To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Moon Orbit Increasing
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Space > Space

beuis
moon orbit increasing by 2cm per year i think this is fact??

When the Moon moves slowly away from the Earth, it will not leave its orbit around the Earth. To orbit around the Sun, the Moon must have a certain velocity, called the escape velocity, to escape from the gravitational pull of the Earth.

my question is has antbody built a computer simulation of this as i would like to know the rough year when the moon would or could hit mars?

my guess is the year 19000 but would love a computer or my computer to work this out.

help anyone
Agent X20
QUOTE (beuis+May 11 2008, 05:24 PM)
my question is has antbody built a computer simulation of this as i would like to know the rough year when the moon would or could hit mars?

my guess is the year 19000 but would love a computer or my computer to work this out.

help anyone

blink.gif blink.gif Help? ... ok, go see a 'head specialist'. biggrin.gif
beuis
thanks

but i think anybody posting jibes on a forum needs to get a life...i mean why bother dude?
TheDoc
QUOTE (beuis+May 11 2008, 05:53 PM)
thanks

but i think anybody posting jibes on a forum needs to get a life...i mean why bother dude?


Says the guy who wants to know "when the moon will hit mars".

Why bother indeed.
N O M
QUOTE (beuis+May 12 2008, 05:24 AM)
my question is has antbody built a computer simulation of this as i would like to know the rough year when the moon would or could hit mars?

At about a quarter to never.
Zarkov
The Moon is moving extremely slowly away from Earth

but it will never hit Mars

because Mars is slowly moving away from the Sun... as Earth is and all the planets are.

The planets are in an ever expanding quantum wave pattern.

This is not entirely true !

Jupiter is an energy emitter and it speeds the Sun's spin.. (see Pioneer anomaly) so Mars will "crash" into this turbulence and break up given time

The atmosphere of Mars is being stripped as I speak and in a blink of cosmic time, Mars will be a ring of rubble... another Asteroid belt

This does not look good for Earth...

But these events are such a long way off that by then it could be profitable to set a restaurant (call it Ma's) to eat drink, be merry and be treated to Nature's power.

smile.gif
N O M
And yet it's all been stable for about four billion years.
Zarkov
QUOTE
And yet it's all been stable for about four billion years.


Please show proof of that... not just assertions

Yes the Earth's age has been put at about 4 billion years

But has it always been this far from the Sun ?

IMO it was once where Mercury is now....

and for that matter so was Neptune some long time ago

Established cosmology advocates an accretion model for planet formation... really with no proof whatsoever.... in fact the proof is for an ejection model... similar to particle ejection in radioactivity

To ad hoc create an ad infinitum series of different mechanisms to explain Nature is rather silly, since Nature uses only a few laws.

Oh, LOL, the Moon was made this way, the Earth that way, while the other moons were... err...

In fact it is the most probable that each cosmic body is created much the same way.

Moons are ejected from planets and planets are ejected by suns, and suns are ejected ,,, and so forth
TheDoc
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
Please show proof of that... not just assertions


Why should we? That's all you ever do.
Zarkov
LOL, I couldn't care.....

you know, that's OK

I know and there is nothing YOU can tell me
Capracus
QUOTE (beuis+May 11 2008, 05:24 PM)
moon orbit increasing by 2cm per year i think this is fact??

When the Moon moves slowly away from the Earth, it will not leave its orbit around the Earth. To orbit around the Sun, the Moon must have a certain velocity, called the escape velocity, to escape from the gravitational pull of the Earth.

my question is has antbody built a computer simulation of this as i would like to know the rough year when the moon would or could hit mars?

my guess is the year 19000 but would love a computer or my computer to work this out.

help anyone
Actually the Moon is moving away at 3.8 cm per year. At that rate, in 19000 years the moon will be 722 meters farther away. In 5 billion years, the Moon's distance will increase about 50%, but since the Sun is expected to be in a red giant phase at this time, the expanded solar atmosphere will begin to degrade the lunar orbit and eventually send it back to where it came from, the Earth.
beuis
wow thank you very much thats the answer i was looking for Capracus...

THANK YOU!!

i wonder if you would take a look at my post in the general science forum of the probability of your own predictability.
barakn
What is lacking in this discussion is an analysis of why the Moon is moving away. The Earth is rotating faster than the Moon is revolving. This means the tidally-induced bulge on the Earth's surface tends to race a little ahead of the Moon. The bulge pulls the Moon forward a little bit and the Moon pulls on the bulge, slowing the Earth's rotation a little bit. The net effect is that the Earth is slowly transferring its angular momentum to the Moon. There will come a point when the Earth's rotation and the Moon's revolution are synched up so that the Earth always has the same side pointed towards the Moon. The tidal bulge will also be locked in place at this point and there will be no way to transfer any more momentum. The Moon will stop moving away.

It is an interesting exercise to use conservation of angular momentum and a few simplifying assumptions to calculate what the new day/month will be and how far the moon will get.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 12 2008, 05:02 AM)
IMO it was once where Mercury is now....

