion of a chalked circle moving on a mgr with no spin is viewed as the MOTR. The chalked circle on the merry go round will be rotating on its local axis one time per orbit.
If the motion of a chalked circle moving on a mgr with no spin is viewed as the MOTL. The chalked circle will have no spin on its local axis.
One can then take this to another level with the particles of the moon.
And in accordance with the math I laid out here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1446688
at the particle level there is no spin on a local axis anywhere and all the angular momentum has been conserved in the motion around an external axis. There is no case where the angular momentum can be all conserved in the spin for a motion around an external fixed axis unless you acknowledge that the motion around an external axis is the equivalent of a spin. The math bears that out simply by using 3 particles and the two axes.
barry says:
Its not wrong to say that your view is geocentric the axis of rotation in your model is determined by the Earth.
———————————-
its absolutely wrong to say that. its your fundamental inability to understand the non-spinner point of view. for our moon there can be only one rotation. spinners say its on the moon’s local axis and non-spinners say its on the axis in the com of earth.
if there is a synchronized rotation on both axes the moon would expose all its sides to earth as with the motr with a second spin on the moon’s local axis in the opposing direction of the rotation on the earth com. or if in the same direction one would see all sides of the moon also from earth but would appear to rotate twice as fast as the orbit.
so the spinner position is one where there is a claim there is nothing going on with the moon that should make people believe the moon rotates around the earth.
you may need to read that very slowly several times to break the inculcation barrier to visualize what the non-spinner position is and realize that its pure mechanics and geocentricity has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Bill,
“its absolutely wrong to say that (non-spinner view is geocentric]. its your fundamental inability to understand the non-spinner point of view. for our moon there can be only one rotation. spinners say its on the moons local axis and non-spinners say its on the axis in the com of earth.”
If the centre of the rotation is the Earth, how is that NOT a geocentric view?
It’s the same coordinate system that once held the Sun revolved around the Earth.
So I looked up the definition of the word.
geocentric
adjective
1. having or representing the earth as the centre, as in former astronomical systems.
2. ASTRONOMY – measured from or considered in relation to the centre of the earth.
“There is no case where the angular momentum can be all conserved in the spin for a motion around an external fixed axis unless you acknowledge that the motion around an external axis is the equivalent of a spin.”
This is hard to make sense of. I’ve above posted a few papers, and there are many more, where the astrophysicists and flight engineers calculate the angular momentum of the Moon’s spin (not its orbit – there are plenty of papers on that also). You saying that they are all deluded? That the That these two fields have been getting it wrong for decades?
Bill, DREMT has ducked out of trying this thought experiment. I’d like to know what you think will happen.
Take a sphere the size and mass of our Moon and locate it between galaxies so that the pull of gravity is equal in all directions.
Spin this moon relative to the fixed stars so that its rotation is equal duration to the orbit of our Moon.
Now click your fingers and swap out this sphere for our Moon, mimicking the Moon’s orbit and axial inclination relative to Earth. And importantly, keeping the same spin you set up relative to the fixed stars.
To your mind, does this sphere move the same as our Moon or not? If it maintains its spin relative to the fixed stars, putting it in orbit should change nothing about this sphere’s rotational momentum relative to the fixed stars.
But your view would seem to infer that the angular momentum of the rotation is suddenly taken up entirely by the orbit.
I keep saying to DREMT that he is tying the Moon’s spin to its orbit. But he insists they are separate in his mind. Rotation =/= revolution.
I came up with this thought experiment to try and pin that down – that the distinction he insists on is fuzzier than he realizes in his (and presumably your) model.
Is spin independent of orbit or not, Bill?
Bill’s right, it’s not geocentrism. barry just doesn’t understand reference frames…he seems to think it comes down to where the axis is! What does that make his view…lunacentric!?
There’s no talking to him though, Bill. He’ll never listen, or accept what you have to say.
“There is no case where the angular momentum can be all conserved in the spin…”
No one is saying the all the angular momentum in the Moon/Earth system is contained in the Moon’s spin. The bulk of the AM is in the orbit of the Moon, and a small portion is in the spin. And they are independent of each other.
DREMT: “barry just doesn’t understand reference frames… he seems to think it comes down to where the axis is!”
Bill: “for our moon there can be only one rotation. spinners say its on the moons local axis and non-spinners say its on the axis in the com of earth.”
No problem if you have contradictory premises and the same opinion, but you may want to investigate this discrepancy. It might also help readers clarify the non-spinner position.
There’s no discrepancy, barry. Bill and I are in complete agreement.
The problem is, you seem to think our position is geocentric because to us the axis of rotation is within the Earth itself. That’s ridiculous. As I said, what does that make your position…lunacentric!?
You don’t understand reference frames. You don’t really understand any of this…and you can’t be reached with logic or reason.
My view is Newtonian – relative to the fixed stars, and with gravity as a universal force.
Your view ignores the rest of the universe, as far as I can see.
You are a complete idiot, barry. You can’t even understand the simplest things that I’m trying to get across to you.
If our view is geocentric because we think the axis of rotation is within the Earth, then your view is lunacentric because you think the axis of rotation is within the moon. See how stupid that is?
In reality, we’re all looking at this problem wrt the fixed stars. So reference frames aren’t even an issue.
The "Non-Spinner" view is not geocentric any more than the "Spinner" view is lunacentric.
Do you understand?
DREMT: “barry just doesn’t understand reference frames… he seems to think it comes down to where the axis is!”
Bill: “for our moon there can be only one rotation. spinners say its on the moons local axis and non-spinners say its on the axis in the com of earth.”
Saying this isn’t a contradiction doesn’t make it true. You need to explain why.
I’m also curious why Bill insists there can be only one “rotation”. Clearly the Earth/Sun system proves that there can be an orbit and a spin at the same time.
Perhaps if he named the discipline within which he makes this pronouncement it would become clear.
“The ‘Non-Spinner’ view is not geocentric any more than the ‘Spinner’ view is lunacentric.”
My view is based on Newtonian celestial mechanics. As luck would have it, Newton published the duration of the Moon’s axial spin in his great work, so we don’t have to argue over what he thought.
I don’t think you’ve actually ever named the discipline you are operating under in this discussion. If it’s not geocentric, what is it? It’s not Newtonian.
Whatever you say, barry.
Perhaps Bill will have the patience to try and get through to you. Right now, I don’t. Maybe tomorrow.
I’ll just try to explain this, before I go:
"Saying this isn’t a contradiction doesn’t make it true. You need to explain why."
…because I meant, "Bill’s right, it’s not geocentrism. barry just doesn’t understand reference frames…he [barry] seems to think it [geocentrism/reference frames] comes down to where the axis is! What does that make his view…lunacentric!?"
I’m not disagreeing with Bill that the difference between the "Spinners" and "Non-Spinners" viewpoint on the moon is where the axis of rotation lies. He’s correct on that.
I dont think you’ve actually ever named the discipline you are operating under in this discussion. If it’s not geocentric, what is it?
I’m inviting you to clarify, DREMT. I’ve been up-front about the context of my views.
It’s just your bog standard celestial mechanics, barry, only with “orbit without spin” as per the MOTL and not the MOTR. As it is, in fact, defined to be, since “revolution/orbit” is a rotation about an external axis (as you have agreed, and thus you should be a “Non-Spinner”).
“I’m also curious why Bill insists there can be only one “rotation”. Clearly the Earth/Sun system proves that there can be an orbit and a spin at the same time.”
Yes, there can be an orbit and a spin at the same time, of course…but in the case of our moon, and any moons which move in the same way, they are only orbiting…because that’s what “orbit without spin” is. That’s what it looks like. If the moon was rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis, it would have to be moving differently to how it does now.
In fact, the only way our moon can be performing two motions is if the “orbital motion” component is curvilinear translation, rather than rotation about an external axis. Option 2) for the MOTL, “translating in a circle whilst rotating about an internal axis”.
DREMT,
“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′.”
Those are all rotational periods from Newton’s Principia Mathematica, including the Sun’s. Including the Moon’s. And except for Venus they are all very close the modern estimates for the rotation period of these bodies.
If your view is bog-standard celestial mechanics, why does Newton disagree with it?
If it’s bog standard celestial dynamics, can you produce a cite from any standard text that supports your view?
I’m not appealing to authority here, I’m appealing to expertise. Where is the expert opinion corroborating yours, please? It would also be good to have that expert opinion for further clarity on your view.
🙄
barry says:
There is no case where the angular momentum can be all conserved in the spin
No one is saying the all the angular momentum in the Moon/Earth system is contained in the Moons spin. The bulk of the AM is in the orbit of the Moon, and a small portion is in the spin. And they are independent of each other.
————————–
as non-spinners are saying that if the moon’s orbit is a rotation of the moon around earth all of the moon’s angular momentum is conserved in the orbit. however the converse is not true.
the reason non-spinners believe that is because the orbital motion is a motion around a single fixed axis and thus cannot be a curvilinear translation which a motion control by something other than a single fixed axis.
all the arguments by spinners attempt to make hay out of the perfections of the motion but fail acknowledge that no perfect motion exists in reality and that nobody has even attempted to establish some system of degrees of allowable imperfection that would cause a fundamental reclassification of the motion. so without that all the arguments regarding eccentricities greater than zero or librations have no merit within the realm of physics.
the corollary to the above ‘tight’ argument. is that the spinner point of view is too limited.
primarily the issue of incorrect limitation goes to the fact that the spinner position allocates all the angular momentum of the moons rotation to every particle of the moon evenly when it should be abundantly clear that particles on the back of the moon have more angular momentum than the particles on the face of the moon.
barry says:
Bill,
its absolutely wrong to say that (non-spinner view is geocentric]. its your fundamental inability to understand the non-spinner point of view. for our moon there can be only one rotation. spinners say its on the moons local axis and non-spinners say its on the axis in the com of earth.
If the centre of the rotation is the Earth, how is that NOT a geocentric view?
————————
Because it is only a geocentric view in one sense of the word. A geocentric viewpoint has been linked to those who once thought the sun rotated around the earth. It has also been used in calling out improper use of reference frames.
In this case we are talking about an orbit. If you think the moon doesn’t orbit the earth then use of the word ‘geocentric’ suggests only idiots think the moon goes around the earth.
Yes the moon does go around the earth. I hope thats settled and you don’t have to try to criticize me further for having a geocentric viewpoint.
Bill,
“as non-spinners are saying that if the moon’s orbit is a rotation of the moon around earth all of the moon’s angular momentum is conserved in the orbit. however the converse is not true.”
No one is arguing the converse – that all of the Moon’s angular momentum is contained in its rotation. You can let go of this straw man. Nor is it a corollary of rejecting the non-spinners point of view. Spinners clearly hold that there is angular momentum in both the Moon’s orbit and its rotation (with the vast bulk of it being in the Moon’s orbit).
Neither you nor DREMT took up the thought experiment that is meant to test the notion that all the Moon’s angular momentum is in its rotation.
If between galaxies you spin up a Moon-sized moon so that it rotates relative to the fixed stars once every 27.3 days, and then put that moon into the Lunar orbit around our planet without altering its spin and keeping the same axial inclination that our Moon has, will it behave the same as our Moon?
I don’t think you can argue that it would behave differently.
And if that is the case, then you must hold that the Moon has lost its rotational angular momentum the moment it fell into orbit, despite maintaining the spin it originally had.
I don’t know what mechanism would cause that. Saying “orbit” or “gravity” doesn’t cut it, and for non-spinners this would be using their premise as their argument – circular reasoning (pun very much intended).
But maybe I’m jumping the gun. Do you think our intergalactic moon would behave differently than out actual Moon if we swapped them out and maintained the new moon’s 27.3 day spin WRT the fixed stars?
correction:
Neither you nor DREMT took up the thought experiment that is meant to test the notion that all the Moons angular momentum is in its orbit.
barry, a moon that was actually rotating on its own axis at the same rate as it orbits the Earth would not move as per our real moon. Assuming the axial rotation was in the same direction as the orbital motion, its motion would appear as per the first experiment in this video:
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw
Here are some more arguments in defense of the non-spinner position.
If a chuck of earth were to break off from the spinning earth and not be captured by gravity of the earth or another celestial body. Some of the total angular momentum of that chuck would be converted to linear momentum and some to a new spin angular momentum around that chunk’s COM.
If one could cancel gravity the moon would fly off in a straight line while converting some of the orbital angular momentum into the momentum of the individual particles in the chunk in relationship to the orbital angular momentum (which is all of it) that should be properly allocated to individual particles creating a differential in particle momentum that would result in a spin on the COM of the moons local axis at the same rate it already appears to have.
Of course since we don’t really understand molecular bonds and gravity or even if they are different. If you shut off gravity you also might simultaneously shatter molecular bonds. In which case all the angular momentum of the moon would be converted to linear momentum. That of course is only theoretical because a particle has no mass nor no dimensions in which to conserve angular momentum.
barry says:
February 15, 2023 at 9:25 AM
correction:
Neither you nor DREMT took up the thought experiment that is meant to test the notion that all the Moons angular momentum is in its orbit.
——————————
Not true. Arguments and math shown here:
Links to arguments re: moon Basic arguments:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1447455
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1447462
math argument:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1439567
Other implications:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1447495
If you dispute these arguments confine your argument within the corners of my argument or note what is missing.
“some system of degrees of allowable imperfection”
No, just no. The non-spinner model cannot account for the Moon’s motion, while the spinner model can account for it. 300 years of comparing increasingly refined observations to models has shown that.
When we have a stark choice between a model that works (spinner) and one that fails to work (non-spinner), imperfections are not a valid excuse.
Again, given the choice of model to use to land astronauts on the Moon and on target, NASA engineers would choose the spinner model without hesitation.
“f one could cancel gravity the moon would fly off in a straight line while converting some of the orbital angular momentum into the momentum of the individual particles in the chunk in relationship to the orbital angular momentum (which is all of it) that should be properly allocated to individual particles creating a differential in particle momentum that would result in a spin on the COM of the moons local axis at the same rate it already appears to have.”
This is a really high-level of gobbldegook to excuse the fact that the spin rotation would remain the same before and after simply because of conservation of angular momentum.
“Of course since we dont really understand molecular bonds and gravity or even if they are different. If you shut off gravity you also might simultaneously shatter molecular bonds. In which case all the angular momentum of the moon would be converted to linear momentum. That of course is only theoretical because a particle has no mass nor no dimensions in which to conserve angular momentum.”
Didnt think he could exceed the level of gobbledegook and nonsense of the previous paragraph, but Bill managed to do it!
Of course gravity and molecular bonds are understood to be different.
And for the umpteenth time, angular momentum is not converted into linear momentum.
nate i never said that imprecise concepts were never useful. of course they are! materiality is the concept in accounting that allows for imprecision to make accounting easier. auditors need to measure imprecision and use statistics and judgment about whether the imprecision is material to the accuracy of the numbers in a financial report.
you are now shadow boxing. if dispute any argument i made address it directly to actual words and the mathematics i offered in the posts i linked to. arguing for the usefulness of inaccuracies that are immaterial to a job at hand is not an argument supportive of the underlying substance of the real world.
“the spinner position allocates all the angular momentum of the moons rotation to every particle of the moon evenly”
Nonsense. Quote any of us saying any such thing!
“when it should be abundantly clear that particles on the back of the moon have more angular momentum than the particles on the face of the moon.”
We calculate the angular momentum of the whole body. There are different ways to do this, by parts, or by type (orbital, spin). Same result, but the latter is simpler.
Also as previously discussed, in the process of solving Newton’s laws to find the orbit of body, one finds that the orbital angular momentum is constant. And this accounts for the varying speed of a body in an elliptical orbit and Kepler’s Third Law.
The spin angular momentum is a separate independent parameter, independent of the orbital parameters, and not found from Newton’s orbit solution.
Thus keeping orbit and spin and their respective angular momenta, separate is motivated by the physical mechanisms involved.
do the math nate. when the cd blew apart chunks fly off linearly whilst spinning on their coms. if no angular momentum was converted to linear momentum the disk would not grenade and the parts of the disk would continue to rotate in place.
“f dispute any argument i made address it directly”
I did. And all the other ones many times.
You are using physics-y words but putting them together in ways that make no sense. Repeated gobbledegook is still gobbledegook.
Why would anyone be persuaded by that?
Nate says:
February 15, 2023 at 1:05 PM
the spinner position allocates all the angular momentum of the moons rotation to every particle of the moon evenly
Nonsense. Quote any of us saying any such thing!
————————-
thats a good criticism so i need to fix that. what you do is allocate angular momentum via the distance of particle from the local axis and the formula attributes all the translational angular momentum to the center of the moon and fails to recognize that the angular momentum of particles on the backside of the moon is greater than the particles on the frontside. you approximate that by pretending the motion of some the particles are going backwards.
when it should be abundantly clear that particles on the back of the moon have more angular momentum than the particles on the face of the moon.
We calculate the angular momentum of the whole body. There are different ways to do this, by parts, or by type (orbital, spin). Same result, but the latter is simpler.
Also as previously discussed, in the process of solving Newtons laws to find the orbit of body, one finds that the orbital angular momentum is constant. And this accounts for the varying speed of a body in an elliptical orbit and Keplers Third Law.
The spin angular momentum is a separate independent parameter, independent of the orbital parameters, and not found from Newtons orbit solution.
Thus keeping orbit and spin and their respective angular momenta, separate is motivated by the physical mechanisms involved.
“if no angular momentum was converted to linear momentum the disk would not grenade and the parts of the disk would continue to rotate in place.”
No. This was explained by two physicists to you. You don’t listen. Linear momentum is p = mv is a vector, and angular momentum is L= rXp, r and p are vectors.
They are both separately conserved, and have different units.
The parts of the original disk had mass and various instantaneous velocities, thus they individually had p. But it was NET zero, since their vector velocities all had different, cancelling directions.
The parts flying off continue to have p, and still a NET P = 0.
They continue to have the same angular momentum as they fly off. Again, it is rXp. As they fly off they still have a radius vector from the center, and velocity and mass, thus p, and thus continue to have angular momentum. It sums to the previous total angular momentum of the unbroken disk.
there is no question in my mind that newton had a good grasp of reality to come up with his shortcut and that view of reality had to include the total angular momentum of each particle of the moon to have figured it out the way he did. you need to go through the math problem to see how that must be true.
What you fail to recognize Nate is that as you break the disk up into ever smaller pieces more linear momentum arises and the sum of spin angular momentum of all the particles continually approaches zero as a function of the size of the pieces.
Newton couldn’t have missed this IMO.
A disk in a trillion pieces has a much smaller sum of spin angular momentum of all the pieces than does the spin angular momentum of a disk broken into ten pieces. which in turn has less angular momentum than the spinning disk.
The is because the spin angular momentum is an area swept square function.
So the spinner argument rests on the moon escaping orbit and remaining whole. thats cherry picking even if it is useful. the reality is all the moons angular momentum is orbital until it does break apart and the result becomes a much different relationship of momentums in each particle conspiring via their bonding together around a different axis.
“What you fail to recognize Nate is that as you break the disk up into ever smaller pieces more linear momentum arises and the sum of spin angular momentum of all the particles continually approaches zero as a function of the size of the pieces.”
This is intuition, a hopeful guess, not something you worked out mathematically, is it?
The spin angular momentum of a particle gets smaller as the particles get smaller, but this is balanced by having more particles!
It violates conservation laws. So your intuition is wrong.
“the reality is all the moons angular momentum is orbital until it does break apart”
Assertion without evidence.
We have been over this.
Orbital angular momentum is MVR, it is what a point-like orbiting mass has, or what a body has when no rotation (or spin) is present, like the MOTR.
The Moon and the MOTL have MORE angular momentum than just MVR, because they have rotation (spin).
“and the result becomes a much different relationship of momentums in each particle conspiring via their bonding together around a different axis.”
Conspiring? Gobbledegook like this is pointless.
Nate says:
Orbital angular momentum is MVR, it is what a point-like orbiting mass has, or what a body has when no rotation (or spin) is present, like the MOTR.
———————-
That is incorrect Nate and my link to the math shows why its incorrect. Lorb does not equal the Σ mvr of all the particles of the moon. Using a point mass reduces the Σ mvr by an amount equal to Lspin.
The math here proves that to be true and your objection is just founded on your blind obedience to the shortcut equation you learned for the angular momentum of a uniform sphere rotating around an external axis.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1439567
The Moon and the MOTL have MORE angular momentum than just MVR, because they have rotation (spin).
and the result becomes a much different relationship of momentums in each particle conspiring via their bonding together around a different axis.
Conspiring? Gobbledegook like this is pointless.
DREMT,
You came up with an answer I expected. Effectively, you think that orbiting our pre-spun moon around the Earth would double its rotation WRT the fixed stars, which is what we see in the video.
This is a mechanical/geometric point of view, not celestial mechanics. You really see the moon like a ball on a string, and Earth’s gravity like the string tethering the moon.
But the ball on the string is rotating as you swing it, it has rotational angular momentum, and that momentum continues as you let go the string and watch the linear trajectory accompanied by a rotation as it flies.
There is no mechanism that could automatically double our pre-spun moon’s rotation (WRT the fixed stars) when giving it an orbit around the Earth. The Earth’s gravity can’t speed up the rotation, because that force acting on the moon isn’t torsional to its rotation.
I believe I understand why you think that the moon would behave in the video. But I bet you can’t explain the mechanism that would double the pre-spun moon’s rotation WRT the fixed stars on entering Earth orbit.
Remembering that orbit and spin are separate.
Bill,
“Not true. Arguments and math shown here”
None of those links address my thought experiment. They address your own ideas.
Tim can check the math – I’m not up to it.
As for the rest, I’ll look at it properly if you take my thought experiment on first.
barry says:
”Remembering that orbit and spin are separate.”
Wrong! Not separate, but separable. To separate you must deorbit the moon. conceptually its separable as a notion but you first must deorbit what you want to actually separate.
The math proves this out.
In fact a non-orbiting but spinning moon can be disassembled in the exact same fashion, akin to the grenading CD spun up to an rpm that disassembled it and pieces flew away on a linear line while each individual piece spun on deorbited spin angular momentum.
As you progressively disassemble any rotating object the total of the spin angular momentum of all the pieces becomes ever smaller as the pieces get smaller. Meanwhile linear momentum builds to approach encompassing all the energy. thats why angular momentum only exists in rigid systems. if they are not rigid enough you end up with no angular momentum.
this is the nature of the beast.
Barry, the math is easy its a simple example of the problem of using mean values when area and power equations are used. You are led to incorrect conclusions about what Lorb is. Its 9th grade math for students familiar with powers, addition, and multiplication.
Tim and Nate both checked it and are fine with the math. But its too much for them to admit to being wrong so they are effectively denying the math they already agreed with.
But to be fair it doesn’t make non-spinners out to be the clear winner. The math earns a solid unquestioned tie. The tie breaker needs to be something non-mathematics based. I choose the common mans observation that indeed the moon rotates around the earth. Folks can quibble with that. But ultimately if you aren’t trying to prove you have a longer dong and arguing it going to make you feel. . . uh. . . more virile. But all means continue the argument.
On orbit and rotation being separate.
Bill: “Wrong! Not separate, but separable.”
DREMT: “Orbit and spin are entirely separate motions.”
I don’t suppose you guys want to confer on this?
Bill,
“conceptually its separable as a notion but you first must deorbit what you want to actually separate”
Are you saying that the rotation of the Earth on its axis is somehow bound to the Sun? That it doesn’t actually rotate until you ‘deorbit’ it?
Because I’m going to stick with DREMT on this notion, as the planets all have different spins, and their orbit around the Sun doesn’t dictate their rotation.
barry, it’s not “doubling the rotation rate”. The spin rate remains the same.
Watch the first experiment in the video. They start the moon spinning whilst it is stationary (not orbiting). It is set to one fixed rate of rotation. Then they start it orbiting, as well, in the same direction as the spin. It appears to then be rotating on its own axis at double the speed, but that is not actually the case. It’s just because it’s then orbiting and spinning, and because the “orbital motion” component is like the MOTL, and not the MOTR. The actual rate of axial rotation does not change, it’s fixed at one speed throughout.
All you are really saying is that you think “orbit without spin” is like the MOTR. Your thought experiment amounts to nothing more than that. It certainly does nothing to provide any evidence in support of that position, however. All we’re really doing here is just restating our positions.
I was checking papers on Lunar dynamics yesterday. About 20 of them.
Most from astrophysics, and on the topic of the Moon’s rotation, mostly dealing with refining the understanding of libration.
I actively searched for any peer-reviewed study that either argued for the non-rotation of the moon, or based its thesis as if a non-rotating moon were fact. Zero results.
I’m willing to bet $100 that the non-spinners cannot find any peer-reviewed study that either argues the case for non-rotation, or proceeds as if this were fundamentally true.
And in my reading and getting a better understanding of libration, it became clear that this could not happen with the non-spinner model.
In the model the non-spinners have, there should be no ‘rocking’ as the elliptical orbit of the moon reveals 7 to 10 degrees more of the Moon’s face.
This can only happen if the rotation of the Moon is constant and the orbit is elliptical.
Non-spinners, how would you explain libration with your model, without hand-waving this very real phenomenon away?
barry its all part of a smooth constant motion.
newton says you need a force to create a motion. the energy of an orbiting body remains constant yet you are effectively claiming a change in direction of some particles twice each rotation that sums up to zero. but if newton is correct and kepler is correct that a body in elliptical orbit has constantly equal angular momentum where does the energy come and go from to create that difference in the motion?
the answer is that it is one motion and the mathematics bears that out.
so you don’t like it but it has to be true. as dremt has been saying for months. . .how you choose to perceive it is the only thing you can choose between. the math i provided shows clearly there is no fundamental physical difference between the choices. at which point i elect the common mans observation that the moon rotates around the earth. and if you want to be a learned scholar you can tell people that there is more than one way to view the situation. and that is the smart play.
DREMT,
“It appears to then be rotating on its own axis at double the speed, but that is not actually the case. It’s just because it’s then orbiting and spinning”
Let’s quote me accurately.
“double its rotation WRT the fixed stars”
Which is indeed what happens in the video.
The gravitational force of the Earth acts on the mass of the moon, not its spin (setting aside the effect of irregularities in each body’s topography). Therefore, the pre-spun moon would continue to to spin at the same rate, achieving one rotation WRT the fixed stars as it orbits, and that rotation would keep the same face pointed at the Earth.
This is the difference between gravitational force and the mechanical forces applied in the video. The mechanical set-up has two rotations acting on the Moon: its own spin + the rotation of the unit it sits on, attached to the arm. Yes – that is where our difference of opinion lies. So I have a question for you…
In answer to what force would cause the pre-spun moon to increase its spin relative to the fixed stars on entering Earth orbit, your answer has just now been “orbit.”
This is circular reasoning. You are using your premise as your argument.
I challenge you to describe the force that would cause the pre-spun moon to increase its rotation relative to the fixed stars on entering Earth orbit.
Bill,
“if you want to be a learned scholar you can tell people that there is more than one way to view the situation. and that is the smart play.”
I’ve been saying for a long time that one cause of the differences of opinion on this topic is that different frames of references are used.
What it boils down to for me, as it goes with science, is which model/frame of reference more completely describes phenomena and can make predictions more successfully.
We all know that Einstein’s model superseded Newton’s, Newton’s superseded Kepler’s. The model of the universe that has the Moon spinning is more successful.
In all the studies on libration of the Moon it is axiomatic that the Moon rotates. You can’t have libration without rotation.
In your reply to my query on how to account for libration in the non-spinners model, you didn’t even make an attempt. I was expecting at least some broad hand-waving.
Can you account for libration in your model? How doers the moon ‘rock’ from side to side as it orbits, if not for the fact that its rotation is more regular than its orbit?
barry says:
On orbit and rotation being separate.
Bill:”Wrong! Not separate, but separable.”
DREMT: ”Orbit and spin are entirely separate motions.”
I dont suppose you guys want to confer on this?
———————————–
there you go again botching what we are saying.
1. You have a choice of how you want to view orbital motion. Non-spinners view it as a rotation. Spinners view it has linear momentum as one cannot apply torque to a point.
2. From the non-spinner perspective the earth has orbit and spin that are two entirely separate motions. Conversely non-spinners view the moons motion as one orbital motion that is a rotation period. No spin.
3. Spinners can choose to view the moon as having separate orbital motion that is not a rotation and a spin motion that is a rotation. But if true the moon has very little angular momentum unless you conceptualize a torque ability on a point then you can accurately treat the full angular momentum of the moon correctly mathematically but you now have to deal with spin that is not separate and spins that are separate such that earth would have 365.25 separate spins and 1 spin that is only separable if you deorbit the earth from going around the sun.
Bill,
“You have a choice of how you want to view orbital motion. Non-spinners view it as a rotation. Spinners view it has linear momentum as one cannot apply torque to a point.”
Orbital motion is one body circling another due to the force of gravity.
The force of gravity that tethers one sphere to another has no torsional force on each object’s spin about its internal axis (barring irregularities in the surface of the spheres).
Do you disagree with either of these statements?
“You have a choice of how you want to view orbital motion. Non-spinners view it as a rotation.”
The Earth rotates about the Sun?
barry says:
Ive been saying for a long time that one cause of the differences of opinion on this topic is that different frames of references are used.
What it boils down to for me, as it goes with science, is which model/frame of reference more completely describes phenomena and can make predictions more successfully.
———————-
I realize you have been saying that but as DREMT has shown reference frames don’t matter. The Non-spinner position is that an orbit is a rotation on a fixed external axis and it is a rotation from every frame of reference.
If you want to get sciency you need some mathematics or other proof. You just claiming it to be so does not make it so.
”We all know that Einsteins model superseded Newtons, Newtons superseded Keplers. The model of the universe that has the Moon spinning is more successful.”
and your proof of that claim is. . . .
”In all the studies on libration of the Moon it is axiomatic that the Moon rotates. You cant have libration without rotation.”
Non-spinners agree the moon rotates. It rotates on a fixed external axis. Next!
”In your reply to my query on how to account for libration in the non-spinners model, you didnt even make an attempt. I was expecting at least some broad hand-waving.
Can you account for libration in your model? How doers the moon rock from side to side as it orbits, if not for the fact that its rotation is more regular than its orbit?”
You are wrong in all that. The angular momentum is constant therefore the energy is constant, everything is conserved, everything is accounted for. . . .what did we not account for? Libration just goes with the territory of elliptical orbits that all have circular analogs.
It is you who is lobbying for libration to be a separate and additional motion that can’t exist because there is no unaccounted for energy floating around. The math proves via links provided that the non-spinner and spinner positions are correct and the same as far as energy is concerned. Further the circular motion analog will have the same numbers physically for both spinners and non-spinners and the libration no longer is seen. all libration is is a complexity of a certain motion that simply goes with the territory and you are insisting it only fits your selected model but you have nothing to establish that as so.
barry says:
February 15, 2023 at 9:32 PM
You have a choice of how you want to view orbital motion. Non-spinners view it as a rotation.
The Earth rotates about the Sun?
——————————
do you have difficulties remembering stuff? we have told you this several times. the earth has one orbital rotation and 365.25 spins on its local axis per year for a total of 366.25 rotations per year
barry says:
February 15, 2023 at 9:21 PM
Bill,
You have a choice of how you want to view orbital motion. Non-spinners view it as a rotation. Spinners view it has linear momentum as one cannot apply torque to a point.
Orbital motion is one body circling another due to the force of gravity.
The force of gravity that tethers one sphere to another has no torsional force on each objects spin about its internal axis (barring irregularities in the surface of the spheres).
Do you disagree with either of these statements?
—————————
no.
but they are inapplicable to the discussion.
1) gravity itself deforms spheres creating the irregularities. and
2) gravity cannot deform a point or put torque on one
0
0
“Libration just goes with the territory of elliptical orbits that all have circular analogs”
This is the hand-waving I was expecting.
Libration is perfectly in accord with a spinning moon and an elliptical orbit. The ‘rocking’ motion is easily explained in that the rotation of the moon is regular but the orbit is not (it is an ellipse). You can see with a telescope more of the Eastern face of the Moon in one part of its orbit, and more of the Western face in the other, due to the fact that the rotation alternately leads and lags the orbit. This motion would not occur with a perfectly circular orbit.
But the model that you and DREMT have – an object rotating on an external axis – cannot account for this rocking.
You see the moon as if on an arm extending out from the Earth…
“The Non-spinner position is that an orbit is a rotation on a fixed external axis”
…fixed to the earth’s COM (or the system’s COM), and that arm connects the moon to the external axis point. Like a ball on a piece of string. Like a horse on a merry-go-round.
But here’s the thing, if you were to make this connecting arm extendible and programmed it to retract and extend, mimicking the ellipse of the Moon’s orbit, the moon in this model would never rock. It would always keep the same face to the Earth. There would be no libration because the arm holds the moon fixed.
Your model is a geometric rotation, a rigid body model. It cannot explain the force causing libration.
And that is why I will ask you again, what is the force that causes the moon to rock one way on one half of its orbit, and rock the other on the other half?
“they are inapplicable to the discussion”
Not at all – the fact that Earth’s gravity does not provide a torsional force to the Moon (barring the tiny effects of surface irregularities) is germane to the thought experiment about a pre-spun moon being brought into orbit around the Earth.
If Earth’s gravity provides no torsional effect on the moon, then when we bring the moon that we spun up to rotate once a month WRT the fixed stars, it should continue to rotate once a month WRT the fixed stars when put it into Earth orbit.
And if it maintains that spin, it will always keep one face to the Earth.
barry says:
February 15, 2023 at 10:58 PM
they are inapplicable to the discussion
Not at all the fact that Earths gravity does not provide a torsional force to the Moon (barring the tiny effects of surface irregularities) is germane to the thought experiment about a pre-spun moon being brought into orbit around the Earth.
If Earths gravity provides no torsional effect on the moon, then when we bring the moon that we spun up to rotate once a month WRT the fixed stars, it should continue to rotate once a month WRT the fixed stars when put it into Earth orbit.
And if it maintains that spin, it will always keep one face to the Earth.
—————————–
whats the mater with you? the earth does apply torsional force on the moon. you were taught wrong. the earth could not apply torsional effects on an inflexible sphere. but there is no such thing as an inflexible sphere. gravity stretches the moon into a football shape and that provides the lever that transmits torque to force the moon to rotate around the earth. the way you are suggesting it is done would be like a one in a trillion chance. and seeing as about half the moon’s in the solar system are tidally locked your method tortures credibility.
barry says:
This is the hand-waving I was expecting.
The rocking motion is easily explained i
But the model that you and DREMT have an object rotating on an external axis cannot account for this rocking.
You see the moon as if on an arm extending out from the Earth
fixed to the earths COM (or the systems COM), and that arm connects the moon to the external axis point. Like a ball on a piece of string. Like a horse on a merry-go-round.
But heres the thing, if you were to make this connecting arm extendible and programmed it to retract and extend, mimicking the ellipse of the Moons orbit, the moon in this model would never rock. It would always keep the same face to the Earth. There would be no libration because the arm holds the moon fixed.
————————–
you are all over the place like a soup sandwich. the ‘arm’ doesn’t hold the moon fixed. if it did it would be a perfect circle motion. your premise isn’t true. and the moon doesn’t rock! it has the illusion of rocking because its distance is always changing without any energy input.
Your model is a geometric rotation, a rigid body model. It cannot explain the force causing libration.
And that is why I will ask you again, what is the force that causes the moon to rock one way on one half of its orbit, and rock the other on the other half?
Bill,
You said you agreed with this statement.
“The force of gravity that tethers one sphere to another has no torsional force on each object’s spin about its internal axis”
Now you say,
“whats the mater with you? the earth does apply torsional force on the moon.”
I can’t discuss this with you in you contradict yourself.
Assuming you still agree with the first statement (and have taken the torsional force in the second statement to be about orbit?), then I repeat that introducing an already spinning object to an orbit should not change that object’s spin.
And that means that the moon in the thought experiment will spin WRT the fixed stars once per month between galaxies, and once per month WRT to the fixed stars as it orbits the Earth.
Do you agree with that?
Once again, barry, the axial rotation rate does not increase. You saying that it does is no different from you asserting (without evidence) that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. That’s all you’re really doing.
“the ‘arm’ doesn’t hold the moon fixed. if it did it would be a perfect circle motion.”
This renders analogy by ball on a string and merry-go-rounds extinguished, of which I’m all in favour.
I should have put quotes around ‘rocking’ to help you. It is no illusion that the moon shows more of one side of its face to the Earth on one half of its orbit, and more of the other side of its face on the other half. This has been called “wagging” or “rocking,” as it is how it appears.
“it has the illusion of rocking because its distance is always changing”
Wrong.
Here is a graphical representation of rotation about an external axis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rotation_illustration2.svg
By moving the rotating shape in that diagram along the grid axis radiating away from the zero point you can mimic elliptical orbit and a change in distance. You can easily see that a change in distance will not change the angle of the rotating shape relative to the axis point (Earth).
And if you state that the graph does not represent the Moon’s “rotation” about a fixed axis, then you will be conceding the point.
The reason was see the Moon “wagging” as it orbits the Earth is that the Moon is not rotating around an external fixed axis, but rotating on an internal axis while it orbits the Earth, and the rotation is regular while the orbit is irregular. The Moon’s rotation alternately leads and lags its orbit.
I’ll quote one webpage – there are dozens of astronomy/university/science webpages saying the same thing:
Libration of longitude is an effect of the Moon’s varying rate of travel along its slightly elliptical orbit around the Earth. The Moon travels faster when it is at its closest to Earth, and its slowest when it is farthest away. Its rotation on its own axis is more regular, the difference appearing again as a slight east-west oscillation.”
https://www.wwu.edu/astro101/a101_lunarlibration.shtml
It’s not changes in lunar distance but changes in its orbital speed relative to its rotation that gives us one of the 3 libration motions.
There are other librations, but these are not tied to lunar spin.
“Once again, barry, the axial rotation rate does not increase”
Once again, DREMT, the moon spins faster WRT to the fixed stars in that video, which is germane to the point I was making.
As usual, barry doesn’t listen. You accuse me of using circular logic, but that’s precisely what you’re doing. To say the spin rate increases wrt fixed stars, or wrt anything, is to automatically assume and assert (without evidence) that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. I know you don’t understand this, but there you go.
“The Earth rotates about the Sun?”
Yes, whilst also rotating on its own axis, 365.25 times per external axis rotation. Now you’re getting it.
Whereas the “Spinners” think the Earth translates around the Sun, whilst also rotating on its own axis, 366.25 times per translation around the Sun.
‘Orbital angular momentum is MVR, it is what a point-like orbiting mass has, or what a body has when no rotation (or spin) is present, like the MOTR.’
–
“That is incorrect Nate and my link to the math shows why its incorrect. ”
Math is not the issue. This is about how things are defined in physics, and you DECIDING you don’t like it defined that way.
Orbital angular momentum is defined in physics as I showed above. This is absolutely standard. Tim explained it to you and you didnt listen to him either.
And it makes perfect sense, because it is the minimum angular momentum that an orbit can have. It is the value an orbit of a point mass, or a non-rotating body has. It is the value derived from Newton’s solution for the orbit.
You want to define it differently from physics for some reason? Who the hell cares?
Physics will carry on doing what has worked well.
“To say the spin rate increases wrt fixed stars, or wrt anything, is to automatically assume and assert (without evidence) that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR.”
We are at liberty to talk about spin/non-spin within the frame of reference we choose. In the thought experiment I wanted to examine what you thought happened when the moon spinning once a month WRT the fixed stars was put into a monthly orbit around the Earth with no change in the angular momentum of its rotation. You showed me a video to explain your answer.
In that video the moon does indeed rotate faster WRT the fixed stars when it orbits than when it is not orbiting. That’s just the fact within that frame of reference. You can reject the frame of reference, but not the resulting increase of the moon’s spin within it.
The resolution of the discussion is not axiomatic on that fact. It’s a piece of an inquiry. You are still at liberty to point out that the moon in the video rotates at the same rate WRT the unit it sits on.
Bill agreed that the introduction of an orbit would not change the moon’s spin WRT the fixed stars once introduced to orbit.
You seem to have a different take, which either forbids the fixed stars reference frame, or the conclusion of a faster spinning moon per the video.
“Whereas the ‘Spinners’ think the Earth translates around the Sun, whilst also rotating on its own axis”
Translates?
This is the language of geometry. An orbit is the path one body repeats around another due to gravity. Spinners don’t say the moon translates around the Earth and rotates. They say it orbits and rotates.
The debunked video again! The one in which the narrator keeps being confused about the rotating reference frame!
I will simply point out the Moon in the video is attached to the Earth via a rigid arm. When the arm rotates around the Earth it forces the Moon to rotate with it, because of the rigid attachment.
This may surprise some people, but the real Moon is NOT attached via a rigid arm to the Earth!
Therefore the Moon is not constrained in any way to rotate as it orbits, in perfect alignment to the Earth, by any such a rigid attachment.
Thus it spins freely on its own, TILTED, axis. Thus it spins at a constant angular velocity, while orbiting at a non-constant angular velocity.
The proof is, as Barry notes, in the observed libration. Neither this video mechanism, nor any non-spinning Moon model, can ever explain the libration.
These guys are stuck in an infinite loop, trying forever to fit a slanted, elliptical peg into a straight, round hole, and it will NEVER EVER fit!
There is no logical, honest debate possible with these guys, Barry.
As I said, barry, I know you don’t understand this, but there you go.
I’ll keep repeating myself, because I’m correct: to say the spin rate increases wrt fixed stars, or wrt anything, is to automatically assume and assert (without evidence) that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR.
…and, "Spinners" do think "orbit without spin" is translational motion.
Get back to me when you understand and accept both these points.
1. Yes, whilst also rotating on its own axis, 365.25 times per external axis rotation. Now youre getting it.
2. Whereas the Spinners think the Earth translates around the Sun, whilst also rotating on its own axis, 366.25 times per translation around the Sun.”
Which one is happening, 1) or 2) is testable.
The orbital motion is in the ecliptic plane.
The rotational motion is entirely in plane tilted at 23.5 degrees to the orbital plane.
If rotational motion was part and parcel of its orbit, that rotation would be in the orbital plane, and the Earth’s axis would be moved a as result of this rotation in a DIFFERENT plane.
But that is not what happens. The Earths axis stays fixed to the N. star, (though it precesses over 26000 years)
So model #1 is falsified.
…and just a reminder, barry, internal axis rotation (spin) is not part and parcel of "orbital motion" in the "Non-Spinners" viewpoint. Orbit and spin are two separate motions.
“Orbit and spin are two separate motions.”
We are agreed that revolution (orbit) and rotation (spin) are two separate motions and distinct terms in astronomy.
And yet you call the Moon’s orbit a rotation. In astrophysics an object repeating a path around another object due to gravity is orbiting or revolving.
You are using the word rotation in the geometrical sense here, not in the sense of modern celestial mechanics.
As this has been repetitive for a while I bid you and Bill good day on this sub thread.
Barry makes one final closing appeal to authority and the ‘official’ stamped and certified version of celestial definitions that are designed to separate rotations into rotations on a local axis and rotations on an external axis. Yes Barry we agree that is the ‘officially endorsed’ ‘form’ that sheds absolutely no light on the substance of rotations. So indeed hopefully it is for the last time.
The same goes for Nate with his book of ‘official’ definitions. If the energy did vary like a train on a circular track applying different steam pressures to vary the speed you would have a case to make. Since you don’t you don’t have a physics case to make you just have a ‘form’ argument that doesn’t apply in any sense whatsoever with physics. Physics is interesting and its interesting that the same physical forces can create a variety of single motions. But as Newton says you need a force to create a motion. If you want the moon to have two motions you need to identify a unique source of energy for it. Otherwise your argument is about tradition and form rather than physics. Tim almost got there when he acknowledged the math said its OK to have a little play in the real world but one needs to make a choice about how to approach the problem. Then he backtracked realizing he wasn’t holding ‘the team’ banner high enough. If only you guys would actually hold the ‘physics’ banner high then we could get along on a whole lot of stuff.
barry, instead of worrying too much about semantics, the entire issue can be simplified to the following:
"Non-Spinners" see "orbit without spin" as being motion like the MOTL. That is motion 1).
"Spinners" see "orbit without spin" as being motion like the MOTR. That is their version of motion 1).
"Axial rotation" or "spin" (motion 2)) is then to be kept separate from that motion (motion 1)), in either case.
Note that it applies to all orbits, not just the moon’s.
Note that the issue is not resolved by reference frames.
Good day to you too, barry.
Hunter troll wrote:
Come on Bill. Libration in Latitude is not a “motion” it’s a visual illusion caused by the Moon’s axial tilt which is fixed by rotational inertia. No force or torque required, just geometry.
” internal axis rotation (spin) is not part and parcel of “orbital motion” in the “Non-Spinners” viewpoint. Orbit and spin are two separate motions.”
the full quote for model #1
1. “The Earth rotates about the Sun?’
Yes, whilst also rotating on its own axis, 365.25 times per external axis rotation. Now youre getting it.”
makes clear that in this model a rotation in the plane of the orbit is part and parcel of ORBIT.
Again, the analysis for the Earth shows this cannot be the case.
“The same goes for Nate with his book of official definitions. If the energy did vary like a train on a circular track applying different steam pressures to vary the speed you would have a case to make.”
Weird. I dont recall saying anything like that.
However it is an observable fact that bodies in elliptical orbits have varying orbital angular velocity.
“Since you dont you dont have a physics case to make you just have a form argument that doesnt apply in any sense whatsoever with physics. ”
Again, Bill dismisses observable, substantive facts about the Moon’s orbit, and ALL orbits, by weirdly calling them ‘forms’.
He is very confused.
Swanson, nobody was talking about the libration in latitude. Read Johannes von Gumpach’s book yet?
Of course the orbital plane itself doesn’t have any mass so it has no influence on the posture of the moon.
Since DREMT is ignoring you because of your intransigent behavior regarding your use of semantics to define how you want to view the moon and a complete lack of physics let me help you out for the gazillionth time.
Nate says:
”However it is an observable fact that bodies in elliptical orbits have varying orbital angular velocity.”
Uh huh! Does this require a change in energy? Like a cold photon hitting a hot orbit or something like that?
Nate says:
”makes clear that in this model a rotation in the plane of the orbit is part and parcel of ORBIT.
Again, the analysis for the Earth shows this cannot be the case.”
As everybody sits on the edge of their seats awaiting Nate to reveal the analysis NOT! One can only cry wolf so many times before one concludes the child lacks any credibility to back up his declarations.
” Does this require a change in energy? Like a cold photon hitting a hot orbit or something like that?”
No and weird. Not relevant to this issue.
grammie pups, you are right. You are a NOBODY in life.
Hunter troll, if you were replying to me, please note that I was referring to forcing which would effect the Moon’s rotation which is insignificant. Of course, the Moon’s orbit is the result of gravity’s forcing which changes the velocity vector of the CM resulting in it’s elliptical trajectory.
“As everybody sits on the edge of their seats awaiting Nate to reveal the analysis NOT! ”
Bill has no answer for the fact that Earth’s rotation is only happening in the plane of its equator. Which is tilted 23.5 degrees to its orbital plane. And thus Earth’s axis of rotation remains always pointed to the North star.
In case Bill objects, this is an easily observable fact that anyone looking up at the night sky can observe and verify.
The non-spinner model hypothesizes that Earth’s orbit is, by itself, a rotation about the sun.
If so then the Earth, in the course of a year must rotate once in the orbital plane, the ecliptic plane, IOW a rotation around a second axis, 23.5 degrees from the first one.
Can they provide any evidence that there is such a rotation of the Earth around a second axis?
Unlikely. Since the Earths N pole remains oriented always to Polaris, there can be no rotation around a second axis going on, because such a rotation would cause the N. Pole to rotate once around this second axis during the year.
It doesnt. it always points to Polaris.
So we have yet another piece of evidence that the non-spinner notion of what an ORBIT is, is wrong.
Nate lays out a scenario that suggests an orbital plane somehow has control over the attitude of the orbiting body.
Sounds like hot blather. Perhaps he could flesh this out with some calculations so it doesn’t look like a pool of puke.
"grammie pups, you are right. You are a NOBODY in life."
Swanson, nobody (least of all me) was talking about the libration in latitude. Read Johannes von Gumpach’s book yet?
Nate says:
February 16, 2023 at 1:02 PM
Does this require a change in energy? Like a cold photon hitting a hot orbit or something like that?
No and weird. Not relevant to this issue.
——————————
Weird? Really? To you? What is relevant Nate. Hmmm, did you just suggest that we are talking about motions without precipitating energy sources?
Sounds like an interesting topic. Entertain us please!
barry says:
February 16, 2023 at 1:44 AM
Bill,
You said you agreed with this statement.
The force of gravity that tethers one sphere to another has no torsional force on each objects spin about its internal axis
Now you say,
whats the mater with you? the earth does apply torsional force on the moon.
I cant discuss this with you in you contradict yourself.
——————————————–
Simple Barry the moon is not a sphere its football shaped.
You should learn something about astronomy. Thats about as basic as it gets.
“Nate lays out a scenario that suggests an orbital plane somehow has control over the attitude of the orbiting body.”
It is your scenario, so you guys need to find the evidence that the Earth has rotation on two separate axes, and explain how that would appear.
Sure piece of cake Nate.
Moon has one rotation on its external axis to none on its internal axis and has zero earthshine day/night cycles: Total rotations: 1
Earth has one rotation on its external axis that takes a year to 365.25 on its internal axis and has 365.25 solar day/night cycles. Total rotations: 366.25
What is so difficult about that? Couldn’t figure it out for yourself?
The sidereal rotation is on the external axis. Has to be that way. No tidal locking required. Just if there is tidal locking then there are zero rotations on the internal axis.
And oh I forgot. How would it appear. It would appear to be rotation that takes 365.25 days to complete, creates the 4 seasons, and appears from the stars to be just another rotation.
“Earth has one rotation on its external axis that takes a year to 365.25 on its internal axis and has 365.25 solar day/night cycles. Total rotations: 366.25”
“How would it appear. It would appear to be rotation that takes 365.25 days to complete”
You neglect the fact that these rotations are on two DIFFERENT axes, tilted at 23.5 degrees to each other.
How should we incorporate this fact into your model?
Should we view it as a top spinning fast on an axis tilted at 23.5 degrees to vertical, attached to a platform that rotates slowly on a vertical axis?
Rotation on the vertical axis means all points on the body except points on the axis, move in circles around the axis.
If so then why doesnt the N. pole rotate around the vertical axis during a year?
To make the question even clearer and easier for you Bill, consider Uranus.
https://www.salon.com/2023/02/16/uranus-neptune-mission-nasa/
Its spin axis points sideways. It nearly lies in the plane of its orbit.
So when it orbits and, as non-spinners view it, the orbital motion causes it to rotate once around a vertical axis, what happens to Uranus’s sideways pointed spin axis?
Does it rotate around with the orbit? Or does it stay fixed to the same stars throughout?
Explain.
Swanson? Oh well.
we have already discussed this an orbital rotation has little control over the attitude of the orbiting body when other forces exist and the relativity of that strength of control will manifest themselves in some ways as a precession
For the moon the strongest influence vector is along the ecliptic with the sun and earth sharing an identical vector. Thus the mean position of the spin axis of the moon real or imagined is perpendicular to the ecliptic.
Since the moon does not have a spin independent of its orbital rotation there is no manifestation of another spin axis. further the precession of that axis is very small and is due to gravitational forces of other planets being weak
for earth it is the spin that has dominance via the right hand rule of angular momentum and secondarily the suns gravity creates an axial precession around a line perpendicular to the ecliptic.
i agree that isn’t conclusive for the moon as the alleged mean spin axis of the moon is perpendicular to the ecliptic, thus is consistent with dremts position regarding how you choose to treat orbital motion.
for the earth the mean position of the spin axis is also perpendicular to the ecliptic but it takes 25,000 years for a 360degree precession.
So that is what it looks like.
Now Uranus is way out there where gravity is very weak. It takes 84 years to orbit and spins once every 17 hours, is a much bigger planet with one heckuva lot of angular momentum and its precession period as expected would take far longer and is like 210million years.
So just hand waving then? It appears you can’t answer the question.
You guys claim that an ORBIT contains a rotation in the orbital plane, around the orbital axis, which is perpendicular to the ecliptic plane for the planets.
But for neither Earth nor Uranus can it be detected or observed. All that we can observe is the spin rotation for these bodies around their internal axes.
“Since the moon does not have a spin independent of its orbital rotation there is no manifestation of another spin axis. ”
False assertion without a shred of evidence.
For the Moon its rotation around its spin axis is just as observable as it is for Earth and Uranus. For all three, the north poles stay pointed to specific stars during the entire orbit.
And this is observable in the Moon’s libration.
Oh well.
The all-important last word.
And yet so hollow because it has no answers.
The TEAM is simply stumped when asked to explain what evidence is there that planetary orbits contain a rotation in the orbital plane.
Yet those claiming themselves to be the most ‘free thinking and open minded’ among us will simply plug their ears, cover their eyes, and close their minds to this latest lack of evidence for their view, and continue to maintain their rigid beliefs.
Now you may claim the prestigious last word award.
…all important last word.
its only because nate can’t see it because he doesn’t want to see it
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/16499/can-a-tidally-locked-planet-maintain-an-obliquity
if nate were a skilled astronmer it should be apparent that as the spin departs the axis shifts. evidence has been located at the poles of the moon shows evidence of that shift. why is that? nate wants to be a facts denier to force his point of view on to others. simple as that.
you have two viable choices.
1. the moon rotates around the earth and explain the variations in the actual motion of the moon as due to eccentricity of the orbit and gravitational influences of other objects primarily in the solar system.
or
2. ignore that the moon rotates around earth and pretend it only has linear momentum of running in a straight line and then say it rotates on its own axis and attribute variations in that rotation to the gravitational pull of the earth, sun, and other objects in the universe.
then of course nate, swanson, barry, bindidon, tim and others go into a short limp circular cock rooster dance parading around and going on about libration as being the decisive factor.
they do this despite there actually only being a libration that only occurs in option 2 that actually affects the angular momentum of the rotation.
so in fact in option 1 there is a large libration that has no effect on the rotation’s constant energy. while option 2 has a small libration that has a periodic affect on the constancy of the rotation’s energy.
that sure is a funny looking dance you boys are doing.
Bill, you are off on tangents, while ignoring the observable evidence that the Moon has a tilted Spin axis.
As it is for Earth and Neptune, this is demonstrated by its N pole pointing to the same stars throughout its orbit. And all three precess.
These facts are simply not consistent with your statement
“there is no manifestation of another spin axis.”
“2. ignore that the moon rotates around earth”
Assertions without evidence don’t need to be ignored.
The Moon orbits the Earth and rotates on a different axis, but you simply ignore these observable facts.
“and pretend it only has linear momentum of running in a straight line”
Why keep repeating this stupidity?
“say it rotates on its own axis and attribute variations in that rotation to the gravitational pull of the earth, sun, and other objects in the universe.”
The pull of the Earth makes the Moon orbit, and the pull of the other bodies causes precession.
And?
But the spin of the moon on its tilted axis at a constant rate and orbital motion with a variable rate are still observable via libration.
nate says.
”But the spin of the moon on its tilted axis at a constant rate and orbital motion with a variable rate are still observable via libration.”
but nate continues his rooster dance around the only fact that involves a transfer of energy from spinner model into what nate?
linear momentum? the moon doesn’t rotate at a constant rate in the spinner model only. it only rotates at a constant rate in the non-spinner model.
you don’t actually believe that newton could have missed that do you?
i am not sure if its capable of being observed but certainly has to arise from a modern understanding of newton’s law of gravity.
and yes the axis is tilted but so far all you reference here is the ‘form’ of the rotation not meeting some preconceived notions of yours. is there any ‘substance’ here you can argue for between the two models?
come back with some hard evidence when you find some.
nate you simply fail to recognize the major physical manifestation of the rotation on the external axis by the variety of examples and the relativity of the various forces working on it. if you did your homework as you are supposed to before posting you would have worked it out and your question would be answered and no post would have been necessary. but all you are arguing for is truly flat earth kind of stuff. gee the horizon seems a long ways off. . . .must go on forever.
perhaps you could humor us with your explanation for why energy is exchanged between the two rotations you think the moon rotates on?
“but nate continues his rooster dance around the only fact that involves a transfer of energy from spinner model into what nate?
linear momentum? the moon doesnt rotate at a constant rate in the spinner model only. it only rotates at a constant rate in the non-spinner model.
and yes the axis is tilted but so far all you reference here is the form of the rotation not meeting some preconceived notions of yours. is there any substance here you can argue for between the two models? you simply fail to recognize the major physical manifestation of the rotation on the external axis by the variety of examples and the relativity of the various forces working on it. if you did your homework as you are supposed to before posting you would have worked it out and your question would be answered and no post would have been necessary. but all you are arguing for is truly flat earth kind of stuff. gee the horizon seems a long ways off. . . .must go on forever. perhaps you could humor us with your explanation for why energy is exchanged between the two rotations you think the moon rotates on?”
Bill if you can’t explain the basic observable facts with your model, which you cannog, it doesnt matter how fancy your Gish Gallop of Word Salads get, they are simply all BESIDE THE POINT.
well it was very obvious that the only physical argument that has been raised is the transference energy from an object that is in orbit between the two rotations you want say are independent of each other. if they are independent of each other is it by spooky action at a distance that the energy gets transferred? and if they are not independent then i claim dremt is correct. that it can be looked at independently analytically if you so desire.
all that other stuff is about what one might suspect a rotation should look like
Bill,
You really shouldnt post while on psychedelic drugs. Maybe go for a stroll in the park.
sorry nate you forfeited. ad homs don’t help
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449397
Not an ad-hom to say that your posts don’t make a lot of sense.
To make sense, your posts need to:
-Be on-topic
-Real science not stream-of consciousness flights of fantasy
-Make ONE clear succinct point that can be easily understood.
Its an ad hom when its total bullshit that you can’t address the conservation of angular momentum issue straight up.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449696
“you cant address the conservation of angular momentum issue straight up.”
Oh? I thought it was:
“the transference energy from an object that is in orbit between the two rotations you want say are independent of each other. if they are independent of each other is it by spooky action at a distance that the energy gets transferred?”
It is seemingly a tossed salad of random technical words.
For what purpose?
Obfuscation? Or are you genuinely that confused?
…all-important last word.
re air pressure…there seems to be a common believe that air molecules are pressing down on us with an incredible weight related to the sheer mass of molecules in a column of air above us. Here’s an example from a BBC question/answer forum…
***
“The Earths atmosphere is bearing down on all of us with a pressure at sea level equivalent to around 10 tonnes of weight per square metre. So simply standing upright means carrying the weight of a small car.
The reason we cant feel it is that the air within our bodies (in our lungs and stomachs, for example) is exerting the same pressure outwards, so theres no pressure difference and no need for us to exert any effort”.
***
The answer does not address the question which is asking why several tonnes of air per square metre doesn’t affect us. This answer is typical of the evasive answers one finds as to why air pressure does us no harm.
It is blatantly obvious that air does not press down on us as a cumulative mass. The upward motion of air molecules is such that it combats gravitational force, resulting in a net zero force. That’s why air molecules are buoyant. If they were not, all molecules would be crammed against the surface in a layer like grains of sand on a beach.
The reason air pressure exists has to do with the innate motion of air molecules. Something impels them that we don’t understand. Air molecules are able to defy gravity, so much so, that they can reside easily at 50,000 feet, flitting around merrily without being accelerated at 9.8 m/s^2 toward the surface.
Reading though the Net for possible answers reveals nothing other than an abysmal ignorance of the subject. There is a strong notion that the atmosphere has weight due to a summation of molecular mass. However, no credibility is given to the fact that air molecules have an upward momentum that counters gravity and that atomic masses do not sum in a vertical direction.
A mercury barometer relies on a pool of mercury pushing mercury up a thin capillary tube. The tube is graduated in PSI but how the heck is that determined? It is presumed that a column of air pressing down on the mercury pool exerts such a force on the mercury.
I am questioning that reasoning. Gravity acting on the mercury pool will force the liquid up a capillary tube. If you take the tube to an altitude where gravitational force is much less, the mercury will not rise as high in the capillary tube, yet the reason given is that the air pressure is much less.
“The answer does not address the question which is asking why several tonnes of air per square metre doesnt affect us. This answer is typical of the evasive answers one finds as to why air pressure does us no harm.”
Humans could live in 50 atm of pressure- and increasing pressure is not much of problem, decreasing pressure can kill you- depending on how much and how fast.
So, at sea level there is 10,000 kg per meter, and 10 meters under water has another 10,000 kg per square meter of pressure. One go down
to say 20 meter [65.6168 feet] under water and have 3 atm of pressure
or 14.7 x 2 = 29.4 psig or in terms of absolute pressure: 44.1 psia
So, one travel quite down 65.6168 feet under the water, but come up quickly you get the bends. Or divers have slowly rise to the surface or they can have problems.
Humans need pressure, at 2.5 psi they like fish out of water, 5 psi
we have no problem breathing if there is enough oxygen mixture in the 5 psi of air. If step into vacuum from 14.7 psi, let your breath out
or you will injure yourself. Stepping into vacuum from 5 psi, you hold your breath, it may not be comfortable, but you might hurt yourself.
The main problem with Mars is lack of pressure- that why I endlessly talk about making lakes on Mars {one of the reasons}. You like a fish
could live in “natural environment” [if an artificial lake can called natural] on Mars.
gb…”Humans could live in 50 atm of pressure- and increasing pressure is not much of problem…”
***
1 atm is about 15 psi, therefore 50 at, is about 750 psi. Inflate a tire to 750 PSI and don’t stand anywhere near it.
I am questioning the usage of PSI as a measurement of atmospheric pressure. Obviously, moving air can be a fearsome force, as in a tornado or hurricane. That’s not the same force exerted as claimed in atmospheric pressure, where the air is still.
But toradoes and hurricane only has small difference in pressure- those spinning machines of nature that only make a slight difference in pressure, but slight increase in difference of pressure makes them more powerful.
What lowest pressure Hurricane, google:
“Surface atmospheric pressure in the center of a hurricane tends to be extremely low. The lowest pressure reading ever recorded for a hurricane (typhoon Tip, 1979) is 870 millibars (mb). However, most storms have an average pressure of 950 millibars.”
Bar = atm , 1000 millibar = 1 atm. Oh, actually 1013.25 millibars = 1 atm. And in terms psi, 1 psi = about 69 millibars
So normally it’s about 1 psi but lowest was more 2 psi, which is a bit more than I thought.
Hard measure tornadoes, but google:
Greatest pressure drop
In less than a minute, the pressure dropped to 850 millibars (25.10 inHg), which are the greatest pressure decline and the lowest pressure ever recorded at the Earth’s surface when adjusted to sea level.
Gordon Robertson
It would be correct to conclude there is not a large weight of air pressing down on a person. Air pressure is all around caused by the kinetic energy of air molecules
This should clear it up for you.
https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/pressure#:~:text=The%20atoms%20and%20molecules%20that,what%20we%20observe%20as%20pressure.
Air pressure exerts force in all directions. If you hold your arm out you have 14 pounds/inch^2 pushing down on it but also 14 pounds/inch^2 pushing up from below same as with the sides so there is no net force and you can move your arm in air.
However air pressure is quite real and exerts a tremendous force. This was demonstrated way back in 1654.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdeburg_hemispheres
A team of 30 horses could not pull apart two spheres with the air evacuated. The pressure of the air was that strong.
norman…”Air pressure exerts force in all directions”.
***
Take a container and pump it up till a pressure gauge reads 15 PSI. That’s half the pressure of an inflated car tire. Now quickly remove the lid and read the gauge. Will it read 15 PSI or will it read 0 PSI?
The popular notion that air has weight and is pushing down on you is a load of nonsense. For one, there are vast distances between air molecules relative to the molecule’s diameter. There is nothing for a molecule to push down on. If it’s in contact with your head, the force exerted on your head, provided the molecule is moving straight down, is the mass of the molecule. Even if there are a bazillion of them pressing down, it is a negligible weight.
Besides, air molecules would not be suspended as they are if they were under the force of gravity without an upward or lateral force. We’d be up to our ankles in them, at least.
The mistake being made is that a litre of air does not have all the molecules lying on the floor of a container, hence under the influence of gravity. If my understanding of the molecular theory of gases is correct, all the molecules will be flying in different directions, spending only a tiny fraction of time on the base of a container. Therefore, they will be exerting the same pressure on each wall of the container.
Since the atmosphere has no walls, there is nothing to push against laterally, only downward on the surface. Since the atmosphere is not pressurized, there should be no net force down the way since there is an equal and opposite force up the way to keep air molecules buoyant. If air presses against a wall laterally the air pressure against a wall should be higher, and I doubt that’s the case.
Gordon Robertson
I”m surprised that a classical physicist like yourself has forgotten Newton’s Third Law.
When air molecules hit the inner surface of their container they rebounds and the reaction creates an outward force on the container. You can see this in a tyre, with the air pressure creating an outward force which keeps the tyre inflated.
Pump more air into the tyre, n increases. More collisions per square inch per second so more pressure.
Decrease volume and you get more molecules per unit volume so more collisions and more pressure.
Increase temperature and you increase the average velocity of the air molecules. More collisions and more momentum per collision so more pressure.
ent…”When air molecules hit the inner surface of their container they rebounds and the reaction creates an outward force on the container”.
***
I have no problem with that, but why do you think they make the walls on gas cylinders under pressure so thick? The gas pushes against all the walls of the container in every direction. With a container the size and shape of the atmosphere what is creating the pressure?
If there is a vast empty space, the molecules have very little to push against. If you step into that space, then they have a surface to push against, and your Newton III comes into play. The problem I have is the notion that the air pressure is creating a pressure of 15 PSI against your body at sea level.
PSI means pounds per square inch where the pound is a measure of force. There are about 2.2 pounds in a kilogram. If you lay out a square on your abdomen that is 12 inches by 12 inches, that is 144 square inches of area and at 15 pounds per square inch that is 2160 pounds of force over that area. That’s equivalent to lying on your back and supporting a 1 ton weight on your abdomen.
Either something is drastically wrong with my interpretation of the meaning of 15 PSI or there is something drastically wrong with the theory that the atmosphere exerts 15 PSI of pressure at sea level.
I am more than willing to be wrong about this but I am seeing to explanations that satisfy me.
>The popular notion that air has weight and is pushing down on you is a load of nonsense.
Air has an average molar mass of 28.97 g/mol.
Are you taking the piss?
Someone is taking it but it’s not me.
Anyone who has studied science knows that a molecule of air has a mass. To have weight, it must be under the influence of gravity and be accelerated at 9.8 m/s^2 to toward the surface. Any other mass of which I know, except air molecules, sits on the ground after being accelerated. Air molecules have a property that counters gravity, enabling them to float in air to various degrees and even move against gravity to an extent.
furthermore…I am saying, in essence, that air molecules have mass but not necessarily weight, as we normally define it. Obviously, if they are accelerated toward the surface, they have weight. In that case, why are they not acting like other masses and congregating on the surface, like grains of sand?
As far as I know, it was Newton who defined mass as a property of a body as a measure of its inertia. Then Einstein came along with his nonsense about space time and obfuscated a clear cut definition into something untangible.
With f = ma, Newton established that a mass has an ability to resist a force applied to it. The mass is a measure of that ability. Newton even inferred that inertia is a force applied by a body to a force applied to it. That resistive force is its mass. Nothing to do with weight till the force is a gravitational field drawing the body toward it.
Atoms have their own measure, the amu = atomic mass unit. Mass is not weight till it is affected by a gravitational field. Therefore a reference to the weight of an atom is idiotic. Is someone suggesting an atom can be lifted with a pair of tweezers and laid on a weight scale?
The concept of atomic weight comes from bazillions of atoms forming a unit, which is affected by gravity. However, an individual atom in a gravitational field will behave differently than an aggregation of atoms in a solid body.
The evidence of that is a gas, as in our atmosphere. The molecules in air do not behave in the same manner as if you bonded them together somehow to form a significant mass.
“I am saying, in essence, that air molecules have mass but not necessarily weight, as we normally define it.”
You would be wrong in that. The weight of the air shows up in the wind that flows around us all the time.
Air molecules don’t have weight?
Sure they do. They have 14 lbs per square inch of weight!
Of course that relative to the earth with zero atmosphere. You hairsplitting morons all you are in here for is to troll.
Weight is a relative term. The weight the moron Nate is expressing is the absolute bottom of the atmosphere and it has a weight relative to a planet with earth’s gravity with no other gases. But like AGW nuts who want to claim the radiative effect of GHG they also want to compare that to an earth with absolutely no atmosphere and simply ignore the biggest components of the atmosphere which the choose to recognize or not recognize depending upon the particular troll they have in mind. So one would say you guys are duplicitous the whole lot of you.
“hairsplitting morons”
This is basic.
Air has weight. Gas cylinders filled with air weigh more than empty ones.
Gordon was dumb. Bill is supportive.
Bill is ever ready with the but, but, but,…
“The weight the moron Nate is expressing is the absolute bottom of the atmosphere and it has a weight relative to a planet with earths gravity with no other gases. ”
Weight IS relative to the Earth, by definition, and should be measured at the Earth’s surface!
The weight of the atmosphere that we measure, 14 lbs/in^2, is WITH the atmosphere present.
Talk about weird hair splitting!
Nate says:
Weight IS relative to the Earth, by definition, and should be measured at the Earths surface!
——————–
Nate calls out the bathroom scale industry! And gee Nate everybody is paying way too little for vegetables at the supermarket. You moron! It is measured at the ”earth’s” surface and air weighs nothing unless you compress it at the earth’s surface.
“air weighs nothing unless you compress it at the earths surface.”
Science deniers say the darndest things!
“air weighs nothing unless you compress it at the earths surface”
Right, so air weighs nothing.
It is compressed in a scuba tank from nothing more than adding more air.
So if a volume of air weighs nothing, and you increase its mass by 10…
0 X 10 = ?
Yep, science deniers say the darndest things.
From experience, a very full scuba tank (250 bar/3600 psi) is about 3kg heavier than one that is depleted.
That pressure, by the way, is more than twice that of the pressure on the surface of Venus. Anyone telling you that Venus’ surface temp is a function of its surface pressure simply has no idea.
but its too fluid to direct that mass in on direction on to a object with out erecting dams. and thus you have what is known as buoyancy.
Old Gordo’s latest excursion into his world of delusional physics continues, as he writes:
.
The Earth is a sphere and the horizontal pressure forces at any location are met by the horizontal forces from surrounding areas. No walls are needed to balance those opposing forces.
Take an empty welding cylinder, weigh it, then pump air into it to 2,000 psi. Weigh it again and you will find an increase in mass. Gasses have mass and respond to gravity all the way up to space. Gravity rules the physics.
sounds like you two agree. Gravity only exerts a downward force.
Wrong again, Hunter troll. I was just pointing out that gasses have mass. And, If you wanted to, you could drill holes in the sides and bottom of the cylinder and the pressure measured would be the same as that at the top fill valve.
Gravity rules it a downward force. You said yourself Swanson and now you want to wiggle out of it?
Again a physics major with too little experience with physics. The balloon or tire will expand sideways because rubber stretches evenly and a round balloon take less pressure to hold the most amount of air.
So as Gordon said he balloon has walls and is fully contained.
If the atmosphere had a ceiling and the balloon would push the air sideways compressing it. As it is the filling of a balloon has zero effect on the atmosphere pressure.
The sideways resistance to the balloon expanding is downward because in order to expand it must ‘lift’ air. . . .it doesn’t push it sideways. Thats because the force of gravity is downward.
Understand now?
other evidence includes this. A gossamer balloon that deflates lays flat on the ground. No sideways forces bunch it up into a ball.
swannie…”The Earth is a sphere and the horizontal pressure forces at any location…”
***
What horizontal forces would we be talking about? Anytime we did problem sets in physics during my engineering classes, despite the Earth’s curvature, gravity always acting in a vertical direction, with no horizontal component.
Remember, pressure requires a solid surface. By definition, pressure is force per unit area. You cannot include other air molecules laterally as solid surfaces.
Mind you, I have experienced winds blowing horizontally but that is another matter. All the molecules are moving in the same direction and I am applying a solid surface against which they can act.
I am talking about a still air atmosphere in which it is claimed there is a pressure of 15 PSI acting on my body. There are many articles on the Net claiming that as I stand in one place, there is a column of air above me pressing down on me. I am calling bs.
Water is another matter, Water molecules are bonded by weak hydrogen bonds but there is enough cohesion to give it weight. A cubic foot of water weights about 62 pounds. Can you say the same for a cubic foot of air?
You did an experiment with an evacuated chamber. Let’s assume you removed all the air molecules and weighed the container, then you refilled it with air. Would it weigh more?
It is claimed that a tank filled with compressed oxygen has a significant weight, but by compressing it, is the O2 being transformed in a liquid state, or nearly so? Are the compressed O2 molecules beginning to act more like a liquid?
swannie…”you could drill holes in the sides and bottom of the cylinder and the pressure measured would be the same as that at the top fill valve”.
***
Of course, a cylinder fill of gas will experience the same pressure top and bottom. That’s not my argument. It’s that without the container walls, there is nothing to build up pressure except gravity and if gravity is the main force then why don’t all air molecules gather on the surface like grains of sand?
Obviously, air molecules exist well above 50,000 feet, but they are graded into a negative pressure gradient. Why? Why don’t they simply collapse into a neat pile on the surface?
Obviously they have an energy that is independent of gravity. At the same time, they are affected by gravity. What makes molecules in a gas move in the first place? Do they have little rockets on them by which they whiz around in a gas?
If you take CO2 and freeze it to form dry ice, you can drop a chunk and it ill fall to the ground and possibly smash into pieces. Let it warm up and it will vaporize and go flying off again. Magic!!!
Water vapour freezes as well with extremely cold air, and you can feel it falling as tiny ice crystals. On a clear day in the Sun, at -50C, you can feel the ice crystals falling against your face.
It amazes me there is so much bs. on the Net on this subject with no one apparently able to admit they have no idea what is going on.
Gordo wrote:
It amazes me that you can’t understand that atmospheric gases exert a pressure force in all directions. Your first delusion above claimed that the atmosphere can not exert a force on a horizontal surface, but, now that you’ve been reminded about mercury barometers, you appear to have changed your tune. But, now you write:
We’ve recently been reminded about balloons. A typical weather balloon (not the recent Chinese version) is spherical. Filled with air or Helium, it assumes a spherical shape. That’s because the pressure force per unit area is the same at all points inside the balloon. Also, there’s slightly lower pressure force from the air at all points outside the balloon, the difference being the result of the balloon’s elastic material. If the forcing were not nearly equal, the balloon would not fill to the desired spherical shape. Gordo also writes:
No, the compressed air in the tank is not a liquid. That would be true for compressed CO2, which liquefies at a greater temperature, but not for liquid O2, the critical temperature is -181F (-118C).
snce Gordo hasn’t replied to my previous post, here’s another example.
Liquids, such as water, can be contained with a vessel having a bottom and sides in 4 directions. Since the material is a liquid and not a gas, there’s no requirement for a top on the vessel.
In the worlds oceans, the water is constrained to a local area by the forces provided by other surrounding masses of water. There are no “walls”” to contain the liquid. The same reality applies to the atmosphere, except that the density of the compressible gas declines with altitude and there is no top to seal off the atmosphere from deep space. The atmosphere does continually lose (“leak”) some low density hydrogen gas to deep space as a result.
Gordon says:
“I am saying, in essence, that air molecules have mass but not necessarily weight”
Swanson naturally disagrees with this Gordon silliness.
Bill, oddly thinks they agree!
all I did was agree with Swanson that gravity was the only force being exerted. And said it sounds like Swanson and Gordon agree.
If anybody disagreed with that it was their job to speak up and it was Swanson who called BS on what I said. Its not clear if he was trying to speak for Gordon which some of the morons like to do around here.
Nate says:
Gordon says:
I am saying, in essence, that air molecules have mass but not necessarily weight
Swanson naturally disagrees with this Gordon silliness.
Bill, oddly thinks they agree!
———————-
gordon is clearly right again. Mass is one thing. Weight is relative to the environment. When is the last time you weighed an inflated helium balloon?
People weigh almost nothing when submerged in water. Perhaps Nate judges how he is doing on his latest diet by weighing himself in the bathtub.
Hunter troll wrote:
No, Hunter, Gordo (and you) think the atmosphere can not exert any forcing on a surface except in a downward direction. Up thread, Gordo wrote
An aneroid barometer employs a sealed bellows which changes it’s shape under the influence of the air pressure in it’s surroundings. For many examples, the bellows is a flat disk and the instruments will record the same reading when placed vertically as when its situated horizontally. That’s because the atmospheric pressure is the same in all directions for still air.
Another denialist bubble shot down.
none of that was in your quote of gordon. if you going to reply and you use a quote perhaps you should use the right quote. yes the atm is 14.7psi at sea level. as a certified diver i know that when you dive to 33feet in the ocean you experience 2 atm of pressure. deepest i have gone is 4 atm. gave it a long time ago from ear pain as i had trouble compensating.
Hunter troll, I may not have provided a clear reference to Gordo’s latest lunacy. These snippets may be better examples:
Hunter troll claims experience as a scuba diver, so he surely understands the concept of hydrostatic pressure as he likely used a pressure gauge to measure his depth under water. At any point, the pressure forcing is the same in all directions.
What you spinners don’t seem to get is that Gordon is right the air does not push down on us. Instead it lifts us as the air is ubiquitous and it reduces our weight vis a via the surface. Same thing for water. Yes the water pressure is there but again it is all around us so their is no net force. Ultimately in this conversation while it is apparent that Gordon has not studied the topic, his intuition is correct. And you guys in your typical troll fashion try to insert words into his mouth in a vain attempt to make him look like a fools. I point that out here with what trolls try to do to Lord Monckton.
When you become a certified diver those facts become clearer as there are real dangers to diving. The gases in your body become compressed to match the environment thus there is no imbalance an imbalance only exists to the extent that gases and some materials are compressible. Liquid is not compressible which makes up most of our bodies.
So the danger in diving comes from ascending from the depths. You must stop to decompress and allow the gases in your body to equalize with the water pressure. If you don’t nitrogen bubbles will form in your bloodstream and that can often be fatal. (10% fatality rate) at best it will cause agonizing pain, blood clots that can have long lasting damage, etc. Its called Caissons Disease and is common in divers.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter troll, I may not have provided a clear reference to Gordos latest lunacy. ”
How can I be a troll if I was right about your error? All you guys do in here is troll. You are in here for one reason and that is to preach AGW for which you cannot even provide a blueprint for how it works. All you do is tr0ll. Calling me a troll is nothing but a Freudian projection from the fact you are a living breathing troll.
Hunter troll, The quotes I posted were gleaned from several of Gordo’s posts above. He appears to be totally confused about the meaning of “atmospheric pressure”, claiming that there’s no horizontal force from the atmosphere when in fact the pressure at any one point is the same in any direction. That there is an equal force in the opposite direction from adjacent parcels seems to have escaped him.
Consider another example, which you should understand from your SCUBA usage. When we breath in, our chest muscles push against the surrounding air, creating a lower pressure within our lungs. The outside air is at a higher pressure, which forces the gas into our lungs. Exhaling reverses the process and we live for another breath. Your SCUBA gear provided air for you to breath at the appropriate pressure corresponding to your depth in the water.
sure i am underwater and don’t want to breathe water as i am not a fish.
“gordon is clearly right again. Mass is one thing. Weight is relative to the environment.”
Bill defends fellow contrarians no matter how dumb their posts.
“gordon is clearly right again. Mass is one thing. Weight is relative to the environment. When is the last time you weighed an inflated helium balloon?”
Compare a balloon filled with vacuum to one filled with Helium. Which would weigh more?
Or easier: a steel cylinder with or without compressed air or oxygen.
Nate says:
gordon is clearly right again. Mass is one thing. Weight is relative to the environment.
Bill defends fellow contrarians no matter how dumb their posts.
gordon is clearly right again. Mass is one thing. Weight is relative to the environment. When is the last time you weighed an inflated helium balloon?
Compare a balloon filled with vacuum to one filled with Helium. Which would weigh more?
Or easier: a steel cylinder with or without compressed air or oxygen.
—————————–
it depends upon where you weigh it.
but if you are talking about the surface of the earth the balloon with nothing in it will weigh more and the balloon filled with helium will have lift instead of weight or negative weight however the helium filled balloon will have more mass than the empty balloon. understand now?
“understand now?”
No, gobbldegook is of no use.
What is your actual succinct point, if any?
The balloon just flew over Nate’s head and he didn’t notice it.
The air pressure at the Earth’s surface is nothing more than its weight pressing down on a surface divided by the area it covers. Yes?
And Newton’s 3rd Law requires that the downward weight of that column of air is being supported by an upward force supplied by the surface it is resting on, even if its your head.
And the force = pressure*area = 14 lbs/in^2 x 1 in^2 = 14 lbs.
So the weight of a 1 inch x 1 inch column of air pressing down on your head is 14 lbs.
Nate says:
So the weight of a 1 inch x 1 inch column of air pressing down on your head is 14 lbs.
——————-
And you don’t even feel it which shows how well adapted we are to our environment.
And diving and flying show that we have a significant range of adaptability. That is our legacy. We build new environments test them and if problems arise we can adjust our strategy. However, prohibiting such experimentation merely enforces ignorance.
So apparently you now agree that air has weight?
So apparently Gordon’s original statement:
“I am saying, in essence, that air molecules have mass but not necessarily weight”
was indefensible, after all.
And this “air weighs nothing unless you compress it at the earths surface”
is now understood to be wrong.
Of course everything has weight its just that weight is relative to what its mixed with.
Air has mass. Add CO2 and that adds mass and changes the weight of air as defined as mixed. The weight of air is changing all the time on earth as evidenced by the barometer. The weight of air as announced via pressure is simply a mean measure and probably not as accurate as advertised since we can’t even determine the proportions of gases in the air, nor the aircraft flying through it as part of the mix. So even here weight is relative. Air if it were on Mars would have a different weight. So ‘air’ has no weight. It only has mass that can be sometimes estimated as to weight.
So nothing possesses weight. You only have weight in your bathroom on the bathroom scale that most likely doesn’t match the weight on your Doctors scale even if perfectly calibrated with your bathroom scale. Put the two scales next to each other and move from one to the other then they probably will have close agreement.
save money and only buy by weight on fair days.
And quite contrary to your non-physics way of thinking about weight. Air does not press down like a weight on your head. You float in the air. You would feel more weight on your spine if on earth there was no air. You would have more difficulty in standing up. Astronauts on the moon can jump high not because of a lack of weight bearing down on them but because of far less gravity on the moon. If the moon had an atmosphere that exerted 14psi the astronauts would be able to jump even higher, the would feel even lighter. So no air doesn’t possess weight more air means less weight bearing down on you.
Your skull even really doesn’t feel the pressure because of Henry’s law of partial pressures. Divers show signs of compression when they go down rapidly but the body compensates. If you are breathing air the body takes in more nitrogen. The necessary oxygen is converted to CO2.
this absorb ing more gases is risky for deep divers if they ascend too fast and don’t let their bodies to have time to expel the excess nitrogen.
“Air does not press down like a weight on your head.”
Of course it does. If your head was moved the air that was on top of your head would fall to the ground. So your head is obviously applying a force to hold it up =weight of the air above, which is 14 lbs/in2. And yes it varies with local pressure.
no it wouldn’t nate. if you move your head to the side the water slides around your head if you move it fast enough you will create turbulence in your wake. but you don’t have worry about that. you have such a low sloping forehead your head probably wont create any turbulence at any speed.
We were talking about air, not water. Pay attention.
How do we know there is so much weight pressing down on one’s head from the weight of the air?
Lets take an empty half gallon milk container (about the size of your head) and see if it has a lot of weight pressing down on it from air pressure.
If empty it has air inside whose outward pressure balances the downward and sideways pressure on the outside. If we remove the air from the inside it will no longer be balanced.
To do this is not hard and fun. Put a spoonful of water inside and place it uncapped in the microwave. Microwave it for 30 s or so to boil the water and create steam inside. Immediately put the cap on tight.
The steam will have replaced the air inside, and will now condense back to liquid. What remains is a decent vacuum inside.
Watch as the tremendous weight of the air on the outside now crushes the milk bottle.
Criminy!
Why don’t you go outside and see what the column of air does to your empty head once you have no roof above your head carrying the weight of the atmosphere.
Or better yet take a balloon is space, fill it with 15psi air. Now remove all the air. Does the balloon remain inflated? Sheesh!
Another one. . . .take a balloon outside and attach a 15psi of air pressure to its filler end. Does the balloon inflate. Sheesh!
Sorry Nate but your head is already filled with 15psi air and the only reason its not flat on the ground is its surrounded by bone rather than thin rubber.
Nate says:
February 16, 2023 at 1:47 PM
We were talking about air, not water. Pay attention.
———————-
And you think that makes a difference?
Try the experiment! Whats the problem?
Do you doubt it will work?
An average oxygen atom travels at about 800mph or 360ms-1.
On the largest scales in the atmosphere gravity is a factor in the pressure gradient and lapse rate. You see mainly adiabatic changes with altitude
On the scale of most containers the 10ms-2 acceleration due to gravity is too small to cause a measurable pressure difference between the top, bottom and side walls.
At constant V,T and n momentum is conserved.
ent…”You see mainly adiabatic changes with altitude”
***
I don’t accept that adiabatic processes exist in the atmosphere. Essentially, adiabatic means there is no exchange of heat with the environment. There is nothing in an air parcel that can prevent it exchanging heat with its surroundings.
The proof of my claim is that a heated air parcel rising from the surface loses heat with altitude. Part of the loss is due to a natural transfer of heat from hotter to cooler air and another part is due to the hotter air expanding into lower pressure air as it rises. Eventually, the air becomes so thin that the rising air thins out, losing heat naturally.
For every parcel of air (containing whatever mixture) that rises somewhere, another one falls elsewhere.
Overall, the net heat movement is neutral.
“On the scale of most containers the 10ms-2 acceleration due to gravity is too small to cause a measurable pressure difference between the top, bottom and side walls.”
But don’t you think there is a slight difference between the pressure at the bottom and the top, thus a net added weight, due to the weight of the gas inside?
Increase in pressure, deltaP, at bottom = density*g*h (Bernoulli).
Extra force on bottom delta F = deltaP*A, for cross sectional area of cylinder. F = density*g*h*A = density*volume*g = M*g = weight of gas.
He said measurable Nate. The molecules of the gas are flying around so fast hitting the walls you might need a huge container to measure it. CO2 is a relatively heavy molecule yet it floats and becomes evenly distributed in the atmosphere because of this movement of molecules. I believe that can be calculated as I recall checking the math on the calculation quite a few years ago to confirm the theory from some basic underlying theory regarding the forces that provide the lift to CO2 molecules. Right now I can’t recall the name of that force that provides the lift in opposition to gravity. So you pose an interesting question. Is there a relationship between pressure, possibly the size of the container, and gravity that would answer the question. I don’t know I would have to research it.
the unique thing about liquids including gases is you ‘float’ in them. if it were a solid it would be different to say the least.
Bill, you are mixing up concepts. Density and weight.
All masses have weight on Earth, because masses are pulled by gravity toward the Earth. Including gases.
But masses have different densities, and that means different buoyancy, eg ice floats on water.
And so? That doesn’t change the fact that all masses have weight on Earth.
Sure Nate if you cherry pick your location. . . .mass has weight. But if you do that and claim mass always equals weight then what do you need the concept of weight for?
“claim mass always equals weight”
Who’s doing that? Weird.
The weight of a mass at the Earths surface is mass*g. Always present.
But other forces like buoyant force may also be there.
I was just correcting the notion that the force is downwards when it is from all directions including upwards.
In fact if you accepted the idea it was only a downwards force one would think you would be heavier in a liquid environment instead of lighter due to the buoyancy effect.
But a scale on the bottom of the ocean and you will probably have to zero it to get rid of the buoyancy effect on the weight of the platform giving a negative weight reading to start then weigh yourself and you will find you weigh little or even nothing. a study of men with a full breath of air in their lungs showed they would all float in fresh or saltwater. At functional residual capacity, the value approximating the lung volume of a recently dead body, 69% of the subjects would float in seawater, whereas only 7% would float in freshwater.
in the atmosphere i saw an estimate that a person weighs about 8% less than what the1r mass indicates for earth because of the atmosphere buoyancy. mass*g is your weight at the surface of an earth without an atmosphere. so due to the liquid properties of liquids and gases you weigh less than mass*g. just so thats clear and we are considering everything.
“in the atmosphere i saw an estimate that a person weighs about 8% less than what the1r mass indicates for earth because of the atmosphere buoyancy.”
That’s surprising…
Hunter troll wrote:
I detect some confusion there. Because air is a gas, the pressure difference between the top of your head and your feet is very small. In water, the pressure increases rapidly with depth, the difference in pressure between the inside and outside of a boat is what makes it float.
As you note, to “weigh” a person (or anything else) requires a device to measure the downward force, called a scale. That device has a measuring plate which is also surrounded by air. When one sets foot on the scale, the bottom of your feet meets the surface of the scale. The upward force of air pressure on your feet no longer applies at the contact area, while at the same time, the air’s downward force on the contact area is also removed. The net result is there’s no impact of air pressure on your weight as measured by the scale.
The usual buoyant force has to do with the density difference between the body and the medium, delta-density.
The percent reduction of weight is (delta density/density)*100%
Density of a human is ~ same as water, 1000 Kg/m^3. Density of air is 1.3 Kg/m^3.
So the fraction is 1.3/1000.
The percent change in weight would be 0.13 % for weight in air vs vacuum.
Far less than 8%.
Said that wrong.
The buoyant force = the weight of the fluid displaced by the body.
The buoyant force as a fraction of the weight of the body is
(density of fluid/density of body) = 1.3/1000.
As a percentage this is 0.13 %.
I almost forget, FAA gave SpaceX’s Starship a launch permit:
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=121139&RequestTimeout=1000
linked from:
https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2023/02/06/spacex_orbital_starship_launch/
So can be launched March 1 2023 at the earliest allowed date and permit go to Sept 1 2023 for this planned launch of Starship test launch.
So, one less thing to worry about.
Oh, It was FCC, so actually don’t have FAA permit yet.
We can know it will not launch before March 1 2033, cause that when FCC allows it. But it suggests FAA will likely give permit for March 1 or later.
Anyhow, going to attempt to do 33 engine static fire, tomorrow.
And seems to me before they do get the deluge system they appear the they want to set up. Musk/SpaceX likes to least amount complexity, so the 33 engine static fire attempt might be mostly about a kind of test of how much of a deluge system is actually, needed.
So, the 33 engine static fire attempt has been the holy grail for many months, but it could be mostly concerning the deluge system {which most people don’t think as a exciting- but if they get to 33 engines firing it will exciting for everyone].
Good morning to everyone from Athens, Greece!
–
It is 10 AM and it is cold for the first time this winter.
It is +3 oC now.
Yesterday we had snow. Schools are closed for two days now.
–
Four days ago we had 13 oC and lots of sun…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Snow in Greece??? I am sure the alarmists predicted that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q2YHGIlUDk
The Models Are OK, the Predictions Are Wrong | Dr. Judith Curry |
Linked from:
https://judithcurry.com/2023/02/06/my-interview-with-jordan-peterson/#more-29700
” He is a Canadian psychologist and best selling author, media commentator, and his pod~cast has over 6M subscribers. ”
What’s the matter with Emeritus Dr Curry?
Hmmmm, one Emeritus professor talking to another Emeritus professor?
Whats wrong with you? Haven’t you learned anything about the value of multi-disciplinary usefulness? It is quite popular in universities and at least some multi-disciplinary courses to qualify for any bachelors degree offered by the University
You probably ought to give it a listen. You will probably learn something. Jordan Peterson is a remarkable man. I doubt anybody has come away from one his lectures without having gained some insight into something. Perhaps some, though its hard to imagine.
Gill, Gill,
Neither are emeritus.
Both are “gone emeritus.”
Figure it out.
High School drop out
The Son of Lobster has dropped his practice since 2017.
He might also drop from the Order soon enough for being an asshat.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Now Willard is trolling all emeritus professorships. Why?
Gill, Gill,
Which part of *neither are emeritus* you do not get?
so willard are you a russian assigned here for disinformation?
it appears so as any credibility you may have had just got flushed
Curry, Dr. Judith A.
Professor Emeritus
https://tinyurl.com/3tredsv8
Jordan Peterson
Professor Emeritus
https://tinyurl.com/ycy5sfbs
It is about time you bring receipts, Gill.
Thanks.
Now, onto the next step:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emeritus
Is it the case here?
Search and report.
Hunter boy
The meaning of an anti-scientific ignoramus like you, who discredits any science he isn’t able to understand, does not interest me at all.
oh oh bindidon is getting angry. can’t find a rational response and is fully dedicated to remaining irrational.
bill…Peterson is pretty cool. He has our Prime Minister nailed cold. Speaking of inter-disciplinary discussions, physicist David Bohm had some remarkable discussions with Jiddu Krishnamurti on awareness. It was cool to hear Bohm talking about actuality as opposed to reality.
he is totally cool.
the man left his tenured position to save lives. as a psychologist helping people with the difficulties they face is the reason psychology exists as a science, jordan tells of the huge response gets from attendees on his lecture tours. they tell him he had saved them from themselves and turned their lives around. a majority are young men which is the demographic that has the highest suicide rate. so he determined he could do more lecturing to audiences all over the place as opposed to continuing to teach in a classroom setting.
he has tapped into a negativity in todays politics that is actually killing people by making them hate themselves. it is the flip side of victim politics where people like gays and lesbians have also had high rates of suicide because of a lack of acceptance and a feeling of worthlessness. two legitimate issues with two very different approaches of dealing with it. the difference isn’t preaching victimization but instead how to reinvigorate your feelings of self worth without playing the blame game but instead accepting yourself for who you are and taking responsibility.
jordan has a unique ability to send that message and you can feel it literally as the guy wears his emotions like badges on his chest. an awesome motivator. a generational talent. if i had his ability to do that i would quit everything else and do what he is doing too. he is at his best when facing people who doubt him. and you get to see that on talk shows that set out to challenge him. you can see how that translates to one his listeners with the same questions that are causing that person to be miserable.
I’m glad he’s doing what he’s doing. We need someone to ask difficult questions and be ornery about it when required.
I posted a link to an interview Jordan did with Lindzen. It was Lindzen who got me started along the skeptical track when he revealed that the IPCC mantra, that it’s 90% likely humans are causing warming, was not what the 2500 reviewers wanted to say. He was a lead author in those days and he revealed the majority wanted to wait and see what developed.
In the interview, Lindzen reveals that policymakers don’t get to read the main report, or the Summary, which is released 6 months before the main report, but news clips which most don’t bother reading anyway. It appears politicians have their own agenda, using the IPCC simply as an authority figure.
Lindzen also reveals that two journal editors who dared to publish him were fired immediately after the papers were released.
These Gill & Bordon bits are pure gold.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
With her nose?
It’s little distracting, and she seems to be having this problem for quite a while. She mentioned what it was- but I don’t know what it is exactly.
–I insisted on an extremely small amount of makeup and very limited touching of my face (trying to keep my shingles nerve pain under control)–
I think that was it.
Other than shingles can vary and famous for being very painful, it’s nit exactly clear to me how affects her nose- though I haven’t it {and I don’t want it].
It’s usually in torso area, though the “small amount of makeup” seems to suggest nearer her neck or even her face area.
Or the pain in general, is physically making her have crying reactions.
Lowest monthly UAH average for each La Nina.
Classified by strength (W weak, M moderate, S strong, and + indicates the top half of that classification).
1983-84 (W+) … -0.50
1984-85 (W+) … -0.67
1989-89 (S+) … -0.54
1995-96 (M ) … -0.30
1998-99 (S ) … -0.29
1999-00 (S ) … -0.41
2000-01 (W+) … -0.24
2005-06 (W+) … -0.21
2007-08 (S ) … -0.38
2008-09 (W+) … -0.29
2010-11 (S ) … -0.31
2011-12 (M ) … -0.39
———————-
2016-17 (W ) … +0.09
2017-18 (W+) … -0.03
2020-21 (M+) … -0.05
2021-22 (M ) … 0.00
2022-23 (W+) … -0.04
Sorry – “top half” is not clear. I mean “stronger than or equal to the midpoint of that classification”.
There are observations that Neutral or La Nina is the common state of the Pacific.
Percentage of months in each category since the ONI record begins in 1950:
El Nino 26.3%
Neutral 46.1%
La Nina 27.6%
Or using your categorisation:
El Nino or Neutral 72.4%
La Nina or Neutral 73.7%
Yep – massive difference.
Your comment had nothing to do with mine anyway.
Alternatively, average ONI: -0.003
“El Nino 26.3%
Neutral 46.1%
La Nina 27.6%”
So a 1.3% bias towards La Nina. Small enough but still there. We are just at the end of a 3 year triple dip La Nina. No El Nino has lasted as long.
And the month before this triple La Nina began it was
El Nino 27.2%
La Nina 25.4%
Does 1.3% sound significant now?
(I trust you understand the mathematical meaning of ‘significance’.)
So why are people saying that La Nina/Neutral is the common base of ENSO?
P.S. Please note that Climte.gov (or its contributors) is on record as saying that La Nina is becoming more common recently.
“We are just at the end of a 3 year triple dip La Nina. No El Nino has lasted as long.”
You are conflating two different ideas:
(1) Whether La Nina is GENERALLY more prevalent than El Nino (it’s not)
(2) The fact that we are currently in a negative phase of the PDO, and that hence La Nina is more common in the current phase. We have been in this phase since mid-1998, so no this is not ‘recent’.
Changing the goalposts like this seems to be a signature of your debating style.
Having triple La Ninas doesn’t change the fact that there have been 26 El Nino years to 25 La Nina years. So if La Nina years tend to be more clustered together, then the average gap between La Ninas must also be longer than the average gap between La Ninas.
In any case – I REPEAT – what does this have to do with the temperature trend I showed in the original post?
“Whether La Nina is GENERALLY more prevalent than El Nino (its not)”
Others would dispute that with you. Michelle l’Heureux says
“For the last 40 years, the tropical Pacific has been trending toward a La Nina-like pattern. “
How much time do you spend looking for the only comments which support your claim while filtering out the rest?
Here are ENSO values 1983 to 2023 with a LOESS smooth added.
https://i.imgur.com/GEsG05a.png
The OLS linear trend for the same period is 0.075 C/decade, or a total cooling over the period of -0.30 C.
So over the last 40 years ENSO has cooled in general, while global temps over the same period have risen.
I hesitate to use UAH for global temp comparison, as the ENSO values I’m working with are surface-based. However, because ‘skeptics’ have difficulty with any other data, the warming over the period has been 0.14 C/decade, or a total warming of 0.55 C.
To compare with surface temps, Had.CRU has a linear trend for the same period of 0.18 C/decade, or a total warming of 0.71 C.
Using BEST, which has 4 times the weather station data that Had.CRU uses, the results are 0.20 C/decade, or total warming of 0.8 C.
A caveat must be mentioned: we start our linear trend for ENSO in a super-el Nino year, and finish in the 3rd of 3 consecutive la Nina years, so this will naturally skew the results cool a little bit, both for the ENSO and satellite/surface temp data.
Judging by the Loess smooth, it would seem that ENSO has hovered around neutral for most of the period, but since 2016 central Pacific temps have been much more often in la Nina territory.
Anton, nice. Can you do it for 13 month average? It is more steady than the monthly values.
Only about half the La Ninas last as long as 13 months, so a large number of the weaker ones would not register using a 13 month average. A 5 month average would make more sense, as 5 months is the minimum possible duration of an ENSO event. I’ll do that later when I find time.
Thats about how the game is played. Find an analysis that supports the theory. I did one a few weeks ago and the ENSO record starts with La Nina dominance, transitioned to El Nino dominance, spurring James Hansen to start claiming it was an indicator of AGW, and now it is clearly transitioning back to La Nina dominance. And of course Nate can find an analysis that suggests its not. But in terms of how science currently measures ENSO and ENSO events that transition is obvious. Oh oh, soon to be released paper on ENSO saying it should be 13 overlapping seasons instead of 5!!!! Alert!!!
Bill, are you going to now reference where Hansen said el Nino is the new normal?
Or are you refining your claim to something else here?
i gave you the reference where hansen called la nina ‘the normal’ phase of enso and projected a shift to bigger and badder el ninos. go back and read it.
Are you telling me you couldn’t find a quote of Hansen saying el Nino was the “new normal,” and are now trying to find a reference that resembles this in some way?
I don’t remember you giving me any such reference from Hansen.
sure go back and look. it was a post with two or three references for both yuo and nate. its a 2006 hansen paper as i recall.
This paper?
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0606291103
“Thus, we suggest that the global warming effect on El Niños is analogous to an inferred global warming effect on tropical storms (27). The effect on frequency of either phenomenon is unclear, depending on many factors, but the intensity of the most powerful events is likely to increase as GHGs increase.”
Nothing in that about el Nino being the “new normal”, and in fact the bit I quoted actually contradicts that notion, as an increased frequency in el Ninos is not predicted, and that component remains “unclear” to J. Hansen in 2006.
I’ll say what I said when we first started this bit of the discussion – you are not to be relied on to convey the science accurately.
Solar wind
speed: 507.5 km/sec
density: 4.32 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 139
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 158 sfu
Updated 07 Feb 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.44×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.2% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.5%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Much more than dead cat bounce.
No coronal holes outside polar region, could
maintain a somewhat high level- quite down from Jan,
but returning sideways at higher level seem possible/likely.
Solar wind
speed: 518.9 km/sec
density: 0.98 protons/cm3
{that seems rather thin, is something coming??}
Sunspot number: 142
Updated 09 Feb 2023
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 192 sfu
[Strong flux]
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.87×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.9% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.9%
Looking stronger, growing spots and fair size
one coming from the farside. And no coronal holes.
It’s possible it could as active as Jan, but I still
think it won’t happen, yet
Solar wind
speed: 487.9 km/sec
density: 9.37 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 131
Updated 09 Feb 2023
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 192 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.13×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.0% Below Average
48-hr change: -1.3%
Same data given but more wind, less spot number
but slightly stronger Solar Max activity- and still no
coronal holes. Or seems it’s going stay same or get stronger in coming days.
Solar wind
speed: 498.6 km/sec
density: 10.99 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 190
Updated 11 Feb 2023
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 208 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.50×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.7% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.4%
Ditto, seems its going stay same or get stronger
in coming days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Igfp_EK73Xk
She mentions seeing high polar winds on the Sun- I
thought was interesting. And
http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
“Countdown to next milestone
Solar Encounter Start: March 12, 2023, ”
It’s past Venus orbital distance and won’t take long
to get close to the sun, again. Could be most during most
active time it’s been close to sun
Sunspot number: 185
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 189 sfu
Updated 14 Feb 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.97×10^10 W Warm
{got close to 20}
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.2% Below Average
Stay same or lessen spots- going to farside
and nothing coming from farside
–“I took this picture 200 km south of the predicted impact zone,” says Legangneux. More than 60 eyewitness sightings pinpointed the impact over the English Channel. The 1-meter-wide space rock disintegrated entirely in the atmosphere.
This is only the 7th time in history that astronomers spotted an asteroid before it hit Earth. —
We getting pretty good at getting hours of warning before even small
rocks hit Earth. Or bigger they are, more warming {but getting to point general public warning would be different].
Bindidon:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1443626
“Moon shows the same face to Earth BECAUSE it spins at the same speed as it orbits around it.
Hence, Earth, when spinning the like, would show to the Sun the same face all the time.”
–
******
Thank you, Bindidon, for sharing your opinion.
–
Can you please discuss another scientific assertion?
–
The glaciers on Greenland, on Antarctica and elsewhere… there are periods of their growing and there are periods of their retreating.
–
Planet Earth’s surface is subjected to the warmer-colder climate cycles.
–
When the glaciers on Greenland, on Antarctica and elsewhere… are growing and when they are retreating?
Do they grow during the colder periods and retreat during the warmer periods, or do they grow during the warmer periods and retreat during the colder periods?
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Little Ice Age was about a period time when most glaciers around the world [but not talking about the two ice sheets of Greenland Antarctica] were advancing- they flowed more because more snow was added to glacier and starting around 1850 they started retreating- the glacier which flowed down from mountains- due to net increase in the snowpack over periods of years/decades and when is net loss of added snow, they stop flowing and start retreating.
Sea level rises or fall in terms being caused by melting ice, is mostly about the mass of ice sheet of Greenland or Antarctica.
Though there was paper loss of mass in northern Canadian islands which accounted loss of mass, which was thought have occurred from Greenland.
But since earlier in the Holocene sea levels were 1 to 2 meters higher we have since added ice to ice sheets and/or glaciers since
that time.
And it’s said the glacial ice added during Little Ice Age hasn’t been lost, yet- but not enough to account for 1 to 2 meter difference in sea level. Or thought sea levels dropped less than 1 foot during the Little Ice Age- some might say less than 6″.
Sea level has risen by about 7″ in last 100 years. Of the 7″ some in due to increase in the average temperature of the ocean- about 2″
and some net loss of water from land, about 1″ and about 3 inches loss of glacier ice [from land obviously- 1″ land water table loss liquid water and 3″ from ice loss].
So, though no one mentions it much, Sahara desert was wetter as were many desert, so part of missing 1 to meter, seems to me could loss water these deserts. And I think average ocean temperature was higher
earlier in Holocene, but only account for at most about 1/2 meter.
” Sea level has risen by about 7″ in last 100 years. ”
Correct.
But… even more correct would be to look at how the rise changed during that 100-year period.
1. Sea level change 1900-now
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_s5eKMqX-SlQIx28pTgbF2lTAcPgvIz5/view
2. Sea level trend change 1900-now
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e_fuJ5FZDbf1Uv3m3YbwLfM35qq9oQre/view
The “fact” that Sea level has risen by about 7″ in last 100 years depends on who is doing the measuring, and where/how it is being done.
Obviously the people that are investing billions of dollars in coastal areas like Maldives, Dubai, and South Florida aren’t afraid of such nonsense. Cultists live in fear of everything, especially reality.
Boo!
Who would expect it not to rise considering we are in a 300 year period of increasing temperatures? Sea level when the first native Americans arrived here was 350 feet below what it is now. It goes up and down folks, better think about that. Since it is estimated that the original settlers in North America arrived 13,000 years ago, the normal sealevel rise over 100 years is 32 inches.
Hunter troll, There’s been little change in SL over the past 8k years BP or so. Your comment about the change in SL since the LGM is another red herring which has no bearing on our present situation, as most of the land ice in the NH had already melted by 8k BP. You are just trying again to spread denialist crap to upend any reasoned discussion.
So? all you are showing me is 32 inches can be an extremely modest number for natural sea level change.
Hunter troll wrote:
As I read the SL graph, at 7k BP it was about -4m below recent levels. That’s 400cm rise in 70 centuries, or a 5.7cm (2.25 in) rise per century. I’d say that you are off by a factor of 10.
no swanson i am talking about natural sea level change variation. if you want to just look at what you want to look at, then you should give some science why you think the current warming is unusual. to me it looks the same as at least a few times in the last 300 years. . . .despite monumental efforts to gin up hockeysticks.
and of course none of that even matters.
the graph you produced can’t even eliminate a 3 to 4 meters of sea level rise a couple of times in the past thousand years, and we have one heckuva long ways to go to do that.
Hunter guy tosses out another claim without any evidence to support it. Sea-level changes are a complex subject, but we have considerable evidence over the past 1000 years since some regions have records. There are locations for which theground is rising faster than the rise in SL, which leaves clear evidence of previous SL as land forms. Where’s your data for such excursions?
https://www.kwaad.net/SeaLevel-MiddleAges-LittleIceAge.html
If you are going to make claims about science Swanson you probably should dig a little deeper than the last chart your daddy gave you in his propaganda piece.
It is well established that uncertainty surrounds all historic sea level change. You pop up first defending panic about 3mm per year sea level change. Then pop out a 20,000 year graph with increments of 10 meter tickmarks on the scale and fail to notice that the colored blobs around the center line are about 5 meters in thickness.
So you are shocked by what I said.
So I show one that plots readings a bit more closely that also goes on to say sea level readings are pretty uncertain. . . .that they should be better judged from changes in temperature. But that doesn’t stop our gaggle of cats running around amok to start legitimizing changing tempertures such as ARGO via multiple proxies such as sea level rise.
Its a disorganized mess and nobody is in charge. Yet you feel compelled to make any case you want. Thats pretty emotional. Like Bindidon who can’t stand bloggers that say something using slightly different language than what his heroes used. Blasphemy he decries as he complains somebody used the wrong pronoun.
Yes, snidely Hunter, daddy wiki duckduck gave me that graph to add to my collection. But, your objections still don’t legitimize your claim of a “normal” SL change of 32 inches per century in regards to changes the last 1000 years.
Of course, there’s lots of uncertainty/confusion RE SL changes with time, as noted in your reference. For one example, HERE’s Judith Curry on the subject.
E. Swansn says:
Yes, snidely Hunter, daddy wiki duckduck gave me that graph to add to my collection. But, your objections still dont legitimize your claim of a normal SL change of 32 inches per century in regards to changes the last 1000 years.
—————————————-
the normal is for the halocene swanson. and while i agree its not an average of the last 1000 years doesn’t mean sea level didn’t change by that much over a few of those centuries and that is quite a bit more seen during times of very high emissions. to get to 32inches in a century one need to have an average of 8mm. about 2.5 times the rate we have seen. Its more than reasonable to assume what we have seen in the past 30 years has been repeated at least 1 to 3 times in the past 1000 years. Thats pretty normal.
As usual, Hunter troll is playing fast and loose with facts. The Holocene period has been defined as beginning at 11,650 cal years BP (9,700 BCE), so you can’t begin your SL reference point at 13,000 BP. You also can’t consider the entire period of the Holocene as “normal”, since the NH deglaciation processes continued after 11,650 BP. That’s why I picked ~7k BP as my start date, a point at which the SL rise appears to have leveled off, suggesting a 400cm rise in 70 centuries, or a 5.7cm (2.25 in) rise per century.
To be sure, there remains considerable discussion about the SL rise over the past 7k years, but it would appear that your claim is (32/2.25) = 14.2 times too great. To suggest that such a rate of change is even possible during the last 1,000 years, it’s up to you to find evidence of the underlying causes. So far, just another round of hand waving from you.
Well as you know the measurement of sea level from the sources of historic records is quite a mess such that we have scientists suggesting it would be more accurate to use temperature as a guide.
So recognizing that and some of the random dots on your SL graphs, including the ones I helped you add to your collection, one could surmise that its fairly likely at least 3 periods standout of candidates for historic sea level rise at rates similar to today. The initial recovery from the LIA in your temperature records, the recovery from the Dalton Minimum, also in your temperature records, and the early 20th century warming that is prominent in the instrument records.
Hunter troll continues to throw out unsubstantiated speculation. As curry noted at the end of her piece, the IPCC claimed the SL went from about -130mm at 1870 to ~70mm recently. That’s ~200 mm in 150 years, or 1.33mm per year (5.25 inches/century). Bindidon’s reference shows about 200mm since 1900. Both are a long way from your 32 inches/century.
Whether these measured rates are unusual is the basic question. Your red herring is just another waste of time.
swanson its trolling to attempt to get somebody to focus on a linear trend over a hundred and 50 years. thats hockeystick bullshit!
we know for certain that the trend is neither linear nor evenly accelerating in sync with co2. natural temperature variation also affects sea level rise rates. so one cannot conclude that todays rate of sea level is in fact more than for the periods i mentioned. so stop your trolling as i nailed you with the 32inch average over the past 13,000 years against which you argued that thats trolling. . . .so you are trolling by doing it yourself. its easy to trip you guys up with your own BS.
Hunter troll wants to focus on beginning his time frame at 13k BP because the rate of SL rise at the time includes the last portions of the glacial melting after the LGM. By around 7k BP, that rate of rapid rise was mostly done, since most of the really big glaciers had melted by then. The SL at ~13k BP was about -80m, whereas by 7kBP, the SL was around -4m below recent height, according to Curry’s graphs from the IPCC. Going from a SL of -80 @ 13k BP to -4 @ 7k BP is a rapid rise of about 49.9 inches/century. The other portion of the curve, -4m @4k BP to present, represents a rate of rise of only 2.25 inches per century. Those are considerably different because the underlying processes a are also different, a fact you refuse to consider.
In scientific discussions (unlike political ones), you can’t cherry pick data you like and ignore all the other stuff which refutes your narrative. You are promoting an obvious agenda, so that makes you the troll.
You are right Swanson. I trolled you in exactly the same way you troll everybody in here. All I did was use your strategy on you. And you bit on it like a cod on an anchovy. You know well the strategy. So what was it you had to say about linear trends?
Perhaps you refer to my repeated comments about some denialist who insist on looking at the the trend in the UAH data starting with the warm El Nino year of 1998 and ending at 2015 just before the next warm El Nino year concluding that the Earth is cooling.
Hunter continues to ignore the physical conditions causing the different trends in the SL data. Of course, he also won’t provide data to support his contention that there have been large excursions in SL the past 1,000 years.
large excursions?
what are you calling large excursions?
here you go swanson estimates of sea level rise since the LIA.
CHECKOUT figure3 here the author shows surges in the record on approximate 60 year cycles and patterned somewhat like current deviations in the north pacific ocean.
as you can see there are a number of excursions and an underlying acceleration such that the author predict 34cm SL rise for the 21st century if the rate of acceleration remains the same.
you can add this to your collection to.
None of us are glacier specialists here.
That they are retreating since longer time is acknowledged by everybody (except some Pseudoskeptics who try to deny this fact by showing as always a few exceptions to the rule).
Some sources
On wiki: Retreat of glaciers since 1850
https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/glaciers
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-mountain-glaciers
*
What I know from processing the Danish PROMICE data
https://dataverse.geus.dk/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.22008/FK2/OHI23Z
is that on Greenland, the Global Mass Balance (MB, i.e. Surface Mass Balance plus glacier calving and ice melting at the ice sheet’s bottom) shows a much lower trend than the Surface Mass Balance (SMB) alone, and that the trend difference (SMB – MB) increases over time.
– 1850 – now (in Gt / decade)
SMB: -5
MB: -9
diff: +4
– 1980 – now
SMB: -34
MB: -51
diff: +17
– 2000 – now
SMB: 0
MB: -23
diff: +23
*
Pseudoskeptics only look at the end of time series, and… only if these ends match their expectation (mostly: no warming):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hp59N2gopJ_0DYEcgH-XNWM0LsYO8b6E/view
And just about every retreat uncovers human existence under that retreat.
Indeed. Showing warmer times before. Ice comes, ice goes – sometimes.
As the Earth cools, the ice grows. Antarctica, for example.
No GHE.
Here’s a good one for you Binny…
https://www.unige.ch/forel/files/1315/8737/1361/Chamonix_Eng4.pdf
Bindiclown thinks people will drown because they cannot outrun 7 inches of sea level rise in hundred years.
Why don’t you look up the chart showing one mile high glacier retreating from by back yard
Hi little ankle biting dachshund
try to write something intelligible instead of your dumb 12-year boy stuff.
“e they cannot outrun 7 inches of sea level rise in hundred years.”
Of course people can run away easily enough. And that worked for hunter-gatherers.
But cities can’t run.
Nate says: Cities can’t run. Since the normal depreciation pattern of housing is about 30years cities can run relative to sealevel rise.
30 years you say is too short? Well from a valuation point of view thats the value of the structures. The value of the land is more an aesthetic value at least it is for housing. For major city infrastructure 100 years is a long time without undergoing major refit. Some structures such as the bronze Statue of Liberty is a very unique human built structured designed to withstand longer periods of depreciation.
So again its the trolls in here playing ‘chicken little’ games. No need to pay attention to the nutcases. It doesn’t take a nutcase for somebody to figure out on their own that something is amiss.
Robertson
I predicted your answer:
” That they are retreating since longer time is acknowledged by everybody (except some Pseudoskeptics who try to deny this fact by showing as always a few exceptions to the rule).”
You belong, together with a few others, to this blog’s dumbest deniers.
”You belong, together with a few others, to this blogs dumbest deniers.”
I am nominating Willard for that honor as the most that comes out of him are grunts.
<3
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
gb posted a link to Judith Curry above and that link led to this interview by Jordan Peterson of Richard Lindzen. Well worth the watch if you can spare 1.5 hours.
In the video, Lindzen talks about the greenhouse effect being valid only in the Tropics. However, his view on the GHE is far different than the popular view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LVSrTZDopM&t=36s&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson
Have not had a chance to go through this paper by Lindzen closely…
http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/ACS-2011.pdf
Another on GHE…
https://web.archive.org/web/20160313071119/http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
Lindzen writes the GHE is valid in the extratropics too, Gordon, though of less effect toward the poles in your link:
“In practice, the tau = 1 level is typically in the neighborhood of 7-8 km in the tropics and at lower levels in the extratropics. It is the warming at tau = 1 that is the fundamental warming associated with the climate greenhouse effect”
Dr. Lindzen clearly sees through the GHE hoax. Look how he describes it, bold my emphasis:
He’s NOT accepting the GHE nonsense, he’s merely pointing out what Alarmists believe. He makes his stance very clear in one sentence:
I would have preferred he destroyed the false science from First Principles, but maybe he thought that would be too controversial, since most people don’t understand First Principles. I have no problem pointing out that Earth is NOT an imaginary sphere, and that ice cubes can NOT boil water. I have no problem using words like “cult” and “nonsense”. It’s quite possible that Lindzen’s more eloquent approach has convinced more people than my more direct approach. It really doesn’t matter who’s approach is best, as long as the cult nonsense gets demolished.
Wrong Clint R, Lindzen specifically writes the GHE is valid in the extratropics as well as the tropics.
Pay attention to my bold where Lindzen writes: “It is the warming at tau = 1 that is the fundamental warming associated with the climate greenhouse effect”.
Clint R doesn’t even understand the Earth is not an imaginary sphere and how Dr. Spencer’s experiments show added ice cubes can boil water given the first principles of the GHE fundamental warming (Lindzen terms).
Clint R can’t even understand the lunar inertial rotation! I kid you not. Clint R is very dangerous playing with physics.
FALSE Ball4, but that is typical for an anonymous troll.
(I won’t be responding to any more nonsense.)
Psst, Pup:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-hol-testimony/
“As part of a March 2018 legal case between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and fossil fuel companies, Lindzen was asked by the judge to disclose any connections he had to connected parties.
In response, Lindzen reported that he had received $25,000 per year for his position at the Cato Institute since 2013. He also disclosed $1,500 from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for a “climate science lecture” in 2017, and approximately $30,000 from Peabody Coal in connection to testimony Lindzen gave at a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions in September 2015.”
Follow the money.
Ball4 and Willard believe Lindzen is a devout Warmist, while Andrea believes he is a “follow the money” Skeptic!!
That’s why this is so much fun.
I would have preferred he destroyed the false science from First Principles, but maybe he thought that would be too controversial, since most people don’t understand First Principles. I have no problem pointing out that Earth is NOT an imaginary sphere, and that ice cubes can NOT boil water. I have no problem using words like “cult” and “nonsense”. It’s quite possible that Lindzen’s more eloquent approach has convinced more people than my more direct approach. It really doesn’t matter who’s approach is best, as long as the cult nonsense gets demolished.
[PUP] Dr. Lindzen clearly sees through the GHE hoax.
[DICK] The greenhouse effect is a thing.
[PUP] Ball4 and Willard believe Lindzen is a devout Warmist, lulz.
And then Sky Dragon cranks wonder why nobody takes them srsly.
Still wrong Clint R. Follow the physics.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1444360
andrea…”Follow the money”.
***
Al Gore has made millions off his warming propaganda and James Hansen, of NASA GISS, was receiving millions in funding through Al Gore during his tenure as VP, while he promoted alarmist causes.
Are you claiming that scientists are not allowed to receive compensation for their public appearances, or as part of an advisory board? And if oil companies want to consult with an expert like Lindzen it is somehow shady?
If that’s all you have on Lindzen or skeptics, you have lost the battle for truth.
> millions
Any receipt, Bordon?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint,
Lindzen clearly describes the GHE in the beginning of the article, and it is his own take, he is not ‘interpreting’.
He has in various articles and papers laid out the GHE, and corroborated that the effect of doubling (not taking into account feedbacks), is 1C.
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/Mid-tropospheric-warming/more/old/Lindzen-2007-Taking-Greenhouse-warming-seriously.pdf
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/09/Lindzen-global-warming-narrative.pdf
https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-committees/energy-and-climate-change/Professor-Richard-Lindzen-IPC0047.pdf
https://www.providencejournal.com/story/opinion/2013/10/11/20131011-richard-lindzen-science-agrees-on-warming-not-alarm-ece/35390503007/
“There is agreement that there is a greenhouse effect, and that doubling CO{-2}, in the absence of any feedbacks, will lead to warming on the order of 1 C.”
Lindzen accepts that there is a ‘greenhouse’ effect and that more CO2 = warming at the surface.
What Lindzen objects to is estimates climate sensitivity under greenhouse forcing, not to the fact of the greenhouse effect, nor the fact that more GHG = warming at the surface. Indeed, he has calculated the base effect himself and written about it.
barry says:
Clint,
Lindzen clearly describes the GHE in the beginning of the article, and it is his own take, he is not interpreting.
He has in various articles and papers laid out the GHE, and corroborated that the effect of doubling (not taking into account feedbacks), is 1C.
———————
that tells us absolutely nothing about surface warming barry. The way feedbacks are defined the surface doesn’t even have to warm before all or part of the energy absorbed by CO2 is sent packing to space.
The issue of AGW is how much the surface warms not how much warming that occurs in the upper atmosphere which incrementally is precious little from the absorbing of surface emissions so scientists suggest that is all absorbed and no atmospheric window from the surface exists. If a significant amount of radiation was being emitted from the surface that reaches space satellites should be able to read that directly rather than looking at the LT.
–Hes NOT accepting the GHE nonsense, hes merely pointing out what Alarmists believe. He makes his stance very clear in one sentence:
There is something very seriously wrong with this oversimplified picture.
I would have preferred he destroyed the false science from First Principles, but maybe he thought that would be too controversial, since most people dont understand First Principles.—
He is a lukewarmer, which roughly is that there could be some warming effect from increasing levels of CO2.
And it’s hard to say how warming is from say, 300 ppm.
And 1000 thousand years at 300 ppm as compared to 1000 years at 180
ppm, could maybe have more warming effect as compared to say 50 years.
Also at that time, we had been measuring less and this present point in time we still haven’t able to measure the warming effect of increasing levels of CO2. And due this fact, I am more confident it probably is less than 1 C per doubling, if talking only 100 year into future. I think it would more reasonable to say in only 50 years, but I think it’s obviously stupid to be considering 1000 years into the future.
And also I think it’s reasonable that we not going to get much higher than 500 ppm. It seems China’s massive CO2 emission has provided some evidence of this, and I think China’s population is going to crash, and they going to run out of coal to burn.
For a country which has average temperature of about 8 C, why would China not want global warming. Getting at warm as Europe with average of 9 C, would seem reasonable.
Also Chinese are interested in their history, and the Little Ice Age
could seen as time where China lost it’s global leadership and during ancient glory days of China, China was much warmer.
But despite the massive and choking amount coal they have burned, their temperature is still too cold.
Lindzen describes the greenhouse effect exactly as the German scientist in the video does, who was derided for 1) being female, 2) being wrong (no substantive critique offered on that).
So let's quote Lindzen, who describes the greenhouse effect thus;
"First, one must recognize that the troposphere, the layer of the atmosphere in contact with the surface, is a dynamically mixed layer. For a gaseous atmosphere, mixing requires that the resulting atmosphere is characterized by temperature decreasing with altitude. The rate of decrease is approximately 6.5K/km…
Second, one must recognize that gases within the atmosphere that have significant absorp.tion and emission in the infrared (ie greenhouse gases) radiate to space with a flux characteristic of the temperature of the atmosphere at about one optical depth (measured from space downward). To be sure, this level varies with wavelength, but the average emission level is about 5-6 km above the surface and well within the troposphere.
Third, adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere must elevate the average emission level, and because of the first point, the new emission level is colder than the original emission level. This reduces the outgoing infrared radiative flux, which no longer balances the net incoming solar radiation. Thus, the troposphere, which is a dynamically mixed layer, must warm as a whole (including the surface) while preserving its lapse rate.
Note that this mechanism leads to the simple result that doubling
CO2 gives rise to warming of about 1C [disregarding feedbacks]."
Here is a qualified atmospheric scientist, a leading light in the AGW 'skeptic' camp, describing the greenhouse effect.
Some cranks here, notably Swenson, would tell us that Lindzen is wrong, because rhetoric!
”CO2 gives rise to warming of about 1C [disregarding feedbacks]”
what that says is doubling co2 causes an additional absorb ing of enough energy (a few watts) to potentially warm the surface if and only if negative feedbacks do not occur prior to creating a forcing that could reach the ground.
lindzen is only recognizing what co2 absorbs, not the effect on the surface as feedbacks occur at all levels of the atmosphere.
Thanks for repeating what I said.
I’m just going to repeat my point – the GH deniers here are pointing to Lindzen as an august source, not realizing that he not only know there is a greenhouse effect that human activity can impact, he has written numerous papers on the strength of that effect with and without feedbacks.
He is, in fact, one of a number of expert AGW ‘skeptics’ I cite from time to time as being a proponent of AGW, along with Roy Spencer, John Christie, Anthony Watts etc.
I get criticised for appealing to authority here, but I have to wonder why then Lindzen is cited by ‘skeptics’. Isn’t that also an appeal to authority?
you are entitled to believe anyone or anything you want.
An appeal to authority is simply not a science argument. now the papers might be documentation of some investigation into a matter and be called science. but ‘papers’ aren’t conclusive science, as that requires a replicable experiment. papers can have errors thats why every paper used in policy making should include a fullrecord of all data used for the purpose of the public inspecting the applicability of the data and all the processing software and processes and selection criteria used. if anything important is missing the paper should be rejected by the regulating authority. many us processes and some states have processes like this that along stakeholder representation across the entire spectrum of the interested public far better outcomes for the public are enabled. however no where i am aware of are all regulatory processes held to that standard. so much remains to be done.
dr curry in her interview with peterson goes into this area and it really is embarrassing for this nation to have back tracked into so much corruption, noting its not just this nation, but i expect better of it. we will have to see what john and roy comes up with.
So the skeptics shouldn’t cite Dr Lindzen, then?
No, there is a difference between appealing to authority, which is a fallacy, and appealing to expertise, which isn’t.
Dr Curry is another who fully endorses the GHE and AGW. Just to get us back on topic.
i would fully expect 80 to 97% of scientists to fully endorse their being a ghe. their probably is one and their is little doubt man has some influence on it. but thats the way inculcation works. 80 to 97% of scientists don’t look deeply into the specifics about which you are talking about. they have their climate specialties and they focus on those. thats why it is stupid to think that gives the ghe causes credibility when noone can specify the exact way that surface warming occurs. will happer for example would be in that group. but he maintains that when the fact rises to the level of settled science its very easy to explain why to a classroom of students. i also think its plausible that co2 is some kind of control knob but thats because i dont know what does control climate. what i do know is the ghe doesn’t work as explained to the public often the explanations are just wrong but that isn’t universally the case because there is no complete explanation and even the scientists that believe agw is real have different opinions on how it works. that is why nobody as of yet actually refuted G&T. G&T had one mistake in their paper and that was in calling an undescribed process as violating the 2nd law. only well described processes can do that.
“when noone can specify the exact way that surface warming occurs”
Richard Lindzen specifies it very well. So does Roy Spencer. They are atmospheric physicists. They are perfectly placed, not in some related discipline.
I don’t know why you are picking up Swenson’s mindless talking point.
As an example I will give you Doctors. then I will compare them to accountants and show you a difference.
Doctors owe their patients a legal obligation to give them the best advice. They take that seriously. But they are also motivated to make money and moving patients through the process with varying degrees of thoroughness is what makes the difference between a good doctor and a marginal doctor. Plus they are bribed in various ways by pharmaceutical companies and they are influenced by propaganda from all sorts of providers not just pharmaceutical companies to feature their products. The standard of care generally is good but its not all it can be. The legal obligation they face keeps them in sync with what is considered to be adequate care. Few exceptions exist.
Then you have doctors who start their own company to hawk diet plans, nutritional plans and a whole nine yards of stuff using their history as a doctor to sell the stuff. Here there isn’t a legal obligation to each patient to determine if what the doctor is selling is the best thing for that person. Obviously there is a lot of quackery in this.
But take accountants. There standards are far higher. They must maintain strict independence. Its easier for accountants than doctors because accountants don’t sell stuff to their clients other than their time. but its more than that. Rather than cursory examinations with a few scribbled notes in a patients medical record and accountants audit files have to ‘stand alone’ as evidence they did a thorough job. Thus there is little wiggle room for accountants. either they did the job in accordance with standards and the evidence is in the files or it isn’t and it will be deemed they didn’t do their job.
Academics don’t have any of those standards or legal obligations. yet don’t you question your doctor. Don’t you read up on the conditions you have been diagnosed with, read up on information about the drugs you get prescribed. Make decisions for yourself if you are going to follow the doctors advice. I do all the time rejecting care recommendations that aren’t life threatening. Drugs designed to improve the aesthetics of your life but in themselves don’t do anything to extend it is one category I am pretty thorough on rejecting. And that comes from experience experimenting with drugs to improve the aesthetics of ones life as a youth. There is no magic pills. Its all about robbing Peter to pay Paul. Decisions can be difficult weighing risk isn’t easy even with the prescriptions to treat conditions that might and I mean might head off say a stroke, heart attack, etc.
Some may actually increase risk and you do it because you are too lazy to do it naturally, lose weight, forego certain foods elevating your cholesterol, get some moderate exercise.
When it comes to climate science the risks are poorly defined. There is too much focus on risks of concern to the more well off and too little concern for those struggling to get ahead. Dr Curry in here interview touched on Africa beginning to balk. They came along because of promises of money to fund development to offset increased costs associated with carbon mitigation. That money is not forthcoming. The plan was to extract if from the more vulnerable populations of the wealthy nations. Americas poor paying to develop Africa via a cap and trade scheme that would elevate the cost of energy that would disparately harm the more vulnerable in the ‘privileged nations’ without doing much harm at all to the privileged. Thats why I respect James Hansen. He opposed that approach. Its the wrong approach and harmful to those who have few resources and want to better themselves. If we are to achieve some of our objectives like ending poverty making it more difficult to achieve success should not even be on the agenda. Of course rationing would take care of that. But give that a try and find out how committed everybody is.
” thats the way inculcation works”
Personally, I am thankful that eg Civil Engineers are ‘inculcated’ ie taught established scientific principles, so that buildings, bridges and dams are no longer collapsing on a regular basis.
But that’s just me, I suppose.
Bill seems to believe that when ideas that become established science are then applied widely and taught to people, that is somehow a BAD thing.
