The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.

  • 310 Replies
  • 25709 Views
*

Pezevenk

  • 14054
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #120 on: April 29, 2016, 12:24:00 AM »
Look, I've tried twice to answer your posts and both times I have been forced to stop and do something else, and I lost those answers, and I can't be bothered to write again.

Anyway, I see you're continuing your tradition of providing links that you probably haven't read (since you contradicted one of them TWICE) and others that you don't understand and neither do most people here (it's written in Russian), and also posting tons of copied text nobody is going to read.

You've also promised to "combine the new radical chronology of history with the subject of this thread: precession", but you didn't do it. You've brought up a subject that has nothing to do with the subject discussed here (new chronology), made no connections with the subject discussed here, and claimed that it is somehow undisputed proof of what you're saying.

By the way, Pompeii having been destroyed after 1700AD is the silliest thing I have ever heard.
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5517
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #121 on: April 29, 2016, 01:49:16 AM »
Your whining and complaining is useless.

My previous message proves clearly that the Pompeii and Herculaneum were thriving cities well after 1700 AD: maps, paleomagnetic dating, artefacts discovered, frescoes, Domenico Fontana's conduit running right through Pompeii (built in 1592, official chronology), there is nothing else to be said on this subject.

Since Pompeii was destroyed well after 1700 AD, and this event antedates the dating of the Council of Nicaea by some centuries, it means that the entire scheme of precession, in the heliocentrical context (axial shift of the Earth) is completely wrong.


Here is a direct proof that attractive gravity has nothing to do with the precession.



"Calculated precession rates over the last 100 years show increasing precession rates which produce a declining precession cycle period.

The precession rate goes up each year. The Astronomical Almanac gives a rate of 50.2564 (arc seconds) for the year 1900. In that year, the top astronomer in America, Simon Newcomb, used a constant of .000222 as the amount the precession rate will increase per year. The actual constant increase since that time is closer to .000330 (about 50 % higher than expected) and it is increasing exponentially (faster each year)."

"However, in the lunisolar model (local gravity) the changing trend in precession rates was entirely unexpected.

The fact of the matter is the gravity of the Sun and Moon have been very stable for
millions of years [according to the official theory of astrophysics] and there should be no reason in the lunisolar model for this significant upward trend in the wobble rate. If  anything it might be expected to slightly “decrease” under lunisolar theory as the Moon moves a fraction of an inch farther from Earth each year and as the Sun burns up a small fraction of its mass each year. But frankly these amounts are so negligible relative to the mass and scale involved that the precession rate should be noticeably stable year after year – if these masses are indeed the cause of the wobble. Lunisolar theorists not only need to find new inputs to the precession formula for the sake of accuracy, they need to offset these slight diminishments in gravitational forces and come up with larger effects in the opposite direction.

If the local gravity theory of lunisolar precession were correct, and this trend was extrapolated back a few hundred thousand years then precession would have been virtually non-existent even though the Sun and Moon exerted about the same gravitational influence as they do now. And if this trend were extrapolated forward a few million years the Earth might be wobbling so severely it would retrograde a day for every day it spins, and essentially stop moving or go into reverse!"


We also have the fact that the Perseid meteor shower falling each and every year on August 10 defies the precession of the Earth hypothesis.


*

sokarul

  • 17085
  • Discount Chemist
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #122 on: April 29, 2016, 10:34:04 AM »
No matter how many times you repeat an argument, the argument will not be correct. Pompeii is no exception.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16462
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #123 on: April 29, 2016, 10:43:10 AM »
This is my cut on it...

First, the Earth is NOT Flat. On any FE with people on one side, the heavens are WRONG and CAN NOT be made right (specifically the S.Pole/S. Celestial Pole). See this: (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.msg1773022#msg1773022)

Second, from aligning Equatorially Mounted Telescopes (basically to the latitude of the observer, pointing at the Celestial Poles AND parallel to the Earth/sky axis of rotation - the Eratosthenes Experiment done 1000's of times daily around the world to minutes/seconds of arc), we can conclude directly and definitively that the Earth is spherical, because a sphere is the only shape that has these attributes (if you know of any other shape, do tell) - another direct refutation of a FE.

So, the Earth IS spherical. Now, the question becomes is the Earth spinning or is the Earth stationary and the rest of the sky/heavens/universe spinning? Keeping in mind that "motion is relative", whether one or the other is stationary, the effect as viewed from Earth is the same. Since our point of reference is us on the Earth, the Earth seems to be stationary (this is like to a person in a car/train/whatever that is in motion, the outside looks like it moving while everyone in the vehicle seems to be stationary).

The pendulum and Coriolis Effect are just independent demonstrations the Earth itself is moving. We also notice that all the other heavenly spherical bodies in the solar system are rotating. This leads to the conclusion, unless demonstrated NOT to SPIN, that the Earth is in fact spinning.

Eratosthenes Experiment is based on his assumption the earth is a sphere his calculations didn't prove it, and couldn't. Here's how you can show that this is true: find the data he used, then assume that the earth is flat and the sun is some distance above the surface at noon. See if you can calculate how high the sun is. You'll find that you can get an answer that works just as well as the answer he gave for the size of the earth. So, if one believes the earth is flat, he could give as good an explanation of his experiment as he could assuming that the earth
is round. Nothing has been proved.

Because we think everything else in the universe is spinning we must be spinning too. That is not a good enough reason. The moon isn't spinning, there is no proof it does. We only assume it spins because we simply think the earth is spinning and the moon is in perfect harmony with us. The other planets may spin, but so far we haven't discovered life on them either. Maybe life can't exist on a spinning ball.

Use Eratosthenes data and assume the Earth is flat and you can get a figure for the height of the sun.  Perform the same experiment using different locations again assuming Earth is flat and you get a DIFFERENT height of the sun.  The results are only consistent when the Earth is round.
The Taoist Scholars that performed this experiment far before Eratosthenes disagree. They found it very consistent.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #124 on: April 29, 2016, 10:59:35 AM »

The Taoist Scholars that performed this experiment far before Eratosthenes...

Where do you get this from? I know Chinese astronomers (they were not necessarily "Taoist scholars" though) assumed a flat earth.  So what experiment are you talking about and where is it described?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16462
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #125 on: April 29, 2016, 11:49:53 AM »

The Taoist Scholars that performed this experiment far before Eratosthenes...

Where do you get this from? I know Chinese astronomers (they were not necessarily "Taoist scholars" though) assumed a flat earth.  So what experiment are you talking about and where is it described?
Its from the Huai Nan Tzu.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #126 on: April 29, 2016, 11:56:51 AM »
The Huai Nan tzu??? Sure?
« Last Edit: April 29, 2016, 11:59:44 AM by FalseProphet »

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16462
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #127 on: April 29, 2016, 12:03:11 PM »
More generally the Huainanzi. The experiment details are very similar to those of Eratosthenes. Measuring shadows of sticks and what not.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale

?

frenat

  • 3503
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #129 on: April 29, 2016, 03:18:20 PM »
Use Eratosthenes data and assume the Earth is flat and you can get a figure for the height of the sun.  Perform the same experiment using different locations again assuming Earth is flat and you get a DIFFERENT height of the sun.  The results are only consistent when the Earth is round.
The Taoist Scholars that performed this experiment far before Eratosthenes disagree. They found it very consistent.

Seems to be right.

http://www.eastm.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/311/245

I didn't see where they performed it multiple times measuring from different locations and got the same distance to the Sun each time. 

*

rabinoz

  • 25603
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #130 on: April 30, 2016, 02:43:40 AM »
This is my cut on it...

First, the Earth is NOT Flat. On any FE with people on one side, the heavens are WRONG and CAN NOT be made right (specifically the S.Pole/S. Celestial Pole). See this: (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.msg1773022#msg1773022)

Second, from aligning Equatorially Mounted Telescopes (basically to the latitude of the observer, pointing at the Celestial Poles AND parallel to the Earth/sky axis of rotation - the Eratosthenes Experiment done 1000's of times daily around the world to minutes/seconds of arc), we can conclude directly and definitively that the Earth is spherical, because a sphere is the only shape that has these attributes (if you know of any other shape, do tell) - another direct refutation of a FE.

So, the Earth IS spherical. Now, the question becomes is the Earth spinning or is the Earth stationary and the rest of the sky/heavens/universe spinning? Keeping in mind that "motion is relative", whether one or the other is stationary, the effect as viewed from Earth is the same. Since our point of reference is us on the Earth, the Earth seems to be stationary (this is like to a person in a car/train/whatever that is in motion, the outside looks like it moving while everyone in the vehicle seems to be stationary).

The pendulum and Coriolis Effect are just independent demonstrations the Earth itself is moving. We also notice that all the other heavenly spherical bodies in the solar system are rotating. This leads to the conclusion, unless demonstrated NOT to SPIN, that the Earth is in fact spinning.

Eratosthenes Experiment is based on his assumption the earth is a sphere his calculations didn't prove it, and couldn't. Here's how you can show that this is true: find the data he used, then assume that the earth is flat and the sun is some distance above the surface at noon. See if you can calculate how high the sun is. You'll find that you can get an answer that works just as well as the answer he gave for the size of the earth. So, if one believes the earth is flat, he could give as good an explanation of his experiment as he could assuming that the earth
is round. Nothing has been proved.

Because we think everything else in the universe is spinning we must be spinning too. That is not a good enough reason. The moon isn't spinning, there is no proof it does. We only assume it spins because we simply think the earth is spinning and the moon is in perfect harmony with us. The other planets may spin, but so far we haven't discovered life on them either. Maybe life can't exist on a spinning ball.

