Please! Don't confuse the poor guy! We're trying to work up from the basics, using spheres for planets and circular orbits. Once he comprehends this, *then* we move on to next approximations.

If you're teaching a Kindergardener the ABC's, is it really necessary to mention diphthongs?

Silas

Welcome back Silas I missed you. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]


By the way I am completely serious, and quite certain if you guys give me half a chance I can prove everything I'm saying.

BTW do you remember back on 2002-05-27 23:50, when you wrote about balancing the broomstick. Don't run off with it because I think I need it for my next experiment.





roidspop

Quote:

================================================== =================

I wish I could draw on this blamed thing...



The moon's "centrifugal force" can take out the horizontal component,
but what's taking out that "downward" arrow? Nothing! The moon would
"fall" downward and eventually bob into an orbital plane with the
earth's center in the middle.

================================================== =================

Yes, drawing was my first problem here. I can't talk, without a pen, or chalk. As I've mentioned AOL provides each member with multiple screen names, and each name is allowed 2 meg of space for web posting on their machines. Check with your provider. I could post .gif's If you pass them over via e-mail. noneuclidg@aol.com



What do I say now? Hummmmm?


Here goes. You sound as if you might be scientific enough to try set aside some of the past and look at other possibilities. For 200 or so years it has been taught that the Earth and Moon are slowing. Now I try to say that is wrong. That's scary.


OK. You have the whole thing exactly correct. Now all you need is the solution to this one extra force problem. Correct?

Let me draw an arrow or three.

Here you go. Conic orbit .gif

The Earth is traveling around the galaxy in the direction of the south pole (black arrow).

The Moon is traveling around the galaxy in the direction of its south pole (gray arrow).

The Earth and Moon are traveling around the galaxy at slightly different speeds. That makes the Moon appear to slow (red arrow). It is not slowing it only appears to be slowing because it is going more slowly.



In your above you say "The moon would *fall* downward and eventually bob into an orbital plane with the earth's center in the middle."
And I say that is exactly what is happening, or trying to happen.


So the question is why is the Moon not around the equator where it should be. I say it is because of momentum. When the Moon arrived in orbit (trajectory) it did so at a given speed and mass. The problem is the speed is slow. Newton's first law says that the speed will continue forever unless acted upon. The only thing acting on it is the Earth's gravitational tug (as you correctly surmized).

The force is so weak it will take 5 billion years to catch up.


Did that make any sense?




Gary



PS. Also look at the Recession of nodes .gif again. In that drawing the slow speed is the orange arrow. Hopefully you can see how the difference in speed causes the regression (blue dotted line).

Gary,

You keep bringing up the motion around the galaxy as if it was relevant to the discussion of the relative motion of the Earth-Moon system. It is not! Nor are the motion of the E-M system around the Sun nor the motion of the galaxy wrt the CBR.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

There is a misconception about how science works. It's especially prevalent in CTs and HBs and just about anyone who thinks they've got a theory that has it right. The reason no one accepts their theory is that science is handed down from on high, from the ivory tower. If any of us wants to keep our jobs we have to toe the line, speaking the "proper" science as a mantra. (Anyone remember that "Carrot" dude from a while back?)

That's not how it works, Gary. Anyone can derive the results for him/herself if they've got a good physics education. Once you understand torque, angular momentum, the laws of motion and gravity, you can work out orbital mechanics and tides for yourself. But since it's already been worked out, why not teach it as a package?

The cool thing about science is how it all works together. I can point a laser at the moon and get its distance from me. Do that over time and I find that it is getting farther away from me. I can time the sidereal month. Over time I see that it takes longer and longer to complete a sidereal month. I can look at tidal rhythmites and see ancient evidence for the moon's motion away from the earth 2.5 billion years ago. Each of these observations is made with different assumptions, yet they agree with one another.

Gary, you're trying to make your theory in a vaccuum (figuratively speaking). The Earth-Moon Tidal model does not stand alone. If you change it, there are a host of observations that no longer fit together. Observations that SHOULD fit together.

