MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The AEL Goes AudioVisual (Astrophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is a vexed question for both SCUM and orthodoxy. The assumption for both of us is that somehow spin prevents gravity. However, the only time we observed an event of this sort was when Hale-Bopp (was it?) crashed into Jupiter. So personally I'm keeping strictly mum on this point.

Observation takes precedence over theory every time. Orthodoxy can't explain orbits within the current paradigm of gravity and inertial force. It just doesn't work, in this Solar System or in the greater universe. The inner planets would have to have greater mass and angular momentum than Jupiter.

Also, whilst I'm here...... if the dead stars / planets moved into the solar system from further afield, then why have they 'apparently' stopped moving inwards? Why do they not collide if the gravitational pull remains the same? Or are all the planets eventually going to collide with the sun? Or is there some other force at play keeping the planets spaced apart?

The inner planets are an anomaly. None of them are part of the Sun's original system. You only need to look at their axial rotation angles to understand that.

They are all newcomers that have taken up their positions very recently. The wobble that is assumed to be precession and the highly elliptical orbit of Mercury is circumstantial evidence of this. The Earth has never been through a full processional cycle and if all stellar systems are intrinsically seeking equilibrium it probably never will.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

If you asked the average Space Scientist (and how thoroughly average they are) the status of The Precession of the Equinoxes, (s)he would say that it is an observed phenomenon. This is quite untrue, it is in fact a piece of Necessary Uniformitarian Dogma.

Is it a Necessary Uniformitarian Dogma that Newton's Laws are in fact Laws and will continue to hold under all circumstances?

Actually it is, but not one we're often prepared to challenge. Angular momentum and the unequal distribution of Earth's mass says precession must take place. As with a gyroscope. Precession is not inferred from an observed segment of a trajectory and "precession is an observed phenomenon" is not an entirely empty claim.

For the binary star theory to hold up, they must deny that gyroscopic precession takes place; and that would take some explaining.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I assume that the centrifugal force from the rotation forces the planet out / away from the sun (just as a child on a roundabout will fly off if they don't hold on).

Aaarrrggghhh!!! Don't get me started on how no one understands centrifugal force. The child does not fall outward/away from the roundabout. Nor does the stone leave the sling radially. They go tangentially.

There is only revolution because there is a force pulling toward the centre. It's not a balancing act between inward and outward forces.

how come, when the planets are in alignment say, planets do not move out of their current orbits?

They do. A bit. That's how Neptune was discovered.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Orthodoxy can't explain orbits within the current paradigm of gravity and inertial force. It just doesn't work, in this Solar System or in the greater universe. The inner planets would have to have greater mass and angular momentum than Jupiter.

Wadjoo tahkin about, Willis?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Can you give me the basis for this claim about Precession being somewhat akin to Newtonian Laws.

Angular momentum and the unequal distribution of Earth's mass says precession must take place.

What unequal distribution? And if there is, are you seriously saying that they have computed it with sufficient exactness as to predict that the resulting precession will take 25,000 years.

As with a gyroscope. Precession is not inferred from an observed segment of a trajectory and "precession is an observed phenomenon" is not an entirely empty claim.

Well...just a minute. You can have a gyroscope without precession. But in any case, it is surely merely inferred that the earth is acting like a gyroscope in the first place. Do you know of a gyroscope that takes twenty-four hours to make one revolution, and if so does it tend to a precession of twenty-five thousand years? Come on, Dan, throw some light, old chum.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What unequal distribution?

Earth is oblate, so the tilted axis makes a difference: there are nearer and farther 'lobes' of mass, so there is a small difference in gravitational force, as if to twist the axis back to the upright. But spin is weird and trying to twist the axis results in it precessing. (Vector-cross-product-type stuff. The tilted axis traces out a cone, like a gyroscope.)

And if there is, are you seriously saying that they have computed it with sufficient exactness as to predict that the resulting precession will take 25,000 years.

