Why the planets have not fallen on the Sun?

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on April 06, 2017, 09:22:41 AM

That's even funnier that I thought it would be.

Do you have anything that you actually want to discuss, or do you just want to try to pick apart every little thing that I say?

Dear markjo, sorry to say that, but it looks like you're not competent in the topic. You want to say something, - and I highly appreciate that, - but you simply have no clue. Absolutely.

 

Even thought this is the very heart of the RE Theory...

 

Fortunately, our dear Rabinoz has recently entered the discussion and even kindly collected some data. We might wait till he presents the results of his calculations, sheds bright light of his wisdom and enlightens us...

 

Dearest Humble_Scientist, you aren't the least bit patronizing, are you?

Or humble.

And I seriously doubt that you're a scientist.

None other than Dr. Farouk El-Baz put forward this very intriguing statement:

The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?

    Farouk El Baz,
    NASA

What are the chances of winning the lottery?
Yet somebody does.

Looks like just "a figure of speech" to me anyways. You know, what are the chances that what is truly happening .......... happened? Look at the chance for all of us to even be alive to be here discussing these things.

None other than Dr. Farouk El-Baz put forward this very intriguing statement:

The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?

    Farouk El Baz,
    NASA

I see you are unable to learn.  You've been shown before that the above only applies to the FULL moon and NOT the moon in general yet you still post the quote as if there is nothing wrong with it.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on April 04, 2017, 10:31:25 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

RET is claiming that there are some satellites orbiting the planet Earth. Those of them that are closer to the planet experience certain friction caused by the rare Earth's atmosphere at high altitudes. Thus, the satellites are gradually lowering. If new rockets are not sent to push them higher, they are eventually to be burnt by immense heat of friction in the lower, denser layers of the atmosphere. Their remnants, if any, fall on the surface of Earth.

RET is also claiming that the planets of Solar System are rotating around the Sun much like the satellites are rotating around the planet Earth. The planets, it is said, have been doing that for many billions of years and are expected to do that for who knows how long. All of them are immersed in the heliosphere, which is, as far as I understand, a rarefied Sun's atmosphere.

Why the planets of our Solar System have not fallen on the Sun yet?

I think you probably need to support your claim that the heliosphere imposes any sort of drag on planets. I'm not saying it doesn't, just that I've not seen that suggested before.

The moon's orbital height is known to be increasing and there seems to be some evidence that the same is true of the earth:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17228-why-is-the-earth-moving-away-from-the-sun/

Dear Copper Knickers, thanks for the links.

In brief, the first link (Article Updated: 1 Mar, 2017) says that the Moon "Today it’s drifting away at 1-2 cm/year" and will abandon Earth:

"50 billion years from now, 45 billion years after the Sun has grown weary of our shenanigans and become a red giant, when the days have slowed to be 45 hours long, the Moon will consider itself all moved into its brand new apartment ready to start its new life."

The second article (1 June 2009) says that
"the sun and Earth are gradually moving apart. It’s not much – just 15 cm per year – but since that’s 100 times greater than the measurement error, something must really be pushing Earth outward."
It also mentions an explanation, according to which "the distance between the Earth and sun is growing because the sun is losing its angular momentum." What puzzles me is why the article does not mention Jupiter, which, according to RET, should exert a much stronger ingluence on the Sun and, therefore, according to the article's logic, experience much stronger tidal forces, pushing the planet out. Is Jupiter moving away from the Sun, too?

My attempt to find an answer to this question brought interesting opinions:

From here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/planets-moving-closer-to-the-sun.34774/

"At present, the Earth is moving in towards the sun at about .00000005 AU per century.
Mars is moving in at .00007221 AU per century. Saturn, Neptune and Pluto are also moving in.
Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Uranus are moving out away.

The eccentricities of the planets are also changing with time, some decreasing and some increasing, though the change in semimajor axis and eccentricity do not follow any connected pattern. (some planets that are moving in are decreasing eccentricity, while others are increasing)

All these changes are due to Secular perturbations and do not remain constant. For instance, the Earth's eccentricity is decreasing at this time, but in 24,000 years it will start to increase again. In this time the average distance to the sun will only decrease by some 1800 km; very little when compare to the Earth's diameter (12000 km) not to mention the 4 million km the Planet moves in and out from the sun over the course of a year."

From here:
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/11958/are-planets-moving-away-from-the-sun

"... Jupiter for example is thought to have moved closer to the sun during the late heavy bombardment, then back outwards. So I suspect that through the wormhole didn't get that point quite right. Observations by the Kepler Spacecraft in the hunt for exoplanets suggests that a number of planets in other solar systems have moved closer to their suns over time.

In general, there's a few parts to this question.