You're effectively saying that our knowledge of how orbits work is wrong. The tidal model you're attacking derives from the same equations that sent men to the moon; that keep the telecommunication satellites in geosynchronous orbit; that make the ISS possible. In order for you to be right, Gary, they can't work. They do indeed work. Your theory fails. Sorry.

_________________
Jeff Schwarz
__________________________________________________
I have Invader's blood marching through my veins
like giant radioactive rubber pants! The pants
command me! Do not ignore my veins!
--Invader ZIM

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Geo3gh on 2002-06-18 13:59 ]</font>

OOPS

I reposted with the same file name. My cache memory and history trail kept going back to the previous drawing. Let me try fix it for you.

Conic orbit .gif


Sorry about that.

Gary

Apparently you weren't paying attention.

As a consequence of your theory, one would expect certain empirical data. In this case, the plane of the Moon's orbit not passing thru the center of the Earth. Your theory would have it distinctly in the Northern Hemisphere.

We have instruments sensitive enough to detect that, if it were true. We do not find it to be so.

Your theory makes a prediction that is not born out by the evidence. Your theory is wrong. QED.

__________________
Jeff Schwarz
__________________________________________________
Argh!! They booby-trapped their sun!!****--Invader ZIM

Geo3gh says:
"We have instruments sensitive enough to detect that, if it were true."

Not only that, but a false orbital calculation would be glaringly obvious when the eclipse didn't occur where predicted [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
(pun intended)

--Tommy
http://www.tommyraz.com

And think of all the horoscopes that would be wrong if the planets weren't in the right signs. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

_________________
Jeff Schwarz
__________________________________________________
I have Invader's blood marching through my veins
like giant radioactive rubber pants! The pants
command me! Do not ignore my veins!
--Invader ZIM

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Geo3gh on 2002-06-18 19:30 ]</font>

Gary, what influence do you imagine is causing the "drag" or whatever it is on the moon that is making it trail the earth? If you buy my little word-diagram, you've got this downward vector hanging there...if there isn't a matching one going up, the moon is coming down...period. Now, what in the world is causing any drag?

My understanding is that our galactic orbit takes about 200+ my to complete...figure out the angular acceleration and it is just near enough zip. So forget "centifugal force".

What is doing this?

Geo3gh

Quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently you weren't paying attention.

As a consequence of your theory, one would expect certain empirical
data. In this case, the plane of the Moon's orbit not passing thru the
center of the Earth. Your theory would have it distinctly in the
Northern Hemisphere.

We have instruments sensitive enough to detect that, if it were true. We do not find it to be so.

Your theory makes a prediction that is not born out by the evidence.
Your theory is wrong. QED.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff,

I would truly love to say "ditto" or worse. This is so frustrating.

I am not a very good salesman so if I use what are called you messages, through out the rest of this it is purely out of that frustration.



I give you the evidence you request, and you refuse to look at it. You on the other hand quote stupid generalities from your books, which I have told you are wrong.



Yes, the instruments are good enough. The measurement is about 1/4 the diameter of the Moon at that distance. To prove my point you need the Moon's maximum apogee ascension from the southern hemisphere, and the Moon's maximum apogee ascension from the northern hemisphere.
I do not have that information nor do I know how to get it. You on the other hand may know where and how.



A far simpler method is to draw a geometric model using the data we have. I can and have done so. I've said it before if you don't like my pictures draw your own.



As I've told you the regression of nodes shows the Moon elliptic to be above the Earth elliptic. I even made the calculations to tell you by how much. Yes, I made an error, but I corrected it. You refuse to go look at my drawings that prove it. How can I show you, if you refuse to look?



Here is a list of the data:



Nodic month 27.212221 days

Sidereal month 27.321662 days

Distance to the Moon 240,000 mile

Angle of Moon orbit 5.15 degrees.

Pi = 3.14159265359 . . .



You will need a scientific calculator like what is here in the computer or a trig table. Other than the following description that explains the regression of nodes I can't think of anything else you might need.