Apparently so. Kibble (a standard text) sets evaluating the Sun's contribution as a problem and it's too long-winded for me to follow, so I can't point you to a succinct calculation, but the answer in the back of the book is 16.6 seconds of arc per year. That plus the Moon's effect (as with the tides, about twice as big as the Sun's) gives about 50 seconds of arc per year or 26000 years per cycle. (Moon is not quite in the Ecliptic, so we get a nutation, a wobble, too.)

You can have a gyroscope without precession.

Not really. If the gyro's axis is at all tilted, then there is some torque on it. If it's not spinning, it rotates around its 'foot' and falls over. If it's spinning, even though it's canted over at an angle, it goes around instead of down. (You can't have it at an angle and stationary.) The only time there is no precession is when it's bang on vertical: but this is just the case where the torque on the axis is zero, so the magnitude of the precession is zero.

But in any case, it is surely merely inferred that the earth is acting like a gyroscope in the first place.

It's spinning and the axis is tilted and there is a torque on the axis: how can it not be treated the same as a gyro, spinning top or bicycle tyre?
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Dan, all that you say is true and sensible and orthodox. But then so is every paradigm before it gets chucked out. Have you looked at the evidence and does it not have some merit?
http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/bri/research/evidence/lunarcycle.shtml
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Look, Dan, you'll have to do a bit of scientific skimming on my behalf, because you understand these things. Would I be correct in assuming the following:
1. they can measure the earth's wobble year-by-year
2. it comes out as 'yea much'
3. they then list anything that might cause the wobble (from the earth's oblateness to the orbit of Jupiter)
4. they argue amongst themselves (learnedly) as to the cause(s)
5. but they all agree that it must be a cyclical process because otherwise the earth will end up upside down or whatever
5. they all agree that if 'yea much' is to be cyclical it will have to be of the order of 25,000 years per cycle.

In other words it's a) a uniformitarian-only theory and b) probably complete bollocks.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Just one more thing. When you buy a gyroscope at the Schoolboys Own Exhibition, you have to spin it to a zillion revs per second with the piece of string in order to make it stand upright on your index finger. When it starts to slow down it falls off your index finger. I haven't done the experiment lately but I've got a strong feeling that by the time the gyroscope slowed down to one revolution every 365 days it would probably have fallen off my index finger. Why hasn't the earth fallen off God's Index Finger?
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Dan wrote:
Wadjoo tahkin about, Willis?

A series of mathematical equations to explain an EFFECT. If you don't understand the CAUSE of rotation how can you make empirical statements about its effect?

The Earth is 7.5 billion years old so we are told by orthodoxy. If there is only gravity and inertia to explain rotation then it should have stopped spinning millions of years ago. We can't even get to the moon and back with the assistance of rockets to provide momentum because a coupla tons of space ship in the "vacuum" of space can't maintain the momentum necessary; it requires boosters to do the job.

The Voyager and Pathfinder missions couldn't reach the outer planets without getting a gravitational slingshot from the massive gas giant planets to boost their momentum. And we are supposed to believe that some mystery gravitation or inertial force provided the Earth and the other planets with sufficient angular momentum 7.5 billion years ago to maintain infinitely constant rates of spin and orbital velocity.

Pull the other one!
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Dan wrote:
Apparently so. Kibble (a standard text) sets evaluating the Sun's contribution as a problem and it's too long-winded for me to follow, so I can't point you to a succinct calculation, but the answer in the back of the book is 16.6 seconds of arc per year. That plus the Moon's effect (as with the tides, about twice as big as the Sun's) gives about 50 seconds of arc per year or 26000 years per cycle. (Moon is not quite in the Ecliptic, so we get a nutation, a wobble, too.)

Beware of any 'Standard Texts'. Especially ones that are long-winded. The more mathematical equations need to explain away an anomaly the better. It ensures the public's reliance on 'Expert' testimony and dissuades other mathematicians from actually doing the work because a priori it's already been done.