Nobody knowz how the Sun works
https://youtu.be/iFM5zThEAqk
I’ll take that as an admission that nobody knows how this cycle will turn out, and that anyone who made such a prediction is over-representing their knowledge on the subject.
At least people who make predictions have balls to put their credibility on line, unlike some weasels who act as if they know but refuse to directly predict anything, like Bindiclown does here.
Eben
you are an idiot.
Simply because to predict anything out of an incompetent brain has NOTHING to do with ‘to have balls or not’.
I never refused to predict anything: I simply admit my incompetence wrt predictions.
You do not seem to admit that, let alone do that the idiots ‘predicting’ what you are dumb and ignorant enough to gullibly follow and post on this blog.
If you understand the system you can predict the future results, in Bindidongs case that is zero point zero
All you can do is repost rows of numbers from the past which everybody already has
According to your arrogant blah blah (typical for people on this blog whose knowledge is inversely proportional to their mouth’s size), one therefore could write:
” If you understand the system you can predict the future results, in Zharkova’s case that is zero point zero ”
because she was simply wrong in her SC25 prediction.
*
You are no more than a boring ankle biting stalking dachshund.
What prediction did Zharkova make for the SC24 max before it began?
(ie. nothing after 2008 please)
Not many volunteers available to go on a mission to the Sun to check it out first hand. Heck, we can’t even get scientists on missions to the North and South Poles to verify their alarmist rhetoric.
I’d like to see a few alarmists go up to the North Pole in inter, without a rifle, to verify that polar bears are becoming extinct due to climate change. As they walk across ice, in the dark, that is 10 feet thick, they can ponder why the CO2 has not melted it yet.
Bindidon, please, answer, what is your opinion:
When the glaciers on Greenland, on Antarctica and elsewhere are growing and when they are retreating?
Do they grow during the colder periods and retreat during the warmer periods, or do they grow during the warmer periods and retreat during the colder periods?
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…Binny is trying to find an authority figure to answer your question. The question is too difficult for him to answer by himself.
Christos Vournas
I have already tried to answer as good as I could:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1443848
Christos Vournas
You see what one of this blog’s dumbest ignoramuses wrote:
” Binny is trying to find an authority figure to answer your question. The question is too difficult for him to answer by himself. ”
Robertson denies everything (GHE, viruses, Einstein’s results, lunar spin, and even the Russian aggression against Ukraine) and therefore exclusively searches for and picks up contrarian sources behaving like himself.
*
In contrast to his endless trials to appear here as one of the major authority figures by talking about everything, I never talk about what I don’t know enough about.
This is the reason why, among other things, I do not contribute to your ideas concerning “no GHE” by using your Φ-factor.
So please try to understand what I wrote about the difference existing in Greenland between the restricted surface mass balance and the real situation including glacier calving.
This should give you a hint to what happens elsewhere.
Bin claims: “I never talk about what I don’t know enough about.”
If that were true, Bin would be commenting only about 10% as much as he does.
Says the “ball-on-the-string” troll, who, to cite just one example, is utterly incapable of scientifically contradicting any of the publications listed in
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
and therefore discredits and denigrates them polemically all the time.
Show us these 90%, Clint R.
That link is just another example, Bin. You can’t support your cult beliefs with more cult beliefs. You have to provide REAL evidence. And most of those don’t even address the issue. You’re just finding stuff to throw against the wall.
Instead, you reject REAL evidence. You reject the simple ball-on-a-string because it clearly shows that an orbiting object that has NO axial rotation will keep the same side facing the inside of its orbit.
You don’t understand ANY of the science, and you can’t think for yourself. You believe that all 3 of Swanson’s diagrams are valid. The REALITY is all 3 are incorrect.
Show us these 90%, Clint R.
*
A pretty good example of your 95% we all can see above: it shows your inability to scientifically contradict and, as a result, your permanent, pathological need to polemically discredit and denigrate.
All you are able to say are 100% unscientific things like:
– “You reject the simple ball-on-a-string”
– “braindead cult idiot”
– “you have NOTHING”
This is so afflicting.
More afflictions for you, Bin:
— “You have no viable model of OMWAR.”
— “You STILL can’t understand libration.”
— “You can’t understand what is wrong with Swanson’s nonsense.”
I’m sure there are more….
(Are you going to be trolling here all day?)
binny…”Says the ball-on-the-string troll, who, to cite just one example, is utterly incapable of scientifically contradicting any of the publications listed in…”
***
Those authority figures have the same problem as you, they believed what they had read from other authority figures. Don’t know if Newton is on your list but we have already proved he does not belong there, that he was mis-translated by someone caught up in the wrong-headed idea that the Moon rotates exactly once per orbit.
When the glaciers on Greenland, on Antarctica and elsewhere are growing and when they are retreating?
Do they grow during the colder periods and retreat during the warmer periods, or do they grow during the warmer periods and retreat during the colder periods?
–
****
There is a scientific consensus on the matter.
It claims that glaciers grow during the colder periods and retreat during the warmer periods.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Did you expect anything different?
I have read a point of view, glaciers grow in warmer periods, because there is much more moisture in the global atmosphere, thus there are heavier precipitations.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yeah.
As you can see, nothing is simple (but not as complicated as the differential equations of the second order describing the spin of celestial bodies, he he).
There is a scientific consensus on the matter.
It claims that glaciers grow during the colder periods and retreat during the warmer periods.
–
****
Bindidon, do you agree, or do you disagree with the scientific consensus which claims that glaciers grow during the colder periods and retreat during the warmer periods?
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
binny…”Did you expect anything different?”
***
Not from anyone who understands science but you climate alarmists have demonstrated you don’t understand it.
You alarmists believe that glaciers are melting due to a trace gas in the atmosphere. It dos not penetrate your minds that glaciers grew enormously during the Little Ice Age and that they are still melting since it ended circa 1850. The IPCC is pushing the propaganda that it is CO2 released by humans since 100 years before 1850 that is causing them to melt.
binny…I don’t expect anything different but no one seems to have told the IPCC about it. They still seem to think glaciers are melting due to a trace gas in the atmosphere.
The fact that the IPCC ignores re-warming from the Little Ice Age proves they are politically-motivated with no interest in science.
>Gordon Robertson wrote: why are they [air molecules] not acting like other masses and congregating on the surface, like grains of sand?
Because the average molar mass of air is 28.97 g/mol, whereas the molar mass of sand varies depending on the composition of the sand but typically falls within the range of 100 to 200 g/mol.
You should also google the following:
“grade school experiments to demonstrate that air has weight”
Take your infantile understanding of science over to skepticalscience where they specialize in stupidity and propaganda.
I understand the difference between atomic mass and weight. Sand is made of atoms and so are the constituent molecules of the atmosphere. If those molecules had no mass they would fly off into space and it is gravity that accelerates them toward the surface based on f = mass x g.
However, sand, when accelerated to the surface, tends to stay there as a pile of sand. It can be blown horizontally and even vertically by winds but it always settles back down to the surface. Why don’t air molecules do the same?
Please, go away and think this through rather than offering foolish statements that would embarrass a kid in kindergarten.
Ant tells us:
Percentage of months in each category since the ONI record begins in 1950:
El Nino 26.3%
Neutral 46.1%
La Nina 27.6%
So La Niña leads by 1.3%. Since the cult claims all that heat is hiding in the oceans, shouldn’t El Niño be leading, as in HUGELY?
That missing heat sure hides well….
If you had done any reading on this topic you would know that the ONI baseline is shifted upwards every 5 years in order to eliminate the upward trend.
Thus making your comments above insignificant, huh Ant?
How so? ENSO is about relative temperatures, not absolute.
But apparently temperature is neither cold not hot.
Huh?? Would you please make a meaningful post for once.
It was claimed that using ‘cold’ to describe MEIV2 was wrong.
As only a small component of MEI is temperature, yes it is wrong.
> I am saying, in essence, that air molecules have mass but not necessarily weight, as we normally define it.
Magnificent.
*Chef’s kiss.*
Pure gold.
Is this comment from Gordon? The one who claimed that the moon’s phases are caused by the moon entering the earth’s shadow?
It is indeed Bordon who said it.
I wish I collected all of his gems.
wee willy…you are much too stupid to understand my statement and that goes for your bum-boy, Brandon, as well.
Do you have the faintest idea of the difference between mass and weight? On one of your cross-dressing evenings, while wearing a skirt, if a rush of wind blows up your skirt and suspends you off the ground, will you weight anything on a scale?
Come on, Bordon.
Do you happen to have a short list of your gems like that one?
You know, about heat, atoms, HIV, that kind of stuff.
Asking for a friend.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
In ‘Skeptics’ Say The Dumbest Things: Richard Lindzen (PragerU) Misrepresents Climate Change
https://youtu.be/CsexwBh-1js?list=PLPpxywbRVVF2sZ5aX_BiI2RpUFcI8ir7J
Also, Hansen vs Lindzen https://postimg.cc/LJx2ckms; where “we compare the observed GISTEMP temperature record (black) with temperature predictions from Dr. James Hansen’s 1988 modeling study (red), and with our reconstructed temperature prediction by “skeptic” climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen based on statements from his talk at MIT in 1989 (blue).”
The blue plot is indeed very interesting.
What is the current data? (To 2022/3)
That chart is false , Hansen prediction is 1.5 degrees C from 1988 to now
Look up the original Hansen prediction chart
“In 1988, Hansen et al. published a global temperature projection which thus far has turned out to be quite accurate, and yet which numerous “skeptics” have widely criticized and misrepresented. As brought to our attention by Skeptical Science reader Jimbo, noted “skeptic” climate scientist Richard Lindzen gave a talk at MIT in 1989 which we can use to compare to Hansen’s projections and see who has been closer to reality over the past two decades. Although to our knowledge Lindzen has never made any specific global temperature projections, he did make some statements in this talk which we can use to extrapolate what his temperature predictions might have looked like.”
https://skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-vs-hansen-1980s.html
The link ” Hansen et al” didn’t work for me [I clicked on twice]
“That chart is false , Hansen prediction is 1.5 degrees C from 1988 to now”
That statement is false, because Hansen’s paper gave 3 different ‘predictions’ based on different emissions scenarios.
So you’re already spinning BS without even having to check the numbers.
But you can easily look up Hansen’s original 1988 paper and see for yourself that for each scenario, highest to lowest, the projected warming from 1988 to 2023 is:
Scenario A :- 1.2 C
Scenario B :- 0.8 C
Scenario C :- 0.2 C
The chart most people are familiar with ends in 2019, but the chart immediately beneath it goes to 2060, and is presented as 5-year running means, making it a clearer picture of change than the annual model. From this chart it is easy to see the ‘predicted’ change.
Notes: Hansen et al 1988 worked with a climate sensitivity of 4.2 per doubling, which is higher than the mean given by the IPCC, meaning that the predictions are lower when using this climate sensitivity. When calculating for the actual forcings that occurred (CO2, solar, ozone, aerosols etc. – closest to scenario C) the result is that temperature observations lie on or above scenario C.
Using the lowest-trended surface data, Had.CRU, we get a warming from 1988 to now of 0.6 C.
If we use GISS, the database used in the paper, then we get 0.7 C.
If we use BEST, which has twice as many weather stations data as GISS, and 4 times Had.CRU, and was put together by AGW ‘skeptics’, the result is 0.7 C, same as GISS.
He say Richard Lindzen said .4 C, and then talks about when climate cult has been the shrillest [world going to end in 12 years, trillion dollars waste, etc, etc. during the time it’s gone up the least.
Richard could have decide the last 8 years has been shrillest, and it not gone up during this time.
He also seems to think the during the time when the Co2 emission has a very high levels [China doubling global CO2 emission] is not time to mention.
It should be noted we buying solar panel and wind mills from country which emits most of CO2 emission, and world’s largest maker solar and wind, is not using it to lower it’s own CO2 emission. And it’s CO2 emission is 1/2 of the problem.
Also due to economic of scale, if China used wind and solar panels
this much production would lower the unit cost of solar and wind it’s exporting.
Or another way to look at it, if we stop buying solar and wind from China, China would be forced to use the solar and wind for it’s domestic market. And in turn if bought solar wind for countries which emitted the least amount of CO2 emission, you would be causing less CO2 emissions.
That all I need, to watch a dork, who looks and talks like a dork, challenging one of the leading atmospheric physicists of our times by cherry picking his comments.
Weinberg, if you are going to post crap, at least make it interesting crap. If you red Lindzen carefully, and I doubt you have that ability, he explains his position very clearly. Any goof can come along and cherry pick his words to discredit him.
Let me ask you something, do you identify with the dork hosting the video?
Hansen backed off from his 1988 predictions within 10 years, blaming them on his computer.
Your proof for this claim, Newton denier?
This kid is suffering from Cognitive Dissonance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jSAFwVHrWQ
Or 7 signs, I think mostly [not limited to] 3: mind reading.
Correction: “7 tells of Cognitive Dissonance”
He could manage to hit all 7.
I have not seen 5, 6, or 7 , yet.
But I am not 1/2 thru it, yet.
I guess his main problem was, the lack of ever increasing temperatures, that all the projections [not predictions as IPCC has said] indicate- and which all have been proven to be wrong- unless one expecting quite soon a wild jump in global temperature- say some time period within next 5 to 10 years.
I don’t think the short period where we had .014 per decade is likely
to be returned to, rather it seems that .013 C per decade will continue- is pretty good bet. The .014 per decade would require the months up coming to increase by a lot, and does not seem, anyone is ready to say when this will occur, yet.
For me it seems more likely we will drop to .012 C and rather rise back up .014 C per decade, and one need much more than .014 C per decade to make a few the projections to be vaguely close.
Here is a head post written in 2014 by Grant Foster aka Tamino:
https://tinyurl.com/4bhe9cce
In his post, Tamino refers to a GWPF post (“nasahansen-climate-model-prediction-global-warming-vs-climate-reality”)
which no longer exists.
However he saved the major chart by downloading it on his blog
https://tinyurl.com/5bvnsnh5
*
From the chart we see that the chart posted by Andrea Weinberg
https://postimg.cc/LJx2ckms
is very well correct because it is based on Hansen’s low CO2 (C) scenario.
Tamino gave a good analysis for the reason to choose Hansen’s lowest scenario:
” They imply that temperature had to come closest to Hansen’s scenario A because CO2 increase has most closely matched Hansen’s scenario A.
But global temperature is affected by a lot more than just CO2, it is affected by the entirety of climate forcing. CO2 is only one of many. ”
We see that when Tamino compute a total climate forcing, he obtains something similar to Hansen’s low variant :
https://tinyurl.com/2p8j6468
*
A nice detail is that the GWPF author of their graph knows about anomaly comparison exactly as much as Robertson: zero dot zero.
Because, like Robertson comparing NOAA wrt 1901-2000 to UAH wrt 1991-2020, the GWPF author compared GISS and Had-CRUT anomalies without aligning them on the same baseline, i.e. the mean of either GISS’ (1951-1980) or MetOffice’s (1961-1990) reference periods.
Tamino (aka Hansen’s bulldog) is an alarmist apologist.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/21/tamino-grant-foster-is-back-at-his-old-tricksthat-everyone-but-his-followers-can-see-through/
You may need to wait a bit for this to load…
Lubos Motl schools Tamino on statistics while revealing Tamino as a shyster…
https://web.archive.org/web/20190925232341/https://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/tamino-5-sigma-and-frame-dragging.html
BTW…Motl seems to have been harassed off the Net by Google censoring his posts. Of course, shysters appeal to Binny for some Teutonic reason.
Bindiclown, not to be outdone goes full shyster mode
As usual, trash and discredit from ignoramuses like
– Robertson the technically incompetent dumb lunar spin denier and
– Eben the little impolite stalking dachshund…
Who having a working brain below the skull, cares about people who only are able to denigrate, because they lack technical skill and knowledge to scientifically contradict what Tamino wrote?
Sheeesh.
Yes Andrea, Lindzen is NOT a Warmist. Ball4 and Willard are wrong, again.
Thanks.
[PUP] Dr. Lindzen clearly sees through the GHE hoax.
[DICK] The greenhouse effect is a thing.
[PUP] Ball4 and Willard believe Lindzen is a devout Warmist, lulz.
And then Sky Dragon cranks wonder why nobody takes them srsly.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Much hysteria in the deniers’ echo chamber in response to my post.
Not unlike Lindzen they attack the messenger not the message.
What else could you expect from people who deny virus existence, Einstein, the GHE, global warming and – la cerise sur le gâteau – even the rotation of the Moon?
Don’t pay attention to them: they aren’t worth it.
Agreed, the reality deniers are hysterical. Not only are they confused about Lindzen, they’re also confused about the other things Bin mentioned, as his meltdown continues.
That’s why this is so much fun.
The real Hansen chart
https://i.postimg.cc/Pd6y1X6g/predictions.png
andrea…”they attack the messenger not the message”.
***
Nope. We are attacking disinformation about Lindzen provided by you.
I just read the exchanges – no substantive comment on the part of the ‘deniers’, just name-calling and assertions.
barry, please stop trolling.
I will if you will
#2
barry, please stop trolling.
swannie…”It amazes me that you cant understand that atmospheric gases exert a pressure force in all directions”.
***
I have asked you to explain how a molecule of a gas in an open space can exert a force on anything? If you have a gas under pressure, and you suddenly open the container, the gas rushes out till it finds a state where no pressure exists. So, why are they claiming a 15 PSI pressure at sea level in a completely open space?
I get it that air molecules are held closer to the surface than at higher altitudes. That should produce a pressure but not 15 PSI which suggests a force of 2160 pounds per square foot. That’s a ton of pressure on a square foot.
I am willing to accept that my reasoning is off but you’re not helping with your lack of reasoning. I’m sure there is something I am missing in the definition of air pressure at 15 PSI and I am essentially asking what it is. Thus far, no takers.
Suppose I have a checkerboard, which has 64 squares, which is an 8 x 8 grid. Suppose I place a 15 pound weight on each square. Is the total weight on the checkerboard not 64 x 15 = 960 pounds?
Unless I have taken the meaning of 15 PSI incorrectly, it means that a force of 15 PSI over a grid of 144 squares, equal to 1 foot square is 2160 pounds. There is no way that air in our atmosphere exerts that much force on a body at sea level.
I got some confirmation of my theory that 15 PSI converts to nearly a ton/square foot. Found a calculator that converts PSI to tons/square foot and my reasoning is correct.
Also found out the difference between a ton and a long-ton. The ton is still 2000 pounds (short ton) but the long-ton appears to be the metric equivalent, based on roughly 2.2 lbs/kg.
Gordon, they are claiming a 15 PSI pressure at sea level in a completely open space because that pressure is what enables Gordon to sip an ice cold Coke through a straw in the usual manner.
With 1 ton of pressure pushing in on my lungs over a square foot as I sip my Coke. Don’t think so.
BTW…I don’t like Coke, I am definitely a 7-UP type. Don’t even like 7-UP come to think of it, I like Diet Sprite. Used to enjoy a CC and 7 or a Bacardi and 7, but have not had a drink for years, not even a beer.
Right, Gordon doesn’t think.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Gordo wrote
You are indeed forgetting that “a body” has more than one side and the forcing integrated over the entire body produces no net force. Of course, our bodies are filled with water and blood, which is at a pressure greater than the pressure of air outside, thus offsetting the force of air pressure on our skin.
swannie…this is almost as bad as your theory that heat can be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body by its own means.
15 PSI means that a force of 15 pounds is exerted on every square inch of your body. So, if I have a ton of force pushing in on my chest and another ton of force pushing in on my back, I would not care to see the result.
Have to ever squeezed a pimple?
Gordon Robertson
I have concluded that Bindidon is correct about you. You are a liar and most dishonest. You claim you took physics at a college level yet you can’t understand anything at all about air pressure!!
You have taken no science courses I can see just read some blog science but lunatics like Gary Novak and other crackpots on the web and now you think you are a genius expert in every field of science and the real experts are idiots.
I linked you to an actual experiment on atmospheric pressure done in 1654! Evacuated spheres held together only by the atmospheric pressure you can’t understand (even when explained to you over and over) could not be pulled apart by a team of horses. The 14 psi added to tons of force.
You can’t see how stupid your posts are and how ignorant you really are. Just about as stupid as Clint R or Swenson. Read some real science an get away from the stupid lunatic science you believe is correct.
norman…”You claim you took physics at a college level yet you cant understand anything at all about air pressure!!”
***
Could you try to edit your posts to cut the ad homs and insults and get to your point, which seems to be that I don’t understand air pressure.
You have not explained why I don’t understand air pressure even though I have gone into depth explaining it as I see it. Neither have you tried to explain how 15 PSI, applied over 144 x 1 inch squares to give a square foot to give an even ton of air pressure. would not seriously harm a human body.
I have acknowledged the meaning of PSI may have a meaning other than what I have claimed, but thus far, after long searches, I have found nothing on the Net to indicate I am wrong.
When you are at university, you are not encouraged to go into the in-depth meaning of PSI. You are far too busy doing problem sets to query the meaning of such terms.
I encountered a situation on a summer job where a new engineer gave me a schematic diagram to build a prototype. I noted immediately that he had drawn the push-pull power output transistors upside down. Even though I’d had a good deal of experience with such configurations I was reluctant to question him since he had a degree. However, if I proceeded I took the chance of blowing the circuit up or having it not work and waste the time constructing it.
I took it back to him and very diplomatically pointed out the error. He asked how I thought the transistors should be connected and I pointed out the obvious, that the collector of an NPN transistor must be connected to a positive supply and the collector of a PNP to the negative supply. He agreed and had me correct it, and gave me a pad of paper to note any other errors. I caught at least a dozen errors.
That is not unusual at universities, even in electrical engineering. Theory often does not translate easily to the real physical world of circuits. I called it a two-hat system. You put on one hat to read a schematic diagram, and another hat to build it or troubleshoot it. When a circuit is up and working, it represents an entirely different world to the brain that the theory and design phase.
I am only now beginning to see flaws in what I was taught at university. It may seem that I am making statements of fact, but I know better. My style is more the Devil’s advocate, pushing questions and awaiting answers to the contrary.
If you had the slightest idea of the question I have posed re pressure you would have responded to my questions. You have not, all you have provided are ad homs, insults, and regular bs.
clint r…”I would have preferred he [Lindzen] destroyed the false science from First Principles, but maybe he thought that would be too controversial, since most people dont understand First Principles.
***
If you watch the 1.5 hour interview with Jordan Peterson, Lindzen does go into that. It’s partly in the politics of maintaining tenure at facilities like MIT, against bureaucrats who are working tenaciously to form the thinking of scientists at their educational establishments. Lindzen reveals in the interview, and Peterson agreed wholeheartedly, that administration at universities is beginning to out-number the teaching staff and that they are putting pressure on professionals to adjust their thinking to comply with the administration.
Even at MIT, scientists are under pressure to conform. He was invited to speak at an MIT function and the MIT admin kiboshed his talk because he is a climate skeptic.
It’s well-worth taking the time to watch the video. I had intended to skim it at first but I became so involved in Lindzen’s historical experience as a prof going back to the 60s that I was compelled to watch the entire video.
Lindzen definitely claimed that the GHE only applies in the Tropics and he put the boots to the alarmist propaganda that warming is occurring fastest in the Arctic. Of course, his definition of a greenhouse effect is far different than the mainstream description where no one can explain exactly how it works.
Lindzen writes the GHE is valid in the extratropics too, Gordon, though of less effect toward the poles in your 8:43 pm link:
“In practice, the tau = 1 level is typically in the neighborhood of 7-8 km in the tropics and at lower levels in the extratropics. It is the warming at tau = 1 that is the fundamental warming associated with the climate greenhouse effect”.
Thus Lindzen’s view on the GHE is the same as the mainstream textbook physics where it is explained exactly how the earthen GHE works & which continues to elude Gordon.
In the 1.5 hour video interview with Jordan Peterson he makes it clear the GHE applies only in the Tropics and that weather systems are based on the difference in temperature between the Poles and the Equator.
In his paper, as Clint pointed out, he points out that the GHE as you alarmists present it is essentially a fabrication….a gross over-simplification. He is not really presenting a GHE theory in the paper but an explanation of how heat is distributed from the Tropics poleward.
The tau factor you mention has nothing to do with a greenhouse effect. You won’t see it mentioned in an alarmist propaganda.
Many already understand Gordon does not know what optical depth tau means for the earthen GHE; Gordon should listen to & understand Lindzen’s atm. physics.
the mistake made though is optical depth is relative not to the surface but to TOA. And TOA can move without affecting the surface, particularly from loss of heat via latent heat. That is the foundation of Lord Monckton’s recalculations. The sun shining on the surface of the earth’s oceans with no greenhouse gases will produce massive quantities of GHG without any CO2. From the framework of a CO2 controlled environment you must first acknowledge the fact that control if any is tenuous at best. So Monckton is labeled a fool for observing that the Emperor has no clothes and then they move along on doing the same foolishness.
Does Hunter troll think that water vapor is a GHG which warms the surface atmosphere? If so, why doesn’t CO2 also act as a GHG which warms the surface, given that the two gasses emit at different wavelengths? And what happens above the tropopause where most water vapor has been removed, leaving trace GHG’s like CO2 to emit thermal IR radiation to deep space?
BTW, TOA is not the tropopause, but much higher wrt the effects of GHGs.
Well water vapor does take latent heat aloft without violating an laws of thermodynamics. If that makes the atmosphere warmer than the surface then its going to warm the surface. Anything else is dependent upon establishing an insulation value for the atmosphere.
I have not claimed there is no greenhouse effect. In fact I believe that greenhouse gases, water, and clouds are a necessary condition for a surface greenhouse effect. . . .but that doesn’t make they a sufficient condition. There is more than one way to transfer heat into the atmosphere. If fact the atmosphere would have a lot more heat content if it were not for greenhouse gases. Thus its entirely plausible that greenhouse gases simply releases that excess heat back to the surface while loosing just as much to space. There would be no lapse rate if there were no greenhouse gases. So the entire role of greenhouse gases may well be to control how warm the surface. It appears the atmosphere cools by GHG from the top down and it hasn’t reached the ground yet. thats just a list of things that need to be understood. Obviously for you guys its a lot easier just listening to your Daddy Al Gore. Good lord and to think I voted for him. Thank goodness he lost anyway.
bill h…”Well water vapor does take latent heat aloft without violating an laws of thermodynamics. If that makes the atmosphere warmer than the surface then its going to warm the surface. Anything else is dependent upon establishing an insulation value for the atmosphere”.
***
The fly in that ointment is that the heat in the atmosphere allegedly warming the surface came at the loss of heat at the surface. Therefore any back-radiation would be pay back at a loss, not gain.
Any warming of the atmosphere by the surface cannot be recycled to raise the temperature of the surface. That would represent perpetual motion, which is the alarmist theory.
Yeah, The GHGs do cool the upper atmosphere. But, the emissions from GHGs go in all directions, the net effect at any layer is that half leaving goes up and half goes down, mol. The net result, over many layers, is that the surface is warmer than without the downwelling IR from GHGs.
As for politics, Al Gore did gracefully accept defeat in Florida. Of course, if Ralph Nader had not gathered 97,488 votes, the Bush 2,912,790 votes vs. Gore’s 2,912,253 votes totals might have turned out differently. We can speculate that there would have been no war in Iraq, no ISIS and more attention toward establishing a stable government in Afghanistan, etc. Too late now.
bill…another matter…any GHGs in the atmosphere, this time WV, can capture only a tiny amount of surface IR have it converted it to heat by the GHGs. Most surface radiation (95%) either bypasses GHGs or lose so much energy via the inverse square law that they become essentially useless as a warming agent.
I have offered this example of inverse square loss several times. Turn on a large ring on an electric stove till it glow cherry red. That ring is a 1500 watt source, which you might classify as 1500 watts/square foot. Of course, that’s not radiation as much as an electrical energy loss via heat conduction to air molecules.
Even so, it’s a relatively significant source of radiation. If you wore a heat-resistant glove you could hold your hand right next to the glowing ring and feel nothing for some time. However, radiation could pass straight through that glove and you’d still feel nothing. Even with a bare hand, if you hold it a couple of feet from the ring, you will feel little or nothing.
Radiation at terrestrial temperatures is highly over-stated. You can see it as the red colour in the ring and the IR component is negligible. You can’t detect it with bare skin a few feet away, or even a few inches away.
R. W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2 thought surface radiation would be far too weak within a few feet of the surface to have a significant warming effect.
E. Swanson says:
Yeah, The GHGs do cool the upper atmosphere. But, the emissions from GHGs go in all directions, the net effect at any layer is that half leaving goes up and half goes down, mol. The net result, over many layers, is that the surface is warmer than without the downwelling IR from GHGs.
——————————
declares swanson without a shred of evidence, much less singling out co2 as the control knob. i have already said that for ghe of the surface layer ghg’s and/or water and clouds would be a necessary condition but no evidence exists that establishes ghg’s as a sufficient condition applied alone.
and that would necessitate their actually is a ghe. i think there probably is one but emissivity does not seem to be a well resolved variable in climate science.
Swanson says:
As for politics, Al Gore did gracefully accept defeat in Florida. Of course, if Ralph Nader had not gathered 97,488 votes, the Bush 2,912,790 votes vs. Gores 2,912,253 votes totals might have turned out differently. We can speculate that there would have been no war in Iraq, no ISIS and more attention toward establishing a stable government in Afghanistan, etc. Too late now.
——————-
wow! selective memory here. Gore fought tooth and nail until the Supreme Court shut him down.
and its laughable in view of votes and results the dems would have done anything different. in fact it was the dems that mocked the military’s mission accomplished for not yet having established a stable government in iraq. you are so full of shit its ridiculous. what did the dems do to you so as to revise history so obviously wrongly. exporting democracy and western values is the democrat pipe dream that only infects some republican neo-cons with milder cases of it.
Gordon Robertson says:
”R. W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2 thought surface radiation would be far too weak within a few feet of the surface to have a significant warming effect.”
this is apparently true and explains why no experiment has been able to detect a ghe. thus science worked a new idea in the manabe/wetherald but this seems like smoke and mirrors and put it somewhere guys like woods don’t have access. i am not saying its impossible. i am merely saying there is not sufficient evidence especially regarding co2 controlling water vapor.
Gordo and his twin Gill rant away again. Gordo thinks the inverse square law applies to emissions from a large surface, like the Earth. He ignores the usual claims about “view angles”, which must be considered. His repeats his old example of a hot electric stove element, writing:
This misses the fact that the element radiates from a rather small surface area, so the view angles involved are small. He then parades his favorite expert R. W. Wood, who experiments snowed that real greenhouses are mostly warmer because they cut off the effects of convection with the outside. With all due respect to Dr. Wood, there are well known problems with his experiments.
Of course, Hunter troll thinks there’s “not a shred of evidence” regarding the physics of atmospheric radiation, perhaps because he’s never attempted to study the literature, as is usual for him. He then drifts into further political confusion, thus ignoring the more recent case of D. J. Trump, who still refuses to concede the 2020 election. Hunter concludes, writing:
The fact is, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. The conclusion, obvious to anyone thinking about the physics, is that CO2 warming the Earth will likely cause an increase in atmospheric WV.
E. Swanson says:
Gordo and his twin Gill rant away again. Gordo thinks the inverse square law applies to emissions from a large surface, like the Earth. He ignores the usual claims about view angles, which must be considered. His repeats his old example of a hot electric stove element, writing:
a couple of feet from the ring, you will feel little or nothing.
This misses the fact that the element radiates from a rather small surface area, so the view angles involved are small.
—————————
Gee I don’t know about Gordon here, but it appears you have learned something about view angles. Congratulations. Are you now rethinking your GPE?
E. Swanson says:
He then parades his favorite expert R. W. Wood, who experiments snowed that real greenhouses are mostly warmer because they cut off the effects of convection with the outside. With all due respect to Dr. Wood, there are well known problems with his experiments.
——————————-
Well he did show that backradiation doesn’t warm the surface Swanson. We can dispense with that hopefully.
E. Swanson says:
Of course, Hunter troll thinks theres not a shred of evidence regarding the physics of atmospheric radiation, perhaps because hes never attempted to study the literature, as is usual for him.
————————-
Swanson has a low attention span. I have said that if there actually is a GHE (and that I believe that is probably true) then GHG are at least a component of it. And that doesn’t come from not reading the literature. If you want to make such an outlandish claim how about producing some evidence of it? But such outlandish claims on your part show your total lack of scientific discipline because you are making yet another claim about something you have absolutely no knowledge of. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
E. Swanson says:
He then drifts into further political confusion, thus ignoring the more recent case of D. J. Trump, who still refuses to concede the 2020 election. Hunter concludes, writing:
————————
Huh? Getting emotional Swanson? You fear Trump is going to ride in at the front of a tank column?
E. Swanson says:
The fact is, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. The conclusion, obvious to anyone thinking about the physics, is that CO2 warming the Earth will likely cause an increase in atmospheric WV.
————————–
LOL! So Swanson begs the question that CO2 in the mesosphere is going to warm the surface even though it can’t even see it? And worse our biggest problem with understanding climate, IMHO, is our lack of understanding about phase changes of water. Temperature is but one component and it isn’t even precise.
You are only mounting a passionately emotional argument here. Do you actually thing that is appropriate?
Hunter troll wrote lots more stuff, including:
The only way to have any understanding of the physics is to build models of the processes. In the atmosphere, that results in models using many layers from the surface to deep space. Hunter points to layer(s) high in the atmosphere, as if that single point of view dominates what happens in the entire column of the atmosphere, thus ignoring the sum total of the processes acting at the surface, in the tropopause, stratosphere and above.
He also wrote:
“Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis”, Goody and Yung, 1989.
“Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer”, Siegel and Howell, 2002.
“Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation”, Bohren, 2006.
https://books.google.com/books?id=VN2RC-xcKioC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
He also wrote:
Well, it’s quite clear that he intended to show up at the Capital on 6 January to lead the insurrection and still refuses to face reality.
E. Swanson says:
The only way to have any understanding of the physics is to build models of the processes. In the atmosphere, that results in models using many layers from the surface to deep space.
————————
No thats not what you do Swanson. You establish a working model first. Then you build numerical models.
Your using many layers for the surface to deep space is just where you put parameters in when you don’t have a working model. . . .then you test it and see if it works. They aren’t working. You can’t build a working model of the atmosphere while warming progresses. The whole key to validating a model is to have a switch that changes things and see if your model predicts the flicking of the switch. In the AGW experiment all they have is the control model. Now you need a model that accurately predicts change at a fine enough resolution to distinguish it from the control model.
The scientists understand this well. I don’t know why you don’t.
Swanson says:
Well, its quite clear that he intended to show up at the Capital on 6 January to lead the insurrection and still refuses to face reality.
————————–
What stopped him Swanson? You think it might have been the insurrection? You are so easily influenced by your daddy when do you think you might grow up and start thinking for yourself?
Hunter troll wrote:
Sounds like a great idea, if it’s physically possible to build a realistic physical “model”. While it’s possible to build physical models of parts of the overall system, I know of no serious attempt to model the entire atmosphere in concrete form. As a result, researchers must rely on numerical models which combine the work from laboratory scale and real measurements, including the most important portions of the real world atmosphere.
Have you ever modeled a real world, dynamic system? If so, what of? You can send your answer to my e-mail, if you are too timid. FYI, the most productive parts of my career years ago included building dynamic models of real world systems.
swanson i am aware you can’t always build a working ‘physical’ model. and in fact i have never worked with one of those. by working model i am talking about a model that has been tested as working.
early on the consortium of al gore, james hansen, and michael mann told us that the world had a fever and that if we didn’t act know consequences may be locked in forever via hundreds if not thousands of years of feedbacks that could destroy the world.
Dr Akasofu goes oooh! maybe we should have an alternative model like a recovery from the LIA that only has lasted perhaps 150 to 300 years. . . playing by of course even more conservative rules than Gore et al.
so what happened? minds exploded! how could cranks like the distinguished akasofu, lindzen, happer, singer, et al be entitled to play by the same rules as us the privileged, the folks with our institutions at heart, the up and comers. they must be funded by evil oil companies whose crime was to sell a filthy products to willing buyers like drug dealers and pocketing profits while doing so. while us the heroes of the new world order have no pecuniary interest at all.
but those alternative models need equal attention in a lab looking to learn what a model should look like.
you just think the correlations you see with your theory is proof your model is the right one. but you are simply jumping to an unfounded conclusion.
and i told you what kind of modeling i have been involved in. you must not have been listening.
I am posting this to reveal the extent to which Google and others have gone to censor scientists. Lubos Motl is a mathematician/scientist who ran a blog called The Reference Frame, on which he expounded on scientific matters.
It appears Google has taken him down for offering an interview and video on Dr. Robert Malone, a pioneer in mRNA technology. At the following link there is an article on Motl and the video. I am seriously annoyed that anyone should think they have the right to censor scientists.
The only reason I can see for Google objecting is Dr. Malone’s stance against covid propaganda.
http://laussy.org/wiki/Blog:Fabrice/Censoring_Lubo%C5%A1_Motl
ball4…”Pay attention to my bold where Lindzen writes: It is the warming at tau = 1 that is the fundamental warming associated with the climate greenhouse effect.
***
Lindzen is not claiming that warming is the GHE he is claiming it is ***ASSOCIATED*** with it. In other words, the real warming as he has explained it is claimed by alarmists as a greenhouse effect.
In his paper, Lindzen is not claiming a GHE, he is pointing out what is really causing the warming which others claim comes from a greenhouse effect. Lindzen is too polite to call the GHE theory what it is…crap.
In other words, it’s the word ‘effect’ that is the focus. A greenhouse warms when exposed to solar energy. That’s the effect. One theory is the effect is caused by anthropogenic gases. That’s not Lindzen’s view, he gives his explanation and relates it to what others call the greenhouse effect.
Not the same as supporting the GHE theory.
“Not the same as supporting the GHE theory.”
There is idea that CO2 causes 33 C degrees of warming,
you might call this theory, but …
What do you mean by a GHE theory, and who is author of it?
Milankovitch cycles have a large effect upon global temperature.
But there is no Milankovitch cycle theory
“Milutin Milankovitch hypothesized the long-term, collective effects of changes in Earth’s position relative to the Sun are a strong driver of Earth’s long-term climate, and are responsible for triggering the beginning and end of glaciation periods (Ice Ages).”
Which is apparently true.
And the hypothesis would indicate we heading to toward a glaciation
period. And doubt can argued that in last 5000 years we have heading into glaciation. Or we had our “global warming” about 10,000 year ago
and peak warming period of Holocene, ended about 5000 years ago.
That we have glacial and interglacial period is saying we in an Ice Age. But one could say we in an Icehouse global climate. A icehouse climate has low average temperature of the entire ocean [or oceans].
Our average ocean temperature is about 3.5 C. Or 3.5 C is counted as cold. 5 C is also counted as cold ocean.
At what temperature does it have to be not to be considered cold- some think ocean which as warm as 10 C might warm enough to be counted as a greenhouse global climate.
Why do these people assume a warmer ocean changes a icehouse global climate into warmest global global climate?
AND why the they call it, greenhouse global climate?
And one factor is included, in a greenhouse climate there are no permanent ice sheets.
There isn’t an icehouse global theory.
But there is plate tectonic theory, which is related to idea of greenhouse global climates and icehouse global climates and causes both state, moving plates, geological changes in the surface of Earth.
Now, they could idea/theory that if change the gases in the atmosphere, it will stop us from entering a glaciation period.
I don’t think changing gases in our atmosphere is going to stops us from getting ice sheets over Canada. Though blacken the snow, might work, but I tend to think, it won’t work.
But also I am not really against having ice sheets covering Canada, but won’t oppose Canadians blacken the snow, other than saying it’s probably a futile effort- and there could many advantages of having an ice sheet covering Canada.
But it’s not going to happen within such short period of time of say 10,000 years, nor does seem likely that it will get much worse than the Little Ice Age was, within 5 centuries.
Now, there is a theory, that we going to get Grand Solar Maximum within 100 years. And within century is time frame that begin worry about it, or since I want more warming, to look forward to.
And if get this Grand Solar Maximum [which is still in doubt] it’s seems it might cause more warming than CO2 could possible do, could has a chance of delaying, the cold which is coming.
To summarize…
Lindzen goes to a lot of trouble in his paper to diplomatically discredit the GHE as most people understand it. Then he goes on to establish an alternative explanation. As Clint said, it would have been better to denounce it completely rather than leave the notion alive that the GHE has any merit.
Lindzen may have been considering the difficulty he has experienced getting papers published since he began questioning climate alarm. He describes how the journals work, delaying review. When scientists caught on they would simply go to another journal. The journals countered that by delaying papers up to a year before rejecting them.
Peer review has become anti-science. Lindzen explained that it was relatively non-existent in the 1960s yet today it controls what science can be published and what science cannot be published.
Yep power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Something every socialist and egalitarian should give consideration to as they decide to whom to grant this power. Russia went through that for years trying to determine who should have that power and look today at its biggest admirers. . . .the guys with the biggest boot.
i don’t think you can call the theory crap. you can though call what individual scientists tell the public crap. but it is so badly documented the feeble attempts almost exclusively arises from that fact. the public or most of excluding the spinners in here is too smart to buy what so many scientists are selling.
the biggest comedy in this whole charade occurred when some scientist got the idea to form a public blog where you had to provide your science credentials to get posting rights hoping to head off what the guy saw as ignorant skeptics. and like spinners on this blog thought it might interesting for the public to see ‘real’ scientists at work.
well what happen was a good number of degreed scientists signed up and among were some popular names,
the precipitating factor that inspired this was the perceived need to respond to the gerlich and tscheuschner paper that claimed falsify that the greenhouse principle had actually been established within the framework of physics. what ensued was hilarious as it boiled down to an argument between the scientists on how the ghe works. no progress from this effort resulted in a response to g&t. and the only response generated were claims that the ghe as explained by backradiation would not violate the 2nd law but didn’t explain how it would work nor pointed to where the ghe had been established within the framework of physics.
These Gill & Bordon bits are pure gold
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
> Lindzen goes to a lot of trouble in his paper to diplomatically discredit the GHE as most people understand it.
*Chef’s kiss*.
Never change, Bordon!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Average UAH temperature over each 12-month (Jul-Jun) La Nina season.
(W weak La Nina, M moderate, S strong, + equal to or stronger than midpoint of category)
1983-84 (W+) -0.29
1984-85 (W+) -0.45
1988-89 (S+) -0.28
1995-96 (M ) -0.12
1998-99 (S ) +0.05
1999-00 (S ) -0.16
2000-01 (W+) -0.10
2005-06 (W+) +0.00
2007-08 (S ) -0.17
2008-09 (W+) -0.15
2010-11 (S ) -0.03
2011-12 (M ) -0.12
————
2016-17 (W ) +0.25
2017-18 (W+) +0.20
2020-21 (M+) +0.19
2021-22 (M ) +0.16
2022-23 (W+) +0.20 (7 months)
As you have acknowledged elsewhere long term cycles have and effect on ENSO. What do you think the effect that the PDO and AMO will have on it?
As I said, the PDO has been generally negative since mid 1998. So look at the last 25 years to see its effect on ENSO.
What has been the effect of the PDO on UAH data?
UAH trend from start of UAH data to end of 97-98 El Nino (+ve PDO):
+0.139
UAH trend from end of 97-98 El Nino to now (-ve PDO):
+0.133
Bugger all difference.
Interestingly, the last two triple La Ninas have corresponded with the last two phase changes in the PDO. Could the PDO swing positive soon?
The AMO is the wrong ocean.
“The AMO is the wrong ocean”
But connected to it by just a few miles of land.
I trust you have managed to deconflate the AMO and the PDO to show the historical effect of the AMO on ENSO.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1445213
Huh?? You link me to your other graph which makes no mention of the AMO, and without any description?
What EXACTLY is that graph supposed to illustrate in answer to my comment:
“I trust you have managed to deconflate the AMO and the PDO to show the historical effect of the AMO on ENSO.”
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/02/uah-tropics.jpeg
UAH tropical data
Looks like you have Trump Sharpie Syndrome.
That is just a plot of UAH tropical data.
See the top of this page.
It is not “just” that.
The 12-month filter finishes early as expected, though not sure why it finishes 12 months early instead of 6.
But why isn’t the 5-year filter finishing 2.5 years early? Why is there a discontinuity in 2017? Where did you pull the last part from? You need data up to July 2025 to form a value for January 2023.
We should have day celebrating that is wasn’t colder, how about Feb 9th?
The question which should pondered on this day of thanksgiveness is
why wasn’t wasn’t winter colder?
Of course winter isn’t over, but you could feel grateful, that so far this winter, it hasn’t been colder.
Now, you would of course need a different date for Southern Hemisphere, but globally, we could thankful, twice.
But returning the central issue of why it wasn’t colder, to whom should we most thankful, to?
God might be a choice, and it’s quite popular to do that, but what else other than God?
Now, it’s possible people would rather do this after winter in over- as they could superstitious, and not want to jinx it.
But one could think of it, as also being anti-superstitious and inspiring hope.
Whenever you’re ready Eben …
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1444163
>Gordon Robertson wrote: However, sand, when accelerated to the surface, tends to stay there as a pile of sand… Why don’t air molecules do the same?
Because the average density of air is 0.0012 gm/cc, whilst the average density of sand is 2.65 gm/cc. Stated differently, sand is 2,208 times heavier than air.
It is gravity segregation.
Being (supposedly) an electrical engineer, Gordon should have an understanding of this concept. It is similar to thermal velocity vs drift velocity of electrons in a wire. But Gordon seems to have a limited ability to analogise between disparate yet similar concepts.
Surely he accepts that the earth exerts a gravitational force on air molecules, otherwise why are they clustering around the earth. And if they are feeling a gravitational attraction towards the earth then they have weight.
And few people seem to have picked up the the fact that he believes pressure is a force, thus believing it is a vector quantity. His comments suggest that he believes atmospheric weight and air pressure are the same thing.
Never and never has ignoramus Robertson ever been an engineer in any discipline.
None of my many former engineer colleagues has ever reflected such an incredible mixture of arrogance and ignorance as he does on this blog.
That’s why you’d never see a post from him even on WUWT: Anthony Watts or Charles Rotter would kick him out in a matter of hours.
we get that bindidon. You want to kick everybody out who disagrees with you. Why? Are your debate points so weak you can’t win on their merits? Sad!
Gill, Gill,
Roy already asked Sky Dragon cranks to put up or shut up:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
That was more than 10 years ago.
What are you still doing here?
Worthless willard, that model works fine for real Earth. All that is needed is the correct values for real Earth. That is, real Earth with no GHE.
It took me about 3 minutes to find the correct values. I’m saying you, or your cult, couldn’t find the values EVER.
Prove me wrong.
” You want to kick everybody out who disagrees with you. ”
Hunter boy, that’s a pure lie, and I’m 100% sure you know that.
I wrote:
” Anthony Watts or Charles Rotter would kick him out in a matter of hours. ”
I didn’t speak about myself, Hunter boy: I spoke about people who don’t like to see insane and ridiculous trash on their blogs!
*
” Are your debate points so weak you cant win on their merits? ”
So weak? Ha ha ha.
You, Hunter boy, together with Robertson, Clint R, the Pseudomod, Flynnson and possibly a few others are the people here who discredit and denigrate everything but never were able to scientifically contradict anything of it.
Who was telling about Tobias Mayer’s fantastic treatise that it would be no more than an ‘academic exercise’?
You were that, Hunter boy!
And you dare to speak about ‘weak debate points’?
You are not even able to understand what the scientists you denigrate have achieved.
OMG.
No, Hunter boy, there is no need to kick off people like Robertson or you.
You do that yourself with increasing success.
You’re correct Bill. Bindidon has been reduced to a full-time troll, like Norman.
He has no science. He can only support his cult beliefs with more cult beliefs. He knows NOTHING about the relevant science. He can only insult, falsely accuse, and misrepresent.
Pup,
You need to put up or shut up:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
Alternatively, do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Bindidon says:
”You are not even able to understand what the scientists you denigrate have achieved.”
You see that is your total BS. What you are saying is if somebody has achieved something he is beyond criticism for anything else he does in his life.
So what great thing has any scientist done that I denigrated Bindidon. Either put up or shut up.
Gill, Gill,
But Debate Me is silly:
https://climateball.net/but-debate-me/
Whining ain’t criticism.
Hunter boy
” What you are saying is if somebody has achieved something he is beyond criticism for anything else he does in his life. ”
I have never said that; this is your personal attempt to distort and misrepresent what I have written and thus manipulate the discussion.
*
” So what great thing has any scientist done that I denigrated Bindidon. ”
And now it gets even worse!
Through your (and Robertson’s, Clint R’s, the pseudomods, Flynsson’s) endless claims that the lunar spin does not exist, it is clear to everyone that you are all discrediting and disparaging the work of hundreds of scientists who have observed the phenomenon and processed observational data for centuries , beginning with Domenico Cassini.
*
Here is the (non-exhaustive) list of several documents (treatises, articles) I have collected over the last few years:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
Don’t tell us here on this blog that none of these documents would contain any ‘great thing has any scientist done that I denigrated’, Hunter boy. Nobody can be that cowardly.
Great things have been discovered, Hunter Boy, and you keep discrediting them because you insist on denying the results – even though you are utterly incapable of scientifically contradicting them.
*
” Either put up or shut up. ”
In the sum: there is only one of us two who should ‘put up or shut up’, Hunter boy. And that’s you.
Basta ya!
Clint R
I am not even close to your trolling and endless insults.
Bindidon has considerable science knowledge over you. You have NO REAL science. You have your brain-dead opinions and illogical stupid conclusions that make zero sense like your favorite “if fluxes add that means ice cubes can boil water” What a totally illogical conclusion demonstrating total ignorance.
I have not figured out which of you three is the dumbest of all, you , Gordon Robertson or Swenson (Mike Flynn). None of you are logical. You are all cult minded (meaning you repeat things over and over). How did you get so stupid Clint R. What happened to you as you grew up. Did you get dumber with age or were you always an idiot. You really are a stupid one.
Worthless willard runs from the challenge:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1444920
Bin continues to support his cult nonsense with his cult nonsense.
And poor Norman just continues to troll, unable to support any of his claims.
The cult is in severe meltdown.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Like all other Sky Dragon cranks, Pup had more than ten years to put up or shut up:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
Worse, he can’t even do the Poll Dance Experiment.
Sad Pup.
Bindidon says:
Hunter boy
What you are saying is if somebody has achieved something he is beyond criticism for anything else he does in his life.
I have never said that; this is your personal attempt to distort and misrepresent what I have written and thus manipulate the discussion.
So what great thing has any scientist done that I denigrated Bindidon.
And now it gets even worse!
Through your (and Robertsons, Clint Rs, the pseudomods, Flynssons) endless claims that the lunar spin does not exist, it is clear to everyone that you are all discrediting and disparaging the work of hundreds of scientists who have observed the phenomenon and processed observational data for centuries , beginning with Domenico Cassini.
————————————-
You are so full of it Bindidon. You have been repeatedly challenged to show anything that supports your case and here you are just yelling at thee top of your lungs that somebody somewhere must have but you can’t seem to find it.
So just go sit and spin. You are a loser.
Worthless willard claims he’s been trolling here for 10 years. But, he STILL doesn’t know how to use a simple spreadsheet.
He runs from the challenge:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1444920
Of course he can’t get any help from his cult. Norman and Bindidon wouldn’t know a spreadsheet from sheep shit.
That’s why this is so much fun.
binny…”it is clear to everyone that you are all discrediting and disparaging the work of hundreds of scientists who have observed the phenomenon and processed observational data for centuries , beginning with Domenico Cassini”.
***
Can’t speak for other skeptics, non-spinners, but my take is that your authority figures bought into the idea that the Moon rotates on a local axis based on the theories of other authority figures. Not one of them has thought it out scientifically as to how the Moon can possibly rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
Newton thought it out, noting that the Moon moves with a linear motion that is bent into a curvilinear motion by gravity. It was the translator who messed up the message because he no doubt believed it rotated once per orbit and adjusted his words to suggest that.
Newton said the Moon REVOLVES about its axis and that axis can only mean the Earth as an external axis. He knew the Moon moved with a linear momentum, there’s no way he would make the mistake of claiming it also rotated about a local axis since he had already noted it kept the same face pointed at Earth.
What do you all make of “Non-Spinner” Johannes von Gumpach’s book:
https://books.google.de/books?id=CItaAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
Especially the sections on librations in longitude and latitude?
The parts of his book where he explains the evidence, gathered up to 1850, that the Moon rotates on its axis, are reasonably clear and useful.
But then he goes off the rails.
I’m stumped as to how he decides after all, that the Moon, cannot be rotating on its axis. It vaguely seems to involve Newton getting his law of gravity all wrong.
Perhaps the TEAM can point out and quote the most compelling logic.
Its worth noting that both Gumpach’s contemporaries, and subsequent astronomers, considered him to be a crank.
http://www.astronomy.org.gg/_archive/Von%20Gumpach%20article.pdf
And the subsequent work over the next century or so, on Lunar theory explained all its motions with Newton’s laws and interactions with other planets, and built upon the discoveries of many:
“16th to early 20th centuries
Tycho Brahe
Johannes Kepler
Jeremiah Horrocks
Ismal Bullialdus
John Flamsteed
Isaac Newton
Edmond Halley
Leonhard Euler
Alexis Clairaut
Jean d’Alembert
Tobias Mayer
Johann Tobias Brg
Pierre-Simon Laplace
Philippe le Doulcet
Johann Karl Burckhardt
Peter Andreas Hansen
Charles-Eugne Delaunay
John Couch Adams
Simon Newcomb
George William Hill
Ernest William Brown
Wallace John Eckert”
But Gumpach not on the list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_theory
His lunar theory hit a dead end.
Obviously anyone that has read the book will note that from Section 6 through to the end of Section 13 the question of "the two motions" and how to distinguish between them is brought up, those two motions being:
1) "Orbital motion" – labelled "progressive motion", or "revolution", in the book.
2) "Axial rotation" – labelled "rotatory motion", or "rotation", in the book.
From Section 9 onwards through to the end of 13 he goes through a series of illustrations and diagrams to demonstrate the point that a body which is revolving without rotating on its own axis keeps one side of the body always oriented towards the inside of the orbit…
…but I was more interested in what anyone had to say on the sections on librations in longitude and latitude.
Nate says:
The parts of his book where he explains the evidence, gathered up to 1850, that the Moon rotates on its axis, are reasonably clear and useful.
Its worth noting that both Gumpachs contemporaries, and subsequent astronomers, considered him to be a crank.
16th to early 20th centuries
———————-
Once again Nate demonstrates his total lack of ability to defend his position using science. Again resorting to ad hominems random name dropping, and appeals to authority. He has been challenged to produce the actual science he is relying upon and continues this silly ignorant charade even ‘suggesting’ that 16th to late 19th century scientists shared in the disgust of Gumbach. Sad that the debate in this forum has devolved down to these depths. But if that is all you got Nate and you feel compelled to look like an idiot you are doing a damn good job of it.
Like all other Sky Dragon cranks, Pup had more than ten years to put up or shut up:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
Worse, he cant even do the Poll Dance Experiment.
Sad Pup.
DREMT, I don’t have time to read Gumpach’s book. He’s someone Bindidon found as he searches the Web. I’d never heard of him, and neither had Bin.
But your condensed version of Gumbach sounds like he got it right — Moon only has ONE motion, rotating.
We’ve got a model of OMWAR, the Spinners have NOTHING. There’s probably as much crap on the Internet supporting “flat Earth” as there is supporting lunar rotation. That doesn’t mean “flat Earth” is reality.
Bin needs to have a viable model of OMWAR to support his nonsense. Links from the Internet won’t do it. He doesn’t know crap about the subject, as indicated by his claim that all 3 of Swanson’s diagrams are correct. NONE of them are correct!
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
Moon only has ONE motion, rotating ABOUT AN EXTERNAL AXIS.
(I fell victim to the bad habit of using “rotating” instead of the correct “orbiting”.)
grammie clone drags the discussion off the lunatic cliff again, posting my graphic and claiming that none of the 3 possible geometries is correct. But, the first 2 represent “models” from grammie and clone, so it’s refreshing that he now admits that they are wrong. Of course, he has no alternative “correct” view to refute the third, but known facts and scientific data have never bothered grammie clone.
Swanson is getting emotional again about folks who think the world doesn’t work like he thinks its works.
WRONG Swanson. What I’ve stated is the middle diagram is closest to correct, but it still has an error. Bin believes they are ALL correct, when in fact none are correct.
gremmie clone coughs out:
Is the middle version WRONG or not? Where’s your CORRECT version?
Swanson, all 3 diagrams are WRONG.
The funny part is that you’re trying to make Moon have an imaginary axis. But you don’t even know how that would work, if it were real. Like the rest of your cult, you don’t even understand basic orbital motion.
If you really wanted to learn, the coffee cup/pencil demonstration would be all you needed. But, you don’t want to learn. You fear reality.
Boo!
grammie clone still has no workable model of the Moon’s Libration in Latitude. The pencil-in-the-cup can’t provide alternatating views of either the cup’s rear rim or of it’s underside as it moves around the table. To see this, one must place their eye at a height above the table roughly half the height of the cup. Sorry, grammie clone, the geometry proves he is WRONG.
none of those is a model of the moon. there is no time element specified as to what the moon is doing over a period of unspecified time among other stuff
Swanson, when faced with reality, you start your distractions. This current issue is about your 3 incorrect diagrams and the fact that you don’t understand the motions. The coffee cup/pencil explains the motions for those unable to visualize. But, you can’t face that reality.
So you attempt to distract with “libration”, which has NOTHING to do with this current issue.
Reality is pretty scary, huh?
Boo!
Hunter troll wrote:
As you might recall, all three graphics use the same RHS taken from the Wikipedia page about the Moon. That graphic was based on the Moon’s orbit at a point of maximum axial tilt wrt the Earth, say at Full Moon. My three versions show the orbit at other side, i.e., half way around. Only my third version displays the proper Libration in Latitude as one might view from the Earth. Of course, to actually observe the LHS at full Moon, one would need to wait 1/2 year from the RHS case, given the change in the Sun’s illumination.
So, repeating my question to grammie clone, what’s your version of the reality?
the one that clearly not correct is the middle one. and that is because the moons imaginary spin axis is always within about 1.54degrees of the ecliptic.
since the ecliptic is 1.57 degrees tilted to the invariable plane which is the weighted average of all planetary orbital and rotational planes and is perpendicular to the angular momentum vector of the solar system; and the 4 jovian planets provide 98% of that 1.54 degrees arises from that and is confirmed as such the precession of this imaginary axis is synchronized with the precession of the nodes of the moon. external axes rule!
“…what’s your version of the reality?”
See Swanson, that’s your problem. There are no “versions” of reality. There is ONLY reality.
Your cult believes reality can be denied or perverted. It can’t. Reality always wins.
Reality: A ball-on-a-string demonstrates OMWAR.
Reality: Your cult has NO viable model of OMWAR.
Reality: Your imaginary spin axis MUST remain perpendicular to its imaginary equator. The left side of your middle diagram has it WRONG. You don’t understand orbital motions.
“He has been challenged to produce the actual science he is relying upon and continues this silly ignorant charade even suggesting that 16th to late 19th century scientists shared in the disgust of Gumbach. Sad that the debate in this forum has devolved down to these depths. But if that is all you got Nate and you feel compelled to look like an idiot you are doing a damn good job of it.”
Again, Bill thinks the jury doesnt need to know the credentials of this ‘expert witness’.
So this book was brought up by DREMT as ‘evidence’. And Bill now jumps in to tag team. But neither DREMT nor Bill have pointed to the ACTUAL SCIENCE or logic in the book that they find convincing.
Because DREMT can’t decipher it. And Bill hasnt even read it.
So this comment of Bills is quite hypocritical, as we have come to expect.
What they have presented here is yet another appeal to authority. ‘We scoured the depths of the internet to find someone who agrees with us, and, LOOK, someone wrote a book! People you need to read this!’
But in this case the ‘authority’ is a nutjob from 1850. So yes, without telling us what his profound argument is, all we have left to decide whether his book is worth a read is his bio.
“What Ive stated is the middle diagram is closest to correct, ”
It is again baffling why Clint thinks his nonsense model, which utterly fails to match the Moon’s observed motion, is somehow STILL the best one!
Its as if reality is beside the point.
Obviously anyone that has read the book will note that from Section 6 through to the end of Section 13 the question of "the two motions" and how to distinguish between them is brought up, those two motions being:
1) "Orbital motion" – labelled "progressive motion", or "revolution", in the book.
2) "Axial rotation" – labelled "rotatory motion", or "rotation", in the book.
From Section 9 onwards through to the end of 13 he goes through a series of examples and diagrams to demonstrate the point that a body which is revolving without rotating on its own axis keeps one side of the body always oriented towards the inside of the orbit…
…but I was more interested in what anyone had to say on the sections on librations in longitude and latitude.
For instance, the second quote I included here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1441613
from Section 68, makes clear that he thinks what we observe in the libration in latitude each month does not correlate with what we should see given the idea that the moon’s so-called “axis of rotation” is tilted and that tilt remains fixed in orientation.
Exactly DREMT. We have pointed out repeatedly that the spinners are confounding libration as a motion instead of the illusion of a motion.
There entire argument doesn’t hold together with any substance. They try to avoid the MOTL because it has a circular motion and exhibits no libration illusions.
There entire argument then proceeds to attack elliptical motion despite circular motion only being a special case of elliptical motion.
It gets worse for them from there. We have constant angular momentum as demonstrated the the astronomers they love. They become discombobulated with changing angular velocity yet haven’t yet made the argument that constant angular velocity is a characteristic of a rotation because all engineering does not make that so.
Generally speaking here any Kepler orbit is a rotation and the spinners here can’t bridge the gap between the circular definition of rotation and what a Kepler orbit is with anything at all of substance that would warrant a different classification of motion.
In other words all they are doing is denying an elliptical orbit is a rotation and have zero physics to back it up and instead rely purely on semantic differences in an attempt to play God and define it anyway they want.
Swanson didn’t address the glaring errors in his middle diagram. Nor did Nate. And braindead Bindidon believes that all 3 diagrams are correct!
That’s why I have declared victory for us Non-Spinners. The cult has NOTHING. They don’t even understand the basics. Ancient astrologers got it wrong, and it’s never been corrected because an imaginary motion has NO effect on anything.
Reality: A ball-on-a-string demonstrates OMWAR.
Reality: The cult has NO viable model of OMWAR.
Reality: Swanson’s 3 diagrams are ALL wrong.
Reality: Libration is ONLY an imaginary motion due to Moon’s orbit. It has NOTHING to do with axial rotation.
Reality always wins.
grammie clone can’t figure out that the second panel is his scenario of a cup-on-a-string with the same face showing to the inside of the path as the cup is slid around the table. Sure, I should have tilted the background portion representing the Moon, instead of showing just the axis and the facing side, but I thought you might be smart enough to figure it out. Guess I was wrong, never underestimate the intelligence of your adversary.
Troll Swanson, maybe you didn’t understand “perpendicular”. That’s a big word for an ignorant cult idiot.
An imaginary spin axis has to be PERPENDICULAR to its imaginary equator.
I’ll say you still won’t admit ALL 3 of your diagrams are incorrect.
Prove me wrong.
Like all other Sky Dragon cranks, Pup had more than ten years to put up or shut up:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
Worse, he cant even do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Prove me wrong, Pup.
Worthless willard claims he’s been trolling here for 10 years. But, he STILL doesn’t know how to use a simple spreadsheet.
He runs from the challenge:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1444920
Of course he can’t get any help from his cult. Norman and Bindidon wouldn’t know a spreadsheet from sheep shit.
The fun never stops.
I thought for sure that grammie clone could figure out my graphic, but I was wrong. So I’ve cleaned it up just for him. I hope he will now understand that the second panel is his cup-on-a-string sliding around a table scenario.
you did.t document what the black splotch is on the moon. but if it is to define a face is the top on the motr and the bottom the motl?
Looks like Hunter troll is as bad at geometry as grammie & clone. The top panel is grammie’s MOTR, the middle panel isd grammie clone’s MOTL cup-on-a-string and the lower panel assumes the Moon is rotating around a fixed axis with constant angular momentum according to basic physics.
Swanson:
February 10, 2023 at 6:31 AM
February 11, 2023 at 6:09 AM
February 11, 2023 at 7:35 AM
Read. Take a couple of days, and a deep breath. Lessen your intense hatred. Try to remain rational. Let the tears of passionate fury dry from your cheeks, along with the spittle of rage forming around the corners of your mouth. Respond, perhaps in a brand new thread at the very bottom of the comments. Try to cut back on the name-calling and abuse.
Relax Swanson. I am just trying to get you to document what the black splotch on the moon represents.
As to your explanation. I assume that these are your interpretations of what somebody else, I have no idea who, represents as you seem to be saying they are somebody else’s diagram and I suppose you think they should explain the black splotches.
But I would point out to whomever created the diagram, that their is no such thing as a MOTL cup-on-a-string. Gravity has different string-like characteristics than a string. Among others gravity becomes less taut as the gravity string gets longer, where as a real string gets tauter. But all that is splitting hairs that shouldn’t be part of defining what a rotation on an external axis is.
In judging motions independently one should be aware that all motions are subject to perturbations and the only correct way of analyzing any of this is to have specific ways in which motions are separated. Indeed I agree with Tim that one can select an imaginary axis in the middle of the object for the purpose of breaking down a rotation on an external axis and indeed Newton or whoever provided an analytical way to do that for a uniform sphere rotating on an external axis.
But motion itself needs classification and all the variations and perturbations need their own analysis. Except that the analysis of an orbiting body is essentially the same as the MOTL which could be deemed to be a perfect rotating body or a uniformly circular rotation as opposed to a common rotation where other considerations need to be considered. And then when classification is complete it should be inituitive to the public and not some secret code sign language of an analyst. Thinking of an analyst that it should is simply narcissistic.
Hunter troll refuses to consider the facts of Libration in Latitude, tossing out more empty word salad, like:
Classification? Considerations? “common rotation”? You are dancing around the well known mathematical models which describe the motions of orbiting satellites as the combination of a nearly elliptical trajectory of the CM under the influence of gravity and the rotation of the satellite around it’s CM. For the Moon, a large symmetrical body, the rotation and the resulting rotational inertia is constant for all practical purposes. That leaves the modeling of the orbit as a separate problem, which has been the subject of considerable effort to describe mathematically.
I agree “that their (sic) is no such thing as a MOTL cup-on-a-string.” That was just another of grammie clone’s diversions and can’t describe the Moon’s apparent motion.
Swanson its impossible to have a rational discussion with you over your diagrams unless you document them and explain what they represent.
First what is these diagrams supposed to represent? Our moon? Compared to other moons?
Second what do the dark blotches that are the only undocumented feature on your graphic. I need to know what that represents because as near as I can tell its the only feature of the 1st diagram not represented in the 3rd diagram in the same way.
and what the heck are you referring to when you are identifying a ”motl cup on a string”
Late reply to an old thread, but after trying to wade through the patronising waffle surrounding the man’s arguments on lunar rotation, where I note the disparagement of Newton’s Laws of Gravity, I looked up the esteemed Johannes Von Gumpach to see what his credentials were and what his scientific life was like. This is a good summary.
http://www.astronomy.org.gg/_archive/Von%20Gumpach%20article.pdf
Among other piercing insights into physics, he proved that Newton was wrong that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, and is in fact elongated through the polar axis.
This doesn’t disprove his views on anything else, of course, but it is fair to get a sense of the expertise of anyone claiming to be more expert than Newton.
Along with a questionable diagram of the elliptical orbit of the Moon on the matter of libration, he asserts that the libration is not a physical effect but an optical one.
Well, duh. The Moon is not actually nodding and wagging its head. It’s how it appears as a result of its motion. His rendering if this point does not inspire confidence in his understanding (but certainly is of a piece with his condescension).
I tell you what, though, he would almost certainly have been an AGW contrarian. He had all the sneering, hostile attributes, and a strong intelligence, to boot.
barry, his understanding of the lunar librations seemed pretty complete to me. He went through the standard explanations for it in some detail and it all agrees with what I have read elsewhere on the subject. There is no evidence from the book that he had any difficulty understanding why libration was meant to be evidence of the moon’s axial rotation, he just disagreed that was the case and spent quite some time in various sections explaining why. There was a lot more to those explanations than simply saying the librations were only optical in nature.
” various sections explaining why.”
But no one here can point to and quote a convincing argument among these. Yet they defer to his authority anyway.
As an expert witness at a trial, his bio and influence on later lunar work would be fair-game to bring up to appraise his credibility.
And on that basis, we must conclude that his departures from standard lunar theory went nowhere and are not credible.
Oh Gordon, Gordon, Gordon,
“Newton said the Moon REVOLVES about its axis”
From Book III, Proposition X of the Principia Mathematica:
“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′.”
I think you will recognize that this list refers to rotations, not orbits. See the Earth’s period, 23 hrs, 565 minutes? And do you think Mars revolves around the Sun in 24 hrs, 39 minutes? And why is the Sun in this list if ‘revolvitur’ means orbit?
No, Newton is listing the rotational periods of all these bodies.
Here is the English translation:
Jupiter certainly revolves with respect to the fixed stars in 9 hours 56 minutes, Mars in 24 hours 39 minutes, Venus in about 23 hours, the Earth in 23 hours 56 minutes, the Sun in 25 and a half days, and the Moon in 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes.
Except for Venus, these are very close to modern rotational values.
Gordon’s not up here any more, barry, he’s moved on downthread. He’s unlikely to even see what you wrote.
barry says:
”Newton said the Moon REVOLVES about its axis”
—————————-
Nobody disagrees about that Barry. The discussion is a physical one about where ‘it’s’ axis is. You can’t win this argument playing semantic games while appealing to authority. In a courtroom Judges are experts at seeing through semantic games. No chance you could win with that argument. That would be an outcome like the Scope’s Monkey Trial if you did.
Nate says:
”As an expert witness at a trial, his bio and influence on later lunar work would be fair-game to bring up to appraise his credibility.”
Now Nate is an expert lawyer. IMO, not as an expert, but it is my view you can only do this if you can directly link the inquiry to the case at hand.
A judge might grant minimal latitude to probe that area but the judge would generally be very impatient as to drawing a directly line to the topic at hand and if that wasn’t done the judge would probably tell the jury to ignore it. Crafty lawyers are always trying to pull this trick and so judges are right on top of it. Judges don’t see character assassination, as you do, as being the be all tell all.
In this case it would get laughed right out of court. All the stuff I saw on this they weren’t even sure if it was the same guy. LMAO!
The judge has one case to try. If this were allowed there would be no end to the case.
Nate says:
”And on that basis, we must conclude that his departures from standard lunar theory went nowhere and are not credible.”
LOL! Nate is effectively saying ‘discovery’ trumps skepticism. That’s not a principle of science Nate. It is sometimes a principle of law though where possession is 9/10ths of the law. It would be a good thing to keep your outside opinions to yourself and focus on the science.
Bill, you missed the point.
Gordon thinks that Newton was referring to orbit of the Moon, because the Latin word ‘revolvitur’ is used to describe the periods of the Sun, Earth, Moon etc.
I was pointing out that Newton was using the word for rotation (spin), as the periods described for all these bodies are their rotation periods, therefore Newton was describing the period of Moon’s rotation.
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′.
DREMT, I keep forgetting that Gordon is incapable of doing what you, Bill and Nate just did beneath my comment – return to an older thread in an active comment section. Thanks for the somewhat ironic reminder.
OK, barry. Try not to hang round old threads trying to sneak in last words too much.
Barry I don’t know what Gordon’s position is wrt to DREMTs choice. But I verified DREMTs choice using I don’t know probably at best 9th grade mathematics.
Thus I find it difficult to fathom that Newton, the mathematical wizard who invented calculus would not be aware of that equivalency of points of view mathematically.
So it really isn’t a concern to me which word he used or if he was in the habit of viewing something that could be viewed multiple ways one way. I asked the great Newton translator Bindidon if he came across some math of Newton to proves that equivalency wrong, definitely to ring me up with it.
i’m just not buying into the semantics game on which i spent probably two years of my university education studying from multiple points of view. this is first and foremost a math problem.
What does density have to do with it? How does density cause a molecule to defy gravity and flit all over the place, even vertically? Why don’t they all fall to the surface, like sand or dust?
I have looked extensively for answers on this and it appears even prominent scientists cannot answer the question adequately. It would help if you understood the question before rushing off an answer.
Gordon Ropbertson
The molecules do NOT defy gravity, that is why they remain around the Earth. You have some reaching escape velocity like hydrogen atoms most do not so YES they are not defying gravity.
They have kinetic energy so they can move up against gravity or in any which way. If you take a rubber ball and throw it down it bounce up against gravity and can bounce many times before frictional forces lay it to rest.
A rubber ball would be a better analogy of a molecules motion of a macroscopic object than sand or dirt. If you have a bunch of rubber balls in box with vibrating walls (to continuously add energy to the balls) they will bounce around all over seeming to defy gravity and never come to rest. If you put lead weight in the same room it will not bounce around.
If you cool the gas molecules enough (remove their kinetic energy) they will bounce less and less and in some cases they will become liquid or solid (like dry ice).
Basically they have enough kinetic energy to keep them in motion.
aquerty…
“Being (supposedly) an electrical engineer, Gordon should have an understanding of this concept. It is similar to thermal velocity vs drift velocity of electrons in a wire. But Gordon seems to have a limited ability to analogise between disparate yet similar concepts”.
***
This sounds a lot like Swannie under another nym. The motions of molecules in our atmosphere, under the influence of gravity, is nothing like the drift velocity of electrons in a wire. I have no idea what the thermal velocity of an electron means. An electron in a wire is not under the influence of gravity, it is under the influence of an electric field produced by a battery or power supply. There is no similarity between that action and the action of free molecules in the atmosphere.
Besides the drift velocity of electrons in a wire are very slow compared to the speed of electron charge which acts about the speed of light. Electrons manage to pass their charge electron to electron in a conductor when connected to a power source and those charges are the basic measure of electric current, not the electron.
An ampere of electric current is rated in coulombs/sec, which is a measure of electron charge, not electrons themselves. 1 amp = 1 coulomb/sec where the coulomb is 6.24 X 10^18 electron charges.
Your electron drift velocity is about 1 mm/sec while the current of charges moves at nearly the speed of light.
***
“…few people seem to have picked up the the fact that he believes pressure is a force, thus believing it is a vector quantity. His comments suggest that he believes atmospheric weight and air pressure are the same thing”.
***
Why are you braying about vectors? They have nothing to do with what we are talking about. Pressure is the force/unit area exerted by a gas on a surface. Each molecule of gas involved has a vector to represent its force or velocity but you end up with all these vector quantities hitting the surface at different angles. How would you represent that chaos with a vector quantity?
If you summed the scalar quantities you still couldn’t use a vector since you’d have no direction for it. You can sum the scalars and have a resultant arrow pointing perpendicular from the wall but what would that mean? Even if you summed all the force vectors, which would be impossible, and you got a resultant vector direction it would mean nothing.
Why don’t you stick to science you understand?
The force that produces the pressure can produce weight on a scale but with the chaotic motion of air molecules what use would that be?
The question I am asking is why air molecules are spread out over a negative pressure gradient from the surface upward.
“I have no idea what the thermal velocity of an electron means”
Enough said.
Just had 33 engine static fire of superheavy Starship:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kG4AbAcia0
Musk said 31 engines fired, but 31 is enough for a launch- still more thrust than any other rockets ever tested or launched.
Is there any way to make renewables work?
Why don’t the they work [many reasons] but Christopher Monckton of Brenchley has explained one aspect of it:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/11/the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renewable-energy/
Linked from: https://solargsm.com/
{which reminded me of it, and I looking any news about her,
mainly, anything regarding Solar Grand Maximum}.
One way is people don’t own cars, but pay for use of cars- and they
do this, because there is advantages of various kinds- not going
to into details, but roughly it’s like people buy from Amazon rather
go to store, or there is no laws making buy from Amazon- it’s because
people want to, but they might buy from stores, also. Likewise people might own cars for whatever reasons, but they might rent cars, also.
Renting a car, could be really easy for you to do and anytime you want one wherever you are, it’s there in 5 mins- whether you want to go less than 5 miles or however far you to go {this could also include stuff you own- which I wanted include in novel- company would store our stuff and deliver where ever were in the solar system- but not that crazy but similar]. Anyhow the company has cars which are charged, and rent charged cars, and they have the infrastructure to do this efficiently- and this infrastructure is essential to make this work, but it’s your problem. Now having a monopoly is bad idea, but a monopoly is something created by govt, govt could simply not make one. Whether govt are competent or can somehow not be so corrupt, is another questionable aspect of this.
One could say if government wasn’t corrupt, we do all kinds of things. But the reason I say alternative energy is not viable, is allowing for government corruption. Or if alternative energy was simply a free market thing- it work or not work and at some undefined
point, it could work.
But let’s get to point, cars would be charged with alternative energy of wind or solar energy. They are battery solution. There are a lot
ways this works better. Having battery sit in one place, has less value compared a battery moving around and getting paid for it’s continuous use. Or a parked charged electrical cars has value, because you use it anytime you want to use it- but you are for it being parked and ready to use. You paying to have parked where you want it, and you could pay to park where whatever you go.
You paying for garage, and you paying to park it on the street- it’s stupid to think government actually pays for anything.
Anyhow that not the whole solution. Nor I am going into details of infrastructure or how a company would “run a company”.
And probably biggest effect, could be having government doing less government programs related to alternative energy and that pathway
has chance of being viable.
bill h…”There would be no lapse rate if there were no greenhouse gases”.
***
This is intended for discussion, not as a sermon.
That’s like saying a greenhouse would not warm if you removed all GHGs. I think there is a major problem with lapse rate theory that takes the emphasis from gravity and places it on GHE theory.
Without gravity there would be no lapse rate nor would there be an atmosphere. I fail to understand why certain climate theory like lapse rate theory tries to divorce itself from that true cause of lapse rate…gravity
If you take the lapse rate in a very dry part of the world, the atmosphere will cool at so many degrees C/km of altitude. If you add a large amount of water vapour, as in the Tropics, the lapse rate will change to reflect that but only in areas where the WV is significant.
Climate alarmists/modelers have claimed that change in lapse rate is due to a greenhouse effect related to added WV but it is actually nothing more than a change of air density due to the addition of WV from heated water. WV accounts for only 0.31% of the entire atmosphere and it is hardly an effective warming agent.
To convert from water to vapour, heat is required to break the bonds holding the water molecules to water. I may have misstated that earlier. So, latent heat related to vapourization produces a cooling effect.
As far as I understand, latent heat is heat use up in a change of state, say from solid to liquid or liquid to gas. Sensible heat is the heat involved during a change in temperature with no change of state.
I am theorizing that WV from water at a temperature, T, retains the temperature of the water therefore it should not get hotter than the surface unless it is further warmed by solar input. In that case, anything it radiates toward the surface would be nothing more than delayed solar input. It should not be regarded as a separate source.
–If you take the lapse rate in a very dry part of the world, the atmosphere will cool at so many degrees C/km of altitude. If you add a large amount of water vapour, as in the Tropics, the lapse rate will change to reflect that but only in areas where the WV is significant.
Climate alarmists/modelers have claimed that change in lapse rate is due to a greenhouse effect related to added WV but it is actually nothing more than a change of air density due to the addition of WV from heated water. WV accounts for only 0.31% of the entire atmosphere and it is hardly an effective warming agent.–
I would say lapse rate is related to water vapor evaporating and condensing. Anything in atmosphere which can evaporate {become a gas}
and condense [become a liquid] in an atmosphere will effect the lapse rate. And our atmosphere has small and unstable water droplets in it.
And this make atmosphere sticky- water vapor is not an idea gas at the temperature and pressure of Earth’s atmosphere.
If atmosphere can rain Methane, methane will effect the lapse rate- so, like Titan moon of Saturn.
Google: Titan moon does methane alter lapse rate?
First hit:
Temperature Lapse Rate and Methane in Titan’s Troposphere
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019103597957511
“The resulting enhancement in methane condensation lowers the upper limit on surface relative humidity of methane obtained from the Voyager occultation data from 0.7 to 0.6. ”
…
The lapse rate is everywhere stable against dry convection, but is unstable to moist convection. ”
Wetness and dryness of lapse rate on Titan refers to Methane.
On Earth wet and dry lapse rate refers to H20.
“…not an idea gas at the temperature and pressure of Earths atmosphere.”
…not an ideal gas at….
Well here, go over this:
“WV accounts for only 0.31% of the entire atmosphere and it is hardly an effective warming agent”
Most of Earth atmosphere is dry air. Because most of Earth atmosphere
is less dense and cold
Average global ocean air temperature is 17 C. 4 km up
is about 4 times 6.5 C = 26 and 17 – 26 = -9 C
Though probably better to say the tropics is 40% of ocean and is about 26 C and 60% of ocean is about 11 C,
11 – 26 = −15. Averages -15 C at 4 km.
And half mass atmosphere averages around 5 Km. All air above 4 km [more than 1/2 the atmosphere. Has far less water vapor and doesn’t mostly have any wet lapse rate.
Now for number of 0.31%. Or 3100 ppm water vapor, that seems about right for air at 4000 meters or less, outside of the tropics.
Over the tropical ocean it is about 40,000 ppm for less than 1/2 of it’s atmosphere.
Oh and not sure ice particle act like water droplets- interesting question, I guess ice particles could act similar. But you don’t much water vapor in cold air [in below freezing air].
https://babylonbee.com/news/romney-attacks-santos-theres-only-room-for-one-fake-republican-in-congress
Romney Attacks George Santos: Theres Only Room For One Fake Republican In Congress
Santos is the quintessential Republican.
That BabylonBee piece looks like satire. Lots of fun online.
https://babylonbee.com/quiz/the-bee-or-not-the-bee
All BabylonBee does is satire.
It makes it easy for people to tell it’s satire, because it
always is satire.
Despite BabylonBee telling it’s readers it’s satire, some people
don’t always get, it’s always satire.
It’s sort of like the Onion, but the Onion doesn’t make as much
effort saying that it’s always satire [The Onion is always satire].
https://www.theonion.com/
The Onion and the BakylonBee both have idiots trying to fact check it- which of course makes it more funny.
One should consider all news as satire, the difference is the reporters either are good actors or they don’t know they are always doing satire. And since they aren’t good actor, I think they trying be serious, which would make them pathetic idiots.
News you could use:
We start losing our sense of humor at age 23 and it could wreck your career
https://nypost.com/2021/03/13/we-start-losing-our-sense-of-humor-at-age-23-and-it-could-wreck-your-career/
Not that I think it’s accurate or anything.
I mean, there is reason there are laugh tracks put into shows- people
will laugh because others are laughing [no sense of humor- but probably healthy for them laugh if lack a sense of humor- laugh tracks could regarded as physical therapy].
> I think there is a major problem with lapse rate theory that takes the emphasis from gravity and places it on GHE theory.
Bordon, you are wonderful.
> What does density have to do with it? How does density cause a molecule to defy gravity and flit all over the place, even vertically? Why don’t they all fall to the surface, like sand or dust?
In a gravitational field density is the property that causes different materials with different densities to separate from each other. The denser materials settle to the bottom due to the greater gravitational force acting on them, while the lighter materials rise.
> I have looked extensively for answers on this and it appears even prominent scientists cannot answer the question adequately.
You should try harder.
> It would help if you understood the question before rushing off an answer.
There is not much ambiguity in the question as posed: “However, sand, when accelerated to the surface, tends to stay there as a pile of sand… Why don’t air molecules do the same?”
Good luck to you.
Problems with duplicate comment errors, sorry of duplicates show up.
“In a gravitational field density is the property that causes different materials with different densities to separate from each other. The denser materials settle to the bottom due to the greater gravitational force acting on them, while the lighter materials rise”.
***
I don’t mean to be rude with my replies, I am not normally an insensitive person. When I perceive someone on a blog attacking me for no plain reason, I tend to react in kind. If you want to talk science, I am open to that.
Density has no such property, it is a human invention that compares the amount of matter per unit volume compared to water as a set point. There is no separation in the atmosphere by gravity or anything else. Gas molecules are said to be ‘well-mixed’ therefore whatever grades all gases into pressure layers of different density does not do it based on molecular weight.
Denser material in air does not sink to the bottom, you are thinking of liquids, especially those centrifuged in a pre-graded sugar solution.
Gravity does not distinguish between differing masses when accelerating a body. There is a good reason for that which I can dig out if you like. In fact, I don’t like using the word density for gases.
In the Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT, someone, for no good reason, has re-written it as…
P = (n/V)RT
Of course n = mass essentially and V = volume and density = mass/unit volume = p
Therefore the IGL gets written as P = pRT
I think that is insanity. It not only obfuscates the meaning of the IGL, which is to relate P,V and T in a gas, it throws an intangible into the mix which is not required much of the time.
***
You may not see ambiguity in this statement…”However, sand, when accelerated to the surface, tends to stay there as a pile of sand Why dont air molecules do the same?
…but is if filled with anbuguity.
In theory, the atom, which is the basis of any molecule, is the smallest particle with mass of which we know. Having a mass, it should behave like sand, which has a mass as well, but it does not. The question is why.
Even in a container, gas molecules, or atoms, will flit about at considerable speed and no one knows why they move like that let alone move at all. It’s like they have an independent propulsion system. Some may claim it is heat that causes them to move but exactly how does heat do that?
Any motion, requires a force but where is the force? Where does it come from? And why does a grain of sand not have the same force?
Personally, I think electrostatic charges in the atoms are the cause. Electrons have a negative charge and protons in the nucleus a +ve charge. As you know, like charges repel.
Someone is bound to nitpick my comment about atoms being the smallest particle, I should have said the smallest unit.
C’mon, Bordon.
Whatever atoms are, you are the absolute unit.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
13 minute vid fact-checking beliefs about Nikola Tesla.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6331JXvOUGY
I cut this propaganda off after 1:30 running time because the woman is sadly misinformed.
She begins by claiming Tesla did not invent AC. No one said he did. He is known for being the first to produce an AC power transmission system. There was a competition between Tesla and Edison, who pushed a D.C transmission system.
Tesla was able to prevail because he also invented 3-phase transformers and motors. With 3-phase transformers, you can step up a transmission voltage and lower its current to reduce losses. Also, a 3-phase distribution system is far more efficient.
I don’t want to hear anymore of her idiotic propaganda.
yep another fact checking moron who wouldn’t know a fact if it bit em in the chin.
It’s gotten to the point when you see ‘fact-check’ used you can bet it’s a anti-science contrarian pushing propaganda.
“yep another fact checking moron who wouldnt know a fact if it bit em in the chin.”
No doubt an opinion you came to without checking out the source, references, or any material apart from your own credulity.
Apparently now people who check facts are morons and people who make up their own facts are not.
Exactly.
I posted years ago links to Newton’s Principia (Book III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV) in which he described Cassini’s findings.
The original Latin text was
” 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′. ”
One of many translations (in English, French, German, Russian, Japanese, Dutch) was
” 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′. ”
The same I recently showed in French resp. German: identical translations.
*
But… that doesn’t interest Pseudoskeptics.
One of them replied with an incredible distortion of Newton’s words:
” Bin, here’s what the translations should have stated:
“Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, rotates in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h 39′; Venus in about 23h; the Earth in 23h 56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the Moon revolves in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.”
In other words: if a science man does not tell what such people want him to say, so they simply change what the science man said.
*
The next distortion and misrepresentation of Newton is on this same thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1445128
*
Notice the end of the ignoramus’ post:
” … since he had already noted it kept the same face pointed at Earth. ”
which in fact is explained by Newton in the Proposition XVII as the consequence of its synchronous rotation.
*
Honestly, Antonin, I’d much rather be seen as a moron by such dumb, opinionated Pseudoskeptics than be one of them myself.
Bin, it’s over. You just keep using the same nonsense, over and over. Taking Newton out-of-context ain’t going to work.
That’s why I have declared victory for us Non-Spinners. The cult has NOTHING. They don’t even understand the basics. Ancient astrologers got it wrong, and it’s never been corrected because an imaginary motion has NO effect on anything.
Reality: A ball-on-a-string demonstrates OMWAR.
Reality: The cult has NO viable model of OMWAR.
Reality: Swanson-s 3 diagrams are ALL wrong.
Reality: Libration is ONLY an imaginary motion due to Moon’s orbit. It has NOTHING to do with axial rotation.
Reality always wins.
In precisely what sense is libration “imaginary”?
I predict a diversionary attack is coming …
In the sense that it is ONLY an imaginary motion due to Moon’s orbit. It has NOTHING to do with axial rotation.
only the sense of the motion being a motion around a central axis is imaginary. the motion that causes it is clearly a motion of the moon along its orbital path
Why can’t you describe precisely what aspect of its orbit causes this “imaginary” motion, and how? You are just waving it away without any real explanation.
Ant, if you seriously want to learn about libration, the Internet offers a number of valid sources. Even Wikipedia is not too bad on the basics.
But the issue I’m discussing here is the fact that Moon does NOT rotate on its CoM axis. A discussion of libration is just a distraction used by the cult because they have NOTHING.
Clint R – Glad you agree with Wikipedia:
“Libration in latitude results from a slight inclination (about 6.7) between the Moon’s axis of rotation and the normal to the plane of its orbit around Earth.”
Thanks for the reference – we can now call the matter closed.
Yes Ant, that imaginary spin axis has been discussed before. Do you understand why it’s imaginary?
The issue of lunar rotation is closed, as far as I’m concerned. We know Moon is NOT rotating based on the simple model of OMWAR. Your cult has NOTHING.
Your cult doesn’t even understand basic orbital motion. For example, can you explain what is wrong in all 3 of Swanson’s diagrams?
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
Do you have a viable model of OMWAR?
Three easy questions and I bet you can’t answer them correctly. Prove me wrong.
grammie clone wrote:
grammie clone continues to ignore geometry.
Good Swanson, you finally corrected your middle diagram. Thus proving Bindidon WRONG, again.
Now do you understand why the claimed spin axis is imaginary?
grammie clone, the middle panel depicts the MOTL with rotation around a vertical axis, i.e, the sliding cup-on-a-string around a central point. As a result, there’s no libration in latitude to be observed, which is of course, wrong.
Correct, libration is not a real motion. That’s why a model it could not be observed from a model, unless the model were life-sized.
grammie clone, the sliding cup-on-a-string around a nail was your visualization of the Moon’s Libation in Latitude. That’s what I showed with the second panel of the three. Are you now disowning it because it does not provide the necessary results?
WRONG again, Swanson.
The coffee cup/pencil was a demonstration why the imaginary spin axis was imaginary. It had NOTHING to do with libration.
You’re very confused.
grammie clone, the discussion at the time was about the Moon’s Librtion in Latitude. As you now reject your mental model, what other explanation/model do you offer for that motion?
WRONG again, Swanson.
The coffee cup/pencil was a demonstration why the imaginary spin axis was imaginary. It had NOTHING to do with libration.
You’re very confused.
But you’re a good example of an immature braindead cult idiot posing as an ignorant troll.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Actually, it is Gordon who is misinformed.
“She begins by claiming Tesla did not invent AC. No one said he did. He is known for being the first to produce an AC power transmission system.”
Nope, that was done prior to Tesla by 3 Hungarian engineers, Károly Zipernowsky, Ottó Bláthy and Miksa Déri, in 1884, using the ZBD transformers, which are the basis of today’s transformer designs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer#Closed-core_transformers_and_parallel_power_distribution
George Westinghouse’s assistant, William Stanley, made a working A/C transmission system with transformers in 1886.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer#Westinghouse_improvements
Tesla’s AC transformer was designed and patented by 1888, and built 3 years later.
Poly-phase transformers were developed by several people independently around the time Tesla developed his version. He even credits one of them (Ferraris) with designing a poly-phase transformer independently and at the same time he did.
So what happened with you, Gordon?
You heard something you didn’t agree with, and rather than apply skepticism to your own beliefs you just wrote it off.
Your assertions are demonstrably wrong. But you are too wedded to them to allow them to be challenged. So you just switch off the interference with your views.
This is why I put the skeptic in “AGW ‘skeptic’ ” in quotes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-phase_electric_power#History
tesla is credited as the inventor because got the patent. . . .the official seal recognizing an inventor. the wright bros were and still are attacked for not inventing a flying machine but their patent held up.
In July 1887 in Offenburg/Baden (Germany), Friedrich August Haselwander was the first to come up with the idea of using a three-phase alternating current.
He builds the first three-phase synchronous generator with salient poles. However, the postal authorities forbade the operation of the machine for fear of disrupting the telegraph line. Haselwander’s patent efforts also fail.
*
The unknown but really most successful inventor of polyphase motors was the Russian-Swiss Mikhail Dolivo-Dobrovolsky who developed an asynchronous motor for three-phase alternating current in 1889 at AEG in Berlin. He registered he first patent for a three-phase transformer in 1890 in Switzerland.
The 3 Hungarians patented their AC transmission device in the US in 1886, a few years before Tesla did.
The facts are: Tesla wasn’t the first to invent, construct, patent, or apply poly-phase transformers for distributing AC current.
He was the one that is popularly credited with this, however, and the narrative has stuck.
It is easier to remember the name Nicola Tesla than the 3 names Károly Zipernowsky, Ottó Bláthy and Miksa Déri. Perhaps Tesla looms larger despite not being the first because of a number of factors, including his name being an easier get for story-tellers, and because a number of myths arose around him that make good stories, such as big mean companies holding back the little guy.
test
—Astronomers have discovered an entirely new ring system within the solar system, and it’s located at such a great distance from its dwarf planet parent that it should be impossible.—
“…so in a nutshell, the ring of Quaoar is a real challenge to explain theoretically.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/impossible-new-ring-system-discovered-at-the-edge-of-the-solar-system-and-scientists-are-baffled/ar-AA17kJSs
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
Well, it seems it’s not a ring of Quaoar.
Quaoar has moon, Weywot [way what].
Wiki: “Weywot has an estimated diameter of 170 km (110 mi) (approximately 15% of its primary).”
So, how about a ring of Weywot?
What seems more interesting is dwarf planet with a much bigger Moon.
Big enough to call them twin dwarf planets and them being as far or
further from a star [or our Sun].
It seems it could be fairly common- due to dwarf planets in general being more common. And it seems one or both could have liquid ocean.
>Gordon Robertson wrote: “Density has no such property, it is a human invention that compares the amount of matter per unit volume compared to water as a set point. There is no separation in the atmosphere by gravity or anything else.”
Four balloons are each filled with a different gas:
Helium ρ = 0.164 Kg/m3, Neon ρ = 0.825 Kg/m3, Argon ρ = 1.633 Kg/m3, Krypton ρ = 4.425 Kg/m3.
If the density of dry air is 1.2 Kg/m3, which balloon or balloons float in air?
While I don’t know the percentage of 5-year-old children who intuitively understand the difference in density of gases, it’s likely that a majority will have a basic understanding of this concept by the age of 7 or 8.
Complementary to the original post I would add that in Earth’s gravity field:
By 1000 km elevation Helium is 93% of the atmosphere. This is due to the fact that He is an un-reactive and very light atom and thus isn’t held tightly by Earth’s gravitational field. Helium is so light that it can escape Earth’s gravity entirely. The bulk of the remainder is Hydrogen, also prevalent due to its low mass.
Armed with a knowledge of molecular dynamics it is easy to apply just a little imagination and thinking to arrive at a qualitative microscopic understanding of this behavior. Non-experts do not automatically imagine and think about these phenomena correctly; many find it difficult to picture atoms in perpetual motion, colliding elastically with no loss of energy over time, even though this picture is essential to understanding.
“…there is a never ending interest in the definite mathematical problem of the equilibrium of motion of a set of points endowed with inertia and mutually acting upon one another with any given force.”
Lord Kelvin, Baltimore Lectures (1884).
Curry reports that the ipcc in ar6 has begun the process of disregarding the climate models by lowering the estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity.
in management speak what that says to the modelers is get ur shit together. a message never to be ignored. it can cost your school a ton.
We will see if they try to find shelter behind Al Gore’s skirt or if they actually respond.
But an excellent interview that lays out Dr. Curry’s journey through Climate Science. A must watch label for everybody interested in climate projections.
https://youtu.be/9Q2YHGIlUDk
I prefer this shorter version, Gill:
https://youtu.be/uWXxlYzBCno
one misses a lot of good stuff. either you are committed or you are just lollygagging on the sidelines and just trolling.
The best stuff has yet to come, Gill:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upkx5BNxjIE
Don’t forget to bring receipts.
typical of you guys when you dont have a rational response to resort to ad hominems and total BS.
Typical of Bordon to speak like that, Gill.
This one seems more boring.
The world is not getting hotter at the moment, and that is one peice of evidence of global warming.
Or where I live, it had the highest recorded daytime temperature [or hottest recorded temperature] over 100 years ago.
And if concerned about heatwave and hot days, it’s mostly about Urban heat island effects. Or it is manmade, but it not global warming.
Global warming is about increasing the global average temperature, which is about making the entire world have a more uniform temperature- or it’s global warming.
15 C air temperature is a cold air temperature, and everyone educated
knows that we in Ice Age.
An Ice Age is where the polar regions has ice sheets or there is a big difference between polar regions and the tropical.
And when you have global warming a larger part of world become more like tropical temperature. Or India has a very high average yearly temperature of about 25 C. It has a high average and fairly uniform
yearly temperature. Which is largely about having a higher uniformly nighttime. But what has higher uniformly high temperature yearly temperature is 40% of the world which is the tropical ocean.
And tropical ocean islands are regarded as some kind of perfection
in regards to climate temperatures.
Or regarded as fantasy/paradise. Or nothing like Berlin.
Anyhow I will make an effort to listen to the rest of it.
Also if Jordan said can’t do anything about it, Jordan is wrong.
But Government has done anything about it, and can’t do anything about- so if “we” means highly corrupt governments- he is correct.
But we can do something about it.
[as I have discussed, endlessly]
No serious talks about CAGW, but this guy does.
Nothing but long string of stupid.
And that Jordan will engage in discussion with people
is extremely stupid. No one would want to discuss anything
with that idiot, but, so what?
The idea that the Son of Lobster “engages” with anything is ludicrous:
https://youtu.be/1kICRre1cmc
He likes the shorter version, Bill
I really do:
https://www.tiktok.com/@reallytallbart/video/7198621332974603562
That was kind of funny.
When read the entire Bible, I got the impression, the Jew really
liked having barbecues. And I said this before, somewhere.
But just I thought of something different, and it related to climate,
back then, the present deserts, weren’t today’s deserts.
They were changing into today’s deserts, and thousands year before
the Jewish people escaped slavery, the deserts even more different than today’s deserts- the world was much warmer.
Wow – someone actually read the buybull.
I hope you took it with a pillar of salt.
Bible mentions the word, unicorn, once.
Giving no context/explanation- apparently
it needed no explanation.
Bill..if that’s true, the IPCC must be under new management. Or, maybe they are turning to crystal balls and witch doctors in lieu of the models.
> if thats true
C’mon, Bordon.
Of course it’s not.
Well management got upbraided based upon a audit of their practices after AR3. They have been gradually implementing the reforms.
A lot has to do with the shifting world political stance as well with
predictions of the apocalypse not gathering steam and anger of the developing nations in it for the money not getting their money.
A good deal about that in Peterson’s long version interview with Curry.
Its also the case these initiatives tend to be badly listing ships to begin with having been incubated for years by the doomsayers. this one became the darling of the Vice President of the US in 1992. Not good for science. What is needed is better climate science and its difficult to get that when voices are being suppressed, punished, canceled, and obstructed. Advance of science is always on that bleeding edge of destroying one theory and replacing it with a better one.
bill…”What is needed is better climate science and its difficult to get that when voices are being suppressed, punished, canceled, and obstructed”.
***
What we need is better science all around. Over the past century, science has gradually deteriorated to the point it is no longer viable. Eisenhower predicted that back in the 1950s when he introduced government funding of science.
If we got rid of peer review and its dishonesty, stopped paradigms as a basis of science, and cleaned up the universities, we might get back to some order in science.
Bill..thanks for link. Watched 1/2, other matters to deal with.
Interesting to see Judith interviewed. I was not sure what she thought of the current climate propaganda and glad to see she’s on top of it. I think she has evolved over the years and as she explained, it has come since Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and especially after Climategate in 2009.
Glad to see there are scientists like her who have clued in to the massive propaganda being perpetuated. Since she has retired from Georgia Tech, she seems more prepared to speak her mind.
Jordan seems to be confused about positive feedback and tipping points. I don’t think Judith assuaged his fear by talking about volcanic activity possibly melting the Western Antarctic ice sheet. However, she was wrong calling that a tipping point, it would be nothing more than a natural catastrophe.
A tipping point, as popularized by Hansen in reference to a runaway positive feedback system, is another matter. Such a system cannot operate without a heat amplifier and there is no such thing in nature. In other words, you need to take solar energy and find a way of intensifying it and that won’t happen unless you crank up the solar output or bring another star into the neighbourhood.
Alarmists who talk about positive feedback have the mistaken notion that a feedback can amplify on its own and that is bs. Positive feedback is part of an amplification system that can lead to a runaway effect, or tipping point, not the amplifier itself. Without the amplifier, there can be no PF.
All feedbacks in nature are negative.
> All feedbacks in nature are negative.
*Chef’s kiss*.
Alright, Bordon.
This time I’m keeping them!
–However, she was wrong calling that a tipping point, it would be nothing more than a natural catastrophe.
A tipping point, as popularized by Hansen in reference to a runaway positive feedback system, is another matter. —
I am not sure Judith is familiar Hansen.
Scientifically, Hansen has not said anything interesting.
And generally, Hansen has not said anything interesting.
He used to say, methane was the problem, not CO2.
On the topic of methane, one could say tipping points, is more
“interesting” than the weak CO2 gas.
I would say there has been no tipping points. But one could have
“tipping points” because of lack of knowledge.
Yellowstone supervolcano could be a tipping point- because we don’t know enough about it.
But probably know enough about Yellowstone as compared other things- such volcanic activity in Antarctic or about methane hydrate deposits.
gb…a tipping point as envisioned by Hansen is a climate system so fragile that it could destroy itself and life on the planet. That has not happened in the billions of years the Earth has been on the go and the climate system has been in far worse states than we have now.
Th Earth and its climate is far more robust than anything we can visualize, or do to change that. It’s absurd to think that increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere could do anything catastrophic.
BTW…how’s things down there in the desert?
“gba tipping point as envisioned by Hansen is a climate system so fragile that it could destroy itself and life on the planet.”
Hansen is space cadet [though might rather not be] and knows Earth gets pounded by space rocks.
Hansen says things, because he wants to say things- and it a Lefty.
He not honest, but Lefties generally lie.
I tend not to think God will punish him- because Hansen is punishing
himself. God got more important people to punish.
Al Gore and his sandpile theory. It is clobbered in Hard Green by Peter Huber.
T. Roosevelt understood conservation to be for the benefit of mankind. Why just mankind? Well we can only know what is good for ourselves.
How can we possibly conceive of what makes for the best world if we are not in it. Obviously protecting biodiversity is extremely important. The world is full of amazing chemistry almost all of it be found in living things. but protecting biodiversity can also be negative if its done excessively denying mankind the pleasure and use of his environment.
So Roosevelt saw the amazing parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and reclamation areas as areas designed for the benefits and aesthetic pleasure of man.
Al Gore sees mankind as an ever increasing sandpile that eventually is going to have a landslide. No doubt Al Gore isn’t going to volunteer himself to reduce the population of the world. So he must have some plans to have somebody else volunteered.
I think Al Gore sees mankind as an untapped reservoir of wealth for himself. I don’t think he has the slightest interest in the planet.
Al Gore is a politician.
Politicians don’t have “an interest in the planet”.
People who have “an interest in the planet” have a
religion which “has an interest in the planet” and some
of these people might follow their religion in an active
way- or they believe {or “know”} they following their religion.
But as general rule, one could generally say few people
of any religion can be said to be following their religion.
The main way the don’t follow is they don’t understand their
religion. Atheist don’t follow their religion, and followers
of Atheism are like followers of all religions- they don’t
understand their religion.
One could say politicians are followers of all religions- and
also don’t understand any of them and since most of believers
likewise don’t understand their beliefs, it works out pretty well
for stupid politicians.
In US you have people who regard themselves as serious followers
of their faith- and refuse to vote for any politicians.
Which makes some sort of sense as pols are evil- power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. But the silent majority does sometimes, change it’s mind. Those that refuse to vote, are obviously a part of the silent majority.
And I think it’s possible some of silent majority did vote for Joe Biden- but US voting system is and continues to be quite corrupt- which causes doubt about the voting system.
I am part of US silent majority, I liked both Trump and Biden.
One point out how different they are. But you could say Trump wasn’t
a Rep and Biden is not a Dem.
norman…”They have kinetic energy so they can move up against gravity or in any which way”.
***
Where do they get the KE? Grains of sand don’t have it. If you hold a grain of sand a few feet off the ground, and there is no wind blowing, when you release it, the grain will drop to the surface in the same time as a 50lb anvil. Where does a molecule of air get the KE? Why don’t all molecules in air simply drop to the surface as sand does?
ps. It’s OK to say, “I don’t know”.
(1) there’s this thing called … [pa rum pa pa pum] THE SUN …
(2) a grain of sand has a MILLION MILLION MILLION times the mass of an oxygen molecule. That is the number of seconds in the age of the universe. Or the number of human hairs laid touching side by side that are required to go around the earth a million times.
(3) [should you ever be able to accelerate sand grains to the same speed as oxygen molecules, by feeding them ONE BILLION TIMES the energy] … sand grains have inelastic collisions, gas molecules have elastic
PS. If you didn’t know all this then you really should have taken your own advice.
A molecule of air a few off the ground of Earth has an average velocity of about 500 meter per second, but mostly has this velocity
because it’s hit at average velocity of 500 meter per second by a lot other air molecule. And the result is that molecule doesn’t go anywhere.
Or only situation where it could go anywhere is when it’s not hit
by zillions of other air molecules every second.
Or needs to go higher. If it’s 50 km up, to travel faster, but it well below escape velocity at 500 m/s. Or molecule only going 500 m/s
don’t last long at 50 km up and molecule which stay up there are going at suborbital velocities, which you say “starts” at about 1500 meters per second and less than say, 8000 m/s.
8000 m/s is escape, but it hit some other molecule at that velocity or more likely, others molecule with hit it- has there still is zillions of them.
gb….”A molecule of air a few off the ground of Earth has an average velocity of about 500 meter per second…”
***
Not disputing that gb, asking how it got the velocity.
We can see how a single molecule might be accelerated by gravity, hit the surface, or another molecule, bounce off and have the cycle repeat over and over. That doesn’t explain why all air molecules are graded by pressure. What determines whether a molecule of oxygen lives at sea level or 4 km? And if one lives at sea level, how does it get the acceleration to reach 4 km?
If gravity is variable from the surface upward, that should explain a variation in the accelerations/velocities but it still doesn’t explain why air pressure can be identified specifically at various altitudes.
I am talking here about an entirely static atmosphere. Mind you, I read the other day, on average the atmosphere is still. That means all the velocities cancel out.
So, is this another probability thing where the probability of finding a molecule at a certain altitude is related to its average KE? As far as I know, the kinetic theory of gases does not apply to a gas graded pressure-wise as is the atmosphere.
“Not disputing that gb, asking how it got the velocity.”
Well on Earth most energy is coming from the evaporating tropical ocean. I put the number around 80%.
Or ocean warms and land cools is my general rule.
“That doesnt explain why all air molecules are graded by pressure. What determines whether a molecule of oxygen lives at sea level or 4 km?”
Sort of interesting question.
I would guess if beat different metals together [enough] they would uniformly mix.
Lighter gases seem to tend to say higher [+20 Km] in the atmosphere, but CO and O also would not last very long in lower atmosphere. And O3 is created higher up. {though all them are- and H20 freezes out due temperature?? Or something else.].
You get an F for your effort. You have made the basic mistake of some students on exams, failing to read and understand the question.
The question posed was why do molecules move spontaneously. Where do they get the energy to move? What does the mass of a grain of sand have to do with why they don’t move spontaneously and molecules do?
KE = 1/2 mv^2…if v = 0, KE = 0.
Sand sitting in a pile has v = 0, relative to the Earth. Why is the same not true for a molecule of O2? Why is it never at rest, sitting in a nice pile of O2 on the surface?
Obviously, the tiny mass of molecules and atoms have something to do with it. If the Sun heats them, they gain energy internally wrt electron energy, but why does that translate to external energy related to atomic motion? What gives them propulsion?
You are asking the same inane questions I was asking myself as a 10 year old when I was trying to nut out scientific concepts. Apparently you have just begun the thinking process – what have you been doing with your brain for the past 70 years?
And you don’t have an answer, so how stupid does that make you?
That’s right – inane questions tend not to have meaningful answers.
Like “why am I here?” – a meaningless inane question that everyone considered when they were young, yet has no answer for anyone except those who delight in fairy tales.
“Sand sitting in a pile has v = 0, relative to the Earth. Why is the same not true for a molecule of O2? Why is it never at rest, sitting in a nice pile of O2 on the surface?”
If talking about a very short period of time, “in theory” molecules of O2 are “at rest” when against solid matter or in mid-air. But they are unlike a molecule of a solid such as sand. But if course molecule of sand is vibrating. And it’s vibrating at fast speed, so it gas molecule is against sand, “at rest” is vibrating at same speed as the
sand molecule.
If talking about ice state, it vibrating and vibrating fast enough or peaks/harmonics of fast enough it gets free of it’s bonded solid state and becomes molecule in gas state.
And if ice in vacuum, it’s gas molecules can leave with less energy OR ice will evaporate at -100 C. Or if ice state is vibrating less [-100 C] molecules H20 will have energy to become ice and “fly away”-
but if have H20 vapor at pressure {H20 gas molecule held against solid ice, the ice has to be warmer to evaporate]
With say a sea surface, there would saturation water vapor near surface, and it inhibits evaporation, but slight breeze could cause more evaporation. And howling winds cause more evaporating than slight breezes- generally. If not for another reason or way to explain it, it creates a general localized vacuum in pressure.
Gordon Robertson
The molecules in the sand (mostly silicon and oxygen SiO2) are moving about but held in place by strong bonding between the molecules preventing them from flying around.
The Solar energy is absorbed by molecules of the Earth’s surface (land, water etc) and the molecules convert that energy to kinetic energy. An air molecule that collides with these surface vibrating molecules will take some of their energy and increase its own kinetic energy then transfer it to other air molecules in collisions exchanging energy.
If you have a puddle of water on a hot summer day you will notice it gradually disappears (evaporates). The water molecules are gaining energy and some can break the bonds holding them and they fly off with kinetic energy and bounce around.
Again think of a rubber ball. You add energy to it by throwing it and it bounces around until friction takes away its energy.
Not a real hard thing to understand.
Norman, you can, somewhat adequately, explain some basic science. And, you do it without your troll tactics. There are no insults, false accusations, or misrepresentations used.
But when you attempt to explain your cult nonsense, like how photons “add”, you turn into a pathetic troll.
Interesting, huh?
Clint R
You might need the correct semantics in your “photon “add”” comment.
I have stated the energy of photons adds. I do not know what you imply by “photons add”. From your posts it seems to indicate that not energy (at an absorbing surface) but two photons combine to form a higher energy photon. This is NOT what I am claiming.
However with your thought experiment of a 4 sided object with only one side receiving a flux of 960 W/m^2 and the emitted flux is reduced to 240 W/m^2 (assuming each side is one square meter surface area and the heat is distributed uniformly through out the sturcture). If another side receives a 960 W/m^2 flux then the emitted flux is doubled to 480 W/m^2. If all sides receive a 960 W/m^2 flux then the emitted flux rises to 960 W/m^2 clearly demonstrating that fluxes add. Adding flux to each side increases the emitted flux.
See Norman, you immediately resort to your troll tactics.
This is NOT about semantics. It’s about your cult’s fraud. You can’t support your nonsense, so you resort to false accusations and misrepresentations.
You clearly believe that fluxes simply add. Your cult hero has even described the fraud — 315 W/m^2 plus 315 W/m^2 will add to 630 W/m^2 being emitted from a surface at 325K. That won’t happen!
I NEVER presented the “thought experiment” you mentioned. You can’t address the issue.
What will you try next?
Clint R
I have a textbook example problem of two fluxes adding at a surface.
You will have to download the free textbook and look. I can’t link directly to the problem but it is there for you to see
https://ahtt.mit.edu/
That is the link to the textbook. You need to download it to see the problem and solution.
Chapter 10.4 of the textbook page 575 is the start of the problem and it continues to page 577.
Description is two sides at temp 500 C that both radiate to a 100 C copper plate. The two 500 C fluxes are adding energy to the copper.
It is a clear example of what you ask for just maybe not the exact flux values.
Take it for what it is worth.
It shows fluxes are added and have to be. Two fluxes that reach a surface will add their energy to the surface and the surface will heat to a temperature where it will radiate away the same amount of energy it is receiving (provided it is in a vacuum and no other heat transfer is possible).
If you choose not to look that is on you. It is there for you to see.
Wrong again, Norman. You merely found something else you don’t understand.
That problem is just another example of “view factor”. View factors have NOTHING to do with this issue. Let’s use the KISS technique — “Keep it simple, stupid.”
A flat plate is in space. A flux of 400w/m^2 arrives on one side of the plate. A second flux of 400 W/m^2 arrives on the other side of the plate. The plate reaches a temperature of 290K, emitting 400W/m^2 from each side. That’s reality.
Your cult fraud claims the plate would be emitting 800 W/m^2, at a temperature of 345K, because the fluxes add. That’s nonsense.
Find some more stuff you don’t understand, to sling against the wall.
> Your cult fraud claims the plate would be emitting 800 W/m^2
Cookie would do well to review the Green Plate Effect again.
“Your cult fraud claims the plate would be emitting 800 W/m^2, at a temperature of 345K, because the fluxes add. Thats nonsense.”
No. Science texts claim nothing of the sort. Fluxes ARRIVING at ONE surface add. So two separate fluxes of 400 W/m^2 (say from two sunbeams) arriving at a single surface add to 800 W/m^2.
No one every claimed 400 W/m^2 fluxes arriving at different surfaces add to give 800 W/m^2. No one ever claimed that two 400 W/m^2 fluxes LEAVING two different surfaces add to give a flux of 800 W/m^2 when ARRIVING at third surface.
But please, show is anyone actually making such a claim so we can refute their error.
Folkerts admits: “Science texts claim nothing of the sort.”
Correct, there is no valid technical reference for the “315 + 315 = 650” fraud.
norman…”The molecules in the sand (mostly silicon and oxygen SiO2) are moving about but held in place by strong bonding between the molecules preventing them from flying around”.
***
Normie, that reply is dumb, even for you. There is no attraction between grains of sand. If there is, it’s called sandstone.
******
“If you have a puddle of water on a hot summer day you will notice it gradually disappears (evaporates). The water molecules are gaining energy and some can break the bonds holding them and they fly off with kinetic energy and bounce around”.
***
So, if the Sun heats sand, why doesn’t it break up and fly away?
The water molecule, H2O, is bonded together with other water molecules by a weak hydrogen bond. If it gains enough energy it can break the bond. That’s not true with sand.
FYI…SiO2 is quartz. The bond between silicon and oxygen is very strong and won’t break at terrestrial temperatures.
Sand is an aggregate of various minerals like quartz, feldspar, iron, mica, even gold, or whatever rock broke down to form it.
“Why dont all molecules in air simply drop to the surface as sand does?”tr
The air molecules would (eventually) do that if the surface were at absolute zero. Each air molecule would hit the surface and lose energy and eventually settle onto the surface.
But the surface is NOT at 0 K. Atoms in the surface are vibrating.
Each time an air molecule hits an atom of the surface, it might lose energy or it might gain energy in that collision. The molecule will continue to move around with random energy. And it will continue to hit other moving molecules which will make them all continue to bounce around.
(And to forestall questions about sand …
Consider an unmoving gas molecule and an unmoving grain of sand set on a warm surface. A surface atom will hit the gas molecule and send it flying. But when a surface atom hits a the grain of sand … not enough energy to lift the trillions of atoms in the grain of sand. And the random motions of the surface atoms will NEVER be organized enough to all hit at the same time and lift the grain of sand. )
The Son of Lobster said unto them:
.
as he received some random prize from the Orban regime:
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1624280012613472261
Canada doesn’t vilify him. Millions there love him. The party in power in the Canadian government which is acting like a fascist state vilifies him.
I think the guy is saving a lot of lives. The left should realize why as they are well aware of what psychology can do to a person. The difference is Peterson is fixing the problem rather than making it worse as is the Canadian government and certain US media corporations allegedly doing so at the behest of certain activist groups.
Obviously the US government can’t regulate speech as Canada has been doing as we have the first amendment protecting it. Are you suggesting we would be better off without it?
If you don’t work, you need something like a fascist state.
Fascist states in the past [and in the future] depends on a fascist
giving money to people who don’t work.
Over decades of time fascist states will fail.
One could call North Korea a fascist state though could called a monarchy, and has endured for a long time.
Aspects explaining longer lasting survival, is the people that don’t
work are very poor or die from sickness and starvation and it’s vassal state- it’s on welfare from other states.
Cuba is similar to North Korea and lasted longer as monarchy and both
prevent it’s slaves from escaping.
Gill, Gill,
No country’s vilifying the Son of Lobster.
No need to faint on your couch.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Cut to the chase. Real moons orbit in ellipses, not circles. There is no point hashing out details of the semantics of the movement of the animations.
How would a real moon in a real elliptical orbit move if it had no axial rotation? How would it move if it rotated on its axis once during each orbit? Your answer must correctly explain libration.
Until you can do this, you don’t understand orbits. Until you can do this, there is no point debating the fine points of the differences between “rotation” and “revolution” and “orbit” and “spin” and “axial rotation” and “internal axis” and “external axis”.
Its not clear here Tim what you are calling out. Are you claiming the MOTL is an impossible moon? That there is no such thing as a uniformly circular orbit as described in the literature?
Or is it you are trying to say there is no rotation on an external axis?
Please clarify.
I am saying the animations are special cases (perfectly circular orbits). Until you can ALSO explain the general case (elliptical orbits), you don’t understand orbits.
The simple ball-on-a-string demonstrates one side always faces the inside of the orbit, if there is no axial rotation. It doesn’t matter is the orbit is circular or elliptical.
That’s one reason we know Moon is NOT rotating on its CoM axis.
I’ve never seen a ball on a string move in an ellipse. Could you clarify what this would mean, and what direction you would expect the ball to face during that elliptical path? If the same side does not face STRAIGHT in, how much libration (and why) would there be?
Folkerts, get your parents to buy you a toy train set. Then make the track into an oval. Study the motion of the toy train until you understand.
I owned a train set. The side of the cars face straight in (along a radius for curved sections; perpendicular to the track along the straight sections). Are you saying that this is how the moon would move?
If so, you better study yourself, because this is NOT how the moon would face. Even with flexible track formed into an ellipse and the train travelling at the appropriate varying rate, the orientation of a ‘moon’ attached to a train car would be wrong!
Faukerts, you can’t understand the simple ball-on-a-string. You can’t understand the toy train.
There’s the very real possibility that you can’t understand ANY of this. There is such a thing as “braindead”, you know.
Tim Folkerts says:
I am saying the animations are special cases (perfectly circular orbits). Until you can ALSO explain the general case (elliptical orbits), you dont understand orbits.
Yeah but you haven’t made it clear yet Tim an answer to my question. You are just prevaricating. What is the ”special case” with regard to a rotation?
One has to stretch a long ways to have fundamentally different concepts between the ‘special case’ and the ‘general case’. One would expect one would be the subset of another not a completely different animal.
So please don’t evade the question I asked. In your view are there rotations on an external axis? and if so why is the MOTL not one or is one?
> What is the special case with regard to a rotation?
Gill, Gill,
You’re just playing dumb.
The special case is the circular orbit.
How would a real moon in a real elliptical orbit move if it had no axial rotation?
Like our moon.
"How would it move if it rotated on its axis once during each orbit?"
You would see all sides of the moon from the inside of the orbit.
With your questions answered for the twenty-first time, I politely insist that you acknowledge the following:
"Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" exists as a motion, and it is motion like the MOTL.
Until you acknowledge the correctness of that sentence, no further discussion on the moon will be entered into with you.
“Like our moon” is the biggest cop-out possible. Be specific!
If you were on the moon watching the stars, how would they move across the sky — and why? Would they move across the sky at a constant rate?
According to you, a MGR horse “rotating about an external axis with no rotation an internal axis” keeps exactly the same side inward, so why doesn’t the moon do this in its orbit?
If you marked the closest point on the moon to the earth at perigee, what direction would it face when it reaches the minor axis, 1/4 of the *distance* around the orbit? What direction would it face exactly 1/4 of the of the *time* around the orbit? Why?
You have never (that I can recall) answered any of these questions. What — precisely — is “rotating in an ellipse about an external axis, with no axial rotation”?
Until *you* can deal with an ellipse in your model, there is no further discussion possible.
"Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" exists as a motion, and it is motion like the MOTL.
Until you acknowledge the correctness of that sentence, no further discussion on the moon will be entered into with you. Concede to proceed.
You would have to give a definition of what *you* mean by “rotation about an axis” in that sentence.
By my definition (consistent with myriad other sources), “rotation about an axis” means that a point:
1) maintains a constant distance from the axis
2) changes orientation from that axis (relative to the ‘fixed stars’).
By that definition, the MOTR *is* rotating about the axis moving with the center of the moon drawing.
Can you provide a counter-definition of “rotation about an axis” that would make your claim true?
OK, let’s do the dance again.
1) By your definition, the MOTL is rotating about an external axis, an axis that is external to the moon itself, and located within the "Earth" (black circle).
2) There has to be a motion where there are zero internal axis rotations per external axis rotation…otherwise you could not have, for example, a situation where an object was rotating on its own internal axis 0.5 times per external axis rotation.
3) The motion "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis", if we agree in 2) that it must exist, can either be the MOTL or the MOTR. I can’t see how it could possibly be any other motion, but specify one if you can think of it. Since by your own definition, in 1), the MOTL is rotating about an external axis, it makes sense for the MOTL to be the one that represents "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
There you go, Tim. It’s as easy as 1, 2, 3.
For anyone new to the discussion, MOTL means “Moon On The Left” and refers to the left hand side of the following GIF:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
1) Yes.
2) Why? What definition of “rotation about an axis” would any of that true?
If there is a “rotation about an external axis” for any rigid object, that means all parts are rotating equally. You can’t have different parts of the same rigid object rotating differently. A ball mounted to a MGR and ‘rotating about the external axis at the center’ cannot have any additional rotation and still be ‘rotating about the central axis (ie; it must keep all points the same distance from the center to be called ‘rotation about the central axis’.)
The moment there is any different ‘rotation about an internal axis’, there ceases to be ‘rotation about the external axis’. So you are actually correct when you say “you could not have, for example, a situation where an object was rotating on its own internal axis 0.5 times per external axis rotation.” That object is no longer ‘rotating about the external axis’.
Now, we *could* say that the center of mass (and only the center of mass) was rotating about the central axis. But then we have eliminated any prescription about the orientation of the rest of the object. Then we would be free to have a ‘rotation on the ball’s own internal axis 0.5 times per 1 external axis rotation of the COM around the center of the MGR’.
Tim Folkerts says:
By my definition (consistent with myriad other sources), rotation about an axis means that a point:
1) maintains a constant distance from the axis
2) changes orientation from that axis (relative to the fixed stars).
By that definition, the MOTR *is* rotating about the axis moving with the center of the moon drawing.
——————————-
But Tim you are wrong that is not the definition of a rotation on an external axis. The MOTL fits the definition:
Madhavi:C
2. 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). If this axis, called the axis of rotation,
intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration.
Clearly the particles of MOTR are not moving per rotation but per translation.
1.Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same
direction during the motion.
You need to work on your definition before claiming support for it.
Tim, you’re contradicting your earlier statements. You’ve agreed that the MOTR can be described as "rotating about an external axis, with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions, one internal axis rotation per external axis rotation". So we can consider that to be -1 (minus one) internal axis rotation per external axis rotation. You then, apparently, jump to thinking that the MOTL is +1 internal axis rotations per external axis rotation. Presumably you agree that motion like the Earth could be considered +365.25 internal axis rotations per external axis rotation? You just skip out zero. It’s bizarre. I have no way to have a rational discussion with you because you are the only "Spinner" here who has this strange viewpoint.
"The moment there is any different ‘rotation about an internal axis’, there ceases to be ‘rotation about the external axis’."
I completely disagree. I don’t know anyone here who would agree with you, either, from both sides of the argument. I have no idea where you are getting this from.
Maybe the terminology is confusing you. Let’s strip it down to basics.
Do you understand the following?
If "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL, then the Earth is spinning 365.25 times per orbit.
If "orbit without spin" is like the MOTR, then the Earth is spinning 366.25 times per orbit.
The difference has nothing to do with reference frames. It’s simply down to whether "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL or the MOTR.
“Tim, youre contradicting your earlier statements. Youve agreed that the MOTR can be described as “rotating about an external axis, with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions, one internal axis rotation per external axis rotation”.”
If I did say precisely that, then let me amend that slightly.
MOTR can be described as THE CENTER OF MASS rotating about an external axis, with THE BODY OF THE MOON rotating about an internal axis in opposite direction REALTIVE TO the rotating line line from the earth to the moon’s axis. [Or not rotating about an internal axis relative to the ‘fixed stars’]
This focus, I think, gets at the core of the issue.
A MGR horse attached rigidly to the platform is truly rotating about an external axis. Every part of the horse moves in a true circle around the center of the MGR.
A MGR horse that is not rigidly attached to the platform but twirling on its pole is NOT truly rotating about the center. The nose, for example, gets closer to the center and then farther from the center. this is no longer a “rotation about the center”. Only the center of the horse (its pole) still truly rotates around the center.
“Presumably you agree that motion like the Earth could be considered +365.25 internal axis rotations per external axis rotation? ”
No, not quite. First, the earth moves in an ellipse, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume it is a circle.
As above, we could say earth’s CENTER OF MASS rotates once per year about the sun. But the rest of the earth does not. The rest moves closer to and farther from the sun every 24 hr — ie not a true circle.
The COM of the earth rotates around an external axis though the sun once per year; the rest of the earth rotates relative to that axis. The rest rotates about the COM +366.25 times per year relative to the ‘fixed stars’. Or we can say the rest rotates 365.25 times per year relative to the rotating line between the sun and the earth’s axis.
Bill says: “You need to work on your definition ”
You are right. See the comment to DREMT. I used sloppy shorthand. I should have specifically referred to the COM.
The COM of either the MOTL or the MOTR rotates about the center of the earth. The MOTL rotates around the COM 1 rev/orbit (relative to the fixed stars). The MOTR rotates around the COM 0 rev/orbit (relative to the fixed stars).
Yes, the terminology is definitely confusing you.
Let’s strip it down to basics.
Do you understand the following?
If "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL, then the Earth is spinning 365.25 times per orbit.
If "orbit without spin" is like the MOTR, then the Earth is spinning 366.25 times per orbit.
The difference has nothing to do with reference frames. It’s simply down to whether "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL or the MOTR.
“If “orbit without spin” is like the MOTR, then the Earth is spinning 366.25 times per orbit.”
First — you shifted from “rotation about an external axis” to “orbit” and from “rotation about an internal axis” to “spin”. It is not at all clear if you do or don’t consider the pairs to be identical concepts.
Let’s stick with the word “orbit”. I use this word to mean “the path of the COM” (with no information about the orientation of the orbiting object’s body). This motion is in general an ellipse. Since you like to make up acronyms, we could call this a “T-orbit” (Tim orbit). Any ‘spin’ would be a rotation about the moon’s axis relative to the ‘fixed stars’.
So … T-orbit with zero spin IS like the MOTR, and the earth DOES spin on its axis 366.25 times per year using this definition.
If you mean something else — something that specifies some orientation of the body, then tell us your definition of a “D-orbit without spin” (DREMT orbit). Presumably you agree the COM follows an ellipse. If a D-orbit includes information about the orientation, the tell us how you define that.
Use this (with appropriate labels for a moon around a planet: http://hildaandtrojanasteroids.net/KeplerII.jpg
Mark the point on the moon closest to the earth at “A”. Which way would a ‘D-orbit with zero spin’ point at B-L? (if you don’t know, then you don’t know what you mean by “orbit”!)
Tim Folkerts says:
Bill says: You need to work on your definition
You are right. See the comment to DREMT. I used sloppy shorthand. I should have specifically referred to the COM.
The COM of either the MOTL or the MOTR rotates about the center of the earth. The MOTL rotates around the COM 1 rev/orbit (relative to the fixed stars). The MOTR rotates around the COM 0 rev/orbit (relative to the fixed stars).
——————-
the rotation of a com is not a rotation of an object. i provided you the madhavi definition of a rotation of an object. where does one find your definition or are you just making this up?
Tim, I deliberately dropped all the terminology that was confusing you, and you still remain confused. Once again:
If "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL, then the Earth is spinning 365.25 times per orbit.
If "orbit without spin" is like the MOTR, then the Earth is spinning 366.25 times per orbit.
The difference has nothing to do with reference frames. It’s simply down to whether "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL or the MOTR.
Understand that, first. Then, understand the following:
If “orbit without spin” is a rotation about an external axis (like the MOTL), then the Earth is spinning 365.25 times per orbit.
If “orbit without spin” is a translation in an ellipse (like the MOTR), then the Earth is spinning 366.25 times per orbit.
Once again, “CoM” and “reference frames” do not enter into it. Now do you understand?
DREMT, you want to discuss “If “orbit without spin” is like the MOTL …”
I simply want you to clarify what you mean by that vague term “like”. For a perfectly circular orbit, it is pretty clear that you are thinking “orbit without spin” is like …
* a horse on a MGR
* a train on a track
* a ball on a string
Those all work as decent analogies for what the motion of a tidally locked moon in a perfectly circular orbit would be “like”.
But NONE of those work as a decent analogy for what a tidally locked moon in an elliptical orbit would be “like”.
This is a piece of cake of my ‘team’. If “orbit without spin” is like the MOTR for an elliptical orbit, then the COM follows an ellipse (sweeping equal areas in equal times) and the picture maintains the same orientation on the screen.
Your turn. If “orbit without spin” is like the MOTL for an elliptical orbit, then …
Bill you provided the definition for rotation of a rigid body. I am talking about the more fundamental definition of rotation of a point. Your definition is basically that all individual points that make up the rigid body (except of course those on the axis) rotate with the same rate in the same direction. I am simply pointing out that the COM does rotate around the ‘earth’ in both MOTL and MOTR.
Tim, I understand something you don’t. On the other hand, there’s nothing that you have explained in this particular back and forth, that I don’t understand (I just disagree). On that basis, are you willing to try to understand what I’m explaining?
My aim here is to get you to acknowledge the correctness of the following sentence:
"Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" exists as a motion, and it is motion like the MOTL.
