|
Chatroom |
|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
04-April-2002, 03:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
You guys sure take a person to task. I think that's what I want to say. Yes, "HTML" is (stands for) HyperText Markup Language, .htm was and is the suffix used in 16 bit Windows and my machine, .html is the newer 4 letter suffix in 32 bit machines. My first computer was an Interact with 16 K of memory, built in tape deck, and chicklet key board. I later expanded to 32 K with rs-232 port. Hand assembled the "Forth" programing language and wrote the CPM to ROM interface. Before that I worked at a place that had the spinning aluminum disks with 1/4" magnetic tape around the edge for memory, the display terminals were the ends of vacuum tubes the glowing filaments shaped the numbers. AAhhhhhhhh the good ol days On with life. GrapesOfWrath Quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From that page, number 8 of your givens: "The moon is spiraling away from the earth. Thus, making it (appear) as if the moon were slowing by one revolution every 18.6 years." It appears to be slowing by one revolution every 18.6 years? I've been alive for more than twice that, and I haven't seen that slowing. One revolution per 18.6 years? What do you mean by a revolution then? Also from that page, given number 9: "During that one second the earth moves 29 970 meters around the sun, but the prime meridian at the equator moves in the opposite direction 463 meters." What do you mean by "opposite direction"? The Earth rotates in the same direction as it orbits the Sun (counterclockwise, as seen from above the North pole). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ That was three good questions. Please note I placed (appear) in parentheses. The Moon is not and I've said this before can not slow. No comments please. The recession of nodes and leap second are two of the Moon and Earth motions that are usually glossed over and or incorrectly explained (in my opinion). I can switch to e-mail or with Jeff's permission continue here. I certainly need the chalkboard for it though. The explaination completely covers the non-connected trajectory of the Moon as shown in the Recession of nodes .gif Gary NonEuclidG@aol.com |
|
04-April-2002, 02:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Does anyone else think that Sun picked a four-letter suffix for java apps (".java") just in order to annoy Bill Gates? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling. |
|
05-April-2002, 08:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
But I think that the main disagreements are to be found in basic physics, not astronomy. We need to talk about what exactly is "torque." I don't think we're using the word to mean the same thing. I also disagree with your summation of the history of the theory of the Earth-Moon tidal system, and why it was formulated. We're sort of on the edge of astronomy here. Not absolutely off-topic, but not fully on-topic. I'd say it's Phil's call, not mine.
__________________
Jeff Schwarz __________________________________________________ Argh!! They booby-trapped their sun!!****--Invader ZIM |
|
08-April-2002, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
<HTML><FONT BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12>Geo3gh
Posted: 2002-04-05 15:29*** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Not really my call, Gary. I may have asked the initial question, but it's the BA's board. As long as we keep things on topic I think we're fine to continue. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ OK, thanks. I knew you had started this thread so I gave you the option. It seems that my upstream swim upsets people who are somewhat set in their ways. Quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ We need to talk about what exactly is "torque." I don't think we're using the word to mean the same thing. I also disagree with your summation of the history of the theory of the Earth-Moon tidal system, and why it was formulated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ As a machinist for over 30 years I think I understand torque. Torque is a continuous pressure (force) applied to a mass at Usually 90 degrees to the radius of the axis or center of that mass. To maintain that pressure over the extended time, either the force would need to increase, or the axis of the mass would need to be attached or held to the source of the force by a secondary force. In an electric motor the field and armature are connected by the bearings, then the motor is securely bolted to the machine (Earth). This is one of the major problems of working in space to torque (turn) a bolt you must supply the second force or connection. I've tried to say this before, but here it is again The Earth and Moon cannot torque each other without a secondary connection. Kicking the 4 x 4 across the ice is an impulse not a torque. In the astronomy books the term "tidal force" is used to explain the "leap second" and the "recession of nodes", amongst other things. One of the reasons I haven't responded here sooner is that I've tried to prepare a proper explanation (with chalkboard) for those 2 things. So far I have this one. recession of nodes ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gary</FONT></HTML> |
|
08-April-2002, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about this... Since the pull of gravity is the "same" as the pull of a rocket motor, imagine that you've got the board, on the ice, with lots of identical little rocket motors affixed all along its length.