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''

Copyright - 1993 Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc.


It is convenient, however, to think of the orbit
of the Moon as Keplerian at any instant, but with slowly
changing ORBITAL ELEMENTS. For instance, roughly
speaking, the ascending node (the point in the Moon's
orbit when it crosses the plane of the Earth's equator
northward) is regressing with a period of 18.6 years, and
the direction of perigee is advancing with a period of
8.85 years. The eccentricity, inclination, and semimajor
axis of the orbit all have small periodic variations with
no cumulative effects.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''

Using the above description I drew the following picture.

Would you please look at the drawings and go through it with me.

It's not that complicated.



Regression of nodes calculation .gif



The Moon's elliptic lies approximately 540 miles north of the barycenter.



I have left out the half of the calculation that shows the height of the Earth cone, which BTW is about 6.5 miles.



Thus the Earth elliptic and Moon elliptic are approximately 547 miles apart.




Gary

Fantastic, and thank you for the excellent questions.

I can see that you understand completely that the force must come from an external source.

If we were to go to Antarctica, to the pole, lay down on the ice and look at the Southern Cross we can easily see there is absolutely nothing to slow the Moon down, or speed the Earth up.

For 30 years I lived in Alaska and during those long nights I looked up at Polaris many times and never did I see anything pulling on the Moon or pushing on the Earth.

Therefore It must be residual momentum nothing more nothing less.

Newton's first law says once put in motion a body remains in motion at the same speed unless acted upon.

The Earth is pulling on the Moon trying to slow its backward fall.

Let me make this assumption and see what you think.
The Moon at some time in the not to distant past was an inner planet, approximately 1/3 the way to Venus. Its highly elliptical orbit brought it out close to the Earth's inner most perihelion. The Earth would have been moving fast, the Moon very slow.
They touched surface to surface and became tangent to each other.

To this day the Moon is still going slow the Earth is going fast.

The result of that speed difference is the separation of the elliptical planes. The regression of nodes motion is the result that shows that separation in time and space.

It is not that difficult to calculate when the Earth and Moon collided. It's just hard to break through the old ideas.


Gary

Fine picture. Since the three downward-pointing black arrows are the same size, why don't you eliminate them? They're just clouding the issue.

How big do you believe the upward-pointing blue arrow is?

The length of the synodic month is of no interest to us: it's a result of the earth's travel around the sun. Throw it away.

We might actually be coming close to looking at the same thing...

What is an "elliptic?" I think you may be confusing this word for some other word.

Silas

Silas
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine picture. Since the three downward-pointing black arrows are the
same size, why don't you eliminate them? They're just clouding the
issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, and I really am glad you didn't go to "Never Never Land". These are good and pertinent questions.
The big black arrows represent galactic speed, which is about 12.5 miles per second. Yes, the whole solar system is going that way so perhaps they could be removed. The problem is the Moon has what amounts to about a 12.5 mile per hour (not per second) speed negative to that of the galaxy. That speed is shown with the gold arrows. This is where it is confusing the negative galactic speed manifests itself as part of the forward speed. This leads directly to your next (most timely) question.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How big do you believe the upward-pointing blue arrow is?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume you mean the little short one A-C. But let me continue with the long blue one, which goes from B through C and beyond. As the Moon makes its second pass northward through the ecliptic plane at B, it continues on and through the plane chosen as the sidereal divisor at C. Therefore line B-C is covered in a time of 0.109441 days. At the speed the Moon travels that amounts to about 6050 miles. Perhaps someone out there has more accurate data.
And now for the little blue arrow. The Moons orbit angle is as I said 5.15 degrees. According to this calculator tan 5.15 = 0.09012730662186 times 6050 = 545.2702050622.
So the little blue arrow is 545.2702050622 miles long approximately.
I didn't show it, but the Earth center would (relatively speaking) move down, about 6.5 mile during that same time.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The length of the synodic month is of no interest to us: it's a result
of the earth's travel around the sun. Throw it away.
We might actually be coming close to looking at the same thing...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ditto.
I hope so.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is an "elliptic?" I think you may be confusing this word for some
other word.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I've said I didn't make it to school and English is if'y at best.
The Moon is on a non closed trajectory so you can't really call it an elliptic plane. The trajectory is kind of like the top of a funnel with a saw tooth edge, but it has an apogee and perigee so it is rather elliptical in shape.
What would you call it?