…because regardless of who is correct, overall, on the moon issue, that sentence is still correct. I’m more certain it’s correct than I am about my own mortality, or that 2 + 2 = 4.
Now, instead of quibbling about my every word choice, please try again to respond honestly to what I previously posted. Stop worrying about "like". Stop worrying about elliptical orbits, for now. We’re talking about the Earth, so assume the Earth’s orbit is circular, just for the sake of argument. Now read through my 1:32 AM comment again. Give it a go. At least try to understand.
Tim Folkerts says:
Bill you provided the definition for rotation of a rigid body. I am talking about the more fundamental definition of rotation of a point.
Your definition is basically that all individual points that make up the rigid body (except of course those on the axis) rotate with the same rate in the same direction. I am simply pointing out that the COM does rotate around the earth in both MOTL and MOTR.
————————
OK Tim but points have no mass. Thus you believe there is no momentum linear or angular in this rotation you are imagining?
“Stop worrying about elliptical orbits” forEVER.
Barry is right that DREMTs view is fundamentally geometric. He can only describe cartoon orbits that just-so-happen to correspond to a perfect 2D rotation, the MOTL, but no others.
He has shown that he has no intention of ever getting back to elliptical orbits, because they just can’t ever fit into his geometric narrative.
A real object has mass. And can be defined, conceptually, by an infinite number of small objects (near points) each with a finite diameter and mass. Using this equation here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
L=mvr.
Lsmallpiece= Lorb+Lspin of the small piece
and the sum of all the small pieces of the moon
Σ Lsmallpieces=Lorb+Lspin of the moon
But there is an interesting dynamic occurring here as the Lspin of the moon, does not equal the Σ Lspin of the small pieces. The Lspin parameter diminishes by a power function. OTOH Σ Lorb of the small pieces approaches Σ Lsmallpieces as the diameter and mass of the small pieces gets smaller.
thus one can only conclude that when one states that in reality the MOTL is comprised of two motions, an orbit and a spin one has mistakenly elevated form (conceptual, standardized) over substance (reality). That is because by the above analysis of the mathematics, the spin is only illusory, born of inculcation, and a product of mathematical means trying to describe reality in a perfect way (for the sake of simplicity) that one must always keep an eye on to avoid huge and potentially fatal errors. Gee I just described what auditors do.
Personally folks that have accused me of insulting the science greats like Newton et al. As an auditor who has to inspect stuff for weirdness like the equations above. Its hard to imagine that a mind like Newton’s would have actually not visualized this when he discovered his great discoveries and it all got lost in the subsequent swarm of symbolic language.
I would also contend that this is at the heart of Einstein’s objection to Quantum Mechanics. Differentiating between form and substance is not an easy task in mathematics nor in language.
Nate says:
Stop worrying about elliptical orbits forEVER.
Barry is right that DREMTs view is fundamentally geometric. He can only describe cartoon orbits that just-so-happen to correspond to a perfect 2D rotation, the MOTL, but no others.
He has shown that he has no intention of ever getting back to elliptical orbits, because they just cant ever fit into his geometric narrative.
———————————
Actually what he is trying to do is stop prevaricating and obfuscating.
What you need to do is define what a rotation is. Via your prevarication it is impossible for anybody to know what your definition of a rotation is.
That was the purpose of introducing the MOTL, and entirely uniform circular orbiting body.
Is this a rotation or not?
Certainly arguing stuff about librations and elliptical orbits with eccentricities greater than 0 doesn’t answer the question if the MOTL is a rotation as described by the non-spinners as being so.
If you think it is not then the entire argument of librations and eccentric orbits is nothing but an obfuscation.
If you really do think that librations and eccentric orbits define rotations as Tim does then obviously the MOTL is an example of an orbital rotation without spin on the local axis.
So the big question like it has always been with Nate, will he ever stop obfuscating and prevaricating?
And I am still waiting for exactly how you think the GHE works and what evidence you have that your process actually works. If you want to defer that to Manabe and Wetherald, perhaps you can refer us to the evidence Manabe and Wetherald used. However if my recollection is correct, Manabe claimed upon receiving his Nobel Prize that he was just applying known physics not discovering it.
Talking about smoking guns and confessions!! Obviously he is smart enough to take the money and run.
“I understand something you dont.”
And yet you still can’t explain what “orbit with no spin” means for an elliptical orbit.
And yet you struggle with “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”. It’s pretty clear what you mean.
* The post of of a MGR horse rotates around the center of the MGR, and the horse does not rotate on the post.
* If I print a picture of the moon toward the side of a piece of paper and pin the paper to my desk, the paper rotates about the pin, but the moon does not rotate on the paper.
But those are NOT examples of “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”. At best, they are “rotation about an external axis with no ADDITIONAL rotation about an internal axis”.
So you don’t want to learn, Tim. Oh well. Not my problem.
“OK Tim but points have no mass. Thus you believe there is no momentum linear or angular in this rotation you are imagining?”
No — for two different reasons!
1) The discussion was about MOTL and MOTR, which are images, so they actually DON’T have momentum.
2) For physical objects, linear momentum and orbital angular momentum are found by calculating as if all the mass were at the COM. So I ‘believe’ there is linear momentum p = mv and orbital angular momentum L = mvr.
“A real object has mass. And can be defined, conceptually, by an infinite number of small objects (near points) each with a finite diameter and mass. “
You didn’t even get past the 2nd sentence of this post without serious errors. An infinite number of objects with finite diameter and finite mass would result in infinite size and infinite mass!
“Its hard to imagine that a mind like Newtons would have actually not visualized this …”
Here’s the thing. Physicists DO know all the things you are trying to figure out about angular momentum. There even a named “parallel axis theorem” for rotations about external axes. Newton derived Kepler’s “equal area in equal time” using conservation of orbital angular momentum.
“trying to describe reality in a perfect way (for the sake of simplicity) “
Its more case of describing reality in a simple way (for the sake of understanding). Orbital angular momentum for a moon is constant. Spin angular moment is also constant.
Here’s a challenge. Find an expression for the total angular momentum of a uniform sphere of radius r spinning on its axis at a rate omega(spin) and orbiting in a circle of radius R at omega(orb). You do it my summing all the individual pieces, and I will do it using L(orb) + L(spin).
You are going to end up with a nearly impossible mess to integrate; I will be done in 5 seconds. It’s about ‘working smarter, not working harder.”
Tim, please stop trolling.
Circles are ellipses.
The Moon’s axis is around 1.5 degrees relative to Sun.
The Moon orbits around an axis which a barycenter which located within Earth.
The Earth also rotates around the Earth/Moon barycenter and the Earth and Moon rotates around the Sun’s Barycenter or the solar system barycenter as does everything in our solar system. The Solar system barycenter is not in interior part of the Sun but outside of glowing star. And of course the Sun also rotates around the solar system barycenter and this is a very important aspect if you want to understand Earth’s global climate.
gbaikie
” The Moons axis is around 1.5 degrees relative to Sun. ”
An axis is not relative to a point in space; it is relative to a plane in space.
Moon’s orbit plane is about 5.1 degrees relative to the Ecliptic, i.e. the plane described by Earth’s orbit around the Sun.
Moon’s (spin) axis is about 1.5 degrees relative to the Ecliptic.
— Bindidon says:
February 12, 2023 at 4:33 PM
gbaikie
The Moons axis is around 1.5 degrees relative to Sun.
An axis is not relative to a point in space; it is relative to a plane in space.–
Well, I wouldn’t say I disagree. But can you say more about this?
Or can predict what star it [Lunar north or south pole], points at, would be example of “more about this”.
gbaikie
Until now I never tried to search for information about whether or not the lunar spin axis is fixed in space – independently of orbital motions of both Moon and Earth.
What interested me was solely the fact that the inclination of this axis – wrt the Moon’s orbit around Earth (the lunar ecliptic) or wrt Earth’s orbit around the Sun (the terrestrial ecliptic) – is always constant.
Googling for ‘spatial orientation of Moon’s spin axis’ gives, apart from the the usual links, a more interesting one:
https://sites.ualberta.ca/~dumberry/cassinimoon.html
In the text you find among other things:
” The red axis is the direction of the rotation axis of the Moon: over the course of one Lunar orbit, it points in the same direction in space. ”
The rest is interesting as well.
Bindidon, you’re just like Norman — You’ll believe anything your cult puts out.
That nonsense is easily disproved with your simple coffee cup and a pencil. If you’ve still got the string nailed to your table, try orbiting the cup around the nail while keeping both the handle facing the nail, and the pencil pointing at the same distant point.
Careful you don’t break your cup….
You’re not going to ever learn if you don’t attempt some of these simple demonstrations.
grammie clone’s cup-on-a-string routine can not produce the well known Libration in Latitude because his cup is rotating around an axis perpendicular to the table. Adding a pencil at an arbitrary angle does not change this fact. grammie clone has never provided a valid explanation based on physics, he just keeps repeating the same old delusional claims, such as claiming: “the pencil pointing at the same distant point”. No, grammie clone, the pencil points at different points on the ceiling, which you might have noticed if you had actually performed your test.
Correct Swanson, if you perform the demonstration correctly, the pencil will point in different directions. That tells you it is NOT a true spin axis.
Moon doesn’t have a spin axis because Moon is NOT spinning.
grammie clone, Sorry about misreading our comment. Of course, your cup-on-a-string red herring, which I represented in the middle panel of my graphic, does not rotate around your pencil or the reference line in my graphic. But, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, your model does not represent the Moon’s real motion, since it fails to reproduce the well proven facts of Libration in Latitude.
Thanks for apologizing, Swanson. Admitting you’re wrong is a hard way to learn. But, at least you’re learning. That’s progress.
To make it easier on you in the future, try to think before commenting. For example, my simple demonstrations have NOTHING to do with libration because libration is NOT a real motion. So when you keep mentioning libration, it just shows you don’t understand.
It’s the same as several others trying to use “view factor” to defend their “ice cubes boiling water” nonsense. View factor has nothing to do with the issue because the flux is ARRIVING at the surface. They just show they don’t even understand “view factor”.
grammie clone wrote:
grammie clone continues to fail to understand the physics. The Moon’s Libration in Latitude is THE RESULT of the Moon’s rotation around a tilted internal axis which gives THE APPEARANCE OF MOTION if one does not understand the physics, which I diagrammed in the lower panel of my graphic.
You have presented no other explanation or model. Until you do so, you are just pissing into the wind, endlessly repeated mindless rants and distortions of reality.
Sorry Swanson, you’re wrong again.
You’re grasping at straws. You believe an APPARENT motion is “proof” of an imaginary motion. See how tangled up you are?
Moon only has ONE motion — orbiting. Here’s a video made from the LRO, as the LRO orbits Moon. There are no bobbing, rocking motions. Moon is ONLY orbiting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNUNB6CMnE8
Now, you get to apologize again….
grammie clone, the LRO was placed in a low altitude (50km above surface) polar orbit. It’s orbit was subsequently changed to a 20km x 165km orbit. At that altitude and with a polar orbit, the LRO would not be able to photograph the Libration in Latitude as experienced here on Earth. Of course, you are also ignoring the fact that the LRO’s orbit is over the Moon’s poles, that is, the Moon’s known rotation axis. With this latest diversion, you still haven’t provided an explanation for the Libration in Latitude.
Swanson, you need to contact NASA to tell them they’ve got it wrong. Here’s what they believe: The above time-lapse video starts with the standard Earth view of the Moon.
Good news is you get to apologize once again. Remember, you’re not learning if you try to hide your mistakes.
grammie clone, Your NASA YouTube animation starts with an intro of the Moon as seen from the Earth and continues to show all sides of the Moon. The video is created with “modern digital technology, combined with many detailed images returned by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), a high resolution virtual Moon rotation movie has now been composed.”
Let me repeat. You are also ignoring the fact that the LROs orbit is over the Moons poles, that is, the Moons known rotation axis. The result is not the same as that seen from a telescope on Earth over a period long enough to show the Libration in Latitude.
Not to forget, where’s your physics based explanation for the Libration in Latitude?
Most people would recognize the “Man in the moon” as seen from Earth, at about 00:23. But, or course, you know NOTHING about Moon, and can’t understand the info you’re provided.
The “physics” is easy to explain. The motion is NOT real, nothing more to explain.
But, I can’t understand it for you.
E. Swanson says:
Not to forget, wheres your physics based explanation for the Libration in Latitude?
——————-
Simple a combination of two factors. One would be like the Octopus ride in an amusement park where the rotating arms of the octopus are tilted via a tilt of the axis. This combined with the fact that the attitude of the moon is perturbed into a non-planar attitude via the gravity of the sun and the other planets in the solar system. Underlying that physical design is a basic planar rotation on the fixed external axis lying at the COM of earth.
Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend? All rotations have varying degrees of perturbations but an engineer starts with basic movements then designs in cute variations to prevent the ride from being boring. A little hoop-dee-hoo here and and there.’
Madhavi’s beginning course in kinematics is to put the first training wheels on future engineers. For sure for people not having any skills in building stuff are probably baffled by it all and instead buy into some crazy notion that the motion is more complex than it is. But the engineer designing this stuff takes a class like Madhavis to avoid mistakenly to put in rotations that are redundant and the ride doesn’t come out working like its blueprints say it should. Happens all the time. A little education is the cure for such mistakes. You are just confused because astro-engineers put in mechanisms to make quick adjustments and to counterbalance the forces that would cause the spacecraft to take its natural attitude which for missions like the HST a natural attitude would greatly limits its usefullness which depends upon the HST not taking a natural attitude.
grammie clone, the video is the result of patching together many small photographs of the Moon to produce a product which appears like a continuous series of still images as recorded by a video camera. Of course, the result shows the Earthward side as we see it, except that it’s not possible to discern the Libraton in Latitude, which is only visible from the Earth.
No one is claiming that the Moon is actually rocking back and forth to produce the Libration in Latitude. It is a visual illusion caused by the rotation of the Moon’s axis as the Moon traverses it’s orbit, similar to the lower panel in my graphic. You still have no other explanation to offer.
Hunter troll suggested:
Here you go, Mr. not-an-astro engineer. There’s lots more stuff on the web, if you care.
You’re getting closer, Swanson. Let me put the final fix on that:
It is a visual illusion caused by Moon’s orbit, as viewed from Earth.
That’s why you don’t see any bobbing or nodding from the LRO.
No, grammie clone. You are ignoring the fact that the Earthly view of the Moon is close to it’s orbital plane. If your statement were correct, one would see something like the middle panel of my graphic, i.e., only a slight Libration in Latitude effect. Don’t forget that the graphic is not to scale when comparing the sizes of the Earth and Moon with the distance between the two.
You still have no explanation, only another of your empty assertions. Where’s your evidence, as in hard data?
You’ve moved closer to reality, Swanson, but you’re still confused. NASA prepared that clear video of the LRO orbiting Moon. There is NO libration! Moon does NOT make those bobbing/wobbling motions as perceived from Earth. You’re confused by something that isn’t real.
Stick with reality, like the ball-on-a-string.
grammie clone claims:
grammie clone’s post doubles down on his ignorant claims that the NASA Moon composite proves there’s no Libration in Latitude. That video doesn’t represent the view from Earth, since the camera is orbiting around the Moon while looking down at the surface, not sitting on the Earth. Apparently, grammie clone is too stupid to understand the difference.
Of course, the “Moon does NOT make those bobbing/wobbling motions”, there’s no real motion, only a visual effect due to the tilted rotation axis. grammie clone’s reply is just another effort to ignore the facts of Libration in Latitude. He has still not presented a physics based explanation.
Correct Swanson, libration is not a real motion. It’s only an illusion of motion. It’s imaginary.
And an imaginary motion is NOT “proof” of an imaginary spin. It’s all imaginary.
Reality always wins.
grammie clone wrote:
Yeah, maybe that’s why NASA placed the LRO orbit over the North and South poles of the Moon’s rotational axis. You know, that “non-existent” axis you keep trying to ignore.
Have you come up with a physics based explanation for the Moon’s Libration in Latitude yet? No? Do your homework and learn about reality.
What makes this funny Swanson, is you keep trying to fake it. Yet you can’t even make simple diagrams correctly.
Of course, you don’t have a viable model of OMWAR. You’ve got NO science. Beliefs ain’t science.
Reality always wins.
grammie clone, I agree that reality SHOULD win. So, now that you know where NASA says the Moon’s real rotational axis is located (that would be the third panel in my graphic), when will you stop spreading your lunatic confusion and outright lies?
Sorry Swanson but your “third panel” is wrong. And, Moon does NOT have a “rotational axis”. Just as libration is NOT a real motion.
Here’s what you need to embrace reality:
1) Correct your diagrams.
2) Come up with a viable model of OMWAR.
I won’t hold my breath….
grammie clone ignores all the evidence that he is wrong. NASA is quite clear about whether the Moon rotates around in internal axis and uses that knowledge to create the map I referenced. It shows the same tilt axis as that for all three RHS cases of my graphic which was derived from the Wiki graphic. He insists that I correct my “diagrams”, without bothering to present any physical reason that I should do so. Lastly, he further demands that I build a model of OMWAR which he refuses to do himself after the failure of his cup-on-a-string scenario, which I debunked in my middle panel.
I agree that reality SHOULD win, too bad grammie clone still can’t understand the physical reality involved. The Moon rotates around it’s CM with an axis which is tilted WRT the orbit’s axis, just like NASA shows it in their map.
All wrong Swanson. You’re still making the same mistakes.
A map of Moon is just a map of Moon. It doesn’t prove anything about axial rotation. The coffee cup/pencil demonstation shows the imaginary spin axis is wrong. It’s the ball-on-a-string that demonstrates OMWAR.
You’re so confused.
Keep it simple, just deal with two things:
1) Correct your diagrams.
2) Come up with a viable model of OMWAR.
E. Swanson says:
”grammie clone, I agree that reality SHOULD win. So, now that you know where NASA says the Moons real rotational axis is located (that would be the third panel in my graphic), when will you stop spreading your lunatic confusion and outright lies?”
it seems ambiguous to me. NASA says its ”tidally locked”
that suggests its axis is the earth. where do see them saying where the real rotational axis is located. are you lying?
grammie clone (and Hunter), NASA knows where the Moon’s axis is located, as does a world full of astronomers. grammie clone keeps bouncing his ball and sliding his cup, ignoring basic orbital geometry. NASA orbited the LRO around the Moon’s spin axis in a polar orbit in order to keep the instruments pointing properly at the surface below. Both of you fail to understand the reason for using such an orbit, even though it’s the same as that for the NOAA polar weather satellites which have carried the MSU and AMSU instruments.
Hunter troll even wrote:
Hunter isn’t keeping up or he would have seen the NASA Moon map and the LRO polar composite images.
As Wikipedia notes:
Wrong again, Swanson. But you’re getting more and more creative as you make stuff up.
LRO keeping its “instruments pointing properly at the surface below” has NOTHING to do with its orbit. You STILL can’t understand orbital motion. You’re grasping at straws.
And the wikipedia definition of “lunar north pole” means that the coffee cup/pencil demonstrates Moon does NOT have a spin axis. You have so little understanding that the stuff you find proves you wrong!
More nonsense, please.
So you did lie when you said your link has NASA explicitly saying upon which axis the moon rotates. The north pole of the moon is going to be the same no matter which axis it rotates on considering all the perturbances at work as well.
Here is my arguments for the non-spinner position. Please confine any comments to the specifics outlined in the arguments as the arguments are complete and self contained.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1447455
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1447462
math argument:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1439567
grammie clone and Hunter troll continue to ignore the well known fact that the Moon’s rotational axis is tilted wrt the orbital axis. As noted in the NASA paper above:
Hunter troll’s argument assumes that the rotational axis of the Moon and it’s orbital axis are parallel, which is not the case. His arguments therefore fail completely.
thats a misinterpretation of my argument. please refer specifically to the language in my argument where you interpret it so and we can work to improve the language.
Quit stalling. Do you now agree that the Moon’s axis of rotation is tilted wrt the Moon’s orbital axis?
when did i ever disagree swanson?
i take there is nothing you disagree with in the three arguments i put forth and linked to with three links just above.
Swanson, you have migrated away from your libration nonsense to mapping and coordinate systems. Again, that won’t help you. You’re still making the same mistakes. This is about science and reality, not your cult beliefs.
As I stated, keep it simple, just deal with two things:
1) Correct your diagrams.
2) Come up with a viable model of OMWAR.
I take it from your reply that you now and forever agree that the Moon rotates around an internal axis with a tilt wrt the orbital plane. Please let grammie and clone know about this relevation.
In your second post, you wrote:
Given that the Moon’s axis is tilted, it should be abundantly clear that during a portion of the orbit, the particles at high northern latitudes would have more “momentum” than the corresponding particles in the southern hemisphere. It should also be abundantly that during another portion of the orbit, this situation would be reversed with the particles in the northern hemisphere having less momentum than those in the southern hemisphere. I think that situation refutes your no-spin claims because it’s not the result of some sort of external perturbation or “imperfection” in the orbit.
The Libration in Latitude is the natural result of the Moon’s axial tilt, as demonstrated in the third panel of my sketch.
“…as demonstrated in the third panel of my sketch.”
Swanson, did you finally correct your 3 diagrams? If so please share, so I can check them out. Hopefully you got them right this time.
E. Swanson says:
”Given that the Moons axis is tilted, it should be abundantly clear that during a portion of the orbit, the particles at high northern latitudes would have more momentum than the corresponding particles in the southern hemisphere. ”
it should be noted that all imperfect motions. . . .eer….all motions
incorporate energies from perturbations.
unwinding what they are has zero effect on how you want to classify and name basic motions.
But one would think that you aren’t aware of that considering how you make such perturbations at the center of all your arguments.
The whole issue has nothing whatsoever to do with physics. its just a bunch of narcissistic fools who are having trouble with how long their dong is. wouldn’t be better and more convincing if you related to the public in a more knowledgeable fashion saying the moon rotates around the earth keeping one face towards earth in a single motion that thanks to the brilliance of newton can also be viewed in more than one way?
Hunter troll is still confused, writing:
No, as that isn’t the correct physics as you apparently agreed. Since the Moon’s rotational axis is tilted wrt the orbital axis, your statement is incorrect. The more precise statement is that there are two motions: 1, the rotation around a tilted axis thru the CM once per orbit and 2, an orbit of the CM around the barycenter. Actually much simpler and it explains the Libration in Latitude.
E. Swanson says:
Since the Moons rotational axis is tilted wrt the orbital axis, your statement is incorrect. The more precise statement is that there are two motions: 1, the rotation around a tilted axis thru the CM once per orbit and 2, an orbit of the CM around the barycenter. Actually much simpler and it explains the Libration in Latitude.
——————————
your claim of greater precision is completely lacking a single iota of quantitative support. . . .making it not worth jack. accept the fact that your point of view is 100% based on choice of how you choose to view orbital motion. dremt for months has been pointing this factoid out. and you have yet to provide anything besides blather in support of your point of view. the math proves that to be true.
Hunter troll, your reply suggests that you still don’t understand the implications of the Moon’s rotation around a tilted axis or you refuse to accept that fact. Given that the Moon’s rotational axis is tilted WRT the orbit’s axis, it is physically impossible to describe the motion as a single rotation around an external point as the no-spin cult has been promoting for many months. Perhaps you can provide a mathematical formulation which shows otherwise. We await your reply.
Its been well explained Swanson.
The tilted axis is primarily a solar perturbation of the underlying motion(s) (depending how you choose to view it). A full explanation of it falls under the heading of Perturbation Theory. So you are incorrect that it requires two underlying motions to explain it when clearly the perturbation itself is explained by an additional motion, but it applies no matter how you view the underlying motion.
Hunter troll wrote:
Perhaps that changes the axial direction, along with the Moon’s nodal precession with a period of 18.6 years, but in the short term of a few orbits over 6 months, that would have little effect.
Hmmm the math works out to about 19 degrees per year. That is only a little bit in 6 months?
Hunter troll, precession produces only small changes in the Moon’s rotational axis against the ecliptic. The maximum angle between the Moon’s axis and the orbital axis remains about the same. Surely you read the reference in my link.
Like I don’t know that Swanson. Pretty basic stuff. In fact I have probably been using the one you took and modified into several versions as if you don’t know which one is correct. And you still haven’t told what your dark blotches represent on the moon.
So does this speak to you Swanson. Lets hear your take. If you have one.
Hunter troll apparently can’t understand my three panel graphic. OK, FYI, the top panel is grammie’s MOTR, the middle panel is grammie clone’s cup-on-a-string, aka, MOTL, the bottom one is my version assuming that the Moon rotates around a tilted axis as it orbits. All three start with the same picture like that from Wikipedia. The dark patches are there simply to emphasize how the respective motions would appear to an observer on the Earth. Don’t forget that the distances between the Earth and Moon in these visualizations are much too short, even though the sizes of the Earth and Moon are proportionally correct.
I must ask again, do you agree with NASA (and my visualization) that the Moon rotates around an axis which is tilted WRT the Moon’s Orbital axis?
Swanson, please stop trolling.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter troll apparently cant understand my three panel graphic. OK, FYI, the top panel is grammies MOTR, the middle panel is grammie clones cup-on-a-string, aka, MOTL, the bottom one is my version assuming that the Moon rotates around a tilted axis as it orbits. All three start with the same picture like that from Wikipedia. The dark patches are there simply to emphasize how the respective motions would appear to an observer on the Earth. Dont forget that the distances between the Earth and Moon in these visualizations are much too short, even though the sizes of the Earth and Moon are proportionally correct.
I must ask again, do you agree with NASA (and my visualization) that the Moon rotates around an axis which is tilted WRT the Moons Orbital axis?
—————-
I’m trolling by asking questions? Isn’t it you who is trolling by suggesting that? Get a life would you.
OK first off you have been selling a from the stars point of view and you have pasted in the view of the situation wrt to earthbound observers. The first comment is that the two views are incompatible time wise. The second comment is you talk about the how the moon would look from an earth bound observer after half an orbit except that one cannot see the moon after half an orbit from full moon. So that leads to the third comment that 6 months later you can see the full moon on the other side of the earth from the sun and you have a precession of the axis that moves over the course of an orbit and after 6 months has precessed by almost 10 degrees.
fourth while the earth’s axis does not significantly precess, there is a virtual precession of the earths axis that isn’t specified as to which position the moon is in wrt this blurry concept of two views that operate on a different time schedule.
None of this is specified.
Can we conclude that your graphic isn’t really informative and is very cartoonish?
I have been using your source document of showing a static representation of the moon frozen in space for a long time. You modified it and butchered it by incorrectly plotting it over time without making notations about the other motions of the moon.
Can we conclude that the guy that produced that source document didn’t do what you did because he actually foresaw the complications?
And its hard to reconcile why you would do the other two graphics, the MOTR and the Spinning cup tied to a string. Does anybody actually believe the moon spins like either of those once they are up to speed on how precession actually works? If you want to depict precession correctly you didn’t manage to do that in any of your graphics. The correct answer lies someplace between the middle graphic and the bottom graphic as far as precession is concerned. And the MOTR graphic? What the heck is that for? Is that your view of ‘ANY’ moon not rotating on its central axis? What the heck is it?
Hunter troll, my visualization is intended to show that the Moon’s Libration in Latitude can only be explained by it’s rotation around a tilted axis, as you have just agreed is the real description. That one needs to wait 6 months to see the total effect at full Moon is not particularly important to the physical motion. Nodal precession does not significantly change the tilt of the Moon’s rotational axis wrt the moon’s orbital axis.
You note:
Swanson, I have always understood that your third graphic is meant to be the reality.
gbaikie
I sincerely hope that you fully appreciated Clint R’s 100% scientific reply :–)
He’s got a much better chance of understanding and appreciating it that you, Bin.
You can’t understand ANY science.
I can’t say I get Clint R, as well as I should.
I thought the link from Bindidon, should be looked at.
“Now, just as the Earth’s spin axis is precessing in space like a spinning top with a period of 26 000 yrs, the Cassini plane of the Moon is also precessing, but with a period of 18.6 years. This precession is forced by the precession of the plane of the Lunar orbit at the same period.”
Which I am not sure I get, it reminds me, that it has been said the lunar orbit is regarded as complicated.
Having 18.6 year period seems pretty alarming.
Some might call it exciting.
Lately looking at different ways to get to the Moon, also I have long looked different ways to get to Mars.
One very simple/obvious recent question was the number launch windows to the Moon, which I haven’t yet found a simple answer to.
I generally had assume there is always launch window from Earth- and it seems in general terms this true, but it seems that if started in zero inclination low Earth orbit, it should be more often- like within 90 minutes.
Anyhow yesterday I was looking at this:
https://www.techscience.com/CMES/v135n1/50075/html
But what have been interested in for a long time is non hohmann transfers to Mars, and I assume they are they are thought to be complicated.
And again and again and again, this stoopid discussion based on
– trivial examples like the ball on a string, MOTL/MOTR, curvilinear translations inhibiting spins
or
– mental blind-alleys like
” In your view are there rotations on an external axis? and if so why is the MOTL not one or is one? “.
*
Why do you not all stop using the same word ‘rotation’ for both
– spin of a body about its center of mass
and
– orbiting of a body around another one located in one of the foci of the ellipse on which the orbiting body travels?
*
Moreover, the lunar spin denial troop never managed to show a treatise
– scientifically contradicting the results of Cassini, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace etc etc, proving the lunar spin
let alone to show one or more treatises
– scientifically disproving the lunar spin.
Until now, only discrediting and denigrating polemic was visible, including egomaniac distortions of Newton’s scientific words.
*
And… for the umpteenth time, please avoid coming out again and again with things like Tesla’s trivial pamphlet.
*
Not to mention the unscientific nonsense that Gumpach wrote – a guy who claimed the Moon couldn’t rotate e.g. because its synodic, sidereal, tropical, anomalistic, and draconic rotation periods are different!
Curiously, Moon’s synodic, sidereal, tropical, anomalistic, and draconic orbit periods also differ, but…that didn’t seem to bother Mr. von Gumpach.
*
When will we get a truly scientific refutation of Moon’s rotation around its polar axis?
Wow Bin, that’s another long-winded rant with NO science.
But, you’ve got plenty of your usual denial:
You deny the ball-on-a-string, yet you have NO viable replacement
You deny that your ancient astrologers have been debunked. You couldn’t even understand that the over 13 degree change in angle of your imaginary spin axis won’t work.
You deny that you take Newton out-on-context.
All of the above serves to scientifically discredit your cult’s beliefs.
That’s why this is so much fun.
PS Did you notice Swanson corrected one of his 3 diagrams. Those are the diagrams that you believed were all correct. You can’t seem to get anything right.
” You deny that your ancient astrologers have been debunked. ”
As usual, the Clint R troll shows off with nothing more than polemic, egomaniac assertions based on nothing scientific.
When will we get a truly scientific refutation of Moons rotation around its polar axis?
From the Clint R troll certainly not, as it seems.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1446392
This is why aliens don’t contact you
Upthread, the lunar spin denier Hunter boy wrote:
” The party in power in the Canadian government which is acting like a fascist state… ”
*
This is the clear proof that the Hunter boy never and never lived in a fascist state.
Like the bad boy Anderson, he probably thinks that South American dictators like Pinochet or Videla, who wiped out an incredible number of left wing people, were “Leftists”.
Bindidon you are just dodging the facts here.
Fascism is simply an authoritarian system that demands obedience of the population for the benefit of the state.
Fascist and communists and other authoritarian nations can rise to the level of brutality and most often do. But most start with name calling, firings, exile from the public arena, restrictions on the media, restriction of free speech, suppression of expression viewed contrary to the state objectives, etc. Thats the starting point. thats the early identification phase. then once the authoritarians see what they can get away with. . . .then it escalates. . . .imprisonment, murder. . .
Hunter boy
People like you can do smalltalk during days and days about fascism.
My mother personally experienced the Nazi dictatorship, though living outside of Germany; I was during 2 decades in contact with people who experienced the ‘soft’ dictatorship that dominated Eastern Germany till November 1989.
But you, Hunter boy, you have no idea about what fascism really is.
So is Trump a fascist?
I’m glad you ask, Gill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trumpism
I prefer one-term president.
So it appears you disagree with Bindidon that to be a fascist you have to be wiping out incredible numbers of left wing people or at a minimum be a horrible place to live. . . .for some people at least.
I suspect that one who is being publicly pilloried by the state probably qualifies that state as being fascist and non-conforming to the rule of law if that law is intruding far into the private space. I would suggest that if you are communist or fascist there is no concept of private space. . . .one owns nothing including themselves. Its all owned by the state. Am I wrong?
Gill, Gill,
Your whataboutism is silly, and your pussyfooting is cringy.
so you are devoted to running cover for the fascists unless you think they are fascists of your own disliking? but isn’t that the definition of a fascist?
“I would suggest that if you are communist or fascist there is no concept of private space. one owns nothing including themselves. Its all owned by the state. Am I wrong?”
Yes you are wrong. In Nazi Germany big private corporations thrived. Previously nationalized entities were privatized under Hitler.
“The Great Depression had spurred increased state ownership in most Western capitalist countries. This also took place in Germany during the last years of the Weimar Republic.[43] However, after the Nazis took power, industries were privatized en masse. Several banks, shipyards, railway lines, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more were privatized.[44] The Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible.[45] State ownership was to be avoided unless it was absolutely necessary for rearmament or the war effort,”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
Nate says:
Yes you are wrong. In Nazi Germany big private corporations thrived. Previously nationalized entities were privatized under Hitler.
————————–
See there you go again elevating form over substance. Ownership in form is a name. Ownership in substance is the ability to do with the thing owned as you please. You set its mission, you set its policies, you can sell it, you can change its mission, you can change its policies. If you can’t do those things you don’t really own it.
In Fascism where your value and rights are granted in relationship to how well you served the interests of the State, including if you actually run the corporation, corporations simply became instruments of the State and bore no resemblance to private corporations and by extension bears no resemblance to private enterprise/capitalism. In fact opposition to private enterprise/capitalism is one of the creeds of fascism. Its all about collectivism and no private ownership. Any private ownership granted by decree is hollow as there are no individual rights, no protections of due process, no rule of law applying equally to everybody. When you say Corporations became instruments of the Fascist state you aren’t talking about Corporations owned by an individual. They may have a certificate from the state of ownership but it means nothing.
The Great Depression had spurred increased state ownership in most Western capitalist countries. This also took place in Germany during the last years of the Weimar Republic.[43] However, after the Nazis took power, industries were privatized en masse. Several banks, shipyards, railway lines, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more were privatized.[44] The Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible.[45] State ownership was to be avoided unless it was absolutely necessary for rearmament or the war effort,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
> bore no resemblance to private corporations
That’s where you’re wrong, Gill:
https://www.epi.org/unequalpower/publications/talking-about-private-government-a-review-of-the-argument-and-its-critiques/
Willard says:
Thats where youre wrong, Gill:
[U]nder U.S. law, employers are dictators of their workplaces, empowered to exercise sweeping and virtually unaccountable power over their employees, even regarding their off-duty lives.
——————————-
Well for sure the government has been exploiting that loophole in the Constitution.
I am certainly in favor of splitting up oligarchies in addition to monopolies. Economies of scale is more an excuse for the growth of power than it is a real economic factor. There is what is known as outsourcing which small businesses take wide advantage of to avoid excessive costs arising from economies of scale. It is especially true in this new computerized online world that fixing economies of scale has economic workarounds. So today the primary way big business competes is by wielding its economic power to influence politics to clamp down on small business competition at every level of their business. As an auditor I see it first hand. Best remedy? bust em up!
“See there you go again elevating form over substance.”
So I point out substance: specific entities became privatized in Nazi Germany. That means these companies were no longer run or managed by the government.
Bill tries to philosphize about the existential meaning of ‘private’.
Who is elevating form over substance here?
Now it is true, the the Nazi government would bully or threaten corporations if they were somehow unsupportive of Nazi policies.
But this reminds us of what Trump often tried to do as President, and what Ron Desantis NOW tries to do in Florida.
Nate says:
So I point out substance: specific entities became privatized in Nazi Germany. That means these companies were no longer run or managed by the government.
Bill tries to philosphize about the existential meaning of private.
Who is elevating form over substance here?
Now it is true, the the Nazi government would bully or threaten corporations if they were somehow unsupportive of Nazi policies.
—————————-
Dang you don’t get it at all. Words, documents, recorded deeds, certificates, definitions. These are all forms.
Substance is that the Nazi government would bully or threaten corporations if they were somehow unsupportive of Nazi policies.
Depending upon the legal power of government to force compliance the substance can be different than the form.
Auditors deal with this all the time. You have a sale of a piece of property. A transfer of sale document is created. Is it a sale? Failure to understand the substance of the transaction is why the Enron audit failed. The sale was to an unconsolidated entity set up to hide losses from the auditors. the substance of the transaction was not a sale because you cannot sell something to yourself. The fate of the CPA firm for missing the substance of the transaction is why the business of auditing is a very risky business.
Nate says:
But this reminds us of what Trump often tried to do as President, and what Ron Desantis NOW tries to do in Florida.
———————————–
Oh yeah right Nate. Did your daddy tell you that? How exactly did these actions negate private ownership? DeSantis threatened Disney with removing its ‘special’ exemptions. Special exemptions that were set up to incentivize Disney to build its attractions in Orlando. Why are they still in place? Did the Florida legislature remove them? I don’t know I haven’t followed the story.
Gill, Gill,
You are like a high school drop out who would fall for Dinesh DSousas crap.
There is nothing very deep behind your armwaving.
“the Nazi government would bully or threaten corporations if they were somehow unsupportive of Nazi policies.”
“DeSantis threatened Disney”
Sounds like the same thing.
“Dang you dont get it at all. Words, documents, recorded deeds, certificates, definitions. These are all forms.”
It seems that whatever YOUR views are, they are considered ‘substance’, and whatever mine are they are considered ‘form’
I use real physics equations and apply them to a problem you call that ‘form’.
You use hand waving intuition and philosophical mumbo-jumbo about the same problem, you call that ‘substance’!
There is no rhyme reason to it.
That’s how your silly ‘form over substance’ game is played.
Numerous examples of Trump bullying and threatening companies. Apparently Trump (and Desantis) supporters like it when they act like a tough Daddy.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/04/news/companies/trump-companies-attacks/index.html
“Toyota Motor said will build a new plant in Baja, Mexico, to build Corolla cars for U.S. NO WAY! Build plant in U.S. or pay big border tax.”
“My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person — always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!”
“At least 24 players kneeling this weekend at NFL stadiums that are now having a very hard time filling up. The American public is fed up with the disrespect the NFL is paying to our Country, our Flag and our National Anthem. Weak and out of control!”
“General Motors is sending Mexican made model of Chevy Cruze to U.S. car dealers-tax free across border. Make in U.S.A.or pay big border tax!”
“Only fools, or worse, are saying that our money losing Post Office makes money with Amazon. THEY LOSE A FORTUNE, and this will be changed. Also, our fully tax paying retailers are closing stores all over the country…not a level playing field!”
“A spate of negative tweets from Trump about Amazon (AMZN) cost the company billions of dollars in market cap as investors sold off stock.”
You are kind of all over the place like a soup sandwich Nate.
Verbal attacks and threats about a company’s actions is something that should be done if those actions are anti-consumer, anti-jobs, etc.
However such threats only affect the company’s perception of being a benefit to the community.
Hardly is that the case of Nazi control over corporations where non-compliance got you shot, imprisoned, your body experimented upon, etc.
And its not the same as government threatening a corporation to coerce them into violating basic human rights like the right of free speech of the citizenry by threatening to expose them to liability for which they have an exemption not held by newspapers and other media. Those exemption were designed to promote opportunities for communication and airing of grievances against the governments actions it has entered into by fiat. So suddenly the government goes. . . .gee this is threatening to us so they threaten the very existence of social media to try to skirt constitutional protections and get that kind of criticism of the government shut down as dangerous misinformation.
Exemptions of free speech have hither so far been limited to speech that would cause unthinking panic. Speech on the internet about the origins of covid the efficacy of vaccines to deter infection or movements coercing certain standards of speech hardly qualifies as exemptions to free speech.
Do people actually believe that nonsense you are spreading. Or does it just appeal to your political way of thinking? I am thinking the latter and the result is spelled b-a-c-k-l-a-s-h. the old saying applies often you aid the outcomes you fight the hardest against.
Nate says:
”Thats how your silly form over substance game is played.”
Not true. Here is my substance argument for the moon rotating around the earth. Those are all facts.
Here is my substance argument against the spinner argument. Also all true facts.
Finally equations are forms not substance always. Along with words and documents. The substance is the actual physical nature. We have always worked with words, documents, and equations as imperfect as they are to make things go quickly and smoothly. But somebody has to pay attention to when those things don’t match the substance.
From the start here I have noted your philosophical reliance on forms and the inculcation of those forms in your education to the extent you freely extrapolate from them in inappropriate ways. If Newton’s equations were perfect there would have been no need for Einstein.
And Einstein was visionary and smart enough to know his contributions were just forms with limits to their accuracy.
If the form of the equation matches the substance then that is a good thing. But generally that is only proven by test after test after test. In terms of tests, tests of the spinner viewpoint work fine substance wise for what astronomers do. Astroengineers actually design work arounds to deal with the substance not captured in your equation. And earthbound engineers probably couldn’t learn their craft with the complications your astronomy approach entails.
Keep in mind there is no game playing here. Substance is the inherent nature of the real world. Forms are our shorthand to describe it in symbols. . . .like deeds of trust. If deeds of trust where actual substance then there would be no need for title insurance.
Forgot to include the promised links.
Substance arguments for non-spinners and against spinners.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1447455
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1447462
math argument for full conservation of angular momentum in the orbital motion:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1439567
Bottom line is education is a great thing. But beware of believing it is the end all and be all.
Nate quotes trump and complains:
”Toyota Motor said will build a new plant in Baja, Mexico, to build Corolla cars for U.S. NO WAY! Build plant in U.S. or pay big border tax.”
Here is an example of what this is about.
In a free country where workers get paid fairly foreign trade has a negative influence in limiting the number of such fairly paid jobs forcing people to find inferior work.
That is damaging to a nations defense (war industry potential), world competitiveness, and in particular the nations workers.
So suggesting that a company who wants to make more profits by exploiting cheaper labor has long been tariffed against in Japan by its people to protect their jobs and their industries.
But moving a US Toyota plant to Mexico doesn’t raise the ire of the Japanese citizenry.
Moving jobs to exploit cheap labor is generally not a good avenue for a nation to take. Sure some people will make a personal mint but others will suffer. A typical pro-capitalist would celebrate that without giving a hoot about who it harms.
Of course one could argue with automobiles that unions have abused their near monopoly powers to overly pay US auto workers. While there is something to that, thats not entirely the issue.
In my view competition between nations should be based upon something that isn’t an abuse of human capital. Communism doesn’t work because it tries to completely vest power into the workers which doesn’t recognize or reward harder work or innovation. And when one looks at say Republican Spain before it was over thrown, it was already disfunctional because everything became a monopoly and competition was prohibited by each and every trade group causing arguments between the groups to break out to the degree things became dysfunctional.
So Trump gets criticized by the party that allegedly supports the workers for helping the workers. And of course its the auto industry most capable of converting to a wartime resource.
What one wants to prevent is for an industry to become dysfunctional simply because of worker exploitation elsewhere. A difficult balancing act for sure, but a battle that must be fought smartly. And I am not saying that Trump correctly chose the battleground. But the fact is a good amount of the cost of building an automobile in the US is derived from employment, social security, and medicare taxes on wages.
Having a tariff on foreign goods to match that disparity between nations would seem to be a no-brainer. Of course it would have to be bi-lateral with each nation depending upon thats nation’s disparity in allocating employer taxes and property taxes to support educational opportunities, social security, unemployment, and medicare. One would think the democrats would applaud that. I am in big favor of rewarding what is good and condemning what is bad. That is if our motivation is to make our nation as great as we can make it without exploitation of our environment and our people of the earth.
\
So in your view a physics equation that applies to the real world and has predictive power is a ‘form’.
But hand-waving intuitions put into vague phrases, about what you think is going on with the Moon, is substance??
You are clearly casting ‘form’ as a negative, pejorative term, while what you call ‘substance’ is positive.
Why is a useful physics equation, that has been tested thoroughly and found to be useful in predicting the behavior of the world, a negative thing, in your view?
Its clear that when you don’t have expertise in some area, and others do, you are trying to spin other’s expertise as a negative thing, and your lack of expertise as somehow a positive thing.
Strangely your auditing expertise is exempted from this analysis.
Nate says:
So in your view a physics equation that applies to the real world and has predictive power is a form.
But hand-waving intuitions put into vague phrases, about what you think is going on with the Moon, is substance??
————————-
No Nate! My math link shows that it can be calculated either way. Equations are always subject to rearrangement at will without violating the substance. It obviously though violates your homage to the form of the equation offered up by Newton. But Newton clearly is cognizant that his equations can be rearranged without changing the outcome.
So its a dead heat tie between the spinner/non-spinner point of view. Neither has a mathematical advantage over the other.
But if you pick every particle following an orbital path with different amounts of angular momentum at each arc of the orbit you are actually doing a better job of matching that to observation. Observation counts for something. The common man’s viewpoint isn’t perturbed by inculcation. We know the major control is the fixed axis of the earth. We know that curvilinear translations in kinematics doesn’t include rotations around a fixed axis. and we know that depending on whether you want to follow the rules of kinematics and how you want to define orbital motion you can come up with either answer. so why fuk with the public on something so arbitrarily decided and has no impact on anything?
the answer imho being an auditor what we strive to do is use common language that the public. If we get too arbitrary we will get sued and we will probably lose.
You are clearly casting form as a negative, pejorative term, while what you call substance is positive.
Why is a useful physics equation, that has been tested thoroughly and found to be useful in predicting the behavior of the world, a negative thing, in your view?
Its clear that when you dont have expertise in some area, and others do, you are trying to spin others expertise as a negative thing, and your lack of expertise as somehow a positive thing.
Strangely your auditing expertise is exempted from this analysis.
“So its a dead heat tie between the spinner/non-spinner point of view. Neither has a mathematical advantage over the other.”
Only in a delusional mind, Bill.
300 years of observation and successful prediction are NOT in a tie with the mutterings of amateurs on a blog.
Substance over form would be for your model to correctly predict the Moon’s behavior, such as libration, but it has utterly failed to do so!
Your math might be ok. What is not ok is your often nonsensical interpretations of it.
Nate says:
So its a dead heat tie between the spinner/non-spinner point of view. Neither has a mathematical advantage over the other.
Only in a delusional mind, Bill.
300 years of observation and successful prediction are NOT in a tie with the mutterings of amateurs on a blog.
Substance over form would be for your model to correctly predict the Moons behavior, such as libration, but it has utterly failed to do so!
Your math might be ok. What is not ok is your often nonsensical interpretations of it.
—————————
So now Nate in a last gasp desperate defense becomes a math denier.
What is so difficult to interpret Nate when the sum of the orbital angular momentum of all the particles in the moon orbiting around the earth with unique mvr values is equal to the sum of Lorb+Lspin in Newton’s equation?
The answer is you can arbitrarily claim the moon is spinning on its local axis when in fact all the particles of the moon are orbiting the earth.
i’m just an auditor but i can spot a con job when i see one
Bindiclown defected over the Berlin wall – in the wrong direction
As we all know, little ankle biting and stalking dachshund, there is one one clown here – and that’s you :–)
Gill, Gill,
Fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Don’t get too carried away. You just defined a corporation.
Your claim is the purpose of a corporation is to work for the benefit of the State? Who woulda thunk? I thought the purpose was to make a profit for the shareholders. Am I wrong?
Gill, Gill,
Within a corporation, the corporation *is* the state:
https://booksandideas.net/The-Corporate-Dictatorship.html
You also seem to forget that Nazis privatized industries.
Willard says:
Gill, Gill,
Within a corporation, the corporation *is* the state:
——————–
Perhaps in America corporations can be like ”free states” but that does not mean they are States as commonly understood.
Willard says:
She likens corporate power to that of a private government: under the guise of free trading between equal individuals, relations between employers and employees are now marked by deep-rooted power imbalances that open the door to a whole range of abuses.
You also seem to forget that Nazis privatized industries.
——————————-
In ‘free states’ one can leave. And in a ‘free nation’ one can actually privately own a corporation. Not just the guise of private ownership.
Language is the form. the substance must be investigated.
Of course I get her implications. If you enforce dominion over any space you are a fascist as all spaces in her mind are public spaces subject to the rule of the biggest and strongest.
So really isn’t it just a battle between little fascists and big fascists?
You really are not getting it, Gill:
https://politicalresearch.org/2005/01/12/mussolini-corporate-state
As for your “one can leave,” picture of your ticket to Sierra Leone or it does not exist.
Well we have seen corporate power being used recently as a surrogate of the State. threats were issued and corporate media responded.
Are you talking about Palantir, Gill?
You might like:
https://johnganz.substack.com/p/the-enigma-of-peter-thiel
i dont know much about thiel. but libertarian-ism is essentially the opposite of fascist authoritarianism. typically they are the polar opposites on four sector political orientation carts with left and right economics being the perpendicular division.
i kind of fancy my self as a non-imperialist progressive conservative. fiscally conservative and socially and ecologically progressive which puts me in the domestic policy camp of t. roosevelt. foreign policy wise i like his speak softly and carry a big stick but object to his embracement of imperialism come neocon/neoliberalism.
i am for minimal government but see the need for the graduated income tax and trust busting of tr. roosevelt said “always believed that wise progressivism and wise conservatism go hand in hand”
in thiel’s defense his frustrations with democracy are the same as those who admied it in the early 19th century who feared it might fail because of a tyranny of majority over the minority voting themselves favors. . . .which could be even more expensive than a Royal family.
Of course you would root for Freedom Fighters, Gill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel
A national conservative designing surveillance systems may not be the Freedom Fighters we used to have, back in my days.
Nationalism needs to be an important element as long as we live in a world where not all people have the same degree of freedom.
Moving toward a world government in such a situation would be undemocratic as it would be equivalent of giving say 1.5 billion votes from China to one man. Quite honestly I aspire to a minimalist world government, underlaid with national governments with minimalist additional responsibility, to state, to local, to the individual. A hierarchy of government under laid by an inverse hierarchy of reserved rights. We have something like that in the US but the hierarchy still favors big government. When we learn to be ‘smart’ consumers in a system of free enterprise where regulation does not hit hardest on the small guy we will have a more perfect union. Doing that at the world level is going to take considerably longer.
Sure there are a whole boatload plus of fascist type thinkers that believe they can get us there sooner than later via fiat, but I sort of doubt that Thiel is one considering that accusations of him being a fascist come form people actively promoting that fascist-like faster means of getting there by fiat. So that suggests to me that likely Thiel is an anti-fascist. But I could be wrong. I am not right all the time. What it means I am reserving judgement because I realize I am only an expert at a few things.
Say what you will about the tenets of troglodytes, but at least they have an ethos.
Hunter boy
There is only one person dodging here, and that’s you.
Simply because you have never experienced fascism, even in its most delicate forms.
You never were on a road from France to Portugal in 1974, trying to communicate with Spanish students in a restaurant in Valladolid or Salamanca, for example.
You never experienced the fear of these people living in Franco’s dictatorship until 1975, telling you
” Sorry we can’t speak to you, it’s too dangerous, ‘they’ are everywhere. ”
You claim the alleged fascism in today’s Canada… and have no idea how many REAL Fascists secretly left Germany in 1945, and quietly populated America from Chile to Canada.
You have no idea how many of their children and grand-children became just as Fascists as their fathers and grandfathers.
Beware of them – as we in Germany beware of all the ‘neo’ Nazis around us.
bindidon there you go again spouting off on something you never lived under but somebody told you.
anyway fascism has many faces and it is well documented how it gets started. it starts with the kind of hate and lack of tolerance of other people. it moves to diatribes in public fora and media blaming somebody else for social problems or their failure to see how the moon rotates or whatever. they become infuriated that these people disrespect tradition. they create a narrative of victimhood and tell others who is causing everybody problems. if people just laugh at the idiot perhaps he turns into a serial killer. if enough people agree with the narrative; then maybe you have the makings of a fascist state. if it ends up between perhaps you get a kkk or a symbionese liberation army or a group neo-nazi liberal socialists trying to follow the same path as adolph who grew frustrated with all the bleeding heart egalitarians waiting for somebody else to fix ‘the problem’. so an action plan is made to get all the unbelievers to respect traditional views of moon rotation as the nutcase sees it.
binny…”This is the clear proof that the Hunter boy never and never lived in a fascist state”.
***
Like anything else, there are varying degrees of fascism. Loosely, fascism means a smaller group controlling a larger group. In that case, that’s exactly what is going on in Canada.
The Liberal and NDP national parties seriously over-reacted by calling the trucker’s protest a threat to Canada’s security, claiming openly that they had designs on over-throwing the government. Germany invaded Poland in WW II based on the pretext that Poland had attacked them first.
The Liberals in Canada introduced mandatory covid passport that deliberately removed the freedom of Canadians based on no scientific evidence that was necessary. That’s fascism. They also browbeat us into being vaccinated without evidence the vaccines were safe. Those matters prompted the truckers’ protest.
Based on little or no evidence, the Liberals are banning handguns in Canada. They are not confiscating them outright, they are simply banning the sale of handguns while making it illegal to leave them to anyone else.
That action is totally fascist. They justify it by claiming it will make Canada safer but that’s a lie for two reasons. One, they can’t get illegal guns off the criminals. Two, if a criminal breaks into your home and is armed with an illegal gun, you have no right to protect yourself, and if the country is invaded, no one can protect themselves.
Yes when you really get down to what fascism is, in general, its politics that restrict individual action and rights.
It can be via a dictator which most often is associated with fascism or it can be by a majority as defined recently by the left regarding right politics.
But what it is isn’t left or right. Fascism is the third way sitting between the traditional left and the traditional right. So is it right or left? Its neither.
Partisan politics that repeal regulations and laws restricting individuals is, in general, anti-fascist.
Of course all that needs to be considered within some kind of democratic super majority framework with regards to rule of law. For instance a murderer might consider a law against murder to be fascist.
Obviously there were some fascists that embraced murder so that obviously isn’t defining either.
In a sense such a law is fascist. It discriminates against murderers. So the vast majority of us can agree to be a little fascist.
Very clearly one necessary quality of not being fascist means to be for rule of law that applies equally to everybody
But today rule of law is being ignored. Without judging whether somebody is deserving of being in prison, Jan 6 insurrectionists are being imprisoned for years and BLM rioters got bailed out of jail and never saw another day in jail.
Its obviously fascist to not honor the rule of law.
Its OK to have Gay Pride, Black Pride, Brown Pride, Red Pride. But White Pride? No thats White Supremacy. Any kind of ‘Supremacy’ is fascist but pride in your race isn’t, shouldn’t be, and it is most healthy for individuals when others are not discriminating against them. Thats the role Jordan Peterson has taken on as a psychologist, calling out the fascists that prey on people for race, gender, creed, religion, speech, etc. And because of that he is labeled a white supremacist by the fascists. Interesting! Again its important to realize that a fascist is neither left nor right but can be either.
It is also why the so-called temporary dictatorship of the proletariat is simply just another form of fascism.
The Bordon & Gill bit is getting better and better.
“Yes when you really get down to what fascism is, in general, its politics that restrict individual action and rights.”
Yes when you really get down to what government is, in general, its politics that restrict individual action and rights.
Fixed it.
Yes when you really get down to what fascism is, in general, its politics that restrict individual action and rights and citizens
are inhibited in limiting what governments do.
Added to it.
Currently in US, Dems citizens have been forced to be less of merely being robotic cheerleaders for Biden and other politicians they have elected.
Which is a start of a good trend.
–AND NOW THERE ARE THREE: US military shoots down high-altitude object near Lake Huron on Sunday.
The US military shot down another high-altitude object near Lake Huron on Sunday afternoon, according to a US official and a congressional source briefed on the matter.
A second US official said the takedown of the unidentified object was at the direction of President Joe Biden. —
https://instapundit.com/
Some might not think this a good direction.
I think it a very good direction.
Willard that what I said. Fascism is related to the State however you want to define the State. Nation, religion, race, sex, victims, creed, etc.
It’s authoritarian. In a way it’s more honest than communism which is authoritarian and pretends to be unbiased. Not that dishonesty is intention it’s just going to treat anybody that speaks against the regime for any reason the same as the fascists
Gill, Gill,
Fascism looks like this:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d37d3/ohio-doe-nazi-dissident-homeschool
i agree willard. fascism is all about controlling the narrative.
Gill, Gill,
By that logic here would be fascists:
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1624953194248916993
I could buy that, but you?
I already have here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1446713
Do you agree their are degrees of fascism and in all of us there is a some discrimination? A lot of bad stuff starts out from good intentions but somewhere gets derailed by the universal law that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I actually think that was the case for Benito and his earlier writings reflected that. For Adolph though revenge was his corrupting force and it predated his political philosophy.
At least Rupert’s news service has a robust comment section that is only oppressed occasionally and mostly to regulate his most marginal rightwingers. And ostensibly Elon’s acquisition of Twitter was at least in part to broaden the narrative, which would be less restrictive than it was. Of course for Musk that would remain to be seen as he is paying a good deal of homage to those who would restrict certain kinds of speech. Check back in a couple of years.
Gill, Gill,
Fascism isn’t about controlling narratives. It is about controlling lives.
Don’t BS me with Newscorp’s comment section.
Pollyanna Willard says:
”Gill, Gill,
Fascism isnt about controlling narratives. It is about controlling lives.”
LOL! One name Josef Goebbels. Lives cannot be controlled without the narrative.
Oh, Gill. You goose.
It’s like the circle-ellipse rigmarole.
There’s something about entailment that seems to escape you.
bill…”Do you agree their are degrees of fascism and in all of us there is a some discrimination?”
***
I am slowly coming around to the awareness that all humans are basically discriminatory and racist. The sad part is there is nothing we can do about how we are wired and all this woke crap about trying to force us to be non-racist and non-discriminatory is nothing but a band-aid solution.
All we can do is be aware of those feelings when we interact with someone of a different race or culture. I have done that all my life and have acquired good friends from different races. However, my mind naturally wants to discriminate and be racist.
The saving grace for me is what I think is not what I do. Thought and action are two different things. When I met a guy of another culture years ago, we nearly came to blows. We have since become good friends.
With regard to fascism, it too is likely wired into us. There is always a tendency for smaller groups to try controlling the majority. The saving grace of the human mind is that we can intervene between what the mind would like to do and the action that is ultimately taken.
Discrimination is hard wired into us. We have the instincts of prey. Every animal has it where they react differently to new stuff. At first sight adrenaline hits. And this occurs with new inanimate objects in the environment. Rats and mice at first dart away at the first sight of a trap, later they get the scent of the bait and approach very cautiously. Often it takes a little time and you have let the trap sit for a couple days. Then bam you got it. If the trap moved who knows how long it might take. If the trap appears large and powerful and moves its going to be shunned.
Discrimination is just fear. Fear that diminishes in humans with familiarity. Animals are far more long termed in their fears. To break a horse you first have to capture it, feed it, pet it. Teach the horse there is nothing to fear.
Discrimination is in the eye of he beholder,
As the eye is what discriminates colour.
bill…”In a way its more honest than communism which is authoritarian and pretends to be unbiased”.
***
To be fair, we have never seen a democratic communism, except maybe in the kibbutz structure in Israel. After the way Israel forced the Pfizer vaccine on the people, however, I did not see much in the way of democracy.
I can’t see even a democratic communism working unless the people are highly evolved and want to work together in that manner.
When you claim ‘communism is authoritarian and pretends to be unbiased’ you are talking about a few people in the ruling class. The rest of the people have no say in it.
When people talk about Russian and Chinese communism they often blame the people living under such systems, as if they had a choice. The regimes were despotic, especially in Russia. Mao was not that bad in the early days but he had an unflinching faith in Stalin. He actually believed Stalin was a good guy. When people tried to tell him what he was really like, Mao balked and wouldn’t listen.
There was a period when Mao almost opted for a democratic form of socialism because he thought people were not ready for full communism. A forerunner of Mao, Sun Yat Sen, actually tried to introduce democracy to China circa 1915 and it was rejected because no one trusted the concept. I guess the Chinese were so used to living under feudal systems that the idea was too far out for them.
That’s a problem we face in the world. People have become so indoctrinated to certain systems they cannot see past them.
So in your opinion you shouldn’t look for the oppression of speech and wait until it escalates to the murderous level before saying anything about it?
Holy slippery slope, Gill!
bill…one thing you might notice is that those behind the oppression are nowhere to be seen. They are a load of stinking cowards who stab people in the back for some nefarious cause.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. revealed in his book, The Real Anthony Fauci, how Fauci has been stabbing scientists in the back for years.
fauci deserves a middle finger and a demotion or firing for his lying. he obviously tailors his message not on truth but to his perception of the needs of the state like any loyal fascist would do. then when caught in the mask lie, he doubled down with another lie that science had advanced on the benefits of masks. he did the same song and dance around the gain of function funding and the wuhan lab source of the virus.
Konstantin Kisin | This House Believes Woke Culture Has Gone Too Far – 7/8 | Oxford Union
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJdqJu-6ZPo&ab_channel=OxfordUnion
Why the Climate Change Narrative is nonsense.
https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2023/01/konstantin-kisindont-interivew-misrepresent-me
Ken, your post is clickbait to a straw man.
“Wokeism” describes a political ideology. Climate change, on the other hand, is a scientific phenomenon.
Give your brain an enema with this video instead… https://youtu.be/eDUOFOOLHAg
Did you get to the bit about why climate activism is ‘woke’ and won’t make any difference?
I actually did, Kennui.
You might also like:
https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/mini-decoding-of-konstantin-kisins-oxford-union-speech
I’m tempted to list all of Konstantin’s Bingo squares.
Should I?
ken…a while back a Canadian politicians confirmed that. Can’t recall the name, may have been our last environment minister. I called her a climate Barbie. Anyway, she said one day, that it doesn’t matter if the science is right, they are doing the right thing.
Recently, AOC said in a Congress committee meeting, that science et al doesn’t matter, it is morally right to take care of the planet. How she thinks it is morally correct to lie about science is beyond me.
Maguff seems to come from the same mindset.
Ken 4:31 PM.
Yes, I wouldn’t have commented otherwise.
These two quotes told me all I needed to know:
3:33 “…you know why, because the future of the climate is going to be decided in Asia and in Latin America by poor people who couldn’t give a [- – – -] about saving the planet.”
7:56 “and so I put it to you ladies and gentlemen, there is only one thing we can do in this country to stop climate change, and that is to make scientific and technological breakthroughs that will create the clean energy that is not only clean but also cheap.”
I need to work on that page:
https://climateball.net/but-technofix/
Will borrow that quote.
Thanks, Kennui!
Its these two points at 3:33 and 7:56 that are making the Konstantin speech go viral.
Can you find flaws in his arguement? Other than the fact that Carbon Dioxide isn’t causing even half of the modest warming observed in the climate?
Konstantin went viral because that’s the only thing troglodytes have left, Kennui. In fairness, hippie punching has a long tradition.
There’s no real argument unless you take naked assertions as arguments. But China isn’t really serious:
https://climateball.net/but-china/
You might as well dump the whole problem on future generations to see how absurd is the idea.
His “what about UK” is more directly false:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-trends-and-prices-statistical-release-24-february-2022
Every molecule counts.
“Can you find flaws in his arguement?”
Yes
First.
Since the proposition was: “This House Believes Woke Culture Has Gone Too Far,” Konstantin didn’t bother to address ANY of the issues raised by the supporting side.
It is called a non sequitur.
Second.
The poorer places of the world are going to get hit the hardest by climate change; of course they will care.
Third.
The whole discourse over the past few years around “wokeism” has focused on race, gender, sexuality, culture war shit etc. And yet he focused on climate change which while being politicized, is not central to the culture war.
I wonder who told him to discuss climate and how much he got paid to do so.
Bottom line.
He didn’t say we shouldn’t do anything about climate change, only that it’s a low priority for the poor to try to solve it, and our only hope is technological progress to lift people out of poverty while producing clean energy.
How the hell did you guys even get the idea that he’s saying we shouldn’t do anything about climate change?
He even clarifies it, that it’s better to “make scientific and technological breakthroughs” than throw oil on paintings.
“The poorer places of the world are going to get hit the hardest by climate change; of course they will care.”
CO2 isn’t causing climate change. There is no evidence to support the narrative of a climate crisis.
Certainly Climate Change is coming like a freight train. Its very likely going to get too cold to grow food; nothing you or I can do about it and its not going to be because of CO2. And, you’re right only in that the poor will get hit hardest.
Duly noted.
Tyson says:
”The whole discourse over the past few years around wokeism has focused on race, gender, sexuality, culture war shit etc. And yet he focused on climate change which while being politicized, is not central to the culture war.”
Its likely the so-called culture wars to which you are referring to are adopted by the democrats as a distraction to the larger culture war that pits the elites and well off against the people working hard to get ahead and bring in a few nutcases to bolster a climate action agenda that doesn’t have popular support.
money is pouring on one of the two and all the other is getting is lipservice.
Gill, Gill,
The so called culture wars is Freedom Fighters rip off their shirt every day on Twitter after being primed by Newscorp megaphones.
Like the gas stove farce.
Red states do not have them. Blue states do. Yet troglodytes keep losing it over this.
Own your stuff.
The Farce:
”Outrage ensued this week after Richard Trumka Jr., a Biden-appointed commissioner with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), said in an interview with Insider that a ban on gas stoves was ”on the table” due to the cooking appliances posing a ”hidden hazard” to health.”
The Back Pedal:
”CPSC Chairman Alexander Hoehn-Saric said in a statement on Wednesday that although the agency is looking for ways to mitigate ”indoor air quality hazards” posed by emissions from the stoves, he was “not looking to ban gas stoves and the CPSC has no proceeding to do so.” ”
is that the farce you are talking about?
perhaps they have no intent to ban them. most probably they would like price them out of market with a requirement to recycle the co2
Gill, Gill,
Here is the farce we are talking about:
> Scientists and public health experts say a growing body of research shows that the indoor air pollution from gas stoves is linked to respiratory and other health problems. A peer-reviewed study published last month suggested that more than 12% of current childhood asthma cases in the U.S. can be attributed to gas stove use. Brady Seals, a co-author of the study, told TIME that in-home gas cooking produces about the same level of risk for children to develop asthma as does exposure to secondhand smoke.
https://time.com/6247293/gas-stoves-right-wing-memes/
You can go Guns, God, Gas Stoves all you want, more than 90% of red state use electric ones.
I like that jim jordan guy. he’s got moxie!
simple solution. mandate new stoves electronically turn on ventilation, provided of course that the science is there to demonstrate a real health risk. probably wouldn’t add 5% to the cost of a stove. actually it probably should be a requirement for all indoor cooktops. when i redid my kitchen it was mandatory to have a filtered venthood to contain grease but it wasn’t mandatory to vent it to the outdoors. so i didn’t not wanting to mess with my roofing. wish i had because it blows the smoke back into the room and sets off the fire alarm.
i would suspect that cooking smoke is more harmful than natural gas byproducts. since its being compared to second hand smoke thats probably true. ventilation will handle both problems.
what kind of morons is biden appointing anyway! what kind of idiot would say that!
its also the case that parents need to get their kids outdoors a lot more. we are genetically adapted to playing outdoors in the mud. and lack of fresh air and all manmade materials that bleed off formaldhyde and everything else in our near hermetically sealed homes has been repeated implicated in childhood asthma. the biden administration is picking around the edges looking for stuff to feed their braindead constituents that are concerned about co2. what they say in politics is to never waste a crisis. don’t fix it but instead milk it for all its worth.
maguff…”Wokeism describes a political ideology. Climate change, on the other hand, is a scientific phenomenon”.
***
In your mind maybe. Climate change is a political ideology as well. I am not talking about actual climates that may change, I am talking about the propaganda that they are changing catastrophically due to a 1C warming in 170 years.
Interestingly, But Politics is not far from But Technofix:
https://climateball.net/but-politics/
Another page I need to work on.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
tim f…”I owned a train set. The side of the cars face straight in (along a radius for curved sections; perpendicular to the track along the straight sections). Are you saying that this is how the moon would move?
If so, you better study yourself, because this is NOT how the moon would face”.
***
Nothing on Earth can demonstrate how the Moon actually moves but the toy train gives a good demonstration of the curvilinear motion of the Moon.
If your tracks represented an ellipse, a point of the locomotives side would point exactly like the Moon points. There is no reason why it wouldn’t Both are always trying to move in a straight line and external forces are moving both into a curvilinear motion.
Your problem is a refusal to accept that there are two external forces acting on the moon. That is the sun and the earth.
You’ve almost got it. The moon is trying to move in a straight line. The sun is pulling it into an orbit around the sun. The earth is perturbing the orbit around the sun so that sometimes the moon orbit is outside earth orbit and sometimes inside earth orbit. The moon is not making a circle around the earth.
This is correct, but is by no means an explanation for Moon’s spin about its polar axis.
Thanks Ken, for proving you know NOTHING about orbital motions. And special thanks for drawing Bindidon into agreeing with you.
That’s why this is so much fun.
clint…the kiss of death for Ken’s theory is that Binny agrees with him. Binny is likely furiously combing the Net for proof.
ken…”The moon is trying to move in a straight line. The sun is pulling it into an orbit around the sun. The earth is perturbing the orbit around the sun so that sometimes the moon orbit is outside earth orbit and sometimes inside earth orbit”.
***
Can you get off that dumb Wiki theory that the Sun is causing the Moon to orbit it? The Moon orbits the Earth and the Moon is around for the ride wrt to the Earth orbit.
Next you’ll b telling us that satellite launched to orbit the Earth are actually orbiting the Sun. NASA would be pleased to hear your proof. A Nobel awaits you.
The entire lunar momentum is wrt the Earth, not a shred of it is related to the Sun.
ken…the effect of Sun’s gravity on the Moon is minimal, a mere fraction of Earth’s gravitational effect on the Moon. All the Sun can do is cause minor perturbations in the lunar orbit.
Someone, if interested, might want to check my figures. I am becoming rapidly bleary-eyed. The 3600 figure comes from Newton but I didn’t even know the solar equivalent g of the 9.8 m/s^2 g of the Earth is 275 m/s^2.
Newton calculated the effect of Earth’s g on the Moon based on its distances from the Moon. Figure it out. The Moon is about 60 Earth radii from the Earth. Using the inverse square law, Newton calculated that r^2 for the Earth-Moon distance is 60^2 = 3600. Acceleration due to gravity Earth-Moon = 9.8 m/s^2 therefore gravitational force of Earth on Moon is about 9.8 m/s^2/3600 = about 0.0027 m/s^2.
We are talking seriously small acceleration and that’s why I am claiming the Earth does not really accelerate the Moon toward it. It does over a distance but there are other factors and the acceleration is so small as to be regarded a velocity rather than an acceleration.
The Sun is about 150 X 10^6 km on average from Earth. Earth’s radius is about 6.4 x 10^3 km. So the distance factor is about 150 x 10^6 km/6 x 103 km = 25,000. We have to square that to get the equivalent of the 3600 factor used Earth to Moon. So, the inverse-square factor becomes (25 x 10^3)^2 = 625 x 10^6 = 6.25 x 10^8.
Can you not see from that alone, 3600 for Earth-Moon and 6.25 x 10^8 for Earth-Sun what the problem might be?
g for the Sun is 275 m/s^2, therefore g/6.25 x 10^8 = (275 m/s^2)/6.25 x 10^8 = 44 x 10^-8 = 4.4 x 10^-9 m/s^2. That the acceleration felt at Earth due to solar gravity.
So, Earth is pulling on the Moon and creating an acceleration of 2.7 x 10^-3 m/s^2 and the Sun is pulling on the Earth creating an acceleration of 4.4 x 10-9 m/s^2. The pull of the Sun is about a million times less on the Earth than the Earth’s pull on the Moon. That means it’s about a million times less on the Moon as well, especially consider the lunar mass compared to Earth’s mass.
There is absolutely no way the Moon is orbiting the Sun.
I did learn one thing studying astronomy at the uni and that’s that the planets have very little effect on each other re gravity. Newton claimed that Jupiter and Saturn would interact with each other but with no other planets. That’s plainly due to the vast distances between them and the inverse-square law.
It amazes me that such a small amount of accelerating force between Earth and the Moon can keep the Moon in orbit. Then again, the same effect of the Sun on all planets is even less.
the sun has less pull on earth than the moon has. the earth relatively has far more influence on the moon than the sun has. the reason the moon is aligned to the ecliptic is because the moon spends as much time above as it does below it and the ecliptic represents the strongest linear forcing vector influence on the moon. earth + sun.
dremt pointed out that the traversal of the Moon through the ecliptic is the cause of latitudinal libration.
we agree. i gave the moon’s attitude as being inline with gravitational forces. only tidal locked objects have attitudes established that way. spinning objects have axes of their independent spin established by the spin.
and we are in agreement that the libration is a visual effect that arises out of less than perfectly uniform circular motion. which is defined as circular with a perpendicular axis to the orbital plane.
Goggled: comparison of amount of solar eclipses vs lunar eclipses
Lunar Eclipse vs. Solar Eclipse
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Lunar_Eclipse_vs_Solar_Eclipse
–Frequency of occurrence lunar eclipses: In most calendar years there are two —
–There are two to five solar eclipses each year, with a total eclipse taking place every 18 months or so.–
Why does moon block sun more than Earth blocks Sun from the Moon?
What else does that say?
Lunar Eclipse:
Occurrence: At night
Visibility: Moon completely obscured, visible partially or in an orangish hue visible from all night time places
Duration: A few hours
Solar Eclipse:
Occurrence: During day time
Visibility: Sun gets blocked by moon eclipse visible only in some areas
Duration: Usually a few minutes
–Types of lunar and solar eclipses
The type and extent to which the eclipse occurs can vary. Lunar eclipses are of four types – penumbral, partial or horizontal. Penumbral eclipses happen when the moon happens to fall into the penumbral shadow of the Earth, which is the outer shadow of the Earth. In this case the moon appears darker in some areas than others. A partial eclipse is seen when part of the moon enters the umbra, which is the darkest shadow of the Earth where there is no radiation from the Sun. Similarly, during a total eclipse, the moon lies totally in the umbra and completely obscured by the Earth. A horizontal eclipse is when the Sun and the eclipsed moon can be seen together at the juncture of sunrise and sunset.
Solar eclipses are of different types too. A total solar eclipse, as the name suggests, is when the Sun is completely blocked by the moon, only a faint corona radiating out from the eclipse and a partial eclipse is when the Sun is only partially blocked by the Moon. An annular eclipse is when the Sun appears as a bright ring outside the darkened circle. A rare hybrid solar eclipse is a combination of a total and annular eclipse, visible differently from different places on the Earth.—
And anyhow, reason is only that Earth is bigger.
Or are there other reasons?
Say Earth was twice size [but same gravity] how much does it increase
lunar and solar eclipses and say 1/2 the size [but same gravity]?
You say it the other way, reason we have fewer eclipses is because the Moon is so small. So again larger [but with same gravity]
And changing Earth size, adds problems to Earth, whereas less effect
if changing the Moon’s size. But making the Moon smaller has little
effect or one could say the Moon is “small enough” unless you counting just total eclipses, it doesn’t have to get much smaller,
to have none of them, but you still get the partial or same number of
total. And human have always found total eclipses fascinating.
More proof of God. But if God doesn’t want people to believe in other
gods- He is partially to blame for it. But human becoming a spacefaring civilization, must of have more important than allowing less faith in God. Or as they say, God gave us a Moon, so we would become spacefaring.
–Solar eclipses have been observed throughout history. Ancient eclipse records made in China and Babylonia are believed to be over 4,000 years ago. Recent research has demonstrated that solar eclipses had been depicted in the fascinating mythology of ancient Egypt, and produced evidence that the ancient Egyptians observed solar eclipses over 4,500 years ago.
In ancient China, the solar and lunar eclipses were regarded as heavenly signs that foretell the future of the Emperor; predicting eclipses were of high importance for the state. Over four millenniums ago, two Chinese astrologers were murdered as they failed to predict a solar eclipse.
The ancient Chinese believed that solar eclipses occur when a legendary celestial dragon devours the Sun. They also believed that this dragon attacks the Moon during lunar eclipses. In the Chinese language, the term for eclipse was “chih” which also means “to eat”. One ancient Chinese solar eclipse record describes a solar eclipse as “the Sun has been eaten”.–
http://bibalex.org/Eclipse2006/HistoricalObservationsofSolarEclipses.htm
[Nature worshipers.]
It’s amazing to see how people who in their entire life never experienced real fascism as it exists in real dictatorships can manage to explain us what fascism is.
No wonder that they can also manage to explain us, among many many other things, that
– all seven translators of Newton misinterpreted him in the same way in exactly one place
– viruses don’t exist
– Einstein was wrong
– GHE doesn’t exist
and that
– the Moon doesn’t rotate about its polar axis.
*
Pseudo-skepticism manifestly is a kind of religious belief.
I think it’s amazing the Europeans blame Italians for inventing fascism, when the blame goes to the US.
Also the US invented communism.
binny…it would amaze me if you could chew gum and tie your shoe laces at the same time.
Quoting myself from upthread:
–But what have been interested in for a long time is non hohmann transfers to Mars, and I assume they are they are thought to be complicated.–
But I think it’s simple- though uncertain about amount to delta-v needed, but from LEO, less than 12 km per delta-v added to the 7.8 km/sec of LEO orbital velocity. Well 12 km/sec of rocket thrust of delta-v which is well within the capability of chemical powered rockets- assuming the chemical rocket fuel is added to rocket once in LEO.
Or you have orbiting refueling or bring up fueled stage and mate it
to another stage which has been separately bought to orbit by different rocket launch.
And if using Nuclear rocket, one also needs refuel or docking in LEO
for it also. Or one selling point of nuclear rockets is to get more delta-v from chemical rocket {but they don’t talk about chemical rocket which have refueled in Orbit- or they are lying by omission}.
I think nuclear rockets aren’t needed and Nuclear rockets will make
SLS look cheap {SLS, +40 billion dollars in development costs- but far more important- costs us decades of time to do it].
So, I spent less 10 mins trying get what “Clint R says:” better.
Ice cubes don’t boil, fluxes does add. And lastly CO2 cools [near the top of this thread]. And in general a lack of “science” related to few/many posters. And moon and string thing is a lot of it- which is analogy {and there is limit to using analogies in my opinion- it sometimes is helpful as learning tool].
The flux of sunlight, does add, you can melt a brick by adding to sunlight’s flux [Adding or magnifying}. You can’t add or magnify something unless it something like sunlight. But he is not talking about sunlight.
Roy thinks CO2 can cool as does a lot people. And I am not convinced about it. I don’t think Venus cools because it’s mostly CO2 [though it also has more than 3 atm of N2].
And I don’t think H20 gas cools [droplets and H20 ice is different matter].
In terms of lacks of science- the news has very little- unless counting science papers as “news”. There is no news reporter, which comes to mind, which isn’t very little. Though they quote stuff, which usually out context- to say the least.
Religion/cults are very common. Main purpose of one god, seems to lessen belief in a lot sorts of gods- and humans, being gods, is just common now, as in ancient times. North Korea’s “king” is a “god”, and etc. Some even regard the Pope as kind of god.
But to get to the point, it seems Clint R, could summarized as it’s “the sun stupid”. Which provides question, is Grand Solar Min or a possible up coming Grand Solar Max, going to have much of an effect.
Oh, not sure, I think Clint R, say we are constantly cooling.
Well everyone sort of thinks so- or we going back to glaciation period at some point. But also eventually it turns around and we return to another interglacial period. But in practical human time scales- it’s constant very gradual cooling.
gb…”The flux of sunlight, does add, you can melt a brick by adding to sunlights flux …”
***
That’s not fluxes adding, gb. The heat that does the melting is no longer a flux. The melting occurs after the solar flux is converted to heat.
Sunlight in an empty space has no heat. It is electromagnetic energy that consists of an electric field (flux) perpendicular to a magnetic field (flux). Not a shred of heat anywhere to be found in electromagnetic energy.
It is after the solar EM is absorbed that heat is produced therefore the heat melting anything does not come from fluxes adding.
The opposite happens when the surface radiates EM. There is no heat in that radiated EM, just a potential to heat. When the surface radiation is produced it’s at the expense of heat in the surface, which is lost.
You can focus sunlight through a lens all you want. No heat is produced till the focused light lands on something. No fluxes will add because the light is incoherent.
” Gordon Robertson says:
February 13, 2023 at 11:50 PM
gbThe flux of sunlight, does add, you can melt a brick by adding to sunlights flux
***
Thats not fluxes adding, gb. The heat that does the melting is no longer a flux. The melting occurs after the solar flux is converted to heat. ”
Well, how about the solar flux density near the sun is very high and is weaken over distance. And you increase this lowered flux density,
back up to the higher flux density of sunlight when it was closer to the Sun, making more dense by magnification or collecting from larger
and reflecting into smaller area.
gb…it’s all about the inverse-square law, electromagnetic radiation loses its intensity as the square of the distance from a source.
Newton calculated that the Moon is 60 Earth radii from the Earth. If you square 60 you get 3600. Therefore he calculated that the 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration (g in f = mg) caused by gravity near the Earth’s surface is only 9.8 m/s^3/3600 = 0.0027 m/s^2 at the distance of the Moon.
That’s all that holds the Moon in orbit, a gravitational force that can only accelerate the Moon by 0.0027 m/s^2.
Gravity is a weird and wonderful thing. A little bit goes a long way. The entire universe is pretty much held together by it.
Tucker Carlson and this guy from “Speak the Truth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNERsJAnoqw
America Warns of Serious Escalation – Ukraine
So, can cylinders float, sure. But they would still be, balloons.
And if made of metal, it would roughly be what is called a balloon
tank- which need pressure or they collapse due to metals weight.
We used balloon tank on rockets in 1960s. Starship is balloon tank sort of thing- or without pressurizing it can handle vertical but not
handle it if horizontal. Or needs to be pressurize when it hits atmosphere “horizontally”.
I consided using metal cylinders with Venus atmosphere [it sort of
works, but the handling balloon tanks, has problems. But if want use helium or H2, not much of problem.
In terms of Tucker Carlson, are such people aware that rockets go faster than bullets? And telescopic magnification [as in, you know, TV cameras having this or how about using binoculars- assuming you point it at target and move it with enough precision to follow a target.]
gb…I have been expecting a serious escalation and it has been promoting by us in the West sticking our noses in and arming the Ukrainians. If we had not stuck our noses into Ukraine affairs in the first place, the war would never have started.
We began arming them under the pretext that Russia intended to overrun the Ukraine and take it over. Putin claimed that was not true, that they wanted two things: to root out neo-Nazi forces being used in eastern Ukraine by Kyiv and to claim the Donbas region so the eastern Ukrainians could vote for their future. Thus far, Putin has stuck to his claimed goals.
During the 2014 protests, the US (John McCain) and NATO countries were in the Ukraine, along with the European Union, fanning the flames of revolt. They had no right being there because the sitting president had been sanctioned internationally as having been legitimately voted into power.
The protest began peacefully in a democratic manner when armed Ukrainian nationalists got involved introducing violence. The violence escalated till they forced the president out of office, forcing him to flee.
The EU, NATO, or the US government could have intervened as peacekeepers but instead, the Ukrainian army and police did nothing. The aforementioned wanted a change in government but since when do you change a government in a coup in a democratic country? It’s one thing to pull that off covertly in a banana republic, but not in Europe, in the Ukraine.
The president had been voted in largely by provinces in eastern Ukraine (Donbas region) voting as a block. Eastern Ukrainians are also more Russian than Ukrainian. When the president was run off, they revolted and turned to Russia for help.
The West is currently trying to fix a bad situation but they are going about it in the wrong way. They are arming western Ukrainians and that will end in a whole lot of Ukrainians getting killed.
I am not pro-Putin or anywhere near, simply because I know very little about him. Someone had to help the people in eastern Ukraine and the Ukraine has done virtually nothing for them other than try to suppress them. Who is speaking on their behalf? Who is investigating the apparent illegal overthrow of a democratically-elected president?
tim f…”And yet you still cant explain what orbit with no spin means for an elliptical orbit”.
***
I have gone into this in detail and the only response I get from you is a patronizing response suggesting I am wrong.
There is essentially no difference between an orbit with no local rotation on an ellipse or a circle. The major difference is in how a tangent line and radial line is determined.
The reason you may be having trouble with this is thinking the Moon is following an elliptical orbit. It’s not, it is creating the orbit dynamically as it moves in conjunction with Earth’s gravitational field. Therefore, the orbit is a resultant path between the Moon’s linear momentum and the Earth’s gravity.
The orbit is created in a purely dynamic manner because the ellipse varies slightly in shape and the major axis rotates around a centre. The Sun also has a slight effect on the Moon’s orbit, so as Earth’s orbit carries it closer to the Sun and farther away, the lunar orbit varies.
You have to focus on the instantaneous movement of the Moon or any object moving like the Moon on an elliptical or circular orbit. At any instant, whether on a circular orbit or an elliptical orbit, the Moon has only a linear velocity/momentum. That is, it can only move along a straight line on its own.
Next point…Earth’s curvature. It changes in a ratio of 8000 horizontal metres to 5 vertical vertical metres. In order for any body to go into orbit around the Earth, it must abide by that ratio. It has to travel 8000 linear metres in the time it takes gravity to move it 5 vertical metres. If it can do that, and it’s outside the drag of air resistance, it will go naturally into an Earth orbit.
Effect of Earth’s gravity on Moon…Newton calculated that the Moon is 60 Earth diameters from the Earth’s centre. The force of gravity of the Earth on the Moon is F/r^2 (inverse square law), therefore, r^2 = 60^2 = 3600.
F = mg = 9.8m/s^2, therefore gravitational force at Moon is about mg/r^2 = 9.8 m/s^2/3600 = 0.0027 m/s^2
This is an estimation based on Newton. He calculated there are about 60 Earth radii between Earth and Moon. I don’t know how accurate it is but as accelerations go, it’s pretty minimal. That’s the point, it’s so slow it’s almost like a straight velocity.
Remember, the Moon has to move 5 vertical metres for each 8000 horizontal metres to remain in orbit.
The whole point to this exercise is that the Moon always moves in a straight line while gravity deviates it 5 metres or so per 8000 tangential metres. This is done very gradually therefore there is no problem with the Moon keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
The difference between a circular orbit and an elliptical orbit…. the first thing to note is the equation of the ellipse…x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1, where a = semi-major axis and b = semi-minor axis. If a = b then… x^2 + y^2 = a^2 where a is now the radius, and that’s the equation of a circle.
WRT to the lunar orbit, that translates to the effect of the lunar momentum wrt Earth gravity. If each has an equal effect, the orbit will be circular. If lunar momentum has a greater effect than gravity, to a certain extent, the orbit will be elliptical. If the lunar momentum is leas effective than gravity, we’re in trouble. That means the Moon will lose orbit.
So, we have the Moon moving in a straight line due to its linear momentum and Earth’s gravity very gradually pulling it off that straight line into a circular or elliptical orbit. In a circular orbit, the same side points straight at the centre of the Earth. With an elliptical orbit the same side always points inward but a radial line to the near face will point at the Earth at apogee and perigee and in-between, a few degrees either side. That produces libration.
Your scheme only produces half the observed longitudinal libration, Gordon. Plus there is no physical reason why the Moon’s orientation should align itself like a train around an elliptical track, and every physical reason why it shouldn’t.
Brandon, the ball-on-a-string is a model of OMWAR. The toy train extends the concept to an oval track, representing an elliptical orbit. Both the ball and the train keep the same side facing the inside of its orbit, just as does Moon.
You’re going to have to accept the very real possibility that this is all over your head. Just stick with trolling, and leave science to the adults.
Pup the ball on the string will NEVER replace the Poll Dance Experiment.
Do it and report.
See how easy it is to troll, Brandon?
You don’t need any science or any maturity. Kids can do it.
(You don’t even need to know how to spell “pole”.)
See how easy it is to troll, BG?
Pup does nothing else.
He could do the Pole Dance Experiment, but no.
I leave him to you. No time to babysit him today.
the pot calling the kettle black troll.
Slayer, Gill.
Slayer.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
brandon…”Your scheme only produces half the observed longitudinal libration, Gordon. Plus there is no physical reason why the Moons orientation should align itself like a train around an elliptical track, and every physical reason why it shouldnt”.
***
There is no fixed longitudinal libration. At apogee and perigee, on either end of the major axis of the ellipse, there is no libration. A radial line from the near face points straight along the axis as in a circle. In those two position we cannot see around the longitudinal edge of the Moon.
In between those states, libration varies to some point where it will be a maximum. We could likely find the spot at which libration is maximal but I confess to not being that motivated at the moment. Here are a couple of tips for the more adventurous.
1)The earth is located at the major focal point of the ellipse.
2)the lengths of lines drawn from that major focal point to the Moon and another line from the minor focal point to the Moon must sum to a constant at any position of the Moon on the ellipse.
3)if you draw both lines just mentioned in 2), then bisect them, the bisector is the radial line to the lunar near face at that point. A line drawn orthogonal to the radial line is the tangent line.
4)if you plot the bisector of the angle at various points on the orbit, you will see that as the Moon approaches apogee or perigee, the angle reduces in size so that at either of those two points the bisector aligns with the major axis.
Conversely, as the Moon approaches the semi-major axis, the bisector points straight along that minor axis and the angle of the bisector with a line drawn to Earth’s centre is a maximum.
Therefore, I would guess libration is a maximaum when the Moon is at the positions of the minor axis on both sides.
5)if you calculate the angle between the bisector and a line connection Earth’s centre with the lunar centre it should give the number of degrees of libration.
ps. just discovered that maximum libration occurs about a week after apogee or perigee. That should put the Moon at the intersection of the minor axes and the orbit following either.
“5)if you calculate the angle between the bisector and a line connection Earths centre with the lunar centre it should give the number of degrees of libration.”
Well, it should if you are right. But it has already been show that you are not right. Your calculated angle is about 1/2 as big as it should be.
Well we have already agreed the math works both ways. Its also abundantly apparent that the moon’s motions are controlled by gravity if not 100% all the time then at least in the average mean kind of way similar to how we measure climate.
So I also agree that Newton’s brilliant reduction of a spin by a sphere on an external axis was a neat mathematical deduction that had to have arisen from an inherent vision of Σmvr = Lorb+Lspin = the total orbital angular momentum along with all the other forms and concepts he was able to derive mathematically.
Inculcation is actually what drives a selection between the various forms. The common man’s perception is also correct. So it actually seems rather robotic to go forth and correct the common man’s perception on the matter. A job better left to a professor who is going to be training future astronomers and astro-engineers. I think that the entire discussion of how angular momentum holds together only with intact 3 dimensional objects, the loss of angular momentum isn’t strictly conserved. It is conditionally conserved as angular momentum in intact objects.
This can serve as a guidepost in that if gravity has lost control say temporarily and allows an elliptical motion where the linear perception is angular momentum is intact only within the sphere but not with its external axis that provides an argument that its spinning on its local axis during that point in time. But we know from Newton and Kepler that is NOT the case as angular momentum is being conserved strictly in the elliptical motion because of its ‘area’ vs ‘lineal’ nature.
So DREMT is correct when he says that it depends upon how you want to look at it. The terms of Lorb+Lspin can be rearranged to arrive at Σmvr = Lorb+Lspin = the angular momentum of an object in orbital motion. . . .as the math shows it can be.
“The major difference is in how a tangent line and radial line is determined.”
By this approach, the radial line and the moon would have turned exactly 1/4 of a revolution (90 degrees) while travelling between perigee and the minor axis = 1/4 of the DISTANCE around the orbit.
But the moon reaches the minor axis after less than 1/4 of the TIME around the orbit. The moon will have rotated less than 1/4 of a revolution; less than 90 degrees.
That should more accurately been “the moon would have turned exactly 1/4 of a ROTATION” about its axis and it traveled 1/4 of the distance around the orbit.
Folkerts is locked in solid to linear thinking in a non-linear world.
No, I am locked in to data.
The moon simply does not align the way Gordon’s model suggests. The moon does turn at a fixed rate relative to the stars.
linear momentum is linear
angular momentum is area based
you are looking at one side of the equation. it works coincidentally with perfect circle.
In this case Bill, I am still just considering the data. Either the moon moves the way Gordon’s model predicts or it doesn’t.
If his model fails (and we have already shown it does), then no discussion of how linear linear momentum is will fix that.
I haven’t tried to figure out Gordon’s scheme so I have no comment on that.
However, below, this is pretty much my final position on the matter as an auditor who never even considered this issue prior to being introduced here. I have confidence that this viewpoint meets the standards of science and would stand up in a courtroom. . . .though I might need DREMT as a witness. Definitely need somebody who can see through inculcation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1448124
And my pretty much final position is that for 400 years, data and theory have led every physicist to understand that the moon does indeed rotate on its axis.
In court, an auditor and a random guy from the internet are not going to convince anyone when a line of professors are on the other side, pointing out all the errors in your thinking.
“I think that the entire discussion of how angular momentum holds together only with intact 3 dimensional objects, the loss of angular momentum isnt strictly conserved.”
Absolutely wrong! Angular momentum has been experimentally confirmed on scales from atoms to solar systems. for solid objects and for objects that combine and objects that fall apart.
And there are deep fundamental reasons that angular momentum should be conserved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
Tim says:
Absolutely wrong! Angular momentum has been experimentally confirmed on scales from atoms to solar systems. for solid objects and for objects that combine and objects that fall apart.
—————————-
I agree on the ‘solid objects’. But why does the CD grenade when it flies apart instead of continuing around the axis? Why does the ball on a string fly away when released? Some of the angular momentum is conserved based upon the energy it takes for the object to continue to rotate around it COM. But where does the linear movement come from? The desire of the rotating object to fly off on a tangent line when released from its axis? The energy is conserved. But it is conserved as linear momentum.
Reconcile this for me please.
Never mind I get where you are coming from. In celestial objects they are always rotating around some COM and those axes explain why the moon isn’t perpendicular to its orbital plane. Everything is a trajectory.
Thats fine, I can correct what I was saying as the apparent lineal line is just around an axis now far away such that when the object flies apart it takes all the orbital angular momentum plus some of the spin angular momentum with it. Breaking it down to zero takes all of the angular momentum into the orbit.
I knew that and let that slip by. But it really doesn’t change the argument about which the moon rotates.
“Why does the ball on a string fly away when released? ”
It still has the same angular momentum!
already answered tim.
I found a link to an entire physics textbook on radiative transfer.
https://ostad.nit.ac.ir/payaidea/ospic/file8971.pdf [9 MB]
RADIATIVE HEAT TRANSFER
Third Edition
Michael F. Modest
I do welcome those who think:
1) Cooler objects can’t absorb radiation from warmer ones
2) Objects at a given temperature emit radiation in one frequency
3) Radiation arriving at a surface from multiple sources is not summed while accounting for the temperature of that surface
to click on the link and point out where this text states any of these ideas.
Briandead barry, did you find another source you can’t understand?
That’s always funny, but not very original.
But, your three straw men are original. I especially like #1.
The old duplicate comment trick where the original fails to appear.
I am going to quote two excer.p.ts from this book to demonstrate how full of crap the author is.
“The internal energy of every atom and molecule depends on a number of factors, primarily on the energies associated with electrons spinning at varying distances around the nucleus, atoms within a molecule spinning around one another, and atoms within a molecule vibrating against each other”.
***
This author commits the same egregious error as many others. He talks about molecules, giving them properties they simply don’t have. For example, he acknowledges electron transitions then mistakenly claims they can only occur after intercep.ting a high frequency photon. I was wondering here Norman got that garbage. Furthermore, he is claiming that electron transitions are not involved in molecular rotation or vibration.
If that was true, ice could never melt when heated by a heat lamp emitting only infrared rays. If it was true, UAH would have no information from oxygen, which emits at an even lower frequency, in the microwave spectrum. If it was true, CO2 could not be warmed by an infrared lamp nor could it absorb IR from the surface.
*************
“Electronic energy transitions, i.e., changing the orbital radius of an electron, requires a substantially larger amount of energy than vibrational and rotational transitions, with resulting photons in the ultraviolet and visible parts of the spectrum…”
***
Again, he is seriously confused. He can get away with it because he provides no real-world examples of heat being transferred both way between bodies of different temperatures via radiation.
Above, in part 1, he differentiates between electron transitions and vibration/rotation in a molecule. This guy simply does not understand basic chemistry or quantum theory.
Molecules are nothing more than atoms bonded by electrons which are part of the atom’s structure. As such, both vibration and rotation must involve electrons and electron transitions.
There is nothing in an atom, hence a molecule, that can absorb or emit a photon excep.t for an electron.
I clued into the author’s incompetence early when he claimed Stefan discovered the T^4 law based on ‘his’ experiment. Nonsense, it was Tyndall who did the experiment and from whose data Stefan reached the T^4 relationship.
If the author is not aware of the history then he is not aware of what the experiments mean. He is simply regurgitating what someone else told him.
In his book, the author offers a two way transfer of energy based on Stefan’s formula as…
I = A.sigma.(T1^4 – T2^4)
That should be T1^4 minus T2^4, in case the formatting gets lost.
Expanding that we get I = A.sigma,T1^4 – A.sigma.T2^4
Therefore both surfaces must have the same area and the same coefficient, sigma.
That is complete bs, he is simply expanding Stefan’s law arbitrary to allow a flow of radiation, as heat, in both directions.
“.. then mistakenly claims they can only occur after intercep.ting a high frequency photon”
That must be somewhere other than the quote you gave, since it does not mention high frequency photons. Or even low frequency photons. The author surely knows that collisions can also move electrons to higher energy orbits (eg fluorescent lights).
There are two broad categories of photon absorp.tion. One is “electron transitions” where the electron moves to a higher energy level. The other is “molecular vibration” where the molecular vibrational frequency is increased. Typically electron transitions involve much higher energy photons (shorter wavelengths than 1μ, for example), while molecular vibration is more often associated with lower energy photons (longer wavelengths than 1&mu:, for example).
While electron transitions add more internal energy, it is the molecular vibration that is associated with thermal energy. Thermal energy is what we can measure with a thermometer.
Good to read that Clint R now agrees with the physical mechanism by which added CO2 can warm part of the atmosphere with added “thermal energy” (Clint R term) since as Clint writes “it is the molecular vibration that is associated with thermal energy. Thermal energy is what we can measure with a thermometer.”
There is a third broad category. A photon can be absorbed increasing molecular and atomic quantized spin.
Still can”t support your “real 255K surface” nonsense, huh braindead4?
Clint R just supported the real 255K surface mechanism at 8:38 am, thank you Clint, good move. The real 255K surface is measured by precision, calibrated instruments over decades so, as Clint writes in an understanding of the physical mechanism, the real 255K surface is known to physically exist.
No it hasn’t. the 255k surface temperature is a theoretical temperature based upon a black body. The earth’s surface is NOT a black body, does not act like a black body, thus really is a piece of information means absolutely nothing.
Wrong Bill, the earthen real 255K surface is physically measured with precision, calibrated instrumentation over decades just like a lab glass of ice water is meaningfully measured at 32F, 1bar as Clint R writes “it is the molecular vibration that is associated with thermal energy. Thermal energy is what we can measure with a thermometer.”
Bill Hunter could go argue with Clint R but all Bill’s arguments will fail. I recommend Bill learn & advance Bill’s physics understanding from what Clint R has written.
Braindead4, you’re such a sack of crap.
Earth has NO “real 255K surface”. That’s why you can’t support your nonsense. But, I bet you will keep trolling here.
The decades of data support it, Clint, since it is instrumentally measured: “it is the molecular vibration that is associated with thermal energy. Thermal energy is what we can measure with a thermometer.” as Clint writes.
ball4…”There is a third broad category. A photon can be absorbed increasing molecular and atomic quantized spin”
***
Here’s one of you so-called greenhouse molecules…
O=====C=====O
The dashed lines represent electrons bonds, 4 total. Show me where this so-called quantized spin takes place?
Spin is associated only with electrons and it has nothing to do with the electron spinning. It’s a term added in an effort to apply Bohr’s theory to multiple electron atoms.
In the line diagram of CO2 above, the bonds can expand/contract symmetrically or they can do the same asymmetrically. What causes that?
Electronegativity. The oxygen atom has a higher affinity for attracting electrons than the carbon atom therefore the electrons tend to congregate on the oxygen end of the bond. That creates a dipole that is -ve on the O end and +ve on the C end.
That’s the source of your vibration in a linear sense, a difference in electrostatic charge. Now, how would you increase that vibration? You’d need a photon to be absorbed by an electron in the bond. or you’d need to supply heat to the body.
What else could possibly absorb the photon in a molecule?
Photons need to be absorbed by something and a molecule is not a something, as you can plainly see with the diagram above. With CO2 it is two atoms of oxygen bonded to a single atom of carbon. Something has to absorb the photon and the only element that can absorb it is an electron.
Gordon has much to learn about quantized molecular rotational energy levels (molecular or atomic spin) in quantum mechanics needing to ask: “Show me where this so-called quantized spin takes place?”
Gordon’s polyatomic CO2 molecule schematic can quite obviously rotate about a line through all the atoms. It can also rotate out of the plane of Gordons drawing & within the plane of the drawing about an axis perpendicular to that line. Thus Gordon is fundamentally wrong writing “Spin is associated only with electrons.”
For a diatomic molecule, turns out these quantized rotational energy levels are widely spaced & start being energized above base level by order of ~1/3 kT. The quantized vibrational energy levels start order of 10kT so most of the CO2 molecules in the earthen lower atm. are exchanging & absorbing quantized rotational (spin) energy.
Gordon is also wrong about “You’d need a photon to be absorbed by an electron.” since electrons don’t have enough mass to absorb the angular momentum possessed by a photon absorbed in the earthen atm. Conservation requires the entire CO2 molecule mass to absorb the photon angular momentum in the earthen atm. increasing the molecule’s spin rate when absorbed.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ball4 says: “The real 255K surface is measured by precision, calibrated instruments over decades …”
I have to disagree here.
As viewed from beyond the earth, there is outgoing IR radiation that is equal in intensity to the radiation from a 255 K — i.e. 240 W/m^2 of radiation as averaged over the whole earth.
But this radiation does not come from any “real surface” at 255 K. It is a combination of radiation from sources at different altitudes. (Some from the surface; some from cloud tops; some from GHGs throughout the atmosphere). This also means different temperatures (up to ~ 325 K on the surface and down to ~ 190 K at the tropopause).
There is no way to accurately call the measured radiation “255 K” or from any single “real surface”.
Tim 3:59 pm, the earthen global. avg. real ~255K surface is, of course, not totally terra firma or ocean surface. This surface is the outer, uppermost layer of the roughly spherical earthen system as accurately & meaningfully measured with 95% confidence over decades by precision, calibrated instrumentation.
The observed radiation does arrive at this outermost layer, in part, from the earthen L&O surface.
“accurately & meaningfully measured with 95% confidence “
What is accurately and meaningfully measured is the FLUX — an average of ~ 240 J each second from each square meter.
This is equivalent to the average flux from a ~ 255 K blackbody. But it is NOT the right SPECTRUM for a blackbody. In some parts of the spectrum the measured flux is stronger than a blackbody at 255 K. In some parts of the spectrum the measured flux is weaker than a blackbody at 255 K.
Here is one example. This is a warm part of the world, so most of the flux is stronger than a 255 K source. A few parts are weaker than a 255 K source.
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/modtran_iris.jpg
How could it measured? Isn’t there a warm atmosphere that makes the earth an mean temp around 288k?
How? As I wrote 3:07 pm, with precision, calibrated instrumentation over decades just like a real lab glass of ice water is meaningfully measured at 32F, 1bar as Clint R writes: “it is the molecular vibration that is associated with thermal energy. Thermal energy is what we can measure with a thermometer.”
Bill, theoretical black bodies do not exist thus cannot be physically measured but black body radiation does exist and can thus be physically measured. The earthen near surface atm. temperature on global avg. around 288K is real & also measured with thermometer just like a real lab glass of ice water since as Clint R writes: “it is the molecular vibration that is associated with thermal energy. Thermal energy is what we can measure with a thermometer.”
All that and you still managed to not answer the question.
Your 3:13 pm question is completely answered, bill.
bill just needs to understand the physics in the answer. It’s not really hard to understand once a course in the relevant basic physics is accomplished.
Well to ensure your physics isn’t gobble-dy-gook, please provide a link to the study you must have used.
barry…with regar to your three points…
1)the author states nowhere that cooler objects can’t absorb radiation from hotter objects, nor do I. Do you mean that hotter objects can’t absorb energy from colder objects.
2)I have never implied that ‘objects’ at a given temperature emit radiation at only one frequency. I have implied that ‘elements’ (like hydrogen, sodium, oxygen, etc.) only emit radiation at ‘discrete’ frequencies. I have never implied elements only emit at one frequency.
3)Radiation arriving at a surface is not summed, it must first be converted to another form of energy before it can be summed. That form of energy is heat.
barry
I posted a link to Modest’s book years ago – with exactly the same effect (except that at that time, the dumber answer came from… ge*r*an, you certainly will recall the name of this idiot).
*
I also posted a link to the book of one of the most competent persons in the field of the
Theory of Planetary Atmospheres: An Introduction to Their Physics and Chemistry
Joseph W. Chamberlain and
Donald M. Hunten
https://books.google.de/books?hl=en&lr=&id=nnlfhQZfLEsC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2#v=onepage&q&f=false
As usual in the Google Books, not everything is visible; but the most relevant parts are in.
You won’t convince egomaniac ‘ball-on-a-string’ ignoramuses with such information.
They automatically discredit and denigrate anything they don’t understand.
And of course we have Bindidon back in here claiming stuff he can’t even explain. Barry going on about rocking motions, Swanson blathering about inside his well-inculcated mind about precision and ‘rigid’ torque arms that should be. Whats new? Nothing the moon continues to rotate around the earth with an angular momentum (the total energy of this motion) that can be calculated and equated in more ways than one. When the angular momentum remains the same through out the orbit it has to be a single motion. You just give this system a boot and its off and running. What else does anybody need to know that isn’t known about the system. Oh thats right the hard part is figuring out the perturbations that affect the system from outside the rotation. But that is another topic that has already been addressed as being common to all rotations. . . .oh except for imaginary perfect ones that ‘the team’ thinks is the only real one.
Hunter boy
You are as usual totally ignorant of the motions of celestial bodies.
No wonder: like Clint R, Flynnson and Robertson, you automatically discredit and denigrate anything you dont understand.
Beginning of course with Mayer’s splendid work (written in German, but whose masterpiece was perfectly explained by Steven Wepster).
” Nothing the moon continues to rotate around the earth with an angular momentum (the total energy of this motion) that can be calculated and equated in more ways than one. When the angular momentum remains the same through out the orbit it has to be a single motion. ”
You never and never presented any scientific source claiming this.
All you have is Tesla’s incredibly superficial pamphlet, and some stuff dreamed up by a few Serbian Tesla worshippers
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1993POBeo..44..119T&letter=0&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=119&epage=119&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf
plus a little extract of student material written by the Indian professor Dr. Madhavi:
https://mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
That’s all, Hunter boy.
And these minuscule ‘proof’s you dare to compare with hundreds of scientific treatises and articles written since 3 centuries, which all led ‘by accident’ to the same results?
*
Mayer gave in hist treatise in 1750, after a year of observations of the Moon, for the lunar spin period
27 d 7 h 43 m 11 s 49 s/60
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lf5eVBfj1gDUiw3gXd8f8jF1cTsOuwxl/view
i.e. in decimal days
27.321665 days
what is, when considering FIVE digits after the decimal point, the same value as computed nowadays out of Lunar Laser Range data
27.321661 days
although Mayer’s observations and observational data processing were vastly different than they are today.
*
When will you become able to admit such facts, Hunter boy?
Your pathological mixture of arrogance and ignorance is unbelievable.
The only thing the matter is is your interpretation of the work you read. It isn’t possible to explain a phenomena without resorting to symbolic language. When it becomes a standardized symbolism as is the case in astronomy or any field of science. One can start reading between the lines that there are really two motions here. But you need to reconcile that with Newtons a motion needs a force to cause the motion. Thats one force, one motion, two motions if you have a chain of events that involve more than one object being the target of the initial force.
A rigid adherence to that line of thinking keeps things in order. If the moon’s motion is actually two motions then there should be proof of it in physics not semantics. This is what I mean by elevating form over substance. Form is never the real world it is only symbolic of the real world. Physics though is only about the real world and physics ideas of two motions built only on language that might note curiosities about a motion. But it doesn’t thus become two motions until it is shown two forces are employed to create two motions.
DREMT has been pointing this out for a long time. That the physics isn’t there to differentiate two separate motions by a single rigid object. Sure there are wonderful things to be discovered about our real world. But do they fundamentally change some of standards like Newtons force required to create a motion? I don’t think so. And the reason is given the facts if the experiment is duplicated the same result will occur every time as far as we know.
So you can go on endlessly trying to shame those who really do respect science as being something that doesn’t involve judgement but involves only the forces of nature. . . .into succumbing to exceptions to that rule of natural law to standards accepted in science purely for consistency in talking the same language.
Bindidon you are absolutely the worst example of it. Total homage not to science but to every word spoken by science experts. Its baffling to me that you are so blind to the difference.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1447817
binny…”Beginning of course with Mayers splendid work…”
***
Meyer was known for the charts he made of the Moon’s orbit, which could be used by sailors to track longitude. He was credited for that initially but unfortunately someone produced an accurate clock that could keep tract of longitude and made his charts obsolete.
The point is, Meyer did not dwell on a notion that the Moon rotated on a local axis. He may have claimed it did but it was a minor point in his work and not at all a focal point.
I think if he’d been here today, and we spinners had explained it to him, he would have said, “Ach, das ist gut”. He would have gotten it. If we had pointed out your claim that Meyer said the Moon rotated on a local axis, he’d laugh and claim, “Das gut, Binny ist ein idiot”.
Hunter boy
Again and again: Every time I ask you for a scientific source for your assumptions and claims, you still don’t supply such a source and babble and philosophize superficially instead.
I repeat: Your pathological mixture of arrogance and ignorance is unbelievable.
*
You wrote above:
” But you need to reconcile that with Newtons a motion needs a force to cause the motion. That’s one force, one motion, two motions if you have a chain of events that involve more than one object being the target of the initial force. ”
and:
” If the moons motion is actually two motions then there should be proof of it in physics not semantics. This is what I mean by elevating form over substance. ”
Are you, the little, insignificant Hunter boy, aware of the level of your own arrogance?
I repeat for the umpteenth what you seem to deliberately discredit, namely that Newton wrote in each of the three editions of his Principia:
” 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, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. ”
what I saw translated in the same way in French (1759) and German (1872).
{ There exist further original translations from this Latin text in Italian (1793), Japanese (1930), Swedish (1931), Dutch (1932) and Russian (1936). }
*
And in the third edition he added among other things in the footnote (e) below the text:
” 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 ”
*
How can you ignorant person dare to doubt about Newton’s eminent physics knowledge?
Don’t you understand that if Newton wrote all this, he must have been absolutely convinced that the very same force which lets Earth rotate about its polar axis must exist for the Moon as well?
*
Isn’t it surprising that while you and your Moon-spin-denying friends are all the time glorifying Newton for all his work, you all suddenly make an exception – just because you doubt the Moon’s spin for ideological reasons, yet failing to provide any real scientific evidence to back up your doubts?
*
Spare us any reference to Tesla: his pamphlet lacks any real scientific substance: if he had written such superficial stuff with the reverse reasoning, you would all have discredited him completely.
IMO, Bindidon you are just losing stuff in translation. Its hard enough to communicate in one language.
IMO, its insulting to Newton to assume that he was only aware of one way of looking at the situation. Since all his work was derived by inventing mathematical principles and smartly applying them, the math shows the equivalency of the two choices of looking at the situation. If you happen to find anything in your translations that shows that Newton considered that equivalency and rejected it as incorrect then I am sure there is somewhere documented that Newton did that.
And once more: Hunter boy’s endlessly superficial blah blah, without anything backing up his ‘philosophy’.
No scientific reference of any kind, no proof.
bindidon you are the claiming that Newton ruled out that the moon rotates on the COM of the earth.
it is up to you to prove he did. i have shown the mathematical equivalency of Σmvr = Lorb+Lspin = orbital angular momentum
since the one true language of newton was mathematics, certainly you can find where newton showed that equivalency is false in mathematics.
i await your response that includes newton’s mathematical proof.
“it is up to you to prove he did. i have shown the mathematical equivalency of Σmvr = Lorb+Lspin = orbital angular momentum”
Bill physics is about using math to arrive at conclusions abou the world. But this math doesnt lead to that conclusion.
I got that. You guys like to pick a side. So predictable which side you are going to pick.
Hunter troll wrote:
No, that’s just a definition for “orbital angular momentum”. Those two terms are vectors, one along the Moon’s rotational axis and the other along the orbital axis. You have not shown that they can be combined in any meaningful way, you are simply combining the magnitudes, both of which are said to be constant. Doing so does not prove that the Moon’s motion can be described as a single rotation around an external axis, i.e., a single vector.
Obviously you have not solved and checked the actual math. You know don’t you look at the numbers, do the computations, check the results? You are just winging it with what your perception of the two are on the basis that orbital angular momentum equals linear momentum. But if you do a simple Σmvr and compute the Newton formula you will immediately see thats not true.
For Newton the angular momentum of the moon orbiting is equal to the sum of the linear momentum of the moon plus the spin angular momentum.
Nate has argued that linear momentum is the only momentum that an orbiting object can have. He is making the same mistake as you.
Here is the basis of Σmvr:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
Here is a sample calculation to help you get your math organized:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1439567
Tim has already agreed the math works and so has Nate, but both still are denying the moon rotates around the earth. but neither have any mathematics to back up their claims. Both admit to allowing a little play is OK. Both still though hold fast to perfection as in uniform circular motion even though nothing is and neither have a standard for how much play can be allowed as that would produce some really crazy results.
So join the club Swanson. Catch up with the rest.
Hunter troll, your reference to the hyperphysics site describes an orbit as plane motion. Sure, the result is a vector, but how do you calculate r and v or do you just take empirically measured values and just plug them in?
The basic problem remains, which is, the Moon’s rotation is not parallel to the orbital axis, so how do you combine the two quantities? Then, how does that prove that the resulting motion is a single rotation around an external axis? You claim that tim and Nate agree with you, but skimming the comments after your link, it appears otherwise.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
“Nate has argued that linear momentum is the only momentum that an orbiting object can have. He is making the same mistake as you.”
Again, habitual liar and ever confused Bill, attributes a dumb argument to me that I never made, nor would I ever make.
I have consistently argued that orbiting bodies have angular momentum!
For the umpteenth plus one time, linear momentum and angular momentum are different quantities with different meanings and different units. One does not simply convert into the other.
For some unknown reason, Bill, insists on mashing them together in all his word salads.
so not clear nate whether you view orbital motion without axial rotation as the motl or the motr.
if it is the motl are you hanging your hat on libration (absent in motl)to switch your model to the motr for our moon? how then do you explain the non-constant conservation of angular momentum energy in your model of the moon’s rotation?
its hardly word salad nate.
you can’t double count angular momentum of the moon’s spin on its axis as you move between the motl and motr models without acknowledging that dremt is right. as we talked about many moons ago, in deciding between the two models the angular momentum overlaps one another so its not a matter of two mutually exclusive rotations.
thats the difference between a curvilinear translation and a rotation.
You are spouting even more gibberish than usual today Bill. Maybe go back on your meds.
well since you are going to forfeit the energy transfer argument and resort to ad homs i am calling it a victory for dremts proposition. . . .which by the way more than generous to you guys than it needs to be.
Seriously stop drunk posting…
sorry nate you fofeited. ad homs don’t help. you are in no position to claim victory.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449397
“are going to forfeit the energy transfer argument”
Yes. Since it is irrelevant made-up nonsense.
Hmmm so after promoting optical libration as a physical process proving that orbit and rotation are mutually exclusive. . . .now you are in denial of physical librations being a process of the orbit being connected physically to the alleged spin?
Thats quite a backflip!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449696
Bill says: “For Newton the angular momentum of the moon orbiting is equal to the sum of the linear momentum of the moon plus the spin angular momentum.”
No! You cannot add linear momentum to angular momentum, just like you can’t add mass to distance or add velocity to time. Quantities with different dimension cannot be added.
For Newton, the angular momentum of the moon orbiting is equal to the sum of the
linearorbital angular momentum of the moon, rxp, plus the spin angular momentum, I(omega).“i have shown the mathematical equivalency of Σmvr = Lorb+Lspin = orbital angular momentum …”
At least this is just an error or terminology, not a fundamental error about physical quantities. But it is tied to the previous error.
Σmvr = total angular momentum
= sum over all the individual parts about a given axis
Lorb = orbital angular momentum
= ang. mom. of the CoM about a given axis (the focus of the orbit).
Lspin = spin angular momentum
= ang mom of the sphere about the COM
Σmvr is never called “orbital angular momentum”.
Bill: “When the angular momentum remains the same through out the orbit it has to be a single motion.”
But the same is true for earth’s orbit around the sun. And everyone agrees the earth is rotating. So either earth has “one single motion” or your point here is meaningless.
here we recognize a temporary rotation. the reason it takes so long to take a 100 arcseconds off a full rotations is full rotations create an oblate spheroid shape instead of a football shape. spheroids are far less susceptible to gravitational braking. i have no idea of how long it takes to create 14 miles of oblateness in a planet spinning in a gravitational field.
but there is no spin term but one for a rotation on an external axis, reinforcing dremts statement that this can be viewed in multiple ways depending upon how you treat orbital motion. so your point is well taken.
No capitalization stream of consiousness..?
when a spinning object enters the control zone of an orbital motion the orbit will eventually absorb all the spin energy of the spinning object necessary to bring it into synchronous rotation even if it has to stop the rotation and reverse it to do so. If one had a handle on the distortion of the orbiting by gravitational control one would be able to calculate how long it takes.
You want to take on the challenge of an acceleration that physically removes 100arcseconds of the alleged existing spin in a half revolution of the orbit? Seems that figure is the same for both longitudinal and latitudinal librations where no existing spin is present. Seems pretty solid evidence of orbital control.
there is also a logic issue. A spin is an element of an orbital rotation. But Lorb isn’t a rotational element of an orbital rotation, instead its merely the difference between the whole and the imagined part of the whole that one has deemed to treat separately.
One of the major arguments of the ‘two’ rotation theory of a spin was whether an orbital rotation was a rotation or curvilinear translation which ended up as spinners trying to keep a foot in two separate boats. A hilarious picture indeed. Especially when both view points have been argued by the spinners. And why? So that they could keep the words their heroes use consistent. . . .as that was all they had to rely upon.
Now they want to obfuscate about librations and tipped axes. It is pretty damned funny.
My suggestion would be to buy into DREMTS proposition as soon as possible. At least that would end the embarrassment of the spinners interpretations of the words of their heroes and get both feet into the same boat.
Hunter troll, we hope your brain has clear by now.
SEE my comment.
A reminder: grammie pups claims of a single rotation around can’t work when the Moon’s axial rotation is tilted WRT the Moon’s orbital axis. You can’t just smash those two vector terms together and come up with one rotation.
Obviously Swanson they are attached or physical libration wouldn’t be happening. The only problem here is you have voluntarily donned a blindfold.
“Obviously”, Hunter troll has no way to describe the Moon’s motions as a rotation around an external axis, as grammie pups claimed, so he replies with the usual non-answer, simply asserting he’s right. He’s stuck using Kepler’s empirical findings about “orbital angular momentum” but can’t come up with the math to show anything else.
“here we recognize a temporary rotation.”
So clearly there are “orbit” and “rotation” as two separate quantities, if one is permanent and the other only ‘temporary’.
“when a spinning object enters the control zone of an orbital motion the orbit will eventually absorb all the spin energy of the spinning object necessary to bring it into synchronous rotation even if it has to stop the rotation and reverse it to do so. ”
If the spinning object has its rotation stopped, then it has lost all ‘spin energy’. Going into synchronous rotation from there would ADD spin energy, not remove it!
Again, indicating transfer of angular momentum between two different motions.
“One of the major arguments of the two rotation theory …”
There is no ‘two rotation theory’. There is an ‘orbit + rotation theory’.
The moon orbits around the earth (the COM moving in an ellipse). The moon does not rotate around the earth (in a circle about some fixed axis in the earth).
“A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
Again, the source of DREMT’s ‘definition’ (wikipedia) starts by saying “Rotation, or spin, is the circular movement of an object around a central axis.” That is the definition.
The source also has a section devoted to astronomy, which clearly distinguishes “rotation” of a body on an axis, and ‘revolution” of a body about another body.
DREMT sticks to one sentence with an approximate example taken from one questionable source because that is the best he can do.
I have linked to multiple sources saying the same thing before, Tim…and sure, “revolution” is of course motion of a body about another body, more specifically a rotation of one body about an external axis located in the orbited body (or barycenter), and “rotation” is a rotation of a body about its own internal axis. External axis for “revolution”, internal axis for “rotation”. Simple enough, and the reason that “revolution” and “rotation” are synonymous.
” multiple sources saying the same thing”
The source agrees with all other definitions that Rotation is a circular motion.
Elliptical orbits are not circular motion, and thus cannot be rotations.
Can DREMT explain away this contradiction?
…simple enough, and the reason that “revolution” and “rotation” are synonymous.
So for the umpteenth time, DREMT shamelessly pretends there is no contradiction in his go-to source.
…enough, and the reason that “revolution” and “rotation” are synonymous.
While those of us with integrity can clearly see that this source is self contradictory.
And furthermore it contradicts what we find from all other sources that explicitly define rotation, and orbit.
Of course, he will cherry pick only confirming information. That’s how cults operate.
…and the reason that “revolution” and “rotation” are synonymous.
Bin always has to attack science. He holds tightly to his ancient beliefs, while rejecting reality. He’s pretty sure he’s right because he can find things on the Internet that he can’t understand.
The “acid test” is that he can’t answer any relevant questions. For example, he’s said that Swanson’s diagrams are all correct. The reality is, all 3 are WRONG. Even Swanson has now corrected one.
Bin can’t find the mistakes.
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
He’s all smoke and hot air. He’s got NOTHING.
Thats the whole deal. These guys think science is a big popularity contest. Whatever the majority of scientists think is fact. There has even a history of acknowledging that as they bring the topic up themselves about outlier thinkers and the majority etc.
Its like does Saddam Hussein possess weapons of mass destruction. Well the vast majority of security agencies think so.
Whoaa! When the cash registers start to go Cah-Ching for the soon to be fantastic golden parachute opportunities. . . .anything can be true.
> the vast majority of security agencies
Citation needed.
Unfortunately, Colin Powell died on 2021, October 18 and hence no longer can contradict the lying Hunter boy.
contradict what? do you believe saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction? if so where is the proof. and why would powell be the only one who knew? you guys get more bizarre by the minute in your hero worship.
Colin died of COVID com0lications, Gill.
You know the thing never happens accordoping to Bordon?
I think Binny means:
> I didnt have any choice, Powell told Draper feebly. What choice did I have? Hes the president.
https://theintercept.com/2021/10/18/colin-powell-dead-iraq/
Got to love the Nuremberg Defense.
as they say hindsight is 20/20. in powells position and due to a lack of any dissent in the security services while i am sure powell was in a position to hear a debate within the services that rose to a level of his possession of wmd falling well short of beyond a reasonable doubt, there were plenty of humanitarian reasons to take saddam out.
a lot of people with doubts a few carny barkers and a lot of marriage proposals being thrown about is a stain on anything built mostly on consensus. consensus is essentially how lynch mobs are formed not a good model for anything.
“there were plenty of humanitarian reasons to take saddam out.”
Oh? And a half-million deaths later:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
This is article about Israeli strike on Al Kibar in Syria near Iraq border.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Outside_the_Box
I am of the opinion that Saddam may have removed his nuclear weapons and materials (if he actually had any) to this site and perhaps other locations. I think it is these weapons that were the target of the Israeli operation.
No proof, nor will there ever be any.
Ostensibly the invasion of Iraq was about Bin Laden and the attack on New York. I haven’t found any link between Bin Laden and Hussein so the war was on false premises.
Further Imad Mugniyeh, who was killed in Syria by a car bomb, makes a much better suspect for the NY attack than Bin Laden.
The whole Iraq and Afghanistan war situation remains a swirling morass of lies and deception that has been used to advance geopolitical goals that had nothing to do with New York attacks.
W’re never going to know the truth.
Irak never had WMDs, Kennui, and the US of A alone thought they did.
Why are you clinging to provably false beliefs?
Nate says:
there were plenty of humanitarian reasons to take saddam out.
Oh? And a half-million deaths later:
——————————-
don’t believe everything you hear nate with the most negative take you can find. the iraqi civil war to free the majority of the population from authoritarian and brutal treatment cost iraqi something on the order of 200,000 deaths.
the us civil war to free a minority and a population close to that of iraq cost about 3 times as many lives nate. was that worth it?
I thought the Civil War happened because the South wanted to keep its slaves, Gill.
Was free labor worth it?
“the iraqi civil war to free the majority of the population from authoritarian and brutal treatment ”
That’s a very ignorant take on how things went down.
We thought we would be welcomed with open arms, and we could just use military might to impose our will on someone elses country and culture.
We didnt understand the sectarian divisions in the country, and thus inspired an insurgency and fomented a protracted armed conflict.
In short we made a shit-show of it.
And the half-million deaths was mid-range estimate.
Nate says:
”the iraqi civil war to free the majority of the population from authoritarian and brutal treatment
Thats a very ignorant take on how things went down.
We thought we would be welcomed with open arms, and we could just use military might to impose our will on someone elses country and culture.
————————
We were by the shiites then our envoys went along with the de-sunnification of iraq. And that kicked of the insurgency. We found ourselves playing patsy for an ugly discrimination program and found ourselves in the middle. We only had a few choices at best. Partition, leave, or refuse to go along with the revenge piece, which would likely quickly would entail leaving and letting the Iraqis decide the issue between them. Partition as an option at least attempts to broker a temporary peace but partition has not kept the combatants apart for the entire history of the region. The Kurds were also caught in the middle and there was a lot of sympathy there of them wanting us to stay and protect them. Dumping Saddam was one thing that probably needed doing but nobody was willing to see what kind of monster rose up in his absence and that was definitely a mistake. And yeah maybe it was a mistake to dump Saddam also. That part of the job went well. And statistics say what you get as a replacement isn’t going to be as sociopathic as Saddam. Close maybe but he was a real piece of work. So were you against the war from the start? I bought into the WMD stuff and thought it was a good move. When no WMD showed up I was shocked at what were letting the Shiites get away with. Because of that an uprising was certain. A firm No instead of yes should have at least been tried. Perhaps the biggest bonehead move I have witnessed in my adult lifetime. . . .Vietnam excepted which really was a move we made before I was an adult.
In short we made a shit-show of it.
binny…”No wonder that they can also manage to explain us, among many many other things, that
all seven translators of Newton misinterpreted him in the same way in exactly one place
viruses dont exist
Einstein was wrong
GHE doesnt exist
and that
the Moon doesnt rotate about its polar axis”.
***
Thanks for the opportunity to set the record straight.
-I just found the translation and explanation of Principia by Cohen that is far more relevant than the original in 1729 by Motte. Th author of the newer book spends a chapter revealing the errors created by Motte and others.
Motte’s original translation was revised several times, each revision offering slightly different interpretations. His translation of Newton’s 2nd edition from the Latin and Greek-Latin, used by Newton were non-standard in places.
Newton put out three editions of Principia and Motte’s translation was of the 2nd edition. Some phrases and passages by Motte in the 2nd ed, were not in 3rd ed.
In 1934, the University of California Press put out another edition revised by Cajori. He was a math historian, not a physicist. Cajori tried to modernize Newton’s math.
In my edition, it’s not clear when it was revised. It claims initially to be by Andrew Motte but then it offers a disclaimer that ‘First American Edition, Carefully Eevised and COrrected’.
Revised and corrected, are they serious??? What a load of pompous asses.
In the newer translation, it claims Motte introduced phrases that are not in Newton’s original. Also, it reveals that Cajori, a math historian at U.Cal tried to modernize Newton’s math. More arrogance.
As I have tried to reveal to you, Binny, Motte’s translation has been amended over and over by pompous asses.
One thing they have all missed, however, is my revelation to you. There is no way…no way…someone of Newton’s intelligence could have claimed the Moon moves with a linear motion, that the linear motion is converted by gravity to a curvilinear motion, and that the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth, yet still rotates on a local axis. Such a conclusion would have been assinine and Newton was in no way assinine.
As to your other points neding amending…
-viruses dont exist
There is nowhere in anything I have posted where I claim viruses don’t exist. I acknowledged that my primary source, Stefan Lanka, discovered the first virus in the ocean.
****
-Einstein was wrong
Einstein was wrong about time being able to change duration, and length as well, based on the velocity of a body wrt the speed of light. I explained why. Time as we know it was invented by humans and based on the apparent motion of the Sun in the sky. That was based on the Sun’s position at Noon for some time then changed to Midnight.
How the heck can time change its duration when the second is defined based on the rotational period of the Earth? I don’t care how Einstein reached his conclusion on time/length change, he was wrong.
***
-GHE doesnt exist
It exists in a real greenhouse, not the atmosphere. The real greenhouse effect relies on glass in a real greenhouse. The glass passes short wave solar and blocks heated air molecules. Pretty cool, but nothing like that exists in the atmosphere.
Ask Ent. GHE theory is a dumbed down version for idiots like you.
I’ll reply to this pile of junk when I have some free time.
“How the heck can time change its duration”
Argument from incredulity. Not a real argument.
And indeed you have falsely claimed that diseases like AIDS, and COVID are not caused by a virus.
Gordon Robertson says:
binnyNo wonder that they can also manage to explain us, among many many other things, that
all seven translators of Newton misinterpreted him in the same way in exactly one place
viruses dont exist
Einstein was wrong
GHE doesnt exist
and that
the Moon doesnt rotate about its polar axis.
***
Thanks for the opportunity to set the record straight.
————————–
touche! And that is an English translation to English! LMAO!!
Robertson’s newest brazen lie
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1447999
is about what astronomer Tobias Mayer did:
1. ” Meyer was known for the charts he made of the Moon’s orbit, which could be used by sailors to track longitude. ”
This is so dumb and brazen! No wonder that the German vernacular contains an idiom designed for people like Robertson: ‘dummdreist’, i.e. a concatenation of dumb and brazen.
Above all: this ignoramus is fixated to such an extent on the illusion that our Moon only orbits that he introduces this orbiting everywhere: regardless whether or not it makes sense.
Mayer never made any chart of the Moon’s orbit! What a nonsense.
He made lunar tables containing exact selenocentric coordinates of lunar craters, allowing for much more precision than tables based on geocentric coordinates permanently influenced by Moon’s optical librations: his tables gave at sea a terrestrial longitude within a degree.