Use Eratosthenes data and assume the Earth is flat and you can get a figure for the height of the sun.  Perform the same experiment using different locations again assuming Earth is flat and you get a DIFFERENT height of the sun.  The results are only consistent when the Earth is round.
The Taoist Scholars that performed this experiment far before Eratosthenes disagree. They found it very consistent.
And you can't come up with anything more recent! Tom Bishop (falsely) accuses us of relying on ancient Greek ideas on geometry and perspective.

What about at least telling us the method and results.

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #131 on: April 30, 2016, 02:54:08 AM »
Use Eratosthenes data and assume the Earth is flat and you can get a figure for the height of the sun.  Perform the same experiment using different locations again assuming Earth is flat and you get a DIFFERENT height of the sun.  The results are only consistent when the Earth is round.
The Taoist Scholars that performed this experiment far before Eratosthenes disagree. They found it very consistent.

Seems to be right.

http://www.eastm.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/311/245

I didn't see where they performed it multiple times measuring from different locations and got the same distance to the Sun each time.

I haven't yet understood what they really did.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #132 on: April 30, 2016, 02:20:04 PM »
Use Eratosthenes data and assume the Earth is flat and you can get a figure for the height of the sun.  Perform the same experiment using different locations again assuming Earth is flat and you get a DIFFERENT height of the sun.  The results are only consistent when the Earth is round.
The Taoist Scholars that performed this experiment far before Eratosthenes disagree. They found it very consistent.

Seems to be right.

http://www.eastm.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/311/245

I didn't see where they performed it multiple times measuring from different locations and got the same distance to the Sun each time.

I haven't yet understood what they really did.

Your lack of understanding is not our fault, nor does it invalidate their research. 

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #133 on: April 30, 2016, 04:27:33 PM »
Glancing through the Chinese text, the authors couldn't make it more difficult to understand. Instead of converting the Chinese units to modern units, they kept them according to the Chinese text so understanding what was going on would be difficult.

Regardless.

A) Even IF the Earth was flat, they do not present a map of the world. Probably in the time these measurements were taken, although they thought the world was flat, they thought it was only a plane, a sheet of paper - not a disk. They would not know about N.America/S.America/Antarctica/Australia. So, for them, basically they dealt with a piece of paper as their world with probably China somewhere in the middle (i.e. a relatively local map).

Furthermore, these would be pretty LOCAL measurements. China isn't big enough - compared to the world - to probably differentiate a large spherical surface from a flat surface. This is like the "flat" maps of say the U.S or Europe. These can be represented with flat maps because the distortions aren't that great. Since these people were "measuring" so they could like see each other, not from one end of China to the other (extreme N to S, extreme E to W), sure, everything WAS flat. The local topography was greater than the curvature. So, comparing what they were doing to today's world view of the N.Pole in the middle of a disk is like comparing apples to oranges.

B) Which leads to their Sun rising in the east and setting in the west. On a piece of small paper, that was no problem. On such a small scale, it wasn't even considered. THE 2 problems that I have brought up several times are:

1) On a WORLD map, how can the Sun rise due east, even SOUTH east, when it is 1/4 of the Earth away NE? The Chinese didn't have to deal with this issue.

2) With the Tropic of Capricorn being like 2x the length of the Tropic of Cancer, how can the Sun move in the sky at the same speed in both circles? The Chinese did NOT have to deal with this issue either. I doubt in ANY of their ancient texts they were looking/measuring stuff OUTSIDE OF CHINA. China is ~10° N to ~55° N. It doesn't even cross the equator.

Conclusion

Simply put, you are comparing apples to oranges. What they can see in China doesn't apply to the rest of the WORLD. When measurements from around the WORLD are considered (especially aligning equatorial telescope mounts all over the world to within minutes or seconds of arc), this was an interesting paper, but doesn't prove anything and should NOT be applied to determine the shape of the Earth any more than the Eratosthenes Experiment. Both are seriously flawed but for different reasons. This is just another example of something someone found that sounds good, but no effort (brain cells) was used to see if it actually applies to anything useful.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2016, 04:08:54 AM by Jadyyn »
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #134 on: April 30, 2016, 09:52:21 PM »
I haven't yet understood what they really did.

The way I understand the text, the Chinese "experiment" was probably more of a gedankenexperiment. The numbers don't seem to be actual measurements, but rather assumptions for the sake of argument. It's an explanation of method and concerned with relations, not with quantified evidence.

Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #135 on: May 05, 2016, 03:50:40 PM »
Just back from a great 11-day road trip! I see great piles of stuff accumulated in my absence.
 
Hitting some of the high points, such as they are:

Gauss' Easter formula exposes the massive falsification of the official chronology of history.
I highly doubt this is true, but even if it is, so what?

The original topic was the Earth spinning. This later moved to precession of the Equinoxes.

Quote
Gauss' Easter formula puts to rest the claims that the Earth EVER underwent an axial shift (precession): there are no records available in history to prove this hypothesis.
Wrong.

You seem to be barking about the slight difference between the true length of the tropical year and the average length of the Gregorian calendar year, the fact that the tropical year is a non-integer number of days, the fact that the Moon's orbital period is a non-integer fraction of a year, and how this affects the ceremonial (not astronomical) dates of a particular religious observance[nb]See ecclesiastical equinox and ecclesiastical full moon.[/nb].[nb]Or something; I'm not sure what.[/nb] This has nothing to do with the presence or absence of precession of the equinoxes other than that being a very slight factor in the length of the tropical year, which is already considered in the calculations.

In other words, not relevant to the topic. Maybe you should be discussing this in the Philosophy, Religion & Society board; I never go there.

Meanwhile, of course, we have a ton of records from after the time Herr Gauß lived that unequivocally, quantitatively, and in great detail show the precession of the Earth's axis with respect to the Ecliptic.

You never did even mention the differences between epoch 1950 and epoch 2000 star charts, and their clear indication of axial precession. Care to comment on that, or do you think it's better to keep ignoring this and hope no one notices you have no answer?

Quote
The mass of a body and the rate at which it spins, in classical physics, determines an object's "angular momentum."
Wrong.

An object's angular momentum is determined by its moment of inertia, not mass, and rate of spin.

Your deep ignorance on the subject is noted.

But, the good news is that this ignorance can can be fixed with knowledge! http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mi.html gives some explanation. Wikipedia can also provide more.

Quote
So where did all the angular momentum go if the sun truly formed by gravitational contraction?
It became the angular momentum of the Solar System as a whole.

Quote
Astronomers suggest that some of it was transferred to Jupiter and Saturn, which possess 98% of the total angular momentum of the solar system[citation needed], still far, far less than the angular momentum that would have been generated during the formation of the sun[citation needed].

Our sun has an extremely small rotational motion—that is, it is turning slowly. This 'angular momentum' is far too small to have evolved from a gas cloud[citation needed]. If our sun came from a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to have been a billion times as much as it is now[citation needed], in order for our planets to be flung out and orbit it as fast as they do. How could it have lost all[citation needed] of its rotational motion?

<more of the same>
Some justification for the assertions made would is needed before much further discussion is warranted. They appear to be made up.

By the way, you seem to get wrapped around the axle comparing the angular momentum of a rotating sphere with the angular momentum of an orbiting mass. I'd suggest you compare the moments of inertia of a rotating sphere with an orbiting point mass[nb]For these purposes, the planets can be considered point masses.[/nb]. This could be a good introduction into the topic of moment of inertia.

See... you're just wrong.

Quote
If the speculated increase exists, this would need investigation.

Your ignorance on the subject is again noted.
This is a great example of why I love participating here. To learn! I wasn't aware that the rate of precession was (currently) increasing slightly, but it apparently is. Thanks!!

Quote
The Luni-solar Theory becomes even more absurd when one considers the fact that the forces due to gravity are used to explain this top-like motion. This implies that the mass of the Earth or Moon, or Sun is somehow changing in size or distribution.
Wrong.

See the following.

Quote
Can you understand even the most basic facts of physics?
Yes.

Quote
THE INCREASING RATE OF THE ANNUAL PRECESSION IS A BASIC FACT OF SCIENCE.


Can you provide a source for that graph? Did you ever wonder why there is a discontinuity between the data points at 1980 and 1990? Do you think there is any significance to the fact that it occurs at the same point the data sources changed[nb]This information from a later post.[/nb]?

Quote
It is even listed in the wikipedia page on the axial precession subject.
Again, many thanks for pointing this out.

Quote
It is one of the most devastating arguments which proves that the precession HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.
"Devastating"... "proves"... I love the hyperbole. Hey, it may be worth a shot; if you state something strongly enough, someone may believe you. It also implies you're a blowhard.

Quote
For the same mass of the Sun/Moon, and the for the same supposed law of attractive gravity, the annual precession rate is actually increasing, a clear defiance of the basic principles of astrophysics.
Wrong.

There are other masses beside the Earth, Sun, and Moon. Jupiter, for instance, and to a lesser degree, all the other masses in the Solar System. The distribution of these masses is constantly changing.

Quote
This increase in the annual precession rate is exactly what we would expect from a binary star system, however.
That would be one hypothesis. Unfortunately (for you), that hypothesis is easily dismissed.

Quote
Your FAILURE to explain the increasing rate of the annual precession is a precise debunking of all your "arguments" presented here.
Failure?

Since you invoke Wikipedia, here are quotes from the article you mention:

The precession of the equinoxes is caused by the gravitational forces of the Sun and the Moon, and to a lesser extent other bodies, on the Earth. It was first explained by Sir Isaac Newton.
In reality, more elaborate calculations on the numerical model of the Solar System show that the precessional constants have a period of about 41,000 years, the same as the obliquity of the ecliptic. Note that the constants mentioned here are the linear and all higher terms of the formula above, not the precession itself. That is,
p = A + BT + CT2 + …
is an approximation of
p = a + b sin (2πT/P), where P is the 410-century period.
Quote
You still do not understand the nature of the binary system Sirius-Sun, here is a basic introduction:
...