Gary

[quote]
On 2002-06-19 13:19, Gary Redmond wrote:
Newton added something about an "outside force". You said it further up...there isn't one.

I'm not sure what 'residual momentum' is, but I know (perhaps I shouldn't use that word!)that it takes a force to transfer momentum between two objects. If the moon were captured by the earth, as you propose or by some other method, I see them in an elliptical orbit around their common center of mass, and I see their mutual gravitation stretching the crust, lifting the sea and atmosphere at every perigee, then relaxing as they move apart. It takes a lot of energy to stretch a couple of planets! And that energy gets dissipated as heat. The orbit circularizes.

But, there's no evident reason why the moon should be retarded in southerly direction. Can't be gravitational, because it would work on everything else equally (presuming that the source was far enough away). If it were just "momentum", that would have leaked away as heat by now.

I don't think you've got a case here, not without some big help from the observational guys. As to the capture scenario, all I can do is wave my hands vaguely...seems pretty unlikely that two bodies would just 'kiss' and begin orbiting each other. Pretty long odds there. Much more likely to miss. Some chance of a collision, greater than a tangential interaction. Then there's the isotopic evidence from the moon rocks, and I'll let the geologists interpret that.

I've stayed away from astronomy books, since I know you disagree with them. You asked that we look to physics books, and that is what I've done. Funny how the equations look like what you'd find in astronomy books, since it all hooks together.

I got the orbital formula from the chapter on gravitation in my physics book.

Are you now saying that my physics book is wrong as well? It derives the orbit equations directly from Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation. Or are you saying that only Newton's First Law holds?

I have seen two things that you call evidence. Your drawings, which explain your theory. But your theory cannot be evidence of itself. The evidence needs to come from the outside.

The other piece is the difference in the lengths of the month, depending on how you define the month. It's the motion of the Earth around the Sun that causes these differences. You give a different cause. Since there is an alternate explanation (that works well) you do not have unequivocal evidence here.

I've been quoting from many sources. The coral evidence comes from paleontology. The tidal rhythmites are geology. The laser ranging of the Moon is of course astronomy, but then who else would it be?

My point is that the evidence I bring forth comes from all sorts of scientific disciplines. They all support each other. I hope you're not taking the position that all these disciplines are wrong if they disagree with you.

This would be a good start for evidence. But I'm not going to do your homework for you. (The beauty of the Null Hypothesis is that it is so much less work.) I recommend a public or college library. Or possibly check the web sites of observatories. I don't know if you'll find raw data published, but you should find something approximating what you're looking for.

As an aside, before you dig up the data, what do you calculate the results should be, according to your model?

It's not a matter of liking your pictures or not. I think they're fine. I have found them useful in understanding what it is you're trying to say. I'm glad you've been taking the time to post them.

(But as of this writing, the link to the "Regression of nodes calculation .gif" is broken, so I haven't got to see it yet.)

Sorry I haven't been indicating that I've indeed been looking at them. I have been.

__________________
Jeff Schwarz
__________________________________________________
Argh!! They booby-trapped their sun!!****--Invader ZIM

And that's the central problem. I think you are incorrect. Such an extraneous velocity violates everything I have ever been taught about orbital mechanics. I have never seen it in any astronomy textbook.

I have no idea where to go from here. At this point, I, and most of the others in this thread, simply declare, "You're wrong." We all now know, clearly and visually, what your theory is, and we, unanimously, reject it.

I know that this must be depressing, as we came all this way toward clearing up misunderstandings, confusion, ambiguities, etc. Your diagrams were, in the final run, very helpful, as they allowed us to visualize what your theory entails.