On the sun losing mass:

Yes, it is, but only a little bit. See Here. Their math isn't complete as they don't factor in coronal mass ejections or take into account the sun's expected increase in luminosity, but the gist of their point remains true. The sun is only losing a tiny percentage of it's mass. The effect on planetary orbits is pretty small.

Sunlight also creates a pressure against the planets, but this effect, isn't very much due to the comparatively enormous mass of the planets compared to the light and coronal mass ejection material that hits the planet.

Tides

Tidal effects can work either way depending on the rate of rotation compared to the planet's orbital rotation. If the star turns ahead of the planet, the tidal force should push the planet slowly outwards, like the Earth is currently doing to the Moon. If the planet moves around the star faster than the star turns, the tidal effect is reversed and it slowly pulls the planet in. At our Sun's current rate of rotation it's moving ahead of all the planets, so there should be a small tidal force that pushes the planets outwards, but very very slowly.

Orbital debris and effective loss of angular momentum during planet formation.

If the orbit is littered with dust and comets, asteroids and such, the sun can gain mass faster than it loses it and the planets can effectively slow down as they move through the dust or orbital debris with more oblique orbits. This may be the explanation for hot Jupiters and so many observed planets very close to their suns in other solar systems.

Planets can affect each other.

See here and a curious possibility here. Planet to planet effects are tiny unless they are in resonance where the effect can be amplified and become significant over time."

From here: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/11243/how-has-the-earths-orbit-changed-over-hundreds-of-millions-or-billion-of-years


"... for example, Jupiter is thought to have moved in towards the sun then started moving away. Article

and Uranus and Neptune may have switched spots Article

Is there any pretty good evidence on how the Earth's orbit has changed over time. I remember reading some geological evidence that a year used to be longer, implying that the Earth used to be farther form the Sun, but I've since been unable to find that article".


However, there are other opinions. For example, this article of January 22, 2007
http://www.space.com/3373-earth-moon-destined-disintegrate.html
says that first, the Moon will go away from Earth, but when the Sun becomes a red giant, the Moon will move closer to Earth because of the drag in the Sun's atmosphere. BTW, why the Earth will not fall into the Sun, the article does not explain, though it mentions that the Earth will experience the drag, too. Then, at a distance of 11,470 miles (18,470 kilometers) from the Earth, the Moon will be destroyed.

And this article of 15 May 2015 https://www.quora.com/Is-moon-coming-closer-to-the-earth-What-will-happen-if-it-comes-too-close assures that
"For the last few billion years the Moon's gravity has been raising tides in Earth's oceans which the fast spinning Earth attempts to drag ahead of the sluggishly orbiting Moon. The result is that the Moon is being pushed away from Earth by about 40 millimeters per year, and our planet's rotation is slowing.

If left unabated the Moon would continue in its retreat until it would take about 47 days to orbit the Earth. Both Earth and Moon would then keep the same faces permanently turned toward one another as Earth's spin would also have slowed to one rotation every 47 days. A "day" will be 1,128 hours long!"

In other words, a RET author may write whatever s(he) pleases on this and similar topics. Since these RET predictions would typically be realized a few billion years from now, the reader has no chance to verify the claims. Amazingly, it looks like some folks are even getting paid for such articles. A golden mine!
 

Fortunately, our dear Rabinoz has recently entered the discussion and even kindly collected some data. We might wait till he presents the results of his calculations, sheds bright light of his wisdom and enlightens us...

If you really want to know, we aren't the people to ask.

It is a problem that only an astrophysicist could discuss intelligently, and I doubt there are any around here.
This link is only about artificial earth satellites Forbes, Why Are Earth-Orbiting Satellites Fundamentally Unstable?
You could study it in detail, spend AU$101.79 and buy

There is a lot said on the internet that makes little sense to me, but this seems to be one of the best:
Quora, Is Earth's orbit decaying? If so, at what rate? When/will we crash into the Sun?

By the way, I seemed get the best results searching for "Do the orbits of planets decay, solar wind?"
I put in "solar wind" to weed out lots of irrevant stuff.

So, go and find out for yourself.

Signed, Still not "your dear Rabinoz"

So start addressing others in a bit more normal manner.

But, you have always set yourself up as the online psychologist ,
but you failed abysmally with Papa Legba!

Just another question which shows lack of understanding of science.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/312514/60891

That answer explains why moon, earth, etc. don't fall into the object they are orbiting using GEOMETRY. Now please don't tell geometry is wrong. No physics involved. Just pure math!

Quote from: Copper Knickers on April 04, 2017, 02:36:22 PM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on April 04, 2017, 10:31:25 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

RET is claiming that there are some satellites orbiting the planet Earth. Those of them that are closer to the planet experience certain friction caused by the rare Earth's atmosphere at high altitudes. Thus, the satellites are gradually lowering. If new rockets are not sent to push them higher, they are eventually to be burnt by immense heat of friction in the lower, denser layers of the atmosphere. Their remnants, if any, fall on the surface of Earth.