No problem: the board moves, and doesn't rotate. Now suppose that the rocket engines at one end are weaker than those at the other end, with a nice smooth gradient. The board moves...and rotates. Gravity pulls *with less force* on things that are farther away. If the board started out at an angle with regard to a very large mass, the nearer end gets pulled toward the mass *more strongly* than the farther end. In this example, with the little rockets, the torque comes from the difference in thrust. However, the exact same sum of forces could be provided with one single rocket engine out toward one end of the board. The force vectors can be added, and you can calculate the force required. This is why, while the moon's gravity is acting at all times on all parts of the earth, for the purpose of calculating the torque, we speak of a "resultant" or "sum" force vector -- that acting on the equatorial bulge -- that causes a change in angular momentum. If I recall correctly, torque is *defined* as change in angular momentum, just as force is *defined* as change in regular momentum. (F=ma; t=m*am) Silas |
|
08-April-2002, 06:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
What we (Don and I at least) have been using is this: "the product of the force and the perpendicular distance from the line of action of the force to the axis of rotation" Or, mathematically speaking, "R cross F" All we are saying is that there is a force, which we will label with the Greek letter "tau", between the Earth and the Moon, that is non-zero and therefore results in a transfer of angular momentum from the Earth's rotation to the Moon's orbit. Do you follow me?
__________________
Jeff Schwarz __________________________________________________ Argh!! They booby-trapped their sun!!****--Invader ZIM |
|
16-April-2002, 07:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jeff
Quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ All we are saying is that there is a force, which we will label with the Greek letter "tau", between the Earth and the Moon, that is non-zero and therefore results in a transfer of angular momentum from the Earth's rotation to the Moon's orbit. Do you follow me? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm afraid so. That is pretty much a quote from the astronomy books. I have a neat perpetual motion machine I'd love to sell. Or, maybe a big bridge. Or, a bucket of prop wash. I'm sorry gravity doesn't work that way. The Earth and Moon "suck" they don't "blow" sidewise. Please look it up and "not" in the astronomy books. All astronomical bodies are attracted to each other or held together by gravity. The resultant forces are as if those huge bodies of particles were singular point sources of that force and it is as if that force acts on a singular point within all other bodies. Those points are called centers of gravity (c of g). If there are 2 bodies each body has a single (c of g). If there are 3 bodies then each body has 2 (c of g), and so on. Those centers are self locating such that they are at the place around which all the weight created by the attracting body is equally distributed. Because that weight is equally distributed there is no torque or turning. Here on earth to mechanically balance a wheel, a shaft, or any other object, that object must be supported in all 3 dimensions by a combination of primary forces such as bearings or "V" blocks firmly attached to the earth. Then that object must be rotated by a secondary force, the source of which must also come from the same earth base (reference frame). That secondary force can, but need not be earth's gravity. Weight/mass is then added or removed such that the object will not rotate, or will continue to rotate indefinitely. If you examine what I just said you find that there are two forces one holds, and one turns, both of which emanate from the same source. This could be called an unbalanced force. Note that an axis was predetermined. What happens if we take that unbalanced object to space? If it is given a spin it spins around any axis that passes through its center of mass/angular momentum. Any bearing or axis it may have had is irrelevant. The mass of the object determines the location of the axis of spin. Astronomical bodies are suspended from, fall around, or are hung from their gravitational centers and they have no axial bearings. Those gravitational centers need not be and are usually not anywhere near their centers of mass or angular momentum axis. Because gravity obeys the law of superposition the centers of gravity take on an imaginary location that is free to move at the speed of light as the body moves. Therefore astronomical bodies have no secondary bearing or support so they are in balance. There is no torque due to gravity with the following exceptions. As I explained if there are three bodies there will be two centers of gravity. The Moon has a radically offset core mass. The Earth and Sun both use that core as a (c of g) handle. It is that handle, which provides the monthly +/- accelerations to maintain the face on locked position. The Earth has two major (c of g). The Earth's rotation is toward the sources (Sun Moon) 1/2 the time and away from those sources 1/2 the time. Again because the forces are 50:50 the Earth is not being slowed down. Earth however is non-homogenous and its two (c of g) work on its lumps: thus we have what is called plate tectonics. The Earth is therefore being ground up and redistributed into a homogenous mass. Perhaps one of the following should have been the foremost question of this thread. When will the earthquakes stop? When will that crazy old guy go away? Gary |
|
16-April-2002, 08:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Every astronomer, physicist and mathematician on the planet is wrong, and you (and only you) are right? Impressive ego you've got there.