This is why the 'Standard Theory of Black Hole' is accepted as fact. The standard theory that has been taught to every physics undergrad since the 1920's is known as Schwarzschild Solution. The only problem is IT IS NOT Schwarzschild's solution at all. It is Hilbert's Solution which has been proven mathematically to be based on faulty maths. Schwarzschild and three other colleagues proved conclusively the Black Holes cannot exist. But Black Holes were a requirement of Big Bang Theory in order to explain the 'Missing Mass' paradox intrinsic in the theory. So Hilbert's Solution was grasped on as proof and has been continually touted as Schwarzschild's.
Send private message
Pulp History


In: Wales
View user's profile
Reply with quote

DPCrisp wrote:

Aaarrrggghhh!!! Don't get me started on how no one understands centrifugal force. The child does not fall outward/away from the roundabout. Nor does the stone leave the sling radially. They go tangentially.


Don't be such a pedant..... if the planet shoots off 'tangentially' from its circular orbit it's path is still outward and away from the sun in ANY direction...... I accept the movement is sideways but it is still outwards in a circular system.

ALSO if you accept that it is a case of merely tangential force versus gravitational force, then that means all the planets are slowly 'falling' into the sun..... is there any evidence that we are indeed moving inwards??
_________________
Question everything!
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Aaarrrggghhh!!! Don't get me started on how no one understands centrifugal force. The child does not fall outward/away from the roundabout. Nor does the stone leave the sling radially. They go tangentially.


You can't have a definitive explanation of the EFFECTS of rotation if you can't explain the CAUSE of Rotation.

This is the basic flaw in Big Bang Theory. The entire Universe was created from a Singularity that exploded from nothing and propelled all the matter we now have in the Universe.

Everything was propelled spherically from a Zero Point in linear motion into the void that existed before the BB. Linear motion MUST continue to be linear. Newton's Second Law cannot apply in a Universe that by definition has NO OTHER EXTERNAL FORCE to act upon it.
Linear motion CANNOT become Circular Motion WITHOUT an external force.
Ergo Rotation cannot be explained without resorting to strange properties of matter that cannot be verified, like gravitational eddies and other dark matter forces.
We are talking about simple hydrogen atoms which have neutral charge. The electron always shields the neutron from charge separation unless there is a gravitational force strong enough to distort the atom. No such force existed at the time because it too would have had to have been an external force.
Send private message
EndlesslyRocking



View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Bimini road video was well done. Very convincing.

I wasn't really aware of Giant's Causeway before watching this video. (I think I may have heard or read the term "Giant's Causeway" somewhere, but I hadn't paid any attention to it.) I had certainly never seen a picture of it. So I looked up a photo on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant%27s_Causeway

My first impression was that it is almost fake looking. If someone had shown me this picture without any context or clue and asked me what it is, I would probably have guessed that it was something built as part of movie set for a sci-fi film, that is it supposed to be part of an alien planet somewhere. Either way, it's quite spectacular.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Bimini road video was well done. Very convincing.

Thanks for nothing. What about the Solar System? But your point about stage-sets is very important. By some act-of-intellectual-alchemy, the more 'man-made' something is the more readily it is accepted that only nature could have done it. A geologist, looking at the Giant's Causeway, only sees nature's marvellous ability to replicate a geometric shape. If you were able to show him that the Causeway in fact extended all the way from Ireland to Scotland he would not say, "Oh blimey, it must be a causeway then", he will say, "Ah yes, you see this is a plate boundary and this pillow lava is what we might expect from sea-floor spreading as Ireland gradually broke away from Scotland" or somesuch tommyrot.

The importance of Ishmael's piece is that, to my mind, it is scarcely contestable and that means we finally have evidence that geologists talk tommyrot when it comes to distinguishing natural from human. Once that breach is made we can all swarm through.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Jump to:  
Page 2 of 9

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group