RET is also claiming that the planets of Solar System are rotating around the Sun much like the satellites are rotating around the planet Earth. The planets, it is said, have been doing that for many billions of years and are expected to do that for who knows how long. All of them are immersed in the heliosphere, which is, as far as I understand, a rarefied Sun's atmosphere.

Why the planets of our Solar System have not fallen on the Sun yet?

I think you probably need to support your claim that the heliosphere imposes any sort of drag on planets. I'm not saying it doesn't, just that I've not seen that suggested before.

The moon's orbital height is known to be increasing and there seems to be some evidence that the same is true of the earth:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17228-why-is-the-earth-moving-away-from-the-sun/

Dear Copper Knickers, thanks for the links.

You are welcome.

In brief, the first link (Article Updated: 1 Mar, 2017) says that the Moon "Today it’s drifting away at 1-2 cm/year" and will abandon Earth:

"50 billion years from now, 45 billion years after the Sun has grown weary of our shenanigans and become a red giant, when the days have slowed to be 45 hours long, the Moon will consider itself all moved into its brand new apartment ready to start its new life."

The second article (1 June 2009) says that
"the sun and Earth are gradually moving apart. It’s not much – just 15 cm per year – but since that’s 100 times greater than the measurement error, something must really be pushing Earth outward."
It also mentions an explanation, according to which "the distance between the Earth and sun is growing because the sun is losing its angular momentum." What puzzles me is why the article does not mention Jupiter, which, according to RET, should exert a much stronger ingluence on the Sun and, therefore, according to the article's logic, experience much stronger tidal forces, pushing the planet out. Is Jupiter moving away from the Sun, too?

I'm heartened that the links have piqued your interest and spurred you to further research.

My attempt to find an answer to this question brought interesting opinions:

From here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/planets-moving-closer-to-the-sun.34774/

"At present, the Earth is moving in towards the sun at about .00000005 AU per century.
Mars is moving in at .00007221 AU per century. Saturn, Neptune and Pluto are also moving in.
Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Uranus are moving out away.

The eccentricities of the planets are also changing with time, some decreasing and some increasing, though the change in semimajor axis and eccentricity do not follow any connected pattern. (some planets that are moving in are decreasing eccentricity, while others are increasing)

All these changes are due to Secular perturbations and do not remain constant. For instance, the Earth's eccentricity is decreasing at this time, but in 24,000 years it will start to increase again. In this time the average distance to the sun will only decrease by some 1800 km; very little when compare to the Earth's diameter (12000 km) not to mention the 4 million km the Planet moves in and out from the sun over the course of a year."

From here:
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/11958/are-planets-moving-away-from-the-sun

"... Jupiter for example is thought to have moved closer to the sun during the late heavy bombardment, then back outwards. So I suspect that through the wormhole didn't get that point quite right. Observations by the Kepler Spacecraft in the hunt for exoplanets suggests that a number of planets in other solar systems have moved closer to their suns over time.

In general, there's a few parts to this question.

On the sun losing mass:

Yes, it is, but only a little bit. See Here. Their math isn't complete as they don't factor in coronal mass ejections or take into account the sun's expected increase in luminosity, but the gist of their point remains true. The sun is only losing a tiny percentage of it's mass. The effect on planetary orbits is pretty small.

Sunlight also creates a pressure against the planets, but this effect, isn't very much due to the comparatively enormous mass of the planets compared to the light and coronal mass ejection material that hits the planet.

Tides

Tidal effects can work either way depending on the rate of rotation compared to the planet's orbital rotation. If the star turns ahead of the planet, the tidal force should push the planet slowly outwards, like the Earth is currently doing to the Moon. If the planet moves around the star faster than the star turns, the tidal effect is reversed and it slowly pulls the planet in. At our Sun's current rate of rotation it's moving ahead of all the planets, so there should be a small tidal force that pushes the planets outwards, but very very slowly.

Orbital debris and effective loss of angular momentum during planet formation.

If the orbit is littered with dust and comets, asteroids and such, the sun can gain mass faster than it loses it and the planets can effectively slow down as they move through the dust or orbital debris with more oblique orbits. This may be the explanation for hot Jupiters and so many observed planets very close to their suns in other solar systems.

Planets can affect each other.

See here and a curious possibility here. Planet to planet effects are tiny unless they are in resonance where the effect can be amplified and become significant over time."

From here: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/11243/how-has-the-earths-orbit-changed-over-hundreds-of-millions-or-billion-of-years


"... for example, Jupiter is thought to have moved in towards the sun then started moving away. Article

and Uranus and Neptune may have switched spots Article

Is there any pretty good evidence on how the Earth's orbit has changed over time. I remember reading some geological evidence that a year used to be longer, implying that the Earth used to be farther form the Sun, but I've since been unable to find that article".