So when someone says "The solar system has been relatively stable for 4 billion years" you ask for proof but then claim, without any proof, that Earth used to be as close to the Sun as Mercury is?!
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 12 2008, 05:02 AM)
Established cosmology advocates an accretion model for planet formation... really with no proof whatsoever.... in fact the proof is for an ejection model... similar to particle ejection in radioactivity
Tons of evidence. We see literally millions of accretion systems, be they dust around stars, dust around black holes or dust/stars around galaxies. The accretion model explains why the solar system (as well as most galaxies) are in flat disk like planes.
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 12 2008, 05:02 AM)
In fact it is the most probable that each cosmic body is created much the same way.

Moons are ejected from planets and planets are ejected by suns, and suns are ejected ,,, and so forth
Now that has no evidence! laugh.gif
Zarkov
QUOTE
Tons of evidence. We see literally millions of accretion systems, be they dust around stars, dust around black holes or dust/stars


dust and more dust

and this is supposed to accrete into a solid ball, called a planet, moon, or ??star

mmh NOW THAT IS NOT OBSERVED anywhere

In fact Saturn's rings, the asteroid belt ring etc show that particles do not accrete and in fact push each other away to form a ring of equal angular momentum.

Sorry I am not aware of the so called proof you may be referring to.
beuis
great point dude!

I agree I hate science when its theory. I need proof of this...
where is the proof of dust to accrete into a solid ball, called a planet, moon, or ??star

MUST HAVE PROOF CAN NOT COMPUTE UNLESS GET DATA...

+ there really was actual news of planet X years ago but nothing since and many science people do agree that pluto is puturbed by something but they do not know what? This was real news around 1995 me can recall.
barakn
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 12 2008, 08:29 PM)

dust and more dust

and this is supposed to accrete into a solid ball, called a planet, moon, or ??star

mmh NOW THAT IS NOT OBSERVED anywhere

In fact Saturn's rings, the asteroid belt ring etc show that particles do not accrete and in fact push each other away to form a ring of equal angular momentum.

Sorry I am not aware of the so called proof you may be referring to.

If you have two particles orbiting Saturn with the same orbital radius and velocity, they will not have the same angular momentum if they have different masses. So your "ring of equal angular momentum" couldn't possibly exist unless each and every particle has the same mass. That seems unlikely.

Also, Saturn is an absurd example for you to use because the vast majority of its ring material is within the Roche limit and thus wouldn't be expected to coalesce into a large moon. Come to think of it one wouldn't expect the asteroid belt to be a good example either because of orbital resonances with Jupiter.

There are numerous examples of disks with gaps or voids in them from a planet or proto-planet sweeping up the dust in their vicinity. If we were to believe your theory these gaps couldn't exist because dust would get pushed into them.
beuis
where name 1 good example of disks with gaps or voids in them and then i can compute again.
N O M
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 13 2008, 08:29 AM)
Sorry I am not aware of the so called proof you may be referring to.

Now that's true laugh.gif

Requires some knowledge, understanding and thought. Three things you sadly lack.
barakn
QUOTE (beuis+May 12 2008, 09:07 PM)
Zarkov
Thanks for those barakin

all conjecture

QUOTE
"The deficit of material could be due to a planet forming and sucking material onto it,


well I did not read anymore.

Accretion is a suck in... which can never happen... "attractive" gravity is total crap

Sorry... I have moved past this stone-age cosmology.
N O M
Which is why you are completely wrong Zerkoff
TheDoc
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
LOL, I couldn't care.....


Nor could I, so do yourself a favor and actually try thinking before you post.

QUOTE
I know and there is nothing YOU can tell me


Right back at you, loser.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I know and there is nothing YOU can tell me


Right back at you, loser.

In fact Saturn's rings, the asteroid belt ring etc show that particles do not accrete and in fact push each other away to form a ring of equal angular momentum.


And your proof of this? I know you won't post any, but for the sake of routine...

QUOTE
Sorry I am not aware of the so called proof you may be referring to.


Given that it would blow your reasoning out of the water, I can see why.

KKris
QUOTE
Sorry... I have moved past this stone-age cosmology.


biggrin.gif laugh.gif

Zarkov, do you know that there are some big people in this forum who have mastered the books well and have drowned themselves into the ocean of age old cosmology/gravity etc. They can give references from the books they have read but can't do any critical thinking of their own neither can they encourage anybody who thinks new logical science.

N O M
And then there's KKris, who has yet to demonstrate having read anything more relevant to physics than "Run Spot Run"
Agent X20
QUOTE (N O M+May 13 2008, 03:28 AM)
And then there's KKris, who has yet to demonstrate having read anything more relevant to physics than "Run Spot Run"

laugh.gif Reading "Run Spot Run" was for him a profoundly significant, monumental leap of progress towards a greater understanding of physics - before this pivotal event he'd only actually ever read farsight's 'paper' and a couple of Confused2 posts.

laugh.gif
TheDoc
QUOTE (KKris+May 13 2008, 03:23 AM)

biggrin.gif laugh.gif

Zarkov, do you know that there are some big people in this forum who have mastered the books well and have drowned themselves into the ocean of age old cosmology/gravity etc. They can give references from the books they have read but can't do any critical thinking of their own neither can they encourage anybody who thinks new logical science.