And that was due to the fact that he was able to accurately compute not only Moon’s spin period about its polar axis, but also the inclination of that axis wrt the Ecliptic.
**
Further, Robertson becomes even better:
2. ” The point is, Meyer did not dwell on a notion that the Moon rotated on a local axis. He may have claimed it did but it was a minor point in his work and not at all a focal point. ”
*
Aha. More from Robertson’s ‘dummdreist’ mouth…
If he had a working brain, he would have had a look at Mayer’s treatise: you don’t need German to collect the chapters’ titles, and to translate the stuff using Google’s Translator.
But Robertson’s brain doesn’t work.
*
Any way, for the sake of completeness: here are
– the link to Mayer’s treatise
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
– the English translation of the treatise’s title and of the chapters’ titles.
*
Treatise on the rotation of the Moon about its axis and the apparent movement of the Moon spots
Wherein the basis for an improved description of the Moon is laid from new observations
By Tob. Mayer
*
1. Of the use of an exact description of the Moon in general
2. Brief history of the description of the Moon
3. Determination of the figure of the Moon from the laws of gravity
4. From the observation of the diameter of the Moon
5. Determination of the figure of the Moon from the observations
6. Notes on the following observations of the Moon spots
7. Astronomical observations on the position of the lunar spots on the lunar disk
8. Determination of the position of the Moon spots in view of the apparent parallel
9. Determination of the position of the Moon spots with respect to the true parallel
10. Determination of the position of the Moon spots in relation to the circle of latitude
11. Determination of the position of the Moon spots in relation to the ecliptic on the Moon
12. Explanations and remarks on the properties of the Moon’s motion around its axis
13. Determination of the inclination of the lunar equator in relation to the ecliptic and the location of the equinoxial points
14. Determination of the time in which the Moon rotates around its axis
15. Of the usefulness of present investigations for the study of the laws of nature
16. Determination of the geographical longitude and latitude of the Moon spots
*
Anyone can see that Robertson, as usual, invented a load of trash fitting his egomaniacal narrative.
And be sure that he will deliberately ignore all this, and come back tomorrow, or in one week, one month or one year with his unchanged lying trash.
*
There is only one pompous ass here, and his nickname is ‘Gordon Robertson’.
What a lousy job trying to explain Moon spin
Says the one who lacks the balls to do the job.
If you had balls, little ankle biting dachshund, you would help in getting rid of Clint R’s antiscience nonsense below.
But… you are at best able to stalk people.
You want me to join your circular ass debate club ?
I don’t think so
https://i.postimg.cc/brsTScRP/think-tank.png
Thank you again for showing us how perfectly your language suits that of all these megadumb neo-Nazis.
Bin, you didn’t need to spew all that nonsense just to say Mayer was wrong. Here, look how easy it is:
Mayer was wrong.
See, only 3 words.
And remember, “translating languages” ain’t science.
Science would be like if you could identify the things wrong in Swanson’s diagrams:
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
Hint: Each of the 3 diagrams is wrong.
” Mayer was wrong. ”
Show us a scientific proof for this claim.
Bin, if you believe Mayer claimed Moon rotates on its axis, then Mayer was wrong, or you are wrong.
We know Moon does NOT rotate because if it did, we would see all sides of it from Earth. How many times has OMWAR been explained to you?
Using physics, Pup?
That would be a first for you.
Do the Poll Dance Experiment.
(Let us see if Pup will notice the typo this time.)
Maybe one day you understand, but I’m not sure:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1446297
… and above all: if Mayer was wrong, then so was Newton.
Because they said the same thing.
Bindidon says:
Treatise on the rotation of the Moon about its axis and the apparent movement of the Moon spots
Wherein the basis for an improved description of the Moon is laid from new observations
By Tob. Mayer
*
1. Of the use of an exact description of the Moon in general
2. Brief history of the description of the Moon
3. Determination of the figure of the Moon from the laws of gravity
4. From the observation of the diameter of the Moon
5. Determination of the figure of the Moon from the observations
6. Notes on the following observations of the Moon spots
7. Astronomical observations on the position of the lunar spots on the lunar disk
8. Determination of the position of the Moon spots in view of the apparent parallel
9. Determination of the position of the Moon spots with respect to the true parallel
10. Determination of the position of the Moon spots in relation to the circle of latitude
11. Determination of the position of the Moon spots in relation to the ecliptic on the Moon
12. Explanations and remarks on the properties of the Moons motion around its axis
13. Determination of the inclination of the lunar equator in relation to the ecliptic and the location of the equinoxial points
14. Determination of the time in which the Moon rotates around its axis
15. Of the usefulness of present investigations for the study of the laws of nature
16. Determination of the geographical longitude and latitude of the Moon spots
————————-
Hmmmmmmm, in all that is there any talk about the axis that exercises control over the moon? Bindidon your translation of that?
Seems to me that the spinner position on gravity is that it only has any control over the central axis of the moon, an imaginary object that is the location of the computed ‘mean’ of the moon’s mass upon which no torque is possible ergo the imaginary shape of a 3 dimensional dot is a sphere.
Whereas the non-spinner position on gravity is that it controls very particle of the moon in the main if not every second of every day but over the course of each rotation it does so absolutely.
Under the spinner position such control is impossible. Yet every object in the universe moves at the command of gravity. Yet spinners wax eloquently about gravity not exerting torque and yet we see what we see.
Question: Does a computed ‘mean’ of anything mean anything real and physical in science? I would like for the spinners to answer that question. And then refer me to something they endorse that supports their position.
Gordon,
Here is the quote from Newton. Look at the periods of each of the planets and Sun.
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′.
We both see the word revolvitur there.
Are you telling me that Newton meant revolve, as in orbit? Look at the periods!
Earth period : 23 hrs, 56 minutes
Mars period : 24 hrs, 39 minutes
You think he’s talking about their orbits? Really??
And what is the Sun doing in this list?
No, these are rotational periods, and, except for Venus, they are all close to modern estimates.
The Moon is rotating according to Newton.
Here’s the translation:
“Jupiter certainly revolves with respect to the fixed stars in 9 hours 56 minutes, Mars in 24 hours 39 minutes, Venus in about 23 hours, the Earth in 23 hours 56 minutes, the Sun in 25 and a half days, and the Moon in 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes.”
Over time, both terms, revolve and rotate, have been used to mean orbit and spin. Modern astronomy has settled on rotation being spin and revolution being orbit.
There is zero doubt Newton is using revolvitur to mean rotation.
Unless you think Earth orbits the Sun in 24 hours, and Jupiter orbits the Sun in 10 hours…
barry
Look e.g. at the replies to
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1445853
and
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1412664
(only two of many many similar posts).
There is no hope to get anything changed.
barry, you’re making the same mistake as Bin — you’re taking Newton out-on-context.
Newton was talking about “diurnal”, as in day/night periods on the objects. The key was his use of “relative to the stars”. You and Bin are just grasping for anything to support your cult nonsense. But, none of you know anything about the subjects. For example, what is wrong with Swanson’s diagrams?
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
You can’t figure it out because, like Bin, you know NOTHING.
grammie clone, thanks for posting the link to my graphic, especially as it proves your sliding cup-on-a-string wrong, yet again. Keep up the good work.
Sorry Swanson, but your diagrams only prove you don’t understand orbital motion or the simple coffee cup/pencil. Nor does the rest of your cult. So I’ll continue to bring it up.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Sorry grammie clone, your sliding cup-on-a-string-with-pencil DOES NOT represent the Moon’s actual motion, since it can not show the Libration in Latitude. Your pencil is an imaginary representation of the axis of rotation, which can not appear in any real view of the Moon.
Of course, now that you are wedded to the idea, you will continue to throw it up on the wall in a desperate attempt to remain relevant.
Correct Swanson, my analogy is NOT a model of “Moon’s exact motion”. I never said it was. The simple model only indicates your imaginary spin axis doesn’t work. It’s IMAGINARY.
You seem to be understanding about 10% of this. Keep struggling. Don’t give up. Learning is difficult for some.
Sorry grammie clone, the tilted spin axis is real, your representation of it with the pencil-in-a-cup is IMAGINARY. A real tilted axis explains the Libration in Latitude, whereas your mental model does not. Learn some physics.
Wrong Swanson, the simple analogy explains the over 13° change in the imaginary spin axis. A REAL spin axis always points the same way due to inertia. Any change in angle of a REAL spin axis would be very small. That’s why I’m glad you mentioned physics.
“Any change in angle of a REAL spin axis would be very small.”
Very good. And thats exactly what is observed with the Moon.
Troll Nate, a change of over 13° in one orbit is “unprecedented”, if there is axial rotation. That’s one of the reasons we know Moon is NOT rotating.
grammit clone doubles down again, demonstrating that he has no clue about 3-D geometry. No doubt, a change of over 13 in one orbit is unprecedented and only appears in his mental model. No one else claims that it exists. One might hope that he would consult Hunter troll for the finer points of the direction of the Moon’s rotational axis as it orbits.
Wrong again, Swanson. The simple pencil in the cup demonstrates over 13° change, in only ONE orbit.
That means Moon is NOT rotating. You really don’t understand any of this, do you?
Found your mistakes in your diagrams yet?
grammie clone continues with his confusion, writing:
“Correct Swanson, my analogy is NOT a model of Moons exact motion. I never said it was.”
and then:
“The simple pencil in the cup demonstrates over 13 change, in only ONE orbit. That means Moon is NOT rotating.”
Grammie clone says his “model” doesn’t represent the Moon’s motion, then says his “model” proves something. Then he demands that I “fix” something, again failing to specify exactly what’s wrong.
grammie clone’s brain is seriously deranged.
Can it, Swanson, you do not have the right to speak.
Well now, grammie appears to have had a promotion, having now has joined the Ministry of Truth. He’s well on his way up the ladder to Fox News.
“Troll Nate, a change of over 13 in one orbit is unprecedented, if there is axial rotation.”
But not observed for out Moon, so irrelevant. Denialism of the observed facts is the easy way out of your predicament.
Hush, Swanson.
Clint R’s new denial trick:
” Newton was talking about ‘diurnal’, as in day/night periods on the objects. ”
He would never be able to explain us what this means, let alone to show us this strange ‘diurnal’ stuff in Newton’s text.
Exactly as he certainly still does not understand the exact signification of ‘with respect to the fixed stars’.
Troll Bin spews again: He would never be able to explain us what this means, let alone to show us this strange ‘diurnal’ stuff in Newton’s text.
From Newton’s text:
PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
It’s obvious that day/night is much different for the Moon than for the Earth. Day/night for the Earth is due to its rotation about its N-S pole. The lunar day/night is entirely sue to its orbit.
When the Moon is on the far side of the Earth from the Sun, the near face is lit for 2 weeks. When the Moon is between the Sun and the Earth, the near face is dark for two weeks.
barry…I am not questioning what Newton said, I am questioning the interpretation of what he said by translators. According to a recent paper I have read on the subject, Newton not only wrote in Latin but also a Greek-Latin. Also, he introduced scientific terms with which the translators like Motte did not fully understand. In fact, there is evidence that later translations took the liberty of re-writing his words so they would make more sense to modern readers.
Note in your quote that Newton specified ‘with respect to the stars’. I can almost accept that the Moon revolves wrt the stars, just not ‘revolves about a local axis’. The Moon obviously revolves about the Earth and in doing so it constantly changes the orientation of the near face wrt the stars. That’s not the same as rotating on a local axis. In fact, it’s a property of curvilinear motion, to which Newton agreed.
Having said that, my main beef with the local rotation argument is that Newton stated in Principia that the Moon moves with a linear motion and the motion is converted to a curvilinear motion. He also knew that the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth. Combining those two, it becomes obvious that the Moon cannot move with a linear moment, with the near face pointed at Earth and still rotate on a local axis. I am convinced that fact did not escape Newton.
It is simply impossible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis and still keep the same face pointing at Earth.
Gordon, it is simply impossible for the Moon to rotate about a local (its own) axis wrt Earth and still keep the same face pointing at Earth. It is entirely possible for the Moon to rotate about a local (its own) axis wrt inertial space and still keep the same face pointing at Earth.
Gordon et. al. simply do not understand and use the fact: all motion is relative.
Its not relative if you know the forces that actually control the motion. In here we get oh gee we should determine what the moon is doing without regard to the forces operating on it.
So then we start cherry picking. Yes the moon as an object has angular momentum around its center that is simply another way of looking at how angular momentum of an object in orbit is distributed within the system.
However, if we assume a ‘big bang’ (that is a legitimate scientific concept isn’t it?) of the earth/moon system into dust such that gravity and all objects are completely obliterated down to a particle level. What is going to happen? Well all those particles are going to start orbiting some other gravitational center aren’t they? Indeed they must if you believe in the conservation of angular momentum.
At the very highest levels of science DREMT is right. All you guys have is a bunch of poorly translated meanings from the most ingenious of our worlds glorious past and the scientific revolution. Obviously if you are going to talk about this stuff ‘scientifically’ you are quite apt to take some liberties to take advantage of some of the great advancements in mathematics and science. But don’t pretend that those maths are representative of reality and willy nilly start elevating them to a God level. Instead use those tools to dig ever deeper into the mysteries of the world and keep your head on straight.
God does not play dice.
DREMT’s comments repeatedly demonstrate no understanding of, and use of, the fact: all motion is relative.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started!
Ball4, please stop trolling. You are no longer welcome at this blog.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Ball4 says:
God does not play dice.
———————-
No? What God did not do is give the dice away. We have an entire couple of generations of science students who believe God gave the dice to them.
After 4 years of college study of philosophy, I was always on the side of the ‘free choice’ in the discussion of determinism and non-determinism but managed to score ‘A’s by arguing fairly.
Scientists always fell on the deterministic side. . . .until some realized they could purloin the dice from God, load the dice, and have the numbers fall anyway which way they wanted. Well at least that would sum it up for the spinner lot in here. . . .who aren’t here to spread science information but are instead on a mission from God (themselves). See!! Look here the moon has a looseness of its rotation a very significant fraction less than that the looseness of the connecting rod bearing journals attached to the spinning crankshaft of a high performance racing vehicle and because of such want to claim that the moon does NOT rotate on an external axis. Hmmmmmmm!?!?
One has to wonder if our universities have degraded so far as to produce this kind of riffraff on an industrial scale like Pink Floyds Another Brick in the Wall programmed student robots.
Gill, Gill,
Even back then it was not four years of philosophy,
Revise and resubmit.
Bindidon,
I have spent some time looking at the 3 editions of Principia Mathematica that were published in Newton’s lifetime. in the 2nd and 3rd editions he continued to expand and detail from the original.
The section that we are quoting, from Book III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV, is from his 3rd and final edition. Here is a copy of that edition in Latin.
https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/1254/0741_Bk.pdf
In the 2nd Edition, that section is different, and makes mention of the Moon’s spin in a different way.
“Quoniam vero Lunae, circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis, dies menstruus est: hujus facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis ipsius semper respiciet”
The translation is as follows:
“Since, indeed, the Moon, revolving uniformly around its own axis, has a monthly cycle: its face always looks toward the furthermost point of the orbit itself”
The word suum means “his own.” So there can be no doubt Newton was speaking of the Moon’s spin right there.
The same Latin text is in the 1st edition, but the section numbering is slightly different. It appears as Proposition XVII, theorem XVI. Here is a link to that section from the photocopied 1st edition.
https://digital.library.sydney.edu.au/nodes/view/7454#idx97793
Below is a photocopied version of the 2nd edition, kept at his alma mater, with Newton’s handwriting making notes throughout in preparation for the 3rd edition. You can find the section quoted above if you flick back one page.
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-ADV-B-00039-00002/848
What a treasure!
barry…once again…I am questioning the translation, not Newton. There is good evidence that Principia has been amended in the translation. One translation by University of California, which is based on the original translation by Motte, admits to changing the wording and mathematical meaning to make the translation make more sense to modern readers.
On the intro pages of the UCal version,it states that the translation is by Andrew Motte but that is has been ‘carefully revised and corrected’.
Revised and corrected???
I claim even Motte did not translate Newton word for word, for the simple reason that Principia was cutting edge science at a level no one has seen since. Newton not only introduced a new form of science, he introduced the geometrical basis of calculus.
No one had ever seen this kind of science before and I am not claiming Motte lied, I am claiming he simply did not understand the science well enough to offer a 100% accurate translation.
I tried to translate the pertinent Latin using Google and other translators and none of them could even come close. There were wide variations in the meaning of the words and in some cases they gave different translations.
I can understand Motte reading the Old Latin and not fully understand the meaning, then using his own understanding of lunar motion to ad lib. However, when you read other statements by Newton, they contradict the Motte translation.
With regard to the Motte translation, that Newton claimed the Moon revolved on its axis, the words of Newton elsewhere in Prinicpia make it clear that Newton was not talking about the Moon revolving about a local axis.
Elsewhere, Newton clearly states that the Moon moves with a linear motion and that the motion is converted to a curvilinear motion, presumably by gravity. Newton was careful to acknowledge the slight effect the Sun has on the lunar orbit, claiming it likely affected the shape of the ellipse.
He also acknowledges the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth.
Let’s use a car on an oval as an equivalent. There are two straight sections and two curved sections. When moving on the straight sections, the car is moving with a linear motion. When the car reaches the curves, the driver turns the wheels slightly and the car follows the track, hopefully, converting from a linear motion to a curvilinear motion.
Spinners are claiming this curvilinear motion on the curves is rotation about an axis, or COG. In order for a car on a track to rotate about its COG, it has to lose control and spin in a circle. Following a curve on a track is curvilinear motion without local rotation.
A car cannot rotate about its COG unless the tires lose traction. Cars are not designed to turn in circles, or parts of circles, which require a rotation about their COGs.
If the driver is using a North American car and driving CCW, his side of the car always points to the centre of the track. Therefore an entire lap is rectilinear/cuvilinear translation while keeping the same side pointed at the track centre.
That is based on Newton’s reasoning, therefore I am claiming he could not possibly have claimed the Moon is rotating on a local axis.
This is Newton’s words. No translation.
Quoniam vero Lunae, circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis, dies menstruus est: hujus facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis ipsius semper respiciet
You and I can easily translate the first line.
Quoniam vero Lunae: Since truly the Moon
circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis: about axis its own uniformly revolves
Since in truth the Moon, uniformly revolving about its own axis…
You might like to argue that this refers to the Moon’s orbit – its ‘rotation’ about an external point.
2 reasons why that can’t be so.
1) The possessive ‘suum’ means the axis belongs to the Moon – ‘its own’ axis
2) The orbit of the Moon is not uniform, as Newton pints out several times in Book III of the Principia, where this quote comes from
barry, please stop trolling.
Had to move down here…posting issues…
ball4…”Gordon has much to learn about quantized molecular rotational energy levels (molecular or atomic spin) in quantum mechanics needing to ask: Show me where this so-called quantized spin takes place?
***
You still have not answered my question, which indicates to me that you have no idea what quantized spin means.
You don’t even understand what ‘molecule’ means. Allow me to illustrate.
Here’s an atom…. O
Here’s an atom…. C
Here’s a molecule…CO2…
O=====C=====O
What’s the difference. An atom has a unique structure with its own nucleus and its own electron set. A molecule is the same atoms in a unique arrangement. In other words, a molecule is nothing more that 2 or more atoms joined by electron bonds (covalent) or the charges produced by electrons (ionic).
Why do you keep talking about molecules as if they have properties other than what the individual atoms provide?
I omitted reference to rotation of the CO2 molecule and vibration due to lateral motion of the bonds to keep it simple. However, both of those forms of rotation/vibration involve the carbon and oxygen atoms and their properties, not some mysterious effect peculiar to molecules that are outside those properties.
Can we put to rest this nonsense that molecules possess properties that cannot be explained by their constituent atoms?
B4 “… most of the CO2 molecules in the earthen lower atm. are exchanging & absorbing quantized rotational (spin) energy”.
***
What is that energy? Is it thermal, EM, chemical, mechanical…???
Never heard of quantized rotational energy. Can it be transmitted? Hope its not infectious. I’d hate to be struck down by quantized rotational energy.
*******
“Gordon is also wrong about Youd need a photon to be absorbed by an electron. since electrons dont have enough mass to absorb the angular momentum possessed by a photon…”
***
That has to be one of the worst red-herring arguments I have ever read. Now a photon has an angular momentum. Great, it has no mass but it has momentum and angular momentum.
What exactly absorbs the photon? I laid out a line diagram for CO2, which part absorbs the photon?
That would be exchanging molecular kinetic energy in the atm., Gordon, & occasionally photons. It is really obvious Gordon getting stuff repeatedly so wrong is because Gordon hasn’t studied &/or passed a course in even basic atm. radiation physics not having “heard” of such energy.
A photon possesses both linear AND quantized angular momentum, Gordon, & yes, I understand that is news to Gordon. When a photon is absorbed by Gordon’s CO2 molecule, that molecule undergoes a transition to a higher energy level (rotational, vibrational, electronic), and the transition must be such that angular momentum is conserved. Thus, if one unit of angular momentum is annihilated (so to speak) when a photon is absorbed, the molecule must increase its angular momentum, and hence energy state, by the same amount. And, in reverse, similarly for emission.
If it bothers Gordon that a photon without mass (as far as is known) can carry momentum this is because Gordon is stuck on the notion that momentum is mass times velocity. Sometimes this is true (approximately), sometimes not. Momentum is momentum, a property complete in itself and not always the product of mass and velocity.
Come on Ball4 we know where all this is headed. If the GHE has any radiation effect as insulation it is to primarily moderate temperatures and limit extremes in temperature.
Just as our homes are made more comfortable by insulation to bring the temperatures of our homes on a day by day basis to smaller swings in temperature between day and night.
what accomplishes most of that work in the atmosphere is clouds. Clouds both provide the strongest greenhouse effect and at the same time reflects more light away from the planet. Science hasn’t yet even concluded what the net effect is. Additionally we can’t measure clouds to an accuracy that would rule out all climate change being provided by cloud variation alone. Science knows that. States would not be spending billions of measuring cosmic rays and looking at clouds. Without that information its pure garbage in garbage out.
Bill, currently understanding the climate change GHE net effect situation is not as dire as you write due to already spent $blns.
There are now decades of measurements and attribution of Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System net top-of-atmosphere flux trends for 2002/09 – 2020/03. Flux trends are now known with 95% statistical confidence each for changes in clouds, surface, atm. temperature radiance, trace gases and solar irradiance, atm. water vapor (humidity), and aerosols.
95% confidence in what level of accuracy are you saying? Do you understand statistics or are you just rattling off what your dadddy told you?
Last I heard the 95% level of confidence was at an accuracy factor of a few times the amount that could account for the entire industrial age warming.
Bill “heard” something? Bill is the commenter that is just rattling off.
In the observed period I commented on, warming trend confidence interval is +/- 0.06 on the net trend of 0.77 so accurate enough to be meaningful data from precision, calibrated instruments.
Sorry Ball4, you appear to be an offensive sack of human waste that is dribbling his repellently obnoxious horseshit all over the feet of his genetic superiors. You will be forever silent, as befits a lesser human being in the face of his eternal, glorious betters. Shut up. You do not have the right to speak. You are a hated abomination of human filth and God himself wishes you to be eternally silent.
Gentle Graham gently gaslights once again.
Him and Pup have no business here, in general but especially in this sub thread.
ball4 and your source is?
Gordon,
“I am not questioning what Newton said, I am questioning the interpretation of what he said by translators.”
The following Latin comes directly from the 3rd edition of the Principia, which Newton published a year before his death.
“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′.”
This is not a translation. I’ve spent the day checking 18th century copies.
This is clearly a list of rotational movements. Earth 24 hours, Mars 24 hours, Sun 25 hours, Jupiter 9 hours. Newton does not sloppily include the Moon in that list as an orbit without noting the difference.
In the 2nd edition, Newton writes this:
“Quoniam vero Lunae, circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis, dies menstruus est: hujus facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis ipsius semper respiciet”
The translation is clear – suum means “his own” in Latin.
“Since, indeed, the Moon, revolving uniformly around his own axis, has a monthly cycle: its face always looks toward the furthermost point of the orbit itself”
Cambridge University keeps a copy of the 2nd edition that Newton wrote on to make notes for the 3rd edition. You can see his own handwriting in the section I just quoted changing one word – orbis. He does not correct “suum,” content to leave the text as “revolving uniformly around his own axis.” Here is the link to that.
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-ADV-B-00039-00002/847
Newton is a spinner. It takes some mighty sophistry to deny it.
Wrong barry. You remain terribly confused. Your lack of formal training, combined with all the different languages and translations, don’t help.
Find the English version of Prop. XVII Th. XV, and paste it here, in its entirety. Then, if you don’t understand we can help.
That is, if you are able to understand? I not sure you yet understand that “view factor” is NOT an issue if a flux is arriving a surface. Again, your lack of training makes physics hard for you.
Clint, you want me to quote an English translation of the Latin for that section? Because the English translation will be more convincing than Newton’s original Latin?
Or because you want to set up the discussion to trash the translation as only translations?
I guess we’ll find out. There are 3 well-known translations of the 3rd and final edition. This is the most recent one by Ian Bruce.
“It is apparent by the first law of motion and Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Book I that Jupiter certainly is revolving with respect to the fixed stars in 9 hours and 56 minutes, Mars in 24 hours and 39 minutes, Venus in around 23 hours, the earth in 23 hours 56 minutes, the sun in 25 and a half, and the moon in 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes.”
So Jupiter is “revolving” in 10 hours, Mars in 24 and a half hours, the Earth in 23 hours and 39 minutes, the Sun in 25 and a half hours, and the Moon in just oved 27 days.
So, you’ve got your translation. How do you explain Newton including the Moon in a list of spin periods?
barry, to understand you need to paste the entire section: Find the English version of Prop. XVII Th. XV, and paste it here, in its entirety. Including title.
Otherwise, you’re just cherry-picking.
Paste the entire section so I can explain it to you.
Here you go Clint, the whole section, with title, from an English translation, as you requested. I’ve bolded parts I think you should mention in your analysis. ‘Diurnal motion’ means daily motion, as in the Earth’s rotation, and Newton applies this to all the bodies he mentions, including the Moon in the first sentence of this section. The rotation of the Moon about its own axis is also clearly mentioned. You’ll see it in one of the bolded sections.
————————————————————–
PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
The Proposition is proved from the first Law of Motion, and Cor. 22, Prop. LXVI, Book I. Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h 56′; Mars in 24h 39′; Venus in about 23h; the Earth in 23h 56′; the Sun in 25 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. These things appear by the Phenomena. The spots in the sun’s body return to the same situation on the sun s disk, with respect to the earth, in 27 days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25 days. But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb; but, as the situation of that focus requires, will deviate a little to one side and to the other from the earth in the lower focus and this is the libration in longitude; for the libration in latitude arises from the moon’s latitude, and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic. This theory of the libration of the moon, Mr. N. Mercato in his Astronomy, published at the beginning of the year 1676, explained more fully out of the letters I sent him. The utmost satellite of Saturn seems to revolve about its axis with a motion like this of the moon, respecting Saturn continually with the same face; for in its revolution round Saturn, as often as it comes to the eastern part of its orbit, it is scarcely visible, and generally quite disappears; which is like to be occasioned by some spots in that part of its body, which is then turned towards the earth, as M. Cassini has observed. So also the utmost satellite of Jupiter seems to revolve about its axis with a like motion, because in that part of its body which is turned from Jupiter it has a spot, which always appears as if it were in n Jupiter s own body, whenever the satellite passes between Jupiter’s body, whenever the satellite passes between Jupiter and our eye.
————————————————————–
Now, I prefer the Latin, so there can be no accusations of ‘interpreting’ translators. But you have apparently deemed the English sound to rest your argument on, that Newton wasn’t a spinner.
Referring to the bolded parts, it is clearly stated that the Moon ‘revolves’ on its own axis to make a Lunar ‘day’. The rotational periods given near the top apply to all the bodies mentioned, including the Moon, whose motion is not differentiated from the others in that section (indeed the whole proposition is about rotation), and these rotational periods are given WRT the fixed stars.
Ok, you’ve got the full text of Prop XVII, Theo XV, and here is the link to check for yourself.
https://redlightrobber.com/red/links_pdf/Isaac-Newton-Principia-English-1846.pdf
PDF Page 410, or page 404 by book page number.
How do you know they are spin periods and not rotation periods?
After all synodic rotations (from earths perspective) is 24 hours not 23h56m. And full moon to full moon is 29.5 not 27.3. thats no help except that the accusation of non-spinners using the wrong frame of reference is incorrect and one has to wonder why spinners rely on that so much. That doesn’t help their credibility.
They are sidereal values – did you not see the phrase, “with respect to the fixed stars?”
And except for Venus these values are very close to modern sidereal periods for the rotation of these bodies.
barry
1. Let’s help Clint R with a few links so he can ‘explain it to you’.
a) Newton’s original Latin text of his Principia, Book III, Prop XVII, Th XV:
https://books.google.de/books?id=x-_K1KGZvv4C&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&source=bl&ots=LtVy4wJkn_&sig=ACfU3U3JXf_82r1cHHz7daxmm0agYrJFcQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjUgYmsh8zjAhVsxosKHY1NAXAQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
b) Motte’s original text of his translation in English (sentences typed in italic are addenda from the footnotes)
https://books.google.de/books?id=6EqxPav3vIsC&pg=PA238&redir_esc=y&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false
*
2. From the answer of the hunter boy one can conclude very clearly
– his lack of even the slightest scientific education – who on earth would think that sidereal periods could ever be misinterpreted as orbits?
but also
– his apparent disinterest in reading what we are talking about before writing anything about it.
*
When he namely writes
” How do you know they are spin periods and not rotation periods? ”
it becomes evident that he can’t have read the text, telling among other things that with respect to the fixed stars, the Sun revolves in 25 1/2 days.
About what the heck could the Sun ever orbit in 25 1/2 days? Maybe the center of the Milky Way?
The Hunter boy simply produces, as always, a poorish, superficial and condescending gossip.
Had he read the text, he would have understood that Jupiter very certainly can’t orbit the Sun in 9 hours and 56 minutes: it does that in… 11.862 years!
*
His blah blah below shows that he does not understand that sidereal motion periods are necessary in order to get the periods independent of the motion of the periods’ observer.
Typo:
Earth in 23 hours and 56 minutes
It doesn’t matter what he said. What you have to ask is if there were another equivalent manner of looking at the situation. You guys have this down as a it must be one way whereas DREMT has it down as dependent upon what you want to focus on.
Obviously the brilliance of Newton could not have missed the mathematical equivalency of the two view points. I would think it would be impossible to devise his formulas without having a full comprehension of the equivalency of looking at the matter from both perspectives. The beauty of Newton’s formula for orbital rotation is you can focus on the problem in more ways than one. . . .simplifying analysis depending upon what the objective of the analysis is.
“It doesn’t matter what he said.”
It doesn’t matter to you, Bill. But what he said is actively being disputed by others who are not you.
“DREMT has it down as dependent upon what you want to focus on.”
I’m not aware of DREMT being ok with the spinner position, or that there are any valid alternatives to his view that permits axial rotation of the Moon. Could you point out where he says that?
Meanwhile, I am fine with people speaking of non-rotation with a geocentric reference frame, or positing that it is a geometric rotation about an external axis, though I would disagree with the latter, for reasons already given.
I’m completely unconvinced that the Moon is not rotating under Newtonian celestial mechanics.
barry, there are obviously two ways of looking at it. I can see it from either perspective with more ease than you could tie your own shoelaces. Study your own position for a thousand years and you might be up to one billionth of the level of understanding with which I get the “Spinner” position. I may as well have created the “Spinner” position I understand it so completely. It’s more simple than counting from 1 to 3. That’s how I know that the “Non-Spinner” position is preferable. You’ll get there.
The non-spinner position really is preferable when our Moon is viewed from Earth, i.e. wrt Earth since earthshine is only incident on one lunar face.
You will shut your face, Ball4.
” Troll Bin spews again: He would never be able to explain us what this means, let alone to show us this strange ‘diurnal’ stuff in Newtons text.
From Newtons text:
PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion. ”
*
Sorry Clint R: I of course didn’t mean Newton’s original words. They are perfect, as always.
Firstly, I enjoy the fact that you exceptionally deigned to leave his words unchanged – unlike e.g. here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1432782
*
What I meant was that you misrepresent his words when you write, with regard to daily motions: ‘Day and night, Bin! Day and night’.
Newton did not mention ‘day and night’ anywhere in the text: it is your invention, as so often.
Diurnal motion – as far as Earth is concerned – is interpreted nowadays as the apparent motion of stars and planets around us, due to Earth’s rotation about its axis. It has nothing to do with days and nights.
*
And the following words of Newton in Prop XVII Th. XV of course you consequently won’t accept:
” Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb. ”
Because Newton writes, as do all astro’loger’s (he he) since millennia, that we see the same face of our Moon BECAUSE it rotates about its axis in the same time as it orbits Earth.
*
Keep denying, Clint R! No problem for me.
Clint R does a major disservice to the science community with his constant diatribes against anyone that disagrees with his profoundly wrong opinions that have no basis in fact.
Clint R, the blog science laughing stock, does provide a never ending entertainment service.
Ken, when you’ve finished your major disservice to reality, maybe you could give us an example of one of my “wrong opinions”.
That’s how you start building some credibility — you support what you claim.
I won’t hold my breath….
Clint R
You are such a dishonest person, behaving like an opinionated 12-year old child.
We just need to look at the last example of your major disservice to the science community:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1432782
You even feel the need to mistranslate Isaac Newton’s scientific results just because you dislike them! Shame on you.
Bin, what a fantastic meltdown you’ve got going. You’ve never had any science. All you’ve ever had is links you can’t understand. You can’t even understand Swanson’s diagrams. You believe they are all correct. They are all WRONG.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Funny 3:28 pm comment, Clint R. Pls, keep up such humorous entertainment.
Ball4
” … keep up such humorous entertainment. ”
Humorous? Sure sure?
500 years ago, Clint R would most likely have us all burned at the stake.
I’d say very few even back then would take Clint R srsly. Clint would just be the court jester.
Ball4 – silence is your only destiny.
Thank you, Ken.
I’m not sure what your point was Bin. You appear to be agreeing with me while not agreeing with me?
Of course he doesn’t want to agree with you. He wants to cherry pick what he wants to focus on to maximize the disagreement while failing to realize that Newton didn’t give a shit about what Bindidon thinks.
” … while failing to realize that Newton didnt give a shit about what Bindidon thinks. ”
Of course, as always: just gossip, without any evidence. No Newton citation to back up own bullshit.
Now, little Hunter boy, you’re moving to the lowest possible level of superficial denigration.
This is so thoroughly disgusting.
The fact that is clearly visible is, roughly speaking, that YOU don’t give a shit about what Newton wrote in his Principia – as soon as he writes something you don’t want to see.
*
Ken’s comment about Clint R’s behavior applies to you 100%.
Sounds like Bindidon is disputing my claim that Newton didn’t give a shit about what Bindidon thinks.
Attending seances Bindidon?
Binny is old, Gill, but not that old.
But as a matter of fact Newton seemed to care a lot about his posterity.
Me, agreeing with your permanent unscientific nonsense?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1448645
Shut up, Bindidon.
Pseudomod
Keep away from my comments, if you have nothing meaningful to say.
One Flynnson is enough for this blog.
“Newton didnt give a shit about what Bindidon thinks.”
“Shut up, Bindidon”
Binny, remember what Bill said:
“Fascist and communists and other authoritarian nations….. start with name calling…. restriction of free speech, suppression of expression viewed contrary to the state objectives”
And we should remember that anytime we disagree with these ‘free-thinking, tolerant, open-minded’ people, they view that as ‘vomiting an unending stream of blistering, hate-filled bile into their face’.
Because after-all, we are the ‘evil robotic forces of darkness’.
Hush, Bindidon.
barry
Re: your post dated February 17, 2023 at 9:43 PM
*
When it comes to discussions about Newton’s Principia, I always refer to the third edition dated 1726 and commented in 1822 by Leseur/Jacquier.
Simply because there, Prop. XVII Th. XV is much more elaborated than anywhere else:
https://books.google.com/books?id=2wNYAAAAcAAJ&hl=de&pg=PA51&q=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
You see that when going into the footnotes till page 54.
Until now I had only considered footnote ‘(e) 76. Semper respiciet quamproximè’.
*
But other ones are probably very interesting as well, especially
– (f) 77. Libratio in latitudinem
and
– (g) 78. N.D. Mercator
i.e. the reference made to the treatise published in 1676 by Mercator(aka Nikolaus Kaufmann)
https://books.google.de/books?id=TqwsGvy3sMEC&pg=PA286&hl=en&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q=newton&f=false
in which he mentioned Newton’s letter explaining him how Cassini computed the lunar spin and its axis’ inclination wrt the Ecliptic.
Unluckily, Google’s Translator still is light years away from being able to translate the footnotes’ text.
I asked a firm specialized in such translations for a cost estimation: not under 500 ! Gracias no.
How long before crazy Bindiclown starts digging Newton out from his grave ???
Eben, you little angry, permanently stalking dachshund!
If you aren’t interested in this discussion: what the heck are you doing here, you and your circular ‘reasoning’ trash posts?
Why don’t you look for your microscopic GSM tracks instead?
Yes, naturally his final version is preferred, but I was interested to see how that section had evolved. Whether you take the 3rd edition or the previous 2, that section is very clear that the Moon rotates.
Newton – Schmewton. Who cares what that stupid old failure thought?
Clint,
I’ve provided you with the full text of Book III, Prop XVII, Theo XV, which you can read and check at the link yourself, in this post.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1448716
I eagerly await your demonstration that Newton was not saying that the Moon spins on its own axis.
Should be fun!
barry, you didn’t answer all day and then you come back and start dropping your waste all over the blog. Get some diapers, boy.
If you want to proceed as an adult, start by showing some maturity. Can you find the flaws in Swanson’s 3 diagrams?
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
If you don’t understand this, just admit it. Quit trying to fake it. You get caught when you try to fake it and end up calling people a “lying dog”.
Find the flaws in Swanson’s nonsense, or admit you can’t.
This.
Clint,
You requested the English translation of what we were quoting in Latin so you could explain it to me. After providing the translation, you insisted you needed the whole text from Proposition XVII, Theorem XV, including title. I provided it, and the link so you could check for yourself that I’d transcribed it faithfully.
Are you going to renege? You’re not a man of your word?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1448716
There’s the link to the full passage, with title.
I look forward to you honourably doing what you said you were going to do after tasking me to provide you the tools.
barry, please stop trolling.
Lost my place due to a posting error…
barry…”The word suum means his own. So there can be no doubt Newton was speaking of the Moons spin right there”.
***
Not in the context it is used. Suum could mean his own or it’s own. If you take the full phrase it translates as…
“circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis” ….
“revolving uniformly around its axis”
Newton would not have referred to the Moon as ‘his’. It’s clear from what I revealed earlier, re the Moon moving with a linear motion while keeping the same face pointed at Earth, the Newton saw the Earth as the lunar axis.
Even the phrase “circa axem suum” translates to “around its axis”.
It’s the second part of the Latin that makes this clear.
“hujus facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis ipsius semper respiciet”
It does not translate very well but I have seen it translated as the Moon keeping the same face pointed to the prinicipal focal point, where obviously the Earth is located. In Latin, umbilicum can mean ‘focus’ and orbitae means orbit. I suspect that orbis is somehow a reference to orbit and not to world as Google translates it.
It’s curious why he did not reference the Earth itself. Perhaps, in Old Latin, there was no good word for it. In the Google translator, both Earth and earth translate to terra (no capitals). However, ‘planet Earth’ translates to ‘planetis Terrae’. In Old English, Earth is ertha, based on the German word erda.
I am not familiar with Latin but from what I have seen it is a minimalist language where translation depends largely on context. I am not implying it is not a precise language, I am saying you really have to know what you’re doing to get it right. There is evidence that Motte got some of it wrong.
Your translation does not make sense. It says the Moon is keeping the same face pointed to the furthest part of the orbit. What does that mean? It makes far more sense to translate the near side as always being pointed at the principal focal point. It’s quite likely there was no real descrip.tor for that in Newton’s time and that he used a local reference.
Furthermore, taken in its full context, your Latin excer.p.t has a context related to the orbit, the principal focal point, and the direction faced by the lunar near side. It’s very unlikely that Newton is talking about the Moon revolving about a local axis.
Remember, Newton’s Latin is not only Old Latin, he likely spoke Old English, or a conversion between Old and New English. Furthermore, Newton used a Greco-Latin at times.
It seems far more likely to me that Newton was claiming the Moon revolved about the Earth while keeping the same face pointed to the principal axis, where Earth is located.
Whether you say ‘its own’ or ‘his own’, Newton clearly states that the Moon ‘revolves’ around its own axis. Checking again, suum means its own. Sua is his own.
That whole section is about rotation (WRT to the fixed stars – sidereal period). At the top he lists the rotational period of the Earth (terra in Latin), the Sun, Jupiter, Mars, Venus and the Moon. The word revolvitur applies to all of them and the periods are all very close to the modern estimates of sidereal rotation (spin) for those bodies.
There’s really no doubt, Gordon. He says it plainly, and he lists the Moon among the other bodies when listing their rotational periods.
You only really have 2 options when the language is quite plain and the context easy to parse.
1) Newton is wrong about the Moon spinning
2) Newton is correct about the Moon spinning, but only because he is referencing that spin WRT the fixed stars
Your best move is option 2.
Because at this point denying that he has stated that the Moon is spinning is silly nonsense.
Barry says:
”2) Newton is correct about the Moon spinning, but only because he is referencing that spin WRT the fixed stars”
Barry that is so irritating. non-spinners believe the moon rotates WRT the fixed stars too. Just like in the MOTL. You can’t argue this point except from the standpoint of different interpretations of what the MOTL represents. . . .thus you can’t argue the point based upon the motions of the moon. You need to go beyond motion to argue the point.
Funny you say that, Gill, for when B4 says the same it makes Graham throw a fit.
Don’t know what you’re annoyed about Bill – I’ve just given the non-spinners a way of maintaining their view without contradicting Newton. You’ve only confirmed you agree with my offer.
DREMT has said the Moon is not rotating in the context of “bog standard celestial mechanics,” which is either Heliocentric or WRT the fixed stars. He has made clear he doesn’t believe it is a geocentric position. So it would seem DREMT disagrees with your proposition about non-spinners, but he may swing by to clarify.
Bill is saying that wrt the fixed stars, the moon rotates about an external axis, and not on its own internal axis. He is not saying that the moon rotates on its own internal axis wrt fixed stars.
barry still struggles mightly with the non-spinner position making the slay nothing but strawmen with their irritating arguments.
i think today i found a way to turn their libration argument against them in a physical conservation of energy way. real physical libration is the only libration that involves a change in energy as only physical libration involves a movement of energy in and out of the spinner model while keeping it constant in the non-spinner model.
not being a physcist, i put that out for discussion. maybe only practically speaking can one move between the models, though gravitational affects outside the system can do the same.
“not being a physcist”
Indeed the gibberish you have posted makes that abundantly clear.
This is yet another “look a squirrel” while evading the basic fact that your model utterly fails to explain the observed Moon motion.
sorry nate you fofeited. ad homs don’t help
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449397
Sorry Bill,
” only physical libration involves a movement of energy in and out of the spinner model while keeping it constant in the non-spinner model.”
this is made-up nonsense.
In a murder trial the prosecution calls witnesses who observed the perp at the scene of the crime, at the time of the crime, with blood on his shirt leaving the scene of the crime, and no one else present.
The defense asks the witnesses to speculate on the motivations of the perp. Do they think maybe he was abused as a child? Do they think maybe the victim had an affair with the perp’s girlfriend? The witnesses have guesses but..
the prosecution interrupts and objects as to relevance of this line of questioning.
The judge sustains the objection and says it has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the perp and should be ignored. It may be interesting for the sentencing phase, but only if there is evidence to support it..
In this instance, astronomers are the witnesses who observe the Moon rotating on a tilted axis, and observe the librations, and are able to show they fit the spinner model.
Bill asks about the ‘influence of other bodies’, ‘angular momentum’, ‘energy transference’ and other speculations on the mechanisms for this observed motion.
We object that this is off-topic, speculative, and of no relevance to whether the Moon is OBSERVED to be spinning on a tilted internal axis.
It is simply obfuscation intended to confuse the jury.
barry…”Whether you say its own or his own, Newton clearly states that the Moon revolves around its own axis. Checking again, suum means its own. Sua is his own”.
***
In languages like French and Latin, when you use a personal pronoun related to gender, it is broken down roughly as I, you, his/her/it. we, you, and they. We are dealing with his/her and it. If Moon was the name of a person, you would use his or her, but the Moon is not a person so you use ‘it’.
*****
“That whole section is about rotation (WRT to the fixed stars sidereal period).
***
It’s not about rotation per se, it’s about ‘diurnal motion’ and ‘libration’. That is the thesis statement of the section. Specifically, it mentions the libration of the Moon. The propositions is this…”That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion”.
Then he claims the proof as follows…”The Proposition is proved from the first Law of Motion, and Cor. 22, Prop. LXVI, Book I”.
I don’t have Book 1 to verify this.
Diurnal motion is defined as the APPARENT motion of celestial objects ABOUT THE EARTH. Newton is talking about the apparent motion of the stated planets/moons about the Earth WRT THE STARS and not the actual motion.
If you read further into the proposition, Newton states…
“The utmost satellite of Saturn ***seems*** to revolve about its axis with a motion like this of the moon, respect
ing Saturn continually with the same face;…”
‘Apparent motion’ and ‘seems’ suggests strongly that he is claiming the Moon seems to revolve about it axis, wrt the stars.
******
“Theres really no doubt, Gordon. He says it plainly, and he lists the Moon among the other bodies when listing their rotational periods”.
***
There is doubt, not only about the meaning but also about the translation. I don’t think Newton was being vague, he is noted for his detail. I think the lack of clarity comes from the usage of Old Latin and the fact Newton was talking about cutting edge science.
Old Latin is so obscure that the Google translator, which has become quite adept at translation, produces utter garbage at times when dealing with Newton’s Old Latin. Furthermore, people adept at translating Latin have described difficulty with Old Latin.
***
“You only really have 2 options when the language is quite plain and the context easy to parse.
1) Newton is wrong about the Moon spinning
2) Newton is correct about the Moon spinning, but only because he is referencing that spin WRT the fixed stars”
***
There are other options, as I have pointed out.
a)The language used is obscure.
b)the scientific principles described are new and don’t translate well.
c)the translator misunderstood the scientific principles and interpreted them incorrectly.
Moon, schmoon.
Indeed. None of our discussion on this matters a hill of beans. We’re all just testing each other in different ways.
Yes, very true. The entire moon discussion is irrelevant, it changes absolutely nothing if you think the moon rotates on its own axis or not. What is important is who loves and kowtows to authority in every situation and who thinks for themselves. Who chows down on the word of their father and who vomits into his face with an unending stream of blistering, hate-filled bile. The moon debate is simply the mainstream against the revolution-aries, the free thinkers vs. the robotic forces of darkness, good vs. evil, justice vs. intolerance. That sort of thing.
Basically, if you cannot keep an open mind over the moon issue then you are bound to be close-minded over AGW, sucking up to the GHE-beast whilst fearing for your life about every little 0.1 of a degree C rise in temperature. There is nothing to fear, CO2 could not warm a thing, and everything will work out OK in the end. No GHE. Never has been, never will be.
I look forward to you confirming that you’re not dialled into the ‘mainstream’ mind-lock by reassuring us that flat-Earthers argue a valid alternative.
There is nothing to fear, CO2 could not warm a thing, and everything will work out OK in the end. No GHE. Never has been, never will be.
Don’t forget the nanochips in vaccines. Somebody’s gone to a lot of trouble putting that theory together, so let’s keep an open mind on it, huh?
…is nothing to fear, CO2 could not warm a thing, and everything will work out OK in the end. No GHE. Never has been, never will be.
“if you cannot keep an open mind over the moon issue”
OMG
I would think that anyone truly open minded would look at the observable facts and be willing to adjust their belief if it doesnt fit the available facts, rather than rejecting those observables that don’t agree.
I would think that anyone truly open minded would not be constantly insisting that others must see it THEIR WAY.
And anyone who doesnt see things THEIR WAY must be evil robotic forces of darkness.
That doesnt sound like a tolerant open-minded person.
Nate says:
I would think that anyone truly open minded would look at the observable facts and be willing to adjust their belief if it doesnt fit the available facts, rather than rejecting those observables that dont agree.
——————————-
Thats your challenge. The KISS theory suggests one motion of a moon traveling an orbit after tidal locking the moon in place as does any such object like bowls on the water in a larger rotating bowl of water, or like a fidget spinner, or freely spinning horsey’s on a merry-go-round. One motion.
Are there other motions? Indeed and they affect both the orbit and the uniform circular motion of the spinner position of the moon spinning on its axis. One cannot avoid these perturbations by trying to run away from them. The fact is Nate there is a physical libration of the moon that pulls the moon out of its uniform circular motion and its due to gravity variations on the moon’s particles that create the motion. In general, I believe, spins are caused by collisions and orbital motion by gravity. Seems a reasonable way with which to define motions of a single object. Gravity provides one rotation, and perhaps if a collision affects have not been eroded to tidal locked state you can have another. Further it explains why the MOTR is impossible without it being two motions. Seems to be a coherent way to classify motions to me. Perhaps you could comment directly on that. If you try to classify them the way you are how do you explain the one taking over from the other in a coherent way and still call that a ”force that creates a motion?” Are we going to talk about orbital motion, spin motion, and tidal locking motion?
“Are there other motions? Indeed”
And Bill sees no need to adjust his theory to fit these. He continues to believe.
If your theory cannot fit the observations nearly as well as another theory, it is not sufficient to wave a magic wand and say magic words like ‘perturbations’, and wave away the failure of your theory.
nate…”And Bill sees no need to adjust his theory to fit these. He continues to believe”.
***
Why would Bill adjust his theory when the motion is so obvious and explainable? I have asked spinners repeatedly to explain how the Moon can keep the same face pointed at Earth and still rotate 360 degrees about a local axis. No answers forthcoming, not even a theory.
The spinner position is that the Moon can rotate exactly once per orbit while keeping the same face pointed at Earth. It is an illusion no different than the apparent motion of the Sun, suggesting the Sun is orbiting Earth. On face value, it seems logical, but science says otherwise.
nate…”I would think that anyone truly open minded would look at the observable facts and be willing to adjust their belief if it doesnt fit the available facts…”
***
Exactly, Nate, so let’s look at the observable facts.
1)The Moon moves constantly with a linear motion.
2)Gravity affects that linear motion by bending the Moon’s motion gradually into a curvilinear motion.
3)The Moon always keeps the same face pointed at Earth.
Explain using those facts how the Moon can possibly rotate about a local axis at the same time.
” I have asked spinners repeatedly to explain how the Moon can keep the same face pointed at Earth and still rotate 360 degrees about a local axis. No answers forthcoming, not even a theory.”
But Gordon, you then seemed to recall that we did answer many times:
“The spinner position is that the Moon can rotate exactly once per orbit while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.”
Weird.
“Exactly, Nate, so lets look at the observable facts.
1)The Moon moves constantly with a linear motion.
2)Gravity affects that linear motion by bending the Moons motion gradually into a curvilinear motion.”
Ok. So curvilinear translation means orbiting like the so-called Moon on the right. It is orbiting without changing its orientation.
Now the Moon also has a steady rotation on its axis, which is tilted 6.7 degrees to its orbital axis. The rotation period and orbital period are the same.
Thus on average
3)The Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth.
notice how nate flipflops between orbital rotation on an external axis and curvilinear translation that is defined as not being a rotation on a fixed axis. got any physics arguments? oops forgot already, getting old
sorry nate you fofeited. ad homs don’t help
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449397
Bill interrupts with drunken nonsense posts.
…nothing to fear, CO2 could not warm a thing, and everything will work out OK in the end. No GHE. Never has been, never will be.
Graham, schgraham.
Absolutely.
“No GHE. Never has been, never will be.”
Basically, if you cannot keep an open mind about the GHE then you are bound to be close-minded over the Moon issue.
dremt…well said.
Gordon,
I noticed you wrote upthread…
“Meantime, we no-spinners have offered example after example of equivalent lunar motion which none of you can prove wrong. The ball on a string is the simplest, with a string under tension preventing any possible rotation about the ball’s local axis, yet you spinners continue with your denial, claiming the ball is actually spinning about a local axis even though it can’t.”
The Moon nods WRT to the Earth, and wags its head WRT to the Earth.
A ball on a string can’t do that. It is, as you say, locked into position.
The analogy doesn’t hold any farther than the realization that the Lunar orbit is elliptical.
So let’s put the ball on an elastic, or extendable string to mimic the elliptical orbit of the Moon.
The ball is till locked into position WRT the point fixing the other end of the string, or the Earth, for the analogy.
Even granting an elliptical orbit to “a string under tension preventing any possible rotation about the ball’s local axis,” you cannot replicate the libration of the Moon.
barry, we have been fortunate enough to develop our understanding of astronomy with an example of “orbit without spin” on our doorstep the entire time – the moon. Every nuance of its motion has been captured and studied over centuries. Had it been moving in a manner that befits “orbit without spin” as the “Spinners” see it, instead, no doubt we would have recorded just as many idiosyncrasies and peculiarities in its motion over time that, had we been so inclined, could have led us to the conclusion that the moon “must have” been performing two motions just because it all seemed so complex…yet “Spinners” would be the ones now claiming it is just “one motion”…
barry…”The Moon nods WRT to the Earth, and wags its head WRT to the Earth”.
***
The Moon neither nods or wags, libration can be explained entirely by curvilinear motion without local rotation. In fact, it’s the only explanation for longitudinal libration.
I have never claimed a BoS demonstrates libration only that it demonstrates clearly that the ball always keeps the same face pointed at the centre and cannot rotate about its own local axis due to tension from the string. That should be enough to alert an inquisitive mind to question the idea that the Moon rotates on a local axis.
The reason a BoS cannot demonstrate libration is it’s constant connection via the string. The Moon is not connected to the Earth by such a connection and a radial line from the near face is free to vary from a line connecting the centres of Moon and Earth.
“I have never claimed a BoS demonstrates libration only that it demonstrates clearly that the ball always keeps the same face pointed at the centre and cannot rotate about its own local axis due to tension from the string. That should be enough to alert an inquisitive mind to question the idea that the Moon rotates on a local axis.”
The BoS cannot replicate libration. That is enough to alert anyone that it is a poor analogy for the motion of the Moon, as the Moon doesn’t keep its face locked to Earth, but shows a bit more of the North and South, and East and West parts of its face over time.
Which was my point.
Making the string extendable to mimic the Moon’s actual orbit won’t change the fact that libration is still not possible in this set-up if “the ball always keeps the same face pointed at the centre and cannot rotate about its own local axis due to tension from the string.”
In order for libration to occur with BoS, there needs to be a little give, so that the ball rotates and nods slightly.
Barry says:
Making the string extendable to mimic the Moons actual orbit wont change the fact that libration is still not possible in this set-up if ”the ball always keeps the same face pointed at the centre and cannot rotate about its own local axis due to tension from the string.”
thats false and ridiculous you just in your mind created the moon and are now claiming its motion is impossible.
Gill, Gill,
The beauty of geometry is that you could prove Barry wrong by showing a counterexample.
What are you waiting for?
What are you talking about, Bill? Gordon created the BoS Moon, not me. I’m asking him to explain libration with his model. I’m trying to give him as much rope (pun intended) as possible to make his model work, by proposing a wat to mimic the Moon’s orbit.
You’re not going to be much help here, as you’ve already in effect shrugged and said that ‘this is what celestial motion is’.
barry, you don’t understand ANY of this.
The ball-on-a-string is NOT an exact model of Moon. It was never intended to be such. That’s just your strawman argument. But, it blows up in your face.
The ball-on-a-string is ONLY a model of OMWAR, “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
I bet you STILL won’t get it. Because then you would have to admit what an ignorant troll you are.
Prove me wrong.
By OMWAR, Pup, are you referring to the counterfactual “If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure”?
Many thanks!
I’m glad you agree, Clint, that those models cannot account for the Moon’s actual motion.
Obviously these simple mechanical analogies can’t represent Lunar motion accurately, so we have to come up with better models. Libration of longitude can be explained easily with a regularly spinning Moon having an irregular orbit.
If the Moon is “rotating around a fixed external point,” and not rotating on an inner axis, then the external point about which it is rotating must shift in order for us to see slightly more of the East and then the West at different times. Which is a big problem for the non-spinner model. How does this East/West shift in the CoM occur?
How else do you explain libration in longitude with a non-spinning Moon?
Furthermore, this shift in external axis point would have to extend beyond the Eastern and Western edges of the Earth, as the diurnal libration that shows us one extra degree of the Moon’s face (the change in view angle if you observe the Moon from the Eastern and then Western limb of the Earth), is less than what we observe, a 7 degree change in the Moon’s East/west libration.
How is this 7-degree ‘wag’ of the Moon explained with a Moon that “rotates around an external fixed point?”
Little Willy, barry, please stop trolling.
barry…”PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
***
Note thesis statement of proposition…it is about,,,
1)diurnal motion of planets
2)libration of Moon.
***
Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h 56′; Mars in 24h 39′; Venus in about 23h; the Earth in 23h 56′; the Sun in 25 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.
Note the qualifying statement…’wrt the stars’. You are presuming the word revolves applies the same for the planets as for the Moon. Problem is, the planets revolve about the Sun and the Moon revolves about the Earth. At the same time, the planets revolve about a local axis, to which he refers, and the Moon does not.
However, he is talking about diurnal motion, not about local rotation or non-rotation.
****
“But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution [in] its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb;”.
The last part answers our question as to what the near face points at…it’s the upper focus, not the furthest part of it orbit.
I want one of you spinners to explain to me how the Moon can keep the same face pointed at the Earth while rotating once on its local axis per orbital period. I don’t want to hear that it’s obvious, blah, blah, I want mathematical and/or proof based on physics. Show me how it’s possible for the Moon to rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth, at the upper focus.
With regard to Newton’s statement above, the only way it makes sense is if ‘uniform revolution about its axis’ refers to the Earth as its axis.
I’ll bet that if the original Latin is translated properly that statement will read differently. I need to find the original Latin to get a better idea.
“You are presuming the word revolves applies the same for the planets as for the Moon”
That’s right, because he lists all those and the Moon together under this word. He does not differentiate the motion of the Moon in any way, and he is not sloppy enough to omit to mention it.
But I also know he means spin because of 1), the title:
“That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.”
Diurnal means daily, as in the rotation of the Earth over 24 hours. He is applying that rotational motion to the Moon, when he speaks of its diurnal motion. There is no other way to interpret this.
2), because of the sentence:
“because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb”
Which notes both the spin motion and the orbital motion being separate motions and equal in duration, and again refers to the Lunar ‘day’, which infers axial rotation, just as the Earth’s day.
If he meant to speak of the orbit of the Moon, he was say the Lunar month, which indeed he does when mentioning orbit right there in that sentence (menstrual).
This is all very clear.
You have 2 options.
1) Newton was wrong to think the Moon spins
2) Newton is right to say the Moon spins WRT the fixed stars, but that this doesn’t interfere with the non-spinner point of view
You do not have a credible option of denying Newton is speaking of Lunar rotation and Lunar orbit separately here.
This:
“because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb”
Is exactly what spinners have been saying here from the beginning.
It depends where you place the origin of your reference frame, barry. Place the origin of your reference frame through the moon itself, and keep your coordinate axes pointing towards distant fixed stars, and the moon does appear to be rotating on its own internal axis…however if you place the origin through the Earth, instead, still keeping your coordinate axes pointing towards distant fixed stars, you have the necessary perspective to see the moon is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own internal axis.
Note that both reference frames are “wrt the fixed stars”, however in one case you get the impression that the moon rotates on its own internal axis, and in the other you can see that it doesn’t. Newton is quantifying the rotation periods of various celestial bodies wrt the former reference frame (with the origin through the body), which is why he states that the moon rotates on its own internal axis in that time period…and that is also why he is not necessarily a “Spinner”. You can be aware that axial rotation periods of celestial objects can be quantified that way without necessarily agreeing that this represents the reality of their motion.
“Place the origin of your reference frame through the moon itself, and keep your coordinate axes pointing towards distant fixed stars, and the moon does appear to be rotating on its own internal axishowever if you place the origin through the Earth, instead, still keeping your coordinate axes pointing towards distant fixed stars, you have the necessary perspective to see the moon is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own internal axis.”
Not at all. Newton understood that the Moon’s orbit was elliptical. Anybody claiming such an orbit is a rotation is simply in denial.
The origin of the reference frame through the Earth makes no difference. My phone placed on the Moon will still detect that it’s position is following an elliptical path with one focus at the origin, the Earth. And it will detect rotation. And these motions are independently measurable.
IOW it is orbiting and has spin.
There is no way to logically call this motion that my phone could detect, one rotation, it is obviously a translation plus a rotation.
Only if a moon had the unique combination of perfectly circular orbit, rotation only in the orbital plane, and no libration, as the MOTL does, could anyone claim that this just happens to match a ‘rotation around an external axis’.
Anyone who understands that the Moon does not have these fortuitous properties, and has integrity, should not being trying to force its motion into this ill-fitting model.
…you can be aware that axial rotation periods of celestial objects can be quantified that way without necessarily agreeing that this represents the reality of their motion.
“why he is not necessarily a Spinner. You can be aware that axial rotation periods of celestial objects can be quantified that way without necessarily agreeing that this represents the reality of their motion.”
Sure, Newton was always just BS-ing about models he didn’t agree with. Thats all he did in the Principia!
Deniers invent all sorts of flimsy excuses.
…can be aware that axial rotation periods of celestial objects can be quantified that way without necessarily agreeing that this represents the reality of their motion.
thats way too nuanced for nate et al to grasp. yet when we deign to communicate reality through words we do something like that all the time.
It is way too fictional for Nate..
Yes, Bill, they’ve never really understood why the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. Oh well.
Instead of taking Newton’s words at face value, people imagine they can read his mind, and fantasize that he agreed with their crank views, as opposed to his clear statements contradicting their views.
These are people who simply cannot deal with the reality of their loss of this argument, and are grasping at straws.
…Bill, they’ve never really understood why the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. Oh well.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Bill, theyve never really understood why the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. Oh well.
——————-
Indeed! The language police think semantics results in people who know what they are doing, doing something different.
The fact is rotation defined as a perfect circle results in nonsense.
It demonstrates they have never had a significant real world job dealing with the issues. They think if they are told a rotation is a circle they do one thing and if it they told its an ellipse they do another.
Rotation as limited to a circular motion as in a perfect circle has not real meaning except for a book learner trying to figure out where zero is.
Fact is any detailed responsible professional is going to treat every rotation as an ellipse to analyze what he must do to complete his job successfully. Circles don’t get free passes. That kind of ignorance is what brings on disaster. Thats why when you finish your education your education is actually just beginning. These guys must of earned their degrees and then got jobs rotating burger patties on a grill somewhere.
“Fact is any detailed responsible professional is going to treat every rotation as an ellipse to analyze what he must do to complete his job successfully.”
Wow, just wow. The ignorance displayed here is comical. Apparently Bill thinks rotations are like expressionistic art.
As I explained countless times, engineers certainly do know what a rotation is and it is unambiguous. Unlike Bill, who still, after all this time, has been impotent to define it.
I m glad Bill was never put in charge of building a dam, or anything that required him to give others non-vague instructions.
Wow Nate is completely inexperienced. He didn’t even recognize the issue.
Reference frames have nothing to do with Newton’s quote so not sure why people are bringing it up.
…they’ve never really understood why the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. Oh well.
Come on, Bordon.
Here you go:
https://archive.org/details/TheoryOfTheMotionOfTheMoon
Maths and physics.
Twas fun.
Please do not touch the furniture on your way out.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
DREMT,
“What do you all make of ‘Non-Spinner’ Johannes von Gumpach’s book:”
I gave some thoughts upthread, but one strikes me in the context of the current discussion.
Von Gumpach says that Newton is a spinner and argues in that book that Newton is wrong.
I assume from that, and the fact you haven’t said one word about Newton’s view (except to jokingly call him an old failure), that you recognize he is a spinner.
Is that correct? It won’t interfere with your general argument to answer yes or no.
The “Newton debates” always get a bit silly, in my view. Obviously yes, I was joking, he’s not really a stupid old failure…but there is a serious point behind it. I think we attach too much importance to the word of these old greats. The real question is not whether Newton “said” the moon rotates on its own axis or not…the question is, did he make an argument for whether the moon rotates on its own axis or not? I’m not interested in whether some authority figure made a declaration one way or another…I want to know what their arguments were. As far as I can see there’s very little in the way of any argument being put forward by Newton one way or another. People are instead just agonising over whether or not he simply stated the moon rotates on its own axis…but an assertion is just an assertion, in any case! Whatever happened to “on the word of nobody”?
Now, what has always interested me is Clint R’s opinion that the “ball on a string” being a model for “orbit without spin” follows from Newton’s work. Personally I would like to know more about that.
Exactly DREMT. Newton was the first to demonstrate that an orbiting, non-rotating, body would always have one side facing the inside of its orbit. (Like a ball-on-a-string.) It has been said that he had to invent calculus to do that. That would, of course, make him a Non-Spinner.
I have offered Bindidon the source, if he would take some time off from trolling here, but he has refused. Trolling is more important to him than learning.
…an orbiting, non-rotating wrt Earth body, would always have one side facing the inside of its orbit. (Like a ball-on-a-string.)
That would, of course, make (Newton) a Non-Spinner (DREMT term) wrt Earth.
Newton translated wrt to the sidereal: “the Moon itself is believed to be equipped with its own poles and axis, around which it revolves with a uniform motion once a sidereal month”
So Newton was at the same time: a spinner (DREMT term).
All motion is relative.
” Newton was the first to demonstrate that an orbiting, non-rotating, body would always have one side facing the inside of its orbit. ”
Newton explained exactly the contrary.
As usual, Clint R’s lies, lies, lies.
Bin, you omitted the next sentence: “(Like a ball-on-a-string.)”
You’re not trying to hide something, are you?
Newton said:
“But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb…”
He is clearly saying that the reason the Moon keeps the same side to Earth (the “focus of its orb”) is because its revolution about its own axis is equal to the time of its orbit.
Ok, for the record you agree that Newton was a spinner.
His argument for it was libration in longitude – that the Moon had a uniform rotation around its axis, while its orbit was irregular, causing us to see sometimes further around her Western face, sometimes her Eastern.
“Ok, for the record you agree that Newton was a spinner.”
Steady on, barry, I didn’t say that. My official position is – don’t know if he was, don’t really care!
O….k.
Yes, OK.
Bindidon,
I’ve attempted to transcribe and translate some of the notes from Nicholas Mercator describing what Newton told him about Lunar libration, using google translate for some words while transcribing, an AI for the translation, and gone to check through piecemeal where it didn’t make sense.
First, the Latin:
Harum tam variarium atque implicitarum Librationum causas Hypothesi elegantissima explicavit nobis Vir Cl. Isaac Newton, cujus Humanitari hoc & alils nominibus plurimum debere me lubens profiteor. Hanc igitur hypothesin, Lectori grafiticaturus, exponam verbis, ut potero; delineationes in plano vix sufficiunt huic negotio, praeterquam quod iis jam abundat hoc enchiridion. Itaque reversus ad globum, cogita nunc illum repraesentare sphaerum, in qua movetur Luna, cujus centrum occupet Tellus. Ipsum vero Lunae globum credito polis & axe fuo instructum, circa quem revolvatur motu aequabili semel mense siderio, dum a fixa aliqua digressa ad eandem revertitur; & aequator Lunaris ad firmamentum cintinuatus intelligatur congruere plano Horizontis lignei & polus aequatorus Lunaris in firmamento immineat polo boreo globi as Zenith elevato. Orbitam vero Lunae concipito partim vero infra eundem deprimi, quemadmodum in hoc fitu globi cnspicitur Ecliptica.
Deinde finge tibi globulos duos aquales, quorum uterque polis, aequatore & Meridiano unico primario insigniatur & uterque filo suspendatur alterutri polorum alligato. Horum alter referat Lunam fictitiam motu aequabili secundum ductum Horizontis lignei circumlatam, atque eodem tempore circa axem suum revolutam respectu firmamenti, ita ut planum Meridiani primarii Lunaris perpetuo transeat per centrum terrae. Alter vero globulus veram Lunam imitatus in orbita sua feratur motu inaequali, nunc supra Horizontem ligneum emergens, nunc rursus infra eundem descendens, ita ut planum Aequatoris hujus Lunae verae semper parallelum maneat plano Horizontis lignei, & planum Meridiani primarii Lunae fictae. Ita siet, ut Luna ficta eandem nobis faciem obvertens semper, nulli prorsus librationi fit obnoxia. At Luna vera, dum a perigeo pergit ad Apogeon, praecedens Lunam fictam, Meridianum suum primarium ostendit in medietate sinistra sui disci tot gradibus abeuntem a medio, quot sunt inter longitudinem Lunae verae & fictae.
The translation:
“The causes of these so diverse and entangled Librations were elegantly explained to us by the distinguished Sir Isaac Newton, whom I willingly acknowledge, as well as others, to owe much. Therefore, I will explain this hypothesis to the reader in words as best as I can; the delineations on a plane are scarcely sufficient for this task, besides, this handbook is already abundant with them. So, returning to the globe, imagine it now representing the sphere in which the Moon moves, whose centre is occupied by the Earth. But the globe of the Moon itself is believed to be equipped with its own poles and axis, around which it revolves with a uniform motion once a sidereal month, while it departs from and returns to the same fixed point. And let it be understood that the Lunar equator is congruent to the plane of the wooden horizon, and the equatorial pole of the Moon in the firmament is situated at the elevated Zenith of the boreal pole of the globe. And conceive the orbit of the Moon partly depressed below the same, just as the Ecliptic is seen in this position of the globe.
Then imagine two equal globes for yourself, each of which is distinguished by a single primary Meridian, equator, and pole, and each is suspended by a thread attached to one of the poles. One of these should carry a fictitious Moon moving uniformly according to the guidance of the wooden horizon, and at the same time revolving around its own axis with respect to the firmament, so that the plane of the primary Lunar Meridian always passes through the centre of the Earth. The other globe, imitating the true Moon in its orbit, is carried by an unequal motion, now emerging above the wooden horizon, now descending below it, so that the plane of the Equator of this true Moon always remains parallel to the plane of the wooden horizon, and the plane of the primary Meridian of the fictitious Moon. Thus, the fictitious Moon always turns the same face to us and is not subject to any libration. However, the true Moon, while going from perigee to apogee, precedes the fictitious Moon, showing its primary Meridian departing from the centre of its disc by as many degrees as there are between the longitude of the true and fictitious Moon.”
Taken from your link, and then click on the page number to get the full text.
https://books.google.de/books?id=TqwsGvy3sMEC&pg=PA286&hl=en&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q=newton&f=false
I don’t know what is meant by “wooden” horizon, but I checked and re-checked, and there is no other meaning I can find for lignei.
Thanks barry for this amazing job. I confess to be too lazy to do it :–(
No idea until now about
” … & aequator Lunaris ad firmamentum cintinuatus intelligatur congruere plano Horizontis lignei … ”
except two findings
1. Geographia generalis: in qua affectiones generales telluris explicantur
Bernhardus Varenius 1671
https://books.google.de/books?id=20BoAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA450&lpg=PA450&dq=Horizontis+lignei&source=bl&ots=sPl9CW3xWq&sig=ACfU3U3yNsPLzwgK_zL0qwGhExgL-7K5Rw&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2_7iH7qH9AhVM8bsIHeB_A5UQ6AF6BAhGEAM#v=onepage&q=Horizontis%20lignei&f=false
*
2. Introductio in orbis antiqui et hodierni geographiam
Ioannis Tomka Szaszky 1777
https://books.google.de/books?id=glhmAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=Horizontis+lignei&source=bl&ots=ixSvCHpzgk&sig=ACfU3U3tAAFlvwccPgiNW2GHAk4c1plC2w&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2_7iH7qH9AhVM8bsIHeB_A5UQ6AF6BAhIEAM#v=onepage&q=Horizontis%20lignei&f=false
*
No doubt: at that time, Latin has been the scientific communication language as is nowadays English.
Ok, so probably some metaphoric usage that was understood at the time. It doesn’t make any difference regarding our point of interest.
Or, per Ken’s link below, a term based on the physical models of the day.
barry, please stop trolling.
The non-spinner method really can’t explain libration. Arguing an elliptic orbit is all you need for libration is false.
You can put the horses on a merry-go-round on radiating tracks so they can move closer and further away from the centre as the thing rotates. If you stand in the centre, you will not see any further around them when they track in and out. Program the horses to track in to make their ‘orbit’ elliptical, like the Moon’s. You’ll never see further around the horses, like we can with the Moon.
Put your ball on a string on a piece of elastic. As long as the ball is locked facing the centre, it doesn’t matter how long or short the elastic is, you will see no libration of the ball.
Glue a basketball to a telescope and hold it up to your eye while you rotate, extending and retracting as you go. The basket ball will never librate unless you move your end of the telescope left and right or up and down. But you won’t have a fixed external point any more.
The reason the Moon librates East and West is because it is not locked to rotation around an external point. It is locked in an orbit that is irregular and a rotation that is regular.
The orbit speeds up and slows down, but the rotation is steady, we see more of the Western face and more of the Eastern alternately, as the rotation leads and lags the oprbit.
It’s no illusion that we see more of one side then another. We really do, and this has been observed for centuries. A ridge that was right in the limb of the Moon moves across and we can see the valley beyond it and another ridge for a while. All librations eventually let us see 59% of the Moon’s face. If the face of the Moon were truly locked to earth, we would see just under 51% of the Moon’s surface (the extra 1% comes from the tiny change in viewing angle looking at the Moon from one side of the Earth and then the other- the diurnal libration caused by Earth’s rotation).
Non-spinners can’t explain how this can happen when the orbit alone locks the Moon to face the Earth.
It was Newton who worked out that the longitudinal libration of the Moon was due to its rotation being uniform but its orbit being eccentric.
That is a good explanation of Libration. Thanks.
Nice straw men there, barry.
Clearly you don’t understand orbital motions or libration. A good learning exercise is to find all the things wrong with Swanson’s diagrams. Can you even find ANY?
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
Here.
barry
As Kenn said: good text.
But to its end
” It was Newton who worked out that the longitudinal libration of the Moon was due to its rotation being uniform but its orbit being eccentric. ”
I can’t agree, because it was Cassini who did.
Newton was immediately convinced that Cassini was right (except Cassini’s finding about the inclination of the lunar spin axis: Newton first thought the axis would be perpendicular to the lunar equatorial plane).
Later on, in 1750, Tobias Mayer computed the inclination more accurately, see Wepster’s review on his work (section 9.5.1):
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf
” Newton first thought the axis would be perpendicular to the lunar equatorial plane ”
Sorry, should read
” Newton first thought the axis would be perpendicular to the lunar orbit plane “
I didn’t realize that. I’ve seen Cassini’s name pop up in the general debate, but had read that Newton had first explained the motion accurately.
And reading up on the procession of the Moon’s axis, there is yet another piece of evidence of the Moon’s rotation? I’m trying to think, on behalf of the non-spinners, how the axis could change its orientation WRT the fixed stars without rotation. Could an orbit on its own cause that motion? I’m not seeing it.
barry…”Non-spinners cant explain how this can happen when the orbit alone locks the Moon to face the Earth”.
***
I have laid out an exact explanation for longitudinal libration, and Dremt provided one for latitudinal libration. You must have been in the Outback harassing dingos that day.
Consider that libration is not possible if the Moon’s orbit is circular. At all points on a circular orbit, a viewer on Earth would be viewing the Moon straight along a radial line. In fact there are two points in the real lunar orbit in which there is no libration, at apogee and perigee.
To understand libration in the Moon’s real orbit, we must draw a radial line extending from Moon’s near face. The near face can be considered a tangential plane and the radial line would point out from it at right angles.
Now we have to visualize a line connecting Earth’s centre to the lunar centre. With a circular orbit, those lines would be the same at all points in the orbit. However, on an elliptical orbit, the radial line pointing out from the near-side tangential plane would only coincide with the line connecting the centres at apogee and perigee.
At all points between, the radial line from the Moon’s tangential plane would point at an angle to the line connecting Earth’s centre to Moon’s centre. The angle between them is the angle of libration.
The angle of libration is zero degrees at apogee and perigee and maximum when the Moon is at either end of the semi-major axis. At the latter point we have maximum visibility around the longitudinal edge of the Moon.
The Moon reaches the point of maximum libration about 2 weeks after apogee or perigee. That puts it near the point when the ellipse semi-major axis meets the orbital path. I have not gone into the orientation of the lunar orbit wrt Sun so it’s not clear yet whether one of those libration nodes would be visible from Earth. Obviously, the Moon is only visible during the 2 week period when it is on the far side of the Earth from the Sun.
Here’s the explanation as to why longitudinal libration proves the Moon is not rotating about a local axis. I just described a radial line protruding from the Moon’s near-face tangential plane. A tangential plane is nothing more than a series of tangential line extended into a flat plane, that is a small part of the lunar curvature, that is essentially flat. A radial line would be like a flag pole sticking out of the tangential plane at right angles. Naturally, that flag pole/radial line would be an extension of a radial line connecting to the lunar centre.
At any point on an ellipse, or any continuous curve, there is a line, the tangent line, whose slope wrt the x-axis defines the rate of change of the curve at that point. The tangent line can be found at any point on the ellipse by drawing lines from each focal point to that point and bisecting the angle. The bisector is the radial line described above and a line orthogonal to that radial line is the tangent line.
Try that at any point on an accurate ellipse and note that the radial line always points at the principal focal point at which the Earth resides. Note that the radial line aligns with the major axis at apogee and perigee. Also note that at the nodal intersection of the semi-major axis and the ellipse, that the deviation between the radial line and a line connecting the principal focal point, to the point on the ellipse just mentioned, is a maximum.
The tangent line at any point on the ellipse is also the instantaneous direction of the Moon at that point. For an instant, the Moon is moving along that tangent line in a straight line. The Earth, at the principal focal point is exerting a force on the Moon along a straight line connecting centre to centre.
At the same time the Moon is moving in straight along the tangent line, for an instant, it has a radial line pointing perpendicular to the tangent line. The ellipse is an infinite number of points, each with its own tangent line.
Note… extending the radial line from the tangent line through the Moon to the far side of the Moon, it cuts through another tangent line to an outer, concentric circle.
That means the far side is always moving parallel to the near side as are all points in between. Therefore, rotation is not possible about the local axis. See MOTL.
There you have it, no need for rotation. This is curvilinear motion with libration but no rotation.
Gordon,
You actually didn’t make an argument. There’s no libration there.
What argument you seem to have made is in fact a new model, where the Moon’s motion is now tethered to its face remaining perpendicular to its orbital track, instead of being a rotation about a fixed point under gravity.
On an elliptical orbit the flagpole sticking out of the Moon pointing at Earth must remain pointing at Earth if the point of rotation is the fixed point in the CoM within the Earth (1700km beneath sea level if I remember correctly).
If that flagpole points anywhere but at the CoM, then the Moon is not rotating around an external fixed point. It is now rotating around an alternative fixed point.
The East/West libration of the Moon is 7 degrees. (The diameter of the Earth and the distance to the Moon is only enough to account for just under 1 degree variability of viewing angle to the Moon).
This means that the focal point of the Moon swings by 7 degrees.
If the Moon were rotating around a fixed point, that would put the CoM 3 AU distant from the Earth at times, and right in the centre of the Earth at times – apogee and perigee.
There is a point in space at which the Moon’s face would not librate East/West, further towards the centre of the elliptical orbit than Earth lies.
The longitudinal libration of the Moon breaks the non-spinner model.
barry says:
The longitudinal libration of the Moon breaks the non-spinner model.
—————————
you got that wrong and backwards. perception of motion has no place in physics unless it can be tied to a physical effect like a transfer of energy.
thus libration breaks the spinner model because the only physical libration makes the spinner version not conserve angular momentum by transferring it twice in one rotation between the orbit and the spin. thus those two alleged motions are intrinsically connected unless somebody has an argument why they aren’t.
the non-spinner version of the motion is the only correct one as it is the only one with constant angular momentum. the spinner model fails the libration test.
“Try that at any point on an accurate ellipse and note that the radial line always points at the principal focal point at which the Earth resides.”
This cannot be correct, Gordon. When at the top mid-point on the curve of an ellipse, the radial line is the semi-minor axis. It goes through the very center of the ellipse. It does not point to the focal point.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Ellipse-def0.svg/450px-Ellipse-def0.svg.png
Hunter boy
” Hmmmmmmm, in all that is there any talk about the axis that exercises control over the moon? Bindidon your translation of that? ”
*
Don’t you remember that you once were arrogant, brazen and dumb enough to totally discredit and denigrate what the Dutch scientist Steven Wepster wrote in section 9.5.1 (Locating the rotational axis) of his review of Mayer’s treatise, despite your lack of education to scientifically contradict him?
https://i.postimg.cc/fbZgwPyq/Screenshot-2023-02-19-at-17-42-14-c9-pdf.png
All what you were able to say about it was your incredibly condescending insult: ‘It’s no more than an academic exercise’.
No wonder when we see that you think sidereal rotation periods could be ‘understood’ as orbit periods!
*
Source:
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf
binny…”All what you [Bill H] were able to say about it was your incredibly condescending insult: Its no more than an academic exercise.
***
Bill was being diplomatic, I’d call much of it trash. Meyer completely screwed up in his calculations by including a centrifugal force that does not exist.
The cult has found where Newton mentioned Moon. As usual, they are claiming the text means that Newton believed Moon actually has axial rotation. I offered to help barry understand Newton’s words, if he would paste the English translation. He pasted it here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/?replytocom=1448560#respond
(Bold is my emphasis.)
First, notice the title:
PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
Newton is clearly referring to diurnal motions and libration. Both are caused by lunar orbit, not any axial rotation. Moon does NOT have axial rotation.
Newton goes on to use the term with respect to the fixed stars. He defines what he means.
Trying to claim the section from Newton means Moon actually rotates on its CoM axis is desperation. Newton was clearly not even talking about axial rotation.
Here.
It becomes now really boring to read such nonsense endlessly misrepresenting Newton.
*
Moreover, he wrote in Edition II (1713) and III (1726) of his Principia:
” 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 ”
*
It should be clear to anyone having a working brain that Newton did not mean any axis external to the Moon.
But ignoramuses like the lunar spin denial squad deliberately distort everything.
It’s really incredible.
Yes Bin, taking Newton out-of-context is a form of “misrepresenting”.
But, you do what you have to, to support your cult nonsense.
You just lost that round, Pup.
Get in shape for the next one – do the Pole Dance Experiment.
binny…”For the Moon uniformly revolves around its axis in the same time as it completes its period around the Earth…”
***
I just spent an entire post proving, from Newton’s own words, that he regarded such a motion as an apparent motion akin to the illusion that the Sun orbits the Earth, based on its apparent motion from east to west.
What Newton is saying in your quote is the same as me claiming ‘the Sun has risen’. Everyone with a brain, except with the exception of you, gets it that the Sun is shining…it’s light out. Only, someone with a scientific mind would question that, as to whether the Sun actually rises in the sky.
We know it does not move relative to Earth, that its motion is apparent due to the fact we are rotating relative to the Sun.
When you read someone like Newton, it’s a mistake to cherry-pick phrases while omitting the entire context in which he is speaking. He states clearly elsewhere…
a)the Moon moves with a linear motion.
b)it is bent into a curvilinear motion by gravity.
c)it keeps the same face pointed at Earth
d)the motion of planets with a motion similar to the Moon, ‘seem’ to be rotating.
As I have pointed out several times, Newton was of genius calibre. There is absolutely no way he would not understand clearly the impossibility of the Moon rotating on a local axis given a to d above.
One thing has occurred to me, he was getting information from the likes of Cassini and other astronomers. In Proposition XVIII, Theorem XVI, he acknowledges Cassini. So, maybe he took his word for it rather than checking the facts. I seriously doubt that.
A quote for your (a) would be nice, Bordon.
Come on.
Yes, Gordon has attributed that to Newton. I’d like to see the quote, too.
Clint,
Diurnal means ‘daily’ – it refers locally to the 24 hour period of the Earth’s day.
When applied to other bodies, it refers to their rotational movement – the time it takes for them to spin once, either WRT the sun, or WRT to the fixed stars.
Newton later in that section says this quite plainly.
“…the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution its orb…”
So two motions of equal duration.
One notion is the ‘menstrual’ orbit of the Moon, and the other motion of equal duration is the Lunar ‘day’. It’s spin.
Seems clear as day to me.
BTW, you copied the link to the reply button, which doesn’t take you to the translation. Here’s the link.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1448716
barry…”Diurnal means daily it refers locally to the 24 hour period of the Earths day”.
***
The reference in the quotation is to ‘diurnal motion’. not diurnal itself. Diurnal motion is a reference to the apparent motion of celestial bodies about the Earth, wrt the stars.
For example, the diurnal motion of the Sun is from east to west across the sky. By the same token, the diurnal motion of the Moon could be two-fold…
1)from west to east on subsequent nights during the two week period it is visible. That is an actual motion, however, and it is diurnal.
2)appearing to rotate about its axis once per orbit. That is an illusion, since the Moon keeps the same face pointed at earth, which is representative of curvilinear motion.
Just occurred to me that nocturnal is the opposite of diurnal. In that case, diurnal could not only mean daily, it could be a reference to daylight.
We tend to be obscure about that. The word ‘day’ can refer to the entire 24 hour day or it can refer to the opposite of night, meaning the portion of the day that is lit by the Sun. For example, ‘during the day’ means during daylight in a normal sense but it could also mean at any time during a 24-hour day. I feel badly for people trying to learn English.
Now, apply that to Newton and Old Latin and you may get a headache. How is Newton using the word diurnal, or did he use it at all? What was the actual Latin word used?
When we refer to a lunar day, do we mean the full lunar day or just the portion where the near face is lit by sunlight? The meaning translated from Newton’s text is ambiguous in that regard. A person living on the Moon could experience the lunar day as the two week Earth period during which that person’s position is lit by sunlight, or it could mean the entire 28 Earth-day period related to the lunar orbital period.
What does Newton’s Latin really say about that? The translations infers the meaning to be the length of the full lunar orbital period, but does that translate what Newton really meant?
I see you’ve looked up the etymology of diurnal. Yes, it does also mean during the day, or ‘of daylight’, but in the context of the sciences and especially astronomy, it means one complete daily cycle – 24 hours on Earth.
No need to have a headache. Newton is not talking about the amount of time the Sun shines on the planets and the Moon. He’s talking about their ‘daily’ rotational period in that section, modelled on the complete rotation of the Earth WRT to the Sun or fixed stars (Newton refers to the fixed stars in that section).
diurnal: “performed in or occupying one day”
https://www.etymonline.com/word/diurnal
The basis for this term in astronomy is the Earth’s rotation WRT the Sun or fixed stars.
Newton in that section gives the values for the sidereal rotation (spin) of Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth, the Sun and the Moon. they are all in the same list.
When he refers to the Moon’s diurnal motion, he is referring to one full rotation on its own axis.
How do we know this? Because he says it later in the section.
Here’s the Latin:
“Quoniam enim Luna circà axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circà Tellurem periodum suam absolvit…”
The translation, which I did myself:
“Since the Moon uniformly revolves about its own axis in the same time it completes its period around the Earth…”
Newton is clearly here distinguishing two motions, one is the orbit, and one is the axial rotation, and he explains that they are of equal duration.
The sentence finishes with Newton saying this is the reason the Moon keeps one face towards Earth.
The Latin is from the 3rd and final edition of the Principia, which he revised twice, published in 1726, a year before his death.
I’ll just paste the quote from Newton’s Principia here that Clint is referring to.
Gordon, before you complain about translations, this is what Clint requested. I otherwise prefer to go from the original Latin.
—————————————————————–
PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
The Proposition is proved from the first Law of Motion, and Cor. 22, Prop. LXVI, Book I. Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h 56′; Mars in 24h 39′; Venus in about 23h; the Earth in 23h 56′; the Sun in 25 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. These things appear by the Phenomena. The spots in the sun’s body return to the same situation on the sun s disk, with respect to the earth, in 27 days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25 days. But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb; but, as the situation of that focus requires, will deviate a little to one side and to the other from the earth in the lower focus and this is the libration in longitude; for the libration in latitude arises from the moon’s latitude, and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic. This theory of the libration of the moon, Mr. N. Mercato in his Astronomy, published at the beginning of the year 1676, explained more fully out of the letters I sent him. The utmost satellite of Saturn seems to revolve about its axis with a motion like this of the moon, respecting Saturn continually with the same face; for in its revolution round Saturn, as often as it comes to the eastern part of its orbit, it is scarcely visible, and generally quite disappears; which is like to be occasioned by some spots in that part of its body, which is then turned towards the earth, as M. Cassini has observed. So also the utmost satellite of Jupiter seems to revolve about its axis with a like motion, because in that part of its body which is turned from Jupiter it has a spot, which always appears as if it were in n Jupiter s own body, whenever the satellite passes between Jupiter’s body, whenever the satellite passes between Jupiter and our eye.
barry, please stop trolling.
Celestial Globe has Wooden Horizon. https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/celestial-globe-con-tripode-usa-1900–97108935712983103/
I’m not sure exactly how the Wooden Horizon is used. There are some instructions here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.19.2.209
Thank you, Ken. Sounds very interesting.
From the authoritative translation:
Twas fun. Thanks for the win!
Authoritative translation??? You mean wee willy’s ad libbed translation.
Come on, Bordon:
https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520290747/the-principia-the-authoritative-translation
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
My guess is the cult knows they’ve been beat. This latest revelation, that the imaginary spin axis, has a change in angle of over 13° did them in. Bindidon and barry are wearing out their keyboards, calling people “liars”. Swanson is busy making diagrams, proving he doesn’t understand orbital motions.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Time for a short quiz, open only to the cult idiots.
Question 1: How do we know the ball-on-a-string is NOT rotating on its CoM axis?
Question 2: What is at least one thing wrong in each of Swanson’s 3 diagrams?
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
I bet none of the cult can answer correctly. Prove me wrong.
Q2 – grammie clone, you claim there’s errors, so it’s up to you to provide proof.
Crickets…
That ain’t the correct answer, Swanson. You’re proving me right.
More crickets from grammie. Simple question he won’t answer. Where’s the beef?
Keep refusing to take the simple quiz, Swanson.
Keep proving me right.
I don’t mind….
… being wrong and very funny.
B4, you certainly qualify to take the simple quiz.
Got any correct answers?
Actually, the fact that the axis of the Moon changes WRT to the Earth, Sun and fixed stars (pick your frame of reference) is resounding evidence that the Moon is rotating. It’s impossible to conceive how this could happen if the Moon isn’t rotating. If there is orbit only, what force is making the axis change its orientation?
“Lunar precession is a term used for three different precession motions related to the Moon. First, it can refer to change in orientation of the lunar rotational axis with respect to a reference plane, following the normal rules of precession followed by spinning objects….”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_precession
barry…”the fact that the axis of the Moon changes WRT to the Earth, Sun and fixed stars (pick your frame of reference) is resounding evidence that the Moon is rotating”.
***
You are presuming the Moon has an axis of rotation. To prove it has an axis of rotation, you first have to prove it is rotating about said axis. Thus far, all you spinners have done is infer a rotation based only on an appeal to authority.
The claimed axis is nothing more than a defined axis, based on who knows what.
Gordo, much the came might be said about the Earth’s rotational axis. Where’s the North Pole, can you find it marked on the sea-ice somewhere? What happens to your mark when the ice shifts or melts, is it still there? How would you know, except from the work of many generations of scientists who have measured the Earth’s motions against the stars and produced maps of their results?
Did you find another link you can’t understand, barry? That’s soooo predictable.
A REAL spin axis keeps pointing in the same direction. There is no change in its angle, especially in just one orbit. Moon’s imaginary spin axis changes so drastically because it is NOT a REAL spin axis. It’s all imaginary.
So keep abusing your keyboard, and avoiding the questions that will help you learn.
“A REAL spin axis keeps pointing in the same direction.”
Are you saying that the Earth is not really spinning?
Or do you believe that the Earth’s axis does not change orientation over time?
Earth has a REAL spin axis, barry. Moon doesn’t.
Earth’s REAL spin axis points in the same basic direction for CENTURIES. Moon’s imaginary spin axis changes over 13° in about two weeks!
You know NOTHING about the issues.
Answer the questions, or admit you’re just another ignorant troll:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449011
If you don’t believe Earth’s axis changes its orientation WRT to the Sun/fixed stars, then there is no point continuing. I’m certainly not going to educate you about something so well-known. You’ll have to educate yourself about precession, which by the way, is one of the functions in the Milankovitch cycles.
“Moons imaginary spin axis changes over 13 in about two weeks!”
We can clear this bit of nonsense up immediately, though.
A complete 360 degree rotation of the axial precession takes a little over 18 years.
So in 2 weeks the change is about 6 degrees.
And this is observed.
You still can’t explain it. That’s why you’re denying it.
Wrong barry, the angle changes over 13° in half an orbit. Then changes back in the next half orbit. That is NOT a REAL spin axis.
Answer the questions, or admit you’re just another ignorant troll.
You must be talking about something different.
“The spin axis and orbit normal precess in 18.6 years about the ecliptic pole in a retrograde direction.”
This is from a paper discussing Lunar motion observed from 30 years of laser ranging.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2000JE001396
A full precession is 360 degrees. 18.6 years is 970 weeks.
970 / 360 * 2 = 5.4
The axis precesses 5.4 degrees in 2 weeks.
This is also well-verified by observation from
1) Large telescopes
2) Moon-orbiting satellites
3) Laser ranging (reflectors on the moon being hit by lasers from earth)
These observations are detailed in hundreds of research articles over the last 40 years.
eg, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2000JE001396
I understand, though. If observations break the non-spinner model, then the obvious move is to deny the observations exist.
Yes barry, I’m talking about reality. You’re evading and avoiding.
Moon’s imaginary spin axis would have a change of over 13° in half an orbit. Do the cup/pencil demonstration to see for yourself. (You may need an responsible adult to help you.)
Or, check out the middle diagram from your cult brother:
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
grammie clone, Thanks again for referencing my work. Sad to say, you still don’t understand it. The middle panel you are promoting is indeed the cup-on-a-string sliding around a table crap and it proves nothing.
As the cup moves around, it is rotating around an axis perpendicular to the table. As has been repeatedly pointed out, this motion can not result in the appearance of Libration in Latitude, as one can never see beyond the North Pole, while viewing beyond the South Pole in both positions. Because of this, your mental model does not represent reality.
Swanson, the cup/pencil shows the imaginary spin axis is indeed imaginary. No REAL spin axis has that much change in half an orbit.
The cup/pencil has NOTHING to do with libration.
You can’t understand ANY of this.
grammie clone fails geometry again. His cup-on-a-string rotates around a vertical axis as it moves. That’s why the handle is always pointed inward because that’s where the string is attached. He insists on calling that motion “rotation around an external axis”, while admitting it has nothing to do with the Moon’s motion where there are no strings attached. As expected, he continues to ignore the real Libraion in Latitude caused by the tilt of the Moon’s axis.
Again Swanson, the cup/pencil has NOTHING to do with libration. It merely demonstrates the drastic change in angle which does not occur with REAL spin axes.
grammie blurts out:
Grammie clone again can’t confront the fact that the Moon exhibits a Libration in Latitude. What causes it to appear, grammie clone can not say.
Thanks for quoting me correctly, Swanson. That’s a good sign.
Next step is memorization. Memorize my words and repeat 50 times a day until you understand them.
Learning is good. It will build back your lost brain cells.
barry…”If you dont believe Earths axis changes its orientation WRT to the Sun/fixed stars, then there is no point continuing”.
***
This is a red-herring argument that is an attempt to bypass the main argument that the Moon does not rotate on a local axis. I’ll bite, to an extent, but the argument quickly becomes circular.
The question is this. What reference frame is being used to make your assertion? I ask because you spinners have some weird and wonderful ways of moving the goalposts to make irrational claims. So, I am presuming we are observing from Earth’s inertial frame.
The Earth orbits the Sun on an orbital plane. It’s axis is always tilted the same number of degrees to that plane, therefore it does not vary at all wrt the Sun. If Earth does not vary its inclination to its orbital plane how can it change its tilt angle wrt the stars?
Two points…
a)each night you can observe the heavens and find all the stars in the same place they have been for centuries. That means the axis is not changing its angle wrt the orbital plane.
b)Earth’s N-S axis is aligned in the general direction of Polaris. That does not mean it points directly at Polaris, just that the distance of Polaris to the circumference of Earth’s orbit is so immense that we can claim that. If the axis was varying it’s angle wrt the stars, we could no longer claim Polaris as the Pole Star.
If Earth’s axial tilt was varying anywhere, we would have to throw out all celestial charts and reprogram telescopes during the year to allow for the change of axial tilt.
Good God, Gordon!
Are you actually saying the Earth’s axis does not change orientation WRT the fixed stars over a 26,000 year period? It’s one of the Milankovitch cycles discussed here in the past.
“Axial precession is the trend in the direction of the Earth’s axis of rotation relative to the fixed stars, with a period of about 25,700 years. Also known as the precession of the equinoxes, this motion means that eventually Polaris will no longer be the north pole star. This precession is caused by the tidal forces exerted by the Sun and the Moon on the rotating Earth..”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Axial_precession
Axial obliquity also changes WRT Sun/fixed stars.
“The angle of the Earth's axial tilt with respect to the orbital plane (the obliquity of the ecliptic) varies between 22.1° and 24.5°, over a cycle of about 41,000 years. The current tilt is 23.44°, roughly halfway between its extreme values.”
I cant believe you don’t know about this. What were you doing during the Milankovitch discussions?
Welcome to the wonderful world of spinning gyroscopes.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Gyroscope_precession.gif
Did you never have a spinning top as a child? I remember watching mine spin , and as it slowed it would begin to wobble just like the planets do.
grammie clone can’t figure out that he has no way to explain the Moon’s Libration in latitude. He claims that my graphic is in error, while he refuses to explain why. There’s no ~13 degree change in the direction of the rotational axis in half an orbit, that’s only in his mind. The real axis always points in the same direction, it’s tilt WRT the orbit axis causing the Libration in Latitude.
What do you mean? The Moon’s polar axis changes orientation WRT the fixed stars with a cycle of 18.6 years. See fig 1., second page of this paper.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449166
Do you mean something else?
Its changed ~13 degrees wrt to a view from earth which your diagram does display but there are also precessions on 3 axes occurring which your diagram fails to display one of which causes a 13 degree variation in axis tilt wrt a fixed point from a distant star.
And now I am confused again. Again your diagram is horribly lacking in notations. I thought I saw you say something like a 6 month period for the chart in one of your posts to go from full moon on one side to full moon on the other side. Now you are saying its a half orbit? Which is it? Documenting that dark splotch would be good too. . . .say labeling the dark splotch as the backside side of the moon? I realize its not dark there all the time but it is the dark side of the moon when we can see the moon when it is full.
Your diagram needs lot of work to avoid confusion, unless of course that is your intent.
I think the guy that provided you the basic diagram for your display didn’t do it the way you are doing because its hard to do that and show all that is going on with the moon. For example another thing your graphic misses is the eccentricity of the orbit.
So many errors, so little documentation. Seems everything you try to do Swanson falls into that trap. If you want to display the motion of the moon perhaps you should animate it at scale. Then you could leave a lot out and nobody would notice.
E. Swanson says:
The real axis always points in the same direction.
—————————-
Stop spewing such nonsense! You don’t really believe that do you?
“I thought I saw you say something like a 6 month period for the chart in one of your posts to go from full moon on one side to full moon on the other side”
I’ve never spoken of “full moon” nor mentioned a period of 6 months,
“I think the guy that provided you the basic diagram for your display”
Huh? It’s from a research paper. There are dozens on the libration of the Moon and the precession of the polar axis. It’s easy to google. There’ no ‘guy’ handing me charts. Are you nuts?
Hunter troll wrote:
Well, the Moon’s spin axis is almost parallel to the Earth’s orbital axis at only ~1.5 degrees offset. It does precess around the Earth’s orbital axis over a period of 18.6 years, AIUI as I previously pointed out. The result is that it is tilted WRT the Moon’s orbital axis.
Swanson, Moon does NOT have a “spin axis”, since it is NOT spinning.
… on its own axis wrt Earth.
by far swanson the strongest influence on the moon’s posture is the combined pull of the sun and earth which is defined as the ecliptic. i don’t know why you guys think it has to do with something else. perhaps you could explain. do you believe a rock hit the moon and made it spin that way?
and barry is wasn’t responding to you.
swannie…latitudinal libration was nicely summed up by Dremt as being caused by the 5 degree tilt of the lunar orbital plane to the Ecliptic. A hallmark of latitudinal libration is that for part of the lunar orbit we are looking down on the Moon and for the other part, we are looking up at it.
I have not gone into the geometry of this yet but it strikes me that we are unable to see the Moon for most of its orbital path when it is between Earth and the Sun. Therefore, the only evidence of latitudinal libration re the dark side will be related to the view we have when the Moon is in the extreme east and west.
Based on that thought, the Moon’s orbit appears to rise in the sky from the West to a peak then down to the East. It would appear we are viewing the Moon when it appears on the far side of the Earth from the Sun.
This kind of visual observation is fraught with perspective issues. When observing, one must be aware of the relative angle of the ecliptic, far easier said than down.
Where I am located, in Vancouver, Canada, I am on a tangential plane, so I have to figure out how the ecliptic is angled wrt that plane. Then I have to add on 5 degrees for the lunar orbital plane. However, it’s obvious from a ballpark assessment that I am looking up at the bottom of the Moon when it is in mid-sky, and if I could follow it down to the East and beyond, I would begin to look down on the top of it.
Another way of checking that is to see where Jupiter and Saturn appear in the southern sky at certain times of year. They are usually about 20 degrees or so above the southern horizon, so the planetary orbital plane is tilted about 20 degrees above the southern horizon. The Moon is slightly higher than that. Jupiter, Earth, and Saturn are located close to the Sun’s Equatorial plane and the Moon some 5 degrees above it at the point we can see it.
Of course,e are tilted 23+ degrees from the orbital plane, creating even more of a headache for visualization.
swannie…”Theres no ~13 degree change in the direction of the rotational axis in half an orbit, thats only in his mind”.
***
The 13 degrees comes from the alleged tilt shown in the original wiki diagram. It shown a lunar axis tilted some 6 degrees from the lunar orbital plane.
That 6+ degrees is shown with the Moon at 3 o’clock. If the Moon keeps the same side pointed at Earth then by 9 o’clock the tilt must be in the opposite direction. The difference wrt to an axis perpendicular to the plane is 13+ degrees.
As I recall, one of your drawings shows the Moon keeping the same 6+ degree orientstion on either side of the perpendicular line. That would not be possible if the Moon kept the same side pointed at Earth. To keep the same tilt of 6+ degrees, the tilt angle must be opposite between 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock.
Good catch by Clint.
The Earth, on the other hand, has no such requirement since it rotates on its axis. Maintaining the same tilt gives us seasons in which the Arctic and Antarctic summers are at opposite ends of the year.
The precession of the Moon’s axis has been observed since the Ancient Greeks. It’s not me assuming precession, Gordon, it is everyone who has observed it since Hipparchus. He did it by observing changes in lunar eclipses and the orientation of the Moon WRT the fixed stars over time. In the modern age we have giant telescopes and satellites orbiting the Moon that confirm this change in axial orientation. We have excellent models that successfully predict changes in the Moon’s orientation.
“Precession is a change in the orientation of the rotational axis of a rotating body.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession
I ask again, how is this phenomenon explained with a non-spinning Moon model?
Replied to your question in detail just before your post. The precession noted by the Greeks was an illusion. There is no axis.
Gordon Robertson says:
Replied to your question in detail just before your post. The precession noted by the Greeks was an illusion. There is no axis.
—————–
Thats correct Gordon. One can imagine an axis in the middle of chalked circle on a revolving Merry-go-round, sit inside the circle, and with powerful telescopes measure how everything changes going around it. One can even deploy drones to fly around the chalked circle and measure how it changes wrt whatever they want to measure it wrt.
LMAO!
As DREMT has been pointing out for months. It all depends upon how you want to view orbital motion without axial rotation. And these dimwits don’t get it. Neither do some of the dimwits over at NASA they hire to do online graphics and commentary on the moon. Real scientists probably get a good chuckle out of it all. . . .privately at least because that is the kind of stuff that comes down the Presidential ‘appointee’ chain of command. . . .still a grim reminder of the pre-civil service days when everybody was one of those. The big question is how does that get into the school system? Need to do some fixing there as well. They certainly address it in the philosophy curriculum at least they did 50+ years ago. The Philosophy of Perception. Is a coin circular or elliptical? Tilt it on its side a bit and it looks elliptical. Hold it perpendicular and it looks circular. Which is it? Its a matter of perception and whether you can have the sense of breaking stuff down into basic concepts. . . .or if you just believe your eyes without exercising any gray matter.
This is why doctors should never give any mandatory orders and scientists should not even be recommending legislation under the color of their expertise. They have one role and that is to inform and to do so in a way that includes all the possible variations truthfully, honestly, and to the maximum degree they can muster.
Dr. Judith Curry in her interview with Jordan Peterson outlined how her brand of climate science does just that. Resigning her Chairmanship at GTU because of how difficult it was getting to tell the truth. A huge red flag (literally) of how things have been trending toward authoritarianism.
Hunter troll’s out of his tree, as we used to say. The Moon rotates around an axis which is only 1.5 degrees away from the Earth’s orbital axis. Nothing new in that, but your blatant ignorance continues.
yes its tilt is 1.54 degrees but all you are doing is noting thats an imaginary axis and via other posts every where and every paper i have read that tilt is NOT due to a right hand angular momentum vector as if it were earths gravity would correct it as it eliminates other free physical librations from becoming an independent rotation of the moon. i dont know why you guys can’t get that except from inculcation by professors who desire that you grow up and become an employee with zero ability to independently think for yourself.
i guess most jobs call for that. in my profession we maintain apprentice programs to train that out so as to not get themselves bamboozled by a sharp operator who is going to try to convince them that because authority says so it must be true.
bill h…”As DREMT has been pointing out for months. It all depends upon how you want to view orbital motion without axial rotation”.
***
I wrote to NASA and presented the argument we use here, but I emphasized the math. The did not disagree, they only presented the argument of perspective, that their claims are based on viewing the lunar orbit from the stars.
I wrote back with the argument that a body that is not spinning dos not start spinning when viewed from another reference frame. They did not reply.
That’s the crux of the argument. Rotation about an axis requires an angular momentum about an axis, meaning the mass must be physically rotating about a local axis. If that angular momentum is zero, no amount of philosophizing or viewing from different perspectives will start the body rotating about a local axis.
What the NASA PR people are seeing wrt the stars is a regularly changing orientation of the near-face of the Moon as it moves in its orbit. That re-orientation comes from curvilinear motion, not the Moon rotating on a local axis. .
Come on, Bordon.
You have no maths to emphasize.
Why are you deluding yourself like that?
Nate axes are imagined lines. They aren’t axles.
If axes are imaginary then when DREMT insists he knows where it is he is just imagining that?
The Earth’s axis isn’t a real line that can be located?
Obviously wrong.
In a rotation, there is a line of fixed points that do not move, or all have the same velocity. All points on the body, other than these fixed points move in circles around these fixed points, the axis.
You mean thats your description of an unperturbed perfect rotation. Obviously its not capable of dealing with more complex rotations and you haven’t yet learned or discussed anything about that other than to deny a rotation isn’t a rotation unless it is perfect.
Seems like a really stupid argument to me since perfection rules out all real rotations.
I tend to thing that a 19th century dirt farmer has a better idea of what a rotation actually is than you do Nate.
I can define rotation. You can’t.
You lose.
no you can’t.
“2. 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”
Everyone can see that you have no answer. You lose.
OK so you agree the MOTL represents orbital motion without axial rotation. Excellent.
So you lost.
Now stop trolling and get a life.
Sorry Nate but your definition pegs the MOTL as a rotation.
Now that you accept that, you are left with the fact that a rotation on an internal axis has particle perturbations as does a rotation on and external axis in the real world.
So that essentially negates every argument you have made in support of orbital motion without axial rotation being as the MOTR.
I agree that the MOTL’s motion can be broken down like the MOTR conceptually, but the equation for the angular momentum of uniform sphere rotating on an external axis being equal to Lorb+Lspin just shows that Lspin is just a conceptual piece of the larger rotation. . . .as is the motion of the moon around the sun, and around the galaxy, and around the universe.
“but your definition pegs the MOTL as a rotation.”
But not not its orbit. And not orbits in general.
Your failure to define rotation leaves you unable to generalize from the unique case of the MOTL.
“rotation on an internal axis has particle perturbations as does a rotation on and external axis in the real world.
So that essentially negates every argument”
The light on my BS detector is flashing again.
So in your view there is no real consequence to orbits being elliptical rather circles, because of ‘perturbations’?
Even observations in ~ 1600, without telescopes, were good enough for Kepler to see the consequences of planetary orbits being elliptical. And Newton generalized it to all orbits. And Halley used this to predict his namesake comet’s return.
Nate none of what you say makes any real division. Rotations vary in many ways. Rotation merely got defined as circular because that word was coined long before Newton and land lubbers have yet to invent a way to create a non-circular rotation.
But that doesn’t mean you need a unique concept for every single variation of circular rotation, length of radius, angular velocity, or velocity.
I mean even the formula of angular momentum of a uniform sphere = Lorb + Lspin shows the formula works fine for both elliptical motion and circular motion.
“Rotation merely got defined as circular”
Finally an admission that you don’t have a legitimate alternative definition that works for your narrative.
“But that doesnt mean you need a unique concept for every single variation of circular rotation, length of radius, angular velocity, or velocity.”
Exactly we want to define Orbit in a universal way that works for all.
Thus it cannot be defined as a rotation, which would needlessly restrict it to circular orbits with no axial tilt.
Thus it is defined as a path through space that the COM of an orbiting body follows, which doesnt specify a rotation rate or axis.
Gordon,
It’s not an illusion. And it’s completely verified in the modern age now that we have huge telescopes and satellites orbiting the Moon, as well as 50 years of bouncing lasers of reflectors placed on the Moon in the 60s and 70s. There are many papers summing the results of laser ranging, including lbration, which has been a very active area of research. Here’s one.
https://trs.jpl.nasa.gov/bitstream/handle/2014/10527/02-2551.pdf?sequence=1
The Moon’s North pole takes 18.6 years to to do a full precession and point to the same stars. Verified by observation from the aforementioned vantages.
Someone else here (Bill?) said that libration was an illusion.
These are well-verified facts. The non-spinner position is greatly enfeebled by denying them.
barry, your confusion about precession is just another distraction.
Answer the questions and learn:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449011
Or admit you’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
Libration is primarily optical. There is a small physical libration of about a minute and a half (it requires extremely precise measurement to detect and can’t be seen by the human eye) which provides another line of evidence that the moon is under the control of earth’s gravity and not rotating due to some cause other than gravity making all that we hear from the spinners about there being no torque on a sphere total and complete nonsense.
Bill, I spent an hour looking at many research articles refining the period and amplitude of the Moon’s polar axial precession and librations. They are not optical illusions (you’ve read the phrase somewhere I take it). Librations show us 56% of the Moon’s face. The East/West libration shows us 7 more degrees of the Moon’s face. The diurnal libration that comes from looking at the Moon from one limb of the Earth then the other, is just under 1 degree.
Librations first observed by the ancient Greeks, then re-observed many times in the millenia following, confirmed by the large telescopes of the 20th century, and then by laser ranging since 1969, bouncing lasers off reflectors laid on the Moon be early lunar missions. Also confirmed by the satellites orbiting the Moon.
You guys are flatly denying 50 years of research from laser ranging and satellite observations, and hundreds of years of observations from telescopes. The librations of the Moon and the precession of its polar axis are empirical facts. Not theories. Properly measure phenomena, and the observations confirming from Hipparchus to the present day.
I’m literally looking at these papers speaking of how the measurements of these phenomena have been refined down to the decimetre, and you guys are in a different, ignorant universe.
barry, you are NOT a scientist. You are a cult idiot. You accept everything your cult puts out, without questions.
What you can’t understand is that “libration” is NOT a real motion. It is caused by Moon’s orbit. Libration is NOT a real motion.
NASA gets a lot of things wrong, but not about libration. Here’s their statement about libration:
The Moon always keeps the same face to us, but not exactly the same face. Because of the tilt and shape of its orbit, we see the Moon from slightly different angles over the course of a month. When a month is compressed into 12 seconds, as it is in this animation, our changing view of the Moon makes it look like it’s wobbling. This wobble is called libration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f_21N3wcX8
I predict you will attempt to pervert this somehow and revert to using libration as some perverted “proof” that Moon is rotating.
Prove me wrong.
Pup,
You still are conflating all the librations together.
They all exist, including the optical ones.
Unless you mean to suggest that optics is magical?
grammie clone, since it’s YOU who doubts the widely accepted fact that the Moon rotates around an axis at ~1.5 degrees from the Earth’s orbital axis, it’s YOUR responsibility to prove YOUR conjecture. That means YOU CAN NOT IGNORE known facts about the Moon’s Librations.
Swanson, the simple ball-on-a-string, being a model of OMWAR, demonstrates that Moon is NOT rotating. Moon is ONLY orbiting.
And, for the 47th time, libration has NOTHING to do with anything here since it is NOT a real motion.
(You need to get some new nonsense. You’ve worn out “libration”.)
grammie clone, What don’t you understand about the WELL PROVEN FACT that the Moon rotates around an axis that’s about 1.5 degrees from the Earth’s orbital axis?
Your PROVEN FACT is pure nonsense, Swanson. You’ve been tricked. Moon is NOT spinning and ice cubes can NOT boil water.
Learning some science will help you avoid being tricked in the future.
grammie clone continues to dig himself deeper into the rabbit hole he created. He seems to think that he has discovered the Holy Grail of Truth and everybody else is hopelessly deluded. Sorry, troll, science doesn’t work that way. The Moon rotates around an axis tilted ~1.5 degrees WRT the Earth’s orbital axis.
Clint,
NASA paper based on 25 years of laser ranging of the Moon.
“If the Moon were a perfectly rigid body, the mean direction of its spin axis could precess with the orbit. The lunar laser data show that the true spin axis of the Moon is displaced from this expected direction by 0.26 arcsec (Fig. 1 0). The two dissipative terms proportional to cos F in the expression for P1 are due to solid and fluid dissipation.”
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/LRRR-94-0193.pdf
“Real scientists” work with observations and adjust their understanding based on that data. Here, laser ranging has permitted a more exact locating of the Moon’s spin axis.
Cult idiots who wax on about science don’t read for understanding, don’t cite research papers, and suffer from strong Dunning-Kruger effect – the less someone knows about a subject the more confident their opinion.
A universe of expertise observes the Moon spinning. Some cranks on the net believe that all these thousands of research papers and thousands of researchers who have studied, observed and are qualified to opine, are written off in a blaze of self-confidence by these “cult idiots.”
Such is their cultishness that they will cite an institute if an abridged rendering of a topic looks like supporting their view, but will trash the same institute if it says something they don’t agree with.
It’s been a good week of learning stuff for me, from reading and translating Newton to leafing through research papers and finding out how laser ranging works and how it is have become more precise over time.
This is something cultists don’t do. Compare the amount of links to expert, peer-reviewed opinion between realists and non-spinners here. Same for radiative transfer, or pick any topic regularly thrashed out here.
Its always the people you call cultists referring to expertise, and it is the contrarians who don’t, imagining that by continued bloviation makes them look intelligent.
I ask again and again for links to expert literature supporting a non-spinning Moon, that warm objects can’t absorb radiation from cool ones.
What do cultists do with this request? Nothing. And they don’t admit that there isn’t support like that. They just side-step that they have zero corroboration for these views, and they actually believe that by sneering at ‘authority’ and by painting themselves as mavericks who know better convinces anyone.
The cult is the gang who not only operates outside the mainstream, but also summarily reject its ideas with rhetoric of conspiracies and self-aggrandizement.
But the truth is no one is in a cult here. There are just a bunch of contrarians with severe of Dunning-Kruger.
Let’s keep citing NASA, Clint. I’m glad you consider them a good reference.
“Because the Moon’s orbit is not perfectly circular, its distance from Earth and its speed in orbit both change slightly throughout the month. The Moons rate of rotation around its own axis, though, always stays the same.
When the Moon is at its closest to Earth and moving most quickly along its orbital path, the Moon itself doesnt rotate quite fast enough to keep entirely the same side facing us, and we get to see a little more of the eastern side of the Moon. When the Moon is farthest from Earth and orbiting at its slowest, its rotation gets a little ahead, and we see a bit more of its western side. We call this motion ‘libration in longitude.’ ”
https://moon.nasa.gov/moon-in-motion/moon-phases/
They even have nice videos on that page to look at.
“An enduring myth about the Moon is that it doesn’t rotate. While it’s true that the Moon keeps the same face to us, this only happens because the Moon rotates at the same rate as its orbital motion, a special case of tidal locking called synchronous rotation.”
https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/429/the-moons-orbit-and-rotation/
“The rotation rate of the Moon is pretty steady. However, the orbiting motion of the Moon is not steady – at some times it advances faster than average, some times it is slower. The result is pretty similar to the above example of uneven rotation, and that is a second kind of libration. The first one lets astronomers peek over the poles, while this one adds to the longitudes visible to Earth-based telescopes.”
https://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Smoon4.htm
Perhaps you thought that the text from a youtube video description was all NASA had to say on the matter.
Tell you what a cultist would do. They would reject what NASA says elsewhere, and pin their totem to the description box of a youtube video.
as i understand that small precession is not evidence of independent spin angular momentum as it is for non-tidal locked moons and planets. . . .but instead represents perturbations from the gravitational pull of other objects besides the earth and sun. if it were evidence of a spin of the moon on a local axis and not integral with its orbital rotation, earths gravity would be correcting it as it does so for free physical librations so this argument is ignorant and has no legs to carry it. so stop embarrassing yourselves.
barry says:
”If the Moon were a perfectly rigid body, the mean direction of its spin axis could precess with the orbit. The lunar laser data show that the true spin axis of the Moon is displaced from this expected direction by 0.26 arcsec (Fig. 1 0). The two dissipative terms proportional to cos F in the expression for P1 are due to solid and fluid dissipation.”
all thats being said her barry is the moon has a liquid core that seismically moves around. we know that the moon is a perfect sphere which accounts for it not rotating on its local axis except conceptually. now you are saying that a moving difference in its uniformity causes a wobble in its conceptual axis to another conceptual axis. instead of 1.54 degrees the wobble in the precession makes it 1.540072 degrees assuming that nobody already rounded the tilt to 1.54
barry says:
February 20, 2023 at 5:56 PM
Lets keep citing NASA, Clint. Im glad you consider them a good reference.
Because the Moons orbit is not perfectly circular, its distance from Earth and its speed in orbit both change slightly throughout the month. The Moons rate of rotation around its own axis, though, always stays the same.
—————————–
of course we know thats a canard!
physical librations say thats not true. you can only say that the moons angular momentum of it orbital rotation is constant as the loss o angular momentum on its alleged local axis spin from these physical librations remain fully contained within the rotational angular momentum of the orbit as a complete and whole rotation.
“as i understand that small precession is not evidence of independent spin angular momentum”
Axial precession is dependent on lateral torque being applied to a longitudinally spinning body. Without the spin, the lateral torque would only cause the axis to swing. Think of a gyroscope. If it’s not spinning, you won’t get the circular rotation at the top of the axis when it is given a small lateral rotation. The axis will simply swing with the lateral torque – move backwards and forwards or side to side.
“all thats being said her barry is the moon has a liquid core that seismically moves around.”
No, what’s being said is that a rigid-body Moon would have a spin axis that is 0.26 arcsec different from the real Moon, and this is due to the fact that the real Moon has a liquid core that drags on the spin, slightly altering the position of the spin axis.
“physical librations say thats not true”
Physical libration effects are tiny compared to optical (libration of longitude, latitude, diurnal), and WRT the Moon’s spin rate have an almost unnoticeable effect. To explain libration in longitude and include the minor perturbation in spin rate is to complicate the explanation unnecessarily. LiL is not caused by these tiny perturbations in spin rate, but by the fact that the Moon’s spin is much more regular than its orbit.
I can keep citing NASA saying that the Moon rotates (hundreds of cites), and you can keep thinking of ways to ‘reinterpret’ what they mean, but the point is that NASA has no doubt it does spin, and this is a reference that Clint apparently approves of.
I have cited NASA research papers computing the Moon’s rotation on its axis from observations. Would you like me to cite some so that you can re-intepret them?
barry, you’re making the same mistakes as others in your cult. You believe “science” is about finding links. And supplementing those links with endless rambling.
You tried that to defend your cult’s nonsense that would result in ice cubes boiling water. You found out about “view factor”, and that’s all you could think about.
You failed to understand that “view factor” had NOTHING to do with ARRIVING flux. You couldn’t understand the science.
That’s why you can’t answer the simple questions:
Question 1: How do we know the ball-on-a-string is NOT rotating on its CoM axis?
Question 2: What is at least one thing wrong in each of Swanson’s 3 diagrams?
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
I bet you can’t answer correctly. Prove me wrong.
barry…”…libration was an illusion”…
***
I am not claiming libration is an illusion, I am claiming the notion that it is due to a physical waggling or rotation of the Moon is the illusion. Libration is actually a view angle and that can be explained completely based on the properties of the lunar elliptical orbit.
With regard to precession, I agree with Clint that it is basically a red-herring argument. The lunar orbital plane is not a constant, it varies somewhat. For example, the entire orbital plane is known to rotate through 360 degrees every 8 years or so. I would not doubt there is some variation in the plane tilt-angle as well.
Because spinners have proclaimed a lunar axis, they argue this means a change in the tilt orientation of the so-called lunar axis. They claim the so-called lunar axis rotates about the constellation Draco, a relatively sprawling constellation.
The lunar orbit is not set in space, it is created dynamically between lunar linear momentum and Earth’s gravitational field. As such, it is liable to changes in orientation. That’s far different than claiming the Moon’s alleged axis is varying.
Clint,
“You failed to understand that “view factor” had NOTHING to do with ARRIVING flux.”
This is so laughably wrong that I had to repeat it here.
I could cite a bunch of radiation textbooks saying exactly the opposite: the equations for radiative transfer routinely include view factors.
But it’s easier to point out that it’s cooler in the late afternoon than the middle of the day. The radiation ARRIVING from the sun in the late afternoon is less over the same surface area, reducing the amount of radiation received. That is all about view factor affecting arriving flux.
I’m saving your quote here. It’s a ripper!
Gordon,
“Libration is actually a view angle and that can be explained completely based on the properties of the lunar elliptical orbit.”
So the Moon keeps it face perpendicular to the elliptical orbit, like the orbit is a track and the Moon is affixed to the track.
Unfortunately, this means that the Moon’s motion that keeps its face to us is not a “rotation” about an external point within the Earth, because that would mean that a viewer on Earth should see no east/West slippage in the viewing angle of the Moon.
barry, obviously you don’t understand what “arriving” means.
It does NOT mean “starting”. It does NOT mean “almost there”.
I’ll let you look it up….
barry says:
”as i understand that small precession is not evidence of independent spin angular momentum”
Axial precession is dependent on lateral torque being applied to a longitudinally spinning body. Without the spin, the lateral torque would only cause the axis to swing.
1) you mean tip instead of swing.
2) the lateral pull rotates causing the lateral torque to rotate
3) not just the axis is tipping but also the nodes of the orbit rotates in time with the rotation of the tip. do you see that in other body’s?
4) the moon is rotating its orbital motion like a gyroscope tipping both the orbital motion and the local axis in a locked precession. have you considered that?
5) do you have a reference that considers these motions unique to a spin on a local axis or is it the case that you have simply gone along with somebody else who made dremts choice and everybody else just follows along torturing anybody who disagrees? you do know that the view never changes unless you are the lead dog doncha?.
and i said the core motion moved the axis you just didnt include that in your quote.
physical librations are theonly ones that represent an energy exchange, thus in the newton physics world of motions they are th only real motions. as i said angular motion is not the same as lineal motion and should be measured by the same criteria despite the fact with uniform circular motion you can do that.
and i don’t disapprove anybody wanting to think the moon spins but disapprove of trying to school people in it. wouldn’t be better to school everybody in the controversy? that would school them in learning how to think for themselves. used to be when i went to school you heard both sides of the story. i guess education is going downhill.
Bill,
I have many times mentioned the way to see a non-rotating Moon – as as a rigid-body rotation around a fixed external axis, or with a geocentric FoR.
I was content to say the its down to the frame of reference, but non-spinners weren’t having it.
There’s plenty of lengthy diatribe on the internet about the Earth being flat. Should we give a ‘fair and balanced’ lecture on how this view has validity in certain respects? I think any ‘balance’ deserves no more than a couple of sentences.
“It’s easy to see why some people think the Earth is flat. It looks flat, they can’t see a curve in the horizon, and their daily experience attests to the planet they are standing on being flat.”
But then the rest of the essay sets about explaining why they’re wrong.
Precession:
“In astronomy, axial precession is a gravity-induced, slow, and continuous change in the orientation of an astronomical body’s rotational axis.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession
I can cite dozens of papers calculating the rotational precession of the Moon. I can cite the same and other papers explaining how laser ranging has narrowed down the amplitude of the precession of the Moon’s rotational axis.
Here is one:
https://trs.jpl.nasa.gov/bitstream/handle/2014/10527/02-2551.pdf?sequence=1
Throughout that paper there is reference to lunar axial rotation and orbit as distinct. It is from this distinction that accurate measurements and predictions of the Moon’s motions can be made.
I don’t have the qualifications or math to do orbital calculations, I can only go from what I read in these papers.
When the choice for me is between experts describing a rotational Moon in order to refine the calculations for all sorts of lunar motion, and a guy on the internet telling me that they’re not actually talking about lunar rotation (when indeed they say it is on the Moon’s axis), or that they’re wrong or confused, it’s really no choice at all.
I guess it doesn’t bother you that you are contradicting thousands of people whose job it is to study celestial mechanics. It doesn’t bother you to dismiss expertise like that. But it should.
Bill,
1) you mean tip instead of swing.
Sure.
2) the lateral pull rotates causing the lateral torque to rotate
There’s no lateral torque without the pull. The axis of the Moon is up/down, the orbit/spin is left/right the tip is forward/back.
3) not just the axis is tipping but also the nodes of the orbit rotates in time with the rotation of the tip. do you see that in other body’s?
I do see it, but that won’t cause a precession of the axis that we see. The timing is different.
4) the moon is rotating its orbital motion like a gyroscope tipping both the orbital motion and the local axis in a locked precession. have you considered that?
Indeed I have. And so have the researchers I have been citing here. For example:
“While the Moon’s rotational period is equal to its orbital period, the Moon’s obliquity [tilt] is determined by the so-called Cassini States. Cassini States are minimum-energy solutions for the forced obliquity of a rotating body that experiences tidal dissipation, and most synchronous satellites have evolved into stable Cassini States (Colombo, 1966; Peale, 1969). The spin axis of the satellite in a Cassini State is in the same plane as the normals to the orbital plane and the Laplace plane (the plane around which the orbit precesses). When the period of the axial precession is longer than that of orbital precession (as is the case for the present-day Moon), the satellite is in Cassini State 2, in which the spin axis is closer to the Laplace plane normal than it is to the orbit normal (in the present-day Earth-Moon system, the Laplace plane is the ecliptic).”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019JE006016
5) do you have a reference that considers these motions unique to a spin on a local axis…
All my references considering axial precession consider it caused by a combination of motions that include Lunar spin. The reference above is but one of them, which says that the obliquity [tilt from gravity of other bodies] cycle is a shorter period than the axial precession cycle.
Bill, all these researchers are attributing Lunar axial precession to a combination of factors that include its spin. It is a standard understanding among the experts, and no one does calculations of the Moon’s libration and axial precession without that assumption. Its in every paper on the matter I’ve read, and I haven’t cherry-picked search terms. This is standard for the astronomy community.
Are you seriously going to say that they are all wrong?
I have to clarify and amend – the obliquity cycle is a different period to the axial precession, the axial precession is tidally locked to the nodal precession of same period. One of the papers I read yesterday made the latter point.
The obliquity cycle is what might make the Moon’s polar axis precess as its orbit changes, but the timing doesn’t match.
“I have many times mentioned the way to see a non-rotating Moon – as as a rigid-body rotation around a fixed external axis, or with a geocentric FoR.
I was content to say the its down to the frame of reference, but non-spinners weren’t having it.”
…because it’s wrong. It’s not down to the frame of reference. The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. Even if the “Spinners” were correct that the moon rotates on its own axis, anyone saying the issue comes down to the frame of reference would still be wrong. Do you really still not understand why?
“conceptual axis ”
Translation from Bill-Speak:
An observed axis.
The paper reports direct observations of the lunar spin axis. Bill thinks by labelling it ‘conceptual’ it goes away.
But this is a case study in form over substance!
The substance is direct observations of the lunar axis.
:as i understand that small precession is not evidence of independent spin angular momentum as it is for non-tidal locked moons and planets. . . .but instead represents perturbations from the gravitational pull of other objects besides the earth and sun. if it were evidence of a spin of the moon on a local axis and not integral with its orbital rotation, earths gravity would be correcting it as it does so for free physical librations so this argument is ignorant and has no legs to carry it. so stop embarrassing yourselves.”
More word salad obfuscations from Bill, none of which addresses the key issue of what is the OBSERVED MOTION of the Moon.
Seems barry has stopped responding to me. Oh well.
DREMT,
“Even if the Spinners were correct that the moon rotates on its own axis, anyone saying the issue comes down to the frame of reference would still be wrong. Do you really still not understand why?”
You made the argument that if I’m saying the axis is in the Earth it’s a geocentric view, then if it’s in the Moon it’s a lunar-centric view (the word you are looking for is selenocentric). Your argument seemed to rest on the implication of this being ludicrous. Feel free to clarify if I’ve misunderstood.
While a selenocentric view would see the universe rotate WRT to the Moon, and therefore that the Moon rotates on its own axis, the same is the case for a heliocentric and fixed stars frame of reference. The Sun and the stars see all faces of the Moon. Newton prefers the heliocentric or fixed stars reference frame to as being the most successful (inertial) frame for predicting the movement of celestial bodies, and so do I.
Only from the point of view of Earth or the axis lining the Moon to the Earth does the Moon NOT appear to rotate. Therefore it is valid to say that the non-spinner view is geocentric.