However, there are other opinions. For example, this article of January 22, 2007
http://www.space.com/3373-earth-moon-destined-disintegrate.html
says that first, the Moon will go away from Earth, but when the Sun becomes a red giant, the Moon will move closer to Earth because of the drag in the Sun's atmosphere. BTW, why the Earth will not fall into the Sun, the article does not explain, though it mentions that the Earth will experience the drag, too. Then, at a distance of 11,470 miles (18,470 kilometers) from the Earth, the Moon will be destroyed.

And this article of 15 May 2015 https://www.quora.com/Is-moon-coming-closer-to-the-earth-What-will-happen-if-it-comes-too-close assures that
"For the last few billion years the Moon's gravity has been raising tides in Earth's oceans which the fast spinning Earth attempts to drag ahead of the sluggishly orbiting Moon. The result is that the Moon is being pushed away from Earth by about 40 millimeters per year, and our planet's rotation is slowing.

If left unabated the Moon would continue in its retreat until it would take about 47 days to orbit the Earth. Both Earth and Moon would then keep the same faces permanently turned toward one another as Earth's spin would also have slowed to one rotation every 47 days. A "day" will be 1,128 hours long!"

In other words, a RET author may write whatever s(he) pleases on this and similar topics. Since these RET predictions would typically be realized a few billion years from now, the reader has no chance to verify the claims. Amazingly, it looks like some folks are even getting paid for such articles. A golden mine!
 

Good work. To me it is unsurprising to find that there are many factors that may determine the future orbits of earth and other planets.

Do you feel you have answered your original question now?

Dearest Humble_Scientist, you aren't the least bit patronizing, are you?

Or humble.

And I seriously doubt that you're a scientist.

   

Dear markjo, regarding science and scientists, there is an excellent description of both, made by Swift over 300 years ago. I absolutely admire it, especially when applying for grants. BTW, when my kids told me that they are so proud of me and want to be scientists, too, my answer was quick: "Over my dead body!"

 

Enjoy the description and observations made by the great mind, o my (un)happy brethren, - and run for your life:

Chapter V.

The Author permitted to see the grand Academy of Lagado. The Academy largely described. The Arts wherein the Professors employ themselves.

1   THIS Academy is not an entire single Building, but a Continuation of several Houses on both sides of a Street, which growing wast was purchased and applyed to that Use.

2   I was received very kindly by the Warden, and went for many Days to the Academy. Every Room hath in it one or more Projectors, and I believe I could not be in fewer than five Hundred Rooms.

3   THE first Man I saw was of a meager Aspect, with sooty Hands and Face, his Hair and Beard long, ragged and singed in several places. His Cloths, Shirt, and Skin were all of the same Colour. He had been eight Years upon a Project for extracting Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers, which were to be put into Vials hermetically Sealed, and let out to warm the Air in raw inclement Summers. He told me, he did not doubt in eight Years more, he should be able to supply the Governors Gardens with Sun-shine at a reasonable Rate; but he complained that his Stock was low, and entreated me to give him something as an Encouragement to Ingenuity, especially since this had been a very dear Season for Cucumbers. I made him a small Present, for my Lord had furnished me with Money on purpose, because he knew their Practice of begging from all who go to see them.

4   I went into another Chamber, but was ready to hasten back, being almost overcome with a horrible stink. My Conductor pressed me forward, conjuring me in a Whisper to give no offence, which would be highly resented, and therefore I durst not so much as stop my Nose. The Projector of this Cell was the most Ancient Student of the Academy. His Face and Beard were of a pale Yellow; His Hands and Cloths dawbed over with Filth. When I was presented to him, he gave me a very close Embrace, (a Compliment I could well have excused.) His Employment from his first coming into the Academy was an Operation to reduce human Excrement to its original Food, by separating the several Parts, removing the Tincture which it receives from the Gall, making the Odour exhale, and scumming off the Saliva. He had a weekly Allowance from the Society of a Vessel filled with Human Ordure, about the bigness of a Bristol Barrel.

5   I saw another at work to calcine Ice into Gun-Powder, who likewise shewed me a Treatise he had written concerning the Malleability of Fire, which he intended to publish.

6   THERE was a most ingenious Architect who had contrived a new Method for building Houses, by beginning at the Roof and working downwards to the Foundation, which he justified to me by the like Practice of those two prudent Insects the Bee and the Spider.

7   THERE was a Man born blind, who had several Apprentices in his own Condition: Their Employment was to mix Colours for Painters, which their Master taught them to distinguish by feeling and smelling. It was indeed my Misfortune to find them at that time not very perfect in their Lessons, and the Professor himself happened to be generally mistaken: This Artist is much encouraged and esteemed by the whole Fraternity.