Oh, so your are behind this 'new logical science'?

What a laugh.
Zarkov
Please guys, STAY on topic.

Evidence is evidence, conjecture, assertion and opinion is not evidence.

I really don't mind what you think, so please let me think as well

Unfortunately I do have evidence and that resides in a math model that is extremely accurate

so don't tell me what to think, OK
TheDoc
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
Please guys, STAY on topic.


You're not staying on topic, so why should we?

QUOTE
Evidence is evidence, conjecture, assertion and opinion is not evidence.


So why do you continue to pass your assertions and opinions as evidence? You're failing to live up to your own standards.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Evidence is evidence, conjecture, assertion and opinion is not evidence.


So why do you continue to pass your assertions and opinions as evidence? You're failing to live up to your own standards.

I really don't mind what you think


Liar. Everytime we commented on you and your 'theories' you went ballistic and started complaining to the whole forum about how we 'slandered' you - another lie, and a poor one at that.

QUOTE
Unfortunately I do have evidence and that resides in a math model that is extremely accurate


Then why don't you post it and prove us all wrong? If your math model is sooooooo accurate, disproving us should be a cakewalk for you...
Zarkov
QUOTE
commented on you


Thank you Doc for realising.... commenting on me is not science, and will end up with you in hot water.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
commented on you


Thank you Doc for realising.... commenting on me is not science, and will end up with you in hot water.

and your 'theories'


Comment all you will upon the theories... I do welcome that... we all have a long way to go before we all know everything, LOL

and

Thanks Forum... I have broken the neg 70

Yay, what an achievement... it will never be beaten.

Basically it just shows the abysmal standard of science displayed by "those laypeople" who think they can pass judgement

LOL... what a laugh
TheDoc
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
Thank you Doc for realising.... commenting on me is not science, and will end up with you in hot water.


A threat! laugh.gif

QUOTE
Thanks Forum... I have broken the neg 70

Yay, what an achievement... it will never be beaten.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but Farsight has already hit -117.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Thanks Forum... I have broken the neg 70

Yay, what an achievement... it will never be beaten.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but Farsight has already hit -117.

LOL... what a laugh


I agree Zarkov. You are a laugh laugh.gif
KKris
So, Mr. TheDoc and Mr. NOM, atleast you people can stand behind your century year old logic and explain why most of the laws in physics fail at quantum level.
beuis
thanks barakn and zarkov



N O M
QUOTE (KKris+May 13 2008, 08:35 PM)
So, Mr. TheDoc and Mr. NOM, atleast you people can stand behind your century year old logic and explain why most of the laws in physics fail at quantum level.

That weak argument is irrelevant. You aren't discussing quantum level physics in this thread. You are saying that gravity and Newtonian mechanics don't work at a planetary level. There you are quite wrong.
Zarkov
QUOTE
gravity and Newtonian mechanics don't work at a planetary level. There you are quite wrong.


Actually if you try to model the Solar System in "attractive gravity"

you will find the n-body solution results in chaos.

It just does not work.... no, not because Newtonian mechanics is wrong, but because of the fallacious concepts involved in "attractive... gravity by "attraction"

GR is more than woeful

It would seem that not many posters here understand cosmic mechanics.
TheDoc
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
It would seem that not many posters here understand cosmic mechanics.


Since you are so obviously good at understanding them, why don't you post up some of your calculations? I mean, with your supposedly super-accurate formula, it should pretty easy for you...
graciassenor
Doc...it's not that hard, check this out hope it helps:

In the gravitational pull (G) of the solar system, each planet (X) and each satellite (Y) consist of a mass that attracts the gravity. Without the attraction, the gravity would not exist. That's why what you're talking about doesn't make sense. Check this out:

Planck's constant (A) multiplied by time (T) minus the forces of X and Y actually generate gravity because 1.0000000004 times the mass of each star in the universe is equivalent to the mass of gravity within the masses of attraction.

So.....

oh wait hold on my bad i was all wrong. Gravity isn't G.
barakn
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 14 2008, 03:48 AM)
Actually if you try to model the Solar System in "attractive gravity"

you will find the n-body solution results in chaos.

It just does not work.... no, not because Newtonian mechanics is wrong, but because of the fallacious concepts involved in "attractive... gravity by "attraction"

Ahem.. Your assumption is apparently that the orbits of an n-body system aren't chaotic, and the fact that the n-body "attractive gravity" equations are chaotic implies that they are the wrong equations to use. This is an asinine stance to take, however. The motions of the planets really are chaotic. We've been observing them for centuries and they never do the same thing twice.

You have not even once posted any kind of equation that could be used in a computer program to model orbits. Even if you were to do this, I know you don't have the skills to tell whether those equations are chaotic or not.
QUOTE
It would seem that not many posters here understand cosmic mechanics.