So you haven’t learned a thing. You have not progressed in understanding of this issue one iota from the very beginning of the entire moon discussion. Nothing I have said has had the slightest impact or effect on your understanding, and I’ve completely wasted my time. Great.
barry, both “Non-Spinners” and “Spinners” are using an inertial reference frame. Nobody’s view is geocentric or selenocentric. Until you accept that, there is little point you arguing anything else. All this talk about Newton and about libration becomes irrelevant if what you actually think is the “Non-Spinners” view is geocentric. It’s just such an insult to the “Non-Spinners” intelligence.
I understand your view. It is that the Moon does not rotate WRT the fixed stars.
But that is simply erroneous. WRT the fixed stars, the Moon both rotates and revolves. Newton conceived of am ‘absolute space’ within which the standard of motion is a body’s change of position with respect to this frame.
The change of position of the Moon WRT the fixed stars is, crudely, 2-fold. Orbital and rotational. Orbital because it circles a planet in this reference frame, and it shows its face to the 4 points of the celestial compass.
Your position isn’t valid by Newton’s definition, not WRT the fixed stars.
Which is why Newton directly refers to the fixed stars in that section we’ve quoted a few times, and in which he says the Moon’s daily rotation occurs in the same period as its monthly revolution.
If the Moon maintained the same orientation WRT the fixed stars, then your assertion would be true.
“If the Moon maintained the same orientation WRT the fixed stars, then your assertion would be true”
If the moon maintained the same orientation wrt the fixed stars then it would not be rotating on its own axis if “orbit without spin” was as per the MOTR. However, that is not what “orbital motion” is. “Orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
“Orbit without spin is as per the MOTL.”
which fails to work for the Moon’s orbit, or any other elliptical orbit.
Nothing wrong with a geocentric view. The ONLY error you can make with a geocentric view is that something is rotating around you rather than you rotating around it.
Otherwise as we have seen here the error one can make (even more stupidly as we shall see) from a view from space is an object is rotating on its own axis when in fact it is orbiting. You can’t make that mistake from a geocentric view because you count syndoctic cays only and thus the sidereal day must be an orbital rotation.
so one can make mistakes from any ”perspective” like the classic conumdrum of perception philosophy is a ’round’ coin presented visually to you tilted is it a round or is it oval. One can only tell via closer inspection.
However the stargazers in here really don’t need closer inspection. It is readily apparent from the perspective from space that the moon does indeed rotate around the earth and only has sidereal rotations. And from that view it is apparent that the earth rotates around the sun once for every 365 rotations on its axis.
But I remember the first arguments of the spinners here when the motl and motr were presented is they put up graphics of the moon alone as if they had blotted out the orbital motion so it looked more like a sidereal motion was in fact a syndotic rotation.
Conclusion: the spinners know something is afoot here but choose instead of admitting it to don blindfolds so they can’t see it.
Nate says:
”Orbit without spin is as per the MOTL.”
which fails to work for the Moons orbit, or any other elliptical orbit.
——————-
Here Nate expresses that science is weird that the nature of things change from the conceptual perfect to reality and he is willing to ignore that fact when imperfection is too small for him to see.
Why would a circular orbit be a rotation and one with a millionth of an inch deviation in one direction for a variety of physical reasons suddenly be disqualified as a rotation?
Its like the more difficult a problem becomes and how much error you can allow in a rotation has something to do with fundamental dynamics. IMO, its simply a product of inculcation and not rational thought. A quick acceptance of form over substance.
” perfect” is irrelevant when you have a choice between two models, one of which can account for the observations, and one which cannot.
The choice is clear, and tossing out words like ‘perfect’ and ‘perturbations’ are simply poor excuses for the model that cannot explain the observations.
thats gobble-dy-gook Nate. If your ‘standard’ for a rotation is a Basic motions are just that basic motions. They can be categorized in ways that don’t demand perfection. The only reason that land-lubber science says rotations are circular is simply because they don’t have examples of elliptical rotations on external axes.
Here is a paper on dealing with circular orbit errors.
https://tinyurl.com/256evwyp
Obviously this doesn’t change the fact the satellite is rotating around the earth. Its merely a process of corrections to computations regarding measuring elevations on earth.
DREMT,
Zero rotation, with respect to the fixed stars, means that an objects orientation does not change with respect to the fixed stars.
…and “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion as per the MOTL, where the object is changing orientation wrt the fixed stars.
“The only reason that land-lubber science says rotations are circular is simply because they dont have examples of elliptical rotations on external axes.”
Bill, you have never found an alternative definition for rotation.
So the endless unsupported claims that a rotation can be whatever you need it to be to fit YOUR narrative, are obviously BS.
No one is buying the loser’s argument.
WRT the fixed stars, the MOTR is not spinning. This is very clear. It maintains the same orientation in that reference frame. But you would say it IS spinning, retrograde to its orbit.
Your frame of reference is not the fixed stars, or you would agree that the MOTR is not spinning.
My frame of reference is the fixed stars, barry. Wrt that reference frame, the MOTR can be described as:
1) Rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating about an internal axis (in opposite directions).
2) Translating in a circle, with no rotation about an internal axis.
“Wrt that reference frame, the MOTR can be described as:
1) Rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating about an internal axis (in opposite directions).”
No. Absolutely not.
The MOTR keeps it orientation unchanged with respect to the fixed stars.
The fixed stars do not see the MOTR change its orientation at all.
A spin rotation is a change in orientation.
Therefore, the MOTR is not spinning WRT the fixed stars.
It’s as simple as that.
And no asserting otherwise will change that very plain fact.
I’m not “asserting” anything, barry, it’s been proven. By reference to text books such as Madhavi, by Ftop_t’s Desmos demonstrations, and by any online transmographer. “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL. That’s just a fact. The orientation of the object changes wrt the fixed stars, and there is rotation, just not about the object’s own internal axis. Thus it follows, that since “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL, that motion like the MOTR can be described as “rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis (in opposite directions)”.
You’ve avoided the point in my last post, DREWMT.
The MOTR is definitely not spinning with respect to the fixed stars> because it keeps it orientation unchanged with respect to the fixed stars.
That is a fact you cannot deny, and that is a fact you did not address in your reply to me. You simply repeated other stuff you said.
Your view requires that the MOTR be spinning.
Therefore your view is not WRT the fixed stars.
barry, you are the one not listening, and repeating yourself. The MOTR is not changing orientation wrt the fixed stars and one of the ways of understanding that is because it can be considered to be motion that is comprised of two “cancelling” rotations. Since the rotations “cancel”, the orientation does not change.
“The MOTR is not changing orientation wrt the fixed stars”
Precisely.
It is not spinning with respect to the fixed stars.
But you hold that it IS spinning.
Therefore your reference frame, in which the MOTR spins, is not WRT the fixed stars.
barry, you are just repeating yourself over and over again, and not listening.
The MOTR is not changing orientation wrt the fixed stars. We agree on that. However, changing orientation wrt the fixed stars does not necessarily equal axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis). There are two “cancelling” rotations, which is why the MOTR is not changing orientation. That is a legitimate way to look at it…and the reference frame is wrt the fixed stars. You just can’t get your head around it, and have failed to do so for years.
Think for a moment, barry. If it was really as simple as saying, “a change in orientation wrt the fixed stars is rotation about an internal axis”, would this discussion really have gone on for so many years!? Of course not. You are obviously missing something. I am trying to explain. You are trying not to understand. It gets a bit boring, after a while.
“be motion that is comprised of two ‘cancelling’ rotations.”
Or it could be 6 cancelling translations and 6 cancelling rotations!
None of which are testable or falsifiable.
Thus it is not science, it is belief. Fantasy that gives non-spinners comfort. IOW it is religion.
Nate says:
be motion that is comprised of two cancelling rotations.
Or it could be 6 cancelling translations and 6 cancelling rotations!
None of which are testable or falsifiable.
Thus it is not science, it is belief. Fantasy that gives non-spinners comfort. IOW it is religion.
—————————–
Bad argument Nate. If you want to have 6 rotations you need to have 6 different axes. And it would be relatively easy to dispute any other axes than the 2 in this discussion. Typical piss poor Nate logic at work here.
Bill strangely thinks cancelling rotations which result in NO MOTION should still be detectable. He is quite clueless.
Nobody here is cancelling rotations.
But there are implications of cancelling the orbital rotation.
When one turns it into a translation it appears as a rotation from earth where 365 rotations is the count. Thus there must be only 364 rotations on the spin axis.
Like wise if you turn the moon’s orbital rotation into a translation it becomes a rotation seen from earth. Thus the only way to not see it as such from earth is to add a rotation on the spin axis in the opposite direction.
Its just a fact. You can try to run away with the orbital rotation but you can’t hide it.
Argue it out with DREMT:
“There are two cancelling rotations, which is why the MOTR is not changing orientation.”
You keep saying stuff that doesnt add up. IOW just trolling.
“Like wise if you turn the moons orbital rotation into a translation it becomes a rotation seen from earth. Thus the only way to not see it as such from earth is to add a rotation on the spin axis in the opposite direction.”
Bill admits that it is, afterall, ALL ABOUT reference frames.
Nate says:
”Like wise if you turn the moons orbital rotation into a translation it becomes a rotation seen from earth. Thus the only way to not see it as such from earth is to add a rotation on the spin axis in the opposite direction.”
Bill admits that it is, afterall, ALL ABOUT reference frames.
——————————-
Thats quite some soup sandwich logic there Nate.
The point is that reference frames DON’T make rotations disappear according to your own logic here:
”I have described it as having 12 cancelling rotations. To make the point that ANY such cancelling rotations can never be observed, are pure fantasy, untestable, and thus such a model can NEVER be falsified. It qualifies as religion. here. Recall the Church bullied Galileo into saying that he agreed with them, and to recant his Heliocentric and Kinematics view of planetary motion. Same thing here. ”
It can run but it can’t hide. The orbital rotation can always be seen as the rotation it is from any reference frame. From the stars it looks like a rotation around an external axis like the motl and from the earth it looks like a spin on the internal axis of the moon like the motr.
In both cases it can be seen to be a rotation.
Bill.
You are hopelessly confused.
“Argue it out with DREMT:
“There are two cancelling rotations, which is why the MOTR is not changing orientation.”
DREMT and I agree that two cancelling rotations cancel. You are the odd man out here.
“The MOTR is not changing orientation wrt the fixed stars. We agree on that.”
Yep.
“However, changing orientation wrt the fixed stars does not necessarily equal axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis).”
You’ve moved away from the point now, trying to fit your view into a frame of reference wrt the fixed stars simply by repeating your view, and then tacking on the end that this view is wrt the fixed stars.
“There are two ‘cancelling’ rotations, which is why the MOTR is not changing orientation.”
I am completely aware that this is your view. You proposition is childishly simple, and can be demonstrated with the bike pedal and crack I have in my office behind me.
You’re about to tack on your assertion….
“That is a legitimate way to look at it… and the reference frame is wrt the fixed stars.”
Nope. The fixed stars don’t see the MOTR change orientation, and a change in orientation is the definition of spin. It does not spin with respect to the fixed stars.
No matter how many times you explain what we already understand is your view, it’s not going to change the fact that the MOTR is not spinning with respect to the fixed stars.
You may think that your view is WRT the fixed stars because it is happening within the universe. But then you simply don’t understand the inertial frame of reference that Newton described. The inertial frame is one that does not undergo acceleration or rotation. Any object that maintains its orientation to the inertial frame is likewise not rotatingwith respect to that frame.
barry, wrt a reference frame where the origin goes through the moon itself, and the coordinate system axes remain oriented towards distant fixed stars, the MOTR does appear not to rotate on its own axis. Call this RF 1. However, wrt a reference frame where the origin goes through the Earth, and the coordinate system axes remain oriented towards distant fixed stars (call this RF 2), you have the necessary perspective to see that the MOTR is either:
1) Rotating about an external axis whilst rotating about an internal axis (in opposite directions). 2) Translating in a circle without rotating about an internal axis.
Now, note that both RF 1 and RF 2 are “wrt the fixed stars”. RF 1 is not “selenocentric” any more than RF 2 is “geocentric”, even though in RF 1 the origin is in the moon and in RF 2 the origin is in the Earth. What you do is automatically take “wrt the fixed stars” to mean RF 1. I, on the other hand, am always looking at the bigger picture, in RF 2, when I say “wrt the fixed stars”. Your mistake is to call RF 2 a geocentric frame of reference, or to accuse me of using a geocentric frame of reference, generally. RF 2 is not geocentric. To look at it from a geocentric point of view, your origin would be through the Earth, but your coordinate system axes would follow the moon’s path around the Earth rather than pointing to distant fixed stars.
“…and a change in orientation is the definition of spin…”
That’s incorrect, by the way. It might be a part of the definition of rotation, but it’s not part of the definition of spin (meaning rotation about an internal axis, specifically). An object can change its orientation via rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis whatsoever. So, an object can change its orientation without rotating about an internal axis. The corollary of this point is that a lack of change in orientation of an object does not prove that an object is not rotating about an internal axis…
Correcting 6:16 pm errant comment: an object can change its orientation via rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis whatsoever wrt to an accelerated frame, e.g. our Moon as viewed from Earth. So, an object can change its orientation without rotating about an internal axis wrt an accelerated frame observer. The corollary of this point is that a lack of change in orientation of an object does not prove that an object is not rotating about an internal axis… wrt a certain frame.
“To look at it from a geocentric point of view, your origin would be through the Earth, but your coordinate system axes would follow the moon’s path around the Earth rather than pointing to distant fixed stars.”
You’ve done your level best to say that the MOTR in not changing orientation WRT the fixed stars, by putting the locus of that ‘non-spin’ as the Earth, and then arguing that the Earth’s coordinate system is relative to the fixed stars.
But you haven’t marked the Moon’s coordinate axes as relative to the fixed stars. THAT would put the motion of the MOTR in an inertial reference frame.
What you’ve done is marked the Moon’s axial coordinate system as relative to the Earth.
It doesn’t matter one whit that the Earth is coordinated to the fixed stars in your model if the Moon is not coordinated to the same frame. The Moon doesn’t magically get tied through multiple coordinate axes to the universal reference frame. Either its axes are relative to the distant stars or not. You have just explained that they are not, in your view of a spinning MOTR.
You are correct, barry. DREMT has long “marked the Moon’s axial coordinate system as relative to the Earth” when DREMT writes “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is motion like the MOTL.”
Simple observed facts are earthshine is incident on one lunar hemisphere (man in the moon face) while sunshine is incident on both lunar hemispheres so the moon does rotate on its own axis wrt the distant stars but not wrt to an observer on Earth.
barry, you have no idea what you’re talking about…and don’t let Ball4 convince you otherwise. Both reference frames I described are “wrt the fixed stars”. For me to be making the mistake you and Ball4 are so convinced I’m making, the coordinate system axes would have to be tied to the moon’s motion around the Earth…making it a “rotating reference frame”, in other words. Yet that is not the reference frame I’m using. Instead, the coordinate system axes remain fixed.
“But you haven’t marked the Moon’s coordinate axes as relative to the fixed stars”
This is nonsense, barry. Celestial bodies don’t all have their own coordinate axes. If you put the origin through one celestial body then the coordinate axes extend from that origin, there are no other coordinate axes for other celestial bodies. That wouldn’t make any sense.
Then note the reference frame DREMT is using each time DREMT writes “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is motion like the MOTL.” (correctly used the frame is then wrt to central object) so anyone more astute than DREMT can comment & point out when DREMT is wrong, which is nearly always.
Celestial bodies can all have their own local coordinate system, DREMT, especially when a rover is moving about them.
Ball4, celestial bodies can indeed have their own local coordinate system. That’s not what I meant. There is endless confusion inherent in trying to get across what I mean on this subject and someone like you will always be around to exploit that as much as possible.
I’m not wrong about reference frames. You are. You think that the moon rotates on its own axis wrt an inertial reference frame and doesn’t rotate on its own axis wrt a rotating reference frame. That’s incorrect, and always will be. Even if the “Spinners” were correct that the moon rotates on its own axis, you would still be wrong about reference frames, Ball4. The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
That’s incorrect DREMT (the mind reader) 8:36 am since those are your words not mine.
Here’s what I wrote: Simple observed facts are earthshine is incident on one lunar hemisphere (man in the moon face) while sunshine is incident on both lunar hemispheres so the moon does rotate on its own axis wrt the distant stars but not wrt to an observer on Earth.
These simple facts show correct use of ref. frames can also be used to resolve the lunar rotation issue wrt to an observers location since:
All motion is relative
Ball4 says I’m incorrect about what he thinks, then writes his own words confirming that I was correct. Thank you. You are dismissed.
Funny, DREMT is not really a mind reader to know my thinking but does obviously like to continually play semantic games with written words.
DREMT writes 4:18 pm “confirming” (DREMT term) the correctness of my 2:02 pm words that our Moon does not rotate on its own axis wrt an observer on Earth since earthshine is only incident on one lunar hemisphere (the man in the moon face).
Extending that to frames, our Moon does not rotate on it own axis wrt an observer on Earth as barry notes when anyone including DREMT correctly “marked the Moon’s axial coordinate system as relative to the Earth”.
You are dismissed. Do not ever respond to me again.
When DREMT gets lunar rotation correct wrt to an observer on Earth, then there will be no need to respond. DREMT, please stop trolling.
DREMT,
In your coordinate system the Moon makes one complete orbit every 29.5 days. This is the time it takes to orbit the Earth once and return to the same orientation WRT the Sun.
The time it takes for the Moon return to the same orientation relative to the fixed stars is 27.3 days.
https://astro.dur.ac.uk/~ams/users/lunar_sid_syn.html
Newton noted this difference in the 1st edition of the Principia.
"Luna circa Terram in periodo temporis non omnino uniformi sed sensibiliter aequabili circulat, nempe Synodi revolutio Lunae conficitur in circiter diebus 29 ½. At Revolutio Lunae Siderea seu tempus quo ad eundem fixum revertitur, in diebus circiter 27 ½ conficitur."
Translation:
“The Moon revolves about the Earth in a period of time which is not quite uniform, but is sensibly of a fixed length; that is, the synodic revolution of the Moon is performed in about 29½ days. But the sidereal revolution of the Moon, or the time in which it returns to the same fixed star, is performed in about 27½ days”
Newton’s conception of the Moon’s coordinate axes WRT to rotation was relative to the fixed stars. The third edition lists the rotational motion of the Moon (alongside the rotational period of the planets and Sun).
“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′.”
Those are sidereal rotational periods, very close to modern estimates (except for Venus). Translation:
“Jupiter certainly revolves with respect to the fixed stars 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′.”
You wrote:
“If you put the origin through one celestial body then the coordinate axes extend from that origin, there are no other coordinate axes for other celestial bodies.”
Yeah, that’s nonsense. You can make choices, to be sure. But the Moon’s coordinate axes are not automatically tied to the Earth’s, nor the Sun’s just that you can make it so depending on the frame of reference you want to work from. Newton conceived of the Moon’s coordinate axes as WRT the fixed stars when he gave the value for its ‘day’ – the time it takes to rotate relative the fixed stars, a frame of reference he specifically nominates in that section.
The coordinate system you are working with is synodic, not sidereal. Your coordinate system for the Moon is not WRT the fixed stars.
Newton’s fixed stars coordinate system puts the Moon’s coordinate axes WRT to the inertial reference frame, not to the Earth/Sun reference frame, when he speaks of the Moon’s sidereal rotation.
You are free to choose what reference frame you prefer, but you are not free to call a synodic coordinate system sidereal.
barry says:
You are free to choose what reference frame you prefer, but you are not free to call a synodic coordinate system sidereal.
——————————–
Coordinate systems don’t determine what a sidereal rotation is Barry. Sidereal rotation means with with respect to the stars. It is the rotation seen as a spin from the stars because all orbits produce a rotation that appears that way from the stars but not from other coordinate systems. If its a spin it should appear that way in every case as if the moon didn’t orbit but instead say stayed fixed between polaris and the earth, then there would be no sidereal rotations. The moon would simply sit there with on face toward the earth. As it stands the earth sees about 12.37 moons per year which are all sidereal. And wrt the stars there are 13.37 accounting for the orbit of the earth system.
So sidereal rotation are only seen from certain reference frames though one can deduce that rotation from seeing the moon orbit from earth.
I get all the reasons why you WANT to call the moon’s orbital path a translation but there is no compelling reason to distinquish it from a rotation around an external axis and calling it two separate motions it seems more logical to leave that extra motion to spins arising from other causes than its orbit.
Science if fun and scientists want to rule the world to which the world says back. . . .not on your life!
Or more accurately. Some scientists think the world rotates around them.
“In your coordinate system the Moon makes one complete orbit every 29.5 days.“
That’s wrong, barry, and so the rest of your comment fails accordingly. My coordinate system is “wrt the fixed stars”, same as yours. You just don’t understand reference frames. Sorry.
“Sidereal rotation means with with respect to the stars. It is the rotation seen as a spin from the stars because all orbits produce a rotation that appears that way from the stars but not from other coordinate systems. If its a spin it should appear that way in every case as if the moon didnt orbit but instead say stayed fixed between polaris and the earth, then there would be no sidereal rotations. The moon would simply sit there with on face toward the earth. As it stands the earth sees about 12.37 moons per year which are all sidereal. And wrt the stars there are 13.37 accounting for the orbit of the earth system.”
I couldnt find a Gibberish translator on Google. Can anyone who speaks Gibberish translate this into English?
Ball4, I am correct about reference frames, and you are incorrect. As Bindidon agrees, the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
Our Moon rotation on own internal axis issue is totally resolved by earthshine incident on only one lunar hemisphere (man in the moon face) not rotating on own axis wrt to earthen observer AND sunshine incident on both hemispheres lunar rotation on own axis wrt sun inertially.
It really is not necessary to resolve the issue invoking ref. frames but those more astute than DREMT can do so correctly if they wish.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
The Earth’s sidereal rotation period is 23 h 56 min, so it makes 366 sidereal rotations per year.
You guys call that 365 internal rotations and 1 rotation from orbital motion.
The Moon’s sidereal rotation/orbital period is 27.3 days. So it makes 36/27.3 = 13.4 sidereal rotations/orbits per year.
To be consistent, you guys should say the Moon-Earth system has 12.4 internal rotations and 1 rotation from its orbital motion around the sun.
Then the Moon’s internal orbital/rotation period is 365days/12.5 = 29.4 days, according to non-spinner way of thinking.
‘365days/12.5 = 29.4 days’
should have said
‘365/12.4 = 29.4 days’
It’s fairly simple, Ball4.
If "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTL, then the Earth orbits whilst spinning 365.25 times per orbit around the Sun.
If "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR, then the Earth orbits whilst spinning 366.25 times per orbit around the Sun.
If "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTL, then the moon orbits whilst spinning zero times per orbit around the Earth.
If "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR, then the moon orbits whilst spinning one time per orbit around the Earth.
Notice how it needn’t be anything to do with reference frames. It’s just a question of keeping the "spin" motion separate to the "orbital motion" (or "orbit without spin", if you need that clarification). Those getting "lost in reference frames" are just missing a really simple point. They get so carried away with themselves, that they miss the simplicity of the overall argument. Oh well. I won’t expect you to understand.
“If “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL, then the Earth orbits whilst spinning 365.25 times per orbit around the Sun.”
But apparently this doesnt apply to the Moon-Earth system orbiting the sun.
If it did then The moon would orbit/rotate around the Earth 12.4 times while orbiting the sun once.
Then its orbit/rotation period would be 29.4 days.
But apparently not.
“In your coordinate system the Moon makes one complete orbit every 29.5 days.
Thats wrong, barry”
So the non-spinners contradict themselves yet again.
…oh well. I won’t expect you to understand.
DREMT, listing “ifs” semantics for some artistic picture doesn’t in any way explain the actual physics of earthshine incident on only one lunar face (no lunar rotation on own axis wrt earthen observer) like the BoS and sunshine on all lunar faces (lunar rotation on own axis wrt to sun).
Sure, use of ref. frames is optional to make the same point since frame use is for the more astute commenter than DREMT.
As I said, Ball4, I didn’t expect you to understand.
barry, getting back to our discussion…I am using a reference frame where the origin goes through the Earth, and the coordinate system axes remain oriented towards distant fixed stars. This reference frame is "wrt fixed stars". No question about it. In this reference frame, the moon will complete an orbit around the Earth in 27.3 days.
Relating it to the tidal locking GIF for clarity, the period of time that it takes the MOTL to go from a position at, say 12 o’clock, and return to that same position at 12 o’clock one orbit later, would be 27.3 days. You can imagine one of the coordinate system axes extending from the origin within the Earth and through that 12 o’clock position. That axis would be pointing towards a distant fixed star.
Wrt this reference frame, the motion of the MOTL can be described as:
1) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
2) Translating in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
The motion of the MOTR can be described as:
1) Rotating about an external axis whilst rotating about an internal axis (in opposite directions).
2) Translating in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
DREMT does get that MOTL frame use correct because the observer standing at the origin of the described frame only sees the man in the moon face like a BoS, no moon rotation on its own axis.
However, an observer on the “distant fixed star” sees all lunar faces so that the moon IS observed rotating on its own axis. DREMT always leaves out the detail of where a particular observation is made:
Wrt this reference frame, the motion of the MOTL can be described as:
1) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis as seen by an observer at the defined origin.
2) Curvilinear translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis as seen from an observer on the “distant fixed star”.
Wrong, Ball4. Rotation about an external axis and translation in a circle are two different motions. You simply do not get it, and never will. You basically just make the exact same point over and over again, in slightly different ways, and you are wrong about that point. This makes all your contributions to this subject worthless.
Curvilinear translation is described by Madhavi, DREMT, you should read up on her work for a better understanding of the term.
Go away. You have nothing to contribute.
“Coordinate systems don’t determine what a sidereal rotation is Barry. Sidereal rotation means with with respect to the stars.”
The frame of the fixed stars adopts a coordinate system that is WRT to the fixed stars, and the coordinate system DREMT described for the Moon is WRT the Earth.
These are a sidereal and a synodic frame of reference.
DREMT explained that the coordinate axis for his model of the Moon’s non-rotation required that the Moon’s coordinate axis was trained on the Earth (the Sun is another standard for local reference frames). He argued that because his model trains the Earth’s coordinate axes on the fixed stars, then the Moon, ipso facto, has a coordinate system relative to the fixed stars. But this is not so. If you set a motorised camera on the Moon’s pole to rotate WRT the fixed stars keeping them unchanged in the frame, you will have success if you track the motor to the fixed stars, not by using the Earth as your reference.
Gravity does not provide a torsional force, except on topographical features, which on a large spheroid does not immediately determine spin.
If you spun up a completely featureless sphere the mass of the Moon in between galaxies, at a sidereal rotation time matching the Moon’s, and then put it into the real Moon’s orbit around the Earth, that Moon would continue to spin at the same rate, as the gravity of the Earth would have no effect on its rotation speed.
It’s meagre angular momentum would not suddenly disappear once in Earth orbit, because Earth gravity has no effect on its spin. Gravity pulls in, not around.
That Moon, still spinning, would keep the same blank face to the Earth through its orbit, while maintaining its sidereal rotation speed.
“DREMT explained that the coordinate axis for his model of the Moon’s non-rotation required that the Moon’s coordinate axis was trained on the Earth (the Sun is another standard for local reference frames). He argued that because his model trains the Earth’s coordinate axes on the fixed stars, then the Moon, ipso facto, has a coordinate system relative to the fixed stars.“
No I didn’t, barry. You really have no idea what you’re talking about.
“The reference frames used in dynamics are known as coordinate systems with axes (lines) emanating from a point known as the origin.”
The reference frame I am using has the origin within the Earth. The coordinate system axes are oriented towards fixed stars. It is thus a coordinate system “wrt fixed stars”. Full stop. Period. End of story. The reference frame I use is “wrt the fixed stars”. Just be told, barry.
“The reference frame I am using has the origin within the Earth.”
That’s exactly what I said, DREMT, and then spoke of the Lunar coordinate axes, which you neglected to mention in your reply.
How about re-reading what I said and then explaining the Lunar coordinate axes as you see them. We’ll then know if I mischaracterised your view.
Or…. are you saying there are no coordinate axes for the Moon in your conception of the matter? Surely not….
You have mischaracterised my view, barry, and you do not understand reference frames. The only “coordinate axes” in a reference frame are the coordinate system axes, which emanate from the origin. You are utterly confused on the issue.
The “Non-Spinners” reference frame is, like the “Spinners” reference frame, “wrt fixed stars”. That’s why reference frames do not resolve the moon issue..
I am asking you to clarify where you point the Lunar axes in your non-spinner view.
In astronomical study of the Moon, it has a variable axis system that can be coordinated WRT the Earth/Moon system or WRT the fixed stars, the ‘celestial sphere’.
Earth or the Sun is used as the origin point for a celestial coordinate system, yes. But that is not the point I am taking to you. I am asking about the Lunar axes, and whether you relate them to the Earth or the celestial sphere.
I have a question for you – a prediction of Lunar motion based on your view.
The Moon has an axial tilt of some degrees from its orbital plane.
If the North ‘pole’ tilts away from the Earth at the beginning of its orbit, which way does it point halfway through the orbit.
Don’t look it up, please. Make your prediction, and explain the reasoning.
No diversions to axial tilt will be followed, barry. I control the conversation. Needless to say I have no need to look anything up. I already understand and have discussed it many, many times.
"I am asking you to clarify where you point the Lunar axes in your non-spinner view.
In astronomical study of the Moon, it has a variable axis system that can be coordinated WRT the Earth/Moon system or WRT the fixed stars, the ‘celestial sphere’."
barry, the only “coordinate axes” in a reference frame are the coordinate system axes, which emanate from the origin. You are utterly confused on the issue.
The “Non-Spinners” reference frame is, like the “Spinners” reference frame, “wrt fixed stars”. That’s why reference frames do not resolve the moon issue…
…I can repeat this as many times as is necessary. I’m correct.
“I already understand and have discussed it many, many times.”
Bwa ha ha ha..
If he understood it, he could not deny the only possible reality that the Moon rotates around this internal tilted axis.
…I can repeat this as many times as is necessary. I’m correct.
DREMT,
You are repeating something I agree with and not addressing the bit I am querying.
This is a familiar pattern.
Come on. If you think your model of non-rotation is the true motion of the Moon it should be a cinch to make a prediction based on it.
If the North pole of the longitudinal axis of the Moon is tilted away from the Earth at the beginning of its orbit, which direction will it point half way through its orbit? Towards the Earth or away from it?
barry, please stop trolling (I can only assume you’re trolling me, at this point).
Barry what were you thinking?
Asking DREMT inconvenient questions central to the Moon spinning debate is not allowed!
…please stop trolling (I can only assume you’re trolling me, at this point).
Readers more astute than DREMT know barry and Nate have won the lunar rotation ref. frame debate when DREMT stoops to such responses as at 7:23 am.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
… and such responses as 9:05 am, especially: when repeated.
3:15 PM yesterday won the “debate” for me, such as it was. I made my position crystal clear and nobody has had anything worthwhile to add since then. Guess it’s over, guess I won. Again.
barry
I got sad of trying to circumvent this Internal Server Error.
Please read the comment out of the pdf:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aqhHK19iLzrPpykyXpypDP3DFP3xEOsP/view
Even this list
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
we can continue to fill ad nauseam, it won’t help.
Bindidon, we’ve explained this to you before: Finding links you can’t understand ain’t science.
Start your learning here, with very simple questions:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449011
You’re never too old to learn….
Troll Clint R
You were the one who started the junk pseudoscience with your trial to manipulate the inclination of the lunar spin axis by telling us it would change within each lunar orbit period.
Only dumb people can write such a brainless trash.
I tried to explain why this is nonsense but you persist in posting the same trash all the time.
*
E. Swanson’s diagrams are all correct, and he explained to you why he changed the second one.
Don’t try to kid us, troll Clint R. It’s useless.
Bin, I’m always amazed at your inability to face reality.
You accept Swanson’s middle diagram, yet you deny the over 13° change in the imaginary spin axis angle.
Swanson’s middle diagram shows the imaginary spin axis pointing at an angle of 6.68° in one direction on one side of Moon’s orbit. Then, it shows the imaginary axis pointing in the other direction, on the other side of Moon’s orbit.
Let me help you with the arithmetic: 6.68 + 6.68 = 13.36.
Swanson is showing what you refuse to accept — the imaginary spin axis changes by more that 13°!
People that reject reality always lose. That’s why they’re losers. Reality always wins.
grammie clone’s cup-with-pencil is indeed an imaginary version of reality. As he admitted, it has no relationship to the real Moon because the Moon’s spin axis points in one direction, as depicted in the bottom panel.
grammie clone is right about one thing:
That’s why he is the loser every time he points to his cop-on-a-string-with-pencil delusion.
Swanson, you’ve dropped any attempt at science and are now just making up crap.
That’s why this is so much fun.
swannie…”the Moons spin axis points in one direction, as depicted in the bottom panel”.
***
How does it keep the same side pointed at Earth, if that’s the case?
Gordo wrote:
Hey Gordo, where you been these past few years? Have you missed the entire discussion of Librations, particularly in Latitude? The small tilt of the Moon’s axis makes it possible to see past the North Pole for part of the orbit, then past the South Pole for another part of the orbit. This well known effect means that one never sees the exact same view of the Moon all the way around the orbit.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Troll Clint R
No, I don’t deny anything.
You in turn don’t understand why what you write is pure trash.
And you never will admit it, because you are a thoroughly opinionated and ignorant person.
Sorry Bin, but your insults and false accusations make YOU the troll.
I know its a waste of time, Bin, but I’m between jobs and saving money, so I have time to make argument and read up on celestial mechanics, Newton and laser ranging of the Moon. Not a waste of time for me.
barry…”Im between jobs and saving money, so I have time to make argument and read up on celestial mechanics”
***
Couldn’t ask for more. Hopefully you have some kind of Unemployment Insurance. It’s summer in Australia. Out of work, time to study, go for it. A lot of people come unglued when they don’t have a job. I thrive on it.
thanks, Gordon. I’d rather be working but I don’t stress when I’m not. No employment insurance/dole, etc, just losing my savings as slowly as possible. Hope you’re well where you are.
angech (Comment #218741)
The current predictions for an El Nino developing later this year are very high and have been for some time.
Since the possibility is only 25% and we are starting off from the cold tail end of the current La Nina the chances should be less than that.
I would guess the chance of an El Niño in 2023 is much less than 25%.
That ocean heat continues to hide….
angech
So far, NOAA forecasts for the Nino3+4 region, used to indicate ENSO’s status, have been fairly consistent with later reality.
No reason thus to doubt about the current one:
https://i.postimg.cc/k4wY7DBf/nino34200223.png
Few has changed with regard to the situation I saved last December
https://i.postimg.cc/9FMy2ncQ/nino34-Mon191222.png
(about 0.1 of the index value).
Thus, the El Nino treshold (+0.5) might be crossed by the JUN line, and the 1.0 level be reached in SEP.
*
But…two years ago, I trusted the El Nino readings predicted by the otherwise trusted Tokyo Climate Center and hit a dead end.
Here we go again,
Bindiclown who could not see three La Ninas in a row coming and tried to mock everybody else’s correct forecast now wants to blame somebody else for his inability to read forecast.
Climate shystering update – time to adjust the coolin away
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02/20/is-noaa-trying-to-warm-the-current-8-year-pause/
it always follows the pattern of a slithering snake.
todays upward adjustments become tomorrows reversal and as the tailend slithers by in the yesteryear the cooling adjustments are finally located.
I call Betteridge’s Law, Eboy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clymate shistering update by bdgwx who knows a lot more than polemicist Steve Milloy:
” NOAAs corrections result in a lowering of the overall warming trend over the instrument record.
https://i.imgur.com/GPXbHYv.png
Anyway, the change in the trend in this case (2015-2022) is not the result of new corrections. It is the result of the fact that data is still being uploaded into the repositories. ”
*
I can confirm: this has often happened to me when I have downloaded new data from the GHCN daily data set: while the new US data are usually available a few days after the end of the month, it takes often weeks until e.g. all ~600 German weather stations finally get their data transferred to NOAA.
No wonder: a few years ago, a German weather station published data for one day that exceeded the real temperature; the entire station set has since been put through its paces.
*
Anyone who reposts Milloy’s junk pseudoscience is either naïve or ‘interested’ in it.
Why don’t you go there and say it into his face
Why should I do that, little angry stalking dachshund?
I posted lots of such criticisms of WUWT many years ago, mostly in relation to sea level, and was berated often enough by idiots like you.
Then comes the day when you’ve had enough of such idiots.
Because you are a weaseling piece of zshit talking scheie about others behind their back
bindidon is really getting cranky!
But not Eben?
Patrick Wood thinks Milloy is right, as does Reuters news service. Of course, Reuters, to save face point out this is not an official trend.
https://www.technocracy.news/its-official-no-global-warming-for-eight-years/
Of course, of course, Reuters missed the point that 8 years takes us back to 2015, and between 1998 and 2015 there was a flat trend. Therefore, except for a brief flirtation with warming, we’ve had essentially none for the past 24 years.
The puzzling things is the retention of heat following the 2016 super-EN. That happened following the 1998 super EN and also in 1977, an unexplained 0.2C warming that led to the discovery of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. That means about 0.5C, at least, of unexplained warming since 1977.
“Therefore, except for a brief flirtation with warming, weve had essentially none for the past 24 years.”
The middle week of Summer was only 0.3C warmer than the middle week of Winter, therefore there really hasn’t been any climate change.
Let’s set aside that the first week of Summer was 9C warmer than the first week of Winter, and the last week of Summer was warmer by 8C the last week of Winter.
Now then, last 24 years
UAH6.0
1999 = -0.15 C
2022 = 0.17
Linear trend = 0.15 C/decade (+/0 .11)
If you meant to include 1998, Gordon, that’s the last 25 years, and it gives a very different result. 1998 is warmer than 2022, and the trend is still positive but not statistically significant: 0.110 C/decade (+/- 0.114).
What a difference a year makes!
Yeah, Barry, I get the math, it’s what it means that concerns me.
A linear trend 0.11C/decade tells me nothing about the actuality. If warming happens in 2 isolated spurts of 0.055C, it averages to 0.11C/decade. The 2016 super EN has left a residual warming of about 0.2C by itself.
To get a more accurate average, you have to split the trend into 2 parts…1998 – 2015 then 2016 – 2023. Creating a trend from 1998 – 2023 has no meaning in actuality. What you really have is two linear trend with an unexplained warming between them in 2015.
You’ve purposefully selected those periods BECAUSE they show flat linear trends. Why not pick 1996 to 2012? Why not 1989 to 2009?
When making a choice for period, you need to justify it scientifically. The only justification you have for choosing periods that begin with a super-el Nino is that it cranks the trend downwards. OR, and even worse, you start with your presumption – that el Ninos are responsible for the warming, and then pick a trend that helps you prove it.
It’s classic cherry-picking.
But let’s do the trend for the periods you nominated and include the uncertainties.
1998 to 2015 (incl): -0.008 (+/- 0.176) C/decade
2016 to 2022 (incl): -0.222 (+/- 0.624) C/decade
If you understand statistics and linear trend, you’ll realize that this does not confirm anything. The uncertainty of the trends is larger than the trends. They are not statistically significant. They do not disprove the null, nor do they prove it. To put it in terms of the uncertainty….
With a 95% confidence interval, the two periods have a potential trend ranging between:
1998 to 2015: -0.184 to +0.168 C/decade
2016 to 2022: -0.846 to +0.402 C/decade
Both trend ranges overlap with the mean trend for 1999 to 2022 – the last 24 years, which you nominated and now dismiss. The 24-year trend is statistically significant, but only just.
Your period choices beg your conclusion.
And el Ninos can’t be the cause of long-term global warming, because we’ve had more than 50 of them in the last 150 years. They each temporarily raise global temps by 0.2 to 0.6 degrees.
So let’s call the average spike global temp spike in el Ninos 0.3 C. 0.3 X 50 = 15.
El Ninos don’t raise global temperature permanently or the globe would have warmed by 15 C since 1870.
El Ninos cause transient warming of the surface, and the displacement of energy that they cause is well understood. Not to mention that la Ninas depress global temps when they come.
Which is why a proper analysis of trends is long-term, so that individual, transient el Nino events don’t swamp the result.
barry
You wrote above:
” The Moons North pole takes 18.6 years to to do a full precession and point to the same stars. Verified by observation from the aforementioned vantages.
Someone else here (Bill?) said that libration was an illusion.
These are well-verified facts. The non-spinner position is greatly enfeebled by denying them. ”
*
Sorry to correct you but you are somewhat unclear concerning the concept of libration.
This is not your mistake: rather, it is due to the fact that astronomers unluckily use the same word for two different wobbling concepts which hardly could have anything in common:
– apparent, optical librations (in longitude, in latitude and diurnal) which are all illusions, like the Moon showing the same face to us all the time;
– real, physical librations (forced and free) which were partly detected long before the Lunar Laser Ranging era.
Forced librations are those resulting from gravitational forces exerted on Moon by Earth and Sun (of which Newton of course was already aware of); free librations are supposed to be due to (1) possibly due to Moons inhomogeneous mass distribution and (2) to huge asteroid impacts.
*
The best reference to look up is that of a review of astronomical research activities made at the Kazan Observatory in the former USSR:
Rizvanov, Rakhimov
History of development of selenodesy and dynamics of the Moon in Kazan
http://selena.sai.msu.ru/Symposium/kazan.pdf
Contrary to Hunter Boy’s superficial conjectures lacking as usual any scientific backup, the Russian document clearly states that physical librations are an integral part of Moon’s rotation and not an alternative explanation for it.
A more recent article shows the complexity of free libration mode determination:
The Moons physical librations and determination of
their free modes
N. Rambaux, J. G. Williams (2010)
https://hal.science/hal-00588671/document
*
A propos Newton and libration: I just reminded to have translated some years ago the introduction of Laplace’s treatise on celestial mechanics:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yQH5OIfmGDQ-a0CXOXow8j1wKYWB17QG/view
In page 2 you find:
” Newton speaks of the libration of the Moon, in propositions XVII and XXXVIII of the third Book of his work of Principles, In Proposition XVII of the first edition. ”
*
Laplace meant this:
https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Pagina%3APrincipia_newton_la.djvu/279
or in the 1848 reedition of Motte’s translation:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3ANewton's_Principia_(1846).djvu/460
bindidon say:
Forced librations are those resulting from gravitational forces exerted on Moon by Earth and Sun (of which Newton of course was already aware of)
————————-
there you go. you agree that newton had to be aware of forced rotation of the moon by the earth for it to conform to a mode of rotation that can be properly computed by by reference to a single rotational motion in the same way that all rotations on fixed axes can be including chalked circles on a revolving merry-go-round deck.
so dremt is right and bindidon brought forward the evidence. congratulations!!
i have been saying all along that newton had to have had this visionary ability to see that in order to develop an equation that works for rotations of a uniform sphere on an external axis and from which you can separate out the rotation of the moon on its local axis by treating the orbit via its linear momentum only while not considering the gravitational pull from the earth, which is no longer necessary (except to keep the moon nudged into lock step while being hit by rocks from space or what ever else might be laying some ‘free’ librations on it.
thanks bindidon this is far more of a productive approach to this debate than ad hominems that others are tossing around while ignoring the difficult questions.
fact is it is the external axis rotation that prevents the much smaller (1 to 2 orders of magnitude) free physical librations from being an independent rotation of the moon on its local axis.
the take home point is astronomy could have elected either approach and been just fine. all that is going on here is a do-si-do with spinners and non-spinners using different shoulders to pass by.
As usual, the Hunter boy comes along with a long, long, long post lacking any science.
” fact is it is the external axis rotation that prevents the much smaller (1 to 2 orders of magnitude) free physical librations from being an independent rotation of the moon on its local axis. ”
What a dumb blah blah.
Nothing else that arrogant, condescending, superficial gossip, with, as the ‘cerise sur le gâteau’, his endless trials to distort Newton’s findings a posteriori, until they fit his egomaniac lunar spin denial narrative.
Never and never will we ever see the Hunter boy backing up his superficial bullshit with a link to a scientific paper, let alone would he be able to do that by himself.
You are such an incompetent failure, Hunter boy.
ok so you dont want to be friendly. i was just noting that you were attributing newton to agree with the non-spinners and the spinners at the same time.
if you want to dispute that then make an argument for it instead of just getting mad and being a total jerk.
bill…” instead of just getting mad and being a total jerk”.
***
Binny can’t help it, he’s a frustrated German who speaks French. I’m trying to figure out if he’s a Frenchman passing himself off as German.
Come on, Bordon.
You have been ranting on this website for more than ten years.
Always the same monomaniacal crap.
What do you expect?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Bindidon,
Might be a misunderstanding here. Please check my understanding…
Optical libration (longitude, latitude, diurnal) provide the bulk of cause for the change of viewing angle, while physical libration results in a much smaller change in viewing angle from Earth, due to minor oscillations in the Moon’s axes due to gravitational pull from Earth and Sun.
The ‘illusion’ referring to the optical libration is the nodding and wagging of the Moon’s head. Obviously the Moon is not nodding and wagging, that is just how it appears to us. But it is no illusion that we are able to peek around more of the edges of the moon as it wobbles.
It seems that the contrarians are claiming libration doesn’t actually happen because they’ve read the word ‘illusion’, or ‘optical’, and tried to argue there is no physical mechanism going on, or that libration isn’t real.
“The actual rotation state has small periodic variations from this mean state caused by dynamical perturbations, and these cause the physical librations of the Moon’s orientation. In addition there are the much larger optical librations in its orientation as seen from the Earth, which are due to variations in the rate of the Moon’s orbital motion, and to the inclination of the Moon’s equator to its orbital plane.”
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA528116.pdf
Non-spinners read that and see that the optical librations are caused by orbit. Where is the mention of spin? It’s in the first sentence and assumed for the rest – we all know the explanation for libration of longitude. Non-spinners would handily neglect to see mention of the Moon’s axial rotation throughout that document.
I’ve been trying to point out that all the libration movements are well-observed from many different platforms, including those situated on or around the Moon, to counter this strange idea that these motions are illusory.
Do you think the contrarians mean something else when they say “Its an illusion”?
barry…”It seems that the contrarians are claiming libration doesnt actually happen because theyve read the word illusion, or optical, and tried to argue there is no physical mechanism going on, or that libration isnt real”.
***
That’s far from the message I have been posting and I don’t recall any other non-spinner claiming it.
I use illusion only in reference to the fact there is no physical rotation causing libration. I see libration as a view angle issue related to the Moon moving on a slightly elliptical orbit. There would be no libration on a purely circular orbit. Think that one through.
There is definitely something physical going on but it is related only to the orbit and has nothing to do with an alleged rotation of the Moon about a local axis.
barry kepler found that the energy value for an orbital rotation was constant during the entire rotation despite his acknowledgement that the angular velocity changes making the energy component of a rotation on a fixed external axis not be a linear value.
thus both the orbital motion and the conceptual spin on the local axis both held a constant value as if one does so must the other.
but later physical librations were discovered they all affect the angular velocity and angular momentum of both the orbital motion and the spin in equal and opposite amounts. the forced physical librations are resolved to zero in one rotation with angular momentum of the orbital rotation unchanged. the free physical librations cannot be predicted and can last for indefinite periods.
barry
That’s all OK – from my layman’s point of view, I’m no astronomer after all.
As you can see from the answers to your post, you have no chance of convincing any of these lunar spin deniers: they all believe in the superficial quickie written by their Tesla idol (who apparently had never read anything written by scientists like Kepler, Newton, Euler, Lagrange, Laplace etc etc).
They all know much better than any of them, recent science of course included.
Lots and lots of egomaniacal blah blah – zero connection to any scientific reference to look up.
*
Boring.
I think you pegged it Barry.
Bill, “barry kepler found that the energy value for an orbital rotation was constant”
Not energy, angular momentum, and that was Newton, but he explained Keplers elliptical orbit.
Again, we OBSERVE the Moon to be spinning at a constant rate on a tilted axis (during each orbit). While we observe that the Moon’s orbital angular velocity speeds up and slows down.
And the optical librations we see from Earth are a direct consequence of these motions of the Moon.
None of the excuses about physical libration (which are tiny), energy flows, angular momentum, or the influences of other bodies changes the Moon’s OBSERVED MOTION during each orbit.
Nate says:
Again, we OBSERVE the Moon to be spinning at a constant rate on a tilted axis (during each orbit). While we observe that the Moons orbital angular velocity speeds up and slows down.
None of the excuses about physical libration (which are tiny), energy flows, angular momentum, or the influences of other bodies changes the Moons OBSERVED MOTION during each orbit.
———————
Physical libration is the only real libration as any real libration will actually cause the moon to NOT spin at a constant rate.
The moon’s actual angular velocity changes by 100arcseconds per half orbit.
It is small but it completely destroys the myth that the moon spins at a constant angular velocity. Your eyes do deceive Nate the optical and parallax librations you see are mere changes in your frame of reference in viewing the moon from the earth. If you view it from a distant universe grid space those optical librations will diminish toward zero. The parallax librations will completely disappear the moment you stop moving with earth.
And the physical ones will not be affected
Of course the optical librations will still be there because of the elliptical motion of the moon’s COM relative to your fixed position in space both by lunar orbit and earth orbit of the sun but the further away you get the viewing angle change becomes smaller and smaller, demonstrating they aren’t real motions.
The only real motion of the moon that is called a physical libration and probably should not be called a libration at all because of confusion with the non-physical change in perspective provided by optical and parallax librations as it seems to have confused every spinner on this board into believing that the moon rotates on its own COM with constant angular velocity.
Fact is forced physical librations create a total of about 540 meters/orbitperiod of actual change of the surface position wrt the position would have had from constant angular velocity. Of course half that movement is a correction of the other half so from a perspective of the entire orbit there is no change from orbit to orbit. . . .but the same can be said about the angular velocity of the moon’s orbital motion.
So spinners cheat in their argument if they say that the moon has constant angular velocity they MUST also say the orbital motion of the moon also has constant angular velocity. But they like to CHEAT and attempt make meaningless points about non-motions and motions alike.
Hunter insists on displaying his ignorance of physics, writing:
The term “arc second” is a measure of change of orientation equal to 1/3600 degree. It’s not an angular velocity. Where does Hunter troll find this misinformation, we haven’t a clue.
Perhaps Hunter troll could provide a reference. Perhaps Hunter troll would agree that the Moon’s rotational axis is offset 1.5 degrees from it’s orbital axis. Perhaps Hunter troll would actually try to do some research and understand what this means compared with the plane motions depicted by grammie clone’s cartoons.
I made a mistake in my last post. Can Hunter troll (or grammie clone) find it?
E. Swanson says:
Hunter insists on displaying his ignorance of physics, writing:
The moons actual angular velocity changes by 100arcseconds per half orbit.
The term arc second is a measure of change of orientation equal to 1/3600 degree. Its not an angular velocity. Where does Hunter troll find this misinformation, we havent a clue.
———————
and you apparently fail to recognize that a half orbit is a unit of time. 100arcseconds per unit of time. Where did you learn your physics?
Swanson says:
Perhaps Hunter troll could provide a reference. Perhaps Hunter troll would agree that the Moons rotational axis is offset 1.5 degrees from its orbital axis.
———————–
No Swanson you messed this up also. The moon’s axis is tilted 1.54 degrees from the ecliptic. The ecliptic itself is off by 1.57 degrees from what is known as the invariable plane which is the mean plane of the 8 largest planets (apparently not including Pluto which affect the moon’s tilt along with the ecliptic) producing that influence on the mean attitude of the moon.
If you can find some right hand angular momentum in that tilt or you find some influence on the tilt from the orbital plane of the moon, be sure to let me know. If you find it you can actually make a physics case for your position rather than just reading about it in Holy Books written in who knows for sure what the language was of the day.
Yes, Hunter troll, I intended to write “1.5 degrees WRT the Earth’s orbital plane”. Sorry about that. But, you also wrote:
Hunter guy, the Moon’s axis is the axis thru it’s COM around which it rotates in inertial space, i.e., it’s real rotation. But Hunter insists that :
Now that you agree that the Moon rotates around an axis thru it’s COM, the angular momentum is simply that value of the rate of rotation (as a vector) multiplied by the Moon’s principal moment of inertia. I have no clue what you mean by “right hand angular momentum”. Perhaps you are still insisting that there is only one momentum, that of the orbital angular variety. No, the orbit around the elliptical trajectory is not solidly connected to the rotation of the free body.
Translation: Hunter’s hand waving physics still isn’t connected to any mathematical description.
E. Swanson says:
Yes, Hunter troll, I intended to write 1.5 degrees WRT the Earths orbital plane. Sorry about that. But, you also wrote:
The moons axis is tilted 1.54 degrees from the ecliptic.
——————–
You asked if I could spot your error. I did. Did I win anything?
E. Swanson says:
But Hunter insists that :
If you can find some right hand angular momentum in that tilt or you find some influence on the tilt from the orbital plane of the moon
Now that you agree that the Moon rotates around an axis thru its COM, the angular momentum is simply that value of the rate of rotation (as a vector) multiplied by the Moons principal moment of inertia. I have no clue what you mean by right hand angular momentum. Perhaps you are still insisting that there is only one momentum, that of the orbital angular variety. No, the orbit around the elliptical trajectory is not solidly connected to the rotation of the free body.
————————
I didn’t agree that the moon rotates on an axis through its COM. I agree that which axis the moon actually rotates on is in accordance with DREMTs proposition that depends upon how you view orbital motion without axial rotation as the MOTR or the MOTL. I agree with the MOTL model.
E. Swanson says:
Translation: Hunters hand waving physics still isnt connected to any mathematical description.
———————
Sure it is the basic energy of the rotation is the Σmvr of all the particles of the moon orbiting the COM of the earth. Your calculation only approximates the motion of the moon’s particles with its axis fixed in one spot in space and fails to account for physical librations which you can’t possibly know of unless you look outside of your narrow point of view.
The basis of my calculation are more comprehensive as it includes the motion of the moons particles around the COM of the earth and provides a foundation for estimating the movements from physical librations and to check those estimates using estimated movements obtained from observations.
However, still to account of all motions, attitudes, and precessions of the moon I would need to look outside that to the earth’s system motion around the sun and the motions of the other planets around the sun and I still would be coming up a bit short of estimating those.
You would have to follow the same path and more in that you would need to include the orbit/revolution/spin/rotation of the moon around the earth which is something I accounted for completely doing one rotation from my starting point.
You would probably make the stupendous error of trying to attribute motions to optical and parallax librations since you go on endless about all that as representing some kind of real motion.
= Lorb+Lspin = the total orbital angular momentum
Hunter troll continues to prove he’s in over his head:
If the Moon has an axis, around which it rotates, that axis passes thru it’s COM. You are still blowing smoke, as there’s no mathematical description except your conclusion that: “Lorb+Lspin = the total orbital angular momentum”, which is not in doubt as it is just a definition. Your problem is that you still haven’t shown a mathematical derivation which results in a single “rotation” axis for this combination.
And, your 100 arc seconds per half orbit may be an oscillation around the average rate of rotation. One half orbit is 180 degrees sidereal, while 100 arc seconds is 1/36 (0.0277) degree per half orbit, thus your oscillation represents 0.0277 / 180 = 0.000153 variation. But, since you’ve not specified where that idea came from, for all we know, it’s just more hand waving BS.
E. Swanson says:
If the Moon has an axis, around which it rotates, that axis passes thru its COM. You are still blowing smoke, as theres no mathematical description except your conclusion that: Lorb+Lspin = the total orbital angular momentum, which is not in doubt as it is just a definition. Your problem is that you still havent shown a mathematical derivation which results in a single rotation axis for this combination.
—————–
Now Swanson proves he has terrible reading comprehension.
I stated: ”Sure it is the basic energy of the rotation is the Σmvr of all the particles of the moon orbiting the COM of the earth. Your calculation only approximates the motion of the moons particles with its axis fixed in one spot in space and fails to account for physical librations which you cant possibly know of unless you look outside of your narrow point of view.”
the source I have given you several times but apparently you can’t comprehend that either.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
For a circular orbit its just ΣL=Σmvr of particles of the moon.
For an elliptical orbit the values per unit time need to be modified to
L = mvr sin θ
And of course Σmvr=Lorb+Lspin = the angular momentum of an orbiting object.
E. Swanson says:
”And, your 100 arc seconds per half orbit may be an oscillation around the average rate of rotation. One half orbit is 180 degrees sidereal, while 100 arc seconds is 1/36 (0.0277) degree per half orbit, thus your oscillation represents 0.0277 / 180 = 0.000153 variation. But, since youve not specified where that idea came from, for all we know, its just more hand waving BS.”
E. Swanson still doesn’t get it. ‘may be’ is the wrong expression Swanson. The corrected sentence is: ”and the ~100 arc seconds per half orbit is an oscillation around the average rate of rotation.”
Which BTW has effects on the constancy of both angular velocity and the angular momentum of the imagined rotation on the COM of the moon. But this effect has no effect on the rotation occurring on the COM of the earth because as we know gravitational braking is taken up as a slight adjustment to orbital radius. So the rotation in the framework of the MOTR being the correct answer is really the only one that has an error in it making DREMT right also about the choice one should take.
“Also called real libration, as opposed to the optical libration of longitudal, latitudal and diurnal types, the orientation of the Moon exhibits small oscillations of the pole direction in space and rotation about the pole.”
So physical libration are slight wobbles of the spin and spin axis direction.
Which requires a SPIN AXIS!
Yet another contradiction in the non-spinner narrative.
Hunter troll points to a post on the Hyperphysics site noting:
But, the angle is not defined in the attached cartoon. Not that it matters to the discussion of the Moon regarding your “Σmvr=Lorb+Lspin”, as the two terms have non-parallel axes. Thus, it is impossible to define a single external axis of rotation, a fact which you continue to ignore.
Hunter is also unwilling to provide a source for his comments regarding “100 arc seconds per half orbit” such that one find understanding of what motion he is addressing.
Now Nate joins Bindidon and goes stone cold numb while yet again misinterpreting the non-spinner position. Hey guys again for the umpteenth time yes the moon rotates!
Tim has already agreed that one can choose to perceive the rotation as being around the moon’s COM or the Earth’s COM but that doesn’t mean the moon doesn’t have a ‘pole’.
Again taken in by your perception like perceiving optical librations are a motion. The only libration that is a real motion is the one too small to see with the eye.
When you guys studied this stuff you must have just looked at the pictures.
“Hey guys again for the umpteenth time yes the moon rotates!”
“Tim has already agreed that one can choose to perceive the rotation as being around the moons COM or the Earths COM but that doesnt mean the moon doesnt have a pole.”
You guys have long denied that the Moon has SPIN, independent of its orbital motion.
You guys have long denied that it has an internal axis, which is defined by the SPIN on that axis. Related to this is denial of a Pole, where the axis pokes thru the Moon’s surface.
The poles of the Moon are observable and located on lunar maps. The line between them tilts at 6.7 degrees to the orbital axis. Thus the internal axis exists! And thus the Moon SPINS on this internal axis.
Nate just makes up stuff to complain about. It is obvious to me that the moon rotates around the earth. Nate instead looks for answers inside of his brain and ignores what he can see with his eyes.
“The moons actual angular velocity changes by 100arcseconds per half orbit.”
As I noted the physical librations are indeed TINY.
And why do we care?
A top is spinning on a table, and it has a slight wobble, it has precession, and its angular velocity is slowing.
Is it your view that these effects mean the top is NOT spinning?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1451583
Well anyway now that we know gravity accelerates the rotation of the moon by 100arcseconds in half an orbit then corrects it in the next half orbit.
What is the rate of acceleration of the rotation of the moon and how long would it take at that rate of acceleration to create a synchronized spin?
My brain is mush this morning and my physics being just a pass time these days prevents me from going through the exercise. Anybody?
Of course we have to ignore what difference in shape the moon might adopt during that first turn but it seems like a fun fact.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449696
“There would be no libration on a purely circular orbit. Think that one through.”
Assuming that this circular orbit therefore was at a constant speed and the Moon doesn’t spin?
Nope, there would be libration on a purely circular orbit if the orbital plane is off-centre from the ecliptic, which it is. We wouldn’t see the East/West libration, but we would see the North/South.
We would not see much libration, certainly not on the time scales we do, if the Moon’s orbital plane matched the ecliptic. But we would see some optical libration from the Earth’s rotation.
With a spinning Moon we would get libration from axial precession, too.
In these conditions we would see less of the Moon’s face than we do with the current configuration, but we’d still see some.
barry, please stop trolling.
bottom line is optical librations indicate a non-energy looseness of the forces that create the rotation. but to go so far as to say they are independent rotations goes to far since the same spin angular momentum exists in both rotations.
and while ignoring gravities role in the spin angular momentum and declare the spin angular momentum as constant is just wrong as it ignores gravities role in keeping the system in sync by varying the spin angular momentum while not affecting orbital rotation angular momentum that is defined as Lorb+Lspin. we know newton was aware of this that Lorb is the residual L after subtracting Lspin from the orbital rotation angular momentum. that is a pretty useful shortcut as opposed to trying to sum the orbital rotation angular momentum of all the particles of the moon.
Gill, Gill,
Optical phenomena have little to do with non-energy looseness, whatever you mean by that.
you are right wiilard. welcome again to the non-spinner club. everybody is welcome.
Try not to be ridiculous, Gill.
Optical libration only indicates that Moon Drafon cranks have come spraining to so, and dismissing the phenomena like Pup does is not it.
The autocorrect is drunk again.
Moon Dragon cranks have some splaining to do.
Seems to me its the spinners that have some explaining to do. What does the conservation of energy tell us about all of the moon’s librations?
Spinners have tried to make mileage off the differences in angular velocity that have no basis in an energy exchange. But the energy exchange that actually happens is earth’s gravity slows the moon’s rotation by about 100arcseconds per orbit and thus demonstrates the the orbital control over the moons rotation similar to the ball on the string analogy.
The same goes for the tipped axis. The same sort of librations occur there as the moon dips below and above the ecliptic on its orbital path and both those motions precess at the same rate.
Again the earth controls the libration by latitude as there exists an identical physical libration of 100arcseconds in commanding this libration as well showing its via the same mechanism as the earth controls longitudinal libration with the identical forces working on the moon.
The librations themselves are purely optical even though the cause of the two librations is different. . . .the tipped axis compared to the earths perpendicular orbital axis is done by other bodies in the solar system. The two body problem is resolved by the ecliptic and as I understand it the three body problem has never been solved. I gave it a shot a while back on a 3 body barycenter and gave up.
But solve these multi-body problems an you will have a complete explanation of tipped axes, IMHO, and it appears moon observers agree.
Spinners merely rely on coincidence for their point of view and handwave away the ‘control’ evidence of the earth’s influence.
Seems you guys heroes handwaved it away too and thus the blind lead the blind.
But in truth isn’t it more likely that your heroes weren’t blind? And it was like who interpreted the holy books who were the ones that were blind? I mean isn’t that how every myth starts?
thats language for you. Language changes due to politics and changes to belief systems. Today we are even questioning he and she.
Gill, Gill,
Libration is one thing. Angular velocity is another thing.
Geometry. Physics. Two different beasts.
Seems to me Hunter troll needs some more education. For example:
Please note that “arcseconds” is a measure of angle, not “rotational rate”, which might be affected by gravity. Continuing:
The visual appearance called Libration in Latitude is the result of the Moon’s equatorial inclination of 6.68 degrees WRT the Moon’s orbital plane.
See my comment.
Again and again, the Hunter boy’s endless, scienceless, egomaniacal blah blah.
No reference to anything really scientific backing up his 100% personal ‘ideas’.
Apparently, the Hunter boy is such a psychopath that he really thinks he knows everything better than Cassini, Kepler, Newton, Euler, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, and the hundreds of people who came after them till nowadays.
He wouldn’t be able to understand 0.01 % of Laplace’s system of differential equations describing the tides on Earth, let alone of those describing Moon’s spin!
But he endlessly boasts his pseudo-knowledge on this blog…
How ridiculous!
“Seems to me its the spinners..yada yada yada yada yada”
Good time to remind people what a Gish Gallop is.
“The Gish gallop /ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡləp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.
During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.”
E. Swanson says:
Seems to me Hunter troll needs some more education. For example:
earths gravity slows the moons rotation by about 100arcseconds per orbit
Please note that arcseconds is a measure of angle, not rotational rate, which might be affected by gravity. Continuing:
———————
i know what it is.
its an angular velocity. you have the time and the angle.
this effect doesnt change the rotation rate but varies the angular velocity. the orbit varies angular velocity much more greatly, but its incorrect to say the moons spin angular velocity is constant. if you can’t find a reference to that i will find you one.
Hunter troll wrote RE: “arcsecond”
Wrong again, troll guy:
https://planetfacts.org/arcsecond/
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ArcSecond.html
“bottom line is optical librations indicate a non-energy looseness of the forces that create the rotation.”
Good example of a specious, nonsensical argument here from Bill.
The only real issue is how the Moon is OBSERVED to be moving.
All the rest from Bill on energy, non-energy looseness, angular and linear momentum, spooky-action-at-a-distance, physical librations, gravity interactions with other bodies, are distractions with technical word salads.
They are all obfuscations that do nothing to address the observations of how the Moon moves.
nate…”Good time to remind people what a Gish Gallop is”.
***
What it is to me is a means of identifying trolls from the past who now post under another nym. Only one or two posters have ever made reference to a GG.
So you understand what ‘non-energy looseness of the forces’ means, Gordon?
Swanson, please stop trolling.
This 13° change in the imaginary spin axis has sure produced some desperate reactions. We now have barry, Swanson, ball4, bindidon, Nate, and willard spinning frantically to deny reality.
They’ve used librations, precession, and even taken Newton out-of-context, all in a effort to deny reality. Nothing works for them because they’re fighting against reality.
Earth’s REAL spin axis is a little over 23 degrees from the vertical to its orbital plane. Yet it points in the same direction on both sides of its orbit. That’s what a REAL spin axis does.
The cult doesn’t understand any of this. They don’t even understand the sources they find. Swanson can’t even make diagrams of Moon’s orbital motion that are accurate.
And none of the cult can answer the simple quiz questions correctly:
Question 1: How do we know the ball-on-a-string is NOT rotating on its CoM axis?
Question 2: What is at least one thing wrong in each of Swanson’s 3 diagrams?
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
I bet none of the cult idiots can answer correctly. Prove me wrong.
Pup, Pup,
The Moon reaches apsides about twice a month. When it does, something happens to its axis? What is it, and how is it related to what you just said about the Earth?
Here’s a hint – you just played yourself.
Well done!
True to form, worthless willard proves me right, again. He has no correct answers but has found some things on the Web he doesn’t understand.
I’ll add “apsides” to the long list of distractions.
And I won’t be responding to him anymore today.
Sockiest Pup,
The word “apsis” is the one you’re looking for when you are referring to “both sides of its orbit.”
You’d have to use a similar concept to describe the Pole Dance Experiment.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
grammie clone, the proof you suggest is missing has been nailed down over 2 centuries ago. For example, read the Introduction of Theory of the Libration of the Moon, Eckhardt, D. H., 1981.. The result is that the Moon’s axis of rotation is tilted as seen from the Earth (Figure 2), so one can not describe the Moon’s rotation as being around a single external axis.
More crap you found Swanson, but you can’t answer the simple questions.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Puppity Pup,
There is a quiz awaiting you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449694
grammie clone, Maybe that’s because you are pathologically unable ask a proper question.
Just as predicted Swanson, you can’t answer the simple questions.
grammie clone, Perhaps I could not answer your question since you did not specify what’s wrong. I think the lower panel is correct, so there was no need to comment.
swannie…the book by Eckhardt is basic mathematical rubbish. He provides no understanding of libration other than via a convoluted mathematical analysis.
Eckhardt is a geophysicist. He begins by an appeal to authority of Cassini’s Laws, the first of which states essentially that the Moon rotates once on its axis per orbital period. So, he has it embedded in his mind already that Cassini’s Laws are correct.
If Cassini had half a brain, he would have examined his ‘hypothesis’ and tried to prove it without presuming it was correct. For example, if he had tried to mechanically prove it by simply using two coins, he would have immediately seen problems with his theory.
I have advised people over and over to take two coins, one the Earth, the other the Moon, and try to perform exactly one revolution of the Moon coin while keeping the same side of it pointed to the Earth coin at each point of motion. It is simply not possible to do it.
I even explained why it won’t work. First, try it on a straight surface. Sit the Moon coin on edge and try to move it along a flat surface while keeping the same face touching the surface. The only way to do that is to ‘slide’ the coin between A and B.
If you roll it, mimicking rotation on a local axis, the part touching the surface must rotate through 360 degrees and the part touching the surface immediately leaves the surface. By half-revolution it is pointed away from the surface.
It’s no different on a curved surface, even a circle. The only way to do a full orbit with the Moon coin, while keeping a marked edge facing the Earth coin centre, is to slide it incrementally, adjust it, and repeat. By adjusting it you are compensating for the real motion of the Moon.
Remember, the Moon is moving with a linear motion that is deviated slightly out of its way every so often by the gravitational field. By adjusting it, you are re-creating that motion.
” He begins by an appeal to authority of Cassinis Laws, the first of which states essentially that the Moon rotates once on its axis per orbital period. So, he has it embedded in his mind already that Cassinis Laws are correct.”
Gordon, you are confused here. Cassini’s laws are EMPIRICAL laws. Meaning they are simply summing up what is OBSERVED to be the motion of the Moon wrt the stars.
Astronomer’s like Cassini were all about finding the true motions of bodies wrt the inertial frame of the stars, by accounting for the motion of the Earth. Cassini know how to do that.
Cassini’s “observations” were based on his imagination. He was imagining something that isn’t happening. We now know he was wrong, but cults reject reality.
“We now know he was wrong”
And ‘we’ is the Cult of Morons. And whatever science they don’t get, which is most, they just declare it wrong.
“I have advised people over and over to take two coins, one the Earth, the other the Moon, and try to perform exactly one revolution of the Moon coin while keeping the same side of it pointed to the Earth coin at each point of motion. It is simply not possible to do it.”
Nothing difficult about that Gordon.
Using quarters, with George Washington on the Moon quarter initially looking at the Earth quarter and (in the room frame) East, we can simply ask him which direction he looked as he orbits the Earth quarter.
He will say he saw always saw the Earth, but he was looking East, then North, then West, then South, and finally East again, in the room frame of reference.
He will say he made one full rotation.
“If you roll it, mimicking rotation on a local axis, the part touching the surface must rotate through 360 degrees and the part touching the surface immediately leaves the surface.”
A vector from the center of the stationary coin to the contact point is like a spoke on a rotating wheel.
Any motion relative to this spoke, which is what we are talking about here, is motion referenced to a ROTATING frame of reference.
Gordon, the video, and perhaps Gumpach, are thus using a rotating frame of reference to decide if an object is rotating on its local axis!
Whereas, Astronomers and Spinners are always referring to the inertial reference frame to decide if an object has rotation, whether axial or not.
People who insist that reference frames don’t matter are proving otherwise by this line of argument.
“I even explained why it won’t work. First, try it on a straight surface. Sit the Moon coin on edge and try to move it along a flat surface while keeping the same face touching the surface. The only way to do that is to ‘slide’ the coin between A and B.
If you roll it, mimicking rotation on a local axis, the part touching the surface must rotate through 360 degrees and the part touching the surface immediately leaves the surface. By half-revolution it is pointed away from the surface.”
Exactly, Gordon. There is a section in Johannes von Gumpach’s book explaining the same thing, only using the example of a wheel. He first has it sliding along a flat surface, keeping the same point of the wheel always in contact with the surface. Then he has it sliding along a surface which curves back and forth at various points, again always keeping the same point of the wheel in contact with the surface. The wheel’s orientation changes as it is going around the curves but since the same point of the wheel is always in contact with the surface the wheel cannot be rotating on its own axis. It is only rotating if the part touching the surface loses contact with the surface.
He then completes the demonstration with the wheel moving around a larger circular object. This is exactly like your two coins. If the smaller coin slides around the bigger coin, always keeping the same point of the smaller coin in contact with the surface of the bigger coin, then the smaller coin moves like the MOTL, and it is not rotating on its own axis. For the smaller coin to rotate on its own axis, the point of the smaller coin in contact with the bigger coin must leave the bigger coin’s surface. Then you would be rolling the smaller coin around the bigger coin. As long as the smaller coin is always sliding, and not rolling, around the bigger coin, then it is not rotating on its own axis, and it moves as per the MOTL.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1450373
So, just to reiterate, as long as the smaller coin is always sliding, and not rolling, around the bigger coin, then it is not rotating on its own axis, and it moves as per the MOTL. Note that it has nothing to do with reference frames, it is a question of whether the smaller coin is sliding or rolling.
Rolling a disk all the way around the surface of a disk produces two rotations of the body wrt the room (the inertial frame)
Anyone calling this ONE rotation must be using a rotating reference frame to determine that, even if they are unaware that they are doing so.
Note that it has nothing to do with reference frames, it is a question of whether the smaller coin is sliding or rolling.
” it is a question of whether the smaller coin is sliding or rolling.”
Motion is motion. Mechanical mechanism for a motion is different topic.
“The wheels orientation changes as it is going around the curves but since the same point of the wheel is always in contact with the surface the wheel cannot be rotating on its own axis.”
So the wheel’s orientation changes, but somehow, some way, that is NOT a rotation?
Or is it a rotation around some other axis? Where would that be?
…that it has nothing to do with reference frames, it is a question of whether the smaller coin is sliding or rolling.
Repetition, the tell that he has no answers..
…it has nothing to do with reference frames, it is a question of whether the smaller coin is sliding or rolling.
“here is a section in Johannes von Gumpachs book explaining the same thing, only using the example of a wheel.”
And he made the point that the contact friction between the wheel and the surface, that causes the wheel to rotate, is not relevant to planetary motion.
…has nothing to do with reference frames, it is a question of whether the smaller coin is sliding or rolling.
“Remember, the Moon is moving with a linear motion that is deviated slightly out of its way every so often by the gravitational field. By adjusting it, you are re-creating that motion.”
And AGAIN, Gordon and others here are making an erroneous assumption that gravity applies torque on bodies as they enter an orbit, causing their orientation to change.
Newton solved the two body problem to determine the effect of gravity on another body and found Orbital Motion. It is a motion of body where its COM follows and elliptical path around the other body. He found NO effect on the orientation of bodies.
That is why orientation, and rotation of bodies in Orbit are treated as entirely independent motions, that are not, in general, a consequence of gravity acting on spherical body.
“Remember, the Moon is moving with a linear motion that is deviated slightly out of its way every so often by the gravitational field. By adjusting it, you are re-creating that motion.”
Yes, and that’s not gravity applying a torque to the moon.
And if gravity is not applying a torque, then the body will not acquire any rotation that it did already have, according to Newton’s First Law.
Arrggh
will not acquire any rotation that it did not already have
…and that’s not gravity applying a torque to the moon.
So we agree that going into orbit doesnt cause rotation, and gravity doesnt cause a rotation. So Orbits are not rotations.
…that’s not gravity applying a torque to the moon.
It’s interesting to see that all lunar spin deniers deny the simple fact that Moon’s spin has, as opposed to its orbit, few to do with whichever force exerted by Earth and/or Sun.
This spin is very certainly due to the fact that all celestial bodies born in an accretion disk not only orbit about the ‘center’ of the accretion disk but start spinning within it as well.
A good description of this is in
Origin of the Moon: Dynamical Considerations
MacDonald, G. J. F. (1966)
https://tinyurl.com/yc6877f2
I posted this link years ago already. No one will wonder that this paper was heavily discredited, e.g. by Pseudoengineer Robertson and by the Clint R troll.
The latter decided quite simply that angular momentum transfer between two celestial bodies is not possible, as these are physically separated.
Any scientific source supporting such a nonsensical allegation? Ha! Trolls don’t need any evidence for their claims, let alone the Clint R troll!
*
More about spin-orbit coupling in a further post shortly describing the analogy between gravity and electromagnetism, explained by a specialist in experimental physics.
This was posted years ago as well, and led of course to the same, poorish reactions from the Pseudoengineer.
Sorry Bin, but your insults and false accusations make YOU the troll.
But, I will say you’re better at trolling than you are at science. Each to his own, huh?
Troll Clint R
Sorry, but…
1. You are the one who insults me with your ‘braindead cult idiot’.
2. You never have presented any valuable contradiction to what I post; only your stupid
– ‘ball-on-a-string’ and similar ‘OMWAR’ blah blah
and
– even worse, your ridiculous distorting of the lunar spin axis inclination.
Whom could you ever convince with your scienceless trash, except your friends in denial: Robertson, Flynnson, the Pseudomod, the Hunter boy and a few invisible, gullible followers?
Whom, troll Clint R?
This has been explained to you before, Bin. You’re a cult idiot because you swallow everything your cult puts out, without questioning. If someone tries to explain things to you, you reject any learning. Worse, you reject reality.
Now, you’re a troll, in addition to being a braindead cult idiot.
At least you’re good at it.
The accretion disk theory is about as bad as the Big Bang theory or the theory that the Moon was blown off the Earth and formed into a nice sphere. Why can’t astronomers admit they don’t know and offer their theories as hypotheses for possible causes?
The accretion theory is literally full of holes. If you look at the solar system it has most of the planets orbiting along a disk like the rings of Saturn. The inner 4 planets are made of solids like rock while the next 4 outer planets are made of frozen gas and two are many times the size of the Earth, which is about the largest of the inner planets.
Then there Pluto and a ring of debris somewhere in the middle rings that did not form a sphere for some strange reason.
If the Sun did shrink, why is the debris not in concentric layers rather in a disk. And since the Sun is made mostly of hydrogen and helium, why the diversity in the structures of the planets and why are the outer planets gas-based and the inner planets solids?
Next, why would rings of debris form into perfect spheres and by what process would that happen? Where are the forces to form the spheres? I am not going to read the book to find out because I don’t read fiction.
“I am not going to read the book”
And there we have the most anti-science statement in the entire thread. Don’t bother Gordon with facts and theories. Don’t bother him with clear explanations that can be found in any astronomy textbook that a high schooler could understand.
Any science beyond his comfort zone is simply and conveniently dismissed as fiction so his brain doesn’t have to deal with difficult thoughts.
I changed my mind, before seeing your shot, and read part way into it. Found an argument against an initial claim and have expounded on it i a later post.
The author is a geologist and he write like one. He claims a tidal friction between Earth and Moon is slowing the Earth and speeding up the Moon. He did not explain how the friction worked and I think, like many others, he simply presumed there is a friction somewhere.
He claims the Moon is speeding up, being dragged along by Earth’s tidal forces. No proof…nothing.
“I think, like many others, he simply presumed there is a friction somewhere.”
I think, like many others, you simply presume there is no evidence for things you don’t want to understand. Why not read further, instead of ‘presuming’ every scientists is wrong and you alone are right?
Off the top of my head:
* Tidal friction is easily explained, and there is no need to repeat basic knowledge in every paper or text book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration
* Laser measurements of the moon show the orbit is getting larger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
* Records of ancient eclipses show the rotation of earth and moon are changing.
https://www.science.org/content/article/ancient-eclipses-show-earth-s-rotation-slowing
Faukerts, did you find some more links you can’t understand? If you think you understand them, are you ready for a quiz on the subjects?
Finding links you can’t understand ain’t science. It’s trolling, bordering on fraud.
We know Clint for sure doesnt understand the links, nor does he think supporting his own claims with sources is really necessary. When you make up your own science there are no sources.
Take the quiz, troll Nate.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449686
Faukerts, why are you taking Gordon out-on-context?
Here are his exact words: “I am not going to read the book to find out because I don’t read fiction.”
You left out the last part — “… because I don’t read fiction.”
Why do you attempt such blatant misrepresentation?
Clint, nothing is out of context.
Even without reading, Gordon ALREADY dismissed every text on the subject as fiction. A scientist or scholar would read at least one book and point out errors, rather than simply assuming some unknown problem must exist. How can a person claim that the ‘content is imagined and is not necessarily based on fact’ without even knowing the content to begin with???
Wrong fraudkerts, I showed how you took Gordon out-of-context.
Your denial of reality is noted.
Anybody who cared could move their eyes a few lines up to see the full sentence in Gordon’s post.
Some people need to constantly feed their grievances.
That’s exactly what I did, Nate. That’s how I noticed Folkerts’ misrepresentation.
We already knew you were a flake, and now we know you are a snowflake.
Nate, I remembered to include you this time, so don’t let us down. Show us how much you understand about this issue.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449686
Here’s your chance!
bill h…”What is the rate of acceleration of the rotation of the moon and how long would it take at that rate of acceleration to create a synchronized spin?
My brain is mush this morning and my physics being just a pass time these days prevents me from going through the exercise. Anybody?”
***
I am likely taking you out of context since I have not read right through the thread. My purpose in replying is to illustrate the scope of such accelerations given the distance of the Moon from the Earth.
I’ll combine this answer with one to a link posted by Binny re MacDonald and his paper on the Moon. In the early writing, MacDonald claims…”It has been known that, as a result of tides raised by the Moon on the Earth, angular momentum is transferred from Earth’s rotation into the Moon’s orbital motion”.
That was written by a geologist, not a physicist.
I don’t have a concrete answer to your question or to MacDonald’s assertion, however, I think we need to be careful when applying terrestrial physics to a problem like the Earth-Moon system.
Normally, we use f = ma = mg, where g is about 9.8 m/s^2. At the distance of the Moon, due to the inverse-square law, g is reduced to about 0.003 m/s^2. With a mass the size of the Moon, we have to ask what that means with regard to acceleration.
Also, we have to question the concept of angular momentum. The Moon has only a linear momentum with no native momentum in the orbital direction.
If you draw a radial line from Earth’s centre to Moon’s centre, that represents a vector quantity of the acceleration, which is about 0.003 m/s^2. If we break that into components we have the radial component and the tangential component, which acts against the Moon in one part of the orbit and with it in the other part.
We know the angle of libration at the intersection of the semi-major axis and the orbital path to be about 5 degrees with the main vector. So, the radial component takes the sine of the angle while the tangential component takes the cosine.
radial = 0.003 m/s^2(sin 5 degrees) = 0.087 (0.003 m/s^2) = 0.00026 m/s^2.
Just enough to pull the Moon’s linear velocity off a straight line course.
tangential = 0.003 m/s^2(cos 5 degrees) = 0.996 (0.003 m/s^2) = 0.0029 m/s^2.
The tangential is a deceleration in one half the orbit and an acceleration in the other half. However, we need to look at the magnitude, is 0.003 m/s^2 significant in the first place for the entire gravitational pull? It is obviously enough to move the Moon 5 metres vertically over 8000 metres to maintain an orbit, but how much can it affect the Moon’s natural linear velocity?
I have always regarded angular momentum as the property of a solid. In fact, wiki refers to angular momentum with regard to the motion of bodies like the Moon as a pseudo-vector quantity. In other words, it does not act like the angular momentum in a solid, spinning object.
How could it? All particles in a rotating body are forced to move along curved paths but the Moon can only move, under its own linear momentum along a straight line. One can argue that gravity forces the Moon into a curved path but I can’t see that as true angular momentum.
We might argue that the system has an angular momentum but what does that mean?
With regard to the author of Binny’s book, he thinks tidal forces produce a friction which affects the angular momentum of the Earth and the Moon. However, to change the angular momentum of a rotating body we have to change its tangential velocity. The idea that the rotation of the Earth, with a vertical accelerating effect of 0.003 m/s^2 on the Moon can create a drag or accelerating force on the Moon strikes me as ridiculous.
gordon says:
Also, we have to question the concept of angular momentum. The Moon has only a linear momentum with no native momentum in the orbital direction.
—————-
thats only the case when you strip out the spin angular momentum and view the residual. when you strip out the spin as a second motion you have committed to the motr being the example of orbital motion without spin on the local axis.
if you commit to the motl as orbital motion without local axial spin then orbital motion is equal to sum of mvr for all the particles of the moon and as newton says that also equals Lorb+Lspin.
so if you choose the motr you are denying orbital motion is a rotation. you can only call orbital motion a rotation if you chose the motl as being orbital motion without local axial spin.
dremts logic is solid as a rock when he says you can choose to look at it two different ways.
the spinners here simply don’t want to consider the idea that the motl is a legitimate way to consider the moon’s motion even though the distinction between the two choices is trivial and results in absolutely nothing but a stupid argument. thats why it is so much fun to tweak the spinners noses and its a great psychological study of the loyalties these guys develop. its akin to bible thumping and they take great offense to supposedly questioning there heroes. thats why i think if newton was alive being the visionary and great mathematician he was he would say dremt is of coarse right. . . .you can make your choice and it results in nothing different other than a choice of calling a rotation on an exterior axis as being either one motion (a rotation on an external axis) or two motions (a spin on a local axis plus a curvilinear translation). this is not difficult logic by any stretch of the imagination.
bill…”orbital motion is equal to sum of mvr for all the particles of the moon and as newton says that also equals Lorb+Lspin”.
***
Did Newton actually say that? I am no expert on Principia, having read only parts. Newton was breaking scientific ground back then, he actually defined ‘mass’ and went into detail on it, trying to stay away from defining it as weight in a gravitational field. I think he was trying to introduce the idea of inertia, that a body’s resistance to motion was related to it mass outside of a gravitational field.
My argument is that true angular motion requires a rigid body. I say that, because no particle will follow a curve naturally, requiring some kind of force field or mechanical guide to guide it into a curved path.
I think that’s why we differentiate between linear and curvilinear momentum. Straight momentum is about a body/particle moving in a straight line and angular momentum about either moving along a curve.
If a body like the Moon is moving on a curve under gravity, and gravity is turned off its linear velocity carries it off in a straight line. I regard that as proof that the body has no angular momentum of its on.
Of course, there’s no harm in analyzing a system as if it does have angular momentum. For example, the Earth has both Lorb and Lspin. I just can’t see that applied to the lunar orbit, even though I can’t see the problem with treating it as if it had true angular momentum.
With an electron orbiting a nucleus, there are charges in either of opposite sign, and if the theory is correct, the electron is held in orbit by the electrostatic forces and the electron momentum.
Gordon says:
If a body like the Moon is moving on a curve under gravity, and gravity is turned off its linear velocity carries it off in a straight line. I regard that as proof that the body has no angular momentum of its on.
———————
I think you are right if you turned off gravity. But nobody has figured how to do that. Its part and parcel with our universe every bit as much as what keep electrons orbiting (though I have studied really nothing regarding the forces of the very small)
I made the same mistake you are making just this week even though I knew better.
I was talking about a disintegrating CD and said the parts were flying off in a straight line. . . .wrong! What I had done rather than think a moment about it and search my memory was I put a ruler on the screen and the parts appeared to be flying in a straight line. But what they were doing was flying a trajectory with gravity bending their path. It just appeared to be straight.
Gravity is ubiquitous If the earth disappears the moon will be rotating around something else and included in this much larger angular momentum the small amount of going around the earth will be retained because if we blow earth to smithereens the dust has gravity and that gravity will be affecting everything in the universe, perhaps not measurably but in theory.
And since the energy of AM is linear momentum times the radius of the rotation, it its rotating around a distant star that one heckuva lot of AM.
Thats an indication that everything has one heckuva a lot of angular momentum. The powers of the universe are beyond comprehension. All we are learning to do is deal with 2 body problems.
The entire system to support conservation of AM has to be incredibly complex and all we can deal with are well defined motions. And among well defined motions are orbits.
Just coming up with the revelation that an object traveling an orbital path is rotating takes a mental effort. Newton obviously had a steel trap as a mind and could have been an incredible chess player as playing good chess is being able to see multiple lines of play nearly simultaneously.
So I have difficulty thinking Newton thought any thing like the spinners in here who see one line of play and bite on it exercising the amount of gray matter possessed by an alligator biting down on a baby pig.
And why likely they do this? Its the form of the equation LorbLspin gives you a certain line of play that adopts the MOTR as the only line of play and is already laid out as possibly being 2 motions. . . .when what it really is is a brilliant rearrangement of the terms of sum of mvr of all the particles of the moon that doesn’t require a higher level of math to compute.
The simple math example shows it is complex math (required of a sphere) broken down into two simple concepts. Nate says ignore the math. I assume what he really means is pay attention to the form of the equation . . . .that guides us he as much says.
But DREMT points out that MOTL is an equally viable line of play. But the spinners won’t accept that because in their mind the ‘form’ of this is set in stone as two separate motions. . . .which arises from the Lorb motion and the Lspin motion. And damned if Newton didn’t tell us in his Principia. All I see him doing is describing the MOTR that his simplified equation implies. There is no discussion regarding the possibility of arranging the term differently at all. Yet the spinners are certain that is what he was implying.
Their entire real world essentially revolves around what their daddy told them like a bible thumper talking about Jonah getting swallowed by a whale. No difference. The difference is entirely an illusion in their minds. An illusion built, taught, and reinforced by homework.
No viable alternatives need apply because for them language and symbolism is the real reality. They do the same thing on climate change, spewing what their daddy told them but never being able to actually explain it in detail. Its far worse there. There is no comprehensive set of tested equations. So really they don’t need an equation at all. All they needed was for the Newton translation said the moon revolves on its axis. Of course the translators knowing words have synonyms would insert spin or rotate either randomly or to reinforce what their opinion was of what Newton meant.
Sorry folks Newton was a great mathematician and thinker but he really didn’t lay down a course in philosophy on his way. Philosophy is essentially a discipline where words and other concepts are exercised to their extremes. Like how democrats exercise extremes in reading between the lines of a Trump statement.
Universities have become mills pumping out employable specialists folks who will unquestionably simply produce output for some producer or they teach to become part of the assembly line like Pink Floyds Another Brick in the Wall.
“But what they were doing was flying a trajectory with gravity bending their path. It just appeared to be straight.”
Bill your eyes were not lying. The paths WERE straight. Because gravity was not relevant (perpendicular to the plane of motion).
And you forgot to mention that all the parts were flying off spinning!
Hunter troll is up early this AM, dumping another batch of nonsense on the blog. He writes:
Hunter troll continues to ignore the facts of the Moon’s rotation around it’s axis, which have been thoroughly measured and investigated since Newton. He refuses to accept the fact that the Moon rotates around an axis tilted 1.543 degrees WRT the Earth’s orbital axis. He insists that his summation of Lorb +Lspin proves something, but he can’t prove it. His dismissal of the science is profound and he keeps doubling down with each post.
Swanson continues to have an embolism over semantics and just ignores the physics.
DREMTs proposition is that the moon’s rotation is dependent upon how you wish to view orbital motion.
Is orbital motion without axial rotation like the MOTL or the MOTR.
Non-spinners choose to view it as the MOTL and really don’t care much about how spinners want to view it, mostly wanting the politically-correct police force the spinners sent in to this forum to politically straight out the inhabitants to simply just leave them alone.
So where is the answer about this entire conundrum to be found?
Well lets look to Isaac Newton, the purported guiding light of moon exploration. What exactly did Newton want us to think of what Lorb + Lspin represents?????
Well the answer to that might be a bit controversial as perhaps Newton didn’t carefully specify it to the satisfaction of the politically=correct semantics police force and as such they have been running around issuing citations to anybody who uses what they see to be BAD BAD BAD BAD language. . . .like they do when they call a male a he. Or a he a male. Of course we don’t know which is which or what they want us to call a he or a male. All very confusing. Havelock Ellis on steroids.
Non-spinners think Lorb + Lspin equals the angular momentum of an object in rotation around another object. I have no idea like the he versus male thing, or he vs she, or male vs she, or he vs female, or the she vs female, or the male vs female conumdrum; what exactly the think we should call Lorb + Lspin or if Newton or one of his successors ever coined a word for what it is.
Maybe one of the politically-correct police supervisors could straighten that out for us along with all those other silly things they are going on about.
Hunter troll rambles around a logical maze, including some gender confusion. His basic point seems to be:
Hunter troll continues playing semantic games while ignoring the facts. These are,
1. the Moon’s orbit is not circular and
2. it’s rotation axis WRT the stars is not parallel to the orbit’s axis.
Hunter troll still doesn’t understand that a body’s rotation (and it’s angular momentum) must be defined in an inertially fixed coordinate system. Among other reasons, the angular momentum is a vector quantity and that vector is parallel to that calculated in any other inertial reference frame. That fact results from conservation of angular momentum.
Orbital angular momentum (Lorb) must also be defined using an inertial reference frame, as the motion results from the effects of gravity on a free body moving in orbit thru space with some instantaneous velocity and radius from the first focal point. While Lorb is approximately constant, it also a vector quantity subject to other gravitational influences, not simply a scalar, flies over Hunter’s head.
Of course, Hunter troll has never been able to show that his musings prove that the Moon rotates around a single external axis. He simply repeats his mantras and adds in lots of extraneous word salad for no purpose.
Swanson, “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL. What you people are trying to do is use one reference frame with the origin through the Earth and coordinate axes oriented towards distant fixed stars and say, “OK, the moon has this much orbital angular momentum”. Call that RF 1. Then you guys want to switch to a different reference frame, where the origin goes through the moon, and the coordinate axes remain oriented towards distant fixed stars (call this RF 2), then you say, “OK, the moon has this much spin angular momentum”.
The problem is, you are mixing reference frames. In RF 1 you are calculating the orbital angular momentum but there is no spin angular momentum since the MOTL is “rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”. Then you artificially add to that a spin angular momentum calculated from RF 2 where the MOTL does appear to be rotating on its own internal axis. You add that in and come to the conclusion that the MOTL has both orbital and spin angular momentum when this is not the case.
Swanson continues to be non-responsive. What do you call Lorb + Lspin? What is it equal to? What did Newton say it was equal to? with Newton sources of course.
Hunter troll continues to ignore the fact that the Moon’s axis rotates around a tilted axis WRT the orbital plane. When he asks “what do you call Lspin?”. I would answer that Lspin is the vector defined as Moment of Inertia x Angular Velocity with the angular velocity measured in an inertial reference frame. That vector has a direction, which Hunter (and grammie clone) continue to ignore (or dismiss). The same is true for the vector Lorb, which also has a direction. Those directions are not parallel, so there’s no way to combine them into a rotation around a single axis, IMHO. Neither Hunter or grammie clone have presented any math which shows this to be possible for an elliptical orbit.
“I would answer that Lspin is the vector defined as Moment of Inertia x Angular Velocity with the angular velocity measured in an inertial reference frame“
In RF 2, though, that’s the thing.
RF2? That argument won’t work by DREMT unless DREMT takes back his wrongly written: “anyone saying the issue comes down to the frame of reference would still be wrong.”
No contradiction, Ball4. Those, like you, who think that the moon rotates on its own axis wrt an inertial reference frame, and does not rotate on its own axis wrt a rotating reference frame…are wrong. That is what I mean by “anyone saying the issue comes down to the frame of reference would still be wrong”. That doesn’t mean “Spinners” don’t make other mistakes re reference frames which can be discussed, as I’m now doing.
“anyone saying the issue comes down to the frame of reference would still be wrong.”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter troll continues to ignore the fact that the Moons axis rotates around a tilted axis WRT the orbital plane. When he asks ”what do you call Lspin?”. I would answer that Lspin is the vector defined as Moment of Inertia x Angular Velocity with the angular velocity measured in an inertial reference frame. That vector has a direction, which Hunter (and grammie clone) continue to ignore (or dismiss). The same is true for the vector Lorb, which also has a direction. Those directions are not parallel, so theres no way to combine them into a rotation around a single axis, IMHO. Neither Hunter or grammie clone have presented any math which shows this to be possible for an elliptical orbit.”
Swanson continues to refuse to say what Newton named the quantity that Lorb + Lspin was equal to. That is the only relevant issue to this discussion about which axis the moon currently rotates about.
As we know from science angular momentum is freely exchanged between orbits and axial spin. Thus is the sum of Lorb+Lspin termed by Newton as a) the angular momentums of the moon/uniform sphere; 2) or is it termed as angular momentum of the moon/uniform sphere.
Depending upon whether his quantity is singular or plural will determine if Newton actually thought Lorb was an independent angular momentum.
So all this other discussion about how orbit energy gets transferred to spin is already well known. What the issue is where it is in terms of a full rotation.
So stop evading the most important issue with regards to Newton’s thinking on this since we cannot now question him. His thoughts are almost certainly revealed somewhere within what he wrote.
Of course though what Newton thought is kind of a side discussion as appeals to authority is a fallacy. Truth needs verification of no mistake by authority on the issue. There are those who have been suggesting non-spinners are some how fouling the legacy of Newton but they haven’t even yet made a case that Newton supports their position. Here is your big chance to do so don’t miss it!
“thats why it is so much fun to tweak the spinners noses and its a great psychological study of the loyalties these guys develop. its akin to bible thumping and they take great offense to supposedly questioning there heroes.”
So that’s what you’re doing. Tweaking noses by presenting an alternative which you deem to be valid. Wearing the mantle of reasonableness you can then pass judgement on the intractibility of the spinners.
Were you actually neutral you would point out that this ‘flaw’ is also present among the spinners. Clint’s take, for example, permits no second option, and is quite waspish in his denigration of the spinners. Robertson likewise thinks the spinner view completely invalid.
I don’t mind anyone questioning the experts cited here, and I won’t hold back if I think a piss-poor job has been done with that. DREMT has come closest to accepting that Newton is a spinner, but he just can’t quite accept the obvious. It’s the complete denial of what they say (by Clint and Robertson particularly) that is less tolerable. I spent a considerable time translating Newton’s Latin in a fair-minded response to calls of ‘bad translators’ from Gordon, and 2 requests from Clint to provide a translation.
Clint had one shot at misinterpreting Newton, and when I reasonably rebutted it he resorted to name-calling. Gordon simply rejected Newton’s words.
So come down off that high horse. I’ll get you a box.
barry, what you don’t seem to understand is that you can’t compromise with reality. There is NO “second option” to reality. Trying to compromise, ie alter reality, ain’t science.
When your cult is proven wrong, you want to seek some middle ground. Folkerts does this all the time. The purpose is to meet in the middle, then next time move to a new middle between the old middle and your cult science. The “compromise” continues until everyone is in your cult. That ain’t science.
You have no interest in reality. I saw that clearly with your attempted distraction using “view factor”. That had NOTHING to do with the issue. Fluxes ARRIVING at a surface are not affected by view factor. You either don’t understand the physics, or you dont want to understand.
You are now claiming that Newton was/is a Spinner. That’s completely, 100%, WRONG. Newton is the one that discovered how an orbiting body, with no axial rotation, would always keep one side facing the inside of its orbit. His proof is in his work. I offered to show it to Bindidon, if he would stop commenting here for a short time. He refused. Trolling is more important to him than learning science. That’s the same for you and all your cult.
You hint that you want to “wear the mantle of reasonableness”, but you won’t address the simple questions:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449686
Well that is a reasonable reply. We can rank the spinners and non-spinners who are intolerant of the other view point as the extreme viewpoint.
How ever like ‘leaning’ left of right in politics denotes a willingness to listen to the other point of view. Of course extremism breeds extremism naturally because people are like any animal and will act defensively when attacked.
DREMT and I both prefer the non-spinner position because it is the only position that recognizes an orbit as a rotation. This IMV an all encompassing point of view. DREMT drew my attention to the fact that the Spinner view is simply another way of looking at the situation. Then I did the math and found out that was correct. The math doesn’t lie. Lorb+Lspin is just a rearrangement of the terms of the equation Σmvr. And we all should know that when we properly rearrange the terms of an equation we can put an equal sign between the original and the rearranged equation. Would Newton have missed that? Not hardly IMO.
Hunter troll wrote:
Sorry troll, your “math” starts by assuming rotation around a central axis. That assumption does not apply to the real Moon which has an elliptical orbit and a rotation axis tilted WRT the orbital axis.
Swanson rather than spreading the same spew all over the carpet please choose to respond in one place.
Here is a suggestion:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1450408
Lets start by agreeing on a few words. . . .of course how you see them and why.
I agree with you Gordon. Moon has zero angular momentum. It has zero orbital angular momentum and it has zero spin angular momentum. It does have LINEAR momentum.
And, gravity cannot transfer either torque or angular momentum to Moon. You could magically speed up Earth’s spin, or slow it down, and Moon would not be affected at all.
Yeah…it’s a complex situation that I don’t pretend to fully understand and I appreciate the words of support. As I pointed out to Bill below, the angular part refers to a rotating radial line, specifically to the angle it makes with the x- or y-axis. So angular velocity becomes a change in the position of that line and acceleration a change in its velocity. Therefore, angular momentum is a reference to the mass times the angular velocity.
I understand the meaning if the radial line is solid and connected to an orbiting sphere. Then the radial line as well as the sphere has mass. However, in the case of the Moon, all we have is an imaginary radial line with no mass.
As you claim, the Moon has only linear velocity and momentum. I don’t se how that linear momentum can be converted to a ‘true’ angular momentum simply through redirection by gravity. I don’t see a problem if someone wants to treat the system as having a pseudo-angular momentum although I don’t get the point of that.
We do that with the Coriolis effect. A Coriolis force is a pseudo-force that does not exist. However, the action of an object thrown from a rotating body moves, to the human eye, ‘as if’ there is a force acting on it, even though the apparent arc of the object is an illusion.
The human mind is truly an amazing device, Despite its problems with illusion, it still has the ability, in some cases, to see past the illusions.
Inertially wrong Gordon, since if the Moon had only linear velocity and linear momentum then it would fly off into deep space. Actually there exists lunar curvilinear momentum changing instantaneously wrt Earth since radius R wrt Earth instantaneously changes in the lunar elliptical orbit.
Since there exists lunar angular momentum about both its own axis (radius r) AND about an axis (radius R) wrt Earth, there are lunar sunsets and sunrises similar to Earth which is also rotating on its own axis.
Poor b4 gives us another glimpse of what “braindead” looks like.
“DREMT and I both prefer the non-spinner position because it is the only position that recognizes an orbit as a rotation. ”
But what precisely do you mean by “rotation”? That is the question that is never answered.
Everyone else seems to define “rotation” as a circular motion of some point about a defined axis; “rigid body rotation” is a circular movement of all points within some object about a defined axis.
The center point of the MOTL and the MOTR rotate about the center of the earth. A MGR horse has rigid body rotation about the center of the MGR. The MOTL has rigid body rotation about the center of the earth.
An elliptical orbit is not a rotation by this definition. The moon does not rotation about the earth-moon barycenter. Your ‘preferred position’ recognizes ‘orbit’ as something it is not!
Or you can try to define ‘rotation’ in some other way still has useful meaning.
“A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
Sorry, Tim, you still don’t even accept that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion, and is motion like the MOTL. Until you do, nothing you say will be taken seriously.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1450011
Sorry, DREMT, you still don’t have a definition of “rotation” that doesn’t contradict its own source. Until you do, nothing you say will be taken seriously.
Use whatever definition of “rotation” you want…”rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists, and is motion like the MOTL. I’m correct about that, and you’re wrong, and that’s just the way it is, no matter what.
…that’s just the way it is, no matter what because DREMT is observing from the Earth, not inertially since Earth is itself accelerating.
Incorrect, as always, Ball4. Inertially, the motion of the MOTL can be described as:
1) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
2) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
I’m right, you’re wrong. Reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.
… only be described that way as observed from the object in the center of the MOTL orbit because the MOTL always presents the same face to the center object just like the BoS.
MOTL motion can’t be inertial as DREMT claims because the MOTL is rotating once on its own axis wrt to the inertial frame border lines presenting all MOTL faces to that border.
DREMT always forgets (on purpose) all motion is relative so DREMT is always (and will always be) wrong until DREMT recognizes that simple fact.
It’s as I said in my previous comment. I’m right, you’re wrong, that’s the way it’s always been and that’s the way it always will be. Stay out of my comments.
DREMT remains wrong because MOTL presents one face to center object observers per orbit; MOTL presents all faces to the observers on inertial border lines per orbit.
All motion is relative that’s why they call it relativity.
Stay out of my comments.
… unless they need to be physically corrected.
Stay out of my comments.
… unless they need to be physically corrected.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started!
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ball4, since you’re so anxious to comment this morning, try the easy quiz:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449686
Impress us with your “knowledge” of the issue. Who knows, maybe you might even get one answer correct. I won’t hold my breath….
I’m not in the targeted audience to answer as written, Clint R, but funny quiz meant for DREMT, Bill & Gordon.
Keep up the humorous entertainment Clint, you do such hard work maintaining top blog laughing stock status that I keep reading here for more laughs.
Ball4 suddenly has to run home. A simple science quiz scares him.
He’s good at trolling, but bad at science.
Not scary at all; the two questions are easily correctly answered except by Clint R.
The questions are easy, but you can’t answer them, B4.
If you could, you would.
No need to answer, the 2 questions Clint linked 11:39 am were directed to others.
ball4…”All motion is relative thats why they call it relativity”.
***
This is why you spinners are so deluded. You left out the important part that motion is relative ‘as observed by the human mind’.
Motion doesn’t give a hoot about relativity, which is a human delusion. The human brain gets fooled all the time by relative motion and has needed to invent a system to keep tract of it. However, Newton’s relativity serves us far better than that of Einstein.
To show how deep the delusion goes, Einstein had to re-define time and mass to make his theories work. Problem is, time does not exist, being yet another invention of the human mind, yet Einstein had the temerity to define time as ‘the hand on a clock’. He must have been on MJ or mushrooms at the time, while reading Alice in Wonderland.
Time has largely been defined scientifically since only the early 20th century. There had been attempts over the centuries to bring some accuracy to the concept by inventing clocks. However, even the British rail system in the early 20th century ran purely on local time. Conductors on trains had to bring London time to each city every day, to keep the clock synced.
The fact staring us in the face, is that all time is relative to the position of the Sun in the sky. We have expanded on the accuracy of that fact with atomic clocks but the second is still based on the Earth’s rotation.
The point is, when Einstein put forth his theories on relativity in the early 20th century, time as we know it today had not been developed at all. Even when I studied at university, we were never given a formal definition of time, for the simple reason that no one had one. It was not till years afterwards that I encountered one of my physics profs in a supermarket, and asked him directly about time, that he forthrightly declared that time has no existence, that it was invented by humans to keep tract of change.
Why is it that some physics profs can see that plainly yet others are so befuddled by it, they become angry at their inability to demonstrate it?
I can appreciate what Einstein faced in his thought experiments as he imagined himself standing at a railway station, pocket watch in hand, observing a passenger walking along the aisle in a train as it sped through the station, while trying to calculate the relative speed of the passenger wrt the train and the station.
Unfortunately, such thought experiments are not science and projecting them to a point where time and length change based on the speed of the train wrt the speed of life is sheer nonsense. There is no way such a thought experiment can be extended in such a manner that predictions can be made about terrestrial speeds compared to the speed of light. Adherents to the theory are claiming erroneously that humans traveling at the speed of light would not age as rapidly as a person remaining on Earth.
Sheer nonsense. Humans age by cell modification and not time. A person traveling at the speed of light would age the same as a person left on Earth.
It would have served us far better had he kept his thought experiments under lock and key rather than releasing them as a formal scientific paper. The scary part is that so many scientists bought into his thought experiments without questioning them, based on his reputation alone.
What is even more scary is that some scientists have questioned his theories and had their concerns summarily rejected. Louis Essen, who invented the atomic clock, rightly claimed that Einstein’s theories on relativity are not even theories. He claimed they are nothing more than thought experiments based on conjecture and that Einstein did not understand measurement.
Wrong again, Ball4.
“We now have barry, Swanson, ball4, bindidon, Nate, and willard spinning frantically to deny reality.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449686
Reality: all motion is relative.
Clint R does not accept reality.
#3
Ball4, please stop trolling.
The language police are out in force DREMT they think you must have hidden and subversive meanings in your words.
Before you can call an orbit a rotation they want to see if you have a permit.
If you define it they will tell you have no rights and it has these minor conflicts with the forms DICTATED by Kinematic Teachers in the same way that Newton used forms to describe the angular momentum of the moon’s orbit. Newton had no idea that specifying a spin element would lead to all this nonsense. But its a no brainer. Its easy to visualize how the particles can be perceived to both orbit and rotate around the COM of both the moon and the earth at the same time if you track the COM of the moon in its orbit around the COM of the earth.
This should be a burden of proof on the spinners because orbital motion appears to have well defined rotational properties so what we would be looking for is a physics property that would define it differently. Like curvilinear motion that has the property such that a line drawn between particles does not change direction during the motion. Spinners to do that have to pretend that since the moon is spinning on its local axis they are not changing the direction of the line in the curvilinear motion. Pretty damned weird stuff since we are talking the same object.
“Before you can call an orbit a rotation they want to see if you have a permit.”
No, before discussing “orbit” and “rotation” we want to make sure we are using the words in the same way. DREMT’s attempts at definitions are circular (pardon the pun). ‘A orbit is a rotation because a rotating is an orbit.’
“because orbital motion appears to have well defined rotational properties …” and here is the same problem. You have no well-defined rotation, so you circle back to vague assertion of how it ‘appears’ to you.
More false accusations and misrepresentation from Tim.
Faukerts, I didn’t mean to leave you out. You’re welcome to take the easy quiz. Let’s see if you can get anything right.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449686
tim…if you don’t clearly understand the meaning of rotation, why do you bother discussing it? If it is open to philosophical discussion, you live in a different dimension to the reality in which we non-spinners live.
bill…”Newton had no idea that specifying a spin element would lead to all this nonsense. But its a no brainer. Its easy to visualize how the particles can be perceived to both orbit and rotate around the COM of both the moon and the earth at the same time…”
***
At the risk of beating this to death, let me comment on that. The concept of angular momentum is still not clear in my mind as applied to an independent body, with only linear momentum, rotating around the Earth.
Angular, in angular momentum, refers to a radial line connecting the Earth to the Moon. The angular part refers to the angle between the radial line and either the x-axis or the y-axis in a plane. If the radial line is moving, it has an angular velocity and if it is changing velocity it has an angular acceleration.
Angular momentum, in the case of the Moon, and velocity are a reference to that imaginary line’s rotation. If you had a solid spoke as the radial line, with the Moon attached to the end of it, you could claim a true angular momentum since the spoke and Moon would be a unit. Can you claim the same for an imaginary radial line?
I have not read Newton on this as I indicated earlier, however, he tended to be very precise about such matters. For example, he agonized over his definition of mass to ensure it would not be regarded as applicable only to a gravitational force.
He wanted to ensure mass represented a resistance to any force. It would have been nice had Einstein and others paid as close attention to mass as Newton. It would appear that Einstein applied kinematics, treating acceleration alone, while ignoring the force. In Einstein’s world, time and space replace force and mass, since he redefined both to fit that world. Now we have idiots in universities teaching that gravity is not a force but a space-time anomaly.
With regard to the particles in the Moon, I don’t regard them as rotating about a local axis in the Moon. Perhaps you were referring to the POV of spinners and I took your comment out of context. All particles on the Moon are moving in concentric circles/ellipses around the Earth.
Gordon opines: “timif you dont clearly understand the meaning of rotation, why do you bother discussing it? If it is open to philosophical discussion, you live in a different dimension to the reality in which we non-spinners live.”
I *do* clearly understand what rotation means — constant distance from a stated axis and changing orientation relative to that axis.
The problem is to get the ‘non-spinners’ to commit to a definition of rotation.
“The concept of angular momentum is still not clear in my mind as applied to an independent body …”
Then pull out any engineering physics text and clear up your mind. Any text will tell you all about it. Any freshman engineering student could calculate all these things that confound you.
“Use whatever definition of “rotation” you want”
Rotation: a movement of a point relative to defined axis with constant distance from the axis and changing orientation.
Define the “internal axis” as a line outward from the screen through the center of MOTL.
Does every point on the MOTL have a constant distance from the axis? YES
Does the orientation of every point change orientation relative to the axis? YES
Therefore, by ‘any’ definition, the MOTL is indeed rotating on its own internal axis.
Does the orientation of every point change orientation relative to the axis? NO
To understand this, a person needs to understand vectors, or have enough common sense to understand a simple ball-on-a-string.
Faukerts, why are you avoiding the simple quiz, if your such an expert on orbital motions?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449686
No, Tim. The motion “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” has to exist, because the concept of zero exists. We know that the MOTL is the only motion which fits the definition of rotation about an external axis and makes sense for the “no rotation about an internal axis” to apply. That’s that. We’ve been through this a dozen times already. I’m right, you’re wrong. There are even “Spinners” in agreement with me. Be told.
The motion of rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis does exist as anyone can plainly observe our earthen orbiting Moon present only one “man in the moon” face to Earth.
The problem for DREMT is that observer is in an accelerated frame which acceleration needs to be accounted & DREMT does not do so.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“Does the orientation of every point change orientation relative to the axis? NO”
This is true. The center of the MOTL does not change orientation. It is zero distance from the axis and hence has no definable orientation. So, yes, technically points ON the axis do not rotate ABOUT the axis.
But the rest of the points do. The MOTL as a whole rotates about the moving axis through the center of the moon.
Draw a vector from the center of the MOTL to the point closest to the earth. Draw that vector 1/4 of a revolution later. That same point is still closest to the earth; the vector is pointing 90 degrees away from where it was.
The orientation of that vector has changed.
The MOTL has rotated about that axis.
A radius is changing orientation because the moon is orbiting, Fraudkerts. All points on the moon have the same instantaneous vector as the CoM.
You STILL don’t understand any of this. You just make things up.
That definition also works because you can draw another line from the any place on the moon to the center of mass of earth and it meets the same conditions. So you have to choose one right?
“The motion “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” has to exist, because the concept of zero exists.”
There are two problems with this proposition.
1) As already pointed out, by the very common, very reasonable definition given, the moon DOES rotate about its internal axis, and you can find no flaw in that argument.
2) When two motions are inextricably linked, there is no reason that one must be capable of being zero while the other motion is non-zero. When a rigid body rotates, that means it rotates. About infinitely many axes. You can stop the rotation about one axis, but that inextricably means simultaneously stopping the rotation about all the other axis.
CLINT says: “A radius is changing orientation ”
Yep! Period. Fullstop. You acknowledge that moon is rotating. The ‘because’ doesn’t matter when all we are interested in is if it is rotating.
“All points on the moon have the same instantaneous vector as the CoM.”
No. We are measuring FROM the CoM when we are determining rotation about the axis through the CoM. The CoM has a vector of length zero. Other parts of the moon have vectors with lengths up to the radius of the moon and oriented in all directions.
All of those various vectors for various parts of the moon rotate once every time the MOTL goes around the earth.
Folkerts, no wonder you can’t answer the simple questions. You’re absolutely clueless about the issues.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449686
The issue here is the MOTL, and I stated: “All points on the moon have the same instantaneous vector as the CoM.”
At any instant, the non-spinning MOTL’s points would all have the same instantaneous vector. That vector would be the resultant of MOTL’s linear motion vector and MOTL’s gravitational vector. All of the resultant vectors would be the same, otherwise MOTL would tear itself apart!
Just like the rest of your cult, you know NOTHING about the issues here. You either make crap up, or find links you can’t understand. When I get time I’m going to prepare a quiz on the 3 links you found. That’s when it really gets fun. So study up!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449996
Well Folkerts confirms it with his definition. Obviously only one rotation can occur in the MOTL so the non-spinners pick the orbit and the spinners pick the moon rotating on it central axis just as DREMT said. It all depends upon how you want to view orbital motion without axial rotation.
One down wonder when the rest will commit.
Tim, if an object was rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis, it would not be moving like the MOTL. This was proven conclusively by Ftop_t using Desmos, and can also be proven for yourself by simply using any available online transmographer, and by reference to e.g. Madhavi. It’s just the way it is. As Bill says, motion like the MOTL can only include one rotation, and you make a choice which it is, on an internal axis or an external axis. If you go with “internal axis” then the motion is “translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis”. If you go with “external axis” then the motion is “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”.
“and by reference to e.g. Madhavi. Its just the way it is.”
Whoops! The Cult is no longer allowed to use Madhavi’s definition of rotation!
Remember, the new, as yet undiscovered, definition needs to conform to the Cult’s party line.
Troll Nate, when you’ve finished making up crap, take the easy two-question quiz.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449686
Impress us with your “vast knowledge” of orbital motions.
Nate says:
”Whoops! The Cult is no longer allowed to use Madhavis definition of rotation!
Remember, the new, as yet undiscovered, definition needs to conform to the Cults party line.”
Sorry Nate, but Madhavi is only teaching basic concepts using models of perfection that don’t exist in nature. If you start eliminating everything that isn’t perfect rather than using a process of determining what general physics principle is absent to classify a motion differently you run out of arguments.
Your entire spiel boils down to some strange phenomena that is either imaginary or determined on the basis of perfection which doesn’t exist in nature. All of our conceptual ways of looking at the world in a perfect way are flawed in that they don’t match nature they merely can be used to estimate nature. Sometimes quite well. But that doesn’t mean nature must conform to your estimates. As our ability to measure stuff gets better and better the more your arguments in this forum fail.
Fact is there is more movement of the particles in the motr than in the motl that that is due to the stretching of the particles in the moon by gravity from earth which has the MOST influence on the moon of any other celestial body. The MOTL has more perfection of actual movement of those particles wrt to the moon’s center of mass. . . .though that isn’t perfect either.
So this is what I mean about elevating form over substance. You think all the great discoveries of the scientists of the past is the true nature of things. But that would be erroneous. What those discoveries enable us to do is understand more about different stuff as good approximates of what the laws of nature are.
But you look at this stuff and make up your own laws. Where is the law of rotations anyway? It doesn’t exist because Newton wasn’t nearly as stupid as you.
CLINT: “All points on the moon have the same instantaneous vector as the CoM.”
First, the discussion here is about the position vector (as measured from an axis). What vector quantity do you mean? position? velocity? acceleration? angular velocity? other?
A vector has a magnitude and a direction. What is the one magnitude and one direction that you claim every vector for all points on the moon has.
Tim, Don’t bother grammie clone with details about his distortions. He can’t do the math, so he just keeps on throwing up other people’s stuff, claiming a win.
Hunter troll, Have you figured out that the Moon’s rotational axis is tilted WRT the orbital axis by 1.543 degrees yet?
BILL says: “Obviously only one rotation can occur in the MOTL so the non-spinners pick the orbit and the spinners pick the moon rotating on it central axis ”
No, not quite. Sort of half right.
Whatever motion an object has, that motion can simultaneously be measured relative to an infinite number of coordinate axes. Suppose I walk north across my living room at 1 m/s. ‘Obviously’ only one translation is occurring. But here’s the thing; I can choose to measure that velocity using coordinate axes with their origin in the center of the room. Or axes in the NE corner of my living room. Or axes in the center of my town. I don’t have to ‘pick one’ and only one. I am translating at the same rate which ever of those xyz axes I choose.
In the same way, the MOTL has its motion. That motion can simultaneously be measured using an infinite number of coordinate axes. I can choose to measure from the axis through the center of the earth, and I will find that the moon is rotating about that axis. I can choose to measure from the axis through the center of the MOTL, and I will find that the moon is rotating about that axis, too. I can choose to measure from axis through the the point on the MOTL closest to the earth, and I will find that the moon is rotating about that axis, too.
One motion, described multiple ways. That is all I am claiming here.
I am not *picking* the MOTL to rotate about its central axis instead of rotating about the earth. I am stating the moon is measured to rotate at the same rate for both choices.
“I can choose to measure from the axis through the center of the MOTL, and I will find that the moon is rotating about that axis, too”
Only if you go with the overall description “translation in a circle plus rotation about an internal axis”, Tim….and “orbit without spin” must be as per the MOTR for that to be the correct description. You have a lot to learn, still.
Swanson and Folkerts, take the simple quiz:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449686
If you sincerely want to learn, take the quiz so we can find your placement level. All I’ve seen so far is that you know NOTHING about orbital motions.
I’ve made the claim that you can’t answer the questions correctly. Take the easy quiz and prove me wrong.
Tim Folkerts says:
”I am not *picking* the MOTL to rotate about its central axis instead of rotating about the earth. I am stating the moon is measured to rotate at the same rate for both choices.”
Good so your definition fits perfectly DREMT’s proposition that the issue rests on whether you view orbital motion without axial rotation as the MOTR or the MOTL.
So after so long we are on the same page, almost. The next question is why one should be chosen over the other.
It seems to me that their is a hierarchical structure to all this. The moon’s motions are complex and affected likely by everything in the universe. Do galaxies rotate around the COM of the universe or is there something else in between galaxies and the universe as galaxies may rotate around other galaxies. then you have solar systems rotating around galaxies, planets rotating around stars, and everything creating some kind of perturbation/physical libration in an incredibly complex weave of energies throughout the universe.
Its pretty clear that the moon in terms of electrical systems is a slave of the earth. The earth and its slave are less of a slave of the sun than the earth to the moon as it does have a spin that was imparted independent of solar gravity.
So thats my rationalization that the moon rotates around the earth and does not rotate on its own axis.
In view of all that what is your rationalization?
DREMT, There is no need to ‘describe’ a motion before measuring it. Pick a coordinate system and define some property and measure it. In this case for MOTL, since the vector from either axis (internal or external) to any point on MOTL has constant length and changing direction, the MOTL is rotating about that axis.
Or to state it the other way around, “translation in a circle plus rotation about an internal axis” *is* “rotation about the external axis”. Its the same motion. Both rotations exist simultaneously.
You’re getting closer, Tim, but I’m going to have to hear these words from you:
"I, Tim Folkerts, hereby acknowledge that the MOTL can be described as not rotating on its own internal axis. The two ways you can describe its motion are:
1) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
2) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
Which one is the correct description depends on whether "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTL or the MOTR".
Once you’ve said those words, Tim, you will be accepted back into the discussion. Until you’ve said them, you have nothing to add to the discussion that ought to be taken seriously, and I would recommend anyone reading to ignore everything you say.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Once youve said those words, Tim, you will be accepted back into the discussion. Until youve said them, you have nothing to add to the discussion that ought to be taken seriously, and I would recommend anyone reading to ignore everything you say.”
Yes it is pretty clear that Tim understands the issue and it would take a huge violation of intellectual integrity to walk away at this point. I am betting Tim will as I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
DREMT, you’re letting Folkerts confuse the issue, as he MUST do. Your effort to explain things to him just plays into his efforts to confuse.
Your “2) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.” is wrong for the MOTL. MOTL only has ONE motion — orbiting.
Folkerts lives to confuse, pervert, and distort science. Just remember his nonsense that would result in ice cubes boiling water.
“Good so your definition fits perfectly DREMTs proposition that the issue rests on whether you view orbital motion without axial rotation as the MOTR or the MOTL.”
No, that is too simple. There are several interconnected issues.
* How to mathematically describe motion of MOTL and MOTL.
* How to mathematically describe motion of real moons.
* What “orbital motion” means and how it relates to “rotation”.
You and I seem to be close to agreeing that MOTL can be described equally well as ‘translation of CoM in a circle and rotation about the CoM axis’ and ‘rotation about the external axis’. That is indeed a good start.
“So that’s my rationalization that the moon rotates around the earth and does not rotate on its own axis.”
The real moon clearly does NOT rotate about the earth. Not a circle. You would need crazy contortions of definitions to call what the moon does a “rotation”. You would need ad hoc adjustments to make libration work.
"You and I seem to be close to agreeing that MOTL can be described equally well as ‘translation of CoM in a circle and rotation about the CoM axis’ and ‘rotation about the external axis’. That is indeed a good start."
…but Tim always stops short of adding the "with no rotation about an internal axis" like the pathetically transparent little sophist that he is.
"The real moon clearly does NOT rotate about the earth. Not a circle. You would need crazy contortions of definitions to call what the moon does a “rotation”. You would need ad hoc adjustments to make libration work."
Then call it whatever you want, Tim. It’s one single motion. However, you should note that other "Spinners" don’t make as much fuss as you do about "orbit/revolution" being defined as a rotation about an external axis.
It occurs to me that we Non-Spinners should start using only the word “spin”. We should avoid using the word “rotate”, for anything. It’s too easy for the cult to pervert “rotate”. There’s “rotate about an internal axis”, “rotate about an external axis”, “rotate about a CoM axis”, and “rotate relative to the fixed stars”. Then, there’s the confusion with using rotate for revolve, and vice versa. All of the confusion just serves the interest of the cult.
So we should use only “spin”. “Spin” requires no qualifiers. This is clear and much harder to pervert, as it comes from the cult’s own verbiage. For example, they claim the “spin-orbit” for Moon is 1-1. We point out that the “spin-orbit” for Moon is 0-1. MOTL spin-orbit is 0-1. MOTR spin-orbit is 1-1.
And “spin” coincides with the wikipedia link on “tidal locking”, where the MOTL and MOTR came from. It will be hard for the cult to pervert their own nonsense. Plus we avoid all of the distracting nonsense about the definitions of “rotate”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Bill does another Gish Gallop while still not EVER providing a definition of rotation that fits his narrative.
The definition of rotation given by Madhavi is not just taught, it is used by scientists, engineers, and technicians.
Bill claims that if a definition is in a standard textbook, it can be safely ignored!
Riiiight..
Everyone understands that this is just another flimsy excuse for a losing argument..
Hunter troll, Have you figured out that the Moons rotational axis is tilted WRT the orbital axis by 1.543 degrees yet?”
FYI, it is 6.7 degrees tilt to the Moon-Earth orbital axis, and 1.5 degrees to the Earth-Sun orbital axis.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”but Tim always stops short of adding the “with no rotation about an internal axis” like the pathetically transparent little sophist that he is.”
It is quite amazing. I am not sure if there is even one spinner that understands the non-spinner position. Bindidon is going on about Faucault Pendulums and now Nate is stubbing his toe on the idea that if the moon rotates on the earth’s COM it can’t have a ‘pole’ like if it rotates on the Earth’s COM then the moon’s COM must be translating. This would be a nightmare class for some Professor somewhere. Sheesh!
“if the moon rotates on the earths COM it cant have a pole”
It can’t have an internal pole, which the Moon has, and is located on lunar maps.
The internal poles, just as they are for Earth, are defined by the axis of rotation passing thru them. Which itself is defined by the rotation of the body around it.
And pointing to fixed stars throughout the orbit.
And not parallel to the orbital axis, but tilted away from it.
Bill conveniently leaves all of this out.
Nate says:
”It cant have an internal pole, which the Moon has, and is located on lunar maps.”
Nate doubles down here. Nate the pole is imaginary. You stick it by imagination in the middle of the moon whose particles are rotating around the earth and proclaim this moving pole emblematic of a set of non-rotating particles in a motion where all the particles are rotating around it rather than around the earth.
then the argument goes on to say rotations around an external axis cannot be occurring if the axis it tilted wrt to the orbital axis or if optical librations are occurring, two completely separate issues. One being due to the gravitational influences of other bodies on the moon and the other due to the elliptical shape of the orbit.
You are so tied to the form of your science you deny the substance that is in everything and alternately either confirm its inherent in everything when you want to and deny it when you don’t want to.
In every case it can be traced to ubiquitous outside perturbations of the basic motion. You just want to draw an arbitrary line between when they are perturbations and when not. Whereas all the non-spinners are doing is recognizing a hierarchy of rotational motions based upon control theory.
Engineers deal in applying control theory and accounting for perturbations. You deal with it by denying control theory and calling the greater rotation a non-rotation using an artificial line between perfectly circular motion and elliptical motion when there is no such thing in nature as perfectly circular motion.
Spinning objects deform as well as objects affected by gravity pretty much covers it all.
As I have said if you are going down that path there needs to be a definition of what too much ‘play’ is. But you guys show the kind of inexperience of having never had to face that issue as if you were newly minted inculcated scientists in rebellious educational systems where you find the worst kind of anti-science in disciplines where such matters can be ignored.
DREMT is right orbital motion is a single motion that is affected by the shape of that motion as to what kind of perturbations it will experience. But dividing it up into two motions is highly arbitrary and completely denies statistics, cause and effect Newtonian mechanics, and who knows what else.
You Bindidon and others want to argue what Newton thought and take stuff out of context to make your point. I personally don’t know one way of the other if Newtonian mechanics is internally contradictory or if you guys are just trying to take him outside of context.
I have asked the pertinent question on that that no spinner has even made an attempt at an answer. It is:
What did Newton say Lorb + Lspin is equal to? Is it the Angular momentum of the moon or is it the Angular momentums of the moon.
That must be translatable some place wouldn’t you think?
“Nate doubles down here. Nate the pole is imaginary. ”
Bill doubles down then goes on another gish gallop to nowhere.
The Earth’s North pole is not imaginary. It is definable, detectable, observable, locatable on maps, and a century ago people went there and put flags on it.
Same goes for the Moon, its poles are definable, observable, located on maps, soon someone will land a spacecraft on it.
Your labeling it ‘imaginary’ is pointless.
You evaded my question about the spinning top.
A top is OBSERVED to be spinning on its axis, but it also has wobbles, its axis is precessing, and it is slowing down.
Given all that, it seems to be your view that it should not have been described as spinning on its axis.
Which is absurd.
This summarizes your many red herrings about the Moon’s spin.
Nate says:
Nate doubles down here. Nate the pole is imaginary.
Bill doubles down then goes on another gish gallop to nowhere.
The Earths North pole is not imaginary. It is definable, detectable, observable, locatable on maps, and a century ago people went there and put flags on it.
Same goes for the Moon, its poles are definable, observable, located on maps, soon someone will land a spacecraft on it.
Your labeling it imaginary is pointless.
——————————
Your whole spiel there is a gish gallop. Whoever said that if something is imaginary it can’t be defined? A witch is defined and they are imaginary.
Nate says:
You evaded my question about the spinning top.
A top is OBSERVED to be spinning on its axis, but it also has wobbles, its axis is precessing, and it is slowing down.
Given all that, it seems to be your view that it should not have been described as spinning on its axis.
Which is absurd.
—————————
What non-spinner said the moon wasn’t rotating? Before ascribing actions noted around rotating objects why not first distinguish between why objects rotating on an external axis can’t precess.
The obviously can because perturbations on them will be experienced as a precession also so you aren’t making a relevant point there.
Nate says:
This summarizes your many red herrings about the Moons spin.
————————
Seems to me you haven’t yet shown they are not your red herrings. Come back when you can do that with an answer to that.
Meanwhile answer my question what did Newton think Lorb + Lspin was equal to. Obviously if you add them together you must think they are going to result in a named quantity. What did Newton say about that?
Bill ponders: “what did Newton think Lorb + Lspin was equal to. ”
First, it doesn’t matter what “Newton thinks”. Science is not about individuals (no matter how brilliant).
Lorb + Lspin is simply the total angular momentum of the moon. That is pretty simple.
“I am not sure if there is even one spinner that understands the non-spinner position.”
Of course we understand. The MOTL can be accurately described as a single rotation about the earth, with no other separate rotation about its own axis (for example, a sheet of plastic with a picture of the moon pinned through the center of the picture of the earth).
Let’s go back to your Lorb + Lspin question. How would you calculate this for the MOTL? Assumes some mass like 10 g for a uniform disk with a picture of the moon moving around the earth. Maybe a radius of 10 cm and a period of 4 sec.
What is Lorb? What is Lspin? (Hint: Lspin is not zero).
“What non-spinner said the moon wasnt rotating?”
Well, Gordon and the guy in the video.