8   IN another Apartment I was highly pleased with a Projector, who had found a Device of Plowing the Ground with Hogs, to save the Charges of Plows, Cattle, and Labour. The Method is this; In an Acre of Ground you bury at six Inches distance, and eight deep, a quantity of Acorns, Dates, Chesnuts, and other Maste or Vegetables whereof these Animals are fondest: then you drive six hundred or more of them into the Field, where in a few Days they will root up the whole Ground in search of their Food, and make it fit for Sowing, at the same time manuring it with their Dung; it is true upon Experiment they found the Charge and Trouble very great, and they had little or no Crop. However, it is not doubted that this Invention may be capable of great Improvement.

9   I went into another Room, where the Walls and Ceiling were all hung round with Cobwebs, except a narrow Passage for the Artist to go in and out. At my Entrance he called aloud to me not to disturb his Webs. He lamented the fatal Mistake the World had been so long in of using Silk Worms, while we had such plenty of Domestick Insects, who infinitely excelled the former, because they understood how to weave as well as spin. And he proposed farther, that by employing Spiders, the Charge of dying Silks should be wholly saved, whereof I was fully convinced when he shewed me a vast number of Flies most beautifully coloured, wherewith he fed his Spiders, assuring us, that the Webs would take a Tincture from them; and as he had them of all Hues, he hoped to fit every body's Fancy, as soon as he could find proper Food for the Flys of certain Gums, Oyls, and other glutinous Matter to give a Strength and Consistence to the Threads.

10   THERE was an Astronomer who had undertaken to place a Sun-Dial upon the great Weather-cock on the TownHouse, by adjusting the annual and diurnal Motions of the Earth and Sun, so as to answer and coincide with all accidental Turnings by the Wind.

11   I was complaining of a small Fit of the Cholick, upon which my Conductor led me into a Room, where a great Physician resided, who was famous for curing that Disease by contrary Operations from the same Instrument. He had a large pair of Bellows with a long slender Muzzle of Ivory. This he conveyed eight Inches up the Anus, and drawing in the Wind, he affirmed he could make the Guts as lank as a dried Bladder. But when the Disease was more stubborn and violent, he let in the Muzzle while the Bellows were full of Wind, which he discharged into the Body of the Patient, then withdrew the Instrument to replenish it, clapping his Thumb strongly against the Orifice of the Fundament; and this being repeated three or four times, the adventitious Wind would rush out, bringing the noxious along with it (like Water put into a Pump) and the Patient recover. I saw him try both Experiments upon a Dog, but could not discern any Effect from the former. After the latter, the Animal was ready to burst, and made so violent a Discharge, as was very offensive to me and my Companions. The Dog died on the Spot, and we left the Doctor endeavouring to recover him by the same Operation.

12   I visited many other Apartments, but shall not trouble my Reader with all the Curiosities I observed, being studious of Brevity.

13   I had hitherto seen only one side of the Academy, the other being appropriated to the Advancers of speculative Learning, of whom I shall say something when I have mentioned one illustrious Person more, who is called among them the universal Artist. He told us he had been thirty Years employing his Thoughts for the Improvement of human Life. He had two large Rooms full of wonderful Curiosities, and fifty Men at work. Some were condensing Air into a dry tangible Substance, by extracting the Nitre, and letting the Aqueous or fluid Particles percolate; others softening Marble for Pillows and Pincushions; others petrifying the Hoofs of a living Horse to preserve them from foundring. The Artist himself was at that time busy upon two great Designs; the first to sow Land with Chaff, wherein he affirmed the true seminal Virtue to be contained, as he demonstrated by several Experiments which I was not skilful enough to comprehend. The other was, by a certain Composition of Gums, Minerals, and Vegetables outwardly applied, to prevent the Growth of Wool upon two young Lambs; and he hoped in a reasonable time to propagate the Breed of naked Sheep all over the Kingdom.

14   WE crossed a Walk to the other part of the Academy, where, as I have already said, the Projector in speculative Learning resided.

15   THE first Professor I saw was in a very large Room, with forty Pupils about him. After Salutation, observing me to look earnestly upon a Frame, which took up the greatest part of both the Length and Breadth of the Room, he said perhaps I might wonder to see him employed in a Project for improving speculative Knowledge by practical and mechanical Operations. But the World would soon be sensible of its Usefulness, and he flattered himself that a more noble exalted Thought never sprung in any other Man's Head. Every one knew how laborious the usual Method is of attaining to Arts and Sciences; whereas by his Contrivance, the most ignorant Person at a reasonable Charge, and with a little bodily Labour, may write both in Philosophy, Poetry, Politicks, Law, Mathematicks and Theology, without the least Assistance from Genius or Study. He then led me to the Frame, about the sides whereof all his Pupils stood in Ranks. It was twenty Foot Square, placed in the middle of the Room. The Superficies was composed of several bits of Wood, about the bigness of a Dye, but some larger than others. They were all linked together by slender Wires. These bits of Wood were covered on every Square with Paper pasted on them, and on these Papers were written all the Words of their Language in their several Moods, Tenses, and Declensions, but without any Order. The Professor then desired me to observe, for he was going to set his Engine at Work. The Pupils at his Command took each of them hold of an Iron Handle, whereof there were fourty fixed round the Edges of the Frame, and giving them a sudden turn, the whole Disposition of the Words was entirely changed. He then commanded six and thirty of the Lads to read the several Lines softly as they appeared upon the Frame; and where they found three or four Words together that might make part of a Sentence, they dicttated to the four remaining Boys who were Scribes. This Work was repeated three or four times, and at every turn the Engine was so contrived, that the Words shifted into new places, or the square bits of Wood moved upside down.