Certainly not you.
Zarkov
QUOTE
You have not even once posted any kind of equation


you assume too much

see
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=21628

but of course y'all REALLY aren't interested in anything except throwing shite

see
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...view=getnewpost

please just either grow up or butt out
barakn
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 14 2008, 11:47 PM)

you assume too much

see
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=21628

but of course y'all REALLY aren't interested in anything except throwing shite

Thanks for proving my point. You keep posting that formula over and over again. I keep pointing out that all you've done is algebraically tweak Kepler's Third law until it doesn't look like Kepler's Third law. Kepler's Third law can be derived directly from Newton's laws. Now I'm going to point out that it is a formula that only works for two bodies. There's no possible way you can bootstrap your equation to an n-body equation with n>2 and get results that aren't gibberish.

Meanwhile the tried and true Newtonian gravity-as-an-attractive-force model was so accurate that it allowed the prediction and subsequent discovery of not one but two planets, Neptune and Pluto (since demoted to dwarf planet). Armed with your equation, I wouldn't be able to tell how elliptical Mercury's orbit is, let alone how it is influenced by the gravitational influences of Venus, Earth, Jupiter, and the rest.
QUOTE
please just either grow up or butt out

There's nothing childish about pointing out another poster's mistakes. You are asking me to butt out either because 1. You're too stupid to realize that your pet theory has been just been reasoned to death OR 2. You're smart enough to realize that your flawed theory is in danger of being exposed as the fraud it is. Now which is it?
Zarkov
Barakn

you really are so full of standard logic you failed to see what the exploration I was providing actually implied. I am actually building upon Newton... to provide a mechanical framework that can then be transposed into electrodynamics....

But you think know, so no point in me pursuing anything with you...

so how about respecting others
TheDoc
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
But you think know, so no point in me pursuing anything with you...


Especially since he just made you look like an idiot. Again. laugh.gif

QUOTE
so how about respecting others


Respect is something that should be earned. You haven't earned respect from barakn, or me, or anybody else. Start posting stuff that's semi-coherent and logical, and then maybe you will.
KKris

QUOTE
NOM   
That weak argument is irrelevant. You aren't discussing quantum level physics in this thread. You are saying that gravity and Newtonian mechanics don't work at a planetary level. There you are quite wrong.


Mr. NOM, my argument is that the gravity and Newtonian principles don't work at planetary level and in quantum level as well. Scientist have their own philosophy and belief that gravity works at planetary level but in reality it does not. Why would there be an increase in the distance between the moon and earth if gravity works so beautifully? Here, we have to consider some other unknown factor/force that affects the distance between them.

There is another one very wrong logic about saying that planets in our solar system broke away from Sun and moon is a broken part of earth. If Sun scatters into pieces then what comes as a broken piece will be of the same nature as the Sun. As you would say that a molten red hot iron when scattered will produce only iron pieces. Please don't say that the scattered pieces of iron have cooled down and so is the broken part of earth from sun. If that is so, then earth being the same kind as Sun should be nearly as hot as Sun. Why has earth formed layers of atmosphere that reflects harmful Sun's rays? Why doesn't earth simply absorb all the rays of the Sun?

See, there are innumerable questions left unanswered by the physicists even in this 21st century because we don't have a proper means to argue against their claims or what they are believing to be true.
graciassenor
to explain this feature we have what Einstein unknowingly explained: the expansion of the universe. if it does expand like a balloon, then all distances everywhere are simultaneously expanding. no matter where the beginning middle or end may be the expansion still effects the entire balloon. this is why gravity is so essential to the stabilization of the universe. without it, gravity would collapse everything together into a singularity.

perhaps gravity is nothing more than extreme pressure naturally responding to expansion, or vice versa.
KKris
graciassenor,

First-of-all, how these people are predicting that the universe is expanding? Using a high power telescope they are measuring red shifts and blue shifts. Now, just because a redshift happens how can you say that the universe is expanding.

Just by the movement of a wandering galaxy or star red shift can still happen. Why is it not assumed that red shifts are happening in a never expanding universe where only the galaxies/stars are moving about?

QUOTE
if it does expand like a balloon


This is your own sentence with "if" in it. You know that the great physicist had given the theory. But still you are not able to say anything for certain?
Because most of the theories cannot be experimented. Most of them don't have enough evidence of proof (Even the photos of space, planets & stars etc. are air brushed by NASA). Some of the theories cannot be understood, atleast the mathematical part of it. Have anyone so far understood the 12 dimensional space? NO! but they will still be talking about it.

Physicists now-a-days produce theory that has plenty of calculation in it but no logic. A common man is finally pushed to accept the theory simply because he cannot understand such maths or complicated definitions/explanation. There are some worst cases where they try to explain universal gravity with the term gravity itself. Is that not circular reasoning?

beuis
Great comment.