__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day. T. Anderson |
|
16-April-2002, 09:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
SeanF "Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF |
|
16-April-2002, 10:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
That's why we were using examples such as lengths of wood; we've got an object that is "longer" in one direction than another. There is a lovely old story about a tutor trying to explain a mathematical theorem to his student, who happens to be a rich and powerful prince of the realm. The tutor tries over and over to explain, but the student continues to say, "I'm sorry, but I just don't see it that way." Finally, the tutor, in despair, cries out, "I give you my word of honor, it is true!" And the prince immediately nods, and says, "I accept that; if you had only said so in the first place, we could have saved a great deal of time." We give you our word of honor; it is true! Silas |
|
18-April-2002, 03:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
SeanF
Quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ You want us to "look up" how gravity works, but not in astronomy books? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yes, look up the law of gravity including the law of superposition, and centers of gravity, in physics books. Kaptain K Quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ So... Every astronomer, physicist and mathematician on the planet is wrong, and you (and only you) are right? Impressive ego you've got there. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm truly sorry that it looks like an ego thing. It is not. Einstein had to prove Newton wrong and even with his brain power it wasn't easy. I know all to well I'm not in that league. I'd as soon leave the physicist and mathematician out of this, unless of course they were working not just giving lip service. If you read a book and then quote that book you could be wrong. I've read quite a bit one book said a cow jumped over the Moon, another said the Moon was made of "blue" cheese. And yet another said the cheese was "green". Let me make 2 statements. 1) Gravity pulls or holds the Earth and Moon together, gravity causes the tides, the tides push the Earth and Moon apart. 2) The Moon is going slow so it keeps falling farther and farther behind. Now you tell me, which made the most sense. Silas Quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ We give you our word of honor; it is true! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Very good I except that. Here is all that I ask. You say the Moon is slowing the Earth, and the Earth is causing the Moon to move away. What I would like is for someone perhaps yourself to make the correct calculations to prove the length of time the Moon could have been in orbit above the Roche limit. Carl Sagan and others said the number should be around 400,000,000 years. The last time I tried it I came up with about 402 million. I'll not argue over a couple million. I believe I said this before you must use the present vectored speed of assent, which I 'think' is about 4.888 meters per second, not the 3.8 cm per year. If you find that Carl Sagan was, and that I am correct, wouldn't it seem rather strange that the Moon was somewhere else for over 4.5 billion years? Perhaps that is where it got the craters. Wouldn't you have a slight question as to how it got up there? And just maybe wonder when within those 400 million years it happened? I know I sure did! Gary |
|
19-April-2002, 07:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
19-April-2002, 04:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
GrapesOfWrath
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ What is the vectored speed of assent? How are you using it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thank you again for the best questions. Let me start with an example. Let's say that you and I are on the freeway bumper to bumper at 55 mph in the slow lane. Then which ever one of us is in the lead accelerates to 65 mph. The person now doing 65 starts to slowly move ahead even though they are no longer accelerating. They are just going faster. I think you can follow that. Now then just suppose the one doing 65 moves over into the second lane to pass someone else doing 55. They vectored over one lane. Again just suppose this to be a 6 lane mega highway and suppose that every minute they move over one more lane until they are in the commuter lane. At this point the distance separating the two cars will be along the vector but still growing because of the speed difference. Even though the commuter lane isn't that far from the slow lane the distance between the cars is great. Just suppose for a second that the lead car had not accelerated to 65, but had made the lane changes at 55 or even started slowing down to 50. What then? Each year the Moon moves away from the Earth one more lane width about 3.8 cm, but the speed at which it moves along the vector is the critical factor. I hope that makes a little sense. I posted a drawing earlier trying to showing the Moons 3-D vector. Recession of nodes .gif Cars on the freeway are only 2-D not 3-D. The Moon's recession of nodes motion is the other component of the 3-D vector. I tried to show that more thoroughly in my recession of nodes.htm page. Gary <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gary Redmond on 2002-04-19 11:59 ]</font> |
|
19-April-2002, 08:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Neither link mentions vectored speed of assent--and neither seems to deal with the increase in the distance between the moon and the Earth.