16   SIX Hours a-day the young Students were employed in this Labour, and the Professor shewed me several Volumes in large Folio already collected, of broken Sentences, which he intended to piece together, and out of those rich Materials to give the World a compleat Body of all Arts and Sciences; which however might be still improved, and much expedited, if the Publick would raise a Fund for making and employing five hundred such Frames in Lagado, and oblige the Managers to contribute in common their several Collections.

17   HE assured me, that this Invention had employed all his Thoughts from his Youth, that he had employed the whole Vocabulary into his Frame, and made the strictest Computation of the general Proportion there is in the Book between the Numbers of Particles, Nouns, and Verbs, and other Parts of Speech.

18   I made my humblest Acknowledgement to this illustrious Person for his great Communicativeness, and promised if ever I had the good Fortune to return to my Native Country, that I would do him Justice, as the sole Inventer of this wonderful Machine; the Form and Contrivance of which I desired leave to delineate upon Paper as in the Figure here annexed. I told him, although it were the Custom of our Learned in Europe to steal Inventions from each other, who had thereby at least this advantage, that it became a Controversy which was the right Owner, yet I would take such Caution, that he should have the Honour entire without a Rival.

19   WE next went to the School of Language, where three Professors sate in Consultation upon improving that of their own Country.

20   THE first Project was to shorten Discourse by cutting Polysyllables into one, and leaving out Verbs and Participles, because in reality all things imaginable are but Nouns.

21   THE other was a Scheme for entirely abolishing all Words whatsoever; and this was urged as a great Advantage in point of Health as well as Brevity. For, it is plain, that every Word we speak is in some Degree a Diminution of our Lungs by Corrosion, and consequently contributes to the shortning of our Lives. An Expedient was therefore offered, that since Words are only Names for Things, it would be more convenient for all Men to carry about them, such Things as were necessary to express the particular Business they are to discourse on. And this Invention would certainly have taken Place, to the great Ease as well as Health of the Subject, if the Women in conjunction with the Vulgar and Illiterate had not threatned to raise a Rebellion, unless they might be allowed the Liberty to speak with their Tongues, after the manner of their Ancestors; Such constant irreconcileable Enemies to Science are the Common People. However, many of the most Learned and Wise adhere to the New Scheme of expressing themselves by Things, which hath only this Inconvenience attending it, that if a Mans Business be very great, and of various kinds, he must be obliged in Proportion to carry a greater Bundle of Things upon his Back, unless he can afford one or two strong Servants to attend him. I have often beheld two of those Sages almost sinking under the Weight of their Packs, like Pedlars among us; who when they met in the Streets would lay down their Loads, open their Saddles and hold Conversation for an Hour together; then put up their Implements, help each other to resume their Burthens, and take their Leave.

22   BUT for short Conversations a Man may carry Implements in his Pockets and under his Arms, enough to supply him, and in his House he cannot be at a loss; Therefore the Room where Company meet who practice this Art, is full of all Things ready at Hand, requisite to furnish Matter for this kind of Artificial Converse.

23   ANOTHER great Advantage proposed by this Invention, was that is would serve as an Universal Language to be understood in all civilized Nations, whose Goods and Utensils are generally of the same kind, or nearly resembling, so that their Uses might easily be comprehended. And the Embassadors would be qualified to treat with foreign Princes or Ministers of State to whose Tongues they were utter Strangers.

24   I was at the Mathematical School, where the Master taught his Pupils after a Method scarce imaginable to us in Europe. The Proposition and Demonstration were fairly written on a thin Wafer, with Ink composed of a Cephalick Tincture. This the Student was to swallow upon a fasting Stomach, and for three Days following eat nothing but Bread and Water. As the Wafer digested, the Tincture mounted to his Brain, bearing the Proposition along with it. But the Success hath not hitherto been answerable, partly by some Error in the Quantum or Composition, and partly by the Perverseness of Lads, to whom this Bolus is so nauseous that they generally steal aside, and discharge it upwards before it can operate, neither have they been yet persuaded to use so long an Abstinence as the Prescription requires."