Please realise that even if we build a basic catapult and place a marbel in it and fire it in controlled conditions inside a big hall lets say 20 meters at angle 45 degrees we have the maths to predict where it will land.......

pproblem is It will never exactly land in the exact same place every time even with the best machines. Yes it will land within 1cm every time in the same place maybe we can spend 1000000 and make great scientifc controls and get it down to within 1mm maybe more!

please answer why we could not get it accurate to within a nanometer! is it the marbel the machine or the universe?
graciassenor
QUOTE
This is your own sentence with "if" in it. You know that the great physicist had given the theory. But still you are not able to say anything for certain?


sometimes that's the only word we can use. for instance, when Christopher Columbus set sail he was probably thinking, "If i hit land..." or "if there is no land within a certain amount of sailing..." and in the same way yet on a larger scale we have to use the same type of thinking. thankfully with increasing technology we're able to literally observe things taking place in the universe. we have pin-pointed with direct accuracy objects 13 billion light years away. that's a lot of mileage, or kilometers, depending on where you live. has gravity really ever been detected? no. it's just there, and yet....well....don't you agree it exists?
N O M
QUOTE (KKris+May 15 2008, 05:36 PM)
Why would there be an increase in the distance between the moon and earth if gravity works so beautifully?

The tiny increase has been explained in this thread as being due to transfer of energy from the rotation of the Earth. What part of that didn't you understand?

QUOTE
There is another one very wrong logic about saying that planets in our solar system broke away from Sun and moon is a broken part of earth.  If Sun scatters into pieces then what comes as a broken piece will be of the same nature as the Sun.  As you would say that a molten red hot iron when scattered will produce only iron pieces.  Please don't say that the scattered pieces of iron have cooled down and so is the broken part of earth from sun.  If that is so, then earth being the same kind as Sun should be nearly as hot as Sun.  Why has earth formed layers of atmosphere that reflects harmful Sun's rays?  Why doesn't earth simply absorb all the rays of the Sun?
Are you really this ignorant? Or are you just stupid? I suspect both.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
There is another one very wrong logic about saying that planets in our solar system broke away from Sun and moon is a broken part of earth.  If Sun scatters into pieces then what comes as a broken piece will be of the same nature as the Sun.  As you would say that a molten red hot iron when scattered will produce only iron pieces.  Please don't say that the scattered pieces of iron have cooled down and so is the broken part of earth from sun.  If that is so, then earth being the same kind as Sun should be nearly as hot as Sun.  Why has earth formed layers of atmosphere that reflects harmful Sun's rays?  Why doesn't earth simply absorb all the rays of the Sun?
Are you really this ignorant? Or are you just stupid? I suspect both.

See, there are innumerable questions left unanswered by the physicists even in this 21st century because we don't have a proper means to argue against their claims or what they are believing to be true.
You cranks and idiots always seem to think that physicists assume they know everything, they don't. Provide a rational argument, with some documented proof, and you could be taken seriously. Your claims are neither.
Zarkov
QUOTE
Provide a rational argument, with some documented proof, and you could be taken seriously.


Oh I see, if you think something... to be taken seriously those thoughts have to have come from "some documented PROOF"

shakes head and walks away.
N O M
Right direction Zerky, just keep walking.
Agent X20
QUOTE (N O M+May 16 2008, 12:44 AM)
Right direction Zerky, just keep walking.

Hope he's heading towards the edge of a bottomless pit.

smile.gif
KKris
Mr. NOM, please try to come out of the pages of your dictionary that has the words crank, idiot and stupid etc. Don't get stuck there.

QUOTE
You cranks and idiots always seem to think that physicists assume they know everything, they don't.


And that is what I'm saying too. Physicists know that they don't know everything, that-is-why they form theories based on assumptions.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You cranks and idiots always seem to think that physicists assume they know everything, they don't.


And that is what I'm saying too. Physicists know that they don't know everything, that-is-why they form theories based on assumptions.

The tiny increase has been explained in this thread as being due to transfer of energy from the rotation of the Earth.


Why don't you think if this transferred energy is pushing the moon away? where does it come from? how is the earth made to rotate in the first place? and so on...
(NOTE: Earth is not rotating because of Sun's gravity. And gravity in earth is generated by this rotation)

QUOTE
graciassenor  sometimes that's the only word we can use. for instance, when Christopher Columbus set sail he was probably thinking, "If i hit land..." or "if there is no land within a certain amount of sailing..." and in the same way yet on a larger scale we have to use the same type of thinking. thankfully with increasing technology we're able to literally observe things taking place in the universe. we have pin-pointed with direct accuracy objects 13 billion light years away. that's a lot of mileage, or kilometers, depending on where you live. has gravity really ever been detected? no. it's just there, and yet....well....don't you agree it exists?


graciassenor, when you are sailing in the middle of the ocean, you have only two options: one is the water and another one is land. You don't have plenty options to think about and also that the water and the land are reachable. But, when you talk about the universe there are several/innumerable unknown factors. So, only assumptions are made because they are not reachable and they cannot be experimented as well. In that case, how do you know that all the physicists' assumptions are right?
barakn
QUOTE (KKris+May 16 2008, 08:10 AM)
NOTE: Earth is not rotating because of Sun's gravity. And gravity in earth is generated by this rotation