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-91430.html (scroll down to the answer provided by Polestar101, 2009-Aug-03, 02:39 AM; a splendid explanation to a question identical to the concern raised in the previous message)
Polestar101's was a seagull post (flies by, drops crap on you, leaves). It was a long post containing lots of often-irrelevant details, unsubstantiated claims, and little else. When asked to back some of those assertions up, silence.

Was that you?

Quote
You have to explain the increasing rate of the annual precession (which cannot be explained in the context of classical astrophysics)[nb]Wrong![/nb]; if you cannot, anything you say on the subject amounts to nothing.
The classical explanation: there are more things involved than just Sun-Earth-Moon.  Nice bluff, though. Too bad (for you) that it didn't work.

[Edit] Formatting.
 
« Last Edit: May 05, 2016, 04:58:14 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5517
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #136 on: May 05, 2016, 11:14:12 PM »
You should have taken a permanent vacation.

Here, you are embarrassing yourself well beyond redemption.


YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ANGULAR MOMENTUM MEANS: NO KNOWLEDGE OF BASIC PHYSICS.

An object's angular momentum is determined by its moment of inertia, not mass, and rate of spin.

An angular momentum is the cross product of a position vector and a momentum vector.

The momentum vector = mv.

Can you understand these basic things?

The angular momentum is directly related to the mass of the object.


Now, it could be defined in terms of a moment of inertia multiplied by the angular velocity; however,


What is the moment of inertia?



This is integrated over the entire MASS DISTRIBUTION (of Q), that is, it is directly related to mass.


My advice: go back to some evening courses in high school physics.

You do need them badly.


You seem to be barking about the slight difference between the true length of the tropical year and the average length of the Gregorian calendar year, the fact that the tropical year is a non-integer number of days.

NO.

You seem to have also a poor knowledge of astrophysics.

Had I added the precessional difference to my argument, the entire Gregorian calendar reform would have totaled some 17 days (and not just 11 days).

Gauss' formula has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE PRECESSION.

The official chronology of history must have the vernal equinox fall on March 20 (or March 21) in the year 325 AD.

But the exact formula of Gauss proves that the vernal equinox must have fallen on March 21 in the year 743 AD.


Can you provide a source for that graph?

I did provide the exact sources.



Can you read English?

From 1900, when the rate was 50.2564"/year, it has increased to 50.29164"/year in 2002.

And this rate is accelerating.

If the local gravity theory of lunisolar precession were correct, and this trend was extrapolated back a few hundred thousand years then precession would have been virtually non-existent even though the Sun and Moon exerted about the same gravitational influence as they do now. And if this trend were extrapolated forward a few million years the Earth might be wobbling so severely it would retrograde a day for every day it spins, and essentially stop moving or go into reverse!"


I told you that you have to update your understanding of  astrophysics.

The increasing rate of precession is a direct consequence of Simon Newcomb's formula, which adds 0.000222"/year.


It cannot be explained at all in terms of any lunisolar components, or other planets' supposed gravitational influence.

If gravitation was an influence, then, given the constant loss of solar mass/lunar increasing recession rate, the precession rate should be decreasing, not increasing.


EXPLAIN THE INCREASING RATE OF PRECESSION: IF YOU CANNOT, IT IS ALL OVER FOR YOU.

It proves that axial precession IS NOT RELATED TO NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.


Here is another proof that precession has nothing to do with gravitation, the Allais effect.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66455.msg1775629#msg1775629


The detailed behavior of both pendulums over the eclipse period shown in Fig. 8 was remarkable. During the period before the eclipse no particular disturbance was detected, and the 10-minute precession amounts of both pendulums generally exhibited the same behavior. After the local eclipse maximum the precession amount of the automatic pendulum started to increase steadily, while that of the manual pendulum started to decrease steadily. This trend continued unabated until about forty minutes after fourth contact, when the sense of change of the precession of the manual pendulum changed to be the same as that of the automatic pendulum.

After this both pendulum precession amounts marched together in almost perfect lockstep, decreasing until about 12:15, then executing an abrupt spike upwards and back downwards which ended at about 13:15, and then increasing until about 14:20, at which point the manual pendulum precession again reversed its trend. It is clear from the calmness of the environmental data that these phenomena were not linked to any variation of meteorological conditions.

Analysis. This long Foucault-type pendulum behaved in a very stable manner. However well after the end of the locally visible eclipse, at around 11:33 (to the recording resolution, i.e. between the readings at 11:29 and 11:36), some influence clearly acted for a short period to increase the precession rate.


CAN YOU READ ENGLISH?

For the same mass of the moon and the sun, and for the same supposed law of gravitation, the PRECESSIONAL RATE CHANGED DRAMATICALLY, completely unexplained either by Newtonian mechanics or relativity.


EXPLAIN THE PERSEID METEOR SHOWER PARADOX, which directly disproves precession:


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775758#msg1775758

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775914#msg1775914


EXPLAIN THE FACT THAT KEPLER FAKED/FORGED/FALSIFIED THE DATA ON MARS AND INVENTED AN ELLIPTICAL ORBIT WHICH DOES NOT EXIST:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670

"rather they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was
elliptical."

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776680#msg1776680

The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion. Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind.


EXPLAIN THE FACT THAT AN ELLIPTICAL ORBIT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE ABSOLUTELY FALSE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776706#msg1776706

An orbiter with a given "innate motion" and a larger acceleration cannot possibly be describing the same curve as that same orbiter with the same innate motion and a smaller acceleration.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776803#msg1776803


The innate motion, the tangential velocity of a planet, and thus its very kinetic energy, CANNOT VARY AT ALL.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1777336#msg1777336

The unit measuring rod thus appears a little shortened in relation to the system of co-ordinates by the presence of the gravitational field, if the rod is laid along a radius. With the tangential position, therefore, the gravitational field of the point of mass has no influence on the length of a rod.

A. Einstein (The Foundation of the Generalised Theory of Relativity, 1916)


"But in the ellipse, or any real orbit, we must continue to monitor the old tangential velocity, since we cannot allow it to vary without giving a mechanical explanation of that variation. If we see it varying in the ellipse, as I have shown, then we must ask how a planet can vary its innate motion to suit an orbit. How can either the planet itself, or the gravitational field, cause that velocity to vary? The planet cannot, because it is not self-propelled or self-correcting. The gravitational field cannot, because the gravitational field has no mechanism to influence that vector. Even Einstein admitted that the gravitational field had no influence at the tangent."


You never did even mention the differences between epoch 1950 and epoch 2000 star charts.

But I did.

"If the observed change in orientation is 50” p/y and the only known motion of the solar system is around the galaxy (with no eccentricity) then we only see .005” p/y of “geometric effect” in the 50” p/y of observable identified as the “precession” total.

1,296,000 / 240,000,000 =. 0054”p/y

Now if the solar system happens to go around a center of mass in just 24,000 years (rather than 240 million years, again with no eccentricity) then the amount of geometric effect in the precession observable would be 54” p/y.

1,296,000 / 24,000 = 54” p/y

But obviously there is some eccentricity because all orbits are elliptical, and therefore the amount of geometric precession has to be below 54” p/y by about 5 to 10% depending on eccentricity assumptions. This tells us that most of the 50.29" p/y observable we see is due to the geometric effect of the larger orbit (changing our orientation to distant points of reference) and there is practically no local wobble (but just enough!), which is consistent with all our studies to date.

What most people do not realize is that if there is any real precession/nutation at all (affecting the earth’s axis on a local level) then the axis is obliged to hold that attitude relative to those local causative forces as the solar system revolves around the larger center of mass.

The restrictive model used in astronomy today does not recognize the motion of the solar system - therefore you must assume a monopathic explanation for all observables whether or not your assumptions are correct. The model I use recognizes the solar system moves. A moving frame allows for more precice descriptions of the observables. The lack of a moving frame leads to confusion.

The rules of the single frame lunisolar model are just as crazy. For example, if someone asks you, Does the earth wobble? You can only answer “yes or no” because in your model if the earth appears to wobble relative to the distant stars by 50” p/y it must also wobble by 50” p/y relative to nearby objects. You have no way to separate the two motions and this forces you to assume an erroneous cause . Your static solar system model (a vestige of the original Copernican doctrine) has to explain the apparent motion of the equinox along the ecliptic as local wobble. In a dynamic solar system model we can say “No” the earth does not wobble relative to local objects – the equinox remains fixed in relation to the earth’s orbit path around the sun (ecliptic). And “Yes” it does appear to move relative to objects outside the solar system because the whole solar system moves. It is more accurate – and very simple once you get the hang of it.

And that is the point here. We are trying to show the earth does not “physically” wobble in relation to the sun. We see an apparent motion – the stars moving backward across the sky at about 50” p/y. Some hypothesize this is because the earth physically wobbled by this amount relative to local objects (lunisolar theory). But a close study of the facts reveals there is no local wobble. The observable is an apparent motion caused by the solar system’s orbit through space."

I told you that your trolling here is over.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 10:35:21 AM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5517
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #137 on: May 06, 2016, 04:24:42 AM »
The increase in the precession rate is EXPONENTIAL.

According to the official astrophysics, the moon, which is continually receding in distance from Earth, is by far the biggest force acting on the Earth (in relation to the precession rate).

The sun would be the second largest force: its mass is slowly decreasing.

Both the lunar and solar forces have no influence on the precession rate.


Simon Newcomb included a “constant” in his precession formula to get it to match the increasing rate of precession that was observed leading up to his era.

The “constant” amount was .000222 arc seconds per year.

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).


This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.


And here is another fact to consider.