What'd I miss? How are you using it, and why does it make a difference in your calculations? |
|
21-April-2002, 12:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
GrapesOfWrath
Quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Neither link mentions vectored speed of assent--and neither seems to deal with the increase in the distance between the moon and the Earth. What'd I miss? How are you using it, and why does it make a difference in your calculations? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sorry. To me if the Moon moves away from the Earth, or the distance between their centers increases then they are ascending. If the pull of gravity is down, then up would be ascending. I have re-posted Recession of nodes .gif with a few changes. In it I show the Moon's non-closed loop trajectory in (red). If the Moon were in what might be called a pure orbit it would follow a closed loop (fuchsia dots). As the Moon goes around the Earth it (recedes or ascends) at the same time it recesses (opposite of precesses). So the vectored rate of assent is an imaginary (dark blue) dotted line connecting the ends of the red line. The outward motion is the 3.8 cm per year or 3 mm per month, which is negligible. The recession is about 1 revolution every 18.6 years. Math time: If the Moon is 240,000 miles away. Then C = pi * D 1 revolution = aprox. 1,507,964 million miles. 1 / 18.6 of a rev = aprox. -81,073 miles per year or -6,200 mile per month. I would say that 81 thousand miles per year is important wouldn't you. Note: If the Moon were in a perfect orbit it would gyroscopically precess and the -81,073 miles would be a slightly positive number. Also in the recession of nodes.htm (10 th and last drawing) the green arrow -6200 miles per month of recession motion is far more important then the 3 millimeters of outward motion. In my cars on the freeway example, it's as if the expanding distance between the cars (65 vs. 55) would be over three trips around the Earth every year. Yet not only did the lead car not change lanes it didn't even get across the white line. Using your (the) astronomy books and the "R cross F" theory, the closer the Earth and Moon were to each other, the stronger would have been the gravitational pull, the faster they should have separated. In other words the vectored assent over the past eons should have followed a reversed ballistic parabola. "R cross F" vectored trajectory.gif We know the Moon to be about 240,000 mile away, to divide that by 81,073 and then say the moon has only been in orbit 3 years would be a little weird. What you need do is calculate the length of the parabolic spiral from the Moon's present location back down to the Roche limit. Then divide that distance by the 81,073 miles per year to find the number of years. Did this help? Gary |
|
21-April-2002, 05:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
21-April-2002, 02:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"assent" means to agree to something. An "ascent" is a rise. "to ascend" is the verb form.
"vector" is a noun, not a verb. Nor can it be used as an adjective (said adjective seems to be just using the nonexistent verb in this case). You can "express something as a vector" but you cannot "vector", nor can you "vector something". (At least in physics. I gather in aviation you can "vector an airplane", but even they don't use it as an adjective, and we're talking physics here, anyway.) Hence, you cannot have a "vectored something". Speed is a scalar, the absolute value of the vector, velocity. "recession" is not the opposite of "precession". "Recession" is the noun, "recede" is the verb. "To recess" does not mean to move away from. It means "to put into a recess", "to make a recess in" or "to interrupt for a recess (to take a recess)". Your "center of gravity" concept is useless except in the case of spherical symmetry, where it's the same as the center of mass, and hence redundant. It will not do what you want it to do. Non-sperically symmetric bodies can and do exert gravitational torque on each other. The math is easy to prove, and we have shown it to you several times. You have several axioms that are just flat-out wrong, and hence you are developing faulty conclusions. I will quote them here in isolation, in the hope that you will recognize that they don't work. I don't see any point arguing about the conclusions when the premises are flawed. Flawed premise number 1: "The resultant forces are as if those huge bodies of particles were singular point sources of that force and it is as if that force acts on a singular point within all other bodies." This is simply not true, except in the spherically symmetric case. It can't be generalized. Flawed premise number 2: Your "torque needs two forces" scenario. What you say may be true on earth, from a mechanist's point of view, but it is purely a selection effect, not intrinsic to the definition of torque. Yes, on Earth, there is always some kind of holding force against which you, the mechanist, are applying torque. This is simply a side effect of being on earth. Perhaps we are using different definitions of torque, as Jeff suggests, but you are using the *effect* of a physicist's torque (a change in angluar momentum), while claiming your machinist's definition (there have to be two forces). Therein lies the problem. We are claiming a change in angular momentum of the earth by the torque from the moon, so you have to use the physicist's definition. An example: you take a wrench (or stick), and throw it up in the air, but just before you release it, you push down. It will start to spin like crazy. You've thus torqued it without any secondary force. And if you think gravity is the secondary force in this case, let's go back to the two by four on the ice: grab it by one end and start pushing it, and then pull back on your end. Again, it will spin (hence there was a torque) and here there is only one force in the problem: you pushing it. If you correct for these problems and still don't understand how the earth and the moon are torquing each other, we can try again, but I'm not going to try to argue the finer points of the evolution of the earth/moon system as long as we've got these basic problems in the very definitions and premises. Yours, Don <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DoctorDon on 2002-04-21 13:16 ]</font> |
|
22-April-2002, 04:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
GrapesOfWrath Please forgive me. I have as much trouble with my drawing in 4 dimensions as with my English. ("assent" "ascent") I have reposted my "R cross F" vectored trajectory.gif Again: Using your (the) astronomy books and the "R cross F" theory. The closer the Earth and Moon were to each other, the stronger would have been the gravitational pull. The stronger the pull the greater would have been the slowing. The greater the slowing the faster should have been the separation. In other words the vectored "ascent" over the past eons should have followed a reversed ba |