The top is spinning on its axis, because you gave it the spin! And its internal axis is definable, detectable, observable, and not imaginary!
And yet, it has a slight wobble, it has precession due to its interaction with gravity of another body, it is also slowing down.
IOW it has all the deviations from perfection you claim the Moon has, and you use these to claim therefore the Moon is not spinning on its axis!
But of course these are red herrings, because you would not credibly be able to claim the top was not spinning because of these same imperfections.
“Whoever said that if something is imaginary it cant be defined? A witch is defined and they are imaginary.”
Bill conveniently leaves out detectable, observable, locatable.
If axes are imaginary then DREMTs entire narrative is imaginary!
I’ll let you debate that with him.
Clint R and Bill…yes, Tim is just…on another level of dishonesty. I don’t even know how to describe it. For him to sit there and say that he is close to agreement with Bill when he plainly doesn’t believe that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" even exists as a motion, let alone is motion like the MOTL…I just don’t know how he does it. I don’t know how he sleeps at night. He says that "rotation about an external axis" is one of the options for describing motion of the MOTL, but he deliberately leaves out the "with no rotation about an internal axis" because he still doesn’t believe that’s correct! Simply unbelievable, at this stage. He thinks if he just leaves it out then it won’t matter, like it’s just some minor point, some "semantic quibble" that he can just brush under the carpet. Like it isn’t the entire crux of the issue!
I genuinely don’t understand why he bothers arguing about the libration of longitude and about elliptical orbits and about all these more intricate details of the moon’s orbit when he doesn’t actually accept that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" exists, and is motion like the MOTL, in the first place! It just doesn’t make any sense. If he truly believes that the MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis then surely that’s all he needs to argue. The whole libration of longitude thing is then completely irrelevant. I just can’t quite get across how redundant that line of argument is if you actually believe that there is no way of describing the ideal case, motion like the MOTL, as not rotating on its own axis, anyway!
I don’t know. I can’t get across how ridiculous Folkerts is, but I agree with you both about what he’s like. He’s just a law unto himself.
RECAP (paraphrased.
DREMT: Use whatever definition of “rotation” you want …
ME: I’ll use the standard definition: Constant distance, changing angle.
DREMT: oh .. well I didn’t meant THAT definition. I will just proclaim myself correct.
I genuinely dont understand why he bothers arguing about any of this when he doesnt actually accept that rotations are constant distance from an axis and changing orientation from that axis.
That’s not actually what happened at all, Tim. Why do you bother arguing about definitions of rotation, which always boils down to your point about elliptical orbits and the libration in longitude, when you don’t even believe that it’s possible to describe the MOTL as not rotating on its own internal axis in any case, even with a circular orbit!?
Until all “Spinners” at least accept that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists, and is motion like the MOTL, I just don’t see the point in continuing these discussions.
Cue the dramatic hyperbole.
” I dont know how he sleeps at night.”
Then feign threats of ending it all.
“I just dont see the point in continuing these discussions.”
Tim, pls take him up on this generous offer.
“Engineers deal in applying control theory and accounting for perturbations. You deal with it by denying control theory and calling the greater rotation a non-rotation using an artificial line between perfectly circular motion and elliptical motion when there is no such thing in nature as perfectly circular motion.”
Gee, when an engineer creates an instruction manual for dismantling a nuclear missile, and one of the instructions is ‘rotate the part 82 degrees around point P’ then in Bill’s view that seemingly clear instruction is ambiguous, because it could be an infinite number of possible motions!
Yes, folks, Bill is off his rocker.
“Why do you bother arguing about definitions of rotation … ”
Because the entire discussion is about rotations.
Because you want me to say “The motion “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists”, but you can’t even say what the word “rotation” means to you.
Tim, even when we go with a definition of rotation of your choosing, and I explain to you exactly why the MOTL represents "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis", you just don’t accept it. You don’t accept it from me, from Madhavi, from the transmographer, from Ftop_t’s Desmos demonstrations, from other "Spinners" that agree with me…so what’s the point? The only reason you want me to give you a definition of rotation is so you can go, "whoops, there you go, an orbit is in an elliptical shape, a rotation is circular, blah blah blah". That’s it. Stop pretending there’s anything more to it than that.
My definition of a rotation on an external axis is one where the eccentricity of a repetitive elliptical motion is equal to or greater than zero and less that 1.0. As it is in this case where total energy and angular momentum of the system is conserved within a single motion.
“Tim, even when we go with a definition of rotation of your choosing…”
… DREMT ignores it.
Imagine a line up through the center of the MOTL, moving with the MOTL.
* Do all points on MOTL maintain a constant distance from that moving line? Yes.
* Do all points change orientation relative to that moving line? Yes.
By this common, simple, clear definition, the MOTL does rotate around that moving line.
I refer you to the dozens of comments I’ve written to you previously explaining why "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" exists and is motion like the MOTL, and retire, the victor, once again.
Nate an axis is an imaginary line
But the locations on the Moon or Earth where it exits the surface are real and the axis intercepts the celestial sphere are also well defined locations.
swannie…how can an imaginary line exit the surface? Next you’ll be telling me there is a dashed line around the Earth marking the Equator.
And where is this celestial sphere? You do live in a world filled with illusion.
I am beginning to understand you, however. In your delusions, heat is transferred from cold to hot, by its own means, and the Moon rotates on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
Did you enjoy the sunset last night?
Sunsets, there is a lunar sunset too. But not according to Gordon who believes there is no lunar sunset as Gordon & DREMT write moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis.
b4 is trolling again. He resorts to trolling when continually proved wrong.
Gordon, there is a lunar sunset too, similar to Earth, which also rotates on its own axis wrt the sun.
Both sunsets are illusions. On the Earth, it is the horizon moving in a west to east direction that makes the sun appear to be setting. With the Moon, it is orbital motion that moves the Moon along a linear path that gives the illusion the Sun is setting. One is due to local rotation about an axis (Earth) the other due to orbital motion (the Moon).
The Sun obviously is not going anywhere relative to Earth or Moon.
Gordon refuses to accept reality by calling earthen and lunar sunsets “illusions”. Won’t work Gordon.
Ball4 continues to argue with Gordon that the sun is going somewhere and fails to realize that a sunset isn’t a motion its an optical effect akin to a parallax libration. For a moon set since there actually is orbital movement around the earth its only about 96%+ mostly a parallax optical effect.
And yes I did enjoy the both the moonset and sunset on the 21st of the month. Outdoors smoking a cigar for the sunset and sitting down at a nice outdoor restaurant for the moonset. the moon was a beautiful sliver of a crescent.
The lunar sunset can be observed just like the earthen sunset Bill as the sunshine terminator sweeps across the lunar surface. Bill can observe this lunar effect in a 4″ Celestron & confirm lunar rotation on its own axis.
How do you watch it Ball4?
Supersonic jet?
Lunar sunset? In my backyard on a starry night, near full moon with my 4″ Celestron, low power eyepiece installed.
Earthen sunset? Across the lake sitting in my backyard by the wood campfire with an expensive bourbon.
I take it you haven’t ever watched a lunar sunset. . . .since lunar sunset occurs on the cusp of the new moon. . . .not the full moon.
Bill weirdly thinks we can’t see this:
https://c.tadst.com/gfx/600×337/waning-crescent-moon-yellow.jpg?1
Nate apparently doesn’t know what a new moon is.
What I showed was the sun setting on that side of the Moon that faces us.
Ball4 says:
”Lunar sunset? In my backyard on a starry night, near full moon with my 4″ Celestron, low power eyepiece installed.”
Is that what you showed us?
Yeah, I think he meant Moonset.
What I meant was watching the moon’s terminator line sweep across the lunar surface in the ‘scope. This lunar twilight event is marking where the sun is either rising or setting on the Moon which is an observation proving our moon rotates on its own axis wrt to the sun (a distant star).
Stay out of my comments, Ball4, and stop dragging me into further discussions I want no part of. Basically, just become obsessed with somebody else.
… when they need to be physically corrected.
Become obsessed with somebody else, Ball4.
… when they too need to be physically corrected.
That doesn’t even make any sense.
“Nate an axis is an imaginary line”
It is the line of fixed points in a body that is rotating around. These are the only points that have no relative velocity to each other. All other points have different velocities, velocities that place them on concentric circles rotating around the axis.
And this line points to fixed stars during the whole orbit.
So this so-called imaginary line can be found, observed, detected, and put on a map of the Earth, or the Moon.
ball4…”MOTL motion cant be inertial as DREMT claims because the MOTL is rotating once on its own axis wrt to the inertial frame border lines presenting all MOTL faces to that border”.
***
I would really hate to be burdened by a mind like yours. A mind that observes a body rotating about another body (even as a model) while keeping the same face pointed at the body, yet insists on comparing the motion to something abstract.
Can you not begin to understand that frames, inertial or otherwise, are figments of the human imagination? We humans invented reference frames to help us visualize relative motion. In MOTL, there is no reference frame specified and none is required, expect perhaps to someone intent on denying reality.
All you need wrt to a frame is regarding the central sphere, presumably Earth, as the object about which the other sphere, presumably the Moon, is rotating.
Put another way, when you are driving down a freeway and your speedometer indicates 100 kpm, do you fret over the fact that you are moving through space at nearly 30 km/s while rotating at a relative speed, west to east compared to about 1000 mph at the Equator?
Does it really concern you that your speedometer is not accurate, in that it only shows a relative speed in a certain reference frame? When you drive east-west, do you fret over the fact it is relative to the Earth’s west to east rotation.
I don’t even think of that crap because it’s not pertinent to my life as a terrestrial being.
Gordon, some humans more astute do understand relativity. I am at zero mph relative to my car “driving down a freeway” and my car is not abstract. Nor is the freeway mile marker abstract going past at 100kph just like an observer on the border of the MOTL sees the MOTL rotating on its own axis.
All motion is relative.
You may be at 0 mph relative to your car, but what is your speed relative to the Sun at the same time? That’s the kind of reasoning you are applying to escape the truth that the Moon is not rotating on a local axis. You are switching reference frames at your convenience as red-herring arguments.
Even at that, you have the concept of reference frames wrong. If the Moon is not rotating on a local axis, or a car driving an oval track is not spinning out of control about a local axis, you are claiming both bodies are rotating based on a cockamamey argument base on reference frames.
You refuse to consider real forces and real science in both cases. You are, in that capacity, a philosopher, albeit a bad philosopher, and not a scientist.
I consider all real inertial forces Gordon. If the frame is accelerated such as when observing lunar motion from Earth, then that acceleration needs to be taken into account. It is Gordon unwilling to account for the reality of all real forces.
MOTL is not rotating on its own axis observed from the center object just like a BoS, while the MOTL is rotating on its own axis when observed from the inertial frame on the frame border at the same time.
Since in reality: all motion is relative.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
barry…”I spent a considerable time translating Newtons Latin in a fair-minded response to calls of bad translators from Gordon, and 2 requests from Clint to provide a translation”.
***
My whole point is this. Newton’s Principia, is written in Old Latin that the modern Google Latin translator does a poor job translating in places, making it totally obscure in many places. Even you have amended the usage of personal pronouns from its to his in your personal translation.
I am not faulting your attempt to translate it or even an expert translator’s efforts. I am questioning the contradiction in terms between what Newton allegedly said and what he wrote clearly on other matters.
We can argue till we are blue in the face, over the meaning, and we will get nowhere. However, if we read everything Newton wrote, we can see contradictions that ‘might’ break the log jam.
He states very clearly that the Moon (and planets) moves with a linear motion that is converted to a curvilinear motion by gravity. Actually, in one part, he did not say gravity, calling it ‘something’. Later, however, he expands on that something being both Earth’s gravity and solar gravity, with solar gravity having a minimal effect on the orbital shape.
What he is describing is a linear motion converted to a curvilinear motion while keeping the same face pointed at Earth. That is clearly a curvilinear motion all the way and without local rotation at all. So why would he claim elsewhere that the Moon also rotate about a local axis?
If it was totally clear to me that Newton was claiming the Moon rotated on a local axis, I would acknowledge that and claim he was wrong. It’s not clear to me at all.
In another part, Newton mentions the Moon always keeping the same face pointed at Earth, in the ‘upper’ focus [of the orbit]. Google translator makes a complete mess of the translation.
We can make sense of the last two points re curvilinear motion and keeping the same face to Earth, and that’s what we have been doing. However, we disagree vehemently on that. If we non-spinners are right, then Newton was translated incorrectly. If the spinners are right, then he was translated correctly, which I don’t think is the case.
Is it possible he was mis-translated? Of course. In his 20th century re-translation, with a critique of the Motte version and other translations, Cohen points to several errors, some blatant.
In their zeal to convey the meaning of Principia to modern readers, some translators have amended the words and even the math of Newton. Cohen points to several instances where translators have taken liberties, not only with tense and punctuation, which has changed the meaning of Latin words, but they have actually re-translated Newton based on their own comprehension of what he meant.
The meaning is clear, translators are affected by their own beliefs about lunar orbital motion. If they think the Moon rotates on a local axis, that seems to affect their translation. It seems to me that Latin is one of those languages where a word can take on a wide range of meanings depending on the tense, person, and context. I would think anyone translating it, especially Old Latin, would have to be on his/her toes as to the meaning.
I have no idea regarding your ability with Latin, especially Old Latin, so I have no idea why you would offer your translation as a verbatim translation. If scholar can’t find an accurate translation of Old Latin, how could you?
“My whole point is this. Newtons Principia, is written in Old Latin that the modern Google Latin translator does a poor job translating in places, making it totally obscure in many places. Even you have amended the usage of personal pronouns from its to his in your personal translation.”
Newton’s Principia is written in New Latin, not Old Latin. That’s one of the things I checked. Old Latin hasn’t been used for scholarship since Roman times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin
New Latin:
“The heyday of New Latin was its first two centuries (15001700), when in the continuation of the Medieval Latin tradition, it served as the lingua franca of science, education, and to some degree diplomacy in Europe. Classic works such as Thomas More’s Utopia and Newton’s Principia Mathematica (1687) were written in the language.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin
Where did you get the impression that it was written in Old Latin? Can you provide a link?
Google translate mistranslated suum, so I checked on it and corrected it immediately – and it made no difference to the meaning were interested in, because in either case, it still referred to a possessive pronoun for the Moon. I double-checked a lot of words, also used an AI, and compared to at least 2 English translations.
I went to a lot of trouble, Gordon.
And what did you do? Pretty much nothing, I think, except claim that all the translations were wrong, though you hadn’t attempted to figure out the translation yourself.
Just have a go at this one part of a sentence. I can figure out most of it without having to resort to any reference or translator.
“Quoniam vero Lunae, circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis, dies menstruus est: hujus facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis ipsius semper respiciet.”
As verbatim as I can:
‘Since truly the Moon, revolving uniformly about its own axis, is a day in a month, of this face to the furthest point of the orbit itself is always kept’
Now, I want you to translate just a tiny portion of that sentence.
“Quoniam vero Lunae, circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis”
My translation is:
‘Since truly the Moon, revolving uniformly about its own axis…’
You know what suum means. Is there anything wrong with my translation? Is there any other way to read this than the Moon rotates around its own axis? We know that Mewton used revolvitur to describe the rotation of the Sun, which has gave as 25 days.
barry, taking Newton out-of-context ain’t science.
Why are you avoiding the simple quiz?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449686
Is your view so hollow that you run away from conversations when they get too challenging and hopefully point at something else?
Man up and defend your own position, Clint. You can resume here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449032
barry there must be a reason you’re avoiding the simple quiz.
Incompetence might be one.
Prove me wrong.
The real reason is barry isn’t in the crowd to which Clint’s quiz was directed in the first place.
Clint R has already been proven wrong many times which led to Clint being voted blog laughing stock.
” Newtons Principia, is written in Old Latin … ”
*
As usual, the ignorant and arrogant pseudoengineer Robertson deliberately continues his eternal lying, despite having been corrected many times.
barry is of course right.
We just need to look at Wiki (though in fact this is a source considered by Robertson as valid if and only if it matches his egomaniacal narrative):
1. ” Old Latin, also known as Early Latin or Archaic Latin (Classical Latin: prīsca Latīnitās, lit. ’ancient Latinity’), was the Latin language in the period before 75 BC, i.e. before the age of Classical Latin. ”
2. ” New Latin (also called Neo-Latin or Modern Latin) is the revival of Literary Latin used in original, scholarly, and scientific works since about 1500. ”
*
Robertson continuously lies about everything we ever could imagine.
hujus facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis ipsius semper respiciet
According to google translator, umbilicum orbis equates to the center of the world. Thus Newton viewed the moon connected to the Earth at its center. Gravity acted as an umbilical cord to keep it facing towards the surface of the earth. Almost like a ball on a string would act.
bill…”I made the same mistake you are making just this week even though I knew better.
I was talking about a disintegrating CD and said the parts were flying off in a straight line. . . .wrong! What I had done rather than think a moment about it and search my memory was I put a ruler on the screen and the parts appeared to be flying in a straight line. But what they were doing was flying a trajectory with gravity bending their path. It just appeared to be straight”.
***
I get your point. Suppose that CD is rotating on a significant horizontal plane as it breaks apart. The horizontal plane prevents gravity causing the parts to move toward Earth in a parabolic path, so they should fly off in straight lines. I am presuming that the effects of other gravitation sources are minimal at that point. I should have been more precise but I am heckled for the length of my posts as it is.
If Earth’s gravity was suddenly shut off, it would depend on the direction the Moon was moving wrt the Sun, which would still have a considerable gravitational effect on the Moon. If the tangential direction was in and opposite the direction of the solar force, the Moon would fly off on a straight line, albeit being decelerated by the Sun. If it was moving toward the Sun, it would keep accelerating toward it. I don’t see any massive gravitational field to deflect it otherwise.
Suppose, however, it was moving tangential to the gravitational field’s radial lines of force. The Sun would definitely bend it into a parabolic path but the Moon would be moving at something like a kilometre per second, so would it eventually break free? After it did and broke free of gravitational field, would its motion be a straight line?
When I said the motion would be in a straight line, I meant initially and instantaneously. As I wrote above, it would also depend on the direction of lunar motion when it was instantly set free.
Sure it would fly off in a straight line. But would it be rotating? The CD experiment suggests it would continue to rotate. And physics agrees, via conservation of angular momentum.
What say you, and more importantly, why?
Nate says:
”Sure it would fly off in a straight line.”
Nate goes anti-science.
Seems to me most of the folks around here agree it wouldn’t fly off in a straight line but instead its angular momentum would be conserved and it fly off in a trajectory that would end up as an orbit around something else. The trick of course to get it to fly away in the first place would be what to do with the energy that it currently flies around.
btw…Ken think that if Earth’s gravity was suddenly turned off, and the Earth disappeared altogether, the Moon would continue to orbit the Sun in the same Earth orbit, oblivious to the Earth, presumably still moving in circular loops.
bill…”Sorry folks Newton was a great mathematician and thinker but he really didnt lay down a course in philosophy on his way”.
***
Actually, he did. If you look in the back of one of his three books, he goes into the philosophy of science, explaining clearly the difference between hypothesis and theory, etc.
He also took time out to write a tome explaining the Bible. Newton was a total believer in God, which makes him even more amazing in that he could split his mind between belief and hard science.
A brief article on his religious views…
https://rsc.byu.edu/converging-paths-truth/brief-survey-sir-isaac-newtons-views-religion
BTW…I read somewhere that Newton predicted the end of the Earth as being 2060. He offered that as minimum time and declared it might last longer. He based this on his interpretation of the Bible so we can’t pin it on him as an absolute prediction.
tim…”But what precisely do you mean by rotation? That is the question that is never answered.
Everyone else seems to define rotation as a circular motion of some point about a defined axis; rigid body rotation is a circular movement of all points within some object about a defined axis.
The center point of the MOTL and the MOTR rotate about the center of the earth. A MGR horse has rigid body rotation about the center of the MGR. The MOTL has rigid body rotation about the center of the earth.
An elliptical orbit is not a rotation by this definition”.
***
Backing up a few years to when this debate began, the original premise was that the Moon does not rotate about a local axis. You defined rotation clearly enough above for my liking that rotation in that context is all points on the Moon rotating about a local axis.
I have laid out my proof, using radial and tangential lines that all points on the Moon are restricted to moving in concentric paths in order to fulfill the fact it keeps the same face pointing at Earth; the clear meaning being that points moving parallel to each other in an orbit cannot rotate about a local axis at the same time.
That applies equally to an elliptical orbit, even though the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit is so close to circular as to consider it that.
The rotation about an external axis was brought into it by Dremt and I agreed with him that is technically a rotation as well. In fact, I offered the argument that the chamber on a pistol rotates on a local axis but it is called a revolver. So, why can’t we refer to the Moon’s revolution about the Earth also be a rotation?
Seems to me we no-spinners have laid out our definitions of rotation and you agree with one of them. That suggests you are presenting a red-herring argument re definition to avoid confronting the fact that the Moon cannot possibly rotate on a local axis.
… when observed from Earth.
Sorry, I thought you lived on Earth as well. Are you just visiting?
Revolution about the earth implies the moon transits in a circle around the Earth. The Moon does not revolve around the earth; its path around the earth does not describe a circle or anything resembling a circle. It revolves around the sun. The sun is therefore the point of reference. The moon rotates around its axis with respect to the sun.
Moon orbits Earth while Earth orbits Sun.
It can be confusing for some.
”its path around the earth does not describe a circle or anything resembling a circle.”
Total BS from Ken. A circle is an ellipse it has so much resemblance a circle is just a special case of an ellipse. Fact is Ken all rotations are ellipses and there may not be any rotations that are circles. Determining what one can describe as being materially a circle such one can ignore the actual eccentricity is a matter that must be considered on every engineering job by professional people who know what they are doing despite what the language police want to bring to the table. Get a life!
Please have a look at the Moon’s trajectory segment and do tell how the alleged ellipse or circle exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Moon_trajectory1.svg
Circular path only exists in a world where you assume earth is stationary at the center of the universe. Galileo showed the earth is not the center of the universe.
Ken, you’ve found a computer-generated graphic that you can’t understand. Since you don’t have the background to understand it, you believe it.
Moon orbits Earth, while Earth is orbiting Sun. The motions are well established and verifiable. Why wikipedia thinks it’s necessary to confuse the issue is the problem.
how does that apply to my comment. I said: ”there may not be any rotations that are circles”
if we agree say so. if you disagree then explain why you are saying ”circular path only exists in a world where you assume earth is stationary at the center of the universe?”
ken….after reading the full article I see the problem you are encountering. The article incorrectly claims the Earth and Moon rotate about a barycentre, which is nonsense.
The article states clearly that the Moon orbits the Earth but that the barycentre weaves like the diagram you present. That is rubbish. It is rubbish because the gravitational forces acting are so small it is impossible for the Earth to be dragged off its orbital path by such a weak gravitational force from the Moon.
A barycentre is a mathematical average of the Earth and Moon masses that locates the centre of gravity of the system about 1 km under the Earth’s surface. The notion that the Earth and Moon rotate about this barycentre is bs.
If the Earth was rotating about that barycentre its polar axis would be deviating wildly, yet it deviates only a few inches over a year. The reasons listed for this deviation do not include a barycentre.
The acceleration due to gravity for objects near the Earth is about 9.8 m/s^2. Considering the inverse-square law, the multiplier for its decrease over distance, re the lunar distance, is 60^2 = 3600. That comes from Newton, based on the fact the Moon is 60 Earth radii away. So, the acceleration due to gravity at the distance of the Moon is 9.8 m/s^2 /(3600) = about 0.003 m/s^2.
Moon’s gravity is about 1/6th that of Earth therefore its acceleration of the Earth is about 9.8 m/s^2 /(6) = about 1.63 m/s^2. Divide that by 3600 and we get about 0.00045 m/s^3.
Do you seriously think that a force weak enough to cause such an acceleration of the Earth will have any more than a trivial affect on it? The only effect the Moon has on the Earth is the ability to raise the oceans by about 1 metre and the surface about a cm.
bill…”A circle is an ellipse it has so much resemblance a circle is just a special case of an ellipse”.
equation of circle…X^2 + y^2 = r^2
equation of ellipse…
x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1
a = semi-major axis
b = semi-minor axis
If a = b then a = b = r (radius of circle)
x^2/r^2 + y^2/r^2 = 1
x^2 + y^2 = r^2.
The only difference between a circle and an ellipse is the ratio of a to b.
Who said math isn’t fun?
Galileo showed that the earth is not the center of the universe. Please do keep up Robertson.
Is that your beef, claiming it’s politically-incorrect for the Moon to orbit the Earth? This isn’t one of those woke things, is it?
You did not get back to me on the sats. Does NASA launch sats to orbit the Earth or the Sun? Maybe you could advise Roy that NOAA sats are orbiting the Sun, might help him tune the orbit.
So, if NOAA sats are orbiting the Sun, and they sample oxygen radiation, where’s the oxygen they are sampling in the Sub’s atmosphere?
Ken is neither a “Spinner” nor a “Non-Spinner”. He’s in his own special little group that doesn’t believe the moon orbits the Earth at all. He actually said:
“Please have a look at the Moon’s trajectory segment and do tell how the alleged ellipse or circle exists.”
Indicating that he doesn’t believe the moon moves in an ellipse around the Earth. Astonishing what this debate has brought some people to. Now, no “Spinner” will correct him, since that requires integrity, so it will once again come down to the “Non-Spinners” to do all the hard work.
dremt…”Ken is neither a Spinner nor a Non-Spinner. Hes in his own special little group….”
***
They grow some pretty strong weed over on the Island (Vancouver), where Ken resides. It’s not mushroom season, so it can’t be that.
Save this forecast for future reference
https://climateimpactcompany.com/daily-feature-super-warm-ssta-forecasts-for-middle-of-2023-imply-more-large-areas-of-dangerous-heat-for-northern-hemisphere-summer-2/
Well off-topic, but we’ve discussed US 2020 election denial here before, this revelation is quite stunning:
Fox relied much on Sidney Powell’s advice that the election was stolen, and her case strongly rested on the following source:
“A woman who says the wind talks to her and put forth claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential race that she admitted were “pretty wackadoodle” turns out to be a key source of allegations that Fox News presented, night after night, to millions of viewers late that fall….
The author of the memo in which Powell and Bartiromo put so much stock offered detailed and utterly false claims of how Dominion Voting Systems helped rig the election for Biden. She also shared a bit about herself, writing that she gains insights from experiencing something “like time-travel in a semi-conscious state….”
Powell’s source also volunteered that the wind tells her that she’s a ghost, though she doesn’t believe it….
“Who am I? And how do I know all of this?… I’ve had the strangest dreams since I was a little girl,” the woman wrote in the email shared by Powell with Bartiromo and Dobbs. “I was internally decapitated, and yet, I live.”
This all appeared in the same memo that claimed Dominion’s software flipped votes from Trump to Biden, and tied the election company to a conspiracy involving Democrats Nancy Pelosi, then the House speaker, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein….
David Clark, then the senior executive over Fox’s weekend shows, later said under oath to Dominion’s lawyers that he “would not have allowed that claim to be aired,” had he known this memo was the sole foundation of the “crazy” theories….
“Sidney Powell is a bit nuts,” Fox host Laura Ingraham wrote to stars Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity on Nov. 15, 2020.
“Sidney Powell is lying,” Carlson told his producer in a note the next day….
Others admitted under oath that they also shared those sentiments.
“[T]hat whole narrative that Sidney was pushing, I did not believe it for one second,” Hannity said in a deposition conducted nearly two years later by Dominion’s lawyers.
One of Dominion’s attorneys asked Bartiromo while she was being deposed whether the email was “nonsense.” The Fox News anchor agreed that it was.”
https://www.npr.org/2023/02/20/1158223099/fox-news-dominion-wackadoodle-election-fraud-claim
There’s a lot more detail in there, but short story is that Fox anchors knowingly aired stolen election conspiracy theories that they believed were BS, and except once by Tucker Carlson, never pushed back on the interviewee.
They pushed false propaganda to increase Fox Network traffic, and the evidence is their own emails and text messages.
Looks like ren has gone away to mourn the loss of La Nina.
You’re the one who has been absent, and thankfully. Could you go away again?
I am not paid to waste my entire life arguing with contrarians. You have to wonder how anyone with a semblance of a normal life could spend hours here EVERY day. Ren is one who is usually here every day, I am not.
If anyone was curious about what the major Russian news services are telling Russians about the war, they are talking about bombing London, getting rid of the transgender Nazis in Ukraine, casting Zelensky as a drug-addicted gay paedophile, worrying that NATO will prevent them from putting their daughters in dresses, deploying nuclear weapons, and that Russia is standing firm to protect tradition and religious values against the Satanic uprising of LGBTQ wokism. The head of Russia Today received a medal from Putin and vowed to help him slay the Ukranian cannibals.
I kid you not. Plenty of footage to observe. They’ve gone insane over there. Isolated from the world, they are pushing back with the most atrociously rancid, fawning, totalitarian propaganda since 1940s Germany.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHejvoRUjMM
And they air a properly translated Tucker Carlson in support of their narrative.
It’s incredible to see this kind of media-brutalism in operation in a powerful country in the modern world. It must be a bit what China is like. And lo, the head of Russia Today says she wants wants Russia to be like China.
It’s actually frightening stuff. It’s mass madness.
Yes barry, it’s that’s how cults behave. We see the same thing here, where people actually support nonsense like “ice cubes can boil water” and “passenger jets fly backwards”.
Have you taken the simple quiz yet?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449686
More laughs at Clint R, the blog laughing stock.
Clint has lost the physics argument since passenger jets can fly backwards (there are videos of such) and added ice cubes can boil water (there are experiments of such).
I rest my case.
Thx; Clint gives up. Admits passenger jets can fly backwards (there are videos of such) and added ice cubes can boil water (there are experiments of such).
barry
What you write here is 100 % correct.
We see nearly everyday news from there, mostly presented by an incredibly courageous reporterwoman named Katrin Eigendorf who is in the Ukraine since the beginning of this Russian aggression (before that she reported about the comeback of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the subsequent oppression of girls and women).
Anyone in Russia who says or posts anything negative about the Russian aggression risks up to 15 years in prison.
Russian aggression??? For 8 years, Ukrainian rebels in eastern Ukraine begged the Russians for help. The Russians did not act till Kyiv started playing dirty and sending Nazi-based divisions into eastern Ukraine. It did not take them long to sort out the SOBs in Mariupol, the Russians wiped out the Azov battalion in a few days.
I was just as angry as anyone else when the Russians invaded, basically because I was totally ignorant of the situation. I was ignorant of the situation because the western media lied to us about it, not just about the invasion but about the 8 years before it.
I had read about the rebels in eastern Ukraine and did not know what was going on because the western media hid the problems. They told us nothing about the cause of discontent with the rebels, why they were fighting. It was all suppressed.
It was not till a friend sent me a link to a film by Oliver Stone (Ukraine on Fire) that I woke up to the stark reality. I did not accept Stone’s word for it, I did my own research, but everything I read on Stone’s claims were true. Even wiki corroborated much of his claims yet people like you continue spreading propaganda about the Russians and their motives, namely that they invaded for no reason with the sole intent of conquering the Ukraine.
When I reported on the rot in the Ukraine re Ukrainian nationalists, and their connection to the WW II Nazis, I was ridiculed. Yet it’s all there for anyone with a conscience and a desire for truth to verify. The fact that you and others have not done that research suggests to me that you don’t care, that you’d sooner get your daily fix of propaganda.
barry
Robertson is a deranged pathological liar.
You just need to follow this link (I don’ know how often I wrote about that):
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1441605
Robertson doesn’t care about reality, regardless what it is about: viruses, Einstein, the lunar spin, temperature data processing etc etc etc, and now the Russian aggression which started in Chechnya, then moved to Georgia, was continued with the Crimea annexation, and goes now on to destroy the historical enemy: Ukraine as a whole.
Should the Putin dictator succeed in Ukraine, then the next aggression will start over Moldavia, based on the same manipulation as for Eastern Ukraine: to ‘save’ the pro-Russian extremists min Transnystria.
Then the Moscow Nomenklatura around Putin will feel so strong that they will continue their dream: to entirely restore the USSR.
*
Robertson is such a poor, manipulated idiot, possibly in contact with pro-Russian people: he spews on this blog the same bullshit as lots of ultra-right wing people posting on online newspapers in Germany and France.
He should spend some time in the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), and explain his pro-Russian views to the people there.
Robertson is just a blatherskite. I wouldn’t ascribe any malevolence to his maunderings.
It’s incredible that these moves in Crimea and Ukraine are not seen for what they obviously are by some people. Russia is expanding again, to restore its imperial borders. The major (state-owned) news services in Russia are openly saying that the annexation of these countries and others was ‘illegal’, and fully support Russia reclaiming them. Surely it’s only a matter of time before the Robetsons in the West start to parrot this god-forsaken excuse.
There is a blindness that only the ideologically driven can conjure up.
barry…” kid you not. Plenty of footage to observe. Theyve gone insane over there. Isolated from the world, they are pushing back with the most atrociously rancid, fawning, totalitarian propaganda since 1940s Germany”.
***
And you don’t think we get the same propaganda over here? It’s differently phrased and enacted but propaganda just the same.
You don’t seem to be concerned that the Ukraine allowed armed nationalists to oust a democratically-elected president in 2014. You don’t seem to be concerned that the Ukraine parliament had vocal fascists who condemned the WW II Allies as pawns of the Jews. Would that be allowed in Australia, it is certainly not allowed in Canada? It would be labeled a hate-crime in Canada but it’s apparently OK in the Ukraine.
What would you think if armed militants ran off your democratically-elected parliament? Here in Canada, the government implemented a never-used war measures act to control protesting truckers even though they offered not a sign of being violent. The government went so far as to freeze the bank accounts of anyone who contributed to the truckers.
Yet the same government openly supports the Ukrainian government who allowed a coup to take place in 2014. Not surprising, the family of our current PM were openly friendly with Castro, the former Cuban leader.
The current PM, has protested that people in China should be free to protest yet he does not feel the same about Canadians. Canadian Jordan Peterson wrote…
“The Chinese can protest COVID authoritarianism but supporters of Canadian truckers need to have their bank accounts frozen (the most totalitarian move made by a Western leader perhaps ever). I really don’t understand how he can stand listening to himself talk”.
I know it’s really tough to recognize propaganda in your own government and media but its there is spades if you look for it.
Love them or hate them, we need the Russians to maintain a balance of power in the world. Without them, western power-brokers would run amok. As it stands, our democracies are being bypassed by the politically-correct, who believe they know what is best for everyone.
barry…you indicated you had some time for research. Download Oliver Stone’s film, Ukraine on Fire, then take the time to verify what he claims in the film.
Researching it is very disturbing, at least for me. If it interests you, I’ll post other leads for you to verify, that proves the fascist background of Ukrainian nationalists and their White Supremacist views. I am convinced it is the nationalists who are prolonging this war. They hate Russians so badly they will never negotiate.
In 2016, they threatened the sitting president if he did not implement a law honouring Ukrainians who were Nazi collaborators in WW II. I am talking about Stepan Bandera, who was wanted at Nuremberg for war crimes, and the SS Galicia.
It’s all related to the OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists). They don’t call themselves that today but they continue to honour the OUN with candelight vigils.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_Ukrainian_Nationalists
The depth to which the current problems go is as far back as 1929 and beyond, yet the western media portrays it as a Russian invasion, purely on a whim.
Instead of tit for tat, why don’t you actually look at the reporting I linked. I presume you did not, and you don’t even have to download it.
I’m busy today, but I had a brief look at the wikipedia pages of the docco, Stone, the ousted President.
Imagine if the MAGA rebels successfully stormed the capitol on January 6, taking hostages and, with the help and special pleading of the Trump administration and associates, got Mike Pence to count the alternate slate of electors and keep Trump in power.
Would you argue this gave Canada and Mexico a green light to invade the US to protect democracy?
Ukraine is hardly perfect. But the docco gives a one-sided view of it. Oliver Stone, the film’s producer, interviewed Putin and the ousted Ukranian leader (he was dethroned by a parliamentary vote and his own party disowned him). Stone appears to have got his information rather lop-sidedly.
There are many countries with histories and troubles like Ukraine. Russian occupation of that country and others, like Latvia, was also less than stellar, shall we say, and Latvia is 100% behind Ukraine against the Russian imperialism that used to beset that country.
Russia as the democracy police? That is galactically deluded. Russia itself is not a true democracy, and the 4th estate is an instrument of government, as the video above shows very clearly. Just watch it.
There is a line that should not be crossed – international war except in immediate defence of attack. The Russian invasion crosses that line, and the rest of the world has rightly condemned it.
Oliver Stone:
“Although the United States has many wars of aggression on its conscience, it doesn’t justify Mr. Putin’s aggression in Ukraine. A dozen wrongs dont make a right. Russia was wrong to invade.”
https://deadline.com/2022/03/oliver-stone-criticizes-putin-ukraine-1234973037/
Russia has threatened nuclear weapons. It’s news services promote it. Nothing can possibly excuse that madness, and certainly not the internal strife of Ukraine.
From Bindidon: “…and now the Russian aggression which started in Chechnya, then moved to Georgia, was continued with the Crimea annexation, and goes now on to destroy the historical enemy: Ukraine as a whole.”
Putin seems to know the safest times to invade a country:
Chechnya — Happened under Clinton
Georgia — Happened under Obama `
Crimea — Happened umder Obama
Ukraine — Happened under Biden
Wait for a weak Dim US President and there is no one to stop aggression. Elections have consequences….
Pup, Pup,
Chechnya lasted more than ten years.
And that’s the second one.
The whole ordeal was between 1991 and 2017.
Who was president in 1991, and are you sure you check the News Corp talking points you spout?
Russia didn’t invade Chechnya until 1994.
Upon the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, Soviet air force general Dzhokhar Dudayev staged a coup, ousting the Soviet-aligned Checheno-Ingush government, declaring the independence of a Chechen republic and calling for free elections. Dudayev was handily elected president, and the newly sovereign nation named itself the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (the traditional Turkic name for the region).
Yeltsin dismissed the election results and aided a civil war to realign the country allegedly sending paramilitary combatants in as well as arms.
However that didn’t work so Russia invaded in 1994 under Clintons Presidency.
Our little spinner and cagw friends in here rather transparency expose their political allegiances on every issue. Facts be damned its our platform or the highway.
No, Bill, Clint brought local partisanship to this discussion and others reacted. Try to be less myopic.
Furthermore, the incursion into Georgia and South Ossetia occurred while Bush Jnr was in office – 2008. So not only did Clint introduce the partisan talking point apropos of nothing, he brought a false talking point, trying to imply that Russian times its military adventures to which party is in power in the US. Putrid conservative obsession, bashing the other side under any topic.
barry, maybe Russia didn’t really invade Georgia, or Ukraine.
You seem to be willing to pervert anything to support your cult.
Take the quiz:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449686
Meanwhile, on 6 September 1991, militants of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People (NCChP) party, created by the former Soviet Air Force general Dzhokhar Dudayev, stormed a session of the Supreme Soviet of the Checheno-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, with the aim of asserting independence. The storming caused the death of the head of Grozny’s branch of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Vitaliy Kutsenko, who was defenestrated or fell while trying to escape. This effectively dissolved the government of the Checheno-Ingush Autonomous Republic of the Soviet Union.
[]
In November 1991, Yeltsin dispatched Internal Troops to Grozny, but they were forced to withdraw when Dudayev’s forces surrounded them at the airport. After Chechnya made its initial declaration of sovereignty, the Checheno-Ingush Autonomous Republic split in two in June 1992 amidst the Ingush armed conflict against another Russian republic, North Ossetia. The newly created Republic of Ingushetia then joined the Russian Federation, while Chechnya declared full independence from Moscow in 1993 as the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (ChRI).
testing..
https://jbh.journals.villanova.edu/article/download/2403/2325?inline=1
Well-documented Russian bombings and missile strikes in Ukraine have decimated hospitals, schools, and apartment buildings, including a theater in Mariupol where hundreds of children were sheltering and the Kramatorsk rail station where thousands were waiting to escape the Russian onslaught. The withdrawal of Russian troops from towns like Bucha, Chernihiv, and Sumy has revealed horrific scenes of civilian carnage, mass graves, and reports of rape and torture. Several world leaders have accused Russia of committing genocide against the people of Ukraine.
Russia systematically ‘ignores’ laws of war and ‘distinction between military & civilian objects’: https://youtu.be/alXNjz2dBEc
War is hell.
Never forget what happened in East Germany following WW2 when the civilian population took the brunt of Russian retribution. Nobody said anything then.
Don’t get fooled by Propaganda; not a word of truth is coming out of Ukraine.
“not a word of truth is coming out of Ukraine.”
You must know someone on the ground there then.
There is a whole “Foreign Legion” of volunteers who are helping defend Ukraine.
They offered themselves as soldiers which means they accept that there is a good chance that they will die or be maimed. Many couldn’t get past that part of the deal, so they backed out early.
War is only an adventure if you come home in one piece.
They are cold, wet, hungry, tired and frightened. They are seeing tragedy and some are having to partake in acts that are monstrous, not because they want to but because they have no choice. They went with a clear understanding of what their courage required.
Go or shut up. There are a lot of talkers and very few doers.
andrea…”hey offered themselves as soldiers which means they accept that there is a good chance that they will die or be maimed”.
***
What kind of idiot would do that without first checking to see what he/she would be fighting for? The world is full of heroes on lost causes, like the adolescent, snotty-nosed, climate change alarmist Greta Thunberg.
In 2014, a lot of Ukrainians protesting were likely serious-minded people on a good cause. Little did they know that idiots calling themselves Ukrainian nationalists would invade their cause with firearms and start shooting at the police. Here in Canada, such an act would have the Canadian army all over them but in the Ukraine, nothing was done because the army and police were on the side of the thugs with guns. They are all corrupt.
The original protestors were likely there because they wanted to see the Ukraine join the EU and not be supported by Russia. That’s a legitimate cause but those of us who live in a democracy know it’s OK to protest government action but not to take up arms and over-throw a government. You do that at the ballot box.
What is it about that you don’t understand? The Ukraine has experienced growing pains since 1990 and that has gotten them the dubious honour of being rated the most corrupt country in Europe. Their elections had been claimed to be fraudulent and it’s fair enough to question that and investigate it. However, the sitting president in 2014 got their after an election that was scrutinized globally and given a global stamp of approval.
So, what was the EU and he US doing intefering in the politics of the Ukraine in 2014 to encourage dissent? Senator John McCain was in Kyiv cheerleading and Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Victoria Nuland, was helping select a successor to the sitting Ukrainian president while he was still in office and still democratically-elected.
She was arguing with the EU over who should be the next president. Can you imagine that taking place in Canada, the US, or the UK? She would have been thrown in jail.
The Ukraine is still seriously corrupt yet they are receiving billions in aid from the West. The current president, Zelensky, has suspended the media and rules like a dictator. He’s behaving like a little creep yet he is being feted globally as a hero.
sorry…forgot this link to Victoria Nuland…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland
It’s plain that the current war began through interference of the EU and the US in Ukrainian affairs. The sitting president in 2014 was democratically-elected and if he thought the best deal for the Ukraine was with the Russians and not the EU, that was his business and the business of the Ukrainian parliament, not the business of the EU or the US.
It’s equally plain that plans were afoot to lure the Ukraine into the EU and NATO, putting pressure on Russia to act. Russia has made it clear they would not allow the Ukraine to join NATO. If you encounter a bear in the woods, who has his paw on a nuclear weapons system that could obliterate the world, is it smart to taunt him into reacting?
The West called Russia’s bluff once to often and they reacted with threats of blowing us all to you know where, and still we keep up the pressure.
Are we seriously that stupid?
“There is a whole “Foreign Legion” of volunteers who are helping defend Ukraine.”
Oh come now, join the Foreign Legion. Join up and travel to distant and exotic places. Meet interesting and exciting people, and then kill them.
TM,
“You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.”
As true today as in 1940.
AW,
And so, while the end-of-the-world scenario will be rife with unimaginable horrors, I believe that the pre-end period will be filled with unprecedented opportunities for profit.
This video is worth a look: https://youtu.be/ab24tDK9pV0
TM,
Agree with Larry Summers’ prescription:
“The conflict has now become a war of attrition, meaning a military strategy where one side attempts to wear down the other to the point of fatigue. The way to win the economic aspect of this is to support Ukraine’s economy.
Russian assets should be the ultimate source to pay the bill to rebuild Ukraine.
In addition to Ukraine, Russian assets should be used to support the developing world that have paid and suffered enormously from higher food and energy prices because of Russian aggression.
The Russian funds are held in international banking institutions. It gives them the ability to seize assets and spend them as they see fit, with strong precedent from cases in the Iraq War.”
andrea…”Well-documented Russian bombings and missile strikes in Ukraine have decimated hospitals, schools, and apartment buildings, including a theater in Mariupol where hundreds of children were sheltering and the Kramatorsk rail station where thousands were waiting to escape the Russian onslaught”.
***
Well-documented by whom? The Ukrainian department of propaganda?
One of the reasons given by the Russians for invading was to deal with Ukrainian battalions like the Azov battalion, who the Russians claimed were a neo-Nazi battalion. The Russian are a might sensitive about Nazis after the horror show they endured at Stalingrad and other places. Without the Russians we would never have beaten them.
Like them or hate them, we enjoy the freedom we enjoy today thanks in part to the Russians. Remember, the millions of Russian souls who died fighting the Nazis were ordinary people like you and me. Many of them had been indoctrinated into the communist philosophy but many of them were just simple souls, even many of the indoctrinated, and held the same emotional values as the rest of us.
When Russian soldiers joined up with the Allied forces in Berlin, they rejoiced. There was no problem between the armies, the problem was with Stalin and his horde of Bolsheviks. Any Russian soldiers who experienced the West were summarily sent off to camps by Stalin. That was the deal we made with Stalin, that all Russian soldiers be returned, even though many begged to remain in the West.
They cried over lost sons and daughters and parents had problems stopping young women from volunteering to fight on the front lines. Even battalion leaders were confused when young women showed up on sight to fight. Some of these young women went out into no man’s land to drag back wounded men who were twice their weight. Their courage and dedication impressed me deeply.
None of them fought for Stalin per se, it was for their country and the Russian people. I understand people hating Stalin, I can’t stand him myself. I regard him as an enemy of the Russian people, not a leader. He used them. However, labeling every Russian as evil is pure bs.
The US Congress knew about Azov, they produced a bill banning support of them due to their Nazi links. However, when the same battalion was posted to eastern Ukraine, in Mariupol, and the Ukrainian government was queried on it, they made it sound like they were just good-old boys out for a good time.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/380483-congress-bans-arms-to-controversial-ukrainian-militia-linked-to-neo-nazis/
One journalist idiot, I think from the Washington Post, claimed it was romantic to have a Nazi battalion. What a sicko.
The first thing the Russians did after invading Mariupol was to find the Azov and decimate them, which they did. Your reference to the movie theatre incident has been discovered to be bs. It is now thought the Azov staged it to draw sympathy to the Ukrainian cause. That was their MO, to create chaos and harm people.
The current mob of Ukrainian nationalists, who are causing all the trouble in the Ukraine, are descendants of Ukrainians who fought with the Nazis in WW II. They are White Supremacists who claim the Allies in WW II were fighting on behalf of the Jews. They refer to the Allies as ‘scum’.
A leader of the early Ukrainian nationalist movement, the UON, formed in 1929. was Stepan Bandera. He was wanted at Nuremberg for war crimes, yet the current nationalists still celebrate him and other fascists in candle-light vigils.
Ukrainian nationalists are zealots who will never concede anything related to the Russians. The Russians feel the same about them. We have a stand off and we need leadership from the international community, not the current enabling of the Ukraine.
As I watch the propaganda doled out by Russian news services, I am struck by how much they resemble extreme right-wing rhetoric in the US. It’s as it the extreme right-wing talking points in the US (echoed in other countries) have been fed to them by Russian bots on the internet, facebook, youtube, and other social media. Russia Today is a propaganda mill for the Russian government, and as I understand it, it is a source for many views on the righter side of conservatism.
“The first thing the Russians did after invading Mariupol was to find the Azov and decimate them, which they did.”
Ok, then with the supposed goal of the war met, they could withdraw their troops from their neighbors country.
But they havent.
They stay, unwelcome in someone else’s country.
They annex vast swaths of someone else’s country.
They continue to kill thousands of civilians in the country, and continue to bomb and destroy cities there, and try their best to freeze as many of the people as they can.
Its almost as if they their goals for the war are not what they stated.
What are they then, Gordon?
The denazification claims by Putin are mostly BS. But there is a history there. Ukraine was pretty much home to the White Army that fought the Red Army during the Soviet Unions civil war that lasted from 1918-1922.
There is a lot of hate there. During that period ethnic Ukrainians killed a lot of Jews in pograms. The Central Powers supported the ”White Army”. Adolph Hitler hated the Russians because Slavs were believed to be cross breeds between Aryans and Asians from the days of the Mongol Empire.
Historically the lands of Russia were controlled by slavic tsars. That made a turn in 1682 with Peter the Great a man of mixed race with European and Russian blood. Peter the Great began the building of Russia into a European empire by seizing the Baltic states and the seaports necessary to build empire.
In 1762 Catherine the Great overthrew her husband Peter III and was of 100% European race. The Tsars of Russia remained near pure European blood until the Bolsheviks overthrew Nicholas II.
So its really complicated. Besides ethnic identities there are religious ones as well. They largely share a religion, Orthodoxy, but argue about which branch of the religion is in control Constantinople or Moscow. That has been particularly aggravated post the 2014 coup by at least one subsequent President.
Russia has always been sensitive about the vulnerability of its sea power, leading Peter the Great to seize the Baltic states. Khrushchev a Ukrainian gave Crimea to the Ukraine State of the USSR. With NATO courting Ukraine that has become a flashpoint not at all unlike Cuba became a flashpoint.
Point?
the point is that the Russians may have decimated the Azov battalions in Mariupol but they aren’t fighting any longer in Mariupol.
Its obvious to me that Putin misjudged big time about how much support he would get from Ukrainians. A large segment of the population was opposed to NATO membership and that has eroded big time.
“Well-documented by whom? The Ukrainian department of propaganda?”
By who? By any number of FREE press organizations. Pick your favorite, Gordon.
Beware that it will differ from what the the Russian State Media have been brainwashing you with.
War is hell. Atrocities are well-documented in every military action even when so-called smart bombs are used.
Climate model sez – How do you like them short mild snow-less global warming winterz ???
https://youtu.be/KZJdQvftLOA
Her airhead persona is indicative of climate alarmists. She is likely a goddess to them.
Skiers, and the entire ski industry don’t.
I have no idea how I managed to suddenly go from gravitational potentials and forces to ring laser gyros that measure Earth’s rotation with amazing accuracy.
But that reminded me of the Foucault pendulum and that it’s really too bad the Apollo missions didn’t install something like that on our moon at a convenient latitude.
That would have saved us incredible amounts of the ball-on-a-string nonsense and similar ‘cult’ idiocies.
Bindidon continues incessantly to not listen carefully and create stupid strawmen to dispute rather than the true non-spinner position as originally outlined by DREMT.
Binny, non-spinners say the moon rotates obviously if it rotates you aren’t going to be able to answer on what axis it rotates using a Foucault pendulum which will rock independent of any rotation.
Are even aware at all of the actual issue that is being argued?
Hunter boy
You are such an arrogant and ignorant idiot.
That you even don’t grasp how a Foucault pendulum works is incredible.
But be patient, Hunter boy.
One day, a lunar mission will bring a 1 m^3 ring laser gyroscope to the Moon.
And then your dumb blah blah will take an end, because such a gyroscope detects even the internal, polar axis of the rotating celestial body it is working on.
Vous êtes vraiment le crétin absolu, Hunter boy. Pire que l’idiot du village, en quelque sorte.
binny…”One day, a lunar mission will bring a 1 m^3 ring laser gyroscope to the Moon”.
***
Not necessary, a logical, scientific mind can see immediately that the Moon cannot rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
Even if they take that new-fangled device to the Moon and it shows conclusively that the Moon is not rotating about a local axis, you will still quote Meyer and Cassini, even though they are wrong.
I understand perfectly how it works Bindidon, obviously you don’t.
The pendulum swings in on one line with respect to a grid in space. The planet or moon that is rotating either on its own axis or on an orbital axis will move under it without affecting the pendulum.
You seriously need to do a better job of wrapping your head around the non-spinner position to understand the pendulum cannot tell you which axis the moon is rotating on.
Bill…sound like another gyro problem where a gyro is used to orient the instrument to its own coordinate system, usually the stars. Therefore it won’t know if the body is rotating on an axis or moving in 360 degrees on an orbit without rotating locally.
Gordo, a three axis set of gyros are the foundation of an inertial navigation system. Working together, they can tell you the angular rotation of a free body in 3 dimensions, such as the Moon. One would find that the Moon has an axis of rotation at 1.5 degrees from the Earth’s orbital axis, just as one finds by optical measurements. As a result, it’s impossible for the Moon’s motion to be described as a rotation around a single external axis.
swannie…”a three axis set of gyros are the foundation of an inertial navigation system. Working together, they can tell you the angular rotation of a free body in 3 dimensions, such as the Moon”
***
Relative to itself. So, if it is referenced to the stars, and the Moon orbits through 360 degrees relative to the stars, it will regard it as rotating about the Earth, wrt the stars. In essence, it will detect itself moving in an ellipse.
Hunter boy
Again, you’re acting like what the Krauts call ‘dummdreist’ – a 100 % mix of dumb and brazen.
The German vernacular apparently ‘thought’ of people like you when it came up with the idiom that fits so perfectly with your behavior on this blog.
You DEFINITELY don’t know how Foucault’s pendulum works, and post irrelevant, pesudoscientific trash instead.
It should be evident to anyone having a normally working brain that while a pendulum’s inertia certainly helps in detecting the motion of a merry-go-round, it never could reflect any orbital motion like that of the Moon around Earth.
You are living in a sphere in which you distort anything until it fits your narrative.
*
And EXTRA for you, Hunter boy, I repeat:
One day, a lunar mission will bring a 1 m^3 ring laser gyroscope to the Moon.
And then your dumb blah blah will take an end, because such a gyroscope detects even the internal, polar axis of the rotating celestial body it is working on.
It won’t take that long.
Gordo, referring to an inertial navigation system, wrote:
gordo still doesn’t understand dynamics. An inertial navigation system detects rotation WRT the stars, i.e. an inertial reference frame. The system will also tell you the 3-D direction for the axis of rotation. For the Moon, that rotation is NOT parallel to the orbit’s axis.
E. Swanson says:
As a result, its impossible for the Moons motion to be described as a rotation around a single external axis.
———————
Nice declaratory statement there Swanson. And the logic behind it?
… can be found in any college level dynamics text book.
Hunter troll, even grammie & clone understands that a body can’t be rotating around 2 different axes at the same time. By “rotating”, I mean that all a body’s particles are rotating in concentric circles around a single axis.
E Swanson says: “a body can’t be rotating around 2 different axes at the same time.”
You have to be VERY careful with this.
There are two different ways to interpret this.
1) All parts of a rigid body rotate at the same rate. Therefore there cannot be any ADDITIONAL or SEPARATE rotation of any or all of the object about another axis.
2) All parts of a rigid body rotate at the same rate. When you choose ANY axis attached to the body, the body will be rotating about that (moving) axis. The body is indeed rotating about all these axes simultaneously.
(1) is clearly what the non-spinners are thinking. It is a perfectly valid interpretation. The MOTL can be modelled as acting like a rigid body (eg a plastic sheet with a picture of the moon drawn off to one side). There is no further rotation of the moon about the center of the picture of the moon.
Bindidon says:
Again, youre acting like what the Krauts call dummdreist a 100 % mix of dumb and brazen.
You DEFINITELY dont know how Foucaults pendulum works, and post irrelevant, pesudoscientific trash instead.
It should be evident to anyone having a normally working brain that while a pendulums inertia certainly helps in detecting the motion of a merry-go-round, it never could reflect any orbital motion like that of the Moon around Earth.
————————
Oh it does. Its the 366th rotation of the earth around the sun and its all the rotations of the moon around the earth. You are just gobsmacked with your own theory so badly you can’t see the forest for theory trees. the faucault pendulum measures all rotations of objects whether you want to recognize them as rotations or not.
“the faucault pendulum measures all rotations of objects whether you want to recognize them as rotations or not.”
But the moons angular velocity about its axis is constant, while the angular velocity of it’s orbit changes. Which of those two would the pendulum measure??
The pendulum will measure the direction the moon faces.
Tim, Yes, the MOTL cartoon depicts a valid motion of an object around an external axis. However, that statement is based on a set of facts which do not apply to the Moon. First off is that the MOTL “orbit” of the COM is circular, which may be said to be a special case of an ellipse, but it is highly unlikely to occur in nature and does not apply to the Moon. Second, in the cartoon the “Moon”‘s rotation axis is perpendicular to the orbital plane. That’s plane motion, with only 2 dimensions.
In the real world, circular orbits are highly unlikely and the rotation of a free body with axis perpendicular to the orbit plane is also so. The result is that the Moon (and other bodies with 2 such “rotation axes” can not be described as a single rotation around an external axis.
As I said Swanson the Faucault Pendulum does not measure what axis you are rotating on.
However there is a small caveat to that. If the orbit was perfectly circular it would not tell you what axis you were rotating on.
But, if you have a Faucault Pendulum with a read out accurarcy to 1 second of rotation it will tell you that you that our moon is on an orbital axis.
Hunter troll, I was replying to Gordo about a three axis rate gyro setup, which will inform one about the axis of rotation of a free body in space. It provides no information about the orbit.
Sheesh Swanson, A gyroscope is a free body itself, orbit it and it will tell you something.
Hunter troll misses the point:
Well, yes, sort of. A 3 axis gyro package will tell you the rate of rotation of the free body to which it is attached. No information is provided regarding the orbit, which is a curvilinear translation.
To provide that information, the package must also include 3 orthogonal accelerometers, coupled with electronics to integrate the accelerations, giving change in velocity. The package might also be referenced to the stars with a star tracker.
E. Swansn says:
Hunter troll misses the point:
A gyroscope is a free body itself, orbit it and it will tell you something.
Well, yes, sort of. A 3 axis gyro package will tell you the rate of rotation of the free body to which it is attached. No information is provided regarding the orbit, which is a curvilinear translation.
————————-
Sort of? LMAO!
It will tell you what the sidereal rotation of the orbit is along with any rotation it might have on its internal axis. there is no way to separate the two other than mathematically or conceptually. And if you get the concepts wrong well that explains your position in this argument.
Again since you are relying on authority to tell you what is so lets investigate that and I ask again: What did Newton say Lorb + Lspin was equal to? Since its an equation he must have had the target variable named somewhere. Why are you guys avoiding this? Is this a big cover up on your part?
Hunter troll claimed:
The 3 axis array of rate gyros measure the rotation in inertial space. They don’t measure the instantaneous velocity which appears in your equation L = mvr. Given some initial value for the vector, v, the data from the 3 asix accelerometers can provide the delta v over a period of time after that initial value.
Bill says: “It will tell you what the sidereal rotation of the orbit …”
Maybe you can clarify what you mean here. Consider this orbit.
http://hildaandtrojanasteroids.net/KeplerII.jpg
Suppose one side of the planet always faces the left side of the image as it orbits once. What do you think the gyro would tell you? Would it tell you there was one ‘sidereal rotation of the orbit’? Or tell you there was no sidereal rotation of the planet on its axis?
Your answer should tell both of us a lot about what you understand.
E. Swanson, I agree with all your comments to me. There are multiple, similar issues being discussed. I was specifically try to get the non-spinners to face some simple truths about rotation. You are going beyond and explaining how — once rotations are understood by non-spinners — their theories are inconsistent.
We are both fighting an uphill battle with this lot.
there is nothing inconsistent about the non-spinner position. The moon travels with no change in angular momentum no change in total energy.
Tim…first of all, there is nothing you are trying to explain that I don’t already understand. Secondly, Swanson at least understands and accepts that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion, and is motion like the MOTL. That’s why he’s always so obsessed with trying to argue that the moon’s motion can’t possibly be a rotation about an external axis. His position is at least logical, in that respect. Whereas you don’t accept that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion, and is motion like the MOTL. So it is not logical for you to be always trying to argue that the moon’s motion can’t possibly be a rotation about an external axis! What difference does it make, to you?
So Tim, don’t try to pretend that you and Swanson are in agreement, and are like brothers in arms struggling against some common enemy, both “fighting an uphill battle”. The fact is, you are in complete and utter disagreement with Swanson, and most of your fellow “Spinners”. Want respect? Want me to start taking you seriously? Then agree that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion, and is motion like the MOTL. Until then, stop whining about fighting uphill battles alongside people you don’t even agree with on the fundamentals!
You got him on the precipice DREMT. If he slips he as to agree with Madhavi that rotations on external axes look like the motl. He knows what a slippery slope that is so he is hanging on for dear life.
“If he slips he as to agree with Madhavi that rotations on external axes look like the motl.”
I have agreed since Day 1 of this discussions that a rotation on external axis look like the MOTL. That has never been the issue.
The issue is deeper in two different and important ways — one mathematical and one physical.
1) Mathematically, a translation in a circle + a rotation about a moving, internal axis ALSO looks like the MOTL. Whichever of those axes you choose too look at, the moon is rotating around that axis.
2) Physically, a moon in an elliptical orbit does NOT look like a rotation about an external axis — not even close. The motion DOES however look like a translation in an ellipse @ varying speeds + uniform rotation on its axis @ constant angular speed.
Here’s an engineering challenge. Describe a device (or write some code or pseudocode) that would accurately carry a ball to match a moon in a highly elliptical orbit. The device should be able to simulate varying rotation rates. You start with a rigid body rotation; I’ll start with a translation.
“I have agreed since Day 1 of this discussions that a rotation on external axis look like the MOTL. That has never been the issue.”
No, you don’t agree, and that is an issue. You don’t think that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” even exists as a motion, let alone is motion like the MOTL. Stop pretending you agree when you do not agree. You think the MOTL is “rotating about an external axis whilst rotating about an internal axis” and thus all the rest of your comment is null and void. You don’t even need to be arguing it! Until you accept that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion, and is like the MOTL, then you should butt out of the discussion altogether, IMO. You’re not a serious participant. You are not to be taken seriously.
“You got him on the precipice DREMT. If he slips he as to agree with Madhavi that rotations on external axes look like the motl.”
But YOU GUYS no longer agree with Madhavi!
It is very odd that you keep citing her.
grammie pups, I think Tim and I agree that the motion of an orbiting free body can generally be described as the rotation of it’s mass around it’s CM coupled with the motion of the CM around the elliptical orbit.
In addition, there is a special case of motion in which:
1 – the orbit is circular and
2 – the rotation occurs once an orbit with an axis perpendicular to the orbital plane.
For that very special case only, one may also describe the motion as a rotation around an external axis. Your entire MOTL argument is based on your claim that the Moon moves according to that special case.
Sorry, troll, the Moon’s motion fails both requirements. Learn some physics and give it up.
I’m sure you and Tim agree on a lot of things, Swanson. What you don’t agree on is what I deliberately went into some detail to describe. I already know that you guys don’t have the integrity to debate each other when you disagree on fundamental points. Don’t worry about it. I won’t expect that to change, ever.
grammie pups, Tim wrote:
I agree with that and included the causes for that conclusion in my last post. Lets get real for a change. Are you saying that this is incorrect?
I know what you agree on. I’m focussing on what you and Tim disagree on. Tim doesn’t think “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” even exists as a motion, let alone exists as a motion like the MOTL. Sort out your differences first.
grammie, your obsession with the phrase rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is noted. But, as I pointed out above, that motion can also be described as a rotation around the CM and a circular orbit around an external point. Both descriptions could be applied at the same time, but the Moon DOES NOT FIT the basic requirements for that to be true.
In short, you are just pissing into the wind, much to our unending amusement. That’s what makes this so much fun.
"grammie, your obsession with the phrase rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is noted. But, as I pointed out above, that motion can also be described as a rotation around the CM and a circular orbit around an external point. Both descriptions could be applied at the same time…"
…and Tim disagrees. Tim disagrees that the description "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" can be applied to the MOTL. You think one thing. Tim thinks the exact opposite. That’s called being in disagreement. You are in direct disagreement with Tim. You two will never argue it out though, because neither of you has a lick of integrity. That’s why this is so much fun.
“I already know that you guys dont have the integrity to debate each other when you disagree on fundamental points.”
You may have missed it since we aren’t yelling or name-calling, but E. Swanson and I have been ‘debating’ the issues.
I pointed out a weakness I saw in what E. Swanson said. He came back with a clarification and further information. We listened and we learned and (as far as I can tell) we agreed on all the important points.
Those important points include:
1) MOTL — a perfectly flat, perfectly circular motion — can be described as a rigid body rotation about an axis through the center of the earth.
2) I highlighted the idea that there is no *additional* rotation about any other axis for MOTL, but the very nature of rigid body rotation means that the body can equally well be described as rotation about infinitely many other moving parallel axes; particularly an axis through the center of the MOTL.
A body CAN be rotating as measured from 2 different, parallel axes. (My point).
3) E. Swanson clarified that his original point was about the REAL moon and it’s rotation about an axis that is NOT parallel to the orbital axis — a point I was not considering when I responded to him initially. Since the real moon’s axis is tilted with respect to the orbital axis, there is no way to consider those two motions as one single rotation. Point taken, and I agree.
A body CANNOT be rotating as measured from 2 different, non-parallel axes. (His point).
4) And of course, we both always agreed that the real moon’s elliptical orbit cannot be described as a rigid body rotation. The real moon does not rotate around the earth (or even around the barycenter).
You are in direct disagreement with Swanson, Tim, about the most fundamental issue imaginable. Until you acknowledge that the MOTL can be described as not rotating on its own axis, you should not even be commenting. You have no place in the discussion.
“You are in direct disagreement with Swanson, Tim, about the most fundamental issue imaginable. ”
Nope. Already explained — multiple times. We are agreeing with each other on points that go right over your head.
“Until you acknowledge that the MOTL can be described as not rotating on its own axis …”
And yet by the definition *you* agreed to use, MOTL *is* rotating about all sorts of axes. Any rigid body rotation means that you can define rotation about any axis moving with the body. Often it is *handy* to focus on rotation about the CoM, or rotation about some ‘fixed point’. Often it is handy to realize that there is no additional, independent rotation about other axes. But there is still rotation about all those axes.
“You have no place in the discussion.”
Yeah, you and I don’t really belong in the same discussion. I’ll agree with you there.
Tim, I’m well aware, as I said already (how many times do I have to repeat myself!?) that you and Swanson agree on many things…and no, none of it goes over my head. I understand the “Spinner” position as well as any “Spinner”.
Swanson agrees that the MOTL can be described as not rotating on its own axis. You disagree. It would be hard to imagine a more fundamental point of disagreement between you. Yet you won’t argue that out amongst yourselves, because of your total lack of integrity.
When you are ready to accept that the MOTL can be described as not rotating on its own axis, you will be fit to join the discussion. Until then, you should butt out of it, as far as I’m concerned.
grammie pups wrote
No, grammie, I don’t agree with your cartoon world view. The Moon actually DOES rotate around an axis thru it’s COM.
Yes, Swanson, you also think the MOTL can be described as translating in a circle, whilst rotating on its own axis. Well aware. However, you agree that it can also be described as “rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”. Tim does not agree with that description. You and Tim are in direct disagreement about that. How many times do I have to explain this? God, you people are pathetic.
grammie & clone continue their anti-intellectual warfare using their cartoon MOTL, which has nothing to do with the Moon’s real motions.
Swanson refuses to debate Tim, due to his lack of integrity.
” anti-intellectual warfare using their cartoon MOTL”
Yep he is well aware that since the argument over the real Moon’s motion is a lost cause, the pedantic semantics of how to describe this cartoon is all he has left to badger people with.
And yet by the definition *you* agreed to use, MOTL *is* rotating about all sorts of axes.
Any rigid body rotation means that you can define rotation about any axis moving with the body.
Often it is *handy* to focus on rotation about the CoM, or rotation about some fixed point.
Often it is handy to realize that there is no additional, independent rotation about other axes. But there is still rotation about all those axes.
——————-
Mathematically thats all true. The Apollo missions used stars for navigation. From the perspective of the stars it doesn’t matter which axis it rotates on.
But physically it matters as you need some physicality not coming from the stars to create a rotation. Seems that science has a real issue of dealing with reality. Engineers have to deal with what science doesn’t have to deal with. Its a lot easier to build a motl than a motr once you understand how things are put together physically.
So earth to Tim, come in please!
"Mathematically thats all true."
No, Bill. It’s not true. All this nonsense about their being "infinite numbers of axes of rotation" with the MOTL is just that…nonsense. The MOTL can be described as:
1) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
2) Translating in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
That’s it. So the axis of rotation is either within the Earth, or it’s within the moon. Either way, there is only one axis of rotation for the MOTL…and if the axis of rotation is in the moon, then the moon has to be translating in a circle whilst rotating on its own internal axis.
DREMT intentionally avoids the necessary details yet again:
The MOTL can be described as:
1) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis as observed from inner object.
2) Curvilinear translation (Madhavi terms) in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
Begone.
“and if the axis of rotation is in the moon, then the moon has to be translating in a circle whilst rotating on its own internal axis.”
Ok lets go with that then. And we can apply that method to the real Moon which has an elliptical orbit.
And it fits what we observe. Then we can be done!
But that would be the end of trolling on this subject, so …sadly we can’t be done can we…
“All this nonsense about their being…”
Obviously should have been
“All this nonsense about there being…”
Not sure how that happened.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Mathematically thats all true.”
No, Bill. Its not true.
——————————-
I believe I said it ”physically” isn’t true, meaning it doesn’t physically exist.
Mathematics is a language that is conceptual. You can can calculate an angular momentum around an movement along any conceptual arc. Doesn’t make it factual that the rotation is along that arc though. We know the arc that the rotation of the moon is following and it isn’t an arc going around the COM of the moon. However, by moving the COM along the real arc of rotation you can pretend that is the path of the rotation and calculate a value for it as is done in the formula for the angular momentum of a uniform sphere rotating on an external axis.
Tim just likes to pretend whatever he wants to pretend. And he will refuse to give any credence to the other side because that is what he wants to not do also. Its called intellectual dishonesty.
An object moving like the MOTL can be described as not rotating about its own internal axis, but instead rotating about an axis that is external to the object itself. I have no idea how Tim can disagree with that. It’s something so simple, so fundamentally obvious and trivially true, that it simply beggars belief we’ve been talking about it for so long. The dangers of having a PhD, I guess. It obviously fries your brain.
“But physically it matters as you need some physicality not coming from the stars to create a rotation. ”
In the case of the Earth, we all have no doubt that its rotation is around an internal axis tilted at 23.5 degrees to the orbital plane.
There are lots of observable facts that agree that this is the physical axis when using the stars as our reference frame. Meaning this is a line of fixed points that remains fixed pointing to the same point in the stars, Polaris. The rest of the Earth rotates in circles around this line.
This is easily observed by looking at the stars apparent circular motions around Polaris.
For the Moon, there is precisely the same line that points to a fixed position in the stars during each orbit. And it is a line tilted at 6.7 degrees to the orbit.
The observations leave no doubt for anyone in this reality that the rest of the Moon rotates in circles around this line, this tilted axis.
No arguments about the causes of this motion changes this observed motion.
…the dangers of having a PhD, I guess. It obviously fries your brain.
“I understand perfectly how it works Bindidon, obviously you dont.”
Actually, you understand passably well. Your description is accurate at the poles. At other latitudes, the period for the pendulum will not be the sidereal period
Furthermore, your description is also unnecessary complicated. The earth rotates on its axis at (very nearly) a constant rate with respect to the stars — once every 23 h 56 min 4.09. The earth orbits at a varying rate with respect to the stars. The pendulum would sweep around at a constant rate with respect to the stars — once every sidereal day at the poles.
Including the motion about the orbital axis is misleading, since it never appears in the equations nor would it appear in the actual motion of a pendulum.
The last comment was for Bill, and was out of place. I meant to put it later where Bill was discussing the Foucault pendulum.
…dangers of having a PhD, I guess. It obviously fries your brain.
We can recognize trolls because when they have no science arguments, they just toss ad-hom grenades in the vain hope of tarnishing the actual science arguments of their opponents.
…of having a PhD, I guess. It obviously fries your brain.
And another signature of trolls, is their mistaken belief that repeating ad-hominem nonsense miraculously converts it into it pearls of wisdom.
But it never does.
…having a PhD, I guess. It obviously fries your brain.
Tim Folkerts says:
Including the motion about the orbital axis is misleading, since it never appears in the equations nor would it appear in the actual motion of a pendulum.
————————-
Having a PhD and no real world experience does make you a victim of inculcation which fries your brain.
Now Folkerts is trying to claim that orbital motion per the MOTL would not register with a Faucault Pendulum.
I would bet a weeks pay that nobody taught that to Folkerts in his PhD program. His brain must be fried from trying to desperately make a point when he is sure every PhD is right and can’t find a point to make.
“Now Folkerts is trying to claim that orbital motion per the MOTL would not register with a Faucault Pendulum.”
DREMT, you keep coming up with new ways to get things wrong!
The MOTL would ‘register’ with the pendulum. The pendulum ‘registers’ ROTATION, not ORBIT. For the MOTL, the two happen to be at exactly the same rate, so the pendulum would register that motion. But because of the rotation, not the orbit.
Additionally:
1) the MOTR would show no effect from the pendulum. Because it is not rotating. There would be no impact from the “orbit” on the pendulum.
2) an elliptical MOTR would register at the angular rate of rotation on the axis (which is constant), not the angular rate of motion around the orbit (which varies).
The Foucault pendulum ‘registers’ rotation, not orbit.
Now Folkerts is playing games.
He refuses to recognize that the MOTL could exist. He has gone full on chalked circle. As if you if a orbit without axial rotation could exist.
Care to give a shot at designing an orbit without a rotation Tim? You know explain what physics could produce one. You do have a physics education right? Eager minds await your illuminating discussion.
Biil, you usually make a fair amount of sense. You are slipping away.
Bill: “He refuses to recognize that the MOTL could exist. ”
MOTL can exist — with one rotation on its axis every orbit.
MOTR can exist — with zero rotations on its axis every orbit.
Both physically exist. I’m not sure where you came up with this idea about me.
“Care to give a shot at designing an orbit without a rotation Tim?”
Sure. No problem. Push a satellite up into orbit with a rocket. Use small thrusters to align the satellite steadily with the ‘fixed stars’, ie to stop all rotation. The satellite will retain that motion with no rotation about its axes as it moves around the earth; with Lspin = 0.
Done! No games. No tricks. No laws of physics broken.
"DREMT, you keep coming up with new ways to get things wrong!"
I didn’t even say anything, Tim. You were quoting Bill, not me…and no, I’ve not got anything wrong in our discussions. "Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" exists, and is motion like the MOTL. Get it through your thick skull.
Tim Folkerts says:
Biil, you usually make a fair amount of sense. You are slipping away.
Bill: He refuses to recognize that the MOTL could exist.
MOTL can exist with one rotation on its axis every orbit.
——————————–
And so in your view how is this different that a rotation on an external axis?
And once more, the Hunter boy thinks, guesses, claims… without backing up his claims with even a bit of real science:
” Oh it does. Its the 366th rotation of the earth around the sun and its all the rotations of the moon around the earth. You are just gobsmacked with your own theory so badly you cant see the forest for theory trees. the faucault pendulum measures all rotations of objects whether you want to recognize them as rotations or not. ”
Endless blah blah blah.
Apparently, people like the Hunter boy don’t need any science to backup their thoughts.
They ARE the science.
OMG…
Seems Bindidon’s translation abilities disappeared and he won’t answer the question I asked.
What did Newton say Lorb + Lspin was equal to?
“What did Newton say Lorb + Lspin was equal to?”
Newton’s solved the 2-body problem to find orbital motion, and found Lorb = constant, and finds nothing about Lspin.
Lspin is an independent parameter from orbital motion.
So where are you trying to go with this, Bill?
Nate the plus sign doesn’t indicate independence. It indicates that Lspin is part of another whole.
And you desire to characterize it has orbital motion but it appears to be instead angular momentum of the moon.
I dont know what any of that means.
Another whole?
Newton’s orbit solution doesnt include any rotation or spin. It does find Lorb = constant, nonetheless.
And there is no Lspin included in Lorb.
Sorry that is just what his math shows.
You desire to characterize orbital motion as containing rotation.
Newtons work just can’t help you with that.
Nate I am looking for actual words of the folks who developed the formula Lorb+Lspin=angular momentum of the moon. Not your opinion on its.
“Nate I am looking for actual words of the folks who developed the formula Lorb+Lspin=angular momentum of the moon. Not your opinion on its.”
This line of argument is at a dead end.
Thus far Bill, all you give us is your opinions. On physics, on angular momentum, we have all learned your opinions are worthless.
Newton solved his gravity laws for the Orbital Path through space. Specifically the path of the COM of a body in orbit. Look it up!
His orbit solution contains nothing whatsoever about orientation, rotation, or spin of orbiting bodies. Those he left to the observations of Astronomers.
You guys want to claim otherwise, show us the evidence. Show us his quotes. Where’s the beef?
If you can’t, and we know you can’t, then it is just more blather.
So you refuse to answer the question.
“What did Newton say Lorb + Lspin was equal to?”
Yes I did. His orbit equation included Lorb only. He left the Moon’s rotation to the astronomers to observe. And he discussed that.
Feel free to quote him answering your question.
Lacking that, his statements (discussed here) make clear that he thought the Moon had spin on its axis, and thus it would have spin angular momentum in addition to Lorb.
You are begging the question there Nate. Obviously Lorb is a separate element of the equation. If you don’t have evidence of how the equation applies to the moon just say so.
You have no point then..
“What did Newton say Lorb + Lspin was equal to?”
BTW Bill, We actually know that he didn’t say anything because the concept of Lspin for rigid bodies wasnt invented until after he died.
“The laws concerning the motion of a rigid body are the
Euler’s Laws. Usually seen as the angular version of
Newtons Laws, they were proposed by Euler in 1736,
in his book entitled Mechanica, sive motus scientia
analytice exposita, about 50 years after Isaac Newton
formulated his laws [11].”
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1511/1511.07748.pdf#:~:text=In%201746%2C%20both%20Daniel%20Bernoulli,a%20horizontal%20plane%20%5B9%5D.
Obviously then Nate, Newton didn’t know it all.
Perhaps it never occurred to him that the moon rotated around the earth. I kind of doubt it though.
So since Newton knew so little about the moon why are you relying upon him to give the answer to this debate?
“So since Newton knew so little about the moon why are you relying upon him to give the answer to this debate?”
Was this not YOUR dimwitted question?
“What did Newton say Lorb + Lspin was equal to?”
No one is relying on him for our answers.
Current astronomical observations and long established physics have been cited repeatedly.
. . . .but not in a cohesive and consistent way. Spinners have off on multiple bunny trails.
You can take a shot at it. How many rotations does the moon have from the perspective of the center of the universe?
“. . .but not in a cohesive and consistent way. ”
Yes. In a cohesive and consistent way. Every textbook on mechanics uses the same cohesive set of principles in a consistent way. Any that deal with orbital motion come to the same conclusions.
“What did Newton say Lorb + Lspin was equal to?”
Physics is not about hero worship, it is about laws and data. Those laws make this a question any freshman could answer.
Lorb is the orbital angular momentum, L = r x mv, where r is from the barycenter to the CoM; and v is the velocity of the CoM). This quantity is constant (other than small perturbations from other objects and tidal torques).
Lspin is the spin angular momentum, L = I(omega) measured from an axis through the CoM, where omega is the sidereal period. This quantity is also, independently constant.
Together they are the total angular momentum of the moon.
You should pick up a mechanics text and delve deeper if this confuss you, rather than assuming 400 years of physicists are wrong, and you have intuited a new understanding of the universe.
“How many rotations does the moon have from the perspective of the center of the universe?”
First there is no ‘center of the universe’. So we can drop that from the question.
One rotation. The moon rotates with steady angular velocity on its axis once every 27.3 days.
The moon also has an ORBIT (not ‘rotation’) about the earth with a changing angular velocity once every 27.3 day.
The earth-moon pair orbits the sun every 365.24 days.
The sun-earth-moon combo orbits the center of the galaxy every few 100 million years.
Do you want to continue on to galaxies and clusters and superclusters???
Tim Folkerts says:
Yes. In a cohesive and consistent way. Every textbook on mechanics uses the same cohesive set of principles in a consistent way. Any that deal with orbital motion come to the same conclusions.
Together they are the total angular momentum of the moon.
———————-
I will accept they are THE angular momentum of the moon.
You though have come to your own conclusions that they are two separate motions rather than one motion that can be dissected into two elements. Like saying here is a man. And if I remove one arm here is the same man with one arm.
Beyond that you have not offered a single iota of evidence that isn’t exactly what is being done.
The reason I know this to be true is unless a perturbation is present to prevent the angular momentum of being the the angular momentum it is going to equal Lorb+Lspin. I realize that you can put a spin on an axis without an orbit your job is to prove you can put an orbit up without any spin on an axis and have the angular momentum of the orbiting object remain equal to Lorb.
I would gamble you can’t do that and I only gamble on sure things.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tim Folkerts says:
First there is no center of the universe. So we can drop that from the question.
———————-
You mean the Big Bang theory is a fraud too?
I haven’t read up on it but from what some suggested they traced it back to a single location and calculated that it all originated in one spot with a big bang.
ME: First there is no center of the universe.
BILL: You mean the Big Bang theory is a fraud too?
The ‘lack of center’ is a hallmark of the big bang theory. If you think my statement contradicts the big bang theory, you clearly do not understand the big bang theory.
“… your job is to prove you can put an orbit up without any spin on an axis and have the angular momentum of the orbiting object remain equal to Lorb.”
Unless you are saying it is theoretically impossible to have a satellite orbiting the earth that maintains a fixed orientation relative to the stars, the answer to this is obvious.
The total angular momentum is Lorb + Lspin. If I have a satellite with Lspin = 0, then the total angular momentum is Lorb + 0 = Lorb.
Your job Folkerts is to explain how an orbit with Lspin equal to zero would work.
The basic difference between spinners and non-spinners is that non-spinners are recognizing a rotation on an external axis. To have a rotation on an external axis one needs to have control of the object. Your job is to explain how one would go about designing a rotation on an external axis that would have zero spin. I am allowing a wide range of opportunity here in that the only restriction being is that the motion is controlled by a fixed external axis.
The bullshit flying around here suggests there is no such thing after most spinners have acknowledged there is such a thing as a rotation on an external axis.
Non-spinners recognize the formula that has proven to be extremely handy in working with celestial mechanics that takes an rigid object made up of orbiting particles and breaks that down into two elements. via Σmvr = Lorb + Lspin = Angular momentum of a uniform sphere rotating on an external axis.
So essentially what non-spinners are saying is an orbit is a gravity-controlled rotation on an external axis meeting the standard of control required of such a rotation.
You though are arguing that there is a gravity controlled orbit motion that has no control over the spin motion and thus the spin motion can be zero.
Yet we see in an elliptical orbit the control at work that accelerates the moon sufficiently to change its relationship back toward the control by 100arcseconds in the course of a half orbit.
So how would you design the external rotation control mechanism of the moon to allow for zero spin? You must have some idea of this if you hold that the spin is separately controlled and thus in accordance with Newtons Laws of Motion is a different motion.
either that or you are just a blind follower attempting to redefine the English language for the rabble you think you Lord over.
Tim Folkerts says:
your job is to prove you can put an orbit up without any spin on an axis and have the angular momentum of the orbiting object remain equal to Lorb.
Unless you are saying it is theoretically impossible to have a satellite orbiting the earth that maintains a fixed orientation relative to the stars, the answer to this is obvious.
—————————-
Obviously its not theoretically impossible. Satellites use
powered attitude corrective systems by spinning up gyroscopes and occasionally spinning those gyroscopes back up.
One can resort to shape where gravity exerts torque on the object as with the moon to maintain its orientation. But thats just what you say doesn’t exist because thats the definition of a rotation on an external axis. So you can’t use that.
The challenge here is to design an orbiting object that will adopt zero spin by a separate natural force that would define the motion or non-motion of that object in accordance with Newtons Laws as two separate motions.
Of course you can concede the argument. And note that the spinners are just trying to redefine words for the public and to some extent their own profession.
DREMT and myself have shown plenty of examples how you guys haven’t even yet gotten astronomy entirely on the same page much less engineering where we now have you denying rotations on external axes that is widely recognized in engineering.
Bill, you are twisting yourself in knots and don’t seem to realize.
“The challenge here is to design an orbiting object that will adopt zero spin by a separate natural force ..”
That is known as ‘moving the goalposts’. I did exactly what you asked. Now you change your challenge to make it seem I failed.
“One can resort to shape where gravity exerts torque on the object as with the moon to maintain its orientation.”
Sort of. That sort of torque does tend to synch the motion so the spin period equals the orbital period. Standard physics.
Note that the moon does not strictly ‘maintain its orientation’ but librates. The moon is not ‘locked in’ and the spin and orbit proceed at different rates throughout the orbit.
“But thats just what you say doesnt exist …”
No. I have said many times that tidal locking exists.
“… because thats the definition of a rotation on an external axis.”
No. The moon does not rotate on an external axis through the earth-moon barycenter. To meet the definition of a rotation, the moon’s orbit would need to be circular.
Of course you can concede the argument. And note that the non-spinners are just trying to redefine words for the public and to some extent someone else’s profession.
Tim Folkerts says:
Bill, you are twisting yourself in knots and dont seem to realize.
”The challenge here is to design an orbiting object that will adopt zero spin by a separate natural force ..”
That is known as moving the goalposts. I did exactly what you asked. Now you change your challenge to make it seem I failed.
————————–
You did fail you demonstrated that in order to achieve your ideal orbit without axial rotation you would need to provide a mechanism to exert a force sufficient to produce a separate motion. . . .just as DREMT and I have been saying for well over a year. A rotation in the opposite direction to make the system actually have two rotations and meet your standards of separation.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tim Folkerts says:
”One can resort to shape where gravity exerts torque on the object as with the moon to maintain its orientation.”
Sort of. That sort of torque does tend to synch the motion so the spin period equals the orbital period. Standard physics.
———————-
Yep a standard way to rotate anything.
Tim Folkerts says:
No. The moon does not rotate on an external axis through the earth-moon barycenter. To meet the definition of a rotation, the moons orbit would need to be circular.
———————–
Why? And why has this not been used universally in the community of astronomers and physicists?
Tim Folkerts says:
Of course you can concede the argument. And note that the non-spinners are just trying to redefine words for the public and to some extent someone elses profession.
——————
The public defines words for the public Tim. We are using the common usage that the public would use.
We are not trying to define words for astronomy which they are free to do. But be aware that specialized meanings of words don’t just go and change the physical world.
The only thing I object to is a elite group of scientists running around egotistically telling the public they are wrong about the moon not rotating on its COM. the public has a common meaning for words and here you are telling me that a rotation on an external axis needs to be circular. So does that mean in astronomy speak that an object in circular orbit doesn’t spin on its internal axis? LMAO!!
“The public defines words for the public Tim. ”
Great. Then have your ‘public discussion’ and stop pretending it is ‘science’.
“And why has this not been used universally in the community of astronomers and physicists?”
It *has* The entire community of physicists and astronomers are ‘spinners’. You and DREMT are the outliers.
“you would need to provide a mechanism to exert a force ”
Of course. *Any* change in motion requires a force. And any motion will continue unless a force changes it. To put an object into orbit requires a force. To start it rotating requires a force. To stop it rotating requires a force.
“A rotation in the opposite direction to make the system actually have two rotations and meet your standards of separation.”
You are looking at this backwards. Consider the following. A large ball is mounted on a frictionless vertical pole. I am holding the pole. I am standing still. The ball is standing still (ie not rotating on its axis, eg a dot on the north side remains on the north side) . As you note, I would need to ‘provide a mechanism’ to change that motion.
If I provide a force forward on the pole and start to move north, will the ball start to rotate on its axis?
If I stop and walk east, will the ball start to rotate on its axis?
If I walk around a square, will the ball start to rotate on its axis?
If I walk around and around an ellipse, will the ball start to rotate on its axis?
There is no mechanism to start a rotation on the axis. There is no ‘rotation in the opposite direction’ as you imagine. There is simply a lack of rotation.
Sure, if there is a little friction on the pole, the ball will start to rotate at the same rate as the orbital period. But that is because a torque *started* the rotation, not because an orbit necessarily includes some ‘natural rotation’.
Sophist, cease.
“The only thing I object to is a elite group of scientists running around egotistically telling the public they are wrong about the moon not rotating on its COM. ”
Bill lost the argument on the science.
Now he tries to manufacture a controversy, a non-existent row between scientists and ‘the public’.
Sorry, ‘the public’ has other things on their mind.
Just the usual sore loser talk.
Nate wouldn’t be able to identify a science argument if it hit him between the eyes. This rotation argument is purely a semantics argument. There is no reason to exclude elliptical rotations, its purely a decision by some to do that. The math is entirely equivalent, the science principles are equivalent all it is is a decision by some to say a rotation must have an invariable radius. . . which technically means rotations don’t even exist they only exist as a definition.
bill h…”There is no reason to exclude elliptical rotations…”
***
I regard elliptical rotation pretty much the same as circular rotation. You need to pay attention to the instantaneous tangential motion but it’s pretty much the same.
In fact, in the limit, an ellipse tends toward a circle. Presuming the semi-major axis = a and the semi-minor axis = b, if you hold b constant and reduce a, as a -> b, the ellipse moves to being a circle.
Tim got me started examining ellipses because he claimed motion on an elliptical orbit is different than motion on a circular orbit. Both motions are surprisingly similar, the main difference being in the math involved. What is forgotten is that the Moon’s orbit is close enough to being a circle to be treated as if it’s a circle. The main difference for me is the elliptical path allowing libration.
“There is no reason to exclude elliptical rotations, its purely a decision by some to do that.”
This geometry was developed over a couple of thousand years, in a way that has turned out to be quite useful in many areas.
So it doesnt match your teeny tiny immediate agenda. Oh well!
“The math is entirely equivalent, the science principles are equivalent”
Bullshit.
Again, Kepler and Newton discovered that orbits are elliptical. That means they are not the same as circles.
You guys would inexplicably have science ignore this fact and just pretend they are circles?
Weird.
Nate says:
” ”There is no reason to exclude elliptical rotations, its purely a decision by some to do that.”
This geometry was developed over a couple of thousand years, in a way that has turned out to be quite useful in many areas.
So it doesnt match your teeny tiny immediate agenda. Oh well!
”The math is entirely equivalent, the science principles are equivalent” ”
Bullshit.
————————
the angular momentum of a uniform sphere rotating on an external axis = Lorb + Lspin which also equals Σmvr of the particles of the sphere. That mathematical proof of that has been provided to you and you still deny it?
Nate says:
Again, Kepler and Newton discovered that orbits are elliptical. That means they are not the same as circles.
You guys would inexplicably have science ignore this fact and just pretend they are circles?
Weird.
—————————-
Nate begs the question with his response.
nate…”Kepler and Newton discovered that orbits are elliptical. That means they are not the same as circles”.
***
The lunar orbit is very close to being a circle. It is elliptical only because the effect of the Moon’s momentum slightly outweighs the effect of gravity.
Except for libration calculations you could treat the orbit as circular and not be far off.
How this circular ass debate ends
https://i.postimg.cc/jdkktDMr/tombstone.jpg
Aaaah, the little ankle biting dachshund was here again…
Still sidewaysing strong, as it seems.
And don’t forget the tombstones for all other idiots like me who are dumb enough to keep real science alive.
Binny is not keeping science alive he is keeping paradigms alive by passing on incorrect information from authority figures.
I have no idea how I managed to suddenly go from gravitational potentials and forces to ring laser gyros that measure Earths rotation with amazing accuracy.
But that reminded me of the Foucault pendulum and that its really too bad the Apollo missions didnt install something like that on our moon at a convenient latitude.
That would have saved us incredible amounts of the ball-on-a-string nonsense and similar cult idiocies.
It appears we have a new cult idiot. And, like the rest, he’s got NOTHING.
Foucault’s Pendulum has been discussed before. It would prove Moon is only orbiting, not spinning.
But, this new cult idiot sounds a lot like Bindidon:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1450857
barry…”Newtons Principia is written in New Latin, not Old Latin. Thats one of the things I checked. Old Latin hasnt been used for scholarship since Roman times”.
***
If Newton’s Latin and modern Latin are the same, then why do modern scholars, or even Motte, have so much trouble getting it right?
Old Latin is my terminology, not the official terminology. Call it what you like but I have quoted two experts on Latin who have expressed issues translating Newton’s Latin. Google messes it beyond recognition in places.
In his 20th century translation and guide, Cohen points to several key issues in the original translation of Motte. Latin was the language of scholars till a few of them in Newton’s era said to heck with this and started writing i their native English.
The Latin parts that we have been looking at are universally translated the same way, and its not that hard to do.
Newton says that the Moon ‘revolves’ on its own axis [suum] – you verified the meaning – lists the Moon’s rotational period in the same section as it lists the rotational period of the Sun, Earth, Mars, Venus, Jupiter, and titles that section regarding the Moon’s ‘daily’ motion. ‘Diurnal’ here refers to a planet rotating on its own axis once WRT the Sun/fixed stars, as the Earth does in its daily motion.
There is no quibble with translation here. You are just trying to defend your position with whatever you can grab, instead of just accepting what is plain.
Newton was a spinner.
barry…”There is no quibble with translation here. You are just trying to defend your position with whatever you can grab, instead of just accepting what is plain.
Newton was a spinner”.
***
No, Barry, I am using scientific fact that obviously eludes you. I have employed 3 facts used by Newton…
1)The moon moves with a linear motion.
2)The linear motion is bent into a curvilinear motion.
3)the Moon keeps the same side pointed to the Earth.
Combine those three and there is no doubt that the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis at the same time. Newton did not go into the details because he had no interest in the Moon’s alleged rotation. His avoidance of the alleged rotation is another pointer to the fact he did not think the Moon rotated locally.
I did go into it in detail but I have not seen one spinner even attempt to explain how the Moon can rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth. I am still awaiting a proof.
It should be dead simple, at least as simple as my proof that the Moon cannot rotate on a local axis and as simple and elegant as Tesla’s proof using kinetic energy.
Here’s my simple proof again. Your proof should not be a critique of mine it should be an independent, original proof not based on an authority figure and free of vague references to reference frames. I am confident you cannot supply such a proof.
On an x-y plane, representing the lunar orbital plane, and a circular orbit, place the Earth at 0,0. Place the Moon along the +ve x-axis at 5,0. Draw a radial line from 0,0 through 5,0, say to 7,0.
Remember, the restriction here is that the Moon must keep the same side pointed at Earth throughout the orbit.
Let the Moon begin orbiting CCW and the radial line will track it. We are going to observe 3 points on the Moon: the near face, the centre, and the far side, where they meet the radial line. Each point must trace out a concentric circle which we can call a sub-orbital path.
At each instant, those three points are moving in parallel during the orbit. In fact, if you consider all points along the radial line within the Moon, each point is moving in a concentric circle at each instant of time.
That fact, totally rules out any chance the Moon is rotating at all. In order for the Moon to rotate through 360 degrees it must rotate within the radial line and it can’t while keeping the point where the radial line meets the Moon pointing at Earth.
BTW…the same reasoning can easily be applied to an elliptical orbit.
A kind of corollary is the ball on a string, a locomotive running around a circular track, a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a carousel, and an airliner flying above the Equator at 35,000 feet while orbiting the Earth. All of them have the same restriction, that one side of the device must point to the centre of the device they are orbiting.
An egregious error perpetuated by spinners is that each of these devices is also rotating about a COG at the same time it is orbiting. With each device, that is clearly not possible. If it was, the ball would wrap up in the string, the locomotive would require a turntable to rotate, the wooden horse would need to be unbolted from the floor, and the airliner would crash.
“That fact, totally rules out any chance the Moon is rotating at all. In order for the Moon to rotate through 360 degrees it must rotate within the radial line and it cant while keeping the point where the radial line meets the Moon pointing at Earth.”
What you are missing is that the radial line is rotating. So if the moon is moving with the rotating radial line, then the moon is rotating too!
“BTWthe same reasoning can easily be applied to an elliptical orbit.
BTW … no, the same reasoning does NOT apply. Even ignoring the point above, the real moon does NOT move with the radial line. The radial line points the wrong way to accurately account for observed libration.
“An egregious error perpetuated by spinners is that each of these devices is also rotating about a COG at the same time it is orbiting. With each device, that is clearly not possible. ”
This shows you do not understand our position. No one is claiming there is a DIFFERENT rotation about the COM. We simply recognize that a rotation of a rigid body means a simultaneous rotation about any axis through any point on the rigid body. Sort of like a translation of a rigid body means the rest of the rigid body is simultaneously moving too.
How do you define “rotation”? It is a motion where a point maintains a fixed distance from a line (the axis) and changes orientation relative to the ‘fixed stars’. IF you have a different definition, then share it. If you agree with this common, standard definition then the moon is rotating about its COM.
Sure if you want to define a rotation as a perfect circle for all the particles you rule out any rotations existing the real world.
Oh yeah Tim! I recall you allow a ”little play” but you haven’t yet defined what that is. Meanwhile you just handwave away whatever you refuse to recognize as a rotation.
So I am ruling out all rotations because you have failed to provide a definition that applies to any rotation in the real world.
“Sure if you want to define a rotation as a perfect circle for all the particles you rule out any rotations existing the real world.”
That is not at all the point.
Many motions are perfectly fine circles — merry-go-rounds and car tires and balls on strings and MOTL and petals on a bicycle. Within engineering tolerances appropriate to the the situation, those are all rigid body rotations. Simply walking along a line on the ground can be
Many other motions are NOT perfectly fine circles. The petals on an elliptical exerciser and the chain on a bicycle and orbits of moons. The difference is not just a little play in an axle or stretch in a string. The motion is different from a circle in clearly defined and measurable ways.
Can you truly not understand this sort of fundamental difference?
Sounds like a summary thought out by a moron. e.g. nearly no thought at all.
Circular orbits? Circular orbits are used frequently for satellites what are we talking about here in your list where you just kind of wave your hand and say what is included and what is not included? Is that what they taught you to do in school?
Bill imagines that he’s again that childhood bully giving swirlies to nerds, anyone smarter than him.
Nate says:
”Bill imagines that hes again that childhood bully giving swirlies to nerds, anyone smarter than him.”
I said: Sounds like a summary thought out by a moron. e.g. nearly no thought at all.
Nerds are not generally known to not think something out. Usually if anything they overthink something. . . .and that is why they are called nerds.
Your accusation that Tim is thinking like a moron is obviously undeserved and ludicrous.
The difference is not just a little play in an axle or stretch in a string. The motion is different from a circle in clearly defined and measurable ways.
A pretty moronic and completely undefined statement that could have come from a moron.
Car mechanics measure the play in an axle and in other devices that rotate. And Tim is telling us its not clearly defined or measured?
Talking about living a sheltered life in academia!
“The motion is different from a circle in clearly defined and measurable ways.”
True.
As noted, even in 1600, without telescopes, Kepler could detect the consequential difference between an elliptical and a circular orbit of the planets.
An ellipse is not a circle with measurement error. It is a different shape with real consequences for planetary motion.
Halley’s comet has an elliptical orbit with high eccentricity and describing it as circular rotation would give a horribly wrong predicted path and return date.
Given today’s astronomical precision, there is no good reason to approximate any orbits as circular rotations.
“And Tim is telling us its not clearly defined or measured?”
Within engineering tolerances, car tires on car axles ARE rotations. Exactly as I said. Time to work on critical reading skills!
What are the engineering tolerances of the moon Tim? It appears to outlasting all that other stuff.
Nate says:
”An ellipse is not a circle with measurement error. It is a different shape with real consequences for planetary motion.”
No all ellipses, including circles are a circle in one perspective and to infinite number of perspectives they are all ellipses.
That’s why a circle is an ellipse. And an ellipse is only a circle from one perspective.
Tim says:
”Many other motions are NOT perfectly fine circles. The petals on an elliptical exerciser and the chain on a bicycle and orbits of moons. The difference is not just a little play in an axle or stretch in a string. The motion is different from a circle in clearly defined and measurable ways.”
Then Tim says:
”Within engineering tolerances, car tires on car axles ARE rotations. Exactly as I said. Time to work on critical reading skills!”
The first paragraphs says elliptical motion is measurably different than a circle. The second paragraph says its OK to be measurably different from circle.
So now that we agree on that. What was your argument again?
Its a matter of subjective perspective?
“No all ellipses, including circles are a circle in one perspective and to infinite number of perspectives they are all ellipses.
Thats why a circle is an ellipse. And an ellipse is only a circle from one perspective.”
Bill you’ve lost on the facts. And now you’re just posting pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo.
Nope the pseudo mumbo jumbo is coming from the spinners who can’t find an consistent way to define a rotation.
My definition is one drawn from mechanics and how one would go about creating rotations. This allows a significant amount of latitude in the shape of a rotation. We have discussed this ad nauseum from chalked circles, to bowls sitting on rotating bodies of water.
At no point have the spinners come up with anything more than an appeal to authority. Everything else they have offered are inconsistent and dumb arguments.
You definition is one drawn on a two-dimension sheet of paper and you attempt to apply it to a 3-dimensional world which if applied consistently rules out all real world rotations. Idiots never stop doing idiotic stuff.
Tim and you want to vaguely define it as if it fits the 2 dimensional model to a point where its perturbations (and an ellipse isn’t a perturbation its just the same thing as a circle applied more universally from any perspective, not just perpendicular to a 2-dimensional sheet of paper. Even a circle on a 2-dimensional sheet of paper becomes an ellipse with an eccentricity if you tilt the paper. A rotation should be a rotation from any perspective. Making it a perspective wrt to a distant star has already been shown to be flawed so somebody here reported they switched to quasars or something. But that is just grinding down the lack of consistency into ever smaller deviations.
So you need to wash your mind of what you think Newton said. Because Newton would be as big of an idiot as you if he had made the arguments you have made.
And of course the only reason you have invented these stupid arguments is you accept that appealing to authority is even more stupid.
Its especially stupid when that authority never wrote anything regarding the definitions of the words he used.
You are like a ‘Bible Thumper’ looking for some church leader to define for you what the word of God meant. The arguments you make are like the world being created in 6 days when we have evidence that it wasn’t.
“My definition is one drawn from mechanics ”
Oh? Show us that.
“the only reason you have invented these stupid arguments”
Bill, you might think so, but at least they are not increasingly hallucionogenic, like this one:
“No all ellipses, including circles are a circle in one perspective and to infinite number of perspectives they are all ellipses”
You don’t seem to know when your argument is at dead end and you just need to stop.
Nate says:
My definition is one drawn from mechanics
Oh? Show us that.
———————–
The moon rotates around the earth because of earth’s gravity. You are in denial of that?
"Many motions are perfectly fine circles — merry-go-rounds and car tires and balls on strings and MOTL and petals on a bicycle…"
…but you still don’t get that this is "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis". Or it’s "translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis". Those are the only ways the motion can be described. You still, fundamentally, do not understand the "Non-Spinner" position. Yet you waste everyone’s time prattling on about elliptical orbits and libration. It’s hilarious!
"This shows you do not understand our position. No one is claiming there is a DIFFERENT rotation about the COM. We simply recognize that a rotation of a rigid body means a simultaneous rotation about any axis through any point on the rigid body"
There’s no "we" in that, Tim. You’re on your own, I think, amongst the "Spinners", in thinking like you do. "Any axis through any point on the rigid body" – I mean, what are you on? How many axes of rotation do you think there are!? For motion like the MOTL, there is only one possible axis of rotation. It’s either external to the body of the object, if you go with "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis", or it’s through the body of the object itself, if you go with "translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis".
… but DREMT wrongly still doesn’t get what Tim does get correctly that this is “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” as observed from the central object.
For motion like the MOTL, correctly there is only one possible axis of rotation as observed from the central object.
Captain One Note appears to make his identical wrong point that he always makes, over and over and over again like the boring, repellent little freak that he is.
Ball4 mocks Ptolomy whose work enabled astronomers to make accurate predictions of planetary positions and solar and lunar eclipses, promoting acceptance of his view of the cosmos in the Byzantine and Islamic worlds and throughout Europe for more than 1400 years.
” For motion like the MOTL, there is only one possible axis of rotation.”
Hmmm.
“Its either external to the body of the object, if you go with “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”, or its through the body of the object itself, if you go with “translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis”.”
Oh, so there is not ONLY ONE?
WTF?
nate is confused.
Yes contradictory statements by DREMT do lead to confusion.
You should go back and review the video demonstration of how you only need one simple motor drives for the MOTL and two simple motor drives for the MOTR.
If you guys weren’t so badly inculcated this should be real simple for you.
Ever drive a car with a Brody Knob?
You should review the many mechanical ways that the MOTR or MOTL motions could be produced, like my grandfather clock with its dozens of gears.
Obviously none of these are the actual mechanisms to make orbiting planets move as they do.
“Youre on your own, I think”
No. Every physicist and astronomer thinks the moon rotates on its axis.
However else we might want to talk about orbits or ellipses or eternal axes or rigid bodies, the moon is still rotating on its own internal axis. That is consistent with all the laws of physics and the definitions of mathematics.
Jesus wept.
And said, ‘Yeah I skipped that class in school. I’ll leave science to the scientists’.
#2
Jesus wept.
Yeah, we know, you have no good answers.
#3
Jesus wept.
barry…”And they air a properly translated Tucker Carlson in support of their narrative.
Its incredible to see this kind of media-brutalism in operation in a powerful country in the modern world”.
***
I don’t agree with the overall politics of Tucker, he’s obviously hard right-wing. However, he’s one of the only journalists out there today who has the guts to report the news as it is. And Fox is one of the only outlets who ill allow such reporting. He delves into subjects the mainstream media ignore outright.
Do you think every Russian is stupid enough to believe everything they are told? You raised a point about men wanting to be women. If the Russians are addressing that, even to mock such men, they are way ahead of us, where such suggestions are being censored. It’s now illegal in Canada for parents to try talking their son/daughter from becoming homosexual.
We are so indoctrinated with the propaganda that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that cannot be altered that we are forbidden to discuss it in public let alone take action to help a confused teenager. That’s censorship of a kind that is on parallel with Russian censorship, or worse.
On our side of the world, we are constantly inundated these days by men with male tackle trying to pass themselves off as women. They are entering competitions with women and some of them are allowed into women’s washrooms and changing rooms. Here in Canada, a man convicted of a serious assault charge has been admitted to a women’s prison because he claims to be a woman.
Do you stand for that nonsense? Are you afraid to speak up on behalf of women? This is obviously a psychological issue that is being passed off as a reality.
I have one question for any man passing himself off as a woman. Do you derive any sexual feeling from this whatsoever? If the answer is yes, the game is off. That’s the one factor that delineates reality from a sexual fantasy, an associated sexual feeling. No human feels turned on by simply being a woman, only someone experiencing a sexual fantasy would feel that way.
That leads to the next question, If a man wants to be a woman, what is the driving influence? Why would a man want to be a woman and how could he tell the difference between being a woman and a man? The psychological difference is not at all clear. The only current difference is that women are raised to think and act differently.
Another question, why is so much being invested in preventing people from objecting to this nonsense?
I think you are reading far too much into the Russian media. To you, they are biased and I have no doubt I’d find them the same way. However, our western media is just as biased in it s own way. They have convinced you to be a climate alarmist based on pseudo-science.
“However, he’s one of the only journalists out there today who has the guts to report the news as it is.”
Tucker Carlson has just been exposed in court filings in a defamation case, sending texts and emails in November 2020 saying Sidney Powell’s story about election machine tampering in 2020 is BS. Did he report on this? No way. Instead, he asked another Fox reporter be fired after she tweeted a fact-check on the stolen election claims that went against the Fox narrative. And the reason he wanted her fired was because of how it hurt Fox shares.
” “Please get her fired,” Carlson told Hannity, according to the Dominion brief. “Seriously … what the fuck? Im actually shocked… It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.” ”
I don’t know if you heard this, but Carlson was once taken to court for defamation and won the case because his lawyers convinced the judge that his show is only an opinion show, and as such can distort, exaggerate or even make up facts.
“Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil’s opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox’s lawyers: The “‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’ ” ”
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye
Tucker Carlson presents as a truth-teller. He isn’t. His lawyers say so.
An opinion show a truth teller news show? Are you confused? Do you think Rachael Maddow and Morning Joe are news shows too?
andrea…”not a word of truth is coming out of Ukraine.
You must know someone on the ground there then”.
***
Don’t need to know anyone on the ground I have an entire history of the Ukraine available to me (and you if you could open your mind).
I feel badly for anyone who jumped into the fray without checking the facts. I learned a long time ago that leading with your emotions rather than your logic often leads to trouble.
I was just as angry as anyone else when the Russians invaded, for the simple reason that I regarded the Ukrainians as innocents, just as I as told by the media. It was a buddy who woke me up by sending a link to the movie by Oliver Stone, called Ukraine on Fire. As I watched the movie, at first I remained skeptical. However, as I began to research, using only reliable sources, the information in the movie was corroborated.
By reliable sources I mean a professor like Dr. John Mearsheimer, an award winning journalist, a Ukrainian journalist, and so on.
In fact, it took me off on tangents into area that were mind-blowing. The Ukraine began to unfold as a troubled nation fraught with in-fighting and problems related to diverse cultures.
I did not realize the Ukraine was formed by the Bolsheviks as a soviet, circa 1918. I did not know that Khrushchev was a Ukrainian who ceded Crimea to the Ukraine. I did not know that Khrushchev denounced Stalin upon taking power. I did not know that Mao was deluded into believing Stalin was an honourable man.
I had no idea how corrupt the Ukraine had become since it formed after the USSR released it circa 1990. I had no idea that Ukrainian nationalists were such fascists and how much swat they have in modern day Ukraine.
It’s all there from reliable sources, just read!!! It is worth viewing the Stone video first to get a grip on what to research.
ken…”Robertson is just a blatherskite. I wouldnt ascribe any malevolence to his maunderings”.
***
Oh dear, Ken has his nose out of joint because I pointed out to him that the Moon is not in orbit about the Sun. Ken did not read the article correctly and leaped to the wrong conclusion. The image he keeps posting is intended as a path followed by an alleged barycentre. The article even points out that the Moon orbits the Earth.
Alas, what can one do? One tries to ‘edumacate’ the great unwashed, like Ken, and they cast stones. At least he seems to have gotten it that the Ukraine is issuing propaganda so maybe he’ll get his error re the Moon orbiting the Sun.
Meantime, at least we can agree, methinks, that climate alarm is bs. and covid vaccines are crap.
barry…”Oliver Stone:
Although the United States has many wars of aggression on its conscience, it doesnt justify Mr. Putins aggression in Ukraine. A dozen wrongs dont make a right. Russia was wrong to invade.”
***
Oh, good, Barry has gotten it that Stone does not agree with the Russian invasion, hence is not biased. So now, maybe, Barry will watch the Stone video, Ukraine on Fire, and see what a horror show the Ukraine was before the Russians invaded.
With regard to the Russians threatening a nuclear was, is Barry so naive as to blame them? When you have NATO and the EU threatening your borders and everyone arming the Ukraine, hence threatening the world with nuclear war, do you really blame the Russians for fighting back with the only threat they have?
When Putin made that threat, I did not regard him as the crazy party, I blamed the West for getting us into this predicament in the first place and continuing to push the boundaries despite that threat.
If Trump was still running the US this would not have happened. He would have talked it out with Putin, yet Trump is regarded a menace while Biden, who is a true idiot, is regarded as a genius.
Who are the real idiots here?
Gordon,
“Oh, good, Barry has gotten it that Stone does not agree with the Russian invasion, hence is not biased.”
But Gordon has not gotten it that the person he referenced to justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine doesn’t think the invasion is justified.
Stone believed Russia wouldn’t invade and was surprised when they did, leading him to make this statement.
barry…”Stone believed Russia wouldnt invade and was surprised when they did, leading him to make this statement”.
***
Doesn’t matter what Stone thought after the fact. The film was made in 2016 and the Ukrainians had 8 years (from 2014) to work out a solution. They failed simply because there was no intention of finding a solution.
In the West we did nothing to intervene in a civil war, but when the events turned in our favour, we did intervene. The Ukrainian situation has been handled badly from the start and the Russians simply lost patience with such shenanigans in their back yard that involved pro-Russian Ukrainians who asked them for help.
You fail to grasp the fact that a group of Ukrainians overthrew the government by force. A peaceful protest began in 1913 against a government decision not to join the EU based on a Russian offer of financial aid. That protest turned ugly when armed protestors who joined the protest got violent.
Tell me something, why does anyone in a democracy need to resort to firearms to settle a dispute? The authorities in the US went ballistic when a load of unarmed people invaded the White House.
There is only one organization in the Ukraine who was organized and had the power to pull that off, descendants of the UON, a group of Ukrainian nationalists. At the time the violent rioting began, neither the army nor the police were activated.
There is proof of that. One descendant, sitting in the Ukrainian parliament is on record, making anti-semitic statements, going so far as to the label the Allied armies in WW II as scum representing the Jews.
Why? Obviously, the army and police were in on it.
The coup of 2014 was not warranted in a country claiming to be a democracy. By defending that action and going so far as to arm the Ukraine, the West has becoming implicated in an act of sedition.
Yt another duplicate comment with no duplicate…
barry…”The major (state-owned) news services in Russia are openly saying that the annexation of these countries and others was illegal, and fully support Russia reclaiming them. Surely its only a matter of time before the Robetsons in the West start to parrot this god-forsaken excuse”.
***
What are you on about? The Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, and Lithuania were all released by the former Soviet Union under Gorbachev and Yeltsin. No one whined. It was under the glasnost perestroika meme. Those countries arbitrarily drew borders without consulting the people in those countries.
During the Soviet era, many native Russians migrated into those areas and when those areas were released the Russians were trapped, being forced to adop.t the nationality of each country. Problem is, the natives of those countries have ostracized the native Russians, leading to bad blood.
In the Ukraine, it is particularly bad because Ukrainian nationalists, who are also fascists, detest the Russians or any other nationality not deemed pure Ukrainian. That is no different than the ethnic cleansing attitude of the Nazis.
That hatred partly stems back to WW II when Ukrainian nationalists fought with the Nazis and the Russians fought against them.
Your expressing a deep naivete of the real situation in the Ukraine. Mind you, the western media is not helping by continuing to broad.cast fairy tales about what is really going on.
Gordo wrote:
You are forgetting about Stalin’s actions resulting in The Holdomore, which took place before WW II.
I have no love for Stalin, he was a murdering SOB.
When WW II started, he sided with the Germans. However, some subterfuge by the Brits convinced him Hitler was planning on attacking him, and they did, after they failed to subdue the UK.
The Allies needed Stalin to draw attention and manpower away from them and when Hitler attacked, Stalin suddenly needed a friend. The Allies sided with him, not out of love for him, but because they needed him. And he needed the Allies.
We only hear bad things about Putin, but Gorbachev, who the West liked, spoke up for him. He told the West he was basically a good person and that he’d had the opportunity to go back into KGB mode and had rejected it.
Trump predicted that if we did not get Putin onside he’d ally with the Chinese and we’d be in trouble. That’s exactly what the Democrats have managed to do, alienate him and drive him over to the Chinese.
Hillary Clinton has always been a big-time Russian hater.
Interesting that you bring that up. There is a lot of controversy as to whether Holdomore was an intentional genocide or it was simply government meddling in agrarian science. Beginning the late 1920’s the government felt it should be directing what should be grown, when, and how much should be shared. Soviet Collectivist policies were at that heart of it. One cannot have an egalitarian society without government authority mandating which goods to produce and how they should be distributed. And of course that would include quotas and in agriculture it included what to plant, where to plant, when to plant, when to harvest, when the trucks will arrive to send proper allocations elsewhere. . . .which for one of the higher producing grain regions of the Soviet Union meant that Ukrainians had to produce more than they used. Gross incompetency became the natural order of things. Those who resisted were punished. Those who stole allotments were severely punished. Those who tried to do what they did in the old days were punished.
This was a time where government started meddling in science, ala Al Gore, they knew better and facts didn’t matter.
A young Ukrainian agricultural scientist working Kyiv Agricultural Institute around the time of the Russian revolution in 1918 became immersed in the government directed science to achieve the Soviet dream of egalitarianism.
By 1927 he was a rising star in ag science and in 1928 he wrote a paper vernalization that elevated him to superstar status with the Soviet regime.
Unquestionably this government-endorsed science emboldened the regime in how they could direct the dream of abundance for the Soviet people.
And of course when the 1933 famine occurred the last thing the Soviets believed is they had anything to do with it. . . .leading to more punishments for others. So the Soviets doubled down.
The young scientist who wrote the paper Trofim Lysenko went on to dominate Soviet agriculture for the next 30 years a period marked in Soviet history as one of many famines killing tens of millions. His policies are linked even to the great Chinese famine of 1958 under Mao.
Trofim Lysenko today is probably the number one symbol of science led astray by government power.
Hunter wrote:
Yeah, Soviet central planning of the economy was a problem. The Wiki article adds more details and analysis, suggesting that the Ukranians also suffered for other reasons due to decisions from Moscow. Maybe that’s why the Ukrainians before the invasion still didn’t like the Russian government.
swannie…”suggesting that the Ukranians also suffered for other reasons due to decisions from Moscow. Maybe thats why the Ukrainians before the invasion still didnt like the Russian government”.
***
It sounds like I am siding with Russia but I am not. The Stalin government was a despotic, cruel regime. The problem in the Ukraine was about Ukrainian nationalists causing trouble in the name of rebellion.
We know how that works from WW II. The Maquis rebelled and every time they did, the Germans executed innocent civilian in villages. The Maquis gets all the glory after the fact but no one talks about the thousands of innocents who died due to their rebellion.
Same in Ukraine. Militant nationalists were causing trouble and the final solution was for Moscow to cut off their supply of food. It was seriously cruel. Any nationalist who gave a damn would have anticipated that kind of reaction but they did not care.
The same idiocy is going on in the Ukraine today. The same nationalists ousted a democratically-elected president and no one cared. We in the West stood by and applauded. The current nationalists not only hate Russia they hate everyone who is not White and who is not a native Ukrainian.
Just like the USSR government under Stalin who starved the Ukraine, the present Russian government has reacted to idiotic nationalists who don’t give a damn about their fellow Ukrainians. They were suppressing fellow Ukrainians in the east because they were of Russian heritage and had helped elect a pro-Russian president.
This war is not being fought by Ukrainians based on a just cause, it is based on hatred from within the Ukraine. If they cared about their fellow Ukrainians, they would have negotiated in good faith 8 years ago. Zelensky promised to fix it and ended up making it worse.
I am beginning to see the Ukraine as an incompetent nation who has no idea how to run a democracy. Even if we manage to bail them out somehow, they will go right back to the same old, same old because they don’t know any better.
“Ukrainian nationalists”
Gordon, you keep describing Ukrainians fighting for their nation, as ‘nationalists’ and calling Ukraine, ‘The Ukraine’ as if they are not in an actual sovereign nation.
These are Russian propaganda talking points, because Ukraine is a sovereign nation.
Russia and US signed a treaty with Ukraine, in the 1990s vowing to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty in exchange for their nukes.
bill h…re the 1933 famine. It is too much of a coincidence the UON was formed in 1929 in the Ukraine, just before the famine. The UON was an organization of Ukrainian nationalists who operated much like an underground terrorist organization. Stalin was not much for dealing with such organizations, his solution being to punish all Ukrainians by starving them to death.
Although I admire the courage of such organizations at times, I also find it deeply disturbing how the authorities react to it. They simply rounded up innocents ad executed them in reprisal. It does not surprise me in the least that Stalin reacted to Ukrainian nationalists by starving the entire country.
It bothers me deeply that the descendants of the UON are still active in the Ukraine today. They celebrate Ukrainian war criminals like Stepan Bandera in candle-light vigils, regarding them as heroes.
https://www.sott.net/article/403974-Ukraine-rings-in-New-Year-by-marking-birthday-of-Nazi-hero-Stepan-Bandera-with-torch-lit-parades?ysclid=leks9w0v4q120710219
A fairly measured assessment of Bandera…
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/bandera-mythologies-and-their-traps-for-ukraine/
“What are you on about?”
I’m telling you that the Russian major news services (state-owned) are saying that the annexation of these countries was illegal, therefore justifying a retaking of them by Russia.
It’s not what I’m on about, mate, it’s what the state-owned Russian press are on about.
You let me know when you’ve watched what I brought here, and then I’ll watch the docco. I’ve got a ready-to-go free link for you, and you sit there wondering when I’m going to dig around the Net to find a download.
The arrogance, Gordon. You won’t bother yourself watching what first I offered at the click of a link, and lament that I haven’t gone scouring the net for your reply because you aren’t serious enough to find a link for me.
Tell me when you’ve seen it. Then I’ll take your reccommendation seriously and do the work to find it that you should do.
Here you go. Just watch what the news organizations in Russia are saying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHejvoRUjMM
They are justifying the reclamation of the Russian Empire.
barry…”…the Russian major news services (state-owned) are saying that the annexation of these countries was illegal…”
***
Who annexed them? Are they claiming Europe annexed them? The former USSR let them go under Gorbachev and Yeltsin. It makes no sense that the Russian media would claim an unknown entity annexed the Ukraine, for example.
You need to get it, Barry, that the western media are currently lying through their teeth…about everything. Unless you speak Russian and can translate Russian TV directly, I would not put any faith in what the BBC claims about anything. The BBC re propaganda is on par with anything the Russians put out.
I am not defending Russia, I am simply sick and tired of our democracies behaving like petty fascists. I expect it from the Russians, from the former USSR, but not our side. The BBC gained a license to lie during WW II as part of war propaganda. The problem is, they have not let up with the lies, their noses growing longer as the years go by.
Oho! Bad translations again?
You haven’t even watched it and you’re setting up the bad translations dodge. As if the BBC would air shoddy translations that could be fact-checked in an instant, doing severe damage to their reputation.
Please strop embarrassing yourself by commenting on the thing without having seen it.
It’s transparently pathetic.
If you’re not going to watch it, say so and, obviously, make no comment on it.
barry…the BBC and their counterpart in Canada have been blatantly lying to Brits and Canadians respectively for years. Here in Canada, the CBC have been lying through their teeth about global warming climate change just as they lied to us about AIDS and covid.
Monty Python got a lot of their material from the BBC due to the goofballs who run the BBC. I’ve had my own run-ins with the CBC. I wrote to them once and was surprised to receive a reply from one of their boffins. I tried to get him to contact UAH to get the other side of the argument and he refused. He claimed the CBC goes with what the IPCC claims in their reports.
I recall the time one of their programs, The Fifth Estate, invited skeptic Fred Singer onto the show. From the get go, they went after him for his statements about smoking cigarettes in the 1960s. Fred sat their perplexed, wondering what they were on about. He answered their questions but he wanted to talk about global warming and they would not allow him to talk about it.
At the time, that was the alarmist game, to try connecting skeptics like Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen to comments they had made about cigarettes in the past. Lindzen had claimed that he doubted that second hand smoke was all that dangerous.
Barry, this is not intended as a shot, but I wonder at times why you are so naive about such matters. Can you not possibly open your mind to the fact that government organizations like the BBC and CBC are openly trying to feed the public propaganda? They have no interest in balanced reporting.
Ok, time to let you in on the secret. The report is not from the BBC.
You realize how empty your commentary is when you can’t even get basics like this right?
The reporter is an Australian who speaks Russian, and it is from the ABC in Australia.
Your generalizations are not just shoddy, lazy and unfounded, they are not even targeted at the right news organization.
No major news service is going to leave itself open to an easy reputation smasher by mistranslating. It’s easily spotted, and easily used to bash them. In Australia, Sky News would be all over the ABC for that. That’s the beauty of a competitive market. The news services watch each other. The ombudsman would join in as soon as a Russian speaker took issue with a mistranslation.
I read 1984 when I was 15. Thanks for the education on media bias, but its 40 years too late, and I’ve seen plenty of real propaganda to know the difference.
Why don’t you watch the news investigation I linked for you? You can see exactly what they say there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHejvoRUjMM
Then you can find out if it ‘makes sense’.
Here, I’ve linked you to the exact moment in the docco.
https://youtu.be/pHejvoRUjMM?t=1363
You make sense of that.
This guy is a MAJOR force in Russian news media.
Here is wondering if they can finally bomb London.
https://youtu.be/pHejvoRUjMM?t=1233
You think I’ve cherry-picked?
Then watch the damned video.
barry…I have no doubt that the Russian media offers nothing but propaganda. At this point, the media is not my problem, it is the ongoing pressure we are exerting on the Russians after they have indicated they will start a nuclear war if the West goes too far.
The Ukraine is not worth a nuclear war. We need to pressure them into talking with the Russians but thus far that idiot Zelensky is prancing around pleading for help and he has no intention of solving the problem never mind acknowledging there is a problem. His ultimate goal is obviously to get NATO, with the US, involved, and he doesn’t care that a nuclear war may come of it.
Zelensky is a blithering idiot. He could have settled this months ago by talking it over and getting the concerns of the eastern Ukrainians out in the open.
I think Zelensky is a puppet. I think he is being run by Ukrainian nationalists and if he doesn’t do as they say, they will kill him. They threatened the previous president if he did not introduce a law honouring war criminals like Stepan Bandera who aided the Nazis.
The West could force their hand by insisting that the Ukraine negotiate.
It seems China, the non-democracy, has introduced a multi-point plan to bring the parties together. The problem here is not Putin, it’s Zelensky. He is the one who had made the stupid demands: that Russian withdraw, pay reparations, and face charges for war crimes.
He is delusional, and that’s why I think he is acting on behalf of the nationalists.
The problem is that Russia has imperial ambitions in a world that has set itself against the “scourge of war.”
Russia is not protecting Russian citizens in Donbas from neo-Nazi thugs. That’s why Kiev was targeted early in the war. Russia aimed to decapitate the government of Ukraine. Nazi Ukraine was all part of the Russian propaganda. Are there extreme right wing groups in Ukraine? Of course. Are they running the country or attacking the Donbas region? No. You know who to ask regarding this? Ukrainian Jews. And Jewish watchdog groups. Is Ukraine a model global citizen? No.
Russian propaganda is a pretext for reclaiming territories it lost over the 20th Century. The state-owned news media are pushing narrative for the Kremlin, and has lately been recommending that Lithuania, Latvia and the Ukraine should be folded back in, as there was ‘no legal grounds’ for them to have been annexed from Russia in the first place.
You would let Russia make war on these countries as it is on Ukraine if Russia threatened nuclear weapons. You would advocate appeasement.
This is not the 19th Century. Imperialism is dead, and for good reason.
The very real threat is that if Russia takes Ukraine unopposed by the West, it will take other countries. And then China would see the impotence of the rest of Europe and the US, and they would take Taiwan and Tibet.
Maintaining international peace does not come by appeasing aggressors. Britain made that mistake in WWII and it cost Europe dearly.
The rest of the world now has to walk a fine line, backing Ukraine against Russia without escalating.
Putin’s concerns about NATO are a joke. He has seen NATO used for defence, not attack. His real concern is that if countries he is hoping to acquire join NATO, it will more problematic for Russia to expand.
Barry you sound like a propagandist. NATO isn’t strictly a defense treaty. Its been involved in Arab spring, the Afghanistan war, and numerous other actions that didn’t pose a significant threat to the alliance.
Its a military alliance like Russia and Cuba in the 1960’s. Trying to pretend it is different is just simply being partisan.
I am in complete agreement that Ukraine should exist as an independent state. The borders however are not clear. Throughout the Centuries most of the territory now held by Russia has been part of some assemblage of Russian authority. All of that (but not Kiev) were parts of the Mongol empire where Russia was a vassal state and it included Crimea and the lands that Crimea is a peninsula of.
You want to talk defense and Crimea and those land bridges are seen by the Russians a critical to their defense as much as NATO has been viewed as critical to ours, if not more.
Resolving this dispute is a complicated mess. Should we even be part of it?
The business of fascism is real also. The Ukrainians were accused of genocide against Polish peoples during WWII in 1943-45 as they attempted to eradicate the Poles to limit their claims to the region.
Ukraine as an independent nation really never existed, other than as a white ethnic group within some other realm until 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Their story as an ethnic group are not all that dissimilar to the Kurds.
Before Russian controlled Ukraine in the 18th Century it was within the Polish Kingdom and the Polish Kingdom never held the lands currently held by the Russians in eastern Ukraine.
What do you see as the end game that will solve this issue? We have a NATO interest as it is adjacent to NATO borders but calling it Russian expansionism that is a threat to NATO is more than quite a stretch.
Here’s a “hot off the internet” report about the war:
Russian A-50 Plane Blown Up In Belarus Airfield.
“Resolving this dispute is a complicated mess. Should we even be part of it?”
Thats what the appeasers said in WWII. That was Barry’s point.
There was no threat from much smaller Ukraine toward Russia. There was no justification for their invasion. And no justification for their continued wholesale destruction of it and its people.
Clearly living next to the Russian Bear, even in the 21st century, is dangerous, UNLESS you have the effective deterence of being a member of NATO.
Just ask Poland, Latvia, etc.
Bill,
NATO did not form part of any attacking forces in the Afghanistan war. NATO moved supplies. Russia approved a transport route through its territory for NATO in the 2010s. NATO defended supply routes.
You would have better luck arguing that NATO took an offensive posture in the Libyan civil war. But NATO’s involvement came after military intervention involving NATO members was already underway, with the US, UK, France Germany and other countries already enforcing a no-fly zone and arms embargo, which NATO took charge of on request. NATO was asked to oversee the effort for better coordination.
Russia is not under threat from NATO as long as Russia does not attack countries under its umbrella. And anyone who thinks NATO would attack Russia, or back any country that mounted an offence, is severely deluded.
Yet this is the propaganda Russia is pushing – that NATO would launch an offensive war against Russia.
It’s incredible that you give credence to this propaganda.
barry says:
Bill,
NATO did not form part of any attacking forces in the Afghanistan war. NATO moved supplies. Russia approved a transport route through its territory for NATO in the 2010s. NATO defended supply routes.
—————————
Did your daddy tell you that?
NATO was deeply involved from 2003 to 2010 and in a much reduced way from 2011 onwards. 2001-2003 they were limited to protecting the Kabul regime.
NATO was in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2014 and solely in charge from 2002 thru 2014.
Here is the story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force
Nate says:
”Resolving this dispute is a complicated mess. Should we even be part of it?”
Thats what the appeasers said in WWII. That was Barrys point.