The fact that Sirius seems to maintain its position relative to the position of the sun was a surprise to most scientists (aware of precession), when it was first noticed by the French scientific community following the Egyptian discoveries of Napoleon (and the Dendera Zodiac) in the early 1800’s. Perhaps to save the lunisolar theory of precession, or at least to make sense of physics as then taught, physicist, astronomer, mathematician Jean-Baptiste Biot (21 April 1774 – 3 February 1862) proclaimed that this phenomenon was an oddity of the latitude and horizon around Dendera, meaning it just seemed as if Sirius was immune to the effects of precession. And to this day this is the assumption of many astronomers and astrophysicists.   Physicist Jed Z. Buchwald, professor of history and science and technology (Caltech and MIT) commented on this topic in his article Egyptian Stars Under Paris Skies, when he noted:

"The rising of Sirius, the brightest star in the heavens and important to Egyptians as the signal for the annual flooding of the Nile, was assumed by the French physicists to move with relation to the sun as do the constellations of the zodiac. It does not, however, as we see here."



The curved line dividing the lit from the dark regions represents the horizon near Dendera. The blue lines show the locations of the ecliptic with respect to the horizon at five helical risings separated by hundreds of years. The vernal points mark the equinoxes at these times, and the circled numbers on the lower right indicate the corresponding positions of Sirius. Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes—and so from the solstices— throughout these many centuries, despite precession.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5517
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #138 on: May 06, 2016, 08:36:04 AM »
One question remains, one which will also help us unravel the mystery of Sirius' orbit.

HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.


However, wishing to deduce an establishment of a Sothic year of 365.25 days based on the flooding of the Nile in relation to the remarkable astronomical phenomenon of the helical rising of Sirius is in the words of the Egyptologist R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz, "a feat of skill which would dignify clairvoyance rather than ratiocination."

R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz, “Sacred Science”, Inner Traditions (1982)

At this point it would be interesting to mention that Otto Neugebauer, who wrote extensively about Babylonian astronomy, also discussed the so-called Solstice-Equinox-Sirius texts, which formed part of the “Astronomical Diaries”. These texts list equinoxes, solstices, heliacal risings and settings of Sirius from the period of around 600 BCE and around 330 BCE. Apparently, the position of Sirius relative to the solstices and equinoxes did not change over time with precession.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110723220446/http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/articles/Sothis4.shtml


It is recognized that from the beginning of the empire and during the entire dynastic period the rising of Sirius with the Sun always occurred around the time of the Summer solstice.

The implication of this astronomical fact is best explained by Jed Z. Buchwald, a distinguished Professor of History and Science, in his paper “Egyptian Stars under Paris Skies” (Caltech, Engineering & Science No. 4, 2003), where he discusses the meaning of the Zodiac that has been engraved in the ceiling of the temple of Dendera in Egypt:

“The solstice is, after all, extraordinarily hard to pin-point by observation, and in any case it was known from Greek texts that the Egyptians were particularly concerned with the heliacal rising of the brightest star in the sky, Sirius—that is, with the night when Sirius first appears, just before dawn. In Egyptian prehistory this event certainly preceded the annual flooding of the Nile, which was of obvious agricultural importance. Would not precession have moved Sirius along with the zodiacal stars, eventually decoupling its heliacal rising from the solstice, and so from the annual inundation? We know today that the inundation occurs after the June beginning of the rainy season in Ethiopia, where the Blue Nile rises. And yet Sirius’ heliacal rising remained a central marker of the year throughout Egyptian history.” (p 25)

".... despite precession, Sirius and the solstice must remain about the same distance in time from one another during most of Egyptian history. Indeed they do, though it’s doubtful that Burckhardt and Coraboeuf had thought it through. Because of Sirius’ position, and the latitudes at which the Egyptians observed the sky, both Sirius’ heliacal rising and the summer solstice remained nearly the same number of days apart throughout Egyptian history even though the zodiac moves slowly around the ecliptic." (pp 29)

Buchwald, who produced a revealing diagram on the ‘Heliacal Risings of Sirius’ in relation to the vernal points (for the period of 2900 BCE to 2941 CE at intervals of 1460 years) using TheSky software, makes it very clear that "Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes - and so from the solstices - throughout these many centuries, despite precession".

http://web.archive.org/web/20110723220459/http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/articles/Sothis5.shtml


According to the current theory of lunisolar precession the pole, and therefore the equator of the Earth is supposed to “wobble” over a period of roughly 25800 years relative to the position of the fixed stars and the Sun. In other words, if we were to imagine the Earth ‘fixed’ in its revolution around the Sun at the time when Sirius is in conjunction with the Sun (e.g. during the Summer solstice), an observer would not only notice changes in the declination of Sirius and the other stars, but simultaneously equal changes in the declination of the Sun. In practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.

In order to account for the unusual motion of Sirius, which is minimal relative to the Summer solstice and exceptionally high with respect to the stars of the Zodiac, Karine Gadré,  the Associate Researcher at the Department of Astrophysics of the MidiPyrenees Observatory in Toulouse, France offers the following explanation:

“The low change in the celestial coordinates of Sirius comes from its high proper movement, which partly compensated the effects of precession under the Dynastic Period. […] In order to better understand how the proper movement of Sirius can partly compensate the effects of precession, do not only take into account the numerical values of the speed vector. Take also into account the position of Sirius on the celestial vault at a given instant and the direction of the speed vector.”

Now we know that the proper motion of Sirius (i.e. of the Sirius system) over a period of some 5400 years is less than 2°:

"For a long time astronomers had been noticing anomalies in Sirius' proper motion; this motion, well known since Halley's time is equal to 0.0375" in RA (Right Ascension) and to 1.207" in D, (Declination), which gives a yearly resultant motion of 1.32" in the direction of 204°, which is noticeably to the south. In 1834, Bessel showed that the anomalies consisted mainly of deviations between the star's theoretical position and its actual position; these distinctly periodic differences, especially in right ascension, may be as great as 0.321", which is a considerable amount with regard to meridian observations. Overall, instead of moving through space in a straight line, Sirius appears to display a wavy trajectory."

Dr. P. Blaize, Le Compagnon de Sirius, Bull. de la Société astronomique de France (1931)



Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #139 on: May 06, 2016, 03:22:02 PM »
You should have taken a permanent vacation.
LOL. I can see why you wish that!

Quote
Here, you are embarrassing yourself well beyond redemption.
::)

Can't you have a civil conversation with someone who disagrees with you? Do you also try to be a bully in real life or do you only play one on the Internet? Does it work any better there than it does here?

Quote
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ANGULAR MOMENTUM MEANS: NO KNOWLEDGE OF BASIC PHYSICS.
Please note that it was you that screwed up the description of angular momentum and had to backtrack, not me.

Quote
An object's angular momentum is determined by its moment of inertia, not mass, and rate of spin.

An angular momentum is the cross product of a position vector and a momentum vector.

The momentum vector = mv.
For a point mass. You omitted the position vector in your initial statement and only mentioned the mass and angular (not linear) velocity. Wouldn't you say the position vector kind of important in that calculation?

Quote
Can you understand these basic things?

The angular momentum is directly related to the mass of the object.
And depends on the distribution of the mass, as you will admit further down the post.

Quote
Now, it could be defined in terms of a moment of inertia multiplied by the angular velocity; however,

What is the moment of inertia?



This is integrated over the entire MASS DISTRIBUTION (of Q), that is, it is directly related to mass.
See.

Mass is a factor, yes, but your statement

The mass of a body and the rate at which it spins, in classical physics, determines an object's "angular momentum."

is incomplete. Angular momentum also depends on the mass distribution, as you note above.

Quote
My advice: go back to some evening courses in high school physics.

You do need them badly.
::)

Remember, I'm the one who reminded you about the necessity of considering mass distribution instead of mass alone. You're the one backpedaling on angular momentum, not me.

Quote
You seem to be barking about the slight difference between the true length of the tropical year and the average length of the Gregorian calendar year, the fact that the tropical year is a non-integer number of days.

NO.

You have no knowledge of astrophysics.
::)

Quote
Had I added the precessional difference to my argument, the entire Gregorian calendar reform would have totaled some 17 days (and not just 11 days).

Gauss' formula has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE PRECESSION.

The official chronology of history must have the vernal equinox fall on March 20 (or March 21) in the year 325 AD.

But the exact formula of Gauss proves that the vernal equinox must have fallen on March 21 in the year 743 AD.
"Proves"? How does it do that?

What does the second have to do with the first, and why does it even matter?

Quote
Can you provide a source for that graph?

I did provide the exact sources.


You never directly related the graph and that table as far as I can see[nb]The reference may have been buried somewhere in that mass of text you post, but it's not obvious.[/nb]. The data in the graph doesn't match the data in the table (e.g. the table lacks entries for 1980 and 1990, but the graph has them; the table includes an entry for 1994 that is missing from the graph).

What I really wanted to know is who created the graph. Was it you, from the data cited, or someone else? Either way, you never addressed the obvious discrepancy between the first nine points (1900 - 1980) and the last three (1990, 2000, and 2002.5, I presume). The image of the graph is not hosted on what must be your image-sharing location, so I presume it's someone else's; did he mention this at all?

Here's your graph with some commentary:

Following is a chart with points representing the actual annual calculated precession rates
for the last 100 plus years. The early calculations are by Simon Newcomb and the later
by Williams or the Astronomical Almanac. We have drawn a line in the middle of the
dots to show the slope of the trend. If precession were the result of our Sun’s motion
around another object (causing a reorientation of the Earth) then according to Kepler’s
laws any trend line would reflect the signature of an elliptical orbit.



Figure 1. Current trends in precession. Source: 1900-1980 The American Ephemeris and
Nautical Almanac;
1981-2002 The Astronomical Almanac. United States Naval Observatory
For comparison, using your table as a data source and extending the 1901-1975 data out to 1980, here's what I get:



The trendline is a linear regression (best fit) of the data points, presuming they are all valid. In reality, the last three points were obtained using different techniques than the 1900 point, which the 1910 - 1980 points are based on.