Venus rotates only once every 243 days, and yet Venus's gravitational acceleration at its surface is 8.87 m/s versus Earth's 9.8 m/s. Not coincidentally, Venus's radius and mass are only slightly smaller than Earth's. It is quite obvious that gravity is not generated by rotation.
beuis
maybe

An object traveling in a circle behaves as if it is experiencing an outward force. This force is known as the centrifugal force. It is important to note that the centrifugal force does not actually exist. Nevertheless, it appears quite real to the object being rotated.
Zarkov
QUOTE
And gravity in earth is generated by this rotation


rotation of a planet has nothing to do with how gravity is produced.
ofelas
QUOTE (KKris+May 15 2008, 05:36 AM)

Mr. NOM, my argument is that the gravity and Newtonian principles don't work at planetary level and in quantum level as well.  Scientist have their own philosophy and belief that gravity works at planetary level but in reality it does not.  Why would there be an increase in the distance between the moon and earth if gravity works so beautifully? Here, we have to consider some other unknown factor/force that affects the distance between them.

There is another one very wrong logic about saying that planets in our solar system broke away from Sun and moon is a broken part of earth.  If Sun scatters into pieces then what comes as a broken piece will be of the same nature as the Sun.  As you would say that a molten red hot iron when scattered will produce only iron pieces.  Please don't say that the scattered pieces of iron have cooled down and so is the broken part of earth from sun.  If that is so, then earth being the same kind as Sun should be nearly as hot as Sun.  Why has earth formed layers of atmosphere that reflects harmful Sun's rays?  Why doesn't earth simply absorb all the rays of the Sun?



What??? OK, gibberish alert. Since the change in Moon's orbit is explained precisely by conservation of angular momentum, the first paragraph is at least is incorrect but not ridiculous.

The second paragraph is an unmitigated fail, since current planetary formation theories describe the chemical composition of planets quite clearly. And nobody is claiming that the planets "broke off" from the Sun. (Actually, the discovery of "hot Jupiters" likely indicates that a population of early gas giants spirals into their host stars, which is consistent with the observed metallicities of exoplanet hosts).
ofelas
QUOTE (beuis+May 15 2008, 05:55 PM)
Great comment.

pproblem is It will never exactly land in the exact same place every time even with the best machines. Yes it will land within 1cm every time in the same place maybe we can spend 1000000 and make great scientifc controls and get it down to within 1mm maybe more!


Incorrect. That is what we do every time we shoot a probe to another planet. Amazing, isn't it? using your basic Newtonian mechanics to launch something oveer hundreds of millions of kilometers and hit the target--bull's eye.
Zarkov
QUOTE
basic Newtonian mechanics to launch something oveer hundreds of millions of kilometers and hit the target--bull's eye.


yes, Newtonian mechanics is very accurate... so accurate that it appears correct

except it is a static formulation.... it is correct "mechanics"
but if you take it into electrodynamics then it becomes "dynamic"
and many of the mechanisms of the "mechanics" become clear
and gravity falls out
ofelas
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 17 2008, 09:28 PM)

yes, Newtonian mechanics is very accurate... so accurate that it appears correct

except it is a static formulation.... it is correct "mechanics"
but if you take it into electrodynamics then it becomes "dynamic"
and many of the mechanisms of the "mechanics" become clear
and gravity falls out


I see very little "static" in Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations; indeed, they are dynamicity personified!:D

Making gravity "fall out" would be indeed quite a trick, worthy of Penn and Teller. But I have not seen you present any evidence that you can do that, except for one basic equation that has little to do with anything.

And of course we know that Newtonian mechanics is only an approximation for low velocities and masses; if you are looking for exact solutions in the real universe you are probably *** out of luck.

By the way, regarding your earlier post: yes, Solar System (and--really--any dynamical system in the Universe) is indeed chaotic. Mathematically chaotic, that is, not devoid of any rules.
Zarkov
QUOTE
one basic equation that has little to do with anything.


an observation, lad.... no theory, a HARD FACT... and NOTHING TO DO WITH MASS

and you never got to see the final conclusions.... LOL..well that is your choice


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
one basic equation that has little to do with anything.


an observation, lad.... no theory, a HARD FACT... and NOTHING TO DO WITH MASS

and you never got to see the final conclusions.... LOL..well that is your choice


any dynamical system in the Universe) is indeed chaotic. Mathematically chaotic, that is, not devoid of any rules.


LOL, how can a chaotic system be "not devoid of any rules"

Sorry to burst your illusions, it is all perfectly synchronised... much like a swiss watch.

Seems your watch may be chaotic but the ESGT math model is not... it is unbelievably beautiful.