——————————
Well Barry doesn’t have a clue. 1) we aren’t appeasing Russia and I don’t think we should; 2) a vigorous defense of Neville Chamberlain shows he enabled Britain to postpone war to try to catch up. He was buying time. His mistake was waving the treaty around proclaiming victory. 3) we don’t need to catch up. 4) Russia is draining its resources; 5) We are only doing enough to help ensure they keep doing that. 6) If we make a mistake it will be by not giving Russia a viable offramp. 7) anybody who thinks nothing less that Crimea back to Ukraine is ignorant of history.
Crimea and the land bridges to Crimea prior to 1991 has either belonged to the Russians, the Turks, or the Mongols.
Russians 200years+ 1785-1991
Ottoman Empire 350 years 1443-1783
Mongol Golden Horde 200+ years 1238-1449
“Crimea and the land bridges to Crimea prior to 1991 has either belonged to the Russians, the Turks, or the Mongols.”
“Ukraine as an independent nation really never existed, other than as a white ethnic group within some other realm until 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union.”
Russia made a treaty with US and Ukraine in early 90s. Give up your nukes, and we (Russia and US) will respect your sovereignty. At that time Ukraine included Crimea.
So they can now violate Ukraine’s sovereignty because, Russia owned Crimea in an earlier period of time?
Sorry, no. Thats not how treaties and the modern, no longer imperialistic, world order works.
“we arent appeasing Russia and I dont think we should”
contradicts your previous statement:
“Should we even be part of it?”
And you think we aren’t respecting their sovereignty?
This 13° change in the imaginary spin axis has sure produced some desperate reactions. We now have barry, Swanson, ball4, bindidon, Nate, Folkerts and willard spinning frantically to deny reality.
They’ve used librations, precession, and even taken Newton out-of-context, all in a effort to deny reality. Nothing works for them because they’re fighting against reality.
Earth’s REAL spin axis is a little over 23 degrees from the vertical to its orbital plane. Yet it points in the same direction on both sides of its orbit. That’s what a REAL spin axis does.
The cult doesn’t understand any of this. They don’t even understand the sources they find. Swanson can’t even make diagrams of Moon’s orbital motion that are accurate.
And none of the cult can answer the simple quiz questions correctly:
Question 1: How do we know the ball-on-a-string is NOT rotating on its CoM axis?
Question 2: What is at least one thing wrong in each of Swanson’s 3 diagrams?
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
I bet none of the cult idiots can answer correctly. Prove me wrong.
> Thats what a REAL spin axis does.
Pup,
Check this out:
https://makeagif.com/gif/rotation-of-uranus-3d-model-gixPp7
“Yet it points in the same direction on both sides of its orbit. Thats what a REAL spin axis does.”
And where do you get the idea that the Moon’s axis behaves differently?
Show us some evidence. A source for this information. Anything at all.
We know you won’t be able to.
Your ‘answer’ will be to say we don’t understand any of this. But its not possible to understand stuff that you never show.
Because, as usual, you just made it all up. You are the one denying reality.
Tucker Carlson’s text messages make refreshing reading. It’s a pity that he helped publicly promote what he trashed in private. But he was doing his best for the company.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/02/tucker-carlson-text-messages-dominion-lawsuit-fox-news.html
That’s the kind of shenanigans you’ve attempted here, barry. Misrepresenting Newton and distracting with “view factor”.
You were doing your best for your cult….
You can always try to defend your ‘interpretation’ of what Newton was clearly saying, Clint.
All you have to do is go back to the challenge you ran away from.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449032
It seems you’re more interested in making the claim than justifying it. You should apply to be a Fox anchor.
More shenanigans from you, barry. I’ve already explained this to you, so this is just for anyone peeking in.
Newton’s text, that you’ve chosen to misrepresent, is about how Moon’s orbit causes both lunar day/night and librations. Look at the subject title:
PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
There is NOTHING about axial rotation there. The text, either through translation or Newton’s use of the common phrasing of his day, confuses “rotation” with “revolution”. BUT, he specified with respect to the “fixed stars”, clearly avoiding any link to actual lunar rotation, or spin.
Newton was NOT talking about Moon spinning. He was describing how Moon’s orbit caused the librations we see from Earth, plus the day/night periods on Moon’s surface.
You have NO interest in science. If you did, you would address the simple questions so you can start learning:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449686
You’ve just repeated yourself.
When I answered what you’ve said here, you ran away from the conversation.
Once again, here is my response.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1449032
Let’s see a cogent reply, not a repeat.
Sorry barry, but that ruse won’t work anymore. You’ve exposed yourself.
You’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll. You have no science. You believe your keyboard allows you to make up crap. You’re trying to misrepresent Newton, as well as protecting your cult’s nonsense with irrelevant “view factors”.
You have no credibility. You’re even afraid to take the simple quiz:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1451290
So you’re actually going to remain runned away from our conversation and my rebuttal, desperately hoping I’ll take your quiz bait and not notice?
I’ve repeated my answer to your repeated post, just below. You can actually see it beneath this one, but here’s the link, if you’ve got the balls and honour to quit deflecting and just face the rebuttal.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1451436
Sorry barry, but you’re the one deflecting. You’ve been caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and now you’re in deep denial.
You’re the one that has misrepresented Newton. You’re the one that has tried to cover over your cult’s nonsense by using irrelevant “view factors”.
I predicted you would not answer the simple questions. I can recognize a phony when I see one. You have no credibility.
Or you can answer here. I’ll copy my reply.
——————————————————————
Diurnal means ‘daily’ it refers locally to the 24 hour period of the Earths day.
When applied to other bodies, it refers to their rotational movement the time it takes for them to spin once, either WRT the sun, or WRT to the fixed stars.
Newton later in that section says this quite plainly.
“… the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution its orb…”
So two motions of equal duration.
One notion is the ‘menstrual’ orbit of the Moon, and the other motion of equal duration is the Lunar ‘day’. Its spin.
Seems clear as day to me.
barry…”Diurnal means daily it refers locally to the 24 hour period of the Earths day”.
***
Newton did not use the word diurnal by itself, he said ‘diurnal motion’. There is a big difference. Diurnal motion is a reference to daily motion wrt the background stars.
Diurnal motion represents an apparent motion. For example, when we view the stars at night they appear to be moving east to west. I have tracked the Orion constellation from east to west. Obviously, the stars are not moving, it is the Earth rotating west to east that creates that illusion.
In the passage in question, Newton is talking about that kind of apparent motion not the actual motion. Later in Proposition XVIII Theorem XVI, he comments that a Moon of Jupiter ‘seems’ to be rotating on its axis. That same Moon is related to the Moon itself so he is saying the Moon seems to be rotating on its axis wrt the stars.
I have claimed that Newton knew the difference between ‘seems’ and ‘is’. I based that on his claims that…
a)the Moon moves with a linear motion
b)that linear motion is converted to curvilinear motion
c)the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth.
There is no mention of local rotation in all of this.
Combine those 3 with his ‘seems’ above, related to apparent motion, and you have conclusive proof Newton could not possibly have thought the Moon rotated on a local axis.
Gordon,
“Diurnal motion is a reference to daily motion wrt the background stars.”
Exactly. It is the time it takes a body to complete one spin WRT the fixed stars, as Earth does in 24 hours.
“Diurnal motion represents an apparent motion.”
Here you go off the rails. You’re simply making up an argument that isn’t true.
Newton lists the diurnal motion directly beneath that title, of the Sun, the known planets, and the Moon. He gives all of them the number of hours it takes for them to complete a spin WRT the fixed stars.
‘Diurnal motion’ is not this not-real motion you trying to ascribe. It is simply what it intuitively seems to be. A complete rotation WRT the fixed stars.
Only a few sentences after giving the values for the spin of these bodies, Newton then says that the Moon’s daily motion occurs in the same time as its monthly motion.
2 separate motions, the former refers to the Lunar ‘day’ (one rotation), and the second to the :Lunar month (one revolution).
it’s clear as day. There’s no need to muddy it to try and force your view onto Newton.
“b)that linear motion is converted to curvilinear motion”
Yes, and as Newton discovered when solving his equation for an orbit, orbital motion is simply a body’s COM following a curved, elliptical path around another body.
Any change of orientation, ie rotation of the body, is included in its axial spin, which btw for the Moon is on a tilted axis.
Nate, take the simple quiz. If you can’t pass it, then you don’t have a clue about the issues involved. You’re just regurgitating your cult’s nonsense.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1451290
I bet you can’t pass it. Prove me wrong.
Pup,
Check this out:
https://youtu.be/H7sJvvKagiA
Do the Poll Dance Experiment.
Nate says:
b)that linear motion is converted to curvilinear motion
Yes, and as Newton discovered when solving his equation for an orbit, orbital motion is simply a bodys COM following a curved, elliptical path around another body.
Any change of orientation, ie rotation of the body, is included in its axial spin, which btw for the Moon is on a tilted axis.
——————————
One can look at it that way as two motions of that nature. But did Newton look at it that way. The simple act of discovering that such a translation is the difference between ”the angular momentum of an object in orbit” and the spin angular momentum of that object, doesn’t mean he considered the rotation of the moon around the earth as two separate motions. The answer to that question is what he said Lorb + Lspin was equal to. All the translators around here appear to be having a lot of trouble with getting around to answering that question. I assume they had plural and singular forms in Latin.
Gill, Gill,
Newton clearly understands that the Moon spins at the same rate it orbits the Earth.
so you say Willard.
Its clear that Newton clearly understood that the Moon spinning at the same rate it orbits the Earth was the identical to its rotation around the earth.
It may be clear to you that Newton understands something else but you are wrong.
“Its clear that Newton clearly understood that the Moon spinning at the same rate it orbits the Earth was the identical to its rotation around the earth.”
The non-spinners fantasize that Newton thought like them, but just as with their erroneous concepts of rotation and orbit, they cannot ever produce any quotes that support this fantasy.
Yet they soldier on, because that’s what religious belief is all about.
Well, actually Gill, Newton says it himself.
Of course Newton talks in terms of his discovery. But his discovery was mathematical not physical. The rotation of a uniform sphere on an external axis is a broadly recognized form in science. That was understood before Newton. Newton didn’t change reality he found ways to describe it more easily. But creating two motions out of one is something that Newton would have talked about if the thought that was the import of his discovery.
If you can find that dialogue in Newton’s papers you will convince me that Newton was a spinner.
As DREMT has been pointing out half the guys in here who think they are spinners aren’t either. They are just confused.
“But creating two motions out of one is something that Newton would have talked about if the thought that was the import of his discovery.”
Bill pretends as if Newton’s quotes establishing himself as a spinner havent ALREADY been discussed here at length.
What Newton has said that was translated in here doesn’t make him a spinner. I have used the same language in talking about the usefulness of Newton’s mathematical analysis of the moon and have said many times that the angular momentum of the moon is equal to Lorb + Lspin. I have also said it is equal to Σmvr which is the sum of the angular momentum of all the particles of the moon orbiting.
You need the full context to identify a spinner from a non-spinner. Thats why I was asking for translations of any discussions that Newton may have had regarding this debate.
” Misrepresenting Newton… ”
Like here?
1. Original Latin text by Newton
” 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′. ”
2. Clint R’s circular reasoning trigger Nr 1:
” Bin, here’s what the translations should have stated:
“Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, rotates in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h 39′; Venus in about 23h; the Earth in 23h 56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the Moon revolves in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.” ”
Clint R’s circular reasoning trigger Nr 2:
the good old ‘with respect to the fixed stars’ misrepresented as a special kind of motion, whereas Newton uses it for motion periods, as does the whole world – except a handful of Pseudoskeptics.
Always the same, again and again and again.
How boring.
I’m about to buy Eben’s tombstone 🙂
In defense of Clint, the proposition of Newton was not about planetary or lunar rotation, as he stated. It was about apparent motion. In fact, later in the proposition, he stated that a Moon of Jupiter, which moved like the Moon, ***SEEMED*** to rotate on a local orbit.
The proposition is about diurnal motion, which is an apparent daily motion wrt the stars, not an actual motion. So, Newton was not claiming the Moon rotated on a local axis, only that it appeared to do so wrt the stars.
That’s what we spinners have claimed. The Moon appears to rotate on a local axis but that is an illusion. It is actually performing curvilinear motion, which Newton acknowledged elsewhere in Principia.
barry…Fox is a minor player in the voting scandal. In fact, I found them to be rather anti-Trump on election night.
The evidence of election shystering came from elsewhere and the evidence is damning. I have already laid it out here and I am not going to repeat it.
The Democrats have been cheating, back to the Obama era. Obama promised to clean up Wall Street, who imperiled the US economy with major fraudulent practices. When the ring leaders were identified, rather than going to jail, Obama hired them as advisors.
Hillary Clinton, who has a hysterical hatred of Russians, not to mention John Christy of UAH, has tried everything, along with her Dem cohorts, to discredit Trump by associating him with Russia and corruption. Even the FBI got in on the act. Nothing came of the claims.
Then they tried to have him removed as President (impeached). The final ignominy was charging him with a seditious act by trying to have followers overthrow the country. A handful of protestors invaded the White House and that was deemed an insurrection, even though none of them were armed.
The Democrats are unfit to run any country, never mind the US. They have turned the country into a festering sore with politically-correct bs. and you expect us to accept the vote featured no tampering?
Need to clarify this…
“Hillary Clinton, who has a hysterical hatred of Russians, not to mention John Christy of UAH…”
I am not claiming John Christy has a hysterical hatred of Russians, I am talking about Clinton’s obvious hatred for John when he testified at a hearing. She sat and listened to him while glaring at him with obvious hatred. The woman is unhinged, IMPO.
“barry… Fox is a minor player in the voting scandal. In fact, I found them to be rather anti-Trump on election night.”
Because they called Arizona for Biden, right?
It is because Fox wasn’t Trumpy enough for conservatives on election night that they realized viewers were leaving Fox for Newsmax and OAN, and thus allowed election-denying talking heads on Fox programs that the anchors, executives and Murdoch himself described – at the time – as “lies”, “nuts”, “crazy”, “dangerous”, and “BS”.
You’re missing the point entirely, while exemplifying it beautifully.
Fox aired news they regarded as false. And they did it because they weren’t being perceived by their audience as pro-Trump enough.
The evidence is their own texts and emails. it’s out in the open now.
“Fox is a minor player in the voting scandal.”
Nope, they are still the most watched news network for conservatives.
But you are right that other conservative ‘news’ services went further.
I’m sure you believed that Dominion rigged the machines, or that the machines were rigged.
The evidence for this was a memo Sidney Powell produced, from a woman who believed Roger Ailes had been murdered in a human hunt, and that she got her info in time-traveling dreams.
In court, executives and even the anchor that touted Powell’s claims all agreed that the memo was an utterly unreliable source. The anchor had read it prior to inviting Powell on her show.
“Fox’s viewers are good people and they believe that Bill Gates has placed microchips in the COVID-19 vaccine, and Fox’s stars are there to tell them they are right to think the vaccines are dangerous and unnecessary. Fox’s viewers are good people and they believe that Paul Pelosi was assaulted by his gay lover, and Fox’s stars are there to tell them they are right to question the official story. Fox’s viewers are good people and they believe that Trump is about to smash a global cabal of Democrats and celebrities that is sexually abusing children, and Fox’s stars are there to tell them that theres nothing wrong with being a QAnon adherent, whatever that is.”
Fox is a propaganda mill, and people like yo lap it up. I am not surprised you were watching it on election night. So was I, along with other channels, because I wanted to see how different news channels covered it.
I was reminded that the serious news anchors at Fox – the ones not given to opinionising, like Hannity, Carlson and others, are mostly decent at just doing the job.
OF COURSE you fret that Fox didn’t love Trump enough. And its hilarious in light of the fact that they were his bulldog for 4 years. on election night Fox became less partisan for a moment, and you and other Trumpians were disappointed by factual reporting.
You definitely haven’t got evidence of electoral fraud. Any evidence of any merit has been before the courts 70 times, and zero was found.
Conservatives who ran the elections, such as in Arizona, also disputed Trump’s narrative, which his minions fell over each other trying to substantiate. They failed 100% to prove it, with plenty of opportunity.
Even the trump-loving Cyberninjas found more votes for Biden when they did Arizona’s 4th recount.
But true believers have evidence they either don’t show, or turns out to be flaky.
The proof the election was rigged is in an excellent video that checked cell phone records on election night by tracing various cell phones from ballot box to ballot box. They even had official video evidence of couriers stuffing drop boxes at 3 in the morning.
Please don’t bother me with bs. about fact-checkers. I saw the video and the proof they offered. No amount of bs. will change my mind.
They traced them by their cell phone records, visiting multiple ballot boxes in one night. Why would anyone have a need to visit more than one box in a night?
In the US, there are outfits recording all cell phone calls for whatever reason. probably for marketing purposes. The people checking the ballot box stuffing focused on cell phone usage in the area of ballot boxes which were left outside as drop boxes and unattended. However, some of them were under video surveillance as well and they were able to verify who was using the cell phone and stuffing the boxes.
These couriers were paid by the number of vote envelopes they could stuff in a night.
You have no idea of the corruption the Democrats have produced. I used to support the Democrats even though I am a Canadian citizen. I did so because the politics of the US is very important to Canadians. As the US goes, so goes Canada.
I started seeing corruption in the Dems during the Clinton admin. When he had the ‘session’ in the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky it disgusted me. He was not only disrespecting the Office he was sexually harassing an employee. When Hillary found out, rather than go after Bill, she blamed Lewinsky and other women for leading him astray.
Lying Willie, as he was known, had a sexual harassment suit brought against him by Paula Jones. He settled out of court for about $800,000. He messed around on Hillary continuously, and she put up with it, blaming the women.
The turning point for me came during a hearing in which John Christy of UAH was testifying. He did nothing more than tell the truth about his satellite data yet she sat, with arms folded, scowl on her face, glaring at him. She did not want to hear that and she was boring holes in John with her eyes.
John is a scientist of high integrity and to see him utterly disrespected like that by Clinton, in a hearing, for which he pays his own expenses, was too much for me.
I hooted with delight when she lost to Trump. For the next 4 years she tried one dirty trick after the other to undermine his presidency. It was her office started the garbage about a collusion between Trump and the Russians.
It goes on and on. The Democrats in the US and the Liberals in Canada have become enemies of the common person. They are working us to accept garbage movements no one voted for.
“The proof the election was rigged is in an excellent video that checked cell phone records on election night by tracing various cell phones from ballot box to ballot box.”
1000 Mules or some such. Yes, I watched it, then investigated.
“They even had official video evidence of couriers stuffing drop boxes at 3 in the morning.”
No, they didn’t. That footage could have been explained umpteen different ways, legitimate or illegitimate. They simply laid on their interpretation, and people who wanted to believe took that interpretation as fact. Did they see the ballots? No. Did they prove they were forge3d? No. Did they corroborate anything? No, not even when they interviewed a so-called ‘mule’.
The whole film is speculation. Circumstantial evidence that could be read any way (perhaps they caught election workers cell phones moving from election site to election site – did they investigate that possibility? Of course not), but given the stop-the-steal interpretation.
“Please dont bother me with bs. about fact-checkers.”
Of course not, Gordon. They would interfere with your beliefs.
You suffer from confirmation bias.
You flatly reject anything that gets in the way of your opinion. You ignore anything you can, such as that video of Russian propaganda I posted, which prompted you to ask me to watch something – do you not see how baldly fingers-in-your-ears that is? That you would send me off to do something you would not?
No, I won’t bother you with fact-checkers, Gordon. Here, I’ve brought you a blanky.
It turns out that three of the filmed “mules” were identified and investigated by the Georgia Secretary of State – a Republican – due to the film’s allegations.
They checked the voting records and found that the “mules” had legally deposited the ballots of their family members, which is permitted in Georgia.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/17/georgia-elections-board-dismisses-ballot-harvesting-complaints/
I know you don’t like fact-checks, Gordon, but this was a Republican-led investigation.
It just happens to dovetail with the fact-checks earlier after the film’s release, that pointed out it is not illegal in Georgia for people to drop ballots on behalf of family members, and that the film did not establish that there was any wrong-doing in the footage of people putting in multiple ballots.
But go on and reject this. Opinion beats facts every time, right?
Every time I see the term fact-checked, I know there is collusion to discredit.
And who did these Republicans who verified a secure election collude with Gordon? I’m eager to know.
duplicate alert…
barry…”There is no quibble with translation here. You are just trying to defend your position with whatever you can grab, instead of just accepting what is plain.
Newton was a spinner”.
***
No, Barry, I am using scientific fact that obviously eludes you. I have employed 3 facts used by Newton…
1)The moon moves with a linear motion.
2)The linear motion is bent into a curvilinear motion.
3)the Moon keeps the same side pointed to the Earth.
Combine those three and there is no doubt that the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis at the same time. Newton did not go into the details because he had no interest in the Moon’s alleged rotation. His avoidance of the alleged rotation is another pointer to the fact he did not think the Moon rotated locally.
I did go into it in detail but I have not seen one spinner even attempt to explain how the Moon can rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth. I am still awaiting a proof.
It should be dead simple, at least as simple as my proof that the Moon cannot rotate on a local axis and as simple and elegant as Tesla’s proof using kinetic energy.
Here’s my simple proof again. Your proof should not be a critique of mine it should be an independent, original proof not based on an authority figure and free of vague references to reference frames. I am confident you cannot supply such a proof.
On an x-y plane, representing the lunar orbital plane, and a circular orbit, place the Earth at 0,0. Place the Moon along the +ve x-axis at 5,0. Draw a radial line from 0,0 through 5,0, say to 7,0.
Remember, the restriction here is that the Moon must keep the same side pointed at Earth throughout the orbit.
Let the Moon begin orbiting CCW and the radial line will track it. We are going to observe 3 points on the Moon: the near face, the centre, and the far side, where they meet the radial line. Each point must trace out a concentric circle which we can call a sub-orbital path.
At each instant, those three points are moving in parallel during the orbit. In fact, if you consider all points along the radial line within the Moon, each point is moving in a concentric circle at each instant of time.
That fact, totally rules out any chance the Moon is rotating at all. In order for the Moon to rotate through 360 degrees it must rotate within the radial line and it can’t while keeping the point where the radial line meets the Moon pointing at Earth.
BTW…the same reasoning can easily be applied to an elliptical orbit.
A kind of corollary is the ball on a string, a locomotive running around a circular track, a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a carousel, and an airliner flying above the Equator at 35,000 feet while orbiting the Earth. All of them have the same restriction, that one side of the device must point to the centre of the device they are orbiting.
An egregious error perpetuated by spinners is that each of these devices is also rotating about a COG at the same time it is orbiting. With each device, that is clearly not possible. If it was, the ball would wrap up in the string, the locomotive would require a turntable to rotate, the wooden horse would need to be unbolted from the floor, and the airliner would crash.
“I have employed 3 facts used by Newton…
1)The moon moves with a linear motion.
2)The linear motion is bent into a curvilinear motion.
3)the Moon keeps the same side pointed to the Earth.”
Are you sure the translation is correct for these?
The translation is fine for these, but not for the sections I bring up?
Because I’ve got Newton saying the Moon’s daily motion occurs in the same time as its monthly motion, and that the Moon revolves on its own axis.
I’ve quoted you the section in the original Latin and translated it myself. I’ve also given you the reference so you can look for yourself, and provided you the links to do so.
So how about you quote me the original Latin, offer a translation, and say where he says these things. A link would be handy, but I can do that part myself.
Because you make stuff up, Gordon, and I need to see for myself to make sure. Please provide the text in the original New Latin, and not something you just say yourself. Thank you.
Actually, Gordon…
You keep saying that the translations of Newton are dodgy.
and then later you tell us all what Newton was saying, and what he meant.
So which translation are you using?
barry
Is it not 100 % evident that for people like the Robertson ignoramus and his acolytes, translations are correct if AND ONLY if they match their narrative?
For such people, Newton’s translations are OF COURSE correct in exactly those places where he writes what they can accept.
Which translation they look at does not matter.
They will reject not only any English translation – even those which were not derived out of Motte’s.
They will also reject ALL other translations into other languages, even those that can be shown to come directly from the original Latin text, e.g. the one made by Mrs. du Châtelet into French, or the one made by Prof. Wolfers into German (Wolfers btw translated all three Principia editions in a row: 1687, 1713 and 1726).
*
Interesting for me was that this boring discussion reminded me of the most recent Newton translator.
I had completely forgotten him – another Oz man, he he – Ian Bruce, who finished his Principia translation in 2012:
https://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/newtoncontents.html
*
In Section 1 of Book III you find on page 23/24 of 55 the text for Prop XVII Th XV (texts enclosed in [] are Bruce’s remarks):
” PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
The daily motions of the planets is uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its daily motion.
It is apparent by the first law of motion and Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Book I that Jupiter certainly is revolving with respect to the fixed stars in 9 hours and 56 minutes, Mars in 24 hours and 39 minutes, Venus in around 23 hours, the earth in 23 hours 56 minutes, the sun
in 1225 and the moon in 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes.
It is evident that these are found from the phenomena [i.e. experimental data in modern jargon].
Spots in the body of the sun return at the same place on the solar disc in around 1227 days, with respect to the earth ; and thus with respect to the fixed stars the sun is rotating in around 1225 days.
Truly because there is the monthly revolution of the moon about its axis : the same face of this will always look at the more distant focus of its orbit, as nearly as possible, and therefore according to the situation of that focus will hence deviate thence from the earth.
This is the libration of the moon in longitude: For the libration in latitude has arisen from the latitude of the moon and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic.
N. Mercator has explained this theory of the libration of the moon more fully in letters from me, published in his Astronomy at the start of the year 1676.
[Institutionum Astronomicarum libri duo, p.286-7; see note on p.16 of Book I of Newton’s Letters; these letters have been lost, but Newton’s help had been fully acknowledged in Mercator’s work.]
The outer satellite of Saturn may be seen to be revolving in a similar manner about its axis, with its same face always looking towards Saturn.
For by revolving around Saturn, as often as it arrives at the eastern part of its orbit, it appears most decayed [in brightness] and the fullness seen to cease: as which can arise through certain spots on that part of the body which then is turned towards the earth, as Cassini noted.
Also, the outer satellite of Jupiter may be seen to be to be revolving about its axis in a like motion, therefore so that it may have a spot on the part of its body turned away from Jupiter as in the body of Jupiter is discerned whenever the satellite passes between Jupiter and our eyes. ”
The difference between Motte’s and Bruce’s translation is clearly negligible.
*
Look finally at Bruce’s top page and you can see what he all he did, it is amazing.
Euler has also done some huge work on the Moon, but I’m too lazy to take a deeper look at it.
And he seems to have no difficulties at all to get Newton’s and his contemporaries’ Latin documents translated…
Oh again: the blog’s scanner misread html text.
Instead of ‘1225’ read ’25 1/2′, and instead of ‘1227’ read ’27 1/2′.
Bindidon, the reason you’re having so much trouble with this is that you can’t understand what Newton was talking about. You can’t even understand when it is explained to you. You can’t even understand the simple ball-on-a-string!
Science is WAY over your head.
You can’t even take the simple quiz:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1451290
I’m claiming you’re so ignorant of science that you can’t even begin to answer the simple questions. Prove me wrong.
Not worth the time. You’ll have to lift yourself out of ignorance.
All translations are dodgy. Including discourse you hear or listen to directly in your own native language.
Mathematics is perhaps the only non-dodgy discourse as long as one stays clear of statistics which is half art and half mathematics.
I mean hear or read not hear or listen.
“All translations are dodgy.”
Then on what are you basing your reading of Newton’s words in the Principia?
I didn’t rely on authority Barry thats your game. Can you answer what Newton said Lorb+Lspin was equal to?
Don’t lie, Bill. I’m not appealing to authority, I’m asking you a question.
If you are citing Newton, which translation are you using?
Is it a dodgy one or not, and how do you know?
Because if you can’t identify a source which you think is valid, them you’re just making stuff up.
Hunter boy
” Mathematics is perhaps the only non-dodgy discourse… ”
Wow!
You were shown a while ago the mathematics set forth by Tobias Mayer in his 1750 paper (and perfectly translated by Steven Wepster a few years ago) to determine the tilt of the Moon’s spin axis.
You have had the audacity to woefully discredit it all as ‘academic exercise’, apparently because you lack any technical ability to follow the math in question.
Not to mention that you could ever scientifically contradict all the calculations of the Moon’s spin period made from the 18th century to the present day.
You are an incompetent and dishonest braggart.
Wow you are afraid to bring up Newton’s equation?
Hunter boy
You couldn’t post a better proof of your lack of knowledge about Newton and his successors.
Newton never established equations mathematically describing the lunar spin and the inclination of the spin axis wrt the Ecliptic. He was just convinced of Cassini’s results all along.
On the one hand, he was during his late decades heavily busy with the search for a solution of the famous problem named ‘longitude at sea’, being engaged in a permanent competition with Flamsteed and Halley.
On the other hand, he probably anticipated how hard that work would be because of the necessity of solving a set of differential equations of the second order.
*
Tobias Mayer solved as the first one the longitude problem due to his ability to provide for exact selenocentric coordinates for lunar craters, no longer influenced by optical, geocentric libration effects.
Later on, Lagrange detected a workaround by eliminating the second order dependencies in the lunar spin equations, as he understood the resulting errors would be small.
And finally came Laplace who was able to give us a complex solution for the full equation set in 1828.
The analytic difference between Lagrange and Laplace is what is detected nowadays as Lunar Physical (forced and free) librations, by using first fixed star calibrated Moon photography and then Lunar Laser Ranging data.
*
You don’t know anything of all that, Hunter boy, because you are too busy with your own, scienceless thoughts and guesses.
OK Bindidon, I am only here to ask questions and formulate what the apparent answers were to the various great ones what you go on about. What did Laplace say Lorb + Lspin was equal to? In his own words.
Of course you can include anybody else as well because as I have seen it expressed around here is Lmoon = Lorb + Lspin. Obviously if you are adding the two figures you are adding up the angular momentum of the moon who discovered that this did not vary during the course of an orbit.
However, its my inclination from what I have heard though I haven’t seen the expert information is that science is an evolving discipline. What Newton discovered certainly makes him one of the greatest advancers of science. But that doesn’t mean he noticed everything.
So from the fact that Lmoon does equal Lorb + Lspin it would be interesting to see how that language evolved since appeals to authority is essentially your only claim to the spinner position.
Finally, it appears to me two facts contrary to spinner claims are likely true. 1) Physical librations remove energy and angular momentum from the ”spin” and install it in the ”orbit” one time per orbit and the opposite occurs also one time per ”orbit”.
It also seems likely that the angular momentum of the moon isn’t constant as well with ‘free’ physical libration seemingly doing the same but from outside the system.
to clarify by what I am thinking doing the same from outside the system, means an exchange of angular momentum between the system and outside the system back and forth thus angular momentum of the system not being 100% constant due to exchange of energy with, I presume, with rotations of other bodies in the solar system.
Hunter boy
Keep blathering in your corner, your brainless stuff is exactly of the same vein as that of Robertson, Clint R, the Pseudomod, Flynsson and some others.
For you, only your superficial, scienceless guesses matter and stay way above science.
You too keep polemically discrediting science because you aren’t able to scientifically contradict it.
bindidon you continue to blather as per Nate, Barry, and Swanson and you haven’t yet translated what Lorb + Lspin is equal to.
barry (cntnd)
Most amazing is this strange, endless distorting of ‘with respect to the fixed stars’.
You see here that even when a physics scientist explains what that means (example included) deniers always try to misrepresent the expression, by shifting its meaning from ‘motion period calculation’ as used by Newton to a ‘kind of motion’ he never mentions anywhere.
This has no longer anything to do with lunar spin.
It has to do with how the denial attitude works, and to what extent deniers are ready to misrepresent science, even in its simplest expression.
Who on this blog could be dumb enough to believe them when they write such nonsense?
You got something correct Bin, Newton’s text “…has no longer anything to do with lunar spin.”
Lunar spin was not included because there is no lunar spin. Newton was referring to what causes day/night on Moon, and the librations we see. That’s all related to “orbiting”.
” Newtons text… ”
Here you can see again how far you are ready to misinterpret what others write, by taking a few words 100% out of their original context:
” Most amazing is this strange, endless distorting of with respect to the fixed stars.
You see here that even when a physics scientist [I mean Newton of course, whom else?] explains what that means (example included) deniers always try to misrepresent the expression, by shifting its meaning from motion period calculation as used by Newton to a kind of motion he never mentions anywhere.
This has no longer anything to do with lunar spin.
It has to do with how the denial attitude works, and to what extent deniers are ready to misrepresent science, even in its simplest expression.
*
Thank you, Clint R! You just perfectly proved what I emphasized in bold.
Again Bin, someone that understands orbital motions would understand Newton’s words. It’s not that hard. But, you don’t understand ANY of this. That why you run from the simple quiz.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1451290
Put up, or shut up.
Bindidon,
“Is it not 100 % evident that for people like the Robertson ignoramus and his acolytes, translations are correct if AND ONLY if they match their narrative?”
Yes.
Which is why I asked the question, “Which translation are you using?” that Gordon relies on for what Newton says and means, as he keeps telling us.
I don’t expect an answer, because the question creates a dilemma – one that skewers Gordon’s talking point.
But if an answer does come, it will be slightly entertaining, I expect, as it will include some dodgy wriggle.
But the reason for my question was actually to make a point.
If you think the translations are dodgy, then you are in no position to confidently tell anyone what Newton is saying.
I presume Gordon is not fluent in a language not much used for 200 years.
barry
Thanks for the reply.
*
” I presume Gordon is not fluent in a language not much used for 200 years. ”
*
Whether or not Robertson understands Latin is irrelevant.
My six-year high school experience in Latin is a long way off, and this knowledge would not have been sufficient for a translation of technical texts anyway.
What matters is that, based on his own guesses or those of some incompetent guys he claimed are fluent in Latin, he discredits those who accurately translated Newton into different languages.
*
I distinctly remember Robertson calling Andrew Motte a “cheating son of a bitch” simply because, unlike Newton’s translator, he was unable to correctly follow the original Latin text.
bin and barry, it’s NOT about different languages. It’s about UNDERSTANDING the science AFTER the translations.
Neither of you understand ANYTHING about the issues.
binny…”What matters is that, based on his own guesses or those of some incompetent guys he claimed are fluent in Latin, he discredits those who accurately translated Newton into different languages”.
***
Did I call Motte a cheating SOB? Must have been having a bad hair day. I take that back, after learning more about him, I think Motte did a good job for the most part, as good as one may have expected given the radically new science of Newton.
However, his work has been critiqued by Cohen,not in a harsh way, but in an objective manner. Many of the mistakes were attributed to punctuation that change the context of a statement or the interpretation of a certain Latin word. Cohen said nothing about the interpretation of the Moon’s alleged rotation. There were several other key issues.
My critique is about the science and statements made by Newton about motion. Newton was clear that…
a)the Moon moves with a linear motion
b)that the motion is converted to curvilinear motion. and
c)the Moon keeps the same face to the focus of the ellipse where the Earth is located.
It is totally obvious from those three points alone that the Moon cannot rotate on a local axis. I cannot image Newton missing that obvious truth. It is simply not possible to fulfill those three points and still rotate about a local axis.
I can understand why the likes of Cassini missed those points. He was working from a purely mathematical perspective based on the assumption that the Moon rotated on a local axis.
The assumption that the Moon rotates on a local axis exactly once per orbit is one of those incorrect assumptions for which the human mind is renowned. Anyone who believes that can easily prove it wrong, provided the intent is there to see the truth. Quite often, the human mind gets stuck on such an illusion and refuses to look closely enough.
Gordon,
“Newton was clear that…
a)the Moon moves with a linear motion
b)that the motion is converted to curvilinear motion. and
c)the Moon keeps the same face to the focus of the ellipse where the Earth is located.”
I’ll ask again, which translation are you going from?
I want to know which one I can refer to that you think isn’t dodgy.
Because all the translations of Newton’s 3rd Book in the Principia (3rd and final edition), include the sentence with the Moon revolving once in a lunar day in the same time it orbits in a lunar month.
Let me know which translation you used to get your 3 points above, and I will quote from that one.
Once more, when the Roberson ignoramus lacks any argument, he starts lying:
” He said it seems to rotate and he meant that with reference to the Moon as well. ”
*
Read page 23/24 of
https://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/newton/book3s1.pdf
and tell us where Ian Bruce used in his very accurate translation ‘may be seen’ for the Moon as he did for Saturn and Jupiter.
You are such an incompetent liar…
*
And, btw… yes, Robertson! You indeed named Andrew Motte a cheating SOB some years ago.
And… no, Robertson! You certainly did NOT have a bad hair day.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
barry…”Diurnal motion represents an apparent motion.
Here you go off the rails. Youre simply making up an argument that isnt true.
Newton lists the diurnal motion directly beneath that title, of the Sun, the known planets, and the Moon. He gives all of them the number of hours it takes for them to complete a spin WRT the fixed stars”.
***
From Wiki…
“Diurnal motion (from Latin diurnus ‘daily’, from Latin diēs ‘day’) is an astronomical term referring to the apparent motion of celestial objects (e.g. the Sun and stars) around Earth, or more precisely around the two celestial poles, over the course of one day. It is caused by Earth’s rotation around its axis, so almost every star appears to follow a circular arc path, called the diurnal circle,[1] often depicted in star trail photography”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diurnal_motion
Note this part… “It is caused by Earth’s rotation around its axis, so almost every star appears to follow a circular arc path, called the diurnal circle…”
I have watched Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars, as well as the stars, appearing to cross the night sky from east to west. That apparent motion is diurnal motion. You could not see any of those planets rotating without a telescope and a lot of time but you can see the diurnal motion with the naked eye.
If you read the article through, Newton uses the words ‘seems’ in reference to a moon of Jupiter, I think it was. He said it seems to rotate and he meant that with reference to the Moon as well.
Newton was talking about apparent motion in the Proposition.
The diurnal motion he referred to in the title of that section refers to the rotation (spin) of the Sun, the planets and the Moon. They are all listed beneath that title, and their ‘diurnal motion’ (axial rotation with respect to the fixed stars) is given in hours/days.
“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′”
These are all ‘diurnal motions’. Except for Venus, these values closely match modern estimates of the sidereal rotation of these bodies, including the Sun.
The Moon is included in that list.
And to remove any doubt that Newton thinks the Moon rotates in the same time it orbits the Earth, here is the beginning of a sentence a little further down that section.
“Quoniam enim Luna circà axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circà Tellurem periodum suam absolvit…”
Which is not difficult to translate:
‘Since the Moon uniformly revolves about its own axis in the same time it completes its period around the Earth…’
The sentence finishes with this being the cause of the Moon keeping its face to the locus of its orbit – the Earth.
This isn’t about bodgy translations. That Latin is not opaque, it’s pretty straightforward. Two separate motions occurring in the same period, rotation and orbit.
“axem suum” = its own axis
Sorry barry, you STILL don’t understand. Newton is referring to the day/night periods of each. He called that “diurnal”. He is talking about orbit of Moon. The planets spin independent of their orbits. But, Moon ONLY orbits. That’s why you see Newton’s clarification of relative to “the fixed stars”.
You keep using your same misunderstandings. You’re not making any progress because you can’t understand the science. For example, do you actually believe Earth orbits in 23h56′?
Take the quiz and let’s start the learning.
If you don’t understand the Latin you don’t understand Newton’s science. Barry has got it spot on.
Both horis and diebus are in the Abalative case literally meaning “with” hours/days. The suum and suam are adjectives that describe the nouns possessed by the subject ie moon and translate into its own axis and its own period both of which are in the Accusative case as of course those adjectives must be too.
tonyM, I don’t know how closely you’ve been following this discussion, but quibbling about the various translations is NOT the issue. Newton was clearly talking about Moon’s orbital motion. The issue is about orbiting, not spinning. Newton even used “revolving” to allow for the correct motion of Moon, at the expense of the planets.
“Jupiter certainly is revolving with respect to the fixed stars in 9 hours and 56 minutes, Mars in 24 hours and 39 minutes, Venus in around 23 hours, the earth in 23 hours 56 minutes, the sun in 25 12 and the moon in 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes.”
If you don’t understand orbital motion, you’re welcome to start learning here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1451290
Take the easy quiz and let’s see how you do. People that are afraid of easy quizzes are afraid of science.
Ah, Clint. You think revolvitur means orbit, do you? Let’s take your interpretation and apply to to the values of these ‘orbits’.
Jupiter certainly is revolving with respect to the fixed stars in 9 hours and 56 minutes
Jupiter orbits the sun in less than a day, huh? That’s about 1% the speed of light. Fast planet!
Mars in 24 hours and 39 minutes
Is this an orbit, do you think?
Venus in around 23 hours, the earth in 23 hours 56 minutes
Venus is the only one that is completely different to modern estimates. No telescope in Newton’s day could see beneath Venus’ clouds.
the sun in 25 12 and the moon in 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes.
These are all rotational periods, and the Moon is included in that list. The word revolvitur is being used for rotation, obviously.
And your pathetic argument is that Newton meant rotation forr the Sun and planets, though he didn’t use a different word for them, and that ‘revolvitur’ applies only to the Moon, and it means orbit.
Well, no. that is you torturing the text and snapping off its limbs.
But you know what? We keep quoting something Newton said a few sentences later in that section, and you keep ignoring it, all the way through these threads.
Here it is:
“Since the Moon uniformly revolves about its own axis in the same time it completes its period around the Earth…”
Let’s see you spin that for once.
barry, all that keyboarding just to prove you don’t understand any of this.
Once more, for the translations, …revolving with respect to the fixed stars
Earth does not orbit in about 24 hours.
Take the simple quiz. Let’s see if you understand any of this.
Clint,
“Earth does not orbit in about 24 hours.”
That’s EXACTLY the point I made.
It’s like you can’t read for comprehension. I’ll quote myself to help you along.
“Mars in 24 hours and 39 minutes
Is this an orbit, do you think?…
These are all rotational periods, and the Moon is included in that list. The word revolvitur is being used for rotation, obviously.”
Take the first line:
“Jupiter certainly is revolving with respect to the fixed stars in 9 hours and 56 minutes”
Yep, that’s an axial rotation period. And the Moon is included in that list under the auspices of rotation WRT the fixed stars.
In every quote from Newton, he is talking about the Moon’s axial rotation.
“Since the Moon uniformly revolves about its own axis in the same time it completes its period around the Earth…”
You still haven’t dealt with that statement.
barry says:
Yep, thats an axial rotation period.
——————
Nope its a ‘mean’ rotational period wrt stars.
Bill, that’s not even a contradiction. You’ve ignored the context of the conversation and you’re just being argumentative. Stop stalking me.
Since the Moon uniformly revolves about its own axis in the same time it completes its period around the Earth
That states the rotation rate is identical to the orbit revolution rate. the spinner view demonstrates zero variance from the non-spinner view and thats the only argument the spinners have?
“Since the Moon uniformly revolves about its own axis”
Oops, that is non-spinner blasphemy Bill.
Its not blasphemy at all. DREMT posed the proposition that which of the two identical motions one would choose between depends upon what your view of what orbital motions is without axial rotation. either the MOTL or the MOTR.
Your definition of rotation here recognizes the MOTL as a rotation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1453895
Bravo Clint R for this beautiful
” That’s why you see Newton’s clarification of relative to ‘the fixed stars’ ”
No one on this blog would ever be able to troll better than you do.
But… with one exception, however: Flynnson once bypassed you with an unforgettable ‘Viewed from the fixed stars’.
I’m sure you will admit his words were of definitely unbeatable stupidity.
Flynnson is the prototype professor who deserves emeritus status before he even begins his career, isn’t he, Clint R?
*
And just a hint: barry believes that Earth orbits our Sun in 23 hours 56 minutes exactly as much as you could ever grasp that the Moon takes 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes to rotate about its polar axis!
*
You don’t need to understand such things, Clint R. Because so many do!
*
Nevertheless, I’m already heavily concerned about what will happen to you when Nate, barry, Norman, Willard, bobdroege, myself and many others suddenly tire of your stubborn impulses.
Won’t you get terribly bored if, without our so willingfully teachable audience, you suddenly no longer have the opportunity anymore to present your fabulous ball-on-a-string, OMWAR and above all, this absolutely outstanding ’13° change in the imaginary spin axis’ ?
But no fear! It’s not that far with us yet, I still feel some staying power in us all.
Bin, you wouldn’t need to put out all that garbage in you knew the science. As I’ve told you before, opinions and beliefs ain’t science.
Take the easy quiz so we can determine if you know any science at all”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1451290
Hey, Pupperino:
https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/uzjbGST.jpg
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
binny…”the Moon takes 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes to rotate about its polar axis!”
***
I have challenged you and other spinners to prove that in your own words without hiding behind authority figures. Not one of you can prove it.
Worse than not being able to prove it they can’t see the elitism with which they promote it where a little knowledge about the equivalency of two points of view open an opportunity to brag about how much somebody thinks they know . We are living ever more in a narcissistic world.
When Bordon or Gill prtends to *prove* something using their own words, whose words are they?
One does not simply *prove* empirical facts, by the way. They just are.
Willard I am sure you are aware, I think, that science can only establish the presence of fact and not the absence of it. Further the burden of proof in a free society is that science establish a fact by evidence.
Non-spinners see the value of being able to break down the equations of planetary motion into equivalent analytical concepts, like medical specialists that focus on specific body parts. But knowledge of all those organs, limbs, and transport and neurological systems is totally worthless without the whole being viable.
We are just saying that in accordance with Newtons basic laws of motion that a motion arising out of a single cause is one motion, not two. We get that the earth has two motions from two different causes. the common man’s perception of the moon is correct in that it rotates around the earth. That perception needed correcting once due to confusion about what was rotating around what. Now you guys have this weird affliction about the whole being individual parts simply because some brilliant guys in the past were able to dissect the motion into equivalents that add up to the whole. But the fact is it would be a lot harder for an engineer to design and build a motr than it is to build a motl. That should give you a hint.
> science can only establish the presence of fact and not the absence of it
That’s more than irrelevant, Gill. It is false:
– bacteria cannot cause ulcers because it cannot survive in acid
– blood is not blue
– water does not conduct electricity
– humans do not use 10% of their brain
Want me to go on?
Willard says:
> science can only establish the presence of fact and not the absence of it
Thats more than irrelevant, Gill. It is false:
bacteria cannot cause ulcers because it cannot survive in acid
blood is not blue
water does not conduct electricity
humans do not use 10% of their brain
Want me to go on?
—————————–
No point in that as you prove nothing. You can’t prove that
1) there isn’t a bacteria resistant to acid
2) Lobsters, crabs, pillbugs, shrimp, octopus, crayfish, scallops, barnacles, snails, small worms (except earthworms), clams, squid, slugs, mussels, horseshoe crabs, most spiders have blue blood.
3) water does not conduct electricity and is a testable hypothesis.
4) humans do not use 10% of their brain may or may not be true the only thing we know to be true is you don’t use half of yours.
Clint
No! It is very much about Newton and your attempts to sabotage his Latin work and twist it into your version of the moon / earth movements. Gordon has even introduced the preposterous idea that Newton wrote in Old Latin and somehow could not quite grasp it. This would mean Newton predates J. Caesars writing. The end of the Old Latin was at latest 75BCE and had already ushered in the Golden Age of Latin writing with Classical Latin.
You have no point in that there is only one verb and it relates to each of those orbs equally in the Latin of your quote; yes wrt fixed stars so there is a common reference point for comparison of all those bodies.
WRT the moon Newton further cements this by clearly using the reflexive personal adjectives
ie its OWN revolution or spin while completing its OWN orbit or period around the earth. That is emphatic just to make sure that people like you cant misinterpret. Barry, as well as Bindidon, have covered this very clearly.
If it is not about Newton then why are you trying to reinterpret his Latin treatise? Thus far, Gordon and your attempts to distort perfectly valid Latin and translations makes Manual [Fawlty T] seem like a genius of the English language by comparison.
Of general interest: Latinus Scientificus a history
https://jbh.journals.villanova.edu/article/download/2403/2325?inline=1
tony m …”Gordon has even introduced the preposterous idea that Newton wrote in Old Latin and somehow could not quite grasp it”.
***
Gordon didn’t say that at all. He implied that the original translator, Motte, was likely prejudiced due to a common belief, created by the likes of Cassini, who claimed the Moon rotated on its axis.
Latin is a contextual language. Words used with a word can change the meaning drastically. There is always the possibility that Newton too fell for Cassini’s gibberish. Newton showed a tendency to credit other authors for ideas and maybe he simply took it for granted that Cassini was right. I cannot see that, however, since he stated the three points below and it follows from them that it’s not possible for the Moon to rotate on a local axis.
I have done extensive reading through several versions of Principia the past few days and it is amazing how little Newton said about the Moon’s alleged rotation. There are no more than a few sentences in any of the versions that refer to rotation. That adds to my impression that it was not important because there was no rotation he could see. He spent large amounts of time talking about other lunar motions, why would he say virtually nothing about a rotation?
In the few sentences where it is inferred Newton claimed a rotation, that’s where Motte could have mistranslated the Old Latin. I don’t think he was trying to be dishonest, he simply presumed that’s what Newton meant.
However, when we considered other things Newton said, it defeats the argument of local rotation. He said in various places…
a)the moon moves with a linear motion
b) that motion is bent into a curvilinear motion (orbit)
c)the Moon keeps the same side pointed to the ellipse focus where the Earth is located.
If the Moon did rotate as well, like the Earth, he would surely have gone into that in detail to explain why it rotated exactly once per orbit, a highly unlikely outcome.
The points above make it impossible for the Moon to rotate at the same time about a local axis. We should not be focused on what Newton allegedly said, or did not say about rotation, we should focus on what he did say that makes local rotation impossible.
I have asked spinners repeatedly to demonstrate in scientific words and terms, how it is possible for the Moon to rotate through 360 degrees on its own axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
Thus far, not a single taker. Seems the spinners/alarmists are lost without authority figures.
You are spinning your wheels. We know the value of reducing the angular momentum of the moon up into two quantities for separate analysis. But that doesn’t address in any way shape or form what Newton though about the moon’s rotation in a complete sense. Thats why I say that only can what Lorb + Lspin is equal to as this equation is expressed as the angular momentum of a uniform sphere in orbit.
Only can one determine what these masters were thinking while discussing the complete motion. Taking stuff out of context doesn’t tell us anything.
GordonR:
the numerous times you posited some untenable excuse about OLD Latin may means I have missed your exact statements for which I apologies. Yet you still say:
.In the few sentences where it is inferred Newton claimed a rotation, thats where Motte could have mistranslated the Old Latin. .he simply presumed thats what Newton meant..
Please will you finally get it that OLD Latin was overrun more than 2100 years ago by Classical Latin and Motte would be using basically the same Latin as Newton and Cassini. Latin is not a spoken language so it is very stable. The Romance languages would be a different story.
Not sure what you mean by Latin is a “contextual language!!” Whatever you mean perhaps read this:
…when it comes to grammar, there is no grammar like the Latin grammar. Latin is the most orderly, logical, disciplined, structured, systematic, consistent grammar in existence. Every lesson in Latin is a lesson in logic. Latin is a grammar system that is unparalleled among all the languages. It has no equal.
https://www.memoriapress.com/articles/top-10-reasons-studying-latin/
Gordon, why would Newton have much need to say more than he did on the moon consistently in three publications? Your assertions are nothing but assertions without foundation leaving you still clinging to Motte and a non existent Old Latin. As you have a gift for misrepresenting Newton via Motte I would have to see what you rely on in Newtons Latin works. That still will not change what he actually has said!!!
tonyM, the problem is with your lack of understanding of science, and your inability to understand English.
Take the simple quiz and let’s see how well you do.
I bet you can’t get the correct answers. Prove me wrong.
tony m…”the numerous times you posited some untenable excuse about OLD Latin may means I have missed your exact statements for which I apologies”.
***
No need to apologize, Tony, I am into science and open to fair criticism.
The reason I am going on about the translation is an attempt to understand what Newton meant that may have been mistranslated. I have laid out my reasons for thinking he may have been translated incorrectly.
In Principia, he noted that…
a)the Moon moves with a linear motion
b)the linear motion is converted to a curvilinear motion by gravity.
c)the moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth
There is no possible way the Moon can rotate about a local axis and be described by a, b, and c above. I have laid out my reasoning on that in detail and it parallels a proof by Nicola Tesla, who noted the same thing. Plus, other non-spinners have laid out equally compelling arguments.
Not one spinner has laid out his own proof that the Moon can rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth. Maybe you’d like to take a stab at it.
The fact that Newton did not even attempt to address a local rotation of the Moon other than via vague inferences as translated by Motte et al, combined with his statements above, leads me to conclude he did not believe the Moon rotated on a local axis.
By contextual language, I mean that a word in Latin can change drastically with the context in which it is used. It’s the same in English but not nearly as critical as far as I can see.
Given that Newton’s work involved cutting edge science, and he was not around to advise on the meaning of his words, it stands to reason that some of the translation is wrong.
All I am doing is checking the pertinent Latin to see if I can find a reason why Motte or others may have misread what Newton intended. There is evidence from Cohen, who did a 20th century translation, that Motte made some major error in his translation. I want to see if the thing about lunar rotation is one of them.
btw…we non-spinners are claiming that lunar rotation is an illusion caused by orbital motion. In one section of Principia, Newton talks about diurnal motion, which is a reference to apparent motion. An example of diurnal motion is the Sun appearing to cross the sky from east to west on a daily basis.
Newton talks about several planets and the Moon and he is talking about how they would ‘appear’ to move from a rotating planet like Earth.
Obviously, Saturn, Jupiter and Venus would take too long to rotate on their axis to be viewed comfortably from Earth in one sitting but the Moon is of concern here not those planets. So, it’s the apparent motion of the Moon we needs to consider. However, the spinners have used this section of Principia, which has nothing to do with lunar rotation, to help establish their proof.
The Moon does appear to rotate on a local axis but that is sheer illusion. I have proved over and over that all parts of the Moon are moving in concentric orbits as required by the restriction of keeping the same face pointed at Earth. Under those conditions, the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis since all parts are moving in parallel at all times.
However, if all parts of the Moon are moving in parallel at all times, we have curvilinear motion, as described by Newton. Curvilinear motion explains what Newton described and a plus is that it’s all done while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.
With curvilinear motion under gravitational force the Moon will appear to rotate through 360 degrees but its not rotating on a local axis, it is simply re-orienting the near face through 360 degrees. I think that’s what Newton was trying to say.
> The end of the Old Latin was at latest 75BCE and had already ushered in the Golden Age of Latin writing with Classical Latin.
Pay attention, Bordon.
ClintR:
Aah yes the usual expected response from ClintR when he has no answer. Be aggressive, abuse, point to some other distraction; anything to avoid addressing his incompetence.
He has never heard of the Socrates aphorism; Know Thyself. He doesnt.
But then what could be expected from a limited mind that has dragged on this absurd moon story and daft models for over six years ever since Ger..a..n. brought up the limited viewpoint until he boxed himself in saying that he was using a 1D framework. More like a variable framework where one needs be an owl to rotate ones neck to see the object or move fast enough around to follow said object. There is always a compensation!
It confirms that CR is incapable of following the Newton’s original Latin; he finds it easier to simply distort the translation.
Perhaps he was severely deprived in childhood and now has great needs for attention. No doubt he will continue bringing up this same topic for another half dozen years if he is allowed to. Small mind.
tonyM, I can excuse you if you haven’t been following the discussion. But, I can’t excuse you for babbling like an idiot. Again, the issue is NOT about translations of Latin. Latin is a dead language, like some peoples brains are dead. The issue is about SCIENCE.
Answer the simple questions to verify you understand the issues being discussed here:
Question 1: How do we know the ball-on-a-string is NOT rotating on its CoM axis?
Question 2: What is at least one thing wrong in each of Swansons 3 diagrams?
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
Braindead cult idiots can’t answer the simple questions. Prove you’re not one of them.
ClintR:
You prove my points!!
Carry on for the next half a dozen years.
To be fair, “Spinners” bring up the topic just as frequently as “Non-Spinners”.
My claim is the 366th rotation seen from the stars is the sidereal rotation not seen from earth because of the moon’s face being fixed on the axis of the orbital rotation.
Spinners maintain that the earth rotates 366.25 times wrt to stars and 365.25 times wrt to earth.
But a translating moon is going to represent a geocentric rotation. Meaning that the geocentric view has only 364.25 rotations due to the moon spinning on its axis and one rotation due to the translation.
The sidereal rotation has to be orbital wrt to the stars. It can run but it can’t hide as it is only the orbital rotation that changes its character depending upon your perspective. the fact that it is chained inexorably to the rotation makes it so and falsifies that what we observe from earth isn’t an illusion but a real motion.
” The sidereal rotation has to be orbital wrt to the stars. ”
That you have the audacity to write such abysmal nonsense shows the extent of your lack of experience, understanding and intelligence.
To insist that ‘wrt to the stars’ would have any physical impact on movements’ geometry is utterly stupid and reflects – when repeated often enough – a clear will to brag about dishonest pseudoscience.
Everyone – except for a few lunar spin deniers – only uses this expression to identify a technique that helps with more accurate calculations of the period of motions: orbits as well as spins.
*
Unlike you, Clint R, Robertson and a few others, Newton was perfectly aware of that point:
” Spots in the body of the sun return at the same place on the solar disc in around 27 1/2 days, with respect to the earth ; and thus with respect to the fixed stars the sun is rotating in around 25 1/2 days. ”
*
In an article by Rizvanov/Rakhimov
http://selena.sai.msu.ru/Symposium/kazan.pdf
you could – theoretically – read what is meant by this term:
” In order to develop the Moon by a space-rocket equipment it was
necessary to prepare cartographical maintenance of its near side surface.
That is why the problem of determination of selenocentric coordinates of the lunar objects became years one of major in selenodesy in 60-70.
That was perfectly obvious that large-scale star-calibrated lunar photographs would more correspond for solving the problem.
Unfortunately, to get such photographs was very difficult technically.
That is why observers took photographs of the Moon without stars on large-focus telescopes. Thus there were dificulties with determination of their scale, orientation and zero-point. ”
*
But in practice, people like you have a problem, Hunter Boy: they don’t actually read documents, but merely scan them for the presence of what they reject and the absence of what they require, and praise or discredit the documents accordingly.
Bindidon says:
That you have the audacity to write such abysmal nonsense shows the extent of your lack of experience, understanding and intelligence.
To insist that wrt to the stars would have any physical impact on movements geometry is utterly stupid and reflects when repeated often enough a clear will to brag about dishonest pseudoscience.
But in practice, people like you have a problem, Hunter Boy: they dont actually read documents, but merely scan them for the presence of what they reject and the absence of what they require, and praise or discredit the documents accordingly.
————————
All you are doing is saying the single smooth motion of the moon around the earth has to be two motions or it wouldn’t be so difficult to measure. Yet everything you ascribe to the alleged moon’s rotation on its spin axis is anything but. Its not constant and it exchanges energy with the orbit. the only constant is the angular momentum of the moon as it orbits the earth.
You need physics to divide up motions not a complaint about how difficult it is to measure.
Finally you never even addressed the point I was making that the sidereal rotation for earth is obviously a rotation that takes a year to complete because it is in fact an orbital one. If its a translation then it becomes obvious that is what it is as per the motr.
binny doesn’t have the scientific background to reply with any more than ad homs, insults, and appeals to authority.
obviously
Hunter boy
With your superficial blah blah above, which has NOTHING to do with what I wrote but only with what you personally, egomaniacally think, guess and claim (again and again: without backing it up with any real physics or math science), you perfectly confirm what I wrote:
” But in practice, people like you have a problem, Hunter Boy: they dont actually read documents, but merely scan them for the presence of what they reject and the absence of what they require, and praise or discredit the documents accordingly. ”
All you write is nothing else than endless blathering a la Swenson.
Bindidon says: ”With your superficial blah blah”
——————————
thats what you are doing Bindidon. You bring up Lspin and how its used in analysis to make your case. You haven’t brought up what these legendary scientists thought Lorb+Lspin was equal to. You just bring up nonsense about the individual pieces.
Thats real physics but only in a analytical sense.
Environmentalists criticize you and your kind because you don’t respect the whole. . . .everything to you is a useful product with by products and you don’t care about the whole.
I am not a tree hugger but I live in the no man’s land in between and see the value of both points of view.
bill..interesting way of looking at it. I am still trying to follow what you are saying. Here’s what I understand from looking at the difference between sidereal time and solar time. I am not totally clear on it, so this is more of an inquiry for clarification than anything.
As the Earth rotates and orbits, the Sun will be due south at noon in the northern hemisphere. However, due to our relative motion in the orbit, we will move approximately 1 degree (of 360) in that day. Therefore to get the Sun back to the due south position, we need to make up that degree each day.
May be handy to explain what I mean by south. For me, in Vancouver, Canada, south is straight down the 123.12 line of longitude. For us, the Sun appears in the southern sky and at elevation dependent on the time of year, or our position in the orbit. The difference in the position of the Sun in the southern sky is related to the tilt of our axis and the position of that axis wrt the orbital path.
Therefore, the statement “Spinners maintain that the earth rotates 366.25 times wrt to stars and 365.25 times wrt to earth”, should perhaps read “Spinners maintain that the earth rotates 366.25 times wrt to stars and 365.25 times wrt to the Sun”. The former is called sidereal time from the Greek word for stars and the latter is called solar time.
That means, when we complete an orbit, we still have to make up the approximate 1 degree due to out orbital motion, hence the extra day.
With sidereal time, the stars are so far away that the 1 degree is not an issue. If I line up a star in Orion when it is due south, next night it will be due south again. Our orbital motion is negligible compared to the distance to any of the stars but not so compared to the Sun’s distance.
A good star for that is Sirius, a very bright star close to the Orion constellation.
The extra day is due to the Earth’s motion in its orbit wrt the Sun. I am having trouble following what it has to do with the Moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
Gordo wrote:
The word “Day” is a measure of the Earth’s rotation WRT the Sun. There is no “extra” day in a year, it’s just that there is one more rotation WRT the stars than WRT the Sun. When we view the Moon from the Earth, we see zero rotations per orbit. The real rotation rate includes one extra rotation WRT the stars, for a total of one rotation per orbit.
Swanson says:
”When we view the Moon from the Earth, we see zero rotations per orbit. The real rotation rate includes one extra rotation WRT the stars, for a total of one rotation per orbit.”
LMAO!!!
Spare me! Swanson is so hilarious I wet my computer screen with my coffee this morning.
Hunter troll, do we thus conclude that you think humans don’t “see” the same side of the Moon at every Full Moon?
Swanson, you STILL don’t understand orbital motions. That’s why you spew such nonsense, as well as putting out diagrams that are grossly inaccurate.
The same side of Moon always faces the inside of its orbit. That tells us Moon is NOT spinning. You can’t get that through your head because you’re braindead.
If you’re not braindead, you could tell us what is wrong with your diagrams. But, you’re braindead.
Prove me wrong.
I already did.
swannie…it’s well explained in the wiki article where the extra day comes in. By the time Earth rotates once it has moved about 1 degree in it orbit around the Sun. It takes 365 days to complete 1 orbit and at 1 degree per day we have 365 degrees of rotation.
However, when the stars are the reference frame, one rotation does not involve the 1 degree change in orbital position that is involved when the Sun is the reference frame. If the orbital motion is slightly more than 1 degree per day, so that the excess sums to 1 degree over 365 days, hence 1 extra day, that explains why the orbit wrt the Sun is 1 day longer than when measured wrt the stars.
Gordo wrote:
gordo troll, here’s a quote from the Wiki article:
Gordo is hopelessly confused, as usual. Sidereal “days” are measured WRT the stars and Solar days are measured WRT the Sun. You got it backwards.
The difference is the result of the fact that there’s one more rotation in sidereal days due to the orbit around the Sun. The total amount of time (in hours, etc) in a year is the same for each point of view.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
grammie pups, spreading truth is not trolling.
In this case, it’s the way you talk to people that’s trolling.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Plus he is wrong about Gordon mixing up which is which. Maybe he didn’t read it slowly enough. Nothing new about that.
No, Hunter troll. Gordo also began by writing:
What’s that all about? I always thought a circle had 360 degrees around one rotation. You ponder that one is you can.
#2
Swanson, please stop trolling.
E. Swansn says:
No, Hunter troll. Gordo also began by writing:
It takes 365 days to complete 1 orbit and at 1 degree per day we have 365 degrees of rotation.
Whats that all about? I always thought a circle had 360 degrees around one rotation. You ponder that one is you can.
—————————–
Well you have to keep the math simple for you morons. I get 365 degrees of rotation in 365 days at 1 degree per day also. Guess it wasn’t simple enough for you.
It also seems to be ultra complicated for you to figure out that the extra rotation seen from the stars is due to the orbit as the only rotation eliminated from inside a rotation on an external axis is the rotation on the external axis. Think about it.
“ultra complicated for you to figure out that the extra rotation seen from the stars is due to the orbit”
Not ultra complicated, just lacking in evidence.
Your invented extra rotation due to the orbit is in a different plane from the other rotations.
Show us evidence for this happening.
swannie…”Gordo also began by writing:
It takes 365 days to complete 1 orbit and at 1 degree per day we have 365 degrees of rotation”.
***
I said, ‘about 1 degree per day’ originally. Obviously it’s slightly more than a degree/day. Also, we must consider with solar time that the Earth must make up the rotation lost to orbital motion, hence the difference between solar time and sidereal time.
If anyone wants to see a timeline of what Fox anchors and execs were privately saying about voting machine fraud and when they allowed those claims to be aired, the host of Australia’s Media Watch takes you through it.
https://youtu.be/8qV_OCgYwZc?t=167
This is a media watchdog program, and a very good one, too.
It will be very interesting to see how the trial lands, with respect to the distinction between free speech and slander, and what an “opinion” anchor’s responsibility to facts is.
thats a terrible clip here they are pushing a slander claim and they didn’t offer a single slanderous quote from Fox. Its all spin and zero news.
Yes Powell and Giuliani were never able to produce the evidence they claimed they had but we also had to spend 3 years listening to mainstream media covering idiots like Adam Schiff claiming he had conclusive evidence of Trump colluding with Russia.
Since when is it libelous for the press to cover Presidential advisors and Congressional advisors in anything they say?
Is there a time limit on how long you can report on that and not see any evidence one way or the other?
bill…”Powell and Giuliani were never able to produce the evidence they claimed they had…”
***
Was it the case that they had no evidence or that they had it but the courts refused to hear it?
A case was made at the time that the Supreme Court would reject the case because they did not want to appear to be interfering with an election.
Not sure about the US system of justice but here in Canada you must go through lower courts before being heard by the SC. Seemed to me that any time Trump’s crowd presented their case it was rejected outright by a Democrat judge.
Actually Gordon the suits were mostly tossed for other reasons. I am not aware any of them got to the point of where the court considered the evidence.
Of course the media of the other side of the election characterized it as a bunch of bums without them seeing it either.
The problem for Trump is he can’t sue states that he isn’t a citizen of.
I posted a well annotated campaign memo that seems rather well research of very questionable Dominion associations. Read it its interesting and well footnoted. But Powell’s claim of the software shaving votes may have arisen from this and its clear she doesn’t have the expertise to determine if its true or not.
It would be easy enough to reveal the evidence to the public if she really had some.
For Georgia 2 out of the 3 parties bidding for the election systems contracts were once partners and one of the partners was involved in the 2004 Venezuelan election that was declared to be rigged by many observers. The memo documents that the firm was essentially capitalized by the Venezuelan government.
At best Dominion just associating themselves in that way opens the doors of suspicion.
https://tinyurl.com/4pjj9uxj
https://tinyurl.com/4pjj9uxj
Gordon,
Powell went to the Supreme Court once, after being dismissed by a lower court. The SC dismissed her, too.
There were more than 60 suits brought by conservatives alleging fraud or other voting irregularities. Most of the judges that oversaw the cases were conservatives (because conservative plaintiffs aim for those judges, just as liberal plaintiffs try to get liberal judges), and a third of them were Trump appointees.
All those cases were dismissed. Many were heard, and the evidence just wasn’t there. You should have a look at some of the judgements. Many are scathing.
Just like the energy that inspired hundreds of idiots to storm the Capitol building – who actually thought this was a good idea – there were many idiots, egged on by more calculating types, who took hearsay, circumstantial evidence and speculation to court thinking they had something concrete. They didn’t.
No one has evidence of election fraud. Karri Lake has been proclaiming with oh so much confidence that she has it, but she doesn’t. She was another sap who thought that speculation and hearsay – conspiracy theories – would win the day. the Trumpian beat goes on.
It all goes back to Trump. Months before the 202 election he claimed that if he lost, it would be because the election was fraudulent. That wasn’t a belief, it was a strategy, and he pursued that strategy up to, through, and after the election, and hundreds of MAGA supporters were very keen to make that pre-election claim of fraud a post-election reality.
They all drank the Kool-Aid, and set about trying to cobble together the recipe from any threadbare ingredients they could patch together.
“a third of them were Trump appointees.”
Mistake – I think it was 12 of the 60 judges, making it one 5th, or 20% of the judges were Trump appointees. Plenty of Republican-appointed judges, though.
“Seemed to me that any time Trumps crowd presented their case it was rejected outright by a Democrat judge.”
If you want to do the legwork, here are the pages that list the lawsuits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election
Make sure you check ALL the dismissed cases, and don’t cherry-pick ones which support your narrative.
It is difficult to sue a state. The Supreme Court has little say here as there are not many federal election laws. Most are state laws. And the states are difficult to sue in state courts as their constitutions tend to not grant many rights.
thats not likely to change a lot due to our form of government. Our states are a lot like little authoritarian nations except via rights conferred onto the federal government and individuals by the constitution or via laws of Congress. But if you don’t like what is happening in your little part of the world, usually the best choice is move elsewhere. Do your research though to make sure you aren’t jumping from the fry pan into the fire.
Whats my attitude? Yeah the election could have been stolen. Both prevention of election stealing and post election detection of the theft is a matter of having good election controls in place where you know who is voting and how ballots are controlled. Auditors do that kind of stuff for their clients for the purpose of putting the top management in control of the corporate assets as part of our education is to detect this stuff and by detecting it we gain a lot of knowledge on how to protect it.
Proving an election theft after the fact is only possible if you have good controls in place. Anonymous voting makes that difficult but its a matter of how you determine who casts a ballot into the system and how that ballot is controlled and counted after being cast.
Bill,
“It is difficult to sue a state.”
Does this refer to anything anyone has said?
“Proving an election theft after the fact is only possible if you have good controls in place.”
Dominion voting machines print out a paper ballot, which is reviewed by the voter, and then scanned. There is a paper back-up to check against the digital record.
Owing to the lawsuits, custom, and close results triggering automatic recounts, the voting machines were tested against their paper counterparts. For the 2020 election every recount attached to Dominion voting systems proved the original count valid.
Any election is vulnerable to fraud, even purely paper elections. A mountain of checking and recounts corroborated that the 2020 US election was secure, and critics are still fishing for the evidence they’ve claimed was there all along.
barry says:
Bill,
It is difficult to sue a state.
Does this refer to anything anyone has said?
Proving an election theft after the fact is only possible if you have good controls in place.
Dominion voting machines print out a paper ballot, which is reviewed by the voter, and then scanned. There is a paper back-up to check against the digital record.
——————–
I don’t vote in Georgia so I have no idea what their system is and obviously neither do you.
If you had any facts to work from you would know that Smartmatic entered into a contract to have Dominion provide the optical scanners for the 2010 Philippine election. What would anybody expect from you Barry. . . .you do this all the time. Today I see you arguing with DREMT about rotations where obviously you don’t even know what a rotation is.
I can appreciate the paper backup but keep in mind the paper backups are produced by Dominion equipment also. So the issue isn’t the ballot machine itself. Its:
1)does a given ballot come from a registered voter.
2)does the scanner properly tabulate votes.
3)constant physical control over scanned ballots until the election is certified such that substitute ballots now with no voter identification is attached.
4)some means of verifying the integrity of the entire process, ideally without a recount, before certifying the election.
There were signs of irregularities even from the perspective of watching the progression of the count from TV the way the Georgia results took a dramatic last minute turn I have never seen one so drawn out and so lopsided.
If doesn’t make me think the election was stolen but I have practically no information one way or the other. You seem to have less.
All I see is people aligned to prevent such an examination of election security. thats the only thing that concerns me. The loser asking for such an investigation never concerns me. it seems to me you could hardly ever do too much of that. But if you don’t have absolute control over the entire population of the ballots for the entire period. . . .well then fraud has an opportunity.
As an auditor I know 100% control is a pipe dream. But a high level of control will detect most irregularities.
“I can appreciate the paper backup but keep in mind the paper backups are produced by Dominion equipment also.”
The paper backups are printed out and collected by the voter to check. They then put their paper ballot in a scanner. If they believe their paper ballot is incorrectly marked, the ballot is shredded and they redo until satisfied.
The scanner tabulates the results. If there is any contest, dispute or irregularity, the paper ballots are kept to check against the digital tally.
“some means of verifying the integrity of the entire process, ideally without a recount, before certifying the election.”
The machines are tested and certified prior to the election. It’s customary in many places to take a sample of tabulated votes once counting in completed and check against the paper record.
The point I believe you overlooked is that the count was verified time and again for the 2020 election, in many post-election recounts that were either called upon due to dispute, triggered by a close election, or as a matter of course during the post-vote sample testing.
No election in the history of the US has been so closely scrutinized. And the disputes against and defences of the security of the election are not a left/right thing. Plenty of the electoral boards that verified their processes and counts were run by Republicans, the Cybersecurity Office that verified the US election security was staffed by Republican appointees (ie Trump), the Trump-appointed AG office also concurred, as did many Republican Secretaries of State and Governors, especially in the battleground states.
We are left with 60+ failed election court cases, a bunch of debunked myths about Dominion (thanks for the linked brief verifying), numerous recounts around the country that verified the results, including a 4th in Arizona done by a pro-Trump organization (Cyberninjas) that gave a handful more votes to Biden, no widespread or systematic fraud even close to demonstrated by anyone.
There is a line between reasonable doubt and wishful thinking. That line was crossed long ago. Critics have been saying since November 2020 that they have hard evidence of fraud. Two years gone and a reasonable mind has to accept that this was wishful thinking based on conjecture, hearsay, and ignorance of how voting systems worked in the US election.
That last bit was a common refrain of the numerous judges of all political stripes that the election cases were brought before.
Is there electoral fraud? Yes. Are there documented cases in 2023? Yes, and they were of a handful of individuals who voted for dead people, or batch-voted improperly on behalf of others (which is not fraud, per se, but is illegal). These few instances were bipartisan. Republican and Democrat voters were charged.
But there is zero hard evidence of systemic or widespread voter fraud. This is not a liberal conclusion. This is a consensus among all electoral boards across the US, as well as the then Republican-led state and federal offices who investigated.
That dog don’t hunt.
“If you had any facts to work from you would know that Smartmatic entered into a contract to have Dominion provide the optical scanners for the 2010 Philippine election. What would anybody expect from you Barry”
Oh boy, you really have to get off your high horse. I posted about that relationship before you did.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1453062
I also went through all this 2 years ago. None of this is news to me.
Unlike you, I do the necessary digging when I get into a subject.
Bill Hunter
March 01, 2023, at 10:03AM
“The only thing I have seen on this was that idiotic Australian piece”
Which hasn’t stopped you weighing in on the topic since Feb 25, despite, apparently, having seen no other reporting on it.
“Today I see you arguing with DREMT about rotations where obviously you dont even know what a rotation is.”
Bill thinks he knows. He just can’t ever tell us how its defined because its top secret!
You are off topic here Nate. I am not surprised though.
Your quote in this thread was off topic:
“”Today I see you arguing with DREMT about rotations where obviously you dont even know what a rotation is.”
This astonishing display of hypocrisy is worth pointing out.
A reference to a pattern is on topic. If you want to deny the pattern deny that but don’t change the subject.
The hypocrisy is you complaining that “you even know what a rotation is” while YOU have never been able to tell us what a rotation is.
No I accept your definition as being an ‘ideal’ rotation. From the ‘ideal’ rotation one must account for all the perturbations all real rotations have.
But once again this is a diversion from the topic of this thread. Take your complaints to a more appropriate place or start a new thread at the bottom.
Gordon,
“Was it the case that they had no evidence or that they had it but the courts refused to hear it?”
They took their evidence to court many times, and the cases were either dismissed for lack of standing or briefly considered and the evidence dismissed as hearsay and conjecture. There was no hard evidence there.
Here’s a list and summary of various suits Powell brought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Powell#Independent_election_lawsuits
I’m assuming you won’t read it. But it lists the astounding incompetence of the suits, which mistakenly brought up statistics for election matters in totally different states and cities to the ones the lawsuits were attached.
The email evidence that Powell sent to Fox News hosts was from a weird person who said she got her insights from time-traveling dreams. The Fox executive in charge of the weekend shows is on record in court saying that had he known that memo was the basis for Powell’s claims, he would not have allowed the claims to air. The Fox News host who first took up Powell’s crusade based on that memo, agreed in court that it was nonsense.
https://www.npr.org/2023/02/20/1158223099/fox-news-dominion-wackadoodle-election-fraud-claim
Bill,
The main point is not the slander, though this is an unbelievably strong case with the quotes demonstrating Fox pushed these claims while believing them to be utterly false.
The slander case is the least interesting thing about this.
It is that Fox News knowingly and wilfully hosted and promulgated a dangerous set of claims – undermining Democracy itself, and arguably contributed to the January 6 storming of the Capitol building. – that they believed were completely false.
This makes absolutely clear what Fox critics have been saying for years. That Fox is spinning conservative BS for ratings. The motive is also well documented from Fox quotes, including the head of the business himself.
Slander cases are hard to prove. Not with this one. The evidence in the form of Fox execs and hosts messages to each other is damning.
The point of interest for me is not the slander case at all.
It’s about the nexus between free speech and defamation, and how that plays out with a news service purporting to have journalistic standards.
I’ve watched in my lifetime news turn into infotainment, and the rise of “opinion” segments that pass themselves off serious analysis, worthy of taking seriously.
I(‘ve witnessed the dumbing down and ruthless commodification of ‘news.’ I’m keen to see if journalism that knowingly touts BS will be permitted to go unpunished. I hope this suit will be a step in a good direction for journalistic integrity.
The only thing I have seen on this was that idiotic Australian piece that didn’t support anything you are saying. Fox execs may think Powell was full of it about something she said and maybe they didn’t push that. You seem to be assuming they thought she was lying about everything. Thats what trials are for. What you believe to be true is frequently wrong. . . .you demonstrate that here quite frequently.
I don’t follow this political posturing a lot because it is always full of exaggerations from both sides of the aisle. And the damn funny part of it is you get most of this kind of stuff from the politicians nearer the center as if they are trying to polish their credentials to be more accepted by them mainstream of their party.
“The only thing I have seen on this was that idiotic Australian piece that didn’t support anything you are saying.”
Well yes, clearly you haven’t studied the issue at all. The Australian piece provided an excellent timeline for people already familiar with this matter. Most other reporting hasn’t laid out a chronological review.
“You seem to be assuming they thought she was lying about everything.”
No, Bill. You are completely ignorant of the matter, as you have just indicated.
The Fox hosts’s messages were comprehensive in their take on Powell. They thought she was nuts. Period. Tucker Carlson was particularly dismissive of her.
Stop guessing and learn something about the matter. it’s a bit dull discussing this with someone who’s opinion is self-admittedly ill-informed.
“The only thing I have seen on this was that idiotic Australian piece”
Yes, Bill. Obviously.
I heard her Barry. I doubted what she was saying but she said she had evidence. Did you believe Adam Schiff when he said he had evidence of collusion with Russia by Trump?
What you are trying to say here is none of this stuff was fit for the press. Maybe so. Maybe not.
LOL! Double standard in effect here obviously.
What double standards? The ones in your imagination?
“What you are trying to say here is none of this stuff was fit for the press.”
Straw man.
I believe you are smart enough to accurately describe what I’m saying, and only you know why you are trying to twist it into something easier to criticize.
You’ve made an assumption about my take on completely different subject, attached to the current discussion only in that it falls on the other side of a political divide.
Is this how you audited stuff in your professional life? Looked for a political angle to grind?
thats because its easy to criticize. I didn’t see you in here bloviating about Schiff being a liar.
I wonder how we got side-tracked into a different topic.
No I don’t. You’re looking to get purchase on something else because you don’t have a grip on the Fox story.
This is the bit that interests me.
“It’s about the nexus between free speech and defamation, and how that plays out with a news service purporting to have journalistic standards,” and the wider aspect of what journalism has become, which is, particularly in the US but elsewhere as well, polarised and politically partisan.
Well I still haven’t heard you weigh in on the standards of the media that reported the proven lies of Adam Schiff Barry. I could care less about the Fox story its just another effort to win political points. If anything it reveals the lack of integrity of Dominion. . . .once again.
Bill cannot actually defend what Fox has done.
The rules of the game requires that he next try Whataboutism.
No reason for me to defend Fox Nate. Personally I haven’t seen anything I would consider libelous. But perhaps all the facts aren’t available to the public.
The facts are available to the public with regards to Adam Schiff and several others lying about Trump colluding with Russia. Bald faced lies in fact as they said they had evidence and after spending millions and millions on an investigation nobody ever saw any.
Fundamentally saying Dominion voting machines were used may or may not be true but thats hardly libelous.
Likewise saying the machines were used to defraud an election that equally isn’t libelous as anybody could use any election device from a windows/apple/chromebook/linux computer or any other device that uses software to defraud an election.
If somebody says a Ford Truck was used to run into a crowd of pedestrians is that libelous whether true or not?
I heard Dominion was losing money. No doubt they want to blame it on somebody else. But maybe they should look into their business associations and business practices instead. Elections are always contentious. But a machine can’t be guilty of a crime and seems to me an ordinary person not driven insane by Trump Derangement Syndrome would pick up on that.
And fundamental to the technique of whataboutism is to mislead people as to the equivalence of quite different situations.
Yep that is what science seems to be trying to pull on the public but its more about whataboutmeism.
Like your global warming scam on the public blaming the public without even have any conclusive evidence. You guys run around thinking you are smarter than everybody else when actually you are really a selfinterested typical jerk.
And oh yes it is two completely different situations. We know Adam Schiff lied about having evidence as the matter was investigated in a detailed multi-year investigation.
A little less certain about Powell and Guiliani. We will have to see how the lawsuit turns out.
“We know Adam Schiff lied”
Quotes?
Successful law suit?
Nope, none of that.
You seem to know very little about the Dominion v Fox case. Naturally, because right-wing media hasnt covered it.
Schiff said he had the evidence Nate. After years of investigation by an independent counsel none was ever produced. Obviously he is a huge liar.
A legit investigation. No quotes. No lawsuits.
Just right-wing whataboutism.
Duly noted Nate that makes your comments leftwing whataboutism.
Lame…
Apparently when you get to Bill’s age, you regress back to 3rd grade playground taunts like ‘I know you are but what am I’.
Just putting a mirror up to your approach Nate. Interesting that you can only see somebody else.
this is some stinky stuff here related to Dominion
https://tinyurl.com/4pjj9uxj
It would seem from what I learned about Dominion earlier they may be using such a technicality as a defense.
there may be nothing there Gordon. When money is at stake a lot of people make poor choices of bed fellows. When and if that comes around to harm them they will quickly cry foul. I just go by evidence not hearsay. I didn’t see anything but hearsay posted around here. The campaign memo curated by justsecurty.org certainly leads to suspicion that Powell and Giuliani could have been on to something. News is news. Maybe there is a smoking gun somewhere but Fox has been my go to source as a balance to mainstream media so I can hear both sides of a story. I haven’t seen anything anybody could call libelous. that also doesn’t mean there isn’t anything there. That’s what trials are for.
“It would seem from what I learned about Dominion earlier they may be using such a technicality as a defense.”
Defence for what, Gordon? And what technicality? The faded document has a bunch of points, mostly about Smartmatic.
I couldn’t find a link that went anywhere from that document.
There is no question about the Venezuelan mess and involvement. That was front and center in the press when it happened and they were pressured or ordered to divest in US voting machines. And here they are back bidding to get in with their previous partner.
Knowing how the government audits this is a big concern. Election security in the new age needs to be monitored professionally with regard to any electronic voting means.
Heck when I was first inducted into the profession we went through a formal indoctrination that included stories and examples of frauds perpetrated by computer codes. We didn’t get any of that in our courses leading up to the qualifying degree. So my first year involved a great deal of work on large computer due diligence models doing detailed logic and math checks.
What you fail to appreciate is there was smoke. And where you have smoke you have fire. I have little doubt that the campaign was on a fishing expedition like the democrats have been for the past 6 years on Trump hoping to find something while they throw raw meat by the ton to their constituents.
If somebody screwed up and libeled somebody they shouldn’t have well that is what a trial is for.
The memo indicates that Dominion had been on the economic ropes nothing like a potential windfall with legal costs covered by political interests. The political fallout has to be worth every penny no matter the outcome. the whole strategy is to put a stench on the other side so you can appeal to your more distant wing without losing the center. Every election follows the same pattern.
And the claim. How does a politically-correctly oriented company lose money from allegations about the other side?
Care to explain that? What you had in Georgia was Dominion bidding against its previous partner who got caught with its hand in the cookie jar once already.
Corporations can be like cheap suits, change them everyday. Its not like Coke or Pepsi where goodwill has been earned by decades of polishing it. Government contractors all live in a swamp and they all have strange bedfellows.
“There is no question about the Venezuelan mess and involvement.”
The document states the Dominion was not established in Venezuela (as Powell, Mike Lindell and Giuliani claimed), but in Canada, and has zero ties to Venezuela.
The brief you provided, Bill, says that the only relationship Dominion had with Smartmatic was when they sold optical lenses to Smartmatic. Neither company owns the other, and they are, in effect, rivals. The business deal was short-lived, and ended acrimoniously.
Thanks for providing the brief, which debunks many of the claims made just after the 2020 election.
Smartmatic custom built voting machines to order for LA County. That is the only district in the entire country that used Smartmatic-made machines in the 2020 elections. LA County is a safe Democrat seat. I wonder why Smartmatic even featured in the conspiracy theories.
Actually, it’s not hard to figure it out. Smartmatic has a history that can be leveraged to cast doubt on voting machines. It doesn’t matter that Smartmaqtic machines were used in only one county in the 2020 election – look at the conservative online furore over the 2022 Brazilian election being a rort due to Smartmatic and Dominon machines.
Problem is, neither Smartmatic nor Dominion machines were used in the 2022 Brazillian elections.
Talk about “alternative facts.”
barry says:
”The brief you provided, Bill, says that the only relationship Dominion had with Smartmatic was when they sold optical lenses to Smartmatic. Neither company owns the other, and they are, in effect, rivals. The business deal was short-lived, and ended acrimoniously.”
—————————-
No it doesn’t say thats the only relationship Dominion had with Smartmatic. There appears to be software licensing agreements for the operation of the Sequoia voting machines that Dominion bought from Smartmatic the disposition of which isn’t discussed in the memo.
Smartmatic the company built on Venezuelan capital is a competitor with Dominion but the partnership that was dissolved was related to other technology sharing. there is no indication that other relationships were also dissolved or that Dominion doesn’t still rely on Smartmatic software.
I agree that it would be a great idea that Dominion completely distance themselves from Smartmatic as your defense relies upon above.
I also think that we should have complete ‘through the machine’ audit practices in place overseen by independent parties not just for Smartmatic but any vendor providing election vote counting equipment.
barry says:
look at the conservative online furore over the 2022 Brazilian election being a rort due to Smartmatic and Dominon machines.
Problem is, neither Smartmatic nor Dominion machines were used in the 2022 Brazillian elections.
Talk about alternative facts.
———————
From Brazil: ”Brazils Superior Electoral Court (TSE) released a statement saying that Smartmatic has had contracts with the electoral authority for data provision and voice connection services, but not for developing or operating voting machines.”
Hmmm, so all they do is inform the public of the vote count?
Again I am not a conspiracy theory guy. My DNA is all about systems that are secure not in a marketing sense, but in a real sense.
This was not for the 2022 election. Provide a link for that quote so I can show you. Or did you know that and posted anyway?
Did you see my point? Conservatives all over the US attributed a fraudulent 2022 election in Brazil to Smartmatic voting machines in Brazil. But there weren’t any.
You bullshitometer doesn’t work very well when it is infected with confirmation bias, Bill.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-Brazil-Smartmatic-071850208033
”Saba also noted that Smartmatic did not provide any additional services for the 2022 election.”
Additional services? That would be in addition to the services already being provided and acknowledged.
You still haven’t dated it, Bill. And you are doing exactly what the people who brought election fraud cases after the US 2020 election did – offer speculation as evidence.
This is wishful thinking, and your bullshitometer relies on partial information.
The translated version of the Brazilian announcement:
“The messages circulating on social media claiming that the company Smartmatic provides electronic voting machines or software used in voting machines in Brazil are false. The entire project of the Brazilian electronic voting machine and electronic voting system was conceived and is entirely managed by the country’s Electoral Justice.
The Brazilian voting machines were designed by servers and technicians serving the Electoral Justice and are produced under their direct coordination by companies selected through public and competitive bidding, which further guarantees security and transparency in the electoral process.
The country’s electronic voting system uses its own encrypted means of communication and data transmission, having no contact with public networks such as the internet. Over more than 20 years of experience, the system has been repeatedly tested and proven to be free from any form of manipulation, vote tampering, or violation of the secrecy of the vote.
Therefore, the TSE (Superior Electoral Court) reaffirms that the Smartmatic company did not and does not provide electronic voting machines for Brazilian elections, nor did they work on the programming of these devices. The company only provided training for professionals who provided technical and operational support for Brazilian voting machines.
Smartmatic has only signed contracts with the TSE on other occasions to provide data and voice connection services, and not for the development or operation of the electronic voting machine. Additionally, the company participated in the bidding process for the production of electronic voting machines for 2020 but lost to the Positivo company.”
“Hmmm, so all they do is inform the public of the vote count?”
In your imagination they do.
But keep up the wild speculations. And maybe investigate what motivates them.
Barry you got caught lying and now you are trying to suggest that a comment made after the 2022 Brazilian election doesn’t say they have contracts in place for the 2022 election that have already been disclosed and that there were no others.
All you are doing here is making a fool of yourself. But whats new about that?
You are making a claim that some anonymous right wingers are claiming both Dominion and Smartmatic machines were used in the Brazilian elections to rig the election. You haven’t said who said that, you haven’t given a reference to the specific claim, you haven’t even said it was Dominion or Smartmatic that used the machines to rig the election.
I am not going to respond to your poorly researched claims here. You either get more specific or all I will do is call you a liar.
Lies, huh? Let’s detail your falsehoods in order in this thread, and then let’s see where you think I’m lying.
About Dominion you have said
1) “There is no question about the Venezuelan mess and involvement.”
The brief you provided says Dominion has zero ties to Venezuela.
2) “There appears to be software licensing agreements for the operation of the Sequoia voting machines that Dominion bought from Smartmatic”
The brief says:
Smartmatic’s software is not licensed for use in other company’s voting machines
Dominion didn’t buy Sequoia from Smartmatic. Smartmatic sold Sequoia in 2007, and Dominion bought from a 3rd entity in 2010. The dates are in the brief, including the then ‘intellectual property’ in the Sequoia machines. Unknown if this was the software, but Smartmatic didn’t license its software to Dominion – you made that up, along with the conservative hacks who put together the narrative 3 years ago.
There is no evidence that Dominion used Smartmatic software in either the US 2020 or Brazilian 2022 elections. If Sequoia is meant to be the software link, which is circumstantial at best, software from 2010 would certainly be out of date by 2020 and 2022, particularly because voting machine requirements in the US changed (including having a paper ballot printed out, as is the case with Dominion voting machines in the 2020 election).
3) “the partnership that was dissolved was related to other technology sharing. there is no indication that other relationships were also dissolved or that Dominion doesnt still rely on Smartmatic software”
Smartmatic was licensing no technology or software to Dominion. The dissolvement was caused by Dominion licensing its optical scanner technology to Smartmatic on the provision that Smartmatic didn’t sell that or any of its own technology in the US. So it does not follow from this event that Dominion “doesn’t still rely on Smartmatic software.
4) [re the Brazilian 2022 election] “Hmmm, so all they do is inform the public of the vote count?”
No, Smartmatic was doing nothing of the sort. They were contracted as I cited.
And I said there were no Smartmatic voting machines in the 2022 election, which the reference you provided corroborates.
Which brings us to your accusation of me lying:
“Barry you got caught lying and now you are trying to suggest that a comment made after the 2022 Brazilian election doesn’t say they have contracts in place for the 2022 election
As I made no such claim, you are the one who is lying confused. What I countered was your claim:
“Brazils Superior Electoral Court (TSE) released a statement saying that Smartmatic has had contracts with the electoral authority for data provision and voice connection services”
To which I replied:
“This was not for the 2022 election. Provide a link for that quote so I can show you.”
And when you gave the link I quoted from the source for your article:
“Smartmatic has only signed contracts with the TSE on other occasions to provide data and voice connection services”
NOT for the 2022 election.
I’m not lying. You are confused.
The point is, you are pushing circumstantial evidence and conjecture, and this is the absolute BEST that Powell and Giuliani had, not to mention that they completely fabricated many notions about Dominion (and their relationship to Smartmatic), or based their announcements on fabrication that they didn’t check.
And we know they didn’t check because Giuliani said exactly that in court, and Powell relied on a memo for all her claims at Fox that was written by a woman who said the wind speaks to her, and that she gets her knowledge from unconscious time-travel – which is mentioned in the very same memo as the claims.
That Powell relied on that woman and her memo for her Dominion claims at Fox is accepted by Fox executives and the Fox host that first brought Powell’s claims, in their responses to cross-examination in court. They do not dispute. Rather they admit it was not a document they should have relied on. It is a matter now of public record, not conjecture.
As are the the text messages and emails from Rupert Murdoch, Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson that Powell was “nuts”, “lying” and “dangerous,” and from Sean Hannity in deposition saying he “did not believe these claims for one minute.”
OAN and NewsMax likewise disavowed Powell’s claims when Dominion threatened to sue for defamation. That’s how much stock they put in the claims when their feet were held to the fire. But there are no doubt MAGA die-hards still trying to make them stick.
Right-wing posts and articles falsely claiming Smartmatic/Dominion machines were used in the election (to rig it)?
Here is Steve Bannon’s website saying Smartmatic machines rigged the elections:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/biggest-victory-patriots-history-brazil-despite-massive-fraud/
And posted on conservative social media:
https://gettr.com/post/p1t14io67bb
There have also been a brace of posts on social media pushing the loony idea that these Smartmatic and Dominion machines were used in the 2022 Brazilian election, many linking to thegatewaypundit article.
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/22/1130336625/why-false-claims-about-brazils-election-are-spreading-in-far-right-u-s-circles
For a bit of humour, even conservative conspiracy theorists in Australia claim that the vote’s rigged by Dominion machines:
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/no-australia-wont-use-dominion-voting-machines-next-election/
Which is fucking hilarious as Australian law bans voting machines. It’s totally pencil and paper vote.
I’m not making this up.
Barry says:
For a bit of humour, even conservative conspiracy theorists in Australia claim that the votes rigged by Dominion machines:
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/no-australia-wont-use-dominion-voting-machines-next-election/
Which is fucking hilarious as Australian law bans voting machines. Its totally pencil and paper vote.
Im not making this up.
————————————
You did just make it up.
Your link does not say people are claiming the election was rigged by Dominion voting machines. The article says somebody said there was a plan to use Dominion voting machines in the next election.
And lo and behold they are right. While they may not have amended the law yet Dominion is lobbying for them to change the law to allow a machine vote count and they have a Parliament Committee instructing the AEC to prepare for it and report back progress every 6 months. Dominion is in the middle of this and while nobody has contracted with them yet they have their salesmen and lobbyists there.
So what is clear the social media post may have slightly jumped the gun this wouldn’t be on their legislatures record unless some politicians weren’t trying to push it.
The official finding was: “”The Australian Electoral Commission is not planning to use Dominion Voting Systems at the next federal election. That and related claims are based on a parliamentary report which merely mentions a submission by Dominion in a separate point to one detailing a pilot proposal for electronic vote counting by the AEC.”
And of course they didn’t mention that there was an on going process to modernize elections with machine counting. So it sounds as if they don’t have it this year they may have it soon. And that was a year and a half ago.
So really the whole thing is realistic. Dominion is suing hoping to get its credibility restored. But Guiliani and Powell mentioning Dominion is hardly the first event in a long chain of events about computerized voting that people quite frankly are distrustful of probably for good reasons.
US officials have been going on about crooked voting overseas ever since well before I was old enough to vote. Now we have international commerce in voting equipment and what has been sowed for God only knows how long is coming to roost. And well it should. We should make every effort to ensure elections are secure. I believe it can be done but it needs to be done transparently and the government generally isn’t good about transparency. . . .tending to stamp everything and anything they don’t want the public to see with a security rating.
“there is no indication that other relationships were also dissolved or that Dominion doesn’t still rely on Smartmatic software.”
According to the brief YOU brought, Smartmatic software was never licensed for use in other companies’ machines.
There is plenty of indication that the relationship dissolved acrimoniously – directly from the brief YOU provided.
Sequoia was owned by Hart after Smartmatic, and then by Dominion. Dominion bought the company, 4 years after Hart, not the machines.
Bill, you are a living breathing example of the kind of brain that brought speculation and circumstantial evidence to courts across the US in the wake of the 2020 elections.
Wishful thinking is all you have here.
I did this round 2 years ago. Nothing has improved since then. And by the way, Gordon hates fact-checkers, but he’ll overlook them if its you presenting them.
Your not auditing here, you are conspiracy theorizing.
Barry you are the one making factual claims. All I am doing is showing you what information is out there.
You read the comment from Smartmatic in the memo saying that Smartmatic doesn’t license its software to other companies. Thats essentially an undated statement that at one time existed on the smartmatic website but doesn’t today.
The fact that smartmatic licensed their software for the sequoia machines bought by Dominion was a license granted in a court case in Delaware, I would assume was a matter of contention such that it became a court action. Typically when you buy machines you get the software on it.
Now you are trying call me a liar. You can read the memo for yourself. I am not vouching for it voracity. I am just saying this memo is curated by a credible organization.
You say: Dominion didnt buy Sequoia from Smartmatic. Smartmatic sold Sequoia in 2007, and Dominion bought from a 3rd entity in 2010.
I realize that. I said Smartmatic needing a quick deal in a sale sold the compnay to the Sequoia CEO and CFO who were effectively Smartmatic employees at the time of the sale. These types of sales are always an issue for auditors. I have been involved in a few investigations with these type of sales. In fact its the same form of sale that Enron used to fool its auditors and the same form of sale used by Lincoln Savings to book profits and a bad piece of property that became a scandal.
Under public pressure to sell its like a guy going into foreclosure on his home he is going to lose equity. So they set up a straw buyer to buy it to buy time. It may be a legitimate sale it might not be. Regardless Dominion bought the company later. I mentioned all this and did not say anything related to a conspiracy.
So that makes you the liar for the second time in two posts I have responded to. You must be like Adam Schiff and an Nancy Pelosi lying all the time.
You can’t blame Bill for not knowing much about this lawsuit, and how good a case for defamation Dominion has against Fox.
Consumers of conservative media are simply not hearing about it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/03/business/media/fox-dominion-conservative-media.html
Because as we discovered in the internal Fox emails, conservative media is deathly afraid of reporting news that doesn’t confirm their viewers beliefs.
When Fox accidentally did that on election night, viewers changed the channel!
I have no news subscriptions so I can’t even read your references. In fact I don’t have subscription to Fox News as I don’t have cable either.
I don’t listen to the garbage you listen to. I stick with the experts and listen to both sides.
We are stuck on this phrase….
“Quoniam enim Luna circ axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circ Tellurem periodum suam absolvit
The sticking word seems to be revolvit, which has been translated as revolves. However, in Latin, it can have several meanings. For example…
“Mercurius Soli per orbitam oblongam se revolvit” ….”Mercury travels around the Sun in an elliptical orbit”.
In this case, revolvit means travels. Could that be ‘moves’?
The first part of the statement above says…
Quoniam enim Luna circ axem suum uniformiter revolvit”
meaning “For the Moon [does something] about its axis uniformly…”.
Based on the translation for Mercury it says the Moon travels around its axis, which makes no sense. However, ‘the Moon moves around its axis might work’.
The word uniform seems strange. One English translation is “remaining the same in all cases and at all times; unchanging in form or character”.
What I am trying to develop is this. Newton seems to be describing a motion of the Moon about its axis, but not a rotation about a local axis per se. He says hardly anything at all in the three editions of Principia about a local rotation. If he thought the Moon did rotate on a local axis I would think he’d have gone into that in detail, but he did not.
This is important. If the Moon did rotate on a local axis exactly once per orbit, it seems to me Newton would have thought it very important and got into a detailed description of how it could work. He said nothing…absolutely nothing.
Rotates in Latin is circumagatur. Circumagere means to turn around or to revolve. The word revolvit can mean other things as well as revolve. Revolvit is the 3rd person of revolvo which can mean…
I roll back; unroll, unwind; revolve, return.
I turn over, read over, repeat.
I relate again, repeat; reenact; brood or reflect upon.
(passive) I come or go back, return, recur, relapse.
I am suggesting the Newton was trying to describe a motion of the Moon related to an axis that more closely describes what we mean by a re-orientation of the near face.
And as usual, the dishonest and incompetent Robertson intentionally omits to translate the second part of what Newton wrote:
” Quoniam enim Luna circà axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circà Tellurem periodum suam absolvit ”
which as I wrote years ago already, is translated into
” Since the Moon uniformly revolves about its own axis in the same time it completes its period around the Earth ”
*
Is it possible to be more dishonest and incompetent?
*
And Newton again has perfectly explained what he understood with Moon’s axis.
Not only did he write above ‘axem suum‘ (‘own axis’).
He also wrote somewhat below:
” Nam libratio in latitudinem orta est ex latitudine Lunæ et inclinatione axis ejus ad planum eclipticæ. ”
i.e.
” For the libration in latitude has arisen from the latitude of the moon and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic. ”
*
Only ignorant and dishonest persons could try to claim that with ‘axis’, Newton could ever have understood an axis passing through Earth’s center or through Earth’s and Moon’s barycenter located within Earth.
*
Will that nonsense ever have an end, Robertson?
Bindidon says:
Only ignorant and dishonest persons could try to claim that with axis, Newton could ever have understood an axis passing through Earths center or through Earths and Moons barycenter located within Earth.
—————————-
In my view the quote above doesn’t imply two motions. It implies that upon close examination that the motion of the moon is complex and can be described as he described it. Its clearly one motion. For it to be two and be consistent with Newton’s laws one must locate separate forces to create and maintain two separate in sync motions.
Any other interpretation is far worse than saying a baseball pitcher imparts two motions on a pitch when its one pitch. Yeah folks the pitcher imparted two formidable motions on the ball he threw fast with english. Its far worse than that because gravity is invariable and the pitcher’s scheme is variable.
You guys get that thats why we have seen the arguments from your side with pictures of the moon by itself with a rotation, trying to ignore the rotation of the moon around the earth. How arguments have arisen that the rotation of the moon had to have arisen from a pre-existing spin. How optical and parallax libration are real motions. Denial of physical libration making the moon’s axial rotation not of constant angular velocity and momentum by hand waving it away. The list is almost endless.
DREMT has it right again you guys are just a bunch of sophists. IMO you go far beyond that into narcissism.
Now I have enough of your behavior, Hunter boy.
A. Not only do you turn the discussion points into their contrary, what is typical for sophists, e.g.:
1. ” … trying to ignore the rotation of the moon around the earth. ”
This is a pure lie.
Never and never did I ignore that Moon orbits Earth. No one does that. Just like Earth orbits the Sun and spins about its polar axis, so does the Moon.
The contrary is the case: you are here the one who deliberately distorts the principle of orbiting by calling it a ‘rotation’, and by the way try to make any lunar spin per se impossible.
*
2. ” How optical and parallax libration are real motions. ”
This is a pure lie.
I have written dozens of times that libration in longitude, latitude and diurnal libration are all apparent motions.
*
3. ” Denial of physical libration making the moons axial rotation not of constant angular velocity and momentum by hand waving it away. ”
This is a pure lie.
I have written dozens of times that – as opposed to Clint R’s and Robertson’s claims – physical lunar librations (forced and free) very well exist but that they are so tiny that their analytical discovery by Laplace could not be confirmed by observation until the middle of the XXeth century.
*
B. But you also show what a narcissistic person you yourself are when placing your personal views above what Newton wrote and what centuries of science have accumulated:
” In my view the quote above doesnt imply two motions. It implies that upon close examination that the motion of the moon is complex and can be described as he described it. Its clearly one motion. ”
*
Live in peace with your egomaniac, scienceless behavior, Hunter boy!
Bin, assaulting your keyboard means nothing. You can wear out keyboards after keyboards but will never be any smarter. You need to start learning.
Start with taking the simple quiz. Then I can better explain your misconceptions. Learning is a process — baby steps.
Bindidon says:
1. ” trying to ignore the rotation of the moon around the earth. ”
This is a pure lie.
—————–
Good then we agree it is a rotation. Oh oh oh! Then you backtrack:
”you are here the one who deliberately distorts the principle of orbiting by calling it a rotation, and by the way try to make any lunar spin per se impossible.”
Bindidon says:
2. ” How optical and parallax libration are real motions. ”
This is a pure lie.
I have written dozens of times that libration in longitude, latitude and diurnal libration are all apparent motions.
————————–
And your argument is? Is it: that ”apparent motions” are the hallmark of separate real motions? Or is it just other spinners who are making that argument?
Bindidon says:
3. ”Denial of physical libration making the moons axial rotation not of constant angular velocity and momentum by hand waving it away.”
”This is a pure lie.
I have written dozens of times that as opposed to Clint Rs and Robertsons claims physical lunar librations (forced and free) very well exist but that they are so tiny that their analytical discovery by Laplace could not be confirmed by observation until the middle of the XXeth century.”
So we agree that the so called apparent motion of ‘spin’, not seen in circular motion, does not have constant angular velocity and angular momentum that many spinners claim?
Bindidon says:
”B. But you also show what a narcissistic person you yourself are when placing your personal views above what Newton wrote and what centuries of science have accumulated:”
I have not represented what Newton said. All I asked for was what Newton thought Lorb+Lspin was equal to. As I understand it from what your translations imply is that Newton recognized that or may have even evented the formula for the rotation of a uniform sphere around an external axis. Some here are saying he didn’t. I have no idea. So how could I misrepresent his viewpoint on that if I haven’t made a claim of what he thought?
Bindidon says:
” In my view the quote above doesnt imply two motions. It implies that upon close examination that the motion of the moon is complex and can be described as he described it. Its clearly one motion. ”
”Live in peace with your egomaniac, scienceless behavior, Hunter boy!”
thats harsh. Heretosofar nobody has made a physics argument that it is two independent motions. I see it as a celestial object flying through space getting captured by earth’s gravity and nothing more except for the various perturbations being inflicted on that rotation by other celestial bodies. I am ready to learn more but what I don’t see is any evidence of a unique angular momentum as one can see with the earth and its spin and no explanation for its axial tilt other than that spin.
I don’t see your translations of what Newton might have brilliantly noticed that the energy of that rotation on an external axis could be conveniently broken down into two virtual motions for the purpose of greatly simplifying computations for all sorts of reasons. Similar to a baseball coach teaching the basics of a curve ball to an young player. the educational value of broken down concepts of a movement is beyond question. It just seems sophist and narcissistic to go around simply claiming that the pitch isn’t a single delivery motion even though multiple muscles are involved in comprising the motion.
Moon is rotating around its axis. Obvious when you consider that the sun shines on the entire surface of the moon during its 28 day rotation about its axis. I don’t get why people don’t grasp this simple fact.
Ken, what you can’t “grasp” is the difference between “orbiting” and “spinning”.
I wouldn’t expect things to change….
ken…consider viewing the Indy 500 from a grandstand on the straightaway. Presume the cars are moving CCW (L to R as you view them on the near side [home stretch] of the track). As the cars move by the grandstand on the near side, you see the passenger side of the cars if they are North American vehicles.
The cars move to the first turn and go around it and now they are moving R to L along the back stretch [far side of track] and you are seeing the driver’s side. Essentially, you can see all sides of the cars from a grandstand outside the track.
That’s how the Sun would shine on the Moon. It illuminates all sides of the Moon due to the restriction in the motion that it keep the same face pointing at the Earth, which is inside the orbit.
If you were inside the track, you would only see the driver’s side at all times. That’s how you see the Moon from Earth.
You forgot to tell Kennui how the racing cars are only going in a straight line, Bordon.
Perhaps you should revisit the Pixar movie for your explanation.
Come on.
binny…”And as usual, the dishonest and incompetent Robertson intentionally omits to translate the second part of what Newton wrote:
Quoniam enim Luna circ axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circ Tellurem periodum suam absolvit ”
***
I question the meaning of revolvit in the Latin used by Newton. I gave another example…
Mercurius Soli per orbitam oblongam se revolvit…. which meansMercury travels around the Sun in an elliptical orbit. Their translation, not mine.
I also said…Quoniam enim Luna circa axem suum uniformiter revolvit
meaning For the Moon [does something] about its axis uniformly.
If we apply the same translation as for Mercury, that becomes…
For the Moon moves about its axis uniformly …in the same time it orbits the Earth.
That makes far more sense and it does not have to mean the Moon is rotating on its axis. He is claiming the Moon re-orients about its axis in the same time it takes to orbit the Earth.
If Motte, as the original translator, was not aware of that re-orientation, he would have translated revolvit to mean rotation rather than a re-orientation.
I just came across a definition of revolve in Middle English that means ‘ to change direction’. Anyone who speaks English and tries to write in Latin would surely not be thinking in Latin. He would likely be thinking in English and translating to Latin on the lfy. If Newton was trying to find an equivalent word in Latin for re-orient, that Middle English definition would be close.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/revolve
Re-orient is my word, it does not represent what Newton would have been thinking, especially speaking English of the 17th century. I am not so sure that a word existed then to explain such a motion for the simple reason that no bodies on Earth moved like the Moon.
Last point, why does Newton include the word uniform wrt motion, especially an alleged rotation?
To distinguish it from the non-uniform orbit, I would guess, per libration.
The reason I think this is because Mercator more fully explains the libration that Newton was speaking of in letters to him, in his book on astronomy, Institutionum astronomicarum libri duo.
Harum tam variarium atque implicitarum Librationum causas Hypothesi elegantissima explicavit nobis Vir Cl. Isaac Newton, cujus Humanitari hoc & alils nominibus plurimum debere me lubens profiteor. Hanc igitur hypothesin, Lectori grafiticaturus, exponam verbis, ut potero; delineationes in plano vix sufficiunt huic negotio, praeterquam quod iis jam abundat hoc enchiridion. Itaque reversus ad globum, cogita nunc illum repraesentare sphaerum, in qua movetur Luna, cujus centrum occupet Tellus. Ipsum vero Lunae globum credito polis & axe fuo instructum, circa quem revolvatur motu aequabili semel mense siderio…
Translation:
“The causes of these so diverse and entangled Librations were elegantly explained to us by the distinguished Sir Isaac Newton, whom I willingly acknowledge, as well as others, to owe much. Therefore, I will explain this hypothesis to the reader in words as best as I can; the delineations on a plane are scarcely sufficient for this task, besides, this handbook is already abundant with them. So, returning to the globe, imagine it now representing the sphere in which the Moon moves, whose centre is occupied by the Earth. But the globe of the Moon is furnished with its own poles and axis, around which it revolves with a uniform motion once a sidereal month…”
Mercator refers to the Moon’s “unequal” orbit, as Newton described it to him, in the next paragraph.
“Then imagine two equal globes for yourself, each of which is distinguished by a single primary Meridian, equator, and pole, and each is suspended by a thread attached to one of the poles. One of these should carry a fictitious Moon moving uniformly according to the guidance of the wooden horizon, and at the same time revolving around its own axis with respect to the firmament, so that the plane of the primary Lunar Meridian always passes through the centre of the Earth. The other globe, imitating the true Moon in its orbit, is carried by an unequal motion, now emerging above the wooden horizon, now descending below it, so that the plane of the Equator of this true Moon always remains parallel to the plane of the wooden horizon, and the plane of the primary Meridian of the fictitious Moon. Thus, the fictitious Moon always turns the same face to us and is not subject to any libration. However, the true Moon, while going from perigee to apogee, precedes the fictitious Moon, showing its primary Meridian departing from the centre of its disc by as many degrees as there are between the longitude of the true and fictitious Moon.”
If you want to see the Latin for this bit, it is here. I didn’t want to make this post too long. The link to the original Latin text from Mercator is also at that link.
barry, you are making this MUCH more complicated that necessary. Mercator is using two globes, suspended by “poles”, one a model of Moon, and the other a fictitious moon?
???
You muck it up so much you can’t understand it. Keep it simple.
The simple ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” (OMWAR). That’s all you need. Everything else is just a worthless distraction. Wearing out keyboards and quibbling over definitions and translations ain’t getting it.
If you don’t have a viable model of OMWAR, you’ve got NOTHING.
(Have you taken the simple quiz yet?)
“Mercator is using two globes, suspended by ‘poles’, one a model of Moon, and the other a fictitious moon?”
Yes, the fictitious Moon is an analogue for the ball-on-a-string model, and he states that it would have no libration, just as a ball affixed to a string would have no libration.
You might want to read Mercator again.
barry, please stop trolling.
The cars move to the first turn and go around it and now they are moving R to L along the back stretch [far side of track] and you are seeing the drivers side. Essentially, you can see all sides of the cars from a grandstand outside the track.
Problem is the moon is not on a circular track around the earth. Its on a circular track around the sun along with the earth. Sometimes the moon is on a track inside earth and sometimes outside. If its going L to R with respect to the earth, its never going R to L. The inside of the track is the sun; not the earth.
The first paragraph (the erroneous part) should be in quotes.
Ken, you’re a perfect example of “braindead”.
See, you life does have a purpose….
ken…”Problem is the moon is not on a circular track around the earth. Its on a circular track around the sun along with the earth”.
***
The wiki article from which you took your drawing claims the Moon is orbiting the Earth. It says nothing about it orbiting the Sun. Your drawing represents the motion of the barycentre, about which the Earth and Moon allegedly rotate. It does no represent the motion of the Moon independently of the Earth.
Their claim that the barycentre is an axis of rotation is all wet. If it was true, the Earth would have a distinctive wobble with its N-S axis moving at least a kilometre off its orbital path as it rotated about the barycentre. A study I posted recently reveals it wobbles no more than a few feet and none of the wobble is attributed to a barycentric motion.
When Newton talked about the effect of the Moon’s gravity on the Earth, he talked only about it moving the oceans. He said nothing about it moving the entire Earth.
Gravity is so weak at the Earth-Moon distance that it has been reduced to about 0.003 m/s^2 acceleration. That is barely enough to divert the Moon from its path more than 5 metres per 8000 metres traveled by the Moon. However, that is enough deviation to keep the Moon in an orbit that follows the curvature of the Earth.
There is no way any force on the Earth by the Moon could divert the Earth from its orbital path, let alone swing it a kilometres around the barycentre that is embedded in the Earth a kilometre deep. All it can do is raise the oceans about a metre.
Quoniam enim Luna circà axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circà Tellurem periodum suam absolvit…
Suum means “its own.”
Since the Moon uniformly revolves about its own axis in the same time it completes its period around the Earth…
Very clearly two motions occurring in the same time. The first is the Moon’s motion about its own axis (not an external one), and the second motion is its ‘rotation’ around an external axis, or orbit.
Prior to modern astronomy revolve and rotate were used interchangeably. But the construction of this sentence leaves no doubt – 2 motions of equal duration, the first around “its own” axis, the second describing an orbit.
It’s saying exactly what spinners say. The Moon rotates at the same rate it orbits.
And we also know Newton is talking about the Moon’s axial rotation, because he describes it WRT the fixed stars, he calls it the Moon’s daily (diurnal) rotation as opposed to its monthly orbit, and he gives the value for that rotation WRT to the fixed stars alongside the Sun and planets, and all these values are sidereal rotation values, very close to modern estimates.
In that same section we are citing, Newton himself cites Nicholas Mercator’s work, thus:
“This theory of the libration of the moon, Mr. N. Mercato in his Astronomy, published at the beginning of the year 1676, explained more fully out of the letters I sent him.”
So how did Nicholas Mercator describe Newton’s views?
“Ipsum vero Lunae globum credito polis & axe fuo instructum, circa quem revolvatur motu aequabili semel mense siderio…”
Translation:
“But the globe of the Moon is furnished with poles and axis, around which it revolves with a uniform motion once in the sidereal month…”
https://books.google.de/books?id=TqwsGvy3sMEC&pg=PA286&hl=en&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q=newton&f=false
Mercator assigned these views to Newton in that section of his book. It is abundantly clear that this is about a Lunar rotation around its central axis, and this is the section Newton is citing, as it is the only section in Mercator’s work dealing with the libration of the Moon, and it references Newton by name.
Newton was a spinner.
Thanks barry for all the work.
However, I’m starting to get really, definitely bored of fighting this level of denial and willful misrepresentation.
Also, such opinionated, arrogant and ignorant people who accuse me of sophism and narcissism when they themselves are, are starting to really piss me off.
Bindidon,
“However, I’m starting to get really, definitely bored of fighting this level of denial and willful misrepresentation.”
I feel the same way, and oscillate between moving on and continuing.
Roy will post the next UAH monthly update soon. I do not plan to revisit this subject on that thread.
“Very clearly two motions occurring in the same time. The first is the Moon’s motion about its own axis (not an external one), and the second motion is its ‘rotation’ around an external axis, or orbit.“
Not possible, barry. If the moon was rotating about both an external and an internal axis, it would be moving completely differently to how it currently is.
The only way the moon can be making two motions is if the “orbital motion” is a translation (motion like the MOTR).
I know, you won’t understand…that’s fine.
dremt…”Not possible, barry. If the moon was rotating about both an external and an internal axis, it would be moving completely differently to how it currently is”.
***
Yes…it would move like the Earth, which shows all sides to the Sun 365 times per year.
The flaw here is to make equivalent a mechanical motion with an orbital one, with your model having a crank attaching the Earth and the Moon.
As I said, you won’t understand…and that’s fine.
I understand just fine. Your 2 rotational axes are mechanically linked in your mind, like a pedal on a bike.
That video with the Indian guy and the red arrows – that’s how you see it.
Don’t worry about it, barry.
Gasllighting Graham gaslights a little more.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
when willard loses track of the conversation he always resorts to that gaslighting ad hominem. Very predictable.
barry maybe doesn’t know that Newton proved that an orbiting object that was not spinning would always keep one side facing the inside of its orbit. I offered to provide Bindidon with the source, but he refused.
barry, are you willing to stop commenting here for 90 days? If you do, I will supply you with Newton’s proof of OMWAR.
Are you interested in learning, or just trolling?
I think I already know the answer….
Pup, Pup,
You do not provide the source because you made it up.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
” Newton proved that an orbiting object that was not spinning would always keep one side facing the inside of its orbit. I offered to provide Bindidon with the source, but he refused. ”
Where is that source, Clint R?
Newton’s original text says the contrary.
binny…”Where is that source, Clint R?”
***
Why do you need the source? The answer is right in front of your nose if you take the time to look.
A ball on a string, a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a carousel, a car driving around an oval track.They all have the same motion. The are keeping the same side facing the axis and not rotating about a local axis.
You spinners have argued from the beginning that a ball rotating on a string is actually spinning on it own internal axis at the same time. You claim a horse bolted to the floor of a carousel is rotating around its own COG even though it is restrained by the bolts from doing that. Now you are grasping at straws, trying to prove Newton claimed the Moon rotates on a local axis.
Gordon,
Let’s make a prediction out of your analogies here.
The real Moon has a polar axis that is tilted a few degrees from its orbital plane.
If at the beginning of the orbit the Lunar North Pole axis is tilted away from the Earth, which way is it pointing half way through the orbit, on the other side of Earth?
“barry, are you willing to stop commenting here for 90 days? If you do, I will supply you with Newtons proof of OMWAR.
Are you interested in learning, or just trolling?”
You are betting on a 90-day cessation of posting and you say I’m trolling? That’s hilariously ironic.
How about just provide the reference and don’t be an ass?
barry…”Since the Moon uniformly revolves about its own axis….”
***
I am challenging the meaning of the Latin word ‘revolvit’ as meaning revolves. I am not doing this to be ornery, I am trying to make sense of Newton’s other statements that…
a)the moon moves with a linear motion
b}the linear motion is converted to a curvilinear motion by gravity
c)the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth.
Revolvit can simply mean ‘moves’ related to moving about something. The Moon moving about its axis is far different than it revolving about its axis. I am trying to interpret ‘revolvit’ in the context of a, b, and c, above.
The Moon does move with a curvilinear motion while keeping one side pointed at Earth. That clearly means all parts of the Moon are moving along concentric paths, making it impossible for the Moon to rotate around a local axis. However, its diurnal motion gives such an impression.
Once again, a, b, and c, above must be considered. Such a motion also describes …
-a ball on a string
-a car lapping a race track
-a locomotive running on a circular track,
-a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a rotating carousel
-an airliner orbiting the Earth at 35,000 feet above the Equator
-a satellite that is oriented in an orbit to keep the same face pointed at Earth.
I simply cannot see Newton missing that obvious truth. If he did think the Moon rotated on a local axis, why the heck did he not say more about it than a few sentences throughout his entire work in Principia? If the Moon did rotate on a local axis, he would surely have had much more to say about it since the mechanics of a body rotating and performing curvilinear motion at the same time, like the Earth, are quite complex. Not something he would have trivialized or overlooked.
Mercator was clearly wrong if he implied that the Moon rotates about a lunar pole. You seem to have conveniently translated him in your favour. The meaning of “Ipsum vero Lunae globum credito polis & axe fuo instructum”, can read “Indeed, the sphere of the moon itself is ***believed*** to be a pole and an axis…”
So, Mercator is not claiming that as a fact, he is claiming it as only as a belief. After all, how would he know? He seems to be saying, ‘it is true, that it is believed…vero is related to truth and credito to belief. That’s what I mean that Latin is a contextual language; change the context a bit and the entire translation is off.
Gordon,
“I am trying to make sense of Newtons other statements that
a)the moon moves with a linear motion
b}the linear motion is converted to a curvilinear motion by gravity
c)the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth.”
Please provide the reference for these statements.
Most importantly, tell me which translation they came from, so that I will know which translator you think is up to the task.
Then I’ll ponder the matter with you.
“I simply cannot see Newton missing that obvious truth. If he did think the Moon rotated on a local axis, why the heck did he not say more about it than a few sentences throughout his entire work in Principia?”
He did, as quoted in Prop XVII, Theo XV again and again.
“I am challenging the meaning of the Latin word ‘revolvit’ as meaning revolves…”
Revolve and rotate were interchangeable terms prior to modern astronomy (where you can still find occasional examples of one being used for the other).
In this context, it obviously means ‘rotate’ around an internal axis, as it does in Newton’s thesis in Prop XVII, Theo XV.
“Mercator was clearly wrong if he implied that the Moon rotates about a lunar pole.”
He is explaining Newton’s views, as told to him in letters by Newton. Newton refers to this section on libration in Mercator’s book in that same Prop XVII, Theo XV that we have been citing again and again. Which is why I looked up the Mercator.
“Ipsum vero Lunae globum credito polis & axe fuo instructum”
A more direct translation in context is, “But truly the Moon’s globe is credited with a pole and axis…”
It’s fine if you want translate “credito” as “believed to have.” That’s a valid translation. Mercator is talking about Newton’s views here, so he is saying that Newton “believes” this.
barry…I have already posted the pertinent quotes but I’ll dig them up again if you like. Too tired tonight. Remind me if you want them. I think I was using the original Motte translation.
You should be able to figure this out, however.
a)do you accept the Moon moves with a rectilinear motion at all times. It has no means of turning corners or moving in a curve. It depends on gravity to follow a curved path.
b)do you accept that the force of gravity pull the Moon off that rectilinear motion into a curvilinear motion that is the orbital path? The curvature of the Earth is basically a 5 metre drop in vertical altitude per 8000 metres of horizontal motion. If the Earth’s gravity can accomplish that, the Moon, or any satellite, will remain naturally in orbit.
c)from past discussions, I think you accept that the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth.
I understand what an orbit is. Rectilinear motion tends to be in straight lines. Curvilinear would be a better description for the Moon, but not sure if that is more appropriate than the astronomical term, ‘orbit’. Curvilinear can be parabolic.
Orbits derived from purely geometric motions are poor models for celestial mechanics, as I understand it. Calculating a simple orbit requires 6 components:
“Given an inertial frame of reference and an arbitrary epoch (a specified point in time), exactly six parameters are necessary to unambiguously define an arbitrary and unperturbed orbit.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements#Required_parameters
I have a few times suggested that DREMT is conflating a geometric system with celestial mechanics. I hold that purely geometric analysis is inadequate to the task, and is unable to predict a real orbit which includes changing velocities along an ellipse.
Yes, I would very much like to read the original Latin on the points you have credited Newton, and I will look at the Motte translation (though you have previously disparaged it), as well as a couple of others for comprehensiveness.
“I have a few times suggested that DREMT is conflating a geometric system with celestial mechanics”
…and you’ve been wrong every time.
“I hold that purely geometric analysis is inadequate to the task, and is unable to predict a real orbit which includes changing velocities along an ellipse.”
Nobody is making a “purely geometric analysis”. The “Non-Spinner” position is, basically, that “what the moon does” is one single motion, “orbiting”. “Spin” is then separate to this motion. Whereas the “Spinner” position is that “what the moon does” is two motions, “orbiting” and “spinning”, where “orbiting” is motion like the MOTR. What I am doing is keeping it simple. What others do is obfuscate a simple problem. Endlessly.
Why I think your view is incorrect is that it makes incorrect predictions about the real Moon’s movement. In order to demonstrate this we need to discuss frames of reference and orbital mechanics. Confining the argument to balls on strings and merry-go-rounds and the like isn’t going to get us very far.
For instance:
The polar axis of the Moon is inclined from its orbital plane by a few degrees.
If the North pole of the Moon points towards the Earth at the beginning of an orbit, which direction does the N pole point half way through the orbit – towards or away from the Earth.
That’s all just your usual nonsense, barry. You have basically just taken scraps from what other commenters have said on the issue at various points and lumped it all together.
The following four points remain correct regardless of who is right overall on the moon issue:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis.
2) “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL.
3) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
4) “Revolution/orbit” is defined as a rotation about an external axis.
I’ve argued more over those four points with certain stubborn individuals than over any other facet of the moon issue. I must have had arguments running into thousands of comments over multiple articles just on those points. Yet there are also “Spinners” here who agree with me on each of the four points. There is no one “Spinner” who agrees with all four, however.
It would be nice to see “Spinner” argue against “Spinner”, but I guess that will never happen.
“Thats all just your usual nonsense, barry. You have basically just taken scraps from what other commenters have said on the issue at various points and lumped it all together.”
Nope. I believe my current query to you was posed by someone else somewhere, but I didn’t get what they were saying at the time, and only remembered someone came up with it after I formulated it myself today. They were saying libration in latitude demonstrated lunar rotation, but I didn’t see how then, preferring to go argue that libration in longitude made the case.
Today I get what they meant, from coming to it myself reading papers on selenocentric coordinates in the celestial sphere.
It’s a brilliant rebuttal to all the mechanical analogues non-spinners come up with. Balls on strings, merry-go-rounds, cars on a track, bike pedals.
The polar axis of the Moon is inclined from its orbital plane by a few degrees.
If the North pole of the Moon points towards the Earth at the beginning of an orbit, which direction does the N pole point half way through the orbit towards or away from the Earth.
If you’ve answered this many times, it should only take you a sentence or two. Don’t quit now.
“If the North pole of the Moon points towards the Earth at the beginning of an orbit, which direction does the N pole point half way through the orbit towards or away from the Earth.”
Away, is what is proposed to be the case. If we were modelling the moon’s motion as the mechanical analogies you mention, then it would be still pointing towards the Earth….but “Non-Spinners” don’t intend for those mechanical analogies to actually model the moon’s exact motion in its orbit. The mechanical analogies are just to demonstrate “orbit without spin”. The same side of the body always faces towards the inside of the orbit. That is what we see with the moon, even though its orbital motion is a lot more complex.
barry is attempting spin again. (All CAPS, my corrections.)
The IMAGINARY spin axis of the Moon is inclined from its orbital plane by a few degrees.
If that IMAGINARY North pole of the Moon points towards the Earth at the beginning of an orbit, which direction does the IMAGINARY N pole point half way through the orbit towards or away from the Earth.
The IMAGINARY North pole would be pointing toward Earth at both extremes of its orbit, and all through its orbit, since Moon is NOT spinning.
This was properly demonstrated with the coffee cup and pencil.
… Moon is not spinning on its own internal axis wrt to observers on Earth.
“The Non-Spinner position is, basically, that what the moon does is one single motion, orbiting.”
This is a sleight of hand.
Here he is declaring something about The moon. Our Moon.
But he only wants to debate about the cartoon MOTL.
When anyone, me, Tim, you, brings him back to the real Moon, he evades all questions.
He knows that for the real Moon, he cannot win on the facts.
"Moon is not spinning on its own internal axis wrt to observers on Earth…"
…or wrt observers outside of the orbit.
“but Non-Spinners dont intend for those mechanical analogies to actually model the moons exact motion in its orbit.”
Weird. The non-spinners models don’t work, and cannot explain the observed lunar motion.
But somehow their models are not intended to actually model the real Moon’s motion.
IOW, their models have a get-out-of-jail-free card.
While spinner models actually have to work, and do work.
“Moon is not spinning on its own internal axis wrt to observers on Earth…”
…or wrt observers outside of the orbit…that are orbiting such that they are always seeing only one lunar face. DREMT always leaves out significant details. Pity.
No, Ball4, I left nothing out.
Spinners in insisting their point of view is correct are actually accepting a non-spinner paradigm and doing so inconsistently.
A sidereal rotation rate is WRT only some stars. Rotation WRT most stars you have to add a rotation once every 230 million years to account for the solar system’s 360 degrees around the COM of the galaxy, adding another orbital sidereal rotation and shortening the currently computed cherry picked ‘selective’ sidereal rotation rate by about 10milliseconds.
And it seems probable the galaxies rotate around the COM of the big bang adding yet another rotation one would have to create a different name for than sidereal because sidereal means with respect to the stars. This vantage point would be from outside the universe.
This logic conclusively demonstrates that an orbit is a rotation.
Spinners accept the non-spinner paradigm by their choice of a sidereal location inside the universe.
This is inescapable except via egotism and intellectual dishonesty.
Thanks for the reply, DREMT.
If the North pole of the Moon points towards the Earth at the beginning of an orbit, which direction does the N pole point half way through the orbit towards or away from the Earth.
DREMT says: “Away, is what is proposed to be the case.”
But how does this happen in the non-spinners view? Yes, the mechanical models clearly fail to replicate this motion.