But the time has come for you to face the music. You can have a blindfold and a last cigarette if you want... Or you can provide actual observational evidence. 12 miles an hour is a small velocity in astronomical terms, but it would add up. If your theory is right, at the end of the year, the moon would be over 100,000 miles distant from where our theory says it should be. That's roughly a 30 degree angle as viewed from the earth; I think we'd all be able to see it clearly.

Silas

roidspop
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You sure packed a lot of stuff in a little space. I'll try to respond, but not in the same order for some reason it usually is in the reverse.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then there's the isotopic evidence from the moon rocks, and I'll let the geologists interpret that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is very much like what Jeff keeps saying and I keep avoiding him. The reason I'm doing that is that I believe each science needs to stand on its own. If they support each other that's good, but it is possible that as human we can be swayed by other stuff. I think the geologists were "perhaps" swayed by the astronomers. Who were "perhaps" wrong.


Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the capture scenario, all I can do is wave my hands vaguely...seems pretty unlikely that two bodies would just 'kiss' and begin orbiting each other. Pretty long odds there. Much more likely to miss. Some chance of a collision, greater than a tangential interaction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The odds? As I keep saying I didn't make it to school and I'm not sure how to figure them. But, I have given much thought to it, as you might guess.
This is kind of what I came up with.
Space is an infinitely large sphere. At one time the Earth was a circle painted on the inside, the Moon was at the center of that space. What's the chances of them ever seeing each other or missing each other?
OK, now if they do approach each other what is the chance they will collide head on, center to center. On a sub atomic level the possibilities are infinitely remote so I would place those odds very close to the same as, their ever having seen each other. It looks to me that a tangent pass is very very close to a 50/50 split. That's pretty silly, right? The only thing that biases that is gravity. If the Earth and Moon were all there was; gravity would bring them together. So I would say a tangent impact is within the realm of possibility. If we look out in space we find many other moons it's what around 60 and counting now, I think. This makes me wonder why so few and then again why so many? I really think it has to be statistically related to the number of bodies in a given (solar system) space. Moving bouncing colliding capturing.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it were just "momentum", that would have leaked away as heat by now.
I don't think you've got a case here, not without some big help from the observational guys.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Momentum P = mass m times the velocity v.
It's a mass at a speed in some direction.
No heat.


Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The orbit circularizes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's trying, it will take until an infinate length of time to happen.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, there's no evident reason why the moon should be retarded in
southerly direction. Can't be gravitational, because it would work on
everything else equally (presuming that the source was far enough away).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, there is. At least to me.
I got flack for this before. But, I'll try again.
This again falls under the luck of the draw. The manner and directions at which two bodies collide are infinitely variable. Gravity biases in a way to increase the likelihood of impact, but, the where and how must be way way out there as to possibilities. Nevertheless here it is.

Please take a look at this launch01.gif drawing.

I am not going to even pretend to be a rocket scientist, but this is the way it looks to me.



With the exception of the speed of light, velocities vector add.



Therefore:

If a satellite is North to South Launched such as launched from Florida.

It will reach apogee somewhere over the South Atlantic. When it does, not only does it have its own speed, but that of the vectored Earth and galactic speed as well. That is why they shoot them that way, correct? Now this is where I get a little lost, but I think they continue to accelerate as well as fall towards perigee. What all that does, is place those near Earth satellites, at a speed in excess of the speed for reentry. These satellites precess at a very excessive rate, with a life expectancy of 2-10 years till melt down.



OK, Silas where is your broom, these satellites are in such an unstable condition from the start it's a miracle they stay up at all.



In contrast, a launch from somewhere "downunder" will have a satellite arriving at apogee with less than galactic speed. Even being all down hill from there, the satellite will continue to move away from the Earth. It will constantly have the negative speed until it reaches some distant orbit 5 billion years from launch.



The Moon was launched from the southern hemisphere. Thank the stars for that one.



Quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

'residual momentum'

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I figured that might cause problems. Redundance is redundent.



Gary