 

Quote from: markjo on April 06, 2017, 11:34:54 AM

Dearest Humble_Scientist, you aren't the least bit patronizing, are you?

Or humble.

And I seriously doubt that you're a scientist.

   

Dear markjo, regarding science and scientists, there is an excellent description of both, made by Swift over 300 years ago. I absolutely admire it, especially when applying for grants.

Congratulations, you read Gulliver's Travels.  What is that supposed to prove?

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on April 06, 2017, 10:47:39 AM

Fortunately, our dear Rabinoz has recently entered the discussion and even kindly collected some data. We might wait till he presents the results of his calculations, sheds bright light of his wisdom and enlightens us...

So says the very unHumble_nonScientist

If you really want to know, we aren't the people to ask.

It is a very complex issue and there is far more to it the simply drag from the almost non-existent solar wind.

It is a problem that only an astrophysicist could discuss intelligently, and I doubt there are any around here.
This link is only about artificial earth satellites Forbes, Why Are Earth-Orbiting Satellites Fundamentally Unstable?
You could study it in detail, spend AU$101.79 and buy

"Planetary Science: The Science of Planets around Stars, Second Edition, By George H. A. Cole, Michael M. Woolfson"

There is a lot said on the internet that makes little sense to me, but this seems to be one of the best:
Quora, Is Earth's orbit decaying? If so, at what rate? When/will we crash into the Sun?

By the way, I seemed get the best results searching for "Do the orbits of planets decay, solar wind?"
I put in "solar wind" to weed out lots of irrevant stuff.

So, go and find out for yourself.

Signed, Still not "your dear Rabinoz"

So start addressing others in a bit more normal manner.

But, you have always set yourself up as the online psychologist ,
but you failed abysmally with Papa Legba!

Look how he ended up! a Voodoo Priest. I call that a case obvious malpractice.

Rabinoz, my friend,

Thanks for your help, dear. Yet recently you were feeling like you could solve the problem, weren't you?

 

You were busily collecting some interesting data. Moreover, you've most kindly given a valuable hint:

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on April 04, 2017, 10:31:25 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

RET is claiming that there are some satellites orbiting the planet Earth. Those of them that are closer to the planet experience certain friction caused by the rare Earth's atmosphere at high altitudes. Thus, the satellites are gradually lowering. If new rockets are not sent to push them higher, they are eventually to be burnt by immense heat of friction in the lower, denser layers of the atmosphere. Their remnants, if any, fall on the surface of Earth.

RET is also claiming that the planets of Solar System are rotating around the Sun much like the satellites are rotating around the planet Earth. The planets, it is said, have been doing that for many billions of years and are expected to do that for who knows how long. All of them are immersed in the heliosphere, which is, as far as I understand, a rarefied Sun's atmosphere.

Why the planets of our Solar System have not fallen on the Sun yet?

Mr Humble_Scientist please explain in detail "Why the planets of our Solar System" should "have .... fallen on the Sun" by now?

Just to help with your detailed calculations as to this rate, here is some information on the solar wind:
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS, Solar Wind: Global Properties.

Table 1. Typical parameters of the slow solar wind at 1 AU.

Flow speed vp		350 km.s-1
Proton density np		9 cm-3
Flux density nPvP		3 × 108 cm-2.s-1
Composition		96% protons, 4% He+ ions, minor constituents, plus an adequate number of electrons to maintain nearly perfect charge neutrality
Proton temperature TP		4 × 104K
Electron temperature Te		1.5 × 105K
Magnetic field B		4 nT

You are the "Scientist" around here, so it's up to you to prove your claim! Hint! Look at the Proton density - mean anything?

I even cherished a hope to admire your calculations...

 

Anyway, I remember neither setting myself up as the "online psychologist" (what's that, BTW?) nor failing abysmally with Papa Legba. Though it looks like we both agree that Papa Legba's a great man...

 

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on April 09, 2017, 05:33:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 06, 2017, 11:34:54 AM

Dearest Humble_Scientist, you aren't the least bit patronizing, are you?

Or humble.

And I seriously doubt that you're a scientist.

   

Dear markjo, regarding science and scientists, there is an excellent description of both, made by Swift over 300 years ago. I absolutely admire it, especially when applying for grants.

Congratulations, you read Gulliver's Travels.  What is that supposed to prove?

Obviously, in your case, my dearest markjo, it proves you still can read...

 

Do you feel you have answered your original question now?

Not yet. Frankly, I haven't expected the RET is so helpless, especially considering billions of $ spent on space research etc. They don't know if the Moon gonna leave us or stay. Some say it will be destroyed, but the others say it won't. They do not know if RE and other planets are leaving the Sun or approaching this star, to sink forever in its shiny bosom.

In other words, they know nothing. What a theory!