Simon Newcomb's calculation at the end of the 19th century for general precession (p) in longitude gave a value of 5,025.64 arcseconds per tropical century, and was the generally accepted value until artificial satellites delivered more accurate observations and electronic computers allowed more elaborate models to be calculated. Lieske developed an updated theory in 1976, where p equals 5,029.0966 arcseconds per Julian century. Modern techniques such as VLBI and LLR allowed further refinements
This is the Wikipedia article you cited earlier.

If you continue the older p = 50.2565 + 0.000222 (Y - 1900) trend, you get 50.2787 arcsec/yr for 2000, the middle range of the three data points from 1994 - 2002.5 in your table, a difference of 0.012266 arcsec from the reported value using the newer, more accurate, techniques. Adjusting the old data so that it matches the newer data set by simply adding this difference to the 1900 value but keeping the annual acceleration factor produces this plot:



There are other possible ways to meld the different data sets; changing the acceleration factor is an obvious one. Of course, in a real research project, any such adjustment would have to be justified by a complete analysis of the data, including an error analysis of both the original 1900 value, the yearly factor, and the values obtained using the newer technique(s). Nonetheless, simply slapping in numbers without thought, especially when there is an obvious discontinuity between data sets gathered using different techniques, like you (or whoever made that plot) is sloppy.

Quote
Can you read English?

From 1900, when the rate was 50.2564"/year, it has increased to 50.29164"/year in 2002.
Not necessarily. See the above.

Quote
And this rate is accelerating.
Citation needed. According to the Wikipedia article you mentioned, the rate varies sinusoidally, so even if it's accelerating now, it won't continue to accelerate; at some point it will decelerate.

Quote
If the local gravity theory of lunisolar precession were correct, and this trend was extrapolated back a few hundred thousand years then precession would have been virtually non-existent even though the Sun and Moon exerted about the same gravitational influence as they do now. And if this trend were extrapolated forward a few million years the Earth might be wobbling so severely it would retrograde a day for every day it spins, and essentially stop moving or go into reverse!"
Which is why you shouldn't extrapolate linear approximations of trends indefinitely. It gives nonsense answers.

Quote
I told you that you have no basic knowledge of astrophysics.
Please see the last comment in this post.

Quote
The increasing rate of precession is a direct consequence of Simon Newcomb's formula, which adds 0.000222"/year.
No, Simon Newcomb's formula doesn't drive precession. Simon Newcomb's formula is an approximation, good over a limited time period, for how the rate of precession is changing. That's all.
 
Quote
It cannot be explained at all in terms of any lunisolar components, or other planets' supposed gravitational influence[citation needed].

If gravitation was an influence, then, given the constant loss of solar mass/lunar increasing recession rate, the precession rate should be decreasing, not increasing.
What about the other planets, which you just mentioned, then conveniently omitted?

Quote
EXPLAIN THE INCREASING RATE OF PRECESSION: IF YOU CANNOT, IT IS ALL OVER FOR YOU.
Numerical model of the Solar System show that the precessional constants have a period of about 41,000 years, the same as the obliquity of the ecliptic.
Quote
It proves that axial precession IS NOT RELATED TO NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
Wrong!

Quote
Here is another proof that precession has nothing to do with gravitation, the Allais effect.
Unrelated to the topic.

Quote
EXPLAIN THE PERSEID METEOR SHOWER PARADOX, which directly disproves precession:
Unlikely, but I may take a look at it later. If it's like everything else you're posting, it will prove to be unrelated.

Quote
EXPLAIN THE FACT THAT KEPLER FAKED/FORGED/FALSIFIED THE DATA ON MARS AND INVENTED AN ELLIPTICAL ORBIT WHICH DOES NOT EXIST:
Unrelated to the topic.

Quote
EXPLAIN THE FACT THAT AN ELLIPTICAL ORBIT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE ABSOLUTELY FALSE:
Unrelated to the topic.

Haven't you learned yet that it is not a good idea to debate with me using formulas?

*Sigh*. Yes, I know. I'll be punished for doubting you by being to asked to wade through a wall of, probably unattributed, copy-pasted technical jargon and formulas that are largely (or completely) irrelevant to the discussion. Meanwhile you hope the topic gets diverted into the weeds. I've seen it and know what to expect. It does get tedious.

This is playing out exactly as expected. Can I call 'em, or what?[nb]This one was pretty easy.[/nb]

But, hey, I did learn something (marginally) useful, that the rate of precession is currently increasing ever so slightly, so it's all good! I'll have to go in and review the NOVAS code and see how this is implemented[nb]I include NOVAS in a telescope-pointing program I wrote; it works very, very well![/nb].

Quote
You never did even mention the differences between epoch 1950 and epoch 2000 star charts.

But I did.

"If the observed change in orientation is 50” p/y and the only known motion of the solar system is around the galaxy (with no eccentricity) then we only see .005” p/y of “geometric effect” in the 50” p/y of observable identified as the “precession” total.

1,296,000 / 240,000,000 =. 0054”p/y

Now if the solar system happens to go around a center of mass in just 24,000 years (rather than 240 million years, again with no eccentricity) then the amount of geometric effect in the precession observable would be 54” p/y.

1,296,000 / 24,000 = 54” p/y
Emphasis added.

Nope.

Why would that cause the orientation of the Earth's axis of rotation with respect to (wrt) inertial space to change, which is what precession is?

That would cause whatever the orbit was around to appear to move wrt the background, and would introduce some parallax shifts in other nearby stars and objects, but wouldn't cause the observed rotation of the entire celestial sphere about the Ecliptic Poles. Sorry.

Quote
But obviously there is some eccentricity because all orbits are elliptical
Emphasis added.

EXPLAIN THE FACT THAT AN ELLIPTICAL ORBIT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE ABSOLUTELY FALSE:
How do these two statements square with each other? They're even in the same post.

Quote
and therefore the amount of geometric precession has to be below 54” p/y by about 5 to 10% depending on eccentricity assumptions. This tells us that most of the 50.29" p/y observable we see is due to the geometric effect of the larger orbit (changing our orientation to distant points of reference) and there is practically no local wobble (but just enough!), which is consistent with all our studies to date.

What most people do not realize is that if there is any real precession/nutation at all (affecting the earth’s axis on a local level) then the axis is obliged to hold that attitude relative to those local causative forces as the solar system revolves around the larger center of mass.[citation needed]

The restrictive model used in astronomy today does not recognize the motion of the solar system - therefore you must assume a monopathic explanation for all observables whether or not your assumptions are correct. The model I use recognizes the solar system moves. A moving frame allows for more precice descriptions of the observables.
Very high-precision work does recognize the motion of the solar system. For other applications (which are nearly all of them) it need not be considered because the effects are so small.

Quote
The lack of a moving frame leads to confusion.

The rules of the single frame lunisolar model are just as crazy. For example, if someone asks you, Does the earth wobble? You can only answer “yes or no” because in your model if the earth appears to wobble relative to the distant stars by 50” p/y [nb]"p/y" ? Do you mean "per year"? If so, then "/y" is sufficient, since the division symbol '/' means "per".[/nb] it must also wobble by 50” p/y relative to nearby objects.
My answer would be an unequivocal "yes". I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to put words into my mouth.

The Earth's axis of rotation wobbles wrt inertial space, so this affects our orientation to all other objects, whether they're part of the solar system or external to it. It really is that simple.

Quote
You have no way to separate the two motions and this forces you to assume an erroneous cause.
There's only one. You're trying to fabricate an issue where none exists.

Quote
Your static solar system model (a vestige of the original Copernican doctrine) has to explain the apparent motion of the equinox along the ecliptic as local wobble. [It works, too!] In a dynamic solar system model we can say “No” the earth does not wobble relative to local objects – the equinox remains fixed in relation to the earth’s orbit path around the sun (ecliptic). And “Yes” it does appear to move relative to objects outside the solar system because the whole solar system moves. It is more accurate[citation needed] – and very simple once you get the hang of it.

And that is the point here. We are trying to show the earth does not “physically” wobble in relation to the sun.
You may be trying, but your explanation fails observationally, so it can be discarded. It doesn't explain why there is no observed precession at the Ecliptic Poles, but is everywhere else by an amount proportional to the sine of the angle from these poles.

Quote
We see an apparent motion – the stars moving backward across the sky at about 50” p/y. Some hypothesize this is because the earth physically wobbled by this amount relative to local objects (lunisolar theory). But a close study of the facts reveals there is no local wobble[citation needed]. The observable is an apparent motion caused by the solar system’s orbit through space."

I told you that your trolling here is over.
You say a lot of other things that are wrong, too. It's what you do.
 
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5517
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #140 on: May 06, 2016, 08:41:11 PM »
jroa, is trolling allowed in the upper forums, especially the fed section?

Classic trolling techniques, when he has nothing else to say.


Let us carefully see how a troll deals with confronted with real science.


I did not backtrack on the definition of angular momentum: not for a moment.

It was YOU who had no idea that mass is directly related to angular momentum, which means you had no knowledge of its correct defintion.

I provided not one but two definitions: both are based on the concept of mass.


Here is what the troll wrote initially:

An object's angular momentum is determined by its moment of inertia, not mass, and rate of spin.

He is plainly saying that mass IS NOT RELATED TO ANGULAR MOMENTUM.

And yet, the moment of inertia, by its very definition, is based also on mass.


Here is the correct definition taken directly from an astronomy website:

http://www.teachastronomy.com/astropedia/article/Angular-Momentum-in-a-Collapsing-Cloud

Angular momentum is the quantity that measures the total rotary motion of a system. It is related to the amount of material rotating, the rate of rotation, and how spread out the rotating material may be. Mathematically, angular momentum is the product of the mass, the rotation rate, and the radial size of an object or system, L = r × m v.

We were already talking about the solar system, so the radial size was understood.

The definition says exactly what I posted:

The mass of a body and the rate at which it spins, in classical physics, determines an object's "angular momentum."