If we make our our bi-monthly view from Earth directly beneath the Lunar orbit, we still see this libration of latitude, so it isn’t caused by a difference in the Lunar orbit from the ecliptic/Equator.
How are we observing this phenomenon if there is not a Lunar polar axis that is tilted relative to its orbit?
And how does this axis maintain its tilt WRT Earth if the Moon does not rotate?
What a surprise…barry’s question was answered, and it has led to yet more questions. Seems Bill had a good crack at attempting to answer them, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1453538
“This logic conclusively demonstrates that an orbit is a rotation.”
Where is the logic?
Nate is such an illogical thinker he can’t identify logic when it is right in front of him. Where do you think it is. Or perhaps maybe you would like to explain why the number of rotations is always equal to the number of axial spins plus the number of hierarchal orbit rotations of moon around the earth, earth system around the sun, solar system around the galaxy, galaxy around whatever and so on depending upon your perspective and how that perspective is moving.
If anybody around here is a ptolemist its the spinners who have no idea how many rotations the moon has.
If he thought he was more logical he could point out what was illogical but to him its too complicated to find anything wrong so he throws his hands up in despair and emits an ad hominem as usual.
DREMT,
You linked back to Bill’s comment that you had already cited and I replied to.
There is nothing in that post that explains why the Sun’s and other planets’ gravity causes the Moon’s polar axis to tilt away from its orbital plane. Bill describes a gravitational effect on the orbital plane itself, and confirms in the same post that gravity doesn’t have a torsional effect, so a mechanism that causes the Moon’s polar axis to tilt away from its orbit remains undescribed.
Can you explain it in your own words, please?
I will be happy to help you out here Barry since you want to know.
The orbit of the moon provides that the moon provide an interface to the earth. The gravity of the earth deforms the moon into a slightly football shape that allows gravity to achieve torque on the moon.
This misshapen moons football tip would be pointed directly at the COM of the earth and cause the moons equatorial plane to match the orbital plane. However, other bodies have gravitational influence on the moon. These are like force vectors and the most intense single directional gravitational force on the moon becomes along the ecliptic that tilts the moon a bit more than 5 degrees. However, the ecliptic is about 1.57 degrees off what is known as the invariable plane. This plane is the ‘mean’ plane of all the planets in the solar system. thus this effect on the moon tilts it 1.54 degrees off the ecliptic.
“I will be happy to help you out here Barry since you want to know.”
This made me laugh out loud on second reading. You are clearly patching this together out of bits of cloth.
The invariable plane has neither gravity, nor is the sum of gravities of the planets in the system. This is not a force that can pull on the Moon’s equatorial bulge. The invariable plane is the sum of the angular momentum of all bodies in the solar system.
But a particularly noisy fly in the ointment is that, differently to the planets, the Moon lies further off the invariable plane than the ecliptic. If the invariable plane had any kind of force on the Moon, it would be to push it AWAY from the ecliptic, not draw it in.
Nice try.
You explain it then, barry:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1453812
“Or perhaps maybe you would like to explain why the number of rotations is always equal to the number of axial spins plus the number of hierarchal orbit rotations of moon around the earth, earth system around the sun, solar system around the galaxy, galaxy around whatever and so on depending upon your perspective and how that perspective is moving.”
The only logical conclusion one can make from your observations of multiple simultaneous orbital motions, is that rotation should not be measured with respect to a presumed orbit around any single body.
If we observe in a telescope a far away exoplanet rotating at some rate, you guys would require astronomers to measure its orbital rate, and subtract it to find its ‘internal’ rotation rate, as if that is somehow its true spin rate.
But that’s the illogic that you guys are pushing.
” you guys would require astronomers to measure its orbital rate, and subtract it to find its internal rotation rate, as if that is somehow its true spin rate.”
And to take this illogic further. Lets say the exoplanet had a highly eccentric orbit, with a strongly varying orbital rate around its star.
To subtract its varying orbital rate from its observed rotation rate, would produce an apparently varying internal rotation (spin) rate.
Which of course is non-physical, planet spins are not radically slowing down and speeding up.
The point is spin is a constant, likely on a different axis than the orbit, and independent of orbital rate.
As you point out Bill, these bodies are participating in OTHER orbits.
There is simply no good reason to mash together the observable rotation of a body with one of its orbits.
“There is nothing in that post that explains why the Suns and other planets gravity causes the Moons polar axis to tilt away from its orbital plane.”
Yep. He’s talking about why the Moon’s tilted internal rotational axis precesses the way it does. Which is all very interesting but it requires the Moon to HAVE a tilted INTERNAL rotational axis!
Thus for him to claim there is no such internal axis in the Moon is quite ludicrous.
“What a surprisebarrys question was answered, ”
Yeah Barry you asked him how his model can account for the observed motion of the Moon.
His answer was that his model can’t be used to account for the Moon’s observable motion.
There we have it. An admission that his model fails to work for the real Moon. Its only meant to work for very specific cases of cartoon moons.
The Spinner model can account for the real Moon’s motion. It doesnt need any such excuse.
So we can crown a winner here and let this argument be over.
Nate says:
”As you point out Bill, these bodies are participating in OTHER orbits.”
Yes and each hierarchical orbit introduces an additional rotation. Its amazing how you continue to deny that.
Especially considering your earthbound definition of a rotation used for training engineers on earth to build all sorts of devices.
All non-spinners are saying is an orbital motion is like the MOTL which meets the demands of your definition of a rotation on an external axis.
The fundamental nature of that rotation doesn’t change because the orbit becomes eccentric or that other bodies in the universe pulling on the distorted torque arm of the moon doesn’t account for its tilt.
You claim that the center of the observed rotation within the moon’s particles is evidence of the moon rotating on its own internal axis. . . .which is nothing but a circular argument that could apply to the MOTL as well but your definition says it is a rotation on an external axis. Go figure your own inconsistencies.
Barry says:
The invariable plane has neither gravity, nor is the sum of gravities of the planets in the system. This is not a force that can pull on the Moons equatorial bulge. The invariable plane is the sum of the angular momentum of all bodies in the solar system.
———————–
The invariable plane most certainly has gravity as it is the mean orbital plane of the 8 planets, including the earth.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Barry says:
But a particularly noisy fly in the ointment is that, differently to the planets, the Moon lies further off the invariable plane than the ecliptic. If the invariable plane had any kind of force on the Moon, it would be to push it AWAY from the ecliptic, not draw it in.
——————
It is pushing it away from the ecliptic Barry. Have you lost your mind? It is 1.54 degrees away from the ecliptic.
There is plenty of science out there explaining that gravity influences the tilt of planets. The earth is tilted because of the moon’s gravitational influence.
I have seen nothing different in any of the science I have read. You think the moon is tilted because it is tilted but have no explanation for why.
Nate says:
There we have it. An admission that his model fails to work for the real Moon. Its only meant to work for very specific cases of cartoon moons.
The Spinner model can account for the real Moons motion. It doesnt need any such excuse.
So we can crown a winner here and let this argument be over.
———————-
Nate your argument is fatally flawed as your explanation is that the moon is just spinning at a constant angular velocity and is unaffected by the same stuff that affects the non-spinner position.
But we have already proven that isn’t true. Physical librations cause your model to not conserve angular momentum nor have a constant angular velocity and the reason for this is perturbation on the deformed shape of the moon by gravity from other bodies primarily in the order of magnitude of control the earth, the sun, and the other planets which are the same variants as for the non-spinner position so your argument has no force.
Bill,
“The invariable plane most certainly has gravity as it is the mean orbital plane of the 8 planets, including the earth.”
This is absolute hogwash. The invariable plane has no mass therefore no gravity. It is a theoretical plane derived from the vector sum angular rotation of all bodies in the solar system (yep, I looked it up). This calculation includes the rotational (spin) angular momentum of all bodies in the solar system, including the Sun’s.
“It is pushing it away from the ecliptic Barry. Have you lost your mind?”
No, I simply did some research and discovered that while almost every planet lies closer to the invariable plane than the ecliptic (the Earth an obvious exception), the Moon lies further away.
So in your universe, gravity pushes, does it? Fascinating.
“There is plenty of science out there explaining that gravity influences the tilt of planets.”
There is, and you can read all about precession at NASA and other astronomical websites, or go to the scientific literature and do the same.
There you can also read that the axial tilt of the bodies in the solar system were influenced by collisions during formation of the system. You will discover there that Uranus has a rotational axis that is perpendicular to the others, and points Sunward. I wonder gravity and the invariable plane caused that. Any ideas, Bill?
You can also read about the Moon’s axial rotation equalling its orbit period at all these fine places of higher learning.
And since you have now referred to the wide body of science, perhaps you could cite it for your view.
Where did you first read about the massless invariable plane being responsible for the Moon’s axial tilt? I’d like to check it out.
barry says:
Bill,
”The invariable plane most certainly has gravity as it is the mean orbital plane of the 8 planets, including the earth.”
This is absolute hogwash. The invariable plane has no mass therefore no gravity.
—————————
OK Moron, the invariable plane is composed of the orbits of 8 planets that have mass. where did you learn about astronomy? From the back of a cereal box?
I learned about the invariable plane after you mentioned it. I’m a complete noob to it, Bill. But I made sure, at least, to read severally and carefully on it.
Whereas you learned from exactly nowhere that the Moon’s axial tilt is caused by the ‘gravity of the invariable plane’.
It was a hopeful conjecture. Let it be. Neither of us are astronomers.
This tit for tat has some fun in it, but ultimately I’m going to trust the institute who put men on the Moon as to the Moon’s motions, the status of which has no stakes for NASA that you could appoint for deception on their part.
Barry no institute put a man on the moon.
A man was put on the moon by thousands of men and women whom worked for hundreds of different companies. My dad had a significant role in the effort working on that project for a large portion of his career as an aerospace engineer.
“Barry no institute put a man on the moon.”
Argumentativeness is boring Bill. We’ve exhausted the Moon rotation chat, obviously.
“Nate your argument is fatally flawed as your explanation is that the moon is just spinning at a constant angular velocity and is unaffected by the same stuff that affects the non-spinner position.”
Bullshit. I never claimed the Moon is unaffected by the gravity other bodies or has perturbations to its motions. The whole point has been to use physics to understand such effects.
The question is what is the proper framework, the proper description of motion to enable application of physics to understand this motion.
The spinner framework has provided that.
No problem Nate. I understand.
You would get confused otherwise.
“I understand.”
You understand why the spinner model works?
Or you understand that you have been misrepresenting my views?
Nate says:
The question is what is the proper framework, the proper description of motion to enable application of physics to understand this motion.
The spinner framework has provided that.
————————
Yeah I get it. otherwise it would confuse the morons they are pushing through the universities today. They would never be able to understand it.
OK whatever soothes you. Except its been the framework for 300 years.
Yep for some. Those in need of training wheels.
GordonR:
It is good to see you tackle the Latin. Thus far you are stuck because you are not trying to translate Newton but rather want to write for Newton with what you think he should have said and thought. Will never work; the translation becomes meaningless. Do that separately.
That sentence quoniam enim Luna..etc
is straight forward and more emphatic than you may think. You also need to understand clearly what SUUS/SUAM mean (periodum is a feminine acc noun thats why it is SUAM…its own period). When all the nouns (they are case sensitive) and key descriptors are accounted for you have very little option. What exactly would a moon (subject) be doing (revolvit v.??) in a uniform manner (adv) around its own axis (object)?
Revolve as an option jumps at you as the verb: it is is the root for the English words revolve, revolving, revolver. Over 60% of English words have their roots in Latin directly or via the French (a Romance tongue).
Coepernicus ,: de Revolutionibus [orbium coelestium] is the noun [it is Abl, Revolutio is Nom case].
Published in 1543 well before Newton; the verb it derives from is REVOLVERE!
The more you try to distort the Latin the less will be your grasp.
You suggested circumagere would have been better but it has many more meanings too like:
change opinions, sway, drive/lead around, turn (around), upset, wheel, revolve, circulate (as in blood). As it is not the word used by Newton it is irrelevant!! Stick to what he wrote.
Please drop Motte! Neither Bindidon nor Barry nor myself have relied on him so he only seems to serves as a prop/excuse for you and leads you astray. We translated the relevant sentences for ourselves. I think Barry did a marvellous job as I doubt he had studied Latin previously (I may be wrong).
tonyM, if you don’t understand the science, you won’t understand the translations.
And you’re wrong about Motte and Bindidon. Bin is a ferocious supporter of Motte. But, like the rest of your cult, Bin does not understand the science.
You neither understand science nor Latin.
Empty vessels make the most noise; you are an empty vessel!
tony, you can’t provide one example of me not understanding science. You’re using the troll tactic of “false accusation”.
And the “empty vessel” making the most noise would be YOU. You have NO science, and you can do a word count of your comments vs. mine. You would win, by far!
You have no science and never had any. You prove the points I made earlier as a braggadocio fool.
Keep drumming away as the empty vessel you are.
Mommy will notice you.
Nice meltdown, tony.
Yours came quicker than most. Either I’m getting better at exposing phonies, or you had even less than the average cult idiot.
Maybe both?
You are living up to everything I said.
Keep wandering!
NONE of the Spinners know anything about orbital motion. (They don’t know anything about basic physics either, as proven by the series of easy questions I posed months ago. Not one could answer successfully.)
This Moon issue was over months ago, but the Spinners keep spinning. Maybe that’s why they’re spinners. I was ready to declare victory, and move back to only the GHE nonsense, when Swanson produced his three invalid diagrams of lunar motion. He got them all wrong. Bindidon believed they are all correct! That triggered the easy quiz:
Question 1: How do we know the ball-on-a-string is NOT rotating on its CoM axis?
Question 2: What is at least one thing wrong in each of Swanson’s 3 diagrams?
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
I predicted that none of the Spinners could correctly answer the simple questions. So far, I’ve been proven correct. This week I will provide the correct answers, just to show how easy the quiz was. All of my questions are simple, easy, contain no math or tricks. And yet the cult idiots cannot get any of them correct. They simply don’t know the relevant science.
Funny, when Clint R answers the 2 questions, then Clint R self identifies as a “cult idiot” to whom the questions are directed.
Ball4, no matter if you self-identify as “he”, “she”, “they”, or “it”, you STILL can’t answer the simple questions correctly. You remain an anonymous troll.
Prove me wrong.
The 2 questions arent addressed to me Clint R. Please go ahead and answer them if you consider yourself to be part of the group to which they were addressed.
Wrong again, ball4. You were specifically mentioned:
“We now have barry, Swanson, ball4, bindidon, Nate, Folkerts and willard spinning frantically to deny reality.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1451290
Clint R, those commenters won’t answer your 2 questions because they were not addressed to answer the questions either since they are obviously not “spinning frantically to deny reality” or they would answer.
If Clint does respond to answer the 2 questions addressed only to those who are spinning frantically to deny reality, then Clint R will self-identify as “spinning frantically to deny reality”, being a “cult idiot”, and one who “doesn’t know the relevant science”.
More astute readers already know Clint is spinning frantically to deny reality so Clint R will just be confirming those readers are correct when/if Clint answers Clint’s own 2 questions addressed only to those who are “spinning frantically to deny reality”, are “cult idiots”, and “dont know the relevant science”.
All blah-blah and no science, from ball4.
His purpose here is to show us what “braindead” looks like.
He’s doing a great job….
… of explaining why Clint R is the blog laughing stock with such humorously wrong comments.
"of explaining why Clint R is the blog laughing stock with such humorously wrong comments…"
…is an ad hom.
Not when the comment is true.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
1) As long as tension is kept on the string, we know the BoS is not spinning relative to the COM because the string holds it in place. It is geometrically rotating around an external point. This is the non-spinner view re the Moon.
2) Not privy to the conversation around Swanson’s graphic, I gather it is showing 3 different lunar motions under three different assumptions. I don’t see what’s wrong with that, other than they aren’t balls on strings.
Top to bottom I’d guess that they represent MOTR, the non-spinner solution, and the bottom panel is the spinner’s solution (and what we see IRL).
I went looking for an image like the bottom panel online, and after a fairly long search finally came across an image that showed the axial tilt of the Moon relative to the Earth in its orbit, over the period of a year.
https://i.imgur.com/j5BMI9E.png
It comes from this paper investigating potential landing sites at the Lunar South pole.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1208/1208.5587.pdf
I would guess Swanson is making the point that if the Moon did not spin as it orbited, then the axis should be tilted per the middle banner in his graphic. Which is not what we see IRL.
If someone could link me to Swanson’s explanation, that would be great.
Here is another diagram, this time of Earth’s axial tilt over a year, presented as an analogue for the Moon’s tilt over a year/month.
http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~fv/sky/standstill.html
barry, thanks for trying. By at least attempting some reality, there may be hope for you yet.
1) I’m going to give you credit for your answer. I would have preferred something more direct and simple, something like —
The ball-on-a-string is NOT spinning because:
* One side always faces the inside of it orbit, or
* The string does NOT wrap around it.
This is a VERY important concept because your cult believes an orbit is also a spin. You seem to understand that is not correct, so you get full credit for your answer.
2) Your answers are wrong. I will give the correct answers and explain later.
… answering because Clint R wants to self-identify as a commenter who is “spinning frantically to deny reality”, a “cult idiot”, and doesn’t “know the relevant science”.
” This is a VERY important concept because your cult believes an orbit is also a spin. ”
Just the opposite is true, Clint R. You, as always, turn every argument into its contrary.
– None of us would think that an orbit is also a spin.
– Conversely, the Lunar Spin Denial Squad claims that an orbit is a rotation (which is not correct, look e.g. at comets), with the open intention of saying that no celestial body can rotate around an outer and inner axis at the same time.
Such claims fit with what is actually meant by sophism.
Any celestial body can orbit and spin at the same time, as e.g. our Earth does since evah.
And our lovely Moon does as well, as observed by all people who understood since millennia that this ‘showing the same face all the time’ is just an optical illusion having exactly the same origin as the three well-known optical libration effects.
"…with the open intention of saying that no celestial body can rotate around an outer and inner axis at the same time"
Absolutely not. That’s completely and utterly wrong, Bindidon. A celestial body can rotate about an external axis and an internal axis at the same time. It’s just that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL.
Well done for proving that you still don’t understand the "Non-Spinner" position, even after all these years.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights a little more.
Bindidon did misrepresent the "Non-Spinner" position. We do not have the "open intention of saying that no celestial body can rotate around an outer and inner axis at the same time". And yes, he really ought to have understood that by now. It’s truly remarkable that after all this time, such fundamental mistakes are still occurring.
So no…no gaslighting here.
Bin still has no viable model of OMWAR, I see.
He’s so jealous of the simple ball-on-a-string.
Pseudomod
” A celestial body can rotate about an external axis and an internal axis at the same time. ”
Maybe this is your opinion.
You should review ALL posts made by your lunar spin denying colleagues. I won’t do that ugly job extraq for you.
*
” Its just that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL.
Well done for proving that you still dont understand the “Non-Spinner” position, even after all these years. ”
I PERFECTLY understand YOUR position, Pseudomod (I still don’t know whether or not all your colleagues agree).
But what you’ll never accept is that your postion has NO scientific value at all.
"Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL. That’s just a fact. If you want the movement of the MOTL to be comprised of two motions, those two motions have to be "translation in a circle" (motion like the MOTR) plus "rotation about an internal axis".
Those are the kinematic facts (as proven a dozen times over, in a variety of different ways), and thus yes, that has scientific value. That this means the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames is of further scientific value, as most of the self-appointed "scientists" here seem to believe that the moon issue can be resolved by reference frames. It should be of interest to them that they’re wrong, and why.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights a little more.
Little Willy, please stop gaslighting.
Gaslighting Graham has been trolling this website for years by trying to suggest that an object can’t spin and orbit while keeping its orientation.
But just like most of the other Sky Dragon cranks, he fails to realize that the Moon orbits at the same rate it spins.
He could try to provide a physics as to how the Moon has no angular momentum, but that’s above his pay grade.
If only Pup could help him for that. Alas Pup is too busy riddling and lulzing.
The tears of the world are in constant quantity.
"If you want the movement of the MOTL to be comprised of two motions, those two motions have to be "translation in a circle" (motion like the MOTR) plus "rotation about an internal axis"".
“[Gaslighting Graham] could try to provide a physics as to how the Moon has no angular momentum, but that’s above his pay grade.”
I’m not obliged to follow anyone down whatever rabbit hole they want to divert the discussion onto.
Time for another blast from our Moon Dragon cranks’ past:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/evidence-that-era5-based-global-temperatures-have-spurious-warming/#comment-380597
Grow up.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights a little more.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Trying to imagine what YOU think is wrong with the 3 panels, Clint, I’m gonna guess you think that the fact there is a Lunar axis represented makes them all wrong.
I’m also guessing that the images were constructed from this template.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
Found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
Yeah, that’s what I started with to create those 3 panels. So What? Is grammie clone going to say that graphic is incorrect? We await his answer.
… which is guaranteed to be humorous.
C’est aussi mon avis, sans nul doute.
“Yeah, thats what I started with to create those 3 panels. So What?”
So, well done, and I wanted to point out the provenance in anticipation of Clint’s brilliant revelation, which he is keeping from us with with some of the flair and none of the timing of a pantomime.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1453675
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1453764
“When viewed from the north celestial pole (i.e., from the approximate direction of the star Polaris) the Moon orbits Earth anticlockwise and Earth orbits the Sun anticlockwise, and the Moon and Earth rotate on their own axes anticlockwise.”
Ken, you’ve verified what I taught you — Earth orbits Sun, and Moon orbits Earth. Good job.
Next is to understand you can’t trust all the sources on the Web. We know Moon does NOT spin because the same side always faces Earth.
Keep learning.
The only thing I’ve learned from your posts is that some people can’t visualize earth moon sun interactions. You’re one of those unfortunates. Its not an insult; I get it that some people simply can’t do it.
That graphic is not representative any of swanson’s panels barry.
Yes, it’s representative of the bottom panel, in that the axis one side of the orbit and the other are parallel, and we all agree that the Moon keeps the same face to the Earth (so not the top panel).
The middle panel has got to be the non-spinners solution.
First off the bottom panel purports to show the moon after some period of time that does not take into account any precessions.
The one sided figure shows the moon only via one perspective frozen in time where the tilt happens to be at a maximum point in respect to the the COM of the earth.
there is only an axial tilt of that angle and perspective only once every 18.6 years but there is an angle of perspective as described in the course of an orbital rotation at some point during every rotation, just not on the same perspective.
i am sure the original publisher of a single frozen in time view was completed by somebody one helluva lot smarter than the guy that modified the diagram in an attempt to show motion of the axis over time. He completely failed in doing that as his diagram suggests it never changes.
“First off the bottom panel purports to show the moon after some period of time that does not take into account any precessions.”
Whether the period chosen is 2 weeks, 6 months or a year, the precessional change is less than 0.9, 10 or 20 degrees and not the point of the exercise.
The diagram I linked is over the course of a year, so corresponds to a 6-month period from beginning to half way of the orbit.
The point is the same, the analogue shows that the tilt points in the same direction (+ 10 degrees precession, if that’s your fixation).
The spinner view of a ball on a string would have the axis tilt in the opposite direction half way through the orbit (middle panel), and THAT was the point.
DREMT has already confirmed that the ball on string, merry go round, cars on a track analogues fail at accounting for the Lunar polar axis through an orbit, so this point may be moot.
You are forgetting axial precession here Barry.
The original diagram shows the moon at the zenith of its ascending motion. Showing it six months later has several errors in its display. First in six months the moon will have rotated around the earth wrt to the stars 6.7 times and the moon will not be in the position you depict nor will the axis be tilted at the same angle from the perspective of perpendicular to the original drawing. In addition to this the zenith of the ascending motion will have precessed in sync with the tilt of the axis ~9.7 degrees.
You can calculate what those errors add up to.
But assuming you maintain the same perspective from space in 9.3 years the axis will be pointed in the opposite direction at the orbit half way point that you drew.
So your examples are hopelessly flawed.
It’s as if you didn’t read my reply.
And the link you elsewhere gave me to your reply here is not even on topic for the other conversation.
This is NOT about precession, and you reference to it is irrelevant to what is being shown.
Axial precession of the Moon takes 18.6 years. Do the math.
My diagram was of one a year (20 degrees of the full precession), and we are looking at the Moon on two sides of its orbit – 6 months in my diagram, equal to a bit less than 10 degrees precession.
The axis of a spinning Moon is still going to be pointing in the same general direction. Forget precession. It’s beside the point.
Swanson’s diagram is of 2 weeks, one side of the Moon’s orbit to another. Precession is less than 1 degree.
You obviously don’t get the point behind the comparison between the diagram I referenced and Swanson’s, so either read back and understand or go do something useful.
"DREMT has already confirmed that the ball on string, merry go round, cars on a track analogues fail at accounting for the Lunar polar axis through an orbit, so this point may be moot."
I "confirmed" that the analogues were never intended to account for the moon’s exact motion in its orbit. The analogues were simply to demonstrate "orbit without spin" is motion in which one side of the body remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit throughout.
… as seen wrt to the observer on the center object.
…or as seen wrt an observer located outside the orbit.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1453978
Bill, all you have to do is observe the MOTL from the surface of the inner object to see that the MOTL is not rotating on its own axis wrt to that observer since MOTL keeps one face always toward the inner object as does a BoS and the real lunar man in the Moon face.
"wrt to that observer…"
…or wrt to an observer located outside the orbit.
… with the same view.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1453956
Way ahead of the red line
https://i.postimg.cc/bNrm84Ty/ises-solar-cycle-sunspot.png
GordonR
You did ask for my view on the issues of moon/earth earlier.
Re your own observations for moon/earth I see it simply as a frame of reference issue. Yours is a non-inertial framework (from earth surface view) while Newtons wrt fixed stars is an inertial framework (that does not mean he did not understand your viewpoint). Different answers usually will arise. There is nothing wrong with this!
You seem to feel that the earth based framework is an absolute reference framework. I dont see it! Consider that the universes expansion is accelerating, the Solar System is moving with an undulating pathway around the edge of the Milky way and slowly moving towards the centre. The Solar system has its own variations and different forces and accelerations as specifically does the earth/moon. Where is this absolute reference framework? We can focus on frameworks of choice, the simpler the better to help explain what we wish to observe using the physics we know.
The classic simple illustration is the boy bouncing a ball straight up/down in a constant velocity train carriage. As the carriage goes past a platform a standing observer sees it differently with the ball following a parabolic curve. They are both right relative to their own inertial frameworks.
You cant simply jump across different frameworks unless you make the relevant transforms. That is all there is to it. Why it would take half a dozen years to address the crux of the issue without vitriol beats me?
tonyM says:
GordonR
You did ask for my view on the issues of moon/earth earlier.
Re your own observations for moon/earth I see it simply as a frame of reference issue. Yours is a non-inertial framework (from earth surface view) while Newtons wrt fixed stars is an inertial framework (that does not mean he did not understand your viewpoint). Different answers usually will arise. There is nothing wrong with this!
————————
You must be new here peddling the same nonsense a few around have peddled.
The moon rotates! The question is not if it rotates the question is if it rotates on its COM or the earth’s COM.
This has nothing to do with reference frames period. Either you deny that the moon rotates around the earth or you don’t.
Gill, Gill,
Here’s you:
[GILL] The sidereal rotation has to be orbital wrt to the stars.
And here’s you also:
[ALSO GILL] This has nothing to do with reference frames period.1
Would you care to try again welcoming our old chap properly?
why are you confused about what a sidereal rotation is Willard?
Why are you unable to keep your story straight two days in a row, Gill?
There is nothing inconsistent there Willard between the spinner and non-spinner positions. The constant refrain from the spinners is the non-spinners are using the wrong reference frame when the issue is a physical attachment by gravity to earth and not some random spin on an internal axis.
Its not about reference frames. Even from an earthbound view if you calculate the location of the stars you can detect that the moon is rotating around the earth 13.37 times per year. Sunshine is only moving around the moon 12.37 times per year because thats a perspective from the sun.
Gill, Gill,
There is no such thing as “the” Moon Dragon crank position.
Bordon has his, Graham has his, and Pup has his.
You, OTOH, just meander to no end.
One day reference frame don’t matter.
The other day they do.
Which is it?
Obviously Willard reference frames matter when you mistake what you are seeing because of perspective.
However, there is no such difference in perspective between the spinner and non-spinner position at least when both select a star in the Milky way.
We agree on the perspective and the rotation rate.
So the reference frame is the same and thus the issue between spinners and non-spinners transcends reference frames.
Gill, Gill,
Gill.
You contend that the sidereal rotation has to be orbital wrt to the stars.
As soon as you say that, you’re stuck with reference frames.
So you can’t dismiss them out of hand after you do.
Or rather you can, but it makes you look like a crank.
Which of course is what you are.
A Moon Dragon crank.
But in contrast to Pup, Bordon, and Graham, you seem to be in it for the fun of it.
“So you can’t dismiss them out of hand after you do.“
He’s not. Nobody dismisses reference frames out of hand. He’s trying to explain to you why they don’t resolve the moon issue. Many commenters here think the moon rotates on its own internal axis wrt an inertial reference frame, and does not rotate on its own axis wrt a rotating reference frame. That’s what “resolve the moon issue” means. They think that’s it, that’s all there is to it. Moon issue resolved.
Those people are wrong. That’s what we’re saying.
… but always leave out the necessary location of the observer.
No, you can always assume the observer is located outside the orbit.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1453978
Bill, all you have to do is observe the MOTL from the border of the frame to see that the MOTL is spinning on its own axis wrt to that observer since MOTL shows all faces to that observer as does a BoS and the real lunar surface shows to the sun for lunar sunrises and sunsets.
Don’t be afraid to use more commas, Ball4. You come across like a sort of crazed, gabbling sociopath.
> Hes trying to explain to you why they dont resolve the moon issue.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights furthermore.
Gill said “Its not about reference frames,” right after he said that the Moon Dragon crank position “has nothing to do with reference frames period.”
No ifs, no buts.
The issue of course involves reference frames.
Without reference frames, the issue cannot be settled.
Since Moon Dragon cranks have no numerical model to offer, of course they can’t grasp the importance of a reference frames.
They’d rather discuss psychology or whatnot.
While gaslighting, no less.
"The issue of course involves reference frames."
Sure.
"Without reference frames, the issue cannot be settled."
Sure. Now, back to my point…
"Many commenters here think the moon rotates on its own internal axis wrt an inertial reference frame, and does not rotate on its own axis wrt a rotating reference frame. That’s what “resolve the moon issue” means. They think that’s it, that’s all there is to it. Moon issue resolved.
Those people are wrong. That’s what we’re saying."
> Many commenters here think
…is a strawman.
Obviously not:
TonyM: "Re your own observations for moon/earth I see it simply as a frame of reference issue. Yours is a non-inertial framework (from earth surface view) while Newtons wrt fixed stars is an inertial framework (that does not mean he did not understand your viewpoint)."
Ball4’s the same.
For all non-spinners, the initial motivation is looking up at the Moon and always seeing the same side, and concluding ‘the Moon is not rotating’.
And of course, it isnt, wrt to a viewer on the Earth, who must rotate in order to keep facing the Moon every night, as it orbits around them.
The guy in the video is definitely using such a rotating reference frame. Gordon, Bill, and Clint on and off use the rotating reference frame to make their case.
Some, have taken that initial feeling and converted it to a new definition, that an orbit requires a body to always face the center.
But this is false. And just a post-hoc rationalization for that feeling that comes from looking up at the Moon and seeing it ‘not rotating’ from our rotating reference frame of the Earth.
Nate says:
For all non-spinners, the initial motivation is looking up at the Moon and always seeing the same side, and concluding the Moon is not rotating.
And of course, it isnt, wrt to a viewer on the Earth, who must rotate in order to keep facing the Moon every night, as it orbits around them.
———————–
And of course at this point the idiot Nate denies that rotations can occur on an external axis that when pure keeps one face facing the object it is rotating around.
But Nate is too stupid to notice that fact so he goes off on a tangent and claims non-spinners are observing from the wrong place.
The dead brain cells around here are really starting to stink. Time to send in the clean up crew.
” the idiot Nate denies that rotations can occur on an external axis that when pure keeps one face facing the object it is rotating around.”
False. I deny that elliptical orbits are rotations.
And of course when challenged to show a definition of rotation that allows elliptical orbits to be a rotation, Bill folds every time.
He is a 47 time loser on this point.
And his excuses have become increasingly absurd.
Nate says:
”False. I deny that elliptical orbits are rotations.”
Why?
Youve seen the Madhavi definition many times. It is the same all over, and its what all engineers USE.
Science and engineering words need to have unambiguous meaning, otherwise there will be no effective communication of useful ideas.
You really want to change the meaning of words, just to avoid losing a silly internet argument?
Madhavi has not reason to define a rotation as non-circular.
The reason for that is obvious in that engineers designing machines haven’t yet figured out how to maintain a non-circular rotation. Something that will become defined sometime in the future as there are efforts underway with magnetically controlled rotations.
So that’s not a good reason why.
So an engineer instructs us to dismantle the nuclear missile by first rotating a certain part by 85 degrees around point P.
Are we supposed to understand that means move it 85 degrees on an elliptical path, like the orbit of Halley’s comet, with its high eccentricity? Or are we free to move it on any path we want?
Nate thinks maybe a disassembly of a nuclear missile should come with an instruction sheet with more detail if someone were to allow a rotation to be eccentric. That would make it a lot more difficult for Nate to screw in a light bulb than he already finds it to be.
Tee hee.
Still you would like the word ‘rotation’ to mean a vague free-form motion around something. But whenever it is used in the real world, it never is.
So, naturally, you try to have it both ways.
A vague free form motion around something would not have constant angular momentum. The entire motion is via a constant rate of rotation.
“The entire motion is via a constant rate of rotation.”
Nope not for ellipses.
You can’t explain why an elliptical orbit is a rotation, or back it up with any evidence, or offer any alternative definition of rotation that would agree, or any real-world application that you can show because it is ‘Something that will become defined sometime in the future’
So your entire argument seems to be based on ‘Trust me when I say an elliptical orbit is a rotation’.
Sorry, but we don’t trust your assertions to be facts. Particularly when we have loads of contradictory evidence available.
In the normal rules of debate, we’re done. Moving on…
No Nate. Common sense makes an orbit a rotation. One doesn’t need an agreement with an authority figure to have common sense. In fact believing that is a total lack of common sense. It makes you a non-thinking robot.
And celebrated scientists well known for common sense agree with that.
If you can’t mount a consistent argument that actually plays out and withstands observation you are just full of shit. No amount of running away looking for specialized decoder ring dictionaries is going to change that.
You are argue that the motion must be a perfect ellipse then refuse to accept the observation that your point of view doesn’t measure up.
Nate says:
The entire motion is via a constant rate of rotation.
Nope not for ellipses.
————————————-
Nate rotations are measured in revolutions per unit time.
If you use that measure and your argument the moon isn’t rotating.
“Common sense makes an orbit a rotation. One doesnt need an agreement with an authority figure ”
So IOW you don’t need no stinkin evidence!
We should just accept your assertions, even they don’t agree with any available evidence or anything at all.
Sorry Bill, nobody is buying your crap.
“he entire motion is via a constant rate of rotation.
Nope not for ellipses.’
“Nate rotations are measured in revolutions per unit time.”
Shockingly, Bill is wrong again.
“the daily motion of the Moon to the east can vary from as little as 11.6 degrees per day near apogee to as much as 14.8 degrees per day near perigee.”
Nate says:
”So IOW you dont need no stinkin evidence!”
Are you in denial that the earth’s gravity accounts for most of the moon’s motion. And in your book thats no evidence? LMAO!
And the constant rotation is 27.3 days to complete one rotation which is called a sidereal month.
So the rotation rate is one rotation per sidereal month (or days in terms of solar days on the moon)
So dang Nate you are wrong again!
“Are you in denial that the earths gravity accounts for most of the moons motion.”
Gravity accounts for the Moon’s ORBITAL MOTION, which as you know very well, I don’t describe as a rotation.
“And the constant rotation is 27.3 days to complete one rotation which is called a sidereal month.
So the rotation rate is one rotation per sidereal month (or days in terms of solar days on the moon)”
I showed you observational evidence that the Moon’s orbital angular velocity in degrees/day, VARIES SIGNIFICANTLY during its orbit, while its axial rotation is constant with miniscule perturbations during a single orbit..
What you are doing is trying to make the significant variation GO AWAY by averaging it over the whole orbit.
You must know that doesnt make the orbital angular velocity actually constant?
Nate says:
I showed you observational evidence that the Moons orbital angular velocity in degrees/day, VARIES SIGNIFICANTLY during its orbit, while its axial rotation is constant with miniscule perturbations during a single orbit..
What you are doing is trying to make the significant variation GO AWAY by averaging it over the whole orbit.
You must know that doesnt make the orbital angular velocity actually constant?
————————
So what Nate! You are trying top make a mountain out of a molehill. The journals on a rotating crankshaft varies significantly if you are accelerating or decelerating. There is no requirement for a rotation to have constant angular velocity nor constant angular momentum.
All you are doing with the moon is arbitrarily trying to limit what the moon is doing to an analysis of the details of a single motion and pulling defining conditions for a single motion right out of your arse.
Conditions that exist in all motions, including those you consider to be single motions.
And how do you want to separate them? Seems like its old out of date science that saw librations as only the ones you could see.
But the physical librations that you want to handwave away were theorized by Newton even when he didn’t have the means to measure them. And here you are handwaving Newton’s understanding away because he talked about and worked with those measuring the optical librations.
You are trying to force a body that has a complicated motion, that requires several parameters to describe, to be ONE MOTION, for some reason.
Motion vs time can be described with an equation. If rotation has a constant angular velocity, omega, then the equation is simply,
Theta = Theta(0) + omega*t.
The angular position in the orbit is not changing at a constant rate, it might have a sinusoidal oscillation. Then its motion vs time equation might be something like:
Theta =Theta(0) + omega*t + Asin(omega*t +phi)
Combining the two motions would give the longitudinal libration that we observe.
If this is considered to be ONE MOTION, then that has become a meaningless description.
Nate says:
”You are trying to force a body that has a complicated motion, that requires several parameters to describe, to be ONE MOTION, for some reason.”
Well at least we agree its a complicated motion.
There also may be some advantages to consider it two independent motions even though we know that the motions aren’t independent. Pretending something to be perfect has its advantages even when we know perfection doesn’t exist. But ultimately no matter how you want to divvy up the analysis all the complications will possibly need to be accounted for.
I presented these easy problems just to show the cult idiots do not understand ANY of the science. They accept whatever their cult exudes, with no interest in questioning it. They’re completely and fervently indoctrinated into a false religion. They know how to use a keyboard, but that’s it.
These last two questions were so easy they should have been rushing to prove they knew some little science. But, they couldn’t. They know NOTHING about the issues. They can’t answer simple questions, and often the links they come up with aren’t even relevant!
Anyway, here are the answers to the two questions.
Question 1: How do we know the ball-on-a-string is NOT rotating on its CoM axis?
Answer: The ball-on-a-string is NOT spinning because:
* One side always faces the inside of it orbit, or
* The string does NOT wrap around it.
(Either answer is acceptable.)
Question 2: What is at least one thing wrong in each of Swansons 3 diagrams?
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
Answer: Each diagram has several problems, but I’ll only mention the most blatant ones.
Top diagram — The moon has exactly the same position on both sides of Earth. That’s impossible, as real Moon has the same side always facing the inside of its orbit.
Middle diagram — The moon positions are facing correctly. And the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis is clearly more than 13°, which indicates it is NOT a real spin axis.
Bottom diagram — The moon positions have changed angles relative to its orbit. That is impossible.
These were not hard questions. barry even got the first one correct. What does that say about the rest of the cult?
Will the braindead be able to learn?
Clint, do you think there is a discernible polar axis of the Moon? I know Gordon doesn’t think there is, and it is a point of clarification that other non-spinners have yet to opine on, as far as I can see.
To put it in terms of the diagrams – do you think the Moon has a polar axial tilt relative to its orbital plane?
A sphere has an infinite number of axes through its CoM. But that means NOTHING. Moon has no spin axis because it is NOT spinning. The axis perpendicular to Moon’s orbital plane would always point to the same distant star. But, that again, means NOTHING.
Moon has no spin axis because it is NOT spinning wrt to an observer on Earth.
…or to an observer located outside the orbit.
Give it up Ball4. You have been trying to pound this way to long. All you have to do is observe the MOTL in DREMT’s comparison to the MOTR and see that both views are from outside the orbit.
If you are confused by the empty space between the moon and the earth, color in a merry-go-round disk that turns the moon into something like a chalked circle on that disk then maybe you too can see the axis at the COM of the earth.
Bill, all you have to do to see the Earth is rotating on its own axis is look at a long exposure photograph of the starry night sky including Polaris. No need to fill in any disk.
I did Ball4 and saw the moon traveling across the sky and rising the next day. The axis is under my feet from that vantage point. From the vantage point of the star I also see it rotating around that same place. Your reference frame argument is tired, unrevealing, and wrong.
Gill, O Gill,
Did you really *saw* the Moon traveling across the sky and rising the next day?
You must have lots of time on your hand.
Bill did not, of course. Even though Bill writes “I did”.
Then I correctly answered your question 2) when I posited that you believe the Moon has no discernible polar axis.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1453153
That is the short version of your windier exposition.
Top diagram is a representation of the Moon on the right in this graphic that we’ve used for discussion.
https://sciencenotes.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Middle diagram is the non-spinners solution if the Moon has an axial tilt relative to its orbital plane. On each side of the orbit the tilt should maintain its inclination WRT to Earth.
Bottom diagram is the Moon maintaining its inclination WRT the fixed stars, and is the spinners view.
———————————————————-
What I would like to learn from non-spinners is if they think the Moon has a polar axis that is tilted relative to its orbital plane.
Non-spinners?
No. Moon is NOT tilted relative to its orbital plane. That’s still the nonsense from ancient astrology.
Actually, it is the standard of modern astronomy. I linked a research paper just upthread detailing the prospect of landing a vehicle on the Moon’s <b<South Pole.
The Lunar polar axis is mentioned and studied in countless astronomical papers. It is you view that is archaic.
Did you find another link you can’t understand, barry?
That’s a surprise….
Oh yes please, Clint! I’d particularly like you to explain the below, regarding latitudes South and that bit at the bottom about the Moon’s axis of rotation.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1208/1208.5587.pdf
“This article describes the characterization activities of the landing sites currently envisaged for the Lunar lander mission of the European Space Agency. These sites have been identified in the South Pole Region (-85° to -90° latitude)…
This constraint directed the selection of the landing sites towards special locations in the lunar South Pole region (between 85° and 90° latitude south) which experience extended periods of solar illumination…
The small inclination of the Moon’s axis of rotation with respect to the ecliptic (Figure 1) causes the variations of the Sun elevation from month to month to be limited to ±1.54° over one year, as opposed to ±23.44° on Earth…”
Thanks to Clint for confirming that he does not think the Moon has a discernible polar axis (and thus there is no axial tilt).
DREMT? Bill? I would be interested to get your answers on that.
Yes there is a polar axis tilt at times. Precessions eliminate it over time so there is no tilt wrt to the mean axial direction.
This effect is actually only related to the real location of the orbital axis.
The gravitational attachment of the moon to the earth follows the rules of gravity.
We know that gravity doesn’t exert a torque on a uniform sphere rotating around the external axis, in this case the COM of earth.
Since the sun and other planets exert a measurable gravitational effect on the moon the so-called spin axis isn’t perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. In the case of the MOTL we assume that there are no gravitational influences other than earth and the so-called spin axis is perpendicular to the plane of the orbit (not some random spin on that spin axis) as is the spin axis of a ball or cup rotated around an axis on a string.
Its a falsehood to say the spin axis of a cup because of an attachment by an offcenter handle is perpendicular to the table the cup would sit on. No!!!! the so-called spin axis going through the cup will be perpendicular to the plane of the ‘orbit’ around the real axis of the rotation.
Thats because there are no other measured and thus not observed perturbations in that isolated view such as the MOTL.
But the moons so called spin axis isn’t tilted because it is spinning on that axis its tilted because of gravitational pull of the sun and the other planets in relationship to a plane of rotation around the earth being about 5 degrees away from that orbital plane of the moon.
The earth which has a spin on its own COM isn’t spinning on an axis perpendicular to the ecliptic (more correctly the invariable plane) because of the gravitational forcing from the moon’s orbit being tilted about 29 degrees to the earth’s equator.
So according to science all this tilt stuff is all related to gravity. And gravity forces orbital motion to be a rotation. All of this explains axial tilt. Its not explained by axial spin of the orbiting object as that spin will also always be perpendicular to the orbital plane.
Perhaps you should take a shot at explaining how a moon’s rotational axis explains its tilt. So far all we have heard is it is because it is and gravity can’t influence the rotation of a uniform sphere.
the elliptical motion of the moon’s orbit causes a misalignment with gravity and the shape of the moon that results in a physical libration caused by gravity working to correct it. The same occurs due to the moon’s orbit being tilted where another physical libration is seen in the moon’s motion to correct the misalignment. So what you have is a ‘mean’ direction of pull, and a ‘mean’ deformation of the moon that due to other gravitational influences the pull of gravity is not always in perfect alignment with. Thus this misalignment causes a libration to correct but the correction is incomplete within the time of the orbit so in half an orbit the misalignment changes orientation to the other side of the misalignment.
Its a total stretch to say that his has anything to do with the location of axis of rotation. The axis of the moon’s rotation is clearly at the COM of earth or else it wouldn’t be orbiting the earth.
Well, barry, that’s a difficult question to answer. If you don’t think the moon rotates on its own internal axis, then really you don’t think the moon has an axis of rotation going through the body of the moon, since rotation is tied to the axis – no rotation, no axis. In which case, there are also technically no lunar “poles”, since the “poles” just represent the location on the surface of the moon where an “axis” would intersect.
However…
…astronomers tend to think the moon rotates on its own axis, thus they have decided where they think this “axis” is, and so they have mapped out the moon accordingly. So there are lunar “poles”, and these “poles” are at specific locations on the moon which are physically real. So, in that sense, the moon does have “poles”…it has actual locations on its surface where they have been assigned.
So, you could rephrase the question – is the line connecting the “poles” on the moon tilted wrt the orbital plane?
And I would be interested to hear the other “Non-Spinners” answers to that.
As a spinner, yes, I think the Moon obviously has a rotational axis, and like all planets and Moons in the solar system it is not perpendicular to its orbital plane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles_of_astronomical_bodies
“The poles of astronomical bodies are determined based on their axis of rotation in relation to the celestial poles of the celestial sphere.> Astronomical bodies include stars, planets, dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies such as comets and minor planets (e.g., asteroids), as well as natural satellites and minor-planet moons.
Look upwards on the Moon, and if you see the universe uniformly rotating above your head you’re standing on a pole.
This standard pole is inclined WRT Moon’s orbital plane. This is what astronomers are referring to as the Lunar polar axis.
I would guess that the current configuration of solar system-wide axial tilt is a result of early formation collisions and gravitational effects. Uranus has a rotational axis that is pointing at the sun. Hard to see how gravity and its orbit made that happen.
(I’m searching as I write this)
“Standard formation theories posit that when planets are born, their equators are pointed toward the star and their poles point straight out of the disk that surrounds them. Interactions with other objects over their lifetimes can change their obliquities, tilting them over slightly or tremendously. Earth currently has a tilt of 23.5 degrees, thought to be fostered by the influence of its moon. Uranus, in contrast, is tilted over at 97.9 degrees with its poles lying on the same plane as the sunpresumably set askew by some world-shaking wallop long ago.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tilted-exoplanets-may-explain-decade-old-astronomical-mystery/
Ok.
DREMT,
“is the line connecting the ‘poles’ on the moon tilted wrt the orbital plane?”
Yep.
And in the non-spinners view, I would expect that this axis would behave like Swanson’s middle diagram.
https://app.box.com/s/zwaf6c0z09ai0klq9qfx711129ek15js
If non-spinners agree that the Moon does indeed have axial tilt, I would be interested to see how they explain the motion we actually see – the tilt is virtually constant WRT the fixed stars (minus a few seconds of precession) throughout one orbit of the Earth.
I thought Bill had already offered an explanation:
“But the moons so called spin axis isn’t tilted because it is spinning on that axis its tilted because of gravitational pull of the sun and the other planets in relationship to a plane of rotation around the earth being about 5 degrees away from that orbital plane of the moon.”
Right!
And once again they will ignore it.
And once again they will provide no explanation of their own.
and will instead claim that the tilt is what it is while disputing the non-spinner position by saying that gravity cant apply torque to a uniform sphere.
Gill, Gill,
That was not an explanation. It was a circular description.
Don’t trust Gaslighting Graham to understand epistemology.
Indeed it is circular Willard as it begs the question.
Not exactly, Gill. To say that the Moon is tilted because of some gravitation pull does not explain anything. Just about every phenomena is somehow connected to gravitation.
But you’re right to say that it begs the question, for you are presuming you explained why the Moon is tilted the way it is. The usual story involves planetesimals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
And even then that does not tell us much unless it comes with some kind of numerical model, something Moon Dragon cranks have yet to produce.
thats a whole lot of jabber there Willard without saying anything at all that challenges the non-spinner point of view. If you would stay on topic perhaps you might begin to understand the issue.
Gill, Gill,
Start with the quote.
Read it slower, this time.
You should get it.
I started with the quote. I read it slower. I got it.
Bill is correct, nothing you’re saying is challenging the “Non-Spinner” view.
… when the observation is made from Earth.
…or from outside the orbit.
… where the observed view is the same.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1453956
Willard I read it slow the first time. There is nothing there that challenges the non-spinner position.
In fact it supported the non-spinner position when you said ”Just about every phenomena is somehow connected to gravitation.”
Condensed all I said was the axial tilt of the moon was due to other bodies in the universe that are exerting gravitational tugs on the moon. Almost perfectly perpendicular to the invariable plane. The is something approximating .03 degree variation from that. But bodies along the invariable plane aren’t the only bodies in the universe or the solar system as it only includes 8 planets, including earth from which we are measuring the deviation.
Even the earth’s tilt is being attributed by science to the gravitational affect of the moon and the fact its orbit is tilted 29 degrees from the earth’s equatorial plane.
If you have anything to add by all means speak up but your skepticism seems to be quite selective based upon an interpretation of a few words of a scientist from long ago who never did figure any of this out. Where is Newton’s discourse on the axial tilt? Did you pull that one straight out of your arse? Or maybe it was just one of your spinner buddies that pulled that out of their arse and you are gobbling it up. Ya think?
> I started with the quote
Is Gaslighting Graham Gill?
No.
Gill, Gill,
The fact that celestial bodies are in gravitational fields does not support Moon Dragon cranks.
On the contrary. It supports nothing and everything at the same time.
Start with reconciling your position on angular momentum with the other Moon Dragon cranks.
Eventually you will get us a numerical model, right?
Again spinning Willard manages to say nothing at all.
Gill, Gill,
Please leave gaslighting to Gaslighting Graham.
The point is so simply even Pup could get it –
Gravitation does not support Moon Dragon cranks.
On the contrary, in fact.
Witness your tapdancing about angular momentum.
"Please leave gaslighting to Gaslighting Graham…"
…is an ad hom.
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting once more.
"Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting once more…"
…is an ad hom.
“But the moons so called spin axis isnt tilted because it is spinning on that axis its tilted because of gravitational pull of the sun and the other planets in relationship to a plane of rotation around the earth being about 5 degrees away from that orbital plane of the moon.”
What are the sun and the other planets pulling on that give the Moon an axial tilt different to its plane of orbit? Bill has already confirmed that gravitational pull isn’t torsional.
“We know that gravity doesn’t exert a torque on a uniform sphere rotating around the external axis”
The gravitational effects of the Sun and other planets *may* contribute to the current plane of the Moon’s orbit. But a mechanism for their gravitational effects causing a tilt in the Moon’s polar axis relative to its orbital plane has not yet been identified by Bill.
Bill said:
“And once again they will ignore it.
And once again they will provide no explanation of their own.
and will instead claim that the tilt is what it is while disputing the non-spinner position by saying that gravity cant apply torque to a uniform sphere.”
barry offers no explanation of his own, Little Willy offers an explanation of how the moon’s orbital plane is tilted wrt the ecliptic without realising this is not an explanation for why the line between the moon’s “poles” is tilted wrt the moon’s orbital plane.
I didn’t ignore it.
I quoted it and challenged it.
Bill has answered my challenge in a different thread and I have replied.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1453657
No one has asked me to provide an explanation. I’ll be happy to oblige when that happens.
Go on, then.
Barry says:
”I didnt ignore it.
I quoted it and challenged it.
”The invariable plane has neither gravity, nor is the sum of gravities of the planets in the system. ” ”
————————–
I suppose if you want to call that a reply. The invariable plane is the mean plane of the orbits of the 8 planets, including the earth. And your claim is as I read it the planets have no gravity thus the invariable plane is not a plane where the tugs of gravity on the moon’s deformities arise from.
That’s not a reply Barry that’s just plain dumb.
The claim here is the moon is a free body subject to being postured in the sky exclusively by the force of gravity. If you care to show something else besides what is well known by science to account for the moon’s tilt be my guest.
But remember spinners have been consistent in a claim that a rotational axis must be perpendicular to the plane of rotation because that is where the posturing force comes from and is true for a string, a solid steel arm, or whatever is the cause of a rotation upon an external axis.
Science currently attributes all the variances to the moon’s rotation as being due to perturbing forces in perturbation theory.
It also seems they have arbitrarily determined which axis the moon rotates on but they have only done this by some kind of unquantified consensus and as of yet have failed to mount a physical argument for the idea beyond it is because it is. And obviously a lot of them have misconceptions about the non-spinner position and can seem to never be consistent about it as they pull new arguments out of their arses.
🤦
🤦 🤦
Sure, DREMT.
As the Moon’s spin is not determined by its orbit, its axis of rotation is not determined by its orbit either.
Likely, as with the other bodies in the system, the Moon’s polar axial position was set during the formation of the solar system, owing to collision and gravitational effects on a non-spherical, forming body.
As the Moon orbits it keeps its axis regular to the fixed stars (except for minor wobbles of precession), and as the axis is not perpendicular to its orbit, we see more of one pole half way through the monthly orbit than we do the other.
The tilt of its axis relative to its orbit allows us to see nearly 7 degrees more of its surface. If the axis were perpendicular to the Earth, we would only be able to 1 degree further on each of its poles, a calculation based on the diameter of the Earth and the distance between. Our viewing angle for a Moon without an axis and no tilt (non-spinners’ view according to Clint) would only permit that much extra of the Moon’s face to be seen.
This is how we know the Moon has a tilted polar axis without having to travel to the Moon to prove it.
Okie doke.
And now we have it again…
” Either you deny that the moon rotates around the earth or you don’t. ”
sounds like
” The sidereal rotation has to be orbital wrt to the stars. ”
These sentences alone show at which unscientific level this ‘debate’ is intentionally kept by a few people.
*
1. The Moon orbits Earth: who would ever deny such an evidence?
What the very same few people really deny and try to dissimulate behind this alleged denial is that the Moon spins about its polar axis and that its original spin was born at its creation time, like it is the case for all celestial bodies, beginning with… our Earth.
*
2. There is no ‘sidereal rotation’, no sidereal orbit or spin.
There are different ways to compute the period of the motions of a celestial body, e.g. ‘synodic’ or ‘sidereal’:
– the synodic spin (or orbit) period is the period for a celestial object to spin (or orbit) once in relation to the celestial body it is orbiting;
– the sidereal spin (or orbit) period is the period for a celestial object to spin (or orbit) once in relation to the same position of a distant celestial body (e.g. a star whose motion in space is infinitesimal compared to the measured period).
*
This has nothing to do with reference frames which are necessary when you want to exactly determine locations on celestial bodies: the spatial coordinates of a lunar crater for example are of course not the same when computed with respect to the terrestrial equator plane and its polar axis, or the Ecliptic and its polar axis, or the lunar equator plane and its polar axis.
*
But in a Newtonian context, the motion periods of celestial bodies are independent of the reference frame defining the bodies’ spatial positions.
The Moon’s synodic or sidereal spin or orbit periods are everywhere the same, regardless where you observe them from.
And the physical wobblings detected within Moon’s spin, due to the gravitational forces exerted by numerous celestial bodies around the Moon, keep also everywhere the same, regardless where you observe them from.
*
Anything else is pure invention.
To make clear how it matters to get sidereal periods computed with sufficient precision, one only needs to remind the fact that as astronomer Mayer computed in 1750 the lunar spin period, he even considered that the Vernal Point defining the spatial orientation of his computations itself moves in space: accounting for this seemingly infinitesimal motion modified the computed period (approximately 27.321 days) by a couple of seconds.
Moreover, if I have well understood, some observed irregularities within the motions of planets in the solar system are so tiny that to compute them with the requested precision, astronomers nowadays use quasars as ‘fixed stars’ because Milky Way stars are no longer ‘fixed’ enough.
I wonder if you are referring to the super galactic reference frame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_coordinate_systems
(One of the pages I visited yesterday)
The sad truth, Barry, is that we humans have no idea how large the universe may be. If we do reach the end of it, what lies on the other side? If you kept going, where would you end up?
binny…”as astronomer Mayer computed in 1750″
***
Meyer was no more an astronomer than my Granny. He was a mathematician who dabbled in certain astronomical subjects like the Moon and Mars.
That was his weakness, a lack of physics. If he had approached the Moon problem like someone who did understand physics, Tesla, it would have become obvious to him that the Moon could not rotate on a local axis while keeping the same side pointed at Earth.
When I first encountered Clint’s statement that the Moon did not rotate on a local axis the first thing I did was take two coins, using on as Earth and the other as the Moon. I put a mark on the Moon coin and tried to keep it pointed at the Earth-coin centre while rotating it through 360 degrees. It is simply not possible.
Playing with the coins it came to me why. A circle is just a straight line folded into a curve. So, moving a coin with a mark on it should be the same for a line as a circle. If I placed the coin on a straight line, with the mark touching the line, I could not rotate the coin at all while keeping the mark on the line. The only solution was to slide the coin along the straight line to keep it pointed at the line.
So, I took the coin back to the other coin. If I slid the Moon coin around the perimeter of the Earth coin, it worked as long as I adjusted the Moon coin every so often to keep the two coins in contact. Then I needed an explanation for the adjustments.
That’s how the Moon stays in orbit. Earth’s gravitational field is just strong enough at the altitude of the Moon to pull it toward Earth enough to make up for Earth’s curvature. So, I needed to twist the coin just enough to make up for the curvature of the Earth coin.
The point is, the Moon always move in a straight line and the adjustment made by gravity is just enough to keep the straight-line motion in an orbital path. The straight lime motion explains how the Moon can keep the same side pointed at Earth.
Meyer, Cassini, et al, clearly missed the simplicity of the explanation. I don’t think its possible that Newton missed it, his lack of addressing local rotation suggests he knew the Moon did not rotate on a local axis.
Gordon,
Did you have a read of DREMT’s link to an essay on Moon’s non-rotation?
https://books.google.de/books?id=CItaAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
I wondered what you thought of the fellow’s position.
barry…thanks for link. I had not been aware of the book till you linked me to it.
I agree with him for the most part but I have only skimmed the book so I cannot offer an objective opinion. I think he covers the arguments against rotation well.
I am hoping he was intent on a thorough scientific argument because he tended to lose me in the detail of his arguments. Had I not spent the last couple of years discussing the Moon on Roy’s blog and reading through Principia, I would have found it difficult to follow his arguments.
I particularly agree with his point that astronomers have gotten the notion of lunar rotation completely wrong. That flies in face of the popular theory that a scientist must be right, simply because he is a scientist. However, I am beginning to notice more and more that many scientists may have gotten a lot of science wrong. Maybe wrong is the wrong word, rather have offered incomplete views on certain subjects.
It bothers me when scientists offer ‘the science is settled’ argument. Or when they band together under the umbrella of consensus.
ps. With regard to Newton, the author seems to agree that his views on rotation are not very clear. Personally, based on Principia, I got the impression Newton did not consider lunar rotation worthy of an in-depth discussion. He barely said anything about rotation, certainly not in the detail that would be required for a proper analysis.
You guys seem to regard me as using a lame translation argument with Newton’s words but as I have indicated I am using it in conjunction with statements Newton has made re linear and curvilinear motion and the Moon keeping the same side pointed at Earth. If the translation is correct, and can be taken verbatim, it contradicts what he said elsewhere.
Also, the diagrams are missing in the version I downloaded making it difficult or maybe impossible to follow points the author is making.
Gordon,
The reason I bring him up – he was opposing Newton’s views. The author clearly states that Newton believes the Moon is rotating on its own axis.
The quote I saw from you says the moons rotation is identical which ever axis it rotates on.
And of course the entire discourse by Bindidon is born of ignorance of the non-spinner position.
Non-spinners believe that the moon rotates at an approximate rate of once every 27.3 days and that this is the only sidereal rotation that the moon has.
An earth bound perspective has the moon rotating at 29.5 days which is the syndoic rotation rate and the rate at which sunshine moves around the moon that would be from the wrong frame of reference and is frequently argued by spinners as evidence the moon rotates on its axis. But thats dumb.
The moon rotates around the earth 13.37 times a year but it only appears to be 12.37 times around the earth from both the earth and the sun because the rotation of the earth around the sun provides an extra rotation. So from the sun only if you get your perspective wrt to the stars right you will see the moon rotate around the earth 13.37 times.
2 positions that non-spinners and I agree with.
DREMT confirms that rotation (spin) and orbit are separate, not bound to each other.
Bill confirms that gravity exerts no torsional effect on a spherical body.
With these established I return to this proposition:
A spherical moon resting between galaxies, with the mass of our Moon, set to a spin that changes its orientation in relation to the fixed the same rate as our Moon does WRT the fixed stars, is then put into an orbit around the Earth.
If gravity exerts no torsional effect, and the motions of spin and orbit are not bound to each other, then this Moon should retain its angular momentum WRT the fixed stars, and behave exactly as out Moon does.
No that isn’t correct. You seem to be misinterpreting DREMT. The orbital rotation of the earth is not bound to its independent spin.
The orbital rotation of the moon is not bound to any spin either as there is no spin. But the moon has an orbital rotation around the earth wrt the sun, it also has an orbital rotation around the sun which adds one rotation to the moon wrt the stars in the Milky Way.
The solar system has an orbital rotation around the galaxy that adds another rotation to the moon wrt stars not within the Milky Way, and the galaxy has a rotation around the center of galaxies that adds yet another rotation wrt to the center of the universe (I presume the location of the big bang). We just don’t count the last two because the quicker of the two rotations has a rotational period of 230,000,000 years that only subtracts about 10 milliseconds off its sidereal rotation rate of 27.322 days.
barry…”Bill confirms that gravity exerts no torsional effect on a spherical body”.
***
Just want to clarify that I don’t think there is any torquing applied to the Moon by gravity. A torque is not required, all gravity need to apply is a vertical force toward the Earth.
The Moon does not need to be torqued to follow the curvature of the Earth. It never needs to re-align its near face via a torque to be in orbit.
You can look this up to confirm it, obviously. The curvature of the Earth is such that it changes at 5 vertical metres per 8000 horizontal metres. All gravity has to do is pull the Moon down 5 metres every 8000 metres and it will follow the curvature of the Earth.
Remember, 8,000 metres is 8 km. So, the Moon, or any space vehicle, can travel a significant horizontal distance before the curvature changes significantly. It’s not like we are rotating one coin around another, which requires sharp changes in both the x- and y-directions.
It seems you and Bill agree with what I’ve said while appearing to argue something.
Gravity doesn’t apply torque to the body it pulls in. Agreed? Good.
With that cleared up you may now wish to consider the proposition I made.
No it appears we agree that gravity doesn’t apply torque to a sphere but the moon is not a sphere.
It is a Scalene ellipsoid.
Beyond that I have no comment on Gordon’s view of gravity as the concept of gravity having no grip on a sphere doesn’t rule out some effect about gravity related to a curved moving path. So I don’t believe what Gordon is saying and I don’t think its necessary to account for the moon’s motion. But why would I want to claim what he is saying is wrong? As my grandfather used always say there is more than one way to skin a cat. I don’t think I know everything like you do.
“You seem to be misinterpreting DREMT.”
Nope. DREMT have very clearly stated that as a general principal spin and orbit are separate motions not bond to each other.
“No, I don’t, barry. I have never said that orbit determines spin. Orbit and spin are entirely separate motions.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1447055
With that put to bed you can now re-examine my proposition, Bill. I’m curious to see how you argue against it.
Or if you think DREMT is wrong, please be clear about it.
“If gravity exerts no torsional effect, and the motions of spin and orbit are not bound to each other, then this Moon should retain its angular momentum WRT the fixed stars, and behave exactly as out Moon does.”
Sure, if “orbit without spin” is like the MOTR…but that’s not what “orbital motion” is.
“Orbit without spin” is like the MOTL. As Gordon has tried many times to explain. Including at 2:16 AM.
… as observed from the central object of the MOTL.
…or as observed from outside the orbit.
… where the view is the same face to the observer.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1453956
barry is trying to pervert reality again, with his silly “proposition”.
He has it set up so that if [something is true], then [something that is false] is then true.
Everyone has to watch him closely. He’s tricky. He’s the one that claims “Newton is a spinner”.
He tries futilely to pervert, distort, and twist reality, and when caught, calls you a “liar”.
Where’s our Hall Monitor when it’s time to call out Pup’s ad homs?
You’re right here.
DRENT,
barry: “If gravity exerts no torsional effect, and the motions of spin and orbit are not bound to each other, then this Moon should retain its angular momentum WRT the fixed stars, and behave exactly as out Moon does.”
DREMT: “Sure, if “orbit without spin” is like the MOTR”
No, that deosn’t follow.
If orbit has no effect on the spherical Moon’s spin – which you agree with – and gravity exerts no torsional effect on a spherical body, which I presume you agree with, then the Moon we’ve introduced should continue spinning (changing its orientation) WRT the fixed stars unchanged.
If the spin changes WRT the fixed stars – as you are proposing by referring to the MOTR – then it must follow that putting it into orbit does change its spin – that orbit does indeed influence the Moon’s rotational angular momentum that was established prior to us putting it into Earth orbit.
Otherwise, why does the spherical Moon change its spin WRT the fixed stars once it goes into orbit?
Simply stating your view on what rotation and orbit are doesn’t answer this question, it bypasses it by simply stating your original assertion.
Whatever you say, barry. No point talking to you.
” And of course the entire discourse by Bindidon is born of ignorance of the non-spinner position. ”
I fully understand the non-spinner ‘position’, Hunter boy, and in particular I understand that it is based entirely on (1) the conscious ignorance of the science and (2) gut feeling.
This is exactly what Testla’s little pamphlet and the opinion of his Serbian venerators both do reflect:
https://tinyurl.com/3ct4wtsr
*
Above all, the unwillingness to give up the obviously intentionally misleading term “rotate” instead of finally using the correct term “orbit” is typical of the urge to manipulate the discussion.
The goal, obviously, is to merge the two fundamentally different concepts of “orbit” and “spin” – which are based on different physics and require vastly different mathematical evaluations – into a synthetic, meaningless idea of “rotation”.
*
” The moon rotates around the earth 13.37 times a year but it only appears to be 12.37 times around the earth from both the earth and the sun because the rotation of the earth around the sun provides an extra rotation. ”
This endless posting of the same egomaniacal, far-fetched mush is incredibly boring, and the discrediting of true, exact science that silently comes with it is shameful.
The inability of all lunar spin deniers to scientifically contradict any of the results of hundreds of astronomers and mathematicians obtained since centuries is a clear fact anyway.
*
If people doubt what I write, it doesn’t matter at all; I’m just a layman. But when people deny science as such, it does very well matter.
“The goal, obviously, is to merge the two fundamentally different concepts of “orbit” and “spin” – which are based on different physics and require vastly different mathematical evaluations – into a synthetic, meaningless idea of “rotation”.“
Incorrect.
Sorry, Pseudomod: this is very well correct because though you distinct between orbiting and spinning, you exclude the latter by making of it a rotation about an external axis, which is a semantic game par excellence.
Thus, for you, celestial bodies like the Moon rotate, but don#t spin.
Wrong. I do not exclude “spinning”, and I do not “mak[e] of it a rotation about an external axis”.
”Orbiting” is rotating about an external axis. ”Spinning” is rotating about an internal axis.
While its fair for astronomy to create its own language for what ever purpose it believes to be most efficient to do so.
Astronomy has no mandate to go out in the public and try to correct the public’s intuitive concept of what a rotation is.
Obviously resorting to Newton is total BS as most of modern engineering has been built on Newton’s great works and they have courses that teach students about rotations on external axes that astronomers what to pretend is a concept held only by dummies.
So what does that make astronomers that engage in this kind of behavior? Weigh in folks! They need to know.
“correct the publics intuitive concept of what a rotation is.”
A rare bit of honesty from Bill.
The public’s definition of rotation is much different than kinematics Nate.
So if you feel a compelling necessity to correct the public about their view of the moon you should say yes it is rotating around the earth and in that process gravity causes it to hold one face toward earth.
Then of course you can become a giant nerd by saying but gee kinematics defines a rotation as having a fixed radius so the moon doesn’t rotate around the earth in the view of us nerds. We say it translates because its orbit isn’t perfectly circular.
Now at least we have actually described what you think the word rotate is to a scientist.
Of course the public would think that was rather humorous.
In my trade there is nothing more important that communicating in a language that the public actually understands.
Of course I understand why you communicate that way. You would probably get confused otherwise. After all the public doesn’t need to fret over 1/100th of an inch.
Hunter troll wrote:
Then why not use the terminology of science and engineering where the motion of a free body is space composed of a translation motion under the influence of gravity, called an orbit, with a rotational motion around the body’s COM?
For example, HERE’s the Engineer’s POV.
“Obviously resorting to Newton is total BS as most of modern engineering has been built on Newtons great works and they have courses that teach students about rotations on external axes”
newton is referred to because he describes the Moon’s motion as rotational on its own axis. This is pretty straightforward, and it is the non-spinners who go looking to distance Newton from that view by pointing to other things he has said about rotation elsewhere in his great work.
E. Swanson says:
In my trade there is nothing more important that communicating in a language that the public actually understands.
Then why not use the terminology of science and engineering where the motion of a free body is space composed of a translation motion under the influence of gravity, called an orbit, with a rotational motion around the bodys COM?
————————
Gee Swanson yeah, obviously its science that can’t get their act together with kinematics and engineering teaching rotations on external axes while we have Tim who can’t bring himself to admit the MOTL is an example of orbital motion without axial rotation.
May as well be denying what is taught in science classes depending upon which class you are taking.
For the public the idea of a rotation is simpler and practical and they don’t worry about a rotation being eccentric. Thats all for you guys to argue about between yourselves.
I mean I get it when Nate says: ”The question is what is the proper framework, the proper description of motion to enable application of physics to understand this motion.”
I mean they have to keep the math simple enough so the morons they are pushing through the universities these days can handle the math.
barry says:
”newton is referred to because he describes the Moons motion as rotational on its own axis. This is pretty straightforward, and it is the non-spinners who go looking to distance Newton from that view by pointing to other things he has said about rotation elsewhere in his great work.”
No way to distance Newton from his work. The man has passed. Why the heck do you think anybody is trying to do that? Near as I can tell Newton never did a study on rotations. DREMT produced the study materials from Dr. Madhavi though and they recognize a rotation on an external axis. Just the internet is full of morons that want to immediately limit rotations to perfect circular motion with any study materials on that. Pretty dumb if you ask me.
that would be ‘without’ any study on why rotations should be limited to perfect circles.
“Then of course you can become a giant nerd”
I am a nerd. So what?
“Of course the public would think that was rather humorous.
In my trade there is nothing more important that communicating in a language that the public actually understands.”
You think science definitions need to agree with popular intuitions, and should not get too technical?
So science should be all about pleasing the public, and no longer about finding the facts about the natural world, and how the universe works?
Your arguments are becoming increasingly desperate and absurd, Bill.
“I mean they have to keep the math simple enough so the morons they are pushing through the universities these days can handle the math.”
Bill has lost the argument, and loses his mind.
Nate says:
You think science definitions need to agree with popular intuitions, and should not get too technical?
So science should be all about pleasing the public, and no longer about finding the facts about the natural world, and how the universe works?
Your arguments are becoming increasingly desperate and absurd, Bill.
————————
Nate you moron there is nothing technical about giving a name to a scientific principle. . . .its done randomly with whatever is handy. And no if you talk to the public you shouldn’t use randomly and privately selected language that the public doesn’t understand. Its like talking in a foreign language. Why don’t you get that? And we are talking about the same motion there is absolutely nothing technical about choosing to call rotations on external axes translations with rotations on internal axes. You already explained what they do it. . . .to keep the math simple for the morons they are pushing through universities today.
“While its fair for astronomy to create its own language for what ever purpose it believes to be most efficient to do so.”
I can agree with this. None of the rest.
“I mean I get it when Nate says: The question is what is the proper framework, the proper description of motion to enable application of physics to understand this motion.
I mean they have to keep the math simple enough so the morons they are pushing through the universities these days can handle the math.”
Bill is the loser-moron here.
The framework has been used to enable progress on the physics of these (not simple) problems for the last 300 years.
Nate says:
”The framework has been used to enable progress on the physics of these (not simple) problems for the last 300 years.”
And if you believe the framework was necessary to enable the progress on the physics of rotations for the last 300 years you are indeed an idiot.
“Just the internet is full of morons that want to immediately limit rotations to perfect circular motion with any study materials on that. Pretty dumb if you ask me.”
Bill yells:
‘Who do we hate?’
His crowd yells back:
‘The scientists!’
Bill yells:
‘Why do we hate em?”
Crowd yells back:
‘Cuz their smarter than us!’
Bill yells:
‘Damn straight’
Crowd yells back:
‘Damn straight’
I just hate idiot scientists who think they know stuff they don’t. That would include you Nate.
Very clearly no scientist worth anything vehemently believes a lot of stuff you believe.
I see you trying to hide behind the skirt of science but your ignorance has already exposed you.
“I just hate idiot scientists who think they know stuff they dont.”
Bill makes my case.
And he’s become a supremely sore loser.
Of course these days, being a sore loser is a badge of honor among far right wingers.
Kari Lake, the excessively sore loser of the Arizona governors race, was voted the favorite VP candidate by CPAC!
But sadly, she said she can’t do it because she’s the governor.
There is no loser here. Spinners have yet to make a single important point in their arguments rotations occurring around external axes.
Yet we have an entire cadre of people trying to redefine words, claim the moon does not rotate around the earth and they have given a single reason for why thats necessary.
So only in a world of unemployed nerds does anybody spend a year arguing a stupid point like that making shit up for reasons why they want to define stuff that way but not explaining why.
If there are any losers here its the spinners trying to make something out of axial tilt, librations, elliptical orbits and the really stupidest one that its a necessary framework for the advancement of science. . . .sheesh!
“Yet we have an entire cadre of people trying to redefine words,”
Nope, only you and the members of your teeny tiny CULT have tried to do that.
We used only the textbook and dictionary definitions. You guys reject them!
“claim the moon does not rotate around the earth and they have given a single reason for why thats necessary.”
I’ll let YOU contradict this lie:
“”the spinners trying to make something out of axial tilt, librations, elliptical orbits and the really stupidest one that its a necessary framework for the advancement of science. . . .sheesh!”
Again, this makes abundantly clear that your entire argument is based on ignoring or rejecting all inconvenient facts.
A minority of dictionaries do contain your definition. Which makes you a vocal minority science-denying nutcase.
Bin, your continuing problem is that you have no science. All you have are beliefs, opinions, and references to the same.
If you REALLY were interested in science and reality, you would realize that the ball-on-a-string is a valid model of OMWAR. That model allows us to recognize that Moon is then NOT spinning. You reject that reality, but yet you have NO valid model to support your beliefs and opinions.
That (BoS) model allows us to recognize that Moon is then NOT spinning as viewed from the Earth (or central object) because both BoS, MOTL, and Moon keep same face toward the central object.
…which they also do when the situation is viewed from outside the orbit.
… where the view is the same keeping same face toward the observer all the time.
No. View the ball on a string, MOTL and moon from outside the orbit. The observer can still see that the BoS, MOTL and moon keep the same face toward the Earth (or central object). The observer does not need to be located on the Earth, or central object, to see that.
… the BoS, MOTL, and Moon are rotating each on their own axis.
Ball4 once saw me write the three dots and finish the sentence of the person writing the comment above. He now uses that technique in almost every single one of his posts, because he has absolutely no originality or ability to come up with anything for himself. He’s just a sort of soulless, relentless, malevolent force.
Corrections to DREMT’s wrong comments are so often needed while ad homs are of no use.
"Corrections to DREMT’s wrong comments are so often needed…"
…is an ad hom.
Not at all, obviously incorrect science on a blog just needs to be corrected from which commenters like DREMT et. al. can then learn.
On the subject of the moon, you only make one point, over and over and over and over and over and over again. You’ve been making the same point for years now. The problem is, you’re not correct on that point. So your entire contribution to the moon discussion is worthless.
> is an ad hom.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights a little more.
“Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights a little more…”
…is an ad hom.
DREMT hasn’t ever shown anything wrong with whatever point DREMT 4:05 pm is writing about.
DREMT hasn’t ever learned blog relevant science but has learned & delivered ad homs and much gaslighting as Willard points out.
"DREMT hasn’t ever shown anything wrong with whatever point DREMT 4:05 pm is writing about.
DREMT hasn’t ever learned blog relevant science but has learned & delivered ad homs and much gaslighting as Willard points out…"
…is an ad hom.
An opportunity to learn correct science is not an ad hom. DREMT is obviously so confused.
“DREMT is obviously so confused…”
…is an ad hom.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more:
Simply false.
Lack of credibility doesn’t help your case DREMT & repeating is far worse for DREMT.
"Lack of credibility doesn’t help your case DREMT & repeating is far worse for DREMT…"
…is an ad hom.
b4…”the BoS, MOTL, and Moon are rotating each on their own axis”.
***
Ball4 is a blithering ijit.
Bordon
…is an ad hom.
“Bordon…”
…is an ad hom.
Gaslighting Graham…
is gently gaslighting again.
“Gaslighting Graham…
is gently gaslighting again…”
…is an ad hom.
Bindidon says:
And of course the entire discourse by Bindidon is born of ignorance of the non-spinner position.
I fully understand the non-spinner position, Hunter boy, and in particular I understand that it is based entirely on (1) the conscious ignorance of the science and (2) gut feeling.
This is exactly what Testlas little pamphlet and the opinion of his Serbian venerators both do reflect:
https://tinyurl.com/3ct4wtsr
*
Above all, the unwillingness to give up the obviously intentionally misleading term rotate instead of finally using the correct term orbit is typical of the urge to manipulate the discussion.
The goal, obviously, is to merge the two fundamentally different concepts of orbit and spin which are based on different physics and require vastly different mathematical evaluations into a synthetic, meaningless idea of rotation.
————————
Here Bindidon demonstrates his pretend ignorance of the situation. After years of listening to librations, elliptical orbits, and axial tilt that all arose out of their ignorance of what those things represent now its all about semantics. To a man the spinners have retreated to a word game about all this.
DREMT its time to have a victory party!!
More perversion of reality from barry: “…[Moon’s imaginary spin axis] tilt is virtually constant WRT the fixed stars (minus a few seconds of precession) throughout one orbit of the Earth.”
False. Swanson’s middle diagram indicates over 13° change in the imaginary spin axis. That much change is unheard of, if the body is spinning.
Again, barry doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
binny…”Above all, the unwillingness to give up the obviously intentionally misleading term rotate instead of finally using the correct term orbit is typical of the urge to manipulate the discussion”.
***
Binny is still carrying on with semantical games.
The word rotate does not have to be explained to someone who actually understands its meaning in the proper context. If something is turning about an interior axis, that is one meaning. If somethig is rotating about an external axis that is another meaning.
Rotate, orbit, revolve all describe motion of a body about an external axis. The problem we are having here is people adamantly claiming that a ball on a string is rotating about an internal axis at the same time it is rotating about someone’s hand. Or that a car driving around an oval track is also rotating about its COG.
Because you spinners don’t understand the physics of rotation you are restricted to semantical and philosophical arguments. In that capacity, you are in the same incorrect space re physics as your authority figures like Cassini, Lagrange, Meyer, Laplace, etc., none of which had a clue about the physics of rotation.
” Binny is still carrying on with semantical games.
The word rotate does not have to be explained to someone who actually understands its meaning in the proper context. ”
*
Robertson’s usual trash – ignored.
What I won’t ignore however is his woeful discrediting of Tobias Mayer:
” Meyer was no more an astronomer than my Granny. He was a mathematician who dabbled in certain astronomical subjects like the Moon and Mars.
That was his weakness, a lack of physics. ”
We see here that Robertson, who is an absolutely insignificant person wrt real science, still can’t get rid of discrediting and denigrating scientists whose work he wouldn’t ever be able to understand 0.001 % of, let alone to replicate the same amount.
*
Tobias Mayer has been considered by most astronomers of his and later times as one of the greatest astronomers of the XVIIIth century.
We can view how relevant dumbass Robertson’s meaning about Tobias Mayer is when we look at Mayer’s Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobias_Mayer
and see that it exists in no less than 26 languages.
*
Robertson is an absolutely arrogant, ignorant, incompetent, reckless and disrespectful dumbass, and proves this once more.
*
His ignorance based on superficial guesses are best understood when you read his posts’ end:
” Meyer, Cassini, et al, clearly missed the simplicity of the explanation. I dont think its possible that Newton missed it, his lack of addressing local rotation suggests he knew the Moon did not rotate on a local axis. ”
*
I repeat what I wrote about Newton and the work on the lunar spin:
” Newton never established equations mathematically describing the lunar spin and the inclination of the spin axis wrt the Ecliptic. He was just convinced of Cassinis results all along.
On the one hand, he was during his late decades heavily busy with the search for a solution of the famous problem named ‘longitude at sea’, being engaged in a permanent competition with Flamsteed and Halley.
{ The irony is that this competition would keep useless as long as no exact selenocentric coordinates for the Moon would become available. Mayer was the first to compute them in 1750. }
On the other hand, Newton probably anticipated how hard that work would be because of the necessity of solving a set of differential equations of the second order. ”
Tobias Mayer also wasn’t prepared for solving such equations in 1750: that is the reason why his solution to the problem has been entirely based on spherical trigonometry (he used Newton’s first order gravity equations in his treatise solely to prove that Moon’s spheroid was of sufficient sphericity to allow such a solution path).
*
Tobias Mayer unluckily died with only 39. What a pity.
Nonetheless, he made at his life’s end still hard work on lunar theory.
His last treatise (published posthumously in 1767) shows us what Newton would have made, had he not lost so much time in this hopeless longitude competition:
Theoria lunae juxta systema Newtonianum
i.e.
The theory of the Moon according to the Newtonian system
https://books.google.com/books?id=1SugAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=en&source=gbs_atb&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
*
And it shows us also how incredibly dumb Robertson is and always will be because he will never change.
*
Maybe barry has some idle time and motivation to translate this treatise’s introduction. I won’t, I’m tired of stupid reactions to such work.
Bindidon says:
”The word rotate does not have to be explained to someone who actually understands its meaning in the proper context.”
Binny always is playing semantic games. Obviously he isn’t an engineer that actually has to build stuff that goes around other stuff. Newton was a genius, Bindidon is an admirer.
Hunter boy’s typical egomaniac blah blah, of course as usual lacking any science – only poorish polemics.
Bindidon doesn’t understand that semantics has absolutely nothing, zilch, nada to do with physics. Since he fails to comprehend that he reads a book and think its physics without understanding.
Actually, Gill, there is a semantic conception of theories:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_view_of_theories
So sad, too bad.
Yep, like about as much as the meaning of ”The Present King of France”.
Though I didn’t intend to translate Tobias Mayer’s treatise on lunar theory according to Newton’s system
https://books.google.com/books?id=1SugAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=en&source=gbs_atb&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
one of the paragraphs nonetheless caught my attention, because it makes anyone clear how deeply near Mayer’s work has been to Newton’s, and how perfect his computation of the lunar spin fits to Newton’s general gravitation theory.
Here is a translation of this paragraph.
” § 46. In these two series there are several terms so small as to be quite negligible, but which I have retained to show how far I have taken the approximation.
In addition to these series, the values of ‘g’ and ‘α’ are also determined:
g = 1.018408
α = 0.9915965
The former value is used to determine the Moon’s mean distance from Earth, while the latter includes the movement of the lunar apogee according to the theory.
Because the ratio of the Moon’s anomaly to the mean daily longitudinal motion is α:1, the inconsistency of the motion of the apogee is ‘1 – α’, which is 0.0084035 when the longitudinal motion is set to 1.
Since the observed mean daily longitudinal motion of the Moon is 13°.10′.35″, and therefore the observed mean daily motion of the Moon’s apogee is 0°.6′.40”.56”’, and by theory 0°.6′.38”.37”’, the theoretically determined value is therefore almost two hundredths (i.e., 2 seconds) behind the observation, which confirms Newton’s theory in a remarkable way. (See § 39. ) ”
*
By referring to § 39, Mayer reminds the reader that Newton’s theory of gravitation, according to which the forces of the Sun, Earth and Moon are inversely proportional to the squares of their distances, has become an indispensable foundation in astronomy.
The golden rule for Mayer: if calculations or observations do not agree with this theory, corrections or new observations are required.
For those who do not understand what this observed mean daily longitudinal motion of the Moon (13°.10′.35”) is about: it is Moon’s daily spin rate about its polar axis.
A longitudinal shift by this value means that Mayer computed in this treatise, for Moon’s 360 degree spin period, the value (in decimal days)
27.321597
i.e. 0.00006 days less than the value obtained nowadays when evaluating Lunar Laser Ranging data.
But… as we all know, Mayer was as much an astronomer than Robertson’s Granny, and in case Robertson was wrong, he was anyway an astrologer according to troll Clint R.
Yes, Hunter boy: Newton indeed was a genius.
But… Mayer wasn’t quite as wrong as the lunar spin denial squad endlessly tries to woefully suggest :–)
The ‘(i.e., 2 seconds)‘ are my emphasis. For astronomers in these times, a minute was a tenth, and a second a hundreth of a degree (and the ”’ – a sixtieth of a second – was a thousandth).
You have to be kidding. Ptolemy first divided degrees up into 60 minutes and 60 seconds and you are saying a millennia and a half later they were confusing decimals with minutes and seconds?
Actually, Gill, degrees come from fingers.
Next time you look at the skies, use your hand. A finger should correspond to a degree.
:
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/measuring-the-sky-by-hand.html
Also, you can count to 12 with one hand, hence why Babylonians had a base 60 system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagesimal
The Babylonians were a bit older that Ptolemy, btw.
wee willy…”Next time you look at the skies, use your hand. A finger should correspond to a degree”.
***
What if you need to measure 15 degrees, you’d need 15 fingers?
Come on, Bordon.
Two fingers. Your index and the little one, stretched.
It is all explained in the article you failed to read.
Click on links before trying to be a smart ass.
I was joshing, wee willy.
” … and you are saying a millennia and a half later they were confusing decimals with minutes and seconds? ”
*
Oooh, the little Hunter boy, with nothing to say, urges to say something. Are you a duplicate of Flynnson?
Look at the original Latin text:
” … vero vix parte duecentesima, adeoque theoriam Newtonaniam egregie confirmat. ”
*
Are you denying astronomer Mayer a posteriori the right to choose the expression that best fits what was written around 1760? OMG.
Nobody messes things up, boy, no one was confusing anything. It’s all in your own brain.
Since there’s obviously nothing useful left in your little childish rotation corner, you’re just trying hopelessly to make an elephant out of a mosquito.
You really do your very best to look incompetent all the time.
You are the idiot that said a minute is a tenth and a second is a hundredth Bin and even took credit for it. do you always embellish your translations with such rubbish?
vero vix parte duecentesima, adeoque theoriam Newtonaniam egregie confirmat. translates to…
“…but scarcely two hundredths of it, and so it remarkably confirms the Newtonian theory…”
If you look closely at the book, Meyer and Newton are working with fractions. Newton used a lot of that, comparing for example, how many times the Earths diameter/radius, divided into the distance from Earth’s centre to Moon’s centre.
Meyer’s book is full of fractions. He even lays a mathematical series out as fractions, like 3/100.
Maybe its bin doing the math then.
Yep Gordon these morons can’t understand that the mathematical reductions of a rotation on an external axis doesn’t fundamentally change the fact that rotations on an external axis is the quantitative equivalent of a translation with a spin on the internal axis. And because of the mathematical genius of Newton they fail to even comprehend what he is doing. Morons the whole lot!
What Newton proved is rotations are hierarchical in nature. The general public may not know of Newton’s work but at least they know what a rotation is and these morons clearly don’t.
binny…”For those who do not understand what this observed mean daily longitudinal motion of the Moon (13.10′.35) is about: it is Moons daily spin rate about its polar axis”.
***
Not true. The paper at the link you provided says nothing about rotation about a local axis. In fact, I have yet to see Meyer talking about rotation, he has only talked about libration in anything I have seen from him.
If you look at the very first diagram, he is laying out the geometry of the lunar orbit wrt the ecliptic. He doesn’t talk about rotation anywhere in the paper. He talks mainly about lunar latitude.
His paper is about comparing the observations he has made, then made into tables, with the calculations based on Newton’s methods.
Nice try Binny, you have to get up pretty early in the morning to get one past us non-spinners.
” In fact, I have yet to see Meyer talking about rotation, he has only talked about libration in anything I have seen from him. ”
*
No one knows why people like Robertson endlessly repeat their nonsense despite having been corrected so many times.
Are they insane, don’t remember repeating themselves like Kurt, my lady’s uncle, has been doing over and over again for over 12 years now?
Or are people like that kidding us, watching the attempts to make them understand what they know all along, intentionally misleading us with wrong answers and laughing their heads off in the background?
*
In the latter case, the best punishment would then be to force Robertson
– (1) to search for all occurrences of the word ‘libration’ in all documents written by Mayer he has “seen from him”;
– (2) to search all threads of this blog himself for all occurrences of his “I’ve never seen Meyer talk about rotation” or similar bullshit, and to show the replies to them.
Some days ago, ignoramus Robertson wrote:
” Meyer was no more an astronomer than my Granny. He was a mathematician who dabbled in certain astronomical subjects like the Moon and Mars. ”
*
What else could we expect from such an arrogant twat and ignorant boaster?
No wonder then that he writes nonsense about Mayer’s Lunar Theory, e.g.
” He doesnt talk about rotation anywhere in the paper. He talks mainly about lunar latitude. ”
*
That reminds me of his genial reaction on my translation of Lagrange’s introduction to his paper
” Theory of the libration of the Moon ”
Genius Robertson read the title, very certainly stopped reading and replied:
” You see, Binny? Lagrange only talks about libration, not about any rotation. ”
But the intro contained the word ‘rotation’ 18 times :–)
Yeah, that’s genius Robertson.
*
Now back to Mayer’s lunar theory paper.
Mayer wrote in paragraph 46 unequivocally:
” Quodsi vero motus medius longitudinis Lunae diurnus ponatur juxta observationes = 13°.10'.35"… ”
i.e.
” Since the observed mean daily longitudinal motion of the Moon is 13°.10′.35″ ”
*
Legitima et inevitabilis conclusio:
Robertson knows exactly as much about astronomy as his Granny.
I think I’ll have to backtrack here from the assumption that Mayer’s Lunar theory treatise published in 1767 would have dealt with a continuation of his 1750 treatise about Moon’s spin wrt its polar axis:
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
I have referred often enough to this 1750 treatise in which Mayer described how he calculates
– the inclination of the lunar polar spin axis (section 13)
– the lunar spin period (section 14)
– the selenocentric coordinates of the observed craters (section 16).
*
I see namely here the beginning of a document
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41133699
describing Moon’s orbital motion and using the term ‘longitude’ as well.
*
Where I’m wrong I always admit it.
*
I will contact the German university professor responsible for the event, which took place this year to mark Tobias Mayer’s 300th birthday.
no new posts…are we about done in this thread?
Well the non-spinners have won hands down.
There is no fundamental difference between a elliptical rotation and a perfect elliptical rotation.
You actually have a high level rotation with constant angular momentum. Translations don’t have constant angular momentum.
Spinners try to argue that angular velocity changes with a elliptical rotation. But there is no requirement for angular velocity to be constant for a circular rotation.
They have nothing in the argument.
Well the non-spinners have won hands down when observing from the central object because they only observe one face of the orbiting object.
Ball4 continues to deny the existence of a rotation on an external axis. Heck he even might use the same logic to deny the existence of all rotations by sitting at the center of a rotating space ship.
A really sharp guy that Ball4, yep!
To many except dynamically confused Bill, obviously observing from the central object such as Earth allows one to see moonset and moonrise thus the existence of a lunar, BoS, and MOTL rotation on an external axis but no rotation for those objects on an internal axis.
Ball4 continues to deny the existence of a rotation on an external axis.
“Well the non-spinners have won hands down.”
Sure, those are the rules of playground bullies.
“Spinners try to argue that angular velocity changes with a elliptical rotation. But there is no requirement for angular velocity to be constant for a circular rotation.”
Where’s Bill been all this time?
Angular velocity varies for a body in an elliptical ORBIT, because of conservation of angular momentum.
Angular velocity is constant for a body in space rotating in its own axis, because of conservation of angular momentum.
Both of these two motions are required to explain the observed motion of the Moon, as exemplified by its libration.
“Angular velocity varies for a body in an elliptical ORBIT”
To clarify what we mean by angular velocity here. We observe the position of the center of the Moon every night, we find that it position changes against the stars by a certain number of degrees per night. That gives an angular velocity in its orbit. We measure that velocity and find that it varies throughout the month.
The Moon’s orientation to the stars can also be measured nightly. We find that the angular change of the Moon’s orientation per night is a constant, (and looking in more detail, it is changing around a tilted axis)
This is strong evidence that the Moon’s positional change in its orbit is an independent motion from its orientational change due to its rotation.
Yes, Lorb computed on radius ~from Moon center to Earth & Lspin on a radius lunar surface to lunar center. Results in two independent angular momenta.
Obviously the earth’s gravity doesn’t allow the moon to change its angular momentum or its mean angular velocity FORCING the moon to remain in sync with the orbit. That would be the definition of any object in rotation around an external axis.
You guys have no consistency to your position creating the obvious confusion that has been created. You Nate have recognized the MOTL as being a legitimate rotation on an external axis. Its rather crazy to switch stuff up because the moon performs like any rotation on an external axis which always has some ‘play’.
“Obviously the earths gravity doesnt allow the moon to change its angular momentum or its mean angular velocity FORCING the moon to remain in sync with the orbit. That would be the definition of any object in rotation around an external axis.”
Well its not really gravity doing it. It is the negligible torque due to gravity that means no change in angular momentum, on time scale of a single orbit.
On a longer time scale there is precession of the axis and orbit, and on very long times, millions of years, tidal locking.
“remain in sync with the orbit.”
This phrase implies two motions lining up. So, what are those two motions?
Obviously they must be rotation and orbit.
“That would be the definition of any object in rotation around an external axis.’
I don’t see a definition anywhere in this post. You describe some causes of the motion, but that is not a definition of the motion.
Again, I would return to the spinning top on a table.
We would all describe its motion as rotation on its axis. Even though this motion has perturbations, precession, and deceleration caused by gravity and friction.
None of that changes the fact that this motion is a rotation on its axis.
Nate says:
”Well its not really gravity doing it. It is the negligible torque due to gravity that means no change in angular momentum, on time scale of a single orbit.”
Nate goes full on double speak here. Its not gravity it is gravity.
ball4…”Yes, Lorb computed on radius ~from Moon center to Earth & Lspin on a radius lunar surface to lunar center. Results in two independent angular momenta”.
***
This is major nit-picking but it’s something that interests me right now.
Since when does an imaginary radial line have an angular momentum? Angular momentum is intended for a lever arm with a mass rotating about an axis. If it has a mass attached to the lever, it become part of the angular momentum.
With your radial line, angular momentum is angular velocity x mass. Angular velocity is a rate of change of the angle the radial line makes with the x-axis. The radial line can certainly rotate with an angular velocity but it has no mass, therefore no angular momentum.
The Moon has only a linear momentum at any one instant. It forms no angle with the an x-axis on an x-y plane imposed on its orbital plane. You can draw in a radial line if you like but it has no mass, hence no angular momentum, and the Moon has only a linear momentum.
If you connect an imaginary radial line to the Moon, and the Moon has only a linear momentum, how can a system with an imaginary radial line and a real mass with a linear velocity possibly have an angular momentum?
I see nothing wrong with talking about Lorb + Lspin to make a point but in the case of the Moon, Lspin = 0. Therefore we are left with L orb.
Lspin = 0 when our Moon is observed from Earth seeing only one lunar face.
Lspin = nonzero when our Moon is observed from the sun (a distant star) seeing all lunar faces.
Our Moon exhibits curvilinear translation (Madhavi term) so there exists lunar angular momentum Lorb as she depicts.
Lmoon always equals Lorb+lspin Ball4 no matter where you look at it from.
Next thing Ball4 will be telling us is that the area of a square is a side because the area equals sideA squared.
Bill 9:49 pm, that is inertially correct for Lmoon.
When you look at our Moon from Earth, though, Lspin = 0 since you only ever see the man in the moon face. Once you add in the fact for you observing Moon on the Earth in an accelerated frame, Lspin becomes inertially nonzero.
Bill, at 10:01 pm though, your units do not match thus that comment is nonsense.
“The Moon has only a linear momentum at any one instant. It forms no angle with the an x-axis on an x-y plane imposed on its orbital plane. You can draw in a radial line if you like but it has no mass, hence no angular momentum, and the Moon has only a linear momentum.”
This is only possible if your ‘x-axis on an x-y plane imposed on its orbital plane’ is rotating.
The Moon’s angular position in the sky is always changing, but at a variable rate. Its orientation wrt the stars is always changing at a constant rate.
Thus the Moon always has angular velocity and angular momentum.
Nate says:
”The Moons angular position in the sky is always changing, but at a variable rate.”
Thats pretty dumb. You mean its direction of travel is always changing.
”Its orientation wrt the stars is always changing at a constant rate.”
Well thats now a lie as this has been proven to be false and you are aware of the proof. Physical libration changes the angular velocity of the moon’s orientation wrt the stars.
“Nate says:
‘The Moons angular position in the sky is always changing, but at a variable rate.’
Thats pretty dumb. You mean its direction of travel is always changing.”
No. I mean exactly what I said. Do you not know what angular position means?
“Its orientation wrt the stars is always changing at a constant rate.”
Well thats now a lie as this has been proven to be false and you are aware of the proof. Physical libration changes the angular velocity of the moons orientation wrt the stars.”
Uggh.
At one moment you are claiming elliptical orbits are close enough to circular, just perturbations away.
The next you are whining about the MUCH MUCH smaller perturbations of the physical libration.
This shows that you have no core belief, you are just trolling.
Lunar physical librations:
“1.3 seconds of arc with a 1056 day (2.9 year) period for rotation about the polar axis,
a 74.6 year elliptical wobble of the pole of size 8.18 3.31 arcseconds, and
an 81 year rotation of the pole in space that is 0.03 seconds of arc in size.”
“Lunar Laser Ranging provides the determinations.”
for reference, a second of arc is
0.000277778 degrees.
So yes, during one orbit of the Moon, its rotation on its axis would be constant, within measurable error of ordinary observations.
Meanwhile a top spinning on the table is visibly wobbling around and precessing, and slowing down, YET, you will still say it is SPINNING on its AXIS.
Re: angular position of the Moon.
https://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm
“the daily motion of the Moon to the east can vary from as little as 11.6 degrees per day near apogee to as much as 14.8 degrees per day near perigee.”
Yes you should understand by now that there is no requirement for a rotation to have either constant angular momentum nor constant angular velocity. So why do you keep harping on this?
Nate says:
March 11, 2023 at 9:54 AM
Lunar physical librations:
1.3 seconds of arc with a 1056 day (2.9 year) period for rotation about the polar axis,
a 74.6 year elliptical wobble of the pole of size 8.18 3.31 arcseconds, and
an 81 year rotation of the pole in space that is 0.03 seconds of arc in size.
Lunar Laser Ranging provides the determinations.
for reference, a second of arc is
0.000277778 degrees.
So yes, during one orbit of the Moon, its rotation on its axis would be constant, within measurable error of ordinary observations.
Meanwhile a top spinning on the table is visibly wobbling around and precessing, and slowing down, YET, you will still say it is SPINNING on its AXIS.
———————————
Nate first off you only are listing ‘free’ physical librations. You did not list the much larger ‘forced’ physical librations which is found to be much larger and are occurring twice each rotation.
Finally, I am not the one claiming that such motions disqualify a motion from being a rotation.
I am pointing out the inconsistencies in your argument where you want to allow for physical librations of a rotation on an interior axis and then you about face and claim optical librations disqualify the motion around the earth from being a rotation.
In the world as you have defined it any rotation with any deviation whatsoever disqualifies the motion from being a rotation. Then you us this idiotic argument for your point of view.
Nate says:
At one moment you are claiming elliptical orbits are close enough to circular, just perturbations away.
The next you are whining about the MUCH MUCH smaller perturbations of the physical libration.
This shows that you have no core belief, you are just trolling.
——————————-
You are the one making nonsense arguments that any kind of variation disqualifies a motion from being a rotation. My core belief is that doesn’t disqualify anything.
You just want to apply a stupid argument then not eat its consequences by hand waving it away selectively. That inconsistency means your core belief is wrong.
“You are the one making nonsense arguments that any kind of variation disqualifies a motion from being a rotation.”
Have NOT said any such thing.
The Earth’s rotational axis has both precession and slight wobbles. That doesnt disqualify Earth from having rotation on its axis.
It changes shape also when rotating on an external axis versus free rotation on its internal axis.
The difference in shape between the earth and the moon is obvious. The earth has both tides from its sidereal rotation and a generically different shape due to its independent spin that provides us the synodic days. The moon though is not the oblate spheroid that the earth is because its axis is the center of the earth not its own axis.
“The difference in shape between the earth and the moon is obvious. ”
Relevance?
to a scientist it is a big clue about the nature of the forces working on the object and if you understand the forces you will understand why one has two basic motions and the other one basic motion and not get that mixed up because you want it to look just like a 2-dimensional drawing.
b4…Lspin = 0 no matter the reference frame. If it’s not rotating about a local axis in one frame it’s not rotating about a local axis in any frame.
Gordon, you continue to be wrong as the moon is rotating on its own axis wrt to the sun (a distant star) since sunshine is incident on all lunar faces just like Earth is rotating on its own axis with sunshine on all faces thus lunar Lspin is nonzero in the inertial frame.
The moon is not rotating on its own axis wrt to Earth since earthshine is incident on only the man in the moon face so earthen observed Lspin = 0. That ref. frame is itself rotating & once that acceleration is take into account wrt to inertial space find the moon is inertially rotating on its own axis, so again lunar inertial Lspin = nonzero.
This is dynamics 101 so Gordon’s comment is evidence Gordon hasn’t successfully passed that HS and college level physics course.
“to a scientist it is a big clue about the nature of the forces working on the object and if you understand the forces you will understand ”
As ever, you are mixing up cause and effect. This discussion has been what about what is the effect: What is the motion?
To discuss the causes is a different, quite complex topic.
Mixing up the two is a good way to obfuscate indefinitely. In any case, I think we’re done.
Nate says:
to a scientist it is a big clue about the nature of the forces working on the object and if you understand the forces you will understand
As ever, you are mixing up cause and effect. This discussion has been what about what is the effect: What is the motion?
——————
No you are confounding the use of the cause to define the motion with the cause to define the axis.
You simply want to define the motion via a perspective making a dramatic change in the definition of the motion where it makes no sense to draw such a line. Further you do it in defiance of many uses, and definitions of the motion given by scholars over the years to cherry pick those that either have misinterpreted the words of others or have not ever written a paper explicitly discussing the definition of the motion.
Your only support comes from analytical discussions of such visual effects as optical librations where for clear discussion one must distinguish between orbits and spins. In no case have any of your experts written about kinetic definitions with regards to gravitational systems.
So while forces don’t define a motion forces do define an axis. And you have no argument against that fact.
“So while forces dont define a motion forces do define an axis.”
Only motion, specifically rotation, defines the rotational axis of a body.
Earth’s axis through its poles is defined by the observable rotation around it, Im pretty sure we can all agree on that. Same goes for all the planets.
There is no rational reason to describe the Moon’s rotational axis any differently. It is defined by the observable rotation around it, nothing more.
The motion of the earth around the sun and the motion of the moon around the earth both define an axis as well Nate.
You just want to ignore that fact and make stuff up for why its not.
“The motion of the earth around the sun and the motion of the moon around the earth both define an axis as well Nate.”
Orbital ‘axis’ is simple the normal to the plane of the orbit.
The Earth’s rotation is observed to be in a plane tilted at 23.5 degrees to its orbital plane. This is its equatorial plane. Everyone with intelligence understands that this means Earth’s rotation is around an axis tilted at 23.5 degrees to the orbital ‘axis’, and thus CANNOT be a rotation around its orbital ‘axis’.
Moon’s rotation is OBSERVED to be in a plane tilted at 6.7 degrees to its orbital plane. This is its equatorial plane. Everyone with intelligence understands that this means Moon’s rotation is around an axis tilted at 6.7 degrees to the orbital ‘axis’, and thus CANNOT Be a rotation around its orbital ‘axis’.
Thus anyone declaring that the Moon is not rotating around a tilted internal axis but instead around its orbital ‘axis’, is simply ignoring the observable facts.
Nate says:
Orbital axis is simple the normal to the plane of the orbit.
The Earths rotation is observed to be in a plane tilted at 23.5 degrees to its orbital plane. This is its equatorial plane. Everyone with intelligence understands that this means Earths rotation is around an axis tilted at 23.5 degrees to the orbital axis, and thus CANNOT be a rotation around its orbital axis.
————————
Thats incorrect we understand that at least 365.25 of the earth’s rotation around its central axis is not in time with the orbit and thus must be an independent motion. All you are doing is taking something obvious and trying to make your case that all such rotations must me perpendicular to its orbital plane.
We understand from perturbation theory why the moon’s axis is tilted from its orbital plane and it has nothing to do with its orbital rotation or any thing that presented an independent spin on its axis.
If you want to make such claims provide a scientific reference and stop just making stupid declarations.
“We understand from perturbation theory why the moons axis is tilted from its orbital plane and it has nothing to do with its orbital rotation or any thing that presented an independent spin on its axis.”
This is pure fantasy, Bill. A fancy word, perturbation, is tossed out to obfuscate.
You have never shown understanding or explained any such thing.
https://www.britannica.com/science/celestial-mechanics-physics/Orbital-resonances
Nate says:
‘Both of these two motions are required to explain the observed motion of the Moon, as exemplified by its libration.’
One has to do that for a spinning moon as well if you want to explain all the motions of its particles.
You are not making a unique case here. The earth is an oblate spheroid because of deformations from the gravity of both the moon and the sun and the fact the earth does have a spin on its axis.
The moon is a scalene ellipsoid (football shape) precisely because of the gravity of earth and the fact that moon does not independently rotate on its own axis.
… as observed from Earth where observations also show lunar rotation on an external axis.
‘Both of these two motions are required to explain the observed motion of the Moon, as exemplified by its libration.’
“One has to do that for a spinning moon as well if you want to explain all the motions of its particles….”
If this is meant to be a rebuttal, I don’t one, Bill.
I dont see one.
You fail to see that the angular momentum of the moon is NOT conserved in a separate spinning motion.
Physical libration occurs. It is only conserved within a single motion. This is the nature of control.
You focus on the optical effect of libration instead of the physical. That is how magicians operate. . . .its not science. If you were a natural philosopher you would understand that.
The classic natural philosopher dilemma is a coin. Is it circular or oval/elliptical? It depends upon how you view it.
This is why a circle is an ellipse, its not a unique shape, its merely an ‘ideal’ ellipse. . . .the simplest form from which to build a geometric science. There is no ‘uniqueness’ to a circle and this is why there is elliptical rotation.
You are just locked in on narrow perspectives. Natural philosophy has many books on the matter. Your plea for the rotation of dismantling a nuclear missile to have a simple explanation is just that a desire to keep things simple.
Nothing more nothing less.
“You fail to see that the angular momentum of the moon is NOT conserved in a separate spinning motion.”
Once again, we can observe the Moon’s orientational change day to day, and see that it changes at a constant rate.
And physically this makes perfect sense. A massive planet spinning in a vacuum has HUGE rotational inertia. It wants to keep spinning at a constant rate.
Newton showed that orbital motion is elliptical and has a constant Lorb. From this he can deduce that a body’s angular position in its orbit changes at a non-constant rate as it moves farther and nearer the orbit center.
This varying angular rate turns out to be observable for the Moon.
“Physical libration occurs. It is only conserved within a single motion. This is the nature of control.”
This is yet another assertion without evidence.
“You focus on the optical effect of libration instead of the physical. That is how magicians operate. . . .its not science. If you were a natural philosopher you would understand that.”
Optical libration is much more significant, and it reveals the the true motion of the Moon in the inertial frame of reference.
The rest is off-topic yada yada yada.
Nate says:
”Once again, we can observe the Moons orientational change day to day, and see that it changes at a constant rate.”
——————
No it doesn’t!! Physical librations have proven it doesn’t
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
And physically this makes perfect sense. A massive planet spinning in a vacuum has HUGE rotational inertia. It wants to keep spinning at a constant rate.
——————–
Even when forces are applied against it? Wrongo again!!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
Newton showed that orbital motion is elliptical and has a constant Lorb. From this he can deduce that a bodys angular position in its orbit changes at a non-constant rate as it moves farther and nearer the orbit center.
—————————–
If viewed perpendicular to it orbital plane. Ball4 has been saying only idiots do that viewing something from a narrow perspective.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
This varying angular rate turns out to be observable for the Moon.
Physical libration occurs. It is only conserved within a single motion. This is the nature of control.
This is yet another assertion without evidence.
————————
You are denying physical libration?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
Optical libration is much more significant, and it reveals the the true motion of the Moon in the inertial frame of reference.
The rest is off-topic yada yada yada.
——————–
So says the flat earther.
“Physical libration occurs. It is only conserved within a single motion. This is the nature of control.
This is yet another assertion without evidence.”
Yep, the second and third sentences are both fictional and meaningless gibberish.
What is ‘conserved’ here? That word is typically used with energy or momentum.
How is something ‘conserved within a single motion’?
What has ‘control’ over what?
Are you just randomly stringing together technical words?
No its just you are one of the slower students in the room.
OK, so clearly you can’t explain it because it is indeed meaningless gibberish.
No its just you are one of the slower students in the room.
Its all out there in the mechanics and not in the subjective perspective you choose to use.
Uh oh.
You are sounding more and more like Clint when he evades answering science questions with ‘you don’t understand any of this’.
Which all of us have learned means: Clint doesn’t understand any of this.
And you are still unaware that science is much more about mechanics than appearance?
nate…”Once again, we can observe the Moons orientational change day to day, and see that it changes at a constant rate”.
***
Yes, but the change of orientation is not a rotation about a local axis. It is a property of a body moving with linear momentum and being bent into a curved path by a gravitational field.
Gordon, there is no change of orientation wrt to the sun (a distant star) in a body moving on a path only with linear momentum unaffected by the sun’s gravity. Once the sun’s gravity bends that path into curvilinear momentum, there is no change of orientation wrt to the sun (a distant star) either.
Sign up for, and pass, a dynamics 101 course.
“Yes, but the change of orientation is not a rotation about a local axis. It is a property of a body moving with linear momentum and being bent into a curved path by a gravitational field.”
A body moving with linear momentum being bent into a curved path by gravity is a body in an orbit.
As Newton showed, that path is elliptical, and his result says absolutely NOTHING about the orientation of that body, or the rate-of-change of the orientation (rotation rate) as it orbits, which is a separate parameter.
Consequently, we find that orbiting bodies in the solar system have various rotation rates and axes of rotation.
Indeed Nate rotary engines rotate and varying rates all the time. Yet another stupid argument on your part. One can always detect somebody struggling to come up with an argument by how many stupid arguments they come up with. optics, varying speeds, imperfect shapes without any tolerance standards you name it and they will find yet another stupid argument.
“various rotation rates” does not mean ‘varying rotation rate’ Bill.
Stop trolling, or being clueless.
Nate claims a rotary engine only has one rotation rate.
Bright guy there Nate!
Repeating a moronic lie doesnt convert it into a Pearl of Wisdom, Bill.
Just go troll elsewhere.
Your argument is that because the moon’s orbit has a variable rotation rate it can’t be a rotation.
all I did was apply that stupid idea to a rotary engine and what resulted? You denied your own argument.
“all I did was apply that stupid idea to a rotary engine and what resulted? You denied your own argument”
All you did was try to twist my post to say something I didnt say or mean at all.
This shows that you are have run out of real arguments, and are simply trolling.
Which was it Nate you denied? The rotary engine doesn’t have a variable angular velocity or was it the moon’s orbit?
What the hell is this absolutely incomprehensible, unscientific gibberish?
Speaking for myself here, it’s up to the ‘Spinners’ to argue how they want.
Above all, your arguments have nothing to do with mine, they are nothing more than the trivial opposite of your own trivial arguments.
I have nothing to do with such nonsense, and of course stick to my constantly repeated line.
1. In 1675 Isaac Newton explained to the German astronomer Nikolaus Kaufmann (Mercator) the results of Domenico Cassini’s work on the moon’s rotation, which Mercator published in 1676; and it must therefore be clear to everyone that Newton was firmly convinced of it.
Attempts to misinterpret Newton’s clear words are pathetic and show the willingness of the ‘Non-Spinners’ to twist scientific writings until they fit their narrative a posteriori.
2. Tobias Mayer was not only an astronomer with excellent knowledge of mathematics, but also very familiar with the physics theory and practice of his time.
3. That which Newton found correct and which Mayer first worked out in his treatise:
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abschrift%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Moon%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und% 20the%20apparent%20movement
that some ignoramuses can deny; but these ignoramuses cannot erase it.
Bindidon says:
What the hell is this absolutely incomprehensible, unscientific gibberish?
Speaking for myself here, its up to the Spinners to argue how they want.
Above all, your arguments have nothing to do with mine, they are nothing more than the trivial opposite of your own trivial arguments.
I have nothing to do with such nonsense, and of course stick to my constantly repeated line.
1. In 1675 Isaac Newton explained to the German astronomer Nikolaus Kaufmann (Mercator) the results of Domenico Cassinis work on the moons rotation, which Mercator published in 1676; and it must therefore be clear to everyone that Newton was firmly convinced of it.
———————————-
Its absoluting amazing! You actually believe that ‘science’ is a pronoun! where did you get your science training Bindidon?
“Tobias Mayer was not only an astronomer with excellent knowledge of mathematics…”
***
I would classify Meyer as an excellent mathematician with a specific interest in the Moon, not astronomy per se.
Kepler was the same although he expanded his interest to the solar system. Tycho Brahe was the astronomer who collected the data and fed it to Kepler.
binny…”…it must therefore be clear to everyone that Newton was firmly convinced of it”.
***
Not clear to me since Newton claimed…
1)the Moon moves with a linear motion
2)the linear motion is bent in a curvilinear motion by gravity
3)the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth.
Those points rule out a rotation about a local axis.
Anybody can compare Robertson’s absolutely incompetent, discrediting and denigrating trash about astronomer Tobias Mayer:
(1) ” Meyer was no more an astronomer than my Granny. He was a mathematician who dabbled in certain astronomical subjects like the Moon and Mars. ”
with the excellent historical research work done about him by the former professor for History of Science Eric Gray Forbes:
(2) Tobias Mayer’s Contributions to the Development of Lunar Theory
Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 1, p.144 (1970)
https://tinyurl.com/2avjyujm
No comment needed.
Meyer was a mathematician who dabbled in astronomy. So, was Kepler BTW. Tycho Brahe did the astronomy and Kepler applied mathematics to his data.
Kepler had no idea of why the Moon moved in an orbit, let alone an elliptical orbit. It was left to Newton to figure out the physics re orbital mechanics and gravity.
I have never claimed Meyer was a bad mathematician, in fact his detailed calculations proved otherwise. I just don’t think he had an interest in whether the Moon rotated on a local axis or not. I am sure he went along with the incorrect opinion of Cassini, as did other mathematicians and astronomers of the day.
Robertson
” I just dont think he had an interest in whether the Moon rotated on a local axis or not. ”
You are an arrogant, ignorant and completely opinionated idiot, unable (or even worse: unwilling) to read documents.
You are, together with Clint R and the Hunter boy, really the most stupid poster on this blog.
*
It was Mayer who as the very first person was able to compute selenocentric coordinates for Moon craters (completely independent of any optical libration effect perturbing their view from Earth), what made possible the development of trustworthy lunar tables.
And to achieve this, the ‘conditio sine qua non’ was to compute the inclination of the lunar spin axis wrt the Ecliptic.
*
But to understand the relevance of such things, one needs a sane, working brain: exactly what you don’t have.
And luckily, there are intelligent observers of science, e.g. Eric Gray Forbes: exactly the contrary of what you are.
“Meyer was a mathematician who dabbled in astronomy.”
Newton was a mathematician who ‘dabbled’ in astrophysics.
Galileo ‘dabbled’ in optics and in doing so, contributed greatly to Astronomy.
There were few boundaries between the fields back then. All were Natural Philosophers.
Natural philosophers have the ability to see both sides of an argument. Definitely lacking in the spinners.
Books Nate has read told him that. But he still doesn’t know what it is.
“Natural philosophers have the ability to see both sides of an argument.”
You probably come down strongly on one side of the Flat Earther ‘debate’. Does that mean you have no ability to look at both sides of the argument?
Not at all Nate. It is you who are taking a narrow view point. Ball4 should be criticizing you on that point.
He attempts to suggest that non-spinners see the moon not rotating because they are viewing it from earth. While that would be a poor perspective non-spinners do not see the moon not rotating. We see it rotating on an external axis wrt to the stars.
In your case though Nate you claim the moon is not rotating because the motion isn’t circular. But even a circle doesn’t appear to be a circle except when viewed perfectly perpendicular to the plane of the orbit. From every other perspective it appears elliptical. Likewise if you take an elliptical orbit you can view off the perpendicular as being circular.
Thats why a circle is an ellipse and a demand an orbit be circular to be a rotation on an exterior axis isn’t a valid distinction.
Ball4 should be taking you to task for using specialized viewpoints. Of course he won’t because he is a loyal sycophant.
“In your case though Nate you claim the moon is not rotating because the motion isnt circular.”
I have always said the Moon is rotating.
“But even a circle doesnt appear to be a circle except when viewed perfectly perpendicular to the plane of the orbit. From every other perspective it appears elliptical.”
More pseudo-philosophical BS from Bill.
This is where loser-trolls go when they can’t win on the actual, real-world facts of the argument.
Nate says:
‘In your case though Nate you claim the moon is not rotating because the motion isnt circular.’
I have always said the Moon is rotating.
————————-
Which is your inconsistency.
“I have always said the Moon is rotating.”
On its axis. And orbiting.
You can’t possibly be unaware that this is what Ive been arguing all this time?
But you keep saying if the rotation isn’t in a circle its not a rotation.
We know that all rotations adopt a elliptical orbit (non-perfect ellipse i.e. circle) from the pull of gravity on everything that stretches the particles into an elliptical movement.
We also know that engineers must provide tolerances to allow for this movement and provide some space for lubrication. If rotations were confined to circles it would have to happen in some universe without gravity.
Additionally since you brought it up that Newton was a Natural Philosopher, you opened the door to the perspective issue that Ball4 has been trying to improperly open. Newton being a Natural Philosopher must have been completely aware of the writings on epistemology that date back all the way to at least Aristotle.
So its inconceivable to me that Newton would fall into the same absurdities you have fallen hook, line, and sinker into.
Auditors doing professional audit work have to avoid such rat traps and look at every transaction from every conceivable angle or they inevitably will commit a form over substance error.
I am absolutely convinced that despite the choice of perspective that Newton might have chosen to convey his discoveries it was not his intent to have people look at stuff stupidly from a single perspective.
There is no question that the moon is a complex motion and it makes sense as I have been saying for well over a year since I first started on this topic and before I even made up my mind on what is the actual substance of the moon’s motion that there was a great deal of convenience and ease of work associated with breaking down missions to other celestial bodies into orbits and planetary rotation. And my extensive experience in navigation tells me that even though space travel has easier to deal with perturbations than does travel over the sea it still has very complex effects working on it from the gravity certainly of the planets and the sun in the solar system and from barycenter motion. Its practically impossible to navigate once on the ocean and get where you want to go. It was always fun to try and you could smile at your success if you made the harbor entrance from over the horizon before you had to recheck your progress but thats no routine.
“a great deal of convenience and ease of work associated with breaking down missions to other celestial bodies into orbits and planetary rotation. ”
Indeed. Glad to hear it.
But then you say “So its inconceivable to me that Newton would fall into the same absurdities”
So how can it be the case that is both an absurdity, and quite useful way to look at the motion.
As a philosophy guy, you know that the way we describe phenomena, with math, and models, is ultimately just a method for representing phenomena in the most useful and convenient way so that it can be predicted. But the model is not REALITY.
So given that, it seems we can agree that the model used by astronomy is simple, useful and convenient, and leave it at that.
The absurdity is elevating form over substance. Analytically breaking down a single complex motion has the same benefits even when the orbit is circular and the motion is less complex.
That essentially what the entire purpose of science is. So its fine to treat the moon as two separate motions to simplify a closer analysis.
But its really silly to believe that means its two physically independent motions caused by two independent means. Looking at the moon’s rotation like it was a two dimensional drawing is how one does analysis but one must not lose touch of the connectivity of the the individual parts of the analysis then run around trying to tell the public they are wrong when they are right. Isn’t that what mansplaining is?
I am sure Newton fully comprehended what science is and what it isn’t.
nate…”As a philosophy guy, you know that the way we describe phenomena, with math, and models…”
***
We are not modeling the Moon here, we are talking about how a body moves with a linear motion under the influence of a gravitational field. We have presented models like MOTL and MOTR and I have presented models of an orbital plane centred on an x-y plane, but those are nothing more than talking points and illustrations.
A model is an artifical representation of reality but if I claim the Moon moves with a linear momentum while keeping the same face pointed at Earth, that is not a model, it is a fact based on observation. You are arguing the Moon can move like that while rotating on a local axis at the same time. I have asked for proof that it can do that and no one has posted a proof.
The proof has been repeatedly posted. Gordon just doesn’t understand the proof.
“That essentially what the entire purpose of science is. So its fine to treat the moon as two separate motions to simplify a closer analysis.”
Great!
“But its really silly to believe that means its two physically independent motions caused by two independent means.”
Again, as I clearly stated, a model is a simplified representation of reality but it is not REALITY.
The motion is complicated with lots of parameters and pulls of gravity from multiple bodies, tidal sloshing, etc.
So believe whatever you want about the reality, but it would seem to be silly to call that ONE MOTION.
“but if I claim the Moon moves with a linear momentum while keeping the same face pointed at Earth, that is not a model, it is a fact based on observation. ”
If you are interested in observations, then you need to actually pay attention to the observations of the Moon. Its libration shows that it is rotating on a tilted axis, at a nearly constant rate, and orbiting around a different axis at a rate that varies significantly.
These are facts. And they are very hard to reconcile with a Moon that is just orbiting, and not rotating on its own local axis.
Gordon,
“We are not modeling the Moon here, we are talking about how a body moves with a linear motion under the influence of a gravitational field.”
Sorry odd chap,
The Moon is not moving with constant linear motion.
That’s because the Moon is constantly accelerating.
Nate says:
”These are facts. And they are very hard to reconcile with a Moon that is just orbiting, and not rotating on its own local axis.”
Nate’s ultimate argument the motion of the moon is too hard for him to comprehend as a rotation around the earth.
However, as my inventor grandfather used to constantly say: ”There is more than one way to skin a cat.” Thats generally the difference between people with extensive experience and those that never advanced to the engineering design level.
The latter usually only know one way to approach a problem.
“Nates ultimate argument the motion of the moon is too hard for him to comprehend as a rotation around the earth.”
You guys have never explained how you comprehend how ‘a rotation around the Earth’ would account for the complexity of the Moon’s motion, with its complex libration, and rotation in a different plane than its orbit.
Never.
All you have done is a semantic sleight of hand, simply re-labeling the Moon’s motion, whatever it is, however complex it is, a ‘rotation’, by FIAT.
So stop pretending you have comprehended anything.
Nate says:
All you have done is a semantic sleight of hand, simply re-labeling the Moons motion, whatever it is, however complex it is, a rotation, by FIAT.
So stop pretending you have comprehended anything.
——————————————–
Nate I am not the one trying to unnecessarily complicate the rotation of the moon around the earth. You sound like a lobbyist suggesting a law that people should consult a licensed rotation specialist before concluding anything rotates around anything.
Here is an explanation probably easy enough for you to understand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
Yes Bill, we have all seen the debunked video many times.
The argument is over, and you need to stop obsessively repeating the same tired talking points.
Who debunked the video?
Isn’t that exactly what you sycophants say about everything, completely without evidence, that doesn’t conform to your world view?
“Who debunked the video?”
You are a master baiter. Not falling for it.
Go back and review all the lengthy discussions of the video. You will see how it was debunked, if you actually care.
Got it Nate. You debunked it but had no sources to support your bullshit.
nate…”So an engineer instructs us to dismantle the nuclear missile by first rotating a certain part by 85 degrees around point P.
Are we supposed to understand that means move it 85 degrees on an elliptical path, like the orbit of Halleys comet, with its high eccentricity? Or are we free to move it on any path we want?”
***
On an ellipse, with a radial line centred on the principal focal point, where you’d find Earth, the number of degrees a radial line turns is the same as on a circle. It doesn’t matter that the point it is tracking on the ellipse causes the radial length to change.
” However, as my inventor grandfather used to constantly say: There is more than one way to skin a cat. Thats generally the difference between people with extensive experience and those that never advanced to the engineering design level.
The latter usually only know one way to approach a problem. ”
*
I would understand such an incredibly arrogant and know-it-all statement if it came from someone who is either genuinely experienced and therefore able to scientifically refute the doubted, or can relate to such people with similarly valuable experiences.
But the little Hunter boy hasn’t managed to show anything but his arrogance so far.
No scientific contradiction of centuries of scientific results supports his claims – neither from experienced people let alone from himself.
Apparently, little Hunter boy is one, if not one of the greatest, misjudged geniuses of the entire world of astronomy, physics, and mathematics altogether.
Mon Dieu! Quelle effroyable injustice!
bindidon doubles down on his declarations without any evidence of support.
” … on his declarations without any evidence of support. ”
The basic principle of Pseudoskepticism is to turn critique into a claim.
And so you do, Hunter boy.
You are the one who all the time claims to ‘know how it works’, here:
– that Moon ‘rotates’ about Earth’s center (or about Earth-Moon’s barycenter), though it in fact orbits, what is something else;
– that Moon’s physical librations (who were detected by astronomers and mathematicians as spin irregularities during their computations of Moon’s spin) are in fact its sole spin.
*
You, Hunter boy should provide for support backing up your claims. Not me.
Because I provided a big amount of sources who computed
– Moon’s spin
and
– the physical (forced and free) librations within its spin.
But you were brazen enough to claim they were all wrong – without having ever provided any evidence for your claim.
Never would you ever be able to scientifically prove Cassini, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, and recently Habibullin, Calamé, Eckhardt, Moons etc wrong.
But you claim they are.
What a cowardly behavior.
STRAWMAN ALERT!!!
I am not trying to prove anybody wrong but you Bindidon and the other spinner sycophants in this forum.
You are actually going to need a reference of any scientific discovery of any of those people you listed that I am allegedly trying to prove wrong together with an explanation why you think I am trying to prove them wrong.
All we have here is your lying face making such a ridiculous claim.
I was the first to point out that the spinner argument that the moon rotated on it own axis at a constant angular velocity with constant angular momentum was wrong.
Obviously, I am perfectly aware that the earth’s gravity physically forces changes in the moon’s orientation through out its rotation around the earth because of the elliptical shape of the orbit.
But that is part and parcel to any such rotation on an external axis anyplace in the real universe. There are no rotations around any axis where there is zero variation in the rotation rate and or distortion of the objects shape. Thats simply a fact in the real world that goes beyond your understanding of the degree of your own inculcation.
” You are actually going to need a reference of any scientific discovery of any of those people you listed that I am allegedly trying to prove wrong together with an explanation why you think I am trying to prove them wrong. ”
Wrong, Hunter boy.
#2
The basic principle of Pseudoskepticism is to turn critique into a claim.
And so you do, Hunter boy.
I never said you would try to prove wrong anything written by scientists!
I said – and say – you never did.
Why do you invert every statement I write?
Thus I ask you again: when will you finally disprove all these people who computed the lunar spin and its adjacent properties, aka inclination of the spin axis and physical librations?
My guess is that you aren’t interested to do that.
You simply want to continue claiming you and your acolytes are right – without feeling any need to prove it.
Bindidon you are simply favoring ”a type of discussion”.
If one is going to be talking about orbits and landings on the moon or mars one is going to use the equivalency of Lorb+Lspin=Lmoon or whatever.
Thats because like any navigation exercise the exercise is broken down into smaller parts. A transpacific ocean freighter is going to navigate an ocean to within a few miles of a port entrance. Then they are going to bring out the tugboats and a ‘pilot’ to navigate the port channel and berthings.
Same goes for astronomers who want to break down the moon’s single motion into individual elements for analysis.
If I spent a little time thinking about this I could come up with hundreds of similar examples. Building construction and design, especially of multi-story buildings are analyzed in many individual ways and often a single building element will be designed to deal with a large number of individual issues. Its routine to do this.
Yet you read it in your books and you go beyond that and start claiming multiple motions and a need to maintain the analytical separation where ever you can make any sense of doing so.
As I have said the moon’s motion around the earth is a single motion and could be duplicated with two identical objects and a single force to get the moon moving. Further its easy to identify the correct axis that this single motion goes around.
Fact is that aerospace engineers can actually do this. Its not always the case though if they want a satellite they can point in specific directions and its also not always the case because when an engineer learns a way of doing something he is often resistant to other ways of doing something.
So the non-spinners in here have recognized all that including your stick-in-the-mud technological elitism.
Hmm, Oregon has more drought than California, as does Florida {though
Florida has no deserts]. Texas has lots of drought- though imagine hurricanes would fix that. Map:
http://trinity.lakesonline.com/Level/
Trinity is low, and apparently it gets most of it’s water from snowpack- so I guess, not for long. All the others are quite full,
Lake Shasta added 2.35 feet today, but also seems they outflowing less in last week [or weeks prior they get more outflowing {I assume to make electrical power].
https://cdec.water.ca.gov/resapp/RescondMain
Very nice post
Thanks