 

Quote from: markjo on April 09, 2017, 08:36:59 AM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on April 09, 2017, 05:33:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 06, 2017, 11:34:54 AM

Dearest Humble_Scientist, you aren't the least bit patronizing, are you?

Or humble.

And I seriously doubt that you're a scientist.

   

Dear markjo, regarding science and scientists, there is an excellent description of both, made by Swift over 300 years ago. I absolutely admire it, especially when applying for grants.

Congratulations, you read Gulliver's Travels.  What is that supposed to prove?

Obviously, in your case, my dearest markjo, it proves you still can read...

But what does it mean in your case?  Does it mean that you don't get satire?

All of them are immersed in the heliosphere, which is, as far as I understand, a rarefied Sun's atmosphere.

Why the planets of our Solar System have not fallen on the Sun yet?

Do you have a source for the "immersed in the heliosphere".

You need to look at the pressure in space. How many molecules do you have per meter cube?

Quote from: FalseProphet on April 05, 2017, 04:11:08 PM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on April 05, 2017, 03:46:17 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on April 05, 2017, 03:33:35 PM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on April 05, 2017, 11:16:17 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on April 05, 2017, 07:56:57 AM

If you want to know why planets do not fall into the sun, why don't you ask an astronomer?

I guess they have the right orbital speed for their distance to not fall into the sun. That's why there is something we call the 3rd Law of Kepler. It balanced out this way in the early days of the formations of the solar system.

But again, if you really want to know it, why don't you ask somebody who has studied this stuff or read about it written by somebody who did.

That's exactly what I'm doing, dear FalseProphet... How strange: in a simple text, one respectful and educated RE'er can not see RET claims and ascribes them to me, and yet another can not read my question, the title of the OP.

Or... is my question so inconvenient for you that you make an innuendo that I'd better was not asking it here?

 

No, that's not what you are doing. You do not ask an astronomer, you ask random people on a forum. As for me, I do not know the answer. Sure, I could do that for you now and tell you the result. But I do not think you really want to know

On the contrary, I want to know. Please do that for me now and tell me the result. Thanks in advance.

Ok. But I do not work for minimum wage. Your offer?

$10 AUD an hour.

What does AUD stand for? Aussie uniche dollar ? 

Anyway, I remember neither setting myself up as the "online psychologist" (what's that, BTW?) nor failing abysmally with Papa Legba. Though it looks like we both agree that Papa Legba's a great man...

Don't blame me for your abysmal memory! Maybe you need to see someone about your "early onset alzheimers".

You did read
          Why the planets have not fallen on the Sun?« Reply #35 on: April 07, 2017, 05:15:52 PM »
and
         Why the planets have not fallen on the Sun? « Reply #37 on: April 08, 2017, 09:52:38 AM ».

I'm sorry if these posts were too complicated for you to understand, I'll see if I can rustle up the "Astrophysics for Idiots Dummies".
But I wouldn't hold my breath!

  I do so hope this has been helpfully. 

Quote from: FalseProphet on April 05, 2017, 04:11:08 PM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on April 05, 2017, 03:46:17 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on April 05, 2017, 03:33:35 PM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on April 05, 2017, 11:16:17 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on April 05, 2017, 07:56:57 AM

If you want to know why planets do not fall into the sun, why don't you ask an astronomer?

I guess they have the right orbital speed for their distance to not fall into the sun. That's why there is something we call the 3rd Law of Kepler. It balanced out this way in the early days of the formations of the solar system.

But again, if you really want to know it, why don't you ask somebody who has studied this stuff or read about it written by somebody who did.

That's exactly what I'm doing, dear FalseProphet... How strange: in a simple text, one respectful and educated RE'er can not see RET claims and ascribes them to me, and yet another can not read my question, the title of the OP.

Or... is my question so inconvenient for you that you make an innuendo that I'd better was not asking it here?

 

No, that's not what you are doing. You do not ask an astronomer, you ask random people on a forum. As for me, I do not know the answer. Sure, I could do that for you now and tell you the result. But I do not think you really want to know

On the contrary, I want to know. Please do that for me now and tell me the result. Thanks in advance.

Ok. But I do not work for minimum wage. Your offer?

   

I thought you're here in seek of truth, not for money, dear FalseProphet.

No, I'm here for entertainment only.

The Earth is expected to fall into the sun provided it is not engulfed during the suns red giant phase

The kicker is, this is not supposed to happen for another 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 years or so. 

The Earth is expected to fall into the sun provided it is not engulfed during the suns red giant phase

The kicker is, this is not supposed to happen for another 100,000,000,000 7,000,000,000 years or so. 

Fixed that for you.

I meant when the Earth falls into the Sun, not when the Sun dies out. The Sun will have exhausted its fuel within 5-7 billion years. The Earth will fall into what's left of the sun in 100 quintillion years provided it is not engulfed by the suns red giant phase or captured by another stellar object