But you will never know with the attitude that you seem to cherish.

and seriously, I don't really care, since your Earth is doomed.


blink.gif blink.gif
TheDoc
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 17 2008, 11:16 PM)
...and seriously, I don't really care, since your Earth is doomed.


blink.gif blink.gif

I'm trembling in my boots.
ofelas
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 17 2008, 11:16 PM)

an observation, lad.... no theory, a HARD FACT... and NOTHING TO DO WITH MASS

and you never got to see the final conclusions.... LOL..well that is your choice




LOL, how can a chaotic system be "not devoid of any rules"

Sorry to burst your illusions, it is all perfectly synchronised... much like a swiss watch.

Seems your watch may be chaotic but the ESGT math model is not... it is unbelievably beautiful.

But you will never know with the attitude that you seem to cherish.

and seriously, I don't really care, since your Earth is doomed.


blink.gif    blink.gif

Haven't studied dynamical systems much, I assume? Mathematical chaos is not philosophical chaos, and I recommend looking up the definition, even if it be on Wikipedia.

"Perfectly synchronized": and that is why planetary orbits evolve over time and can be computed only numerically? Sheesh. Planetary orbits in the Solar System are one of the clearest examples of dynamical chaos.

My Earth is doing quite well for another several billion years.
Zarkov
QUOTE
Mathematical chaos is not philosophical chaos


whatever you think

read "Stable Chaos" by David Durand.... unfortunately nothing in the Universe is random... it is all under very strict control

There is no such thing as mathematical chaos in reality.....just a lack of understanding.
ofelas
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 18 2008, 04:29 AM)

whatever you think

read "Stable Chaos" by David Durand.... unfortunately nothing in the Universe is random... it is all under very strict control

There is no such thing as mathematical chaos in reality.....just a lack of understanding.

Wait..what lack of understanding? Chaotic systems are not that ill-understood. And they are not random: they are fully deterministic, though not amenable to analysis, that's all. We can still numerically compute the behaviour of any chaotic system, subject to the limitations on our computing power and on our knowledge of the initial conditions. You are making a rather drastic claim here without backing it up in any way.

As far as "randomness", we do not know yet. Perhaps QM really defines the underlying structure, but I am not o sure about that; there have been several attempts to derive deterministic QM, the latest, I believe, from 't Hooft: an interesting mathematical formalism that does away with uncertainty entirely. But all those are currently up in the air.

I have heard about Stable Chaos; thanks, I'll check it out. Isn't it rather old, though? 1971 or so? (Not that it is that important).
N O M
QUOTE (ofelas+May 18 2008, 04:49 PM)
what lack of understanding?

That's Zerkoff for you. You name the subject and Zerky will fail to understand it laugh.gif
Zarkov
QUOTE
You are making a rather drastic claim here


All I am claiming is that given enough information, everything is deterministic...

are you saying different ?
ofelas
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 18 2008, 09:49 PM)

All I am claiming is that given enough information, everything is deterministic...

are you saying different ?

Yes, as far as we know currently, uncertainty is inherent in the Universe at quantum scales. We *could* be wrong about it, and there are some interesting hypotheses, but currently nothing conclusive., and most of them end up running into incoherence.
Zarkov
Thanks for that

Back on topic

An good example of perceived "chaos" in the Solar System when analysed via Newtonian "attraction" logic is the Earth's Moon

By calculation, the Sun "attracts" the Moon twice as strongly as the Earth and yet the Moon remains in a reasonably stable Earth orbit....

Now trying to extend this logic to all the planets, moons etc in the Solar System just leads to an unstable system... and yet the Solar System appears reasonably stable.

This n-body problem with Newtonian mechanics is well documented.

Without being pedantic about mathematical/observational chaos, Newtonian mechanics just does not work using mass-attracting-mass as the mechanism of action.

Attraction is a modern day, unbelievably silly misconception. Nothing can attract (ie transmit force at a distance...or pull... anything else... it is an impossibility)

The philosophers of old knew this.

But modern man is in total mental regression, and many "modern" cosmological theories are just lead balloons full of hot air.
ofelas
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 18 2008, 11:58 PM)
Thanks for that

Back on topic

An good example of perceived "chaos" in the Solar System when analysed via Newtonian "attraction" logic is the Earth's Moon

By calculation, the Sun "attracts" the Moon twice as strongly as the Earth and yet the Moon remains in a reasonably stable Earth orbit....

Now trying to extend this logic to all the planets, moons etc in the Solar System just leads to an unstable system... and yet the Solar System appears reasonably stable.

This n-body problem with Newtonian mechanics is well documented.

Without being pedantic about mathematical/observational chaos, Newtonian mechanics just does not work using mass-attracting-mass as the mechanism of action.

Attraction is a modern day, unbelievably silly misconception.  Nothing can attract (ie transmit force at a distance...or pull... anything else... it is an impossibility)

The philosophers of old knew this.

But modern man is in total mental regression, and many "modern" cosmological theories are just lead balloons full of hot air.

The curvature of spacetime explains orbits quite well, you know.

And, if we detect gravitational waves from binary neutron stars, what then?

