Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?
Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer
-
nicho247
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:01 am
Unread post
by nicho247 » Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:19 pm
Metryq wrote:Whether or not the Moon rotates is a physical question, not a semantic one. And we do know the Moon "librates," so its motion is more complex than that of a bucket on the end of a rope.
I apologize for bringing the moon into the discussion, since this is about the earth, however the librations is an effect observed due to the relative positioning between the earth and the moon.
Metryq wrote:Perhaps "absolute" is the formal term used in physics, but rotation with no external references is nonsense.
I agree, however the tests do measure something without external references. Have they been proven wrong?
Metryq wrote:Nicho247 wrote:Netwon's bucket experiment is to show the concept of absolute rotation. It is rotating not because you can see it, but because the water takes on the concave shape (due to centrifugal force?).
Again, this is nonsense. The water in the bucket is deformed because of the eccentric rotation of bucket and water. Is it physically possible for the bucket to swing around in such an eccentric fashion with no "anchor" for the rope? If so, then why do we never see bodies in the physical world—say, an asteroid—rotating off-center relative to nothing else? Perhaps you already said this in another way—that the experiment needs to be isolated.
How is this one?
https://vimeo.com/96064901
Nick
-
jtb
- Posts: 566
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am
Unread post
by jtb » Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:17 am
nicho247 wrote:I find the idea of the universe rotating about the earth interesting, however with the Sagnac experiment in mind, it is measuring the effect of absolute rotation. If it were measuring not the earth's rotation, but the universe's rotation sans earth, it would mean the ambient air/atmosphere/space around me would have to be rotating with the universe sans earth as well. Right? This is not the case, because the ground is not moving. To carry this line of thought further, you would have to say the ground is part of the universe and not the earth....
Nick, is this your question: If the Sagnac experiment is measuring the universe's rotation about a stationary Earth, is the atmosphere and space also rotating about Earth?
-
chrimony
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am
Unread post
by chrimony » Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:59 pm
nicho247 wrote:I apologize for bringing the moon into the discussion, since this is about the earth, however the librations is an effect observed due to the relative positioning between the earth and the moon.
You can make up for your faux pas by meeting the
challenge that was posted, and unmet, several times in that thread:
chrimony wrote:Something you will never do, because you can't, is to draw a diagram of the Earth and Moon showing how they move based on Newtonian mechanics (forces) that yield an oscillation that makes sense without a constantly spinning Moon.
Pick any frame of reference you want. Just draw the objects and label the forces in such a way that your diagram makes predictions that match real observations.
Same goes for jtb with regards to the observable universe spinning about a motionless Earth. Since we sent satellites to orbital bodies throughout the solar system using the Newtonian model of the solar system, trips that took
years and
millions of miles, we should be able to do the same with any proposed alternative, right?
-
nicho247
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:01 am
Unread post
by nicho247 » Mon Mar 30, 2015 7:34 pm
chrimony wrote:
Pick any frame of reference you want. Just draw the objects and label the forces in such a way that your diagram makes predictions that match real observations.
Hi Chrimony,
I will post something on the moon thread. With respect to both this thread and the other, my position is simply don't state something is rotating because it looks like it is rotating. Measure it without an external reference, if possible, and use this as a basis. With regards to the earth spinning, there are numerous tests & experiments which imply the earth is spinning. There are other tests which are relative references and it can be inferred the earth is not spinning, but our reference is.
What's yours?
Nick
-
chrimony
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am
Unread post
by chrimony » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:28 am
nicho247 wrote:What's yours?
I've made it clear that the Newtonian model that allowed us to send satellites
millions of miles over trips lasting
years to orbiting bodies throughout the solar system is overwhelming evidence for the correctness of that model. Compare this to a model that invokes ad hoc physics and yields no predictions on how to achieve the same result.
EDIT: Fix typo.
-
Aardwolf
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Unread post
by Aardwolf » Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:57 pm
jtb wrote:If an object's escape velocity is constant in any direction, then you know it is not rotating.
Then we can finally wrap up this religious nonsense as you've just proven yourself wrong;
Wikipedia wrote:The escape velocity relative to the surface of a rotating body depends on direction in which the escaping body travels. For example, as the Earth's rotational velocity is 465 m/s at the equator, a rocket launched tangentially from the Earth's equator to the east requires an initial velocity of about 10.735 km/s relative to Earth to escape whereas a rocket launched tangentially from the Earth's equator to the west requires an initial velocity of about 11.665 km/s relative to Earth. The surface velocity decreases with the cosine of the geographic latitude, so space launch facilities are often located as close to the equator as feasible, for example, the American Cape Canaveral (latitude 28°28' N) and the French Guiana Space Centre (latitude 5°14' N).
-
jtb
- Posts: 566
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am
Unread post
by jtb » Sun Apr 05, 2015 9:32 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Escap ... /Archive_1
Direction of rotation
...
The escape velocity doesn't change. Rotation is irrelevant. The paragraph
"The escape velocity relative to the surface of a rotating body depends on direction in which the escaping body travels. For example, as the Earth's rotational velocity is 465 m/s to the east at the equator, a rocket launched tangentially from the Earth's equator to the east requires an initial velocity of about 10.735 km/s relative to Earth to escape whereas a rocket launched tangentially from the Earth's equator to the west requires an initial velocity of about 11.665 km/s relative to Earth. The surface velocity decreases with the cosine of the geographic latitude, so space launch facilities are often located as close to the equator as feasible, e.g. the American Cape Canaveral in Florida and the European Centre Spatial Guyanais, only 5 degrees from the equator in French Guiana."
should be deleted or atleast made clearer. What you are referring to is relative velocity. For example, if I am walking away from you at 1 m/s, I have a right to say it is you who are moving away from me at 1 m/s even thought you are standing perfectly still and it is I who is actually moving. The velocity difference between launching due east and west from Cape Canaveral is because Cape Canaveral is also moving. If you view the launch from the Sun, it would observe the rocket has the same velocity whether lauching due east or west with respect to Earth.