Why is such trolling allowed in the FED section?


The importance of angular momentum, as it related to the solar planetary system, stems from this:

A full 99.5 percent of all the angular momentum in the solar system is concentrated in the planets, yet a staggering 99.8 percent of all the mass in our solar system is located in our sun! To an astrophysicist this is both astounding and unexplainable. There is no known mechanical process which could accomplish this transfer of momentum from the sun to its planets.

Our sun is rotating far too slowly to have been formed from a gas cloud that was rotating at high speed. To say it another way: the planets have far too much angular momentum in comparison with the sun. They are moving fast around the sun, while the sun itself is turning very slowly.

Jupiter itself has 60 percent of the planetary angular motion. Evolutionary theory cannot account for this. This strange distribution was the primary cause of the downfall of the nebular hypothesis. To satisfy the theory, the sun would originally have had to spin at an extremely high speed. But instead, it rotates slowly.

*David Layzer, a Harvard University astronomer, could find no solution to the angular momentum problem. If our sun had been part of a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to be a billion times as much as it now possesses. How it could have lost all but one ten-millionth of one percent of its theorized original angular momentum has never been explained. In addition, * Layzer explains, if the sun lost nearly all of its momentum, why did the planets and moons retain so much of theirs?

'Except in the Earth-Moon system (which is exceptional in other respects as well), the primary [the planet] carries the bulk of the angular momentum, instead of the satellites . . This circumstance aggravates the theoretical difficulty presented by the slow rotation of the Sun, for if the Sun has somehow managed to get rid of the angular momentum it would be expected to have, according to the nebular hypotheses, why have the planets not done likewise?'—*David Layzer, 'Cosmogony,' in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol. 3, p. 564.


Here is what alphaomega wrote initially:

Wrong.

An object's angular momentum is determined by its moment of inertia, not mass, and rate of spin.


The troll has no idea that mass is directly related to angular momentum, no knowledge of physics.

I have wasted a whole message, the very aim of a troll, to explain to him that mass is actually directly to angular momentum.


Now the troll agrees, mass is important.

Mass is a factor, yes.




*

sokarul

  • 17085
  • Discount Chemist
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5517
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #142 on: May 06, 2016, 09:04:51 PM »
And the trolling continues unabated.

This troll has no idea of the Simon Newcomb precise formula.

If you continue the older p = 50.2565 + 0.000222 (Y - 1900) trend, you get 50.2787 arcsec/yr for 2000, the middle range of the three data points from 1994 - 2002.5 in your table, a difference of 0.012266 arcsec from the reported value using the newer, more accurate, techniques.

The increase in the precession rate is EXPONENTIAL.

According to the official astrophysics, the moon, which is continually receding in distance from Earth, is by far the biggest force acting on the Earth (in relation to the precession rate).

The sun would be the second largest force: its mass is slowly decreasing.

Both the lunar and solar forces have no influence on the precession rate.


Simon Newcomb included a “constant” in his precession formula to get it to match the increasing rate of precession that was observed leading up to his era.

The “constant” amount was .000222 arc seconds per year.

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.


it won't continue to accelerate; at some point it will decelerate.

This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.


If the local gravity theory of lunisolar precession were correct, and this trend was extrapolated back a few hundred thousand years then precession would have been virtually non-existent even though the Sun and Moon exerted about the same gravitational influence as they do now. And if this trend were extrapolated forward a few million years the Earth might be wobbling so severely it would retrograde a day for every day it spins, and essentially stop moving or go into reverse!"


alphaomega CANNOT EXPLAIN THE EXPONENTIAL INCREASE IN THE PRECESSION RATE.


The desperate troll then writes this:

What about the other planets, which you just mentioned, then conveniently omitted?

How in the world can you jump to "other planets" when the most important factors, solar/lunar components, have been ruled out already?

No other planets' supposed gravitational influence has any bearing on the increasing rate of precession: see below, the heliacal rising of Sirius proof.


Here is the troll's conclusion:

But, hey, I did learn something (marginally) useful, that the rate of precession is currently increasing ever so slightly, so it's all good!

He has just been shown that the increase in the rate is EXPONENTIAL!


You conveniently jumped over the Allais effect and how it modifies the precessional rate:


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66455.msg1775629#msg1775629

Analysis. This long Foucault-type pendulum behaved in a very stable manner. However well after the end of the locally visible eclipse, at around 11:33 (to the recording resolution, i.e. between the readings at 11:29 and 11:36), some influence clearly acted for a short period to increase the precession rate.


More trolling.

How do these two statements square with each other? They're even in the same post.

The first quote was from an RE website, which has to rely on elliptical orbits. They are explaining the binary star theory, which is a RE theory, but which does contradict your basic assertions.


Here is another proof that precession has nothing to do gravity: the heliacal rising of Sirius.


This is from Jed Buchwald, CALTECH and MIT:

The fact that Sirius seems to maintain its position relative to the position of the sun was a surprise to most scientists (aware of precession), when it was first noticed by the French scientific community following the Egyptian discoveries of Napoleon (and the Dendera Zodiac) in the early 1800’s. Perhaps to save the lunisolar theory of precession, or at least to make sense of physics as then taught, physicist, astronomer, mathematician Jean-Baptiste Biot (21 April 1774 – 3 February 1862) proclaimed that this phenomenon was an oddity of the latitude and horizon around Dendera, meaning it just seemed as if Sirius was immune to the effects of precession. And to this day this is the assumption of many astronomers and astrophysicists.   Physicist Jed Z. Buchwald, professor of history and science and technology (Caltech and MIT) commented on this topic in his article Egyptian Stars Under Paris Skies, when he noted:

"The rising of Sirius, the brightest star in the heavens and important to Egyptians as the signal for the annual flooding of the Nile, was assumed by the French physicists to move with relation to the sun as do the constellations of the zodiac. It does not, however, as we see here."


SIRIUS DEFIES PRECESSION.




The curved line dividing the lit from the dark regions represents the horizon near Dendera. The blue lines show the locations of the ecliptic with respect to the horizon at five helical risings separated by hundreds of years. The vernal points mark the equinoxes at these times, and the circled numbers on the lower right indicate the corresponding positions of Sirius. Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes—and so from the solstices— throughout these many centuries, despite precession.


HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.

The Sun/Moon/planets have nothing to do with precession.

In the official theory of astrophysics, Sirius 8.6 LIGHT YEARS from Earth.

THAT IS 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS.

And yet it keeps up precisely with the exponential increase of the rate of precession.


At this point it would be interesting to mention that Otto Neugebauer, who wrote extensively about Babylonian astronomy, also discussed the so-called Solstice-Equinox-Sirius texts, which formed part of the “Astronomical Diaries”. These texts list equinoxes, solstices, heliacal risings and settings of Sirius from the period of around 600 BCE and around 330 BCE. Apparently, the position of Sirius relative to the solstices and equinoxes did not change over time with precession.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110723220446/http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/articles/Sothis4.shtml


It is recognized that from the beginning of the empire and during the entire dynastic period the rising of Sirius with the Sun always occurred around the time of the Summer solstice.

These historical records do not lie: Sirius defies precession.

The implication of this astronomical fact is best explained by Jed Z. Buchwald, a distinguished Professor of History and Science, in his paper “Egyptian Stars under Paris Skies” (Caltech, Engineering & Science No. 4, 2003), where he discusses the meaning of the Zodiac that has been engraved in the ceiling of the temple of Dendera in Egypt:

“The solstice is, after all, extraordinarily hard to pin-point by observation, and in any case it was known from Greek texts that the Egyptians were particularly concerned with the heliacal rising of the brightest star in the sky, Sirius—that is, with the night when Sirius first appears, just before dawn. In Egyptian prehistory this event certainly preceded the annual flooding of the Nile, which was of obvious agricultural importance. Would not precession have moved Sirius along with the zodiacal stars, eventually decoupling its heliacal rising from the solstice, and so from the annual inundation? We know today that the inundation occurs after the June beginning of the rainy season in Ethiopia, where the Blue Nile rises. And yet Sirius’ heliacal rising remained a central marker of the year throughout Egyptian history.” (p 25)

".... despite precession, Sirius and the solstice must remain about the same distance in time from one another during most of Egyptian history. Indeed they do, though it’s doubtful that Burckhardt and Coraboeuf had thought it through. Because of Sirius’ position, and the latitudes at which the Egyptians observed the sky, both Sirius’ heliacal rising and the summer solstice remained nearly the same number of days apart throughout Egyptian history even though the zodiac moves slowly around the ecliptic." (pp 29)

Buchwald, who produced a revealing diagram on the ‘Heliacal Risings of Sirius’ in relation to the vernal points (for the period of 2900 BCE to 2941 CE at intervals of 1460 years) using TheSky software, makes it very clear that "Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes - and so from the solstices - throughout these many centuries, despite precession".

http://web.archive.org/web/20110723220459/http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/articles/Sothis5.shtml


According to the current theory of lunisolar precession the pole, and therefore the equator of the Earth is supposed to “wobble” over a period of roughly 25800 years relative to the position of the fixed stars and the Sun. In other words, if we were to imagine the Earth ‘fixed’ in its revolution around the Sun at the time when Sirius is in conjunction with the Sun (e.g. during the Summer solstice), an observer would not only notice changes in the declination of Sirius and the other stars, but simultaneously equal changes in the declination of the Sun. In practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.

In order to account for the unusual motion of Sirius, which is minimal relative to the Summer solstice and exceptionally high with respect to the stars of the Zodiac, Karine Gadré,  the Associate Researcher at the Department of Astrophysics of the MidiPyrenees Observatory in Toulouse, France offers the following explanation:

“The low change in the celestial coordinates of Sirius comes from its high proper movement, which partly compensated the effects of precession under the Dynastic Period. […] In order to better understand how the proper movement of Sirius can partly compensate the effects of precession, do not only take into account the numerical values of the speed vector. Take also into account the position of Sirius on the celestial vault at a given instant and the direction of the speed vector.”


Now we know that the proper motion of Sirius (i.e. of the Sirius system) over a period of some 5400 years is less than 2°:

"For a long time astronomers had been noticing anomalies in Sirius' proper motion; this motion, well known since Halley's time is equal to 0.0375" in RA (Right Ascension) and to 1.207" in D, (Declination), which gives a yearly resultant motion of 1.32" in the direction of 204°, which is noticeably to the south. In 1834, Bessel showed that the anomalies consisted mainly of deviations between the star's theoretical position and its actual position; these distinctly periodic differences, especially in right ascension, may be as great as 0.321", which is a considerable amount with regard to meridian observations. Overall, instead of moving through space in a straight line, Sirius appears to display a wavy trajectory."

Dr. P. Blaize, Le Compagnon de Sirius, Bull. de la Société astronomique de France (1931)


EXPLAIN THE PERSEID METEOR SHOWER PARADOX, which directly disproves precession:


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775758#msg1775758

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775914#msg1775914


« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 09:07:11 PM by sandokhan »

*

sokarul

  • 17085
  • Discount Chemist
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #143 on: May 06, 2016, 09:24:39 PM »
Read your own link (From the guy who explained how stars fusion elements. Which you don't agree with but still blindly follow his other article. )
http://hubpages.com/education/The-Precession-Problem


Quote
As the earth is maintaining its spin axis in space to account for the foregoing anomaly, then something is altering the entire solar system to generate the phenomenon of precession. It is as if the entire solar system is being pulled and warped slightly by something unseen, which we observe as precession. This would also account for the variation in the precession given the figures above that vary by 294 years between extremes from the independently calculated periods. The variation present suggests that there is the presence of an influence, either galactic in origin, or a periodic star around which the sun and solar system is co-orbiting. A number of candidates have been suggested, but according to the precession, the orbital period has to fall within the periods 1 to 6 listed above, i.e., between 25,626 to 25, 920 years. As according to one source, the precession has been speeding up over the last century, the orbit of the unknown body is approaching perihelion. Needless to say, a watch is up in certain directions, particularly where a disproportionate number of comets are being perturbed (3).
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #144 on: May 06, 2016, 09:58:20 PM »
Does human knowledge account for everything? No.
Were we around for the creation of the solar system? No.
Is the current theory incredibly specific? No.
Does the current theory account for absolutely everything, such as this angular momentum issue? No.
Does that prove the theory is fundamentally wrong? No.
Is the theory considered complete and verified history by astronomers anyway? No.
Because of this hole, is the protoplanetary disk theory no longer the most accurate model of how the solar system formed? No.
Are scientists supposed to just stop trying to find an answer when they hit a wall? No.
Will they? No.
Should they? No.
Does a hole in present knowledge mean all previous understanding goes out the window? No.

You're blowing this problem out of proportion. It's an attempt to explain events that occurred billions of years before human history by analyzing the results after the fact. The solar system obviously would have had significant interference from external objects that are now long gone in the billions of years from then to now. So obviously we really have no idea what we're doing here. The protoplanetary disk theory obviously has that hole in it that needs filling; it's still the best guess we've ever had and therefore accepted because it still fits the rest of what we can see. So was anything about this discrepancy supposed to have a noteworthy impact on RET vs FET when FET supporters can't even agree on how the sun works, let alone take guesses at how it formed?
Quote from: jroa
Wow, great non-response
Quote from: disputeone
I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
Quote from: markjo
Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5517
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #145 on: May 06, 2016, 11:25:14 PM »
The crux of the matter is this: the increasing rate of precession is exponential.

Data for 1900 (Simon Newcomb):

http://syrte.obspm.fr/jsr/journees2008/pdf/ProcJournees2008.pdf (pg 75)

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

Data for 2000 (AA):

https://books.google.ro/books?id=OvTjLcQ4MCQC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=astronomical+almanac+2000+precession+50.290966%22&source=bl&ots=lnlt1jmDYz&sig=d9xLTsLP-xb83lOIv5C0Xb0FVls&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE0JDlpMfMAhUI7RQKHVwGBdgQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=astronomical%20almanac%202000%20precession%2050.290966%22&f=false

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.


The Sun's mass is slowly decreasing over time (and the distance has not changed).

The Moon is slowly receding from Earth.

They have no influence whatsoever on the exponential increasing rate of precession.

The calculated gravitational influence of other planets is MUCH SMALLER, and cannot explain at all this exponential increase in the rate of precession: their masses have not increased, and neither have their orbital distances been modified.

If the local gravity theory of lunisolar precession were correct, and this trend was extrapolated back a few hundred thousand years then precession would have been virtually non-existent even though the Sun and Moon exerted about the same gravitational influence as they do now. And if this trend were extrapolated forward a few million years the Earth might be wobbling so severely it would retrograde a day for every day it spins, and essentially stop moving or go into reverse!"


The heliacal rising of Sirius proves that Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes—and so from the solstices— throughout these many centuries, despite precession.

The diagram drawn by Jed Buchwald, CALTECH and MIT, posted in my previous message, proves this fact very clearly.


HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.


In the official theory of astrophysics, Sirius 8.6 LIGHT YEARS from Earth.

THAT IS 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS.

And yet it keeps up precisely with the exponential increase of the rate of precession.

This proves that precession has nothing to do with the supposed gravitational influence from the Sun, Moon or other planets.


According to the current theory of lunisolar precession the pole, and therefore the equator of the Earth is supposed to “wobble” over a period of roughly 25800 years relative to the position of the fixed stars and the Sun. In other words, if we were to imagine the Earth ‘fixed’ in its revolution around the Sun at the time when Sirius is in conjunction with the Sun (e.g. during the Summer solstice), an observer would not only notice changes in the declination of Sirius and the other stars, but simultaneously equal changes in the declination of the Sun. In practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.

In order to account for the unusual motion of Sirius, which is minimal relative to the Summer solstice and exceptionally high with respect to the stars of the Zodiac, Karine Gadré,  the Associate Researcher at the Department of Astrophysics of the MidiPyrenees Observatory in Toulouse, France offers the following explanation:

“The low change in the celestial coordinates of Sirius comes from its high proper movement, which partly compensated the effects of precession under the Dynastic Period. […] In order to better understand how the proper movement of Sirius can partly compensate the effects of precession, do not only take into account the numerical values of the speed vector. Take also into account the position of Sirius on the celestial vault at a given instant and the direction of the speed vector.”


« Last Edit: May 07, 2016, 12:45:51 AM by sandokhan »

Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #146 on: May 07, 2016, 10:36:27 AM »
jroa, is trolling allowed in the upper forums, especially the fed section?
"Waaaahhh!! Someone is questioning my pronouncements. Make him stop!!!"

Classic.

Quote
I did not backtrack on the definition of angular momentum: not for a moment.
Yes you did. Since your memory is selective, here's the summary:

The mass of a body and the rate at which it spins, in classical physics, determines an object's "angular momentum."
Corrected in a later post to:

An angular momentum is the cross product of a position vector and a momentum vector.

...

Now, it could be defined in terms of a moment of inertia multiplied by the angular velocity; however,

What is the moment of inertia?



This is integrated over the entire MASS DISTRIBUTION (of Q), that is, it is directly related to mass.
Can you show where position vector or mass distribution appear in:

The mass of a body and the rate at which it spins, in classical physics, determines an object's "angular momentum."
No? I can't either.

Quote
It was YOU who had no idea that mass is directly related to angular momentum, which means you had no knowledge of its correct defintion.
Um... no. Sorry. Moment of inertia is the rotational equivalent of mass and includes mass as a term. Get over it.

Quote
I provided not one but two definitions: both are based on the concept of mass.
And, as I said before, mass is only one of the factors in determining moment of inertia. I'm sorry, but that's a fact, even if you don't like it.

Perhaps some examples will make the notion of moment of inertia clearer to you. When rotating about the axis of symmetry:

Hollow sphere:[nb]https://www.miniphysics.com/uy1-calculation-of-moment-of-inertia-of-thin-spherical-shell.html[/nb]
I = 2/3 MR2

Solid sphere (uniform density):[nb]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mi.html[/nb]
I = 2/5 MR2

Hoop:
I = MR2

Cylinder or disk:
I = 1/2 MR2

What does this mean?
A thin ring will have twice the moment of inertia as a uniform disk with the same mass and same radius.

Same mass, same size, different distribution of mass, different moment of inertia, different angular momentum at the same angular velocity. The end.

Here's an illustration of this in action:

Those objects are modeled all with the same mass, same radius.

Note how the shapes finish in order of I from smallest (solid sphere) to largest (ring) because the objects with larger I rotate more slowly with the same amount of applied torque.

Quote
An object's angular momentum is determined by its moment of inertia, not mass, and rate of spin.

He is plainly saying that mass IS NOT RELATED TO ANGULAR MOMENTUM.
No, silly. Moment of inertia includes mass as a factor.

And yet, the moment of inertia, by its very definition, is based also on mass.
See? Now you're arguing against yourself.

Quote
Here is the correct definition taken directly from an astronomy website:

http://www.teachastronomy.com/astropedia/article/Angular-Momentum-in-a-Collapsing-Cloud

Angular momentum is the quantity that measures the total rotary motion of a system. It is related to the amount of material rotating, the rate of rotation, and how spread out the rotating material may be. Mathematically, angular momentum is the product of the mass, the rotation rate, and the radial size of an object or system, L = r × m v.
There's that pesky r term again. Note that it was absent from your original pronouncement.

The mass of a body and the rate at which it spins, in classical physics, determines an object's "angular momentum."
You really need to give up on this. You goofed. You were called out on it. You changed your statement, yet you continue to desperately try to salvage something, anything; this only keeps your flub front and center in the process.

You were just wrong. You know better now. It's time to move on.

Quote
We were already talking about the solar system, so the radial size was understood.
What radial size is understood? The Oort cloud? What does that have to do with the angular momentum of, say, Jupiter?

Quote
The definition says exactly what I posted:

The mass of a body and the rate at which it spins, in classical physics, determines an object's "angular momentum."

Why is such trolling debate allowed in the FED section?
Fixed that for you.

If you really think it's trolling, don't reply. Of course you know it's not, and think the responses need to be addressed, but your usual ploys (acres of mostly unsubstantiated claims, derailment) aren't working, so now you're just whining. Feel free to bail at any time.

Quote
The importance of angular momentum, as it related to the solar planetary system, stems from this:

A full 99.5 percent of all the angular momentum in the solar system is concentrated in the planets[citation needed], yet a staggering 99.8 percent of all the mass in our solar system is located in our sun[that sounds about right]! To an astrophysicist this is both astounding and unexplainable[citation needed]. There is no known mechanical process which could accomplish this transfer of momentum from the sun to its planets[citation needed].

Our sun is rotating far too slowly[nb]Slowly? The equatorial velocity at the Sun's surface is about 7400 km/hr!! That's insanely(!!!) fast! It ought to fly apart, according to many flat-earth believers!![/nb] to have been formed from a gas cloud that was rotating at high speed[citation needed]. To say it another way: the planets have far too much angular momentum in comparison with the sun[citation needed]. They are moving fast[??] around the sun, while the sun itself is turning very slowly.
Why do you say the gas cloud is rotating at "high speed"? Don't forget, if it has too much angular momentum, it will not coalesce at all.

Quote
Jupiter itself has 60 percent of the planetary angular motion. Evolutionary theory cannot account for this[citation needed]. This strange distribution was the primary cause of the downfall of the nebular hypothesis. To satisfy the theory, the sun would originally have had to spin at an extremely high speed. But instead, it rotates slowly.
You still haven't justified that claim that the Sun has only 0.5% of the angular momentum of the solar system. I believe you're off by an order of magnitude.

Quote
*David Layzer, a Harvard University astronomer, could find no solution to the angular momentum problem. If our sun had been part of a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to be a billion times as much as it now possesses. How it could have lost all but one ten-millionth of one percent of its theorized original angular momentum has never been explained. In addition, * Layzer explains, if the sun lost nearly all of its momentum, why did the planets and moons retain so much of theirs?

'Except in the Earth-Moon system (which is exceptional in other respects as well), the primary [the planet] carries the bulk of the angular momentum, instead of the satellites . . This circumstance aggravates the theoretical difficulty presented by the slow rotation of the Sun, for if the Sun has somehow managed to get rid of the angular momentum it would be expected to have, according to the nebular hypotheses, why have the planets not done likewise?'—*David Layzer, 'Cosmogony,' in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol. 3, p. 564.
Yes, Dr. Lazyr asked some very good questions. As far as I know, not all of them have been answered yet. That's how science works. He may be right that the nebular hypothesis is incorrect, but more recent research (pdf) supports it.
 
At least you gave a citation for this quote. That's an improvement over most of your claims.

Quote
<rehash of what you already said and has been adequately covered above.>
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5517
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #147 on: May 07, 2016, 12:11:27 PM »
jroa did ban you for trolling before.

Here are rules for the flat earth debate section:

Trolling and low-content posting will not be tolerated and this forum will be moderated quite strictly.

The reason I am bringing this up, is that you are wasting everybody's time here with your endless bullshit.


Here is what alphaomega claimed earlier:


Wrong.

An object's angular momentum is determined by its moment of inertia, not mass, and rate of spin.


An object's angular momentum is determined by its moment of inertia, not mass, and rate of spin.

Emphasis, NOT MASS.

alphaomega has no idea what the definition of angular momentum is.


When this fact was brought to his attention, during the course of the same day, he wrote:

Mass is a factor, yes.


Now, is this trolling or what? A waste of time or what?


Can you show where position vector or mass distribution appear in:

Mass distribution is part of the definition of the moment of inertia, the alternative definition for the angular momentum.

My original post dealt with the main definition of angular momentum,  based on mass and rate of spin (the position vector was already known from the context, the solar system), and it stands correct.



Moment of inertia is the rotational equivalent of mass and includes mass as a term.

Now you realize that mass is an integral part of the definition of angular momentum.


But this is not what you wrote yesterday:

An object's angular momentum is determined by its moment of inertia, not mass, and rate of spin.

At that point in time, this troll, posing as a debater, had no idea that the moment of inertia,  by its very definition, is based on the concept of mass.


Today, he passes over this as if nothing happened, and gleefully concludes that, after all, mass is important.


A sure sign of losing touch with reality.


And he went even further.


But, hey, I did learn something (marginally) useful, that the rate of precession is currently increasing ever so slightly, so it's all good!

He had just been shown that the increase in the rate is EXPONENTIAL!

Data for 1900 (Simon Newcomb):

http://syrte.obspm.fr/jsr/journees2008/pdf/ProcJournees2008.pdf (pg 75)

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

Data for 2000 (AA):

https://books.google.ro/books?id=OvTjLcQ4MCQC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=astronomical+almanac+2000+precession+50.290966%22&source=bl&ots=lnlt1jmDYz&sig=d9xLTsLP-xb83lOIv5C0Xb0FVls&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE0JDlpMfMAhUI7RQKHVwGBdgQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=astronomical%20almanac%202000%20precession%2050.290966%22&f=false

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.



*David Layzer, a Harvard University astronomer, could find no solution to the angular momentum problem. If our sun had been part of a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to be a billion times as much as it now possesses. How it could have lost all but one ten-millionth of one percent of its theorized original angular momentum has never been explained. In addition, * Layzer explains, if the sun lost nearly all of its momentum, why did the planets and moons retain so much of theirs?

'Except in the Earth-Moon system (which is exceptional in other respects as well), the primary [the planet] carries the bulk of the angular momentum, instead of the satellites . . This circumstance aggravates the theoretical difficulty presented by the slow rotation of the Sun, for if the Sun has somehow managed to get rid of the angular momentum it would be expected to have, according to the nebular hypotheses, why have the planets not done likewise?'—*David Layzer, 'Cosmogony,' in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol. 3, p. 564.

There is no such thing as nebular theory.

Kepler's fudging of the data disproves it immediately:


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670

"rather they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was
elliptical."

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776680#msg1776680

The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion. Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2016, 08:45:56 AM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5517
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #148 on: May 07, 2016, 12:27:02 PM »
Now, things are really going to get painful for you.



An Egypto-Julian calendar reveals that New Year Day (beginnings of Sothic Cycles) of the Egyptian calendar synchronized with the following tetraeterises:

Heliopolis, Egypt:
4225 BC July 15
2767 BC July 16
1311 BC July 17
145 AD July 18


This proves that Sirius is not precessing like other stars, since in this 4,370 years time period, the calendar dates have only changed by 3 calendar days!

Moreover, the heliacal rising of Sirius appears to keep up with the calendar.

This heliacal rise of Sirius also appears to be a fixed date according to the Julian calendar for over 4,000 years.


HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.


In the official theory of astrophysics, Sirius 8.6 LIGHT YEARS from Earth.

THAT IS 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS.

And yet it keeps up precisely with the exponential increase of the rate of precession.


Dr. Jad Buchwald (Caltech):

Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes—and so from the solstices— throughout these many centuries, despite precession.

".... despite precession, Sirius and the solstice must remain about the same distance in time from one another during most of Egyptian history."


The crux of the matter is this: the increasing rate of precession is exponential.

Data for 1900 (Simon Newcomb):

http://syrte.obspm.fr/jsr/journees2008/pdf/ProcJournees2008.pdf (pg 75)

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

Data for 2000 (AA):

https://books.google.ro/books?id=OvTjLcQ4MCQC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=astronomical+almanac+2000+precession+50.290966%22&source=bl&ots=lnlt1jmDYz&sig=d9xLTsLP-xb83lOIv5C0Xb0FVls&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE0JDlpMfMAhUI7RQKHVwGBdgQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=astronomical%20almanac%202000%20precession%2050.290966%22&f=false

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.


EXPLAIN THE PERSEID METEOR SHOWER PARADOX, which directly disproves precession:


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775758#msg1775758

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775914#msg1775914
« Last Edit: May 07, 2016, 12:28:46 PM by sandokhan »

*

sokarul

  • 17085
  • Discount Chemist
Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« Reply #149 on: May 07, 2016, 12:55:54 PM »
Read this post again.
Does human knowledge account for everything? No.
Were we around for the creation of the solar system? No.
Is the current theory incredibly specific? No.
Does the current theory account for absolutely everything, such as this angular momentum issue? No.
Does that prove the theory is fundamentally wrong? No.
Is the theory considered complete and verified history by astronomers anyway? No.
Because of this hole, is the protoplanetary disk theory no longer the most accurate model of how the solar system formed? No.
Are scientists supposed to just stop trying to find an answer when they hit a wall? No.
Will they? No.
Should they? No.
Does a hole in present knowledge mean all previous understanding goes out the window? No.

You're blowing this problem out of proportion. It's an attempt to explain events that occurred billions of years before human history by analyzing the results after the fact. The solar system obviously would have had significant interference from external objects that are now long gone in the billions of years from then to now. So obviously we really have no idea what we're doing here. The protoplanetary disk theory obviously has that hole in it that needs filling; it's still the best guess we've ever had and therefore accepted because it still fits the rest of what we can see. So was anything about this discrepancy supposed to have a noteworthy impact on RET vs FET when FET supporters can't even agree on how the sun works, let alone take guesses at how it formed?

And then read your own link again.

http://www.astronoo.com/en/articles/angular-momentum.html
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run