In any case, the Solar System is *not* necessarily stable, since a particular feature of chaotic systems is their unpredictability (analyytically). It all *could* fly apart at any moment, although it does not seem likely since the orbits have been modeled quite a way into the future (and all the models agree with observations so far: have you ever used ORSA--a wonderful piece of modeling software for any Solar System you can imagine and one that has successfully predicted many an asteroid flyby).
Zarkov
QUOTE
The curvature of spacetime explains orbits quite well, you know.


LOL, no I didn't know that..... what a load

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The curvature of spacetime explains orbits quite well, you know.


LOL, no I didn't know that..... what a load

And, if we detect gravitational waves from binary neutron stars, what then?


Well you tell when this crap occurs and..... LOL... no never mind
you stick to your fallacies.

ofelas
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 20 2008, 09:10 AM)

LOL, no I didn't know that..... what a load



Well you tell when this crap occurs and..... LOL... no never mind
you stick to your fallacies.

I suppose you've never heard of GR, either. Why am I not surprised?
Zarkov
QUOTE
GR,


gggrrrrrrrrrr !

A theory based upon a theory based upon nothing................

Yes I thought you would be a grrrrrrrrr advocate

LOL
ofelas
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 20 2008, 09:35 AM)

gggrrrrrrrrrr !

A theory based upon a theory based upon nothing................

Yes I thought you would be a grrrrrrrrr advocate

LOL

Oh, OK. You are a troll. Gawdz, you idiots are hard to tell from legitimate mad crackpots nowadays. You can almost pull off the crank-crazy scientist bit, but your ignorance of the theories in question betrays you in the end...
Zarkov
QUOTE
your ignorance of the theories in question betrays you in the end...


quick to judge
without knowing what are the alternatives..

OK
barakn
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 18 2008, 11:58 PM)
By calculation, the Sun "attracts" the Moon twice as strongly as the Earth and yet the Moon remains in a reasonably stable Earth orbit....

I don't suppose you noticed, but the Moon is also orbiting the Sun.
ofelas
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 20 2008, 06:53 PM)

quick to judge
without knowing what are the alternatives..

OK

...that's your assumption. You sound like the rest of them: creationists who think that if only I were aware of the wonders of ID I'd abandon my "belief" in evilution immediately, and religious proselytizers who assume that I haven't heard "the news". Since I am not only aware of alleged "alternatives" but also directly aware and work with the evidence supporting the theories you so glibly and ignorantly reject, I think I am at least two steps ahead of you. Two giant steps.
Zarkov
That's OK, discussions do not always agree
but it is a great opportunity for the people involved to learn.
smile.gif
barakn
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 20 2008, 10:51 PM)

There have been numerous reports via spectroscopic "evidence" that such and such... and here add "water"

has been found... but it is never there... until you can get some and analyse it, you just have light.... and what does this light mean ??????????

However via chemistry, this is the concrete experience... you have water or not.

Now space chemistry would say (from experiment) that water is completely unstable...if it ever formed...

water is a breakdown product of the primary compound made by reacting H2 and O2 together

This means, where H2 and O2 in whatever form are, they combine to either -OH or condense as H2O2.

These products are stable in space, so why would water ever form ???

Water is a LIFE made "unnatural" substance therefore it is a signature for the presence of LIFE, just as oxygen is also "unnatural" and also made/liberated by LIFE.

Off topic. Please keep your threads straight.
Zarkov
Thanks for jumping into my grave before I have finished dying... that post BTW went to water.
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 20 2008, 10:51 PM)
Now space chemistry would say (from experiment) that water is completely unstable...if it ever formed...

water is a breakdown product of the primary compound made by reacting H2 and O2 together

This means, where H2 and O2 in whatever form are, they combine to either -OH or condense as H2O2.

These products are stable in space, so why would water ever form ???

Water is a LIFE made "unnatural" substance therefore it is a signature for the presence of LIFE, just as oxygen is also "unnatural" and also made/liberated by LIFE.

Oh dear lordy why don't you shut up? You keep talking about evidence and experiments that back you up but it just don't exist! If it did, you woulda given us some of it.
Seriously son, you really don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. It's like you're making it up as you go along.
Get wise, boy. People would stop callin you names and whatnot if you'd stop posting this kinda crap. wink.gif
Zarkov
QUOTE
Seriously son, you really don't have the slightest clue


I don't suppose you have ever studies chemistry is any depth...

Seriously lad, you are about to drown in your own excrement.

N O M
QUOTE (Zerkoff+)
That's OK, discussions do not always agree
but it is a great opportunity for the people involved to learn.
Then learn.
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 20 2008, 11:29 PM)
I don't suppose you have ever studies chemistry is any depth...

In faaaaaaar greater depth than you have, kiddo.
And I ain't claiming to even have a degree in it. I just know enough to not claim that water can't exist without the presence of life because it's so "unstable."

You don't even know what "unstable" means in chemistry. laugh.gif
N O M
QUOTE (ofelas to Zerkoff+)
I am at least two steps ahead of you. Two giant steps.
More like two steps onto the train, half an hour trip to the airport, a brief walk to the plane and a 13 hour flight ahead
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here youll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.