Also what does it mean "10.735 km/s relative to Earth to escape" and "11.665 km/s relative to Earth"? Did the author mean relative to where it is launched? It cannot be relative to Earth since relative to Earth means relative to center of Earth. --NYC 17:00 13, March 2007 (UTC)
Aardwolf, hope you enjoyed Easter dinner with your family. God bless.
-
Aardwolf
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Unread post
by Aardwolf » Fri Apr 10, 2015 4:18 pm
jtb wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Escap ... /Archive_1
Direction of rotation
...
The escape velocity doesn't change. Rotation is irrelevant. The paragraph
"The escape velocity relative to the surface of a rotating body depends on direction in which the escaping body travels. For example, as the Earth's rotational velocity is 465 m/s to the east at the equator, a rocket launched tangentially from the Earth's equator to the east requires an initial velocity of about 10.735 km/s relative to Earth to escape whereas a rocket launched tangentially from the Earth's equator to the west requires an initial velocity of about 11.665 km/s relative to Earth. The surface velocity decreases with the cosine of the geographic latitude, so space launch facilities are often located as close to the equator as feasible, e.g. the American Cape Canaveral in Florida and the European Centre Spatial Guyanais, only 5 degrees from the equator in French Guiana."
should be deleted or atleast made clearer. What you are referring to is relative velocity. For example, if I am walking away from you at 1 m/s, I have a right to say it is you who are moving away from me at 1 m/s even thought you are standing perfectly still and it is I who is actually moving. The velocity difference between launching due east and west from Cape Canaveral is because Cape Canaveral is also moving. If you view the launch from the Sun, it would observe the rocket has the same velocity whether lauching due east or west with respect to Earth.
Also what does it mean "10.735 km/s relative to Earth to escape" and "11.665 km/s relative to Earth"? Did the author mean relative to where it is launched? It cannot be relative to Earth since relative to Earth means relative to center of Earth. --NYC 17:00 13, March 2007 (UTC)
Aardwolf, hope you enjoyed Easter dinner with your family. God bless.
The velocity difference between launching due east and west from Cape Canaveral is because Cape Canaveral is also moving.
So your response is yet another comment proving you wrong.
-
jtb
- Posts: 566
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am
Unread post
by jtb » Fri Apr 10, 2015 5:07 pm
Aardwolf wrote: The velocity difference between launching due east and west from Cape Canaveral is because Cape Canaveral is also moving.
So your response is yet another comment proving you wrong.
My only comment was:
jtb wrote:Aardwolf, hope you enjoyed Easter dinner with your family. God bless.
The rest of the post was a quote from a Wiki contributor.
-
Aardwolf
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Unread post
by Aardwolf » Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:32 pm
jtb wrote:Aardwolf wrote: The velocity difference between launching due east and west from Cape Canaveral is because Cape Canaveral is also moving.
So your response is yet another comment proving you wrong.
My only comment was:
jtb wrote:Aardwolf, hope you enjoyed Easter dinner with your family. God bless.
The rest of the post was a quote from a Wiki contributor.
I never said it was your comment. I said it was your response. And it proved you wrong. Again.
And I had a great Ostara thanks.
-
jtb
- Posts: 566
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am
Unread post
by jtb » Sat Apr 25, 2015 7:30 am
Aardwolf wrote:If you view the launch from the Sun, it would observe the rocket has the same velocity whether lauching due east or west with respect to Earth.
-
Aardwolf
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Unread post
by Aardwolf » Wed May 06, 2015 9:51 am
jtb wrote:Aardwolf wrote:If you view the launch from the Sun, it would observe the rocket has the same velocity whether lauching due east or west with respect to Earth.
Not my quote, however, according to you the observer stationed at the Sun would be rotating around the Earth with the the 2 rockets so they would not be moving east or west at the same velocity. It would only be the same velocity
relative to them. Relative to the Earth (which they observe as rotating) the velocities would be different.
So we're back to square one. You proved yourself wrong no matter what part you attempt to cherry pick.
-
jtb
- Posts: 566
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am
Unread post
by jtb » Thu May 07, 2015 3:21 pm
The quote is from a Wiki site contributor disagreeing with the statement posted.
-
Aardwolf
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Unread post
by Aardwolf » Wed May 27, 2015 7:29 am
jtb wrote:The quote is from a Wiki site contributor disagreeing with the statement posted.
Yes. They disagreed with the statement as posted and then suggested the following amendment;
Wikipedia wrote:The velocity difference between launching due east and west from Cape Canaveral is because Cape Canaveral is also moving.
If you wish to rely on this amendment, please explain in your non-rotating stationary Earth theory exactly why Cape Canaveral is moving?
-
jtb
- Posts: 566
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am
Unread post
by jtb » Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:37 am
Rockets are launched westward over the Pacific Ocean from Vandenberg Air Force Base in CA and I assume eastward over the Atlantic Ocean from FL. Finding how much fuel is expended at each launch site would be helpful. Haven't a clue how to access or analyze that info.
Also, airplanes take off into the prevailing winds for lift. It takes more energy to take off when traveling in the same direction as the wind. Would this same principle apply to rocket launches with Earth and its atmosphere rotating? How would a rotating aether affect rocket launches from a stationary Earth?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests