Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #597900 > unrolled thread

Geophysics is a misnomer

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Geophysics is a misnomer Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-20 06:52 +0100
    Re: Geophysics is a misnomer The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-19 22:58 -0800
      Re: Geophysics is a misnomer Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 18:55 -0800
        Re: Geophysics is a misnomer The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-20 20:31 -0800
          Re: Geophysics is a misnomer Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 20:47 -0800
    Re: Geophysics is a misnomer The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-19 22:59 -0800
      Re: Geophysics is a misnomer Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-21 09:30 +0100
        Re: Geophysics is a misnomer "kellehe...@gmail.com" <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 06:44 -0800
          Re: Geophysics is a misnomer Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-22 09:42 +0100
            Re: Geophysics is a misnomer "kellehe...@gmail.com" <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2022-12-22 02:18 -0800
      Re: Geophysics is a misnomer "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 11:17 -0800
        Re: Geophysics is a misnomer Michelle Africano <nccr@amenica.he> - 2022-12-21 19:46 +0000
        Re: Geophysics is a misnomer Michelle Africano <nccr@amenica.he> - 2022-12-21 23:19 +0000

#597900 — Geophysics is a misnomer

Hi NG

In my view ‘geophysics’ is a misnomer.

‘Geo’ means ‘Earth’ and the science (‘-logy’) about Earth is therefore 
geology.

Geology is a typical applied science and uses several other sciences as 
foundations, to which also physics belongs.

The part of physics usable for geology should not be called 
‘geophysics’, because Earth is just one of many possible planets and 
other planets than Earth are not supposed to maintain different physics.

The physics usable for geology is therefore the subset of physics, which 
applies to planets in general, not only to Earth. A name like ‘planetary 
physics’ is therefore more appropriate to what physicists are supposed 
to deliver in valid and usable form to geology.


TH

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#597903

Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> Hi NG
> 
> In my view ‘geophysics’ is a misnomer.
> 
> ‘Geo’ means ‘Earth’ and the science (‘-logy’) about Earth is therefore
> geology.
> 
> Geology is a typical applied science and uses several other sciences as
> foundations, to which also physics belongs.
> 
> The part of physics usable for geology should not be called
> ‘geophysics’, because Earth is just one of many possible planets and
> other planets than Earth are not supposed to maintain different physics.
> 
> The physics usable for geology is therefore the subset of physics, which
> applies to planets in general, not only to Earth. A name like ‘planetary
> physics’ is therefore more appropriate to what physicists are supposed
> to deliver in valid and usable form to geology.
> 
> TH

Ask a planetary 
physics if Pluto is a planet...watch him
stutter....daddadeadududududuudaududuauaauidon'tknow.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597952

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 10:58:35 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:

> Ask a planetary physics if Pluto is a planet...

What exactly is a planetary physics?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597953

Paul Alsing wrote:
> 
> On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 10:58:35 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > Ask a planetary physics if Pluto is a planet...
> 
> What exactly is a planetary physics?

a planetary physicist.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597954

On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 8:31:04 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > 
> > On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 10:58:35 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: 
> > 
> > > Ask a planetary physics if Pluto is a planet... 
> > 
> > What exactly is a planetary physics?

> a planetary physicist.

Well, why didn't you say this in the first place?

A planet is whatever the definition is for a planet. You or I don't get a vote about that definition. Apparently the IAU gets to create/modify that definition...

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-new-planet-definition-margot-20151113-htmlstory.html#:~:text=The%20current%20definition%20was%20decreed,bodies%20within%20our%20solar%20system.

... if you want to disagree, too freakin' bad, you are overruled! As far as I can tell, this "new" definition was needed in order to avoid having perhaps a few dozen "new" planets being discovered down the road.

In my own humble opinion (and you know what they say about opinions), I personally think that Pluto should have been "grandfathered in" and the new definition apply only to the new discoveries in our solar system... but it is what it is and there is no crying in astronomy... deal with it.

Poor Pluto!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597904

Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> Hi NG
> 
> In my view ‘geophysics’ is a misnomer.
> 
> ‘Geo’ means ‘Earth’ and the science (‘-logy’) about Earth is therefore
> geology.
> 
> Geology is a typical applied science and uses several other sciences as
> foundations, to which also physics belongs.
> 
> The part of physics usable for geology should not be called
> ‘geophysics’, because Earth is just one of many possible planets and
> other planets than Earth are not supposed to maintain different physics.
> 
> The physics usable for geology is therefore the subset of physics, which
> applies to planets in general, not only to Earth. A name like ‘planetary
> physics’ is therefore more appropriate to what physicists are supposed
> to deliver in valid and usable form to geology.
> 
> TH

Is Pluto a planet?




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597962

Am 20.12.2022 um 07:59 schrieb The Starmaker:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Hi NG
>>
>> In my view ‘geophysics’ is a misnomer.
>>
>> ‘Geo’ means ‘Earth’ and the science (‘-logy’) about Earth is therefore
>> geology.
>>
>> Geology is a typical applied science and uses several other sciences as
>> foundations, to which also physics belongs.
>>
>> The part of physics usable for geology should not be called
>> ‘geophysics’, because Earth is just one of many possible planets and
>> other planets than Earth are not supposed to maintain different physics.
>>
>> The physics usable for geology is therefore the subset of physics, which
>> applies to planets in general, not only to Earth. A name like ‘planetary
>> physics’ is therefore more appropriate to what physicists are supposed
>> to deliver in valid and usable form to geology.
>>
>> TH
>
> Is Pluto a planet?
>


I would say: yes. But that is based on nothing in particular.

You can also throw a coin.

I personally think, that 'Growing Earth' is correct and that planets 
start small and grow later. So Pluto is a 'teenager planet'.

E.g. once Jupiter will become a Sun (a star) and the current moons will 
become the planets of that star.

So moons are also planets, but in kind of 'embrionic state' and belong 
to a 'mother' which is underaged, too.

'Planetary phsycists' should deal with such questions and figure out, 
how fast moons develop into planets and how fast a proto-star like 
Jupiter will become a sun.

This question should be universal and the result applicable everywhere, 
depending on certain local parameters, of course.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597967

Theorists, although they call themselves astronomers, basically vandalised what planets represented for the first Sun-centred astronomers as the term 'planet' represents their wandering or direct/retrograde motion in contrast to the direct motion of the Sun in ecliptic longitudes and the original Ptolemaic reference system which Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo worked off-

"Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times and
stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the Sun
always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various
ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that
is why they are called "planets" [Wanderers]. Copernicus

http://astro.dur.ac.uk/~ams/users/sun_ecliptic.gif

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap181108.html

". . . the ancient hypotheses clearly fail to account for certain important matters. For example, they do not comprehend the causes of the numbers, extents and durations of the retrogradations and of their agreeing so well with the position and mean motion of the sun. Copernicus alone gives an explanation to those things that provoke astonishment among other astronomers, thus destroying the source of astonishment, which lies in the ignorance of the causes." 1596, Mysterium Cosmographicum

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~pine/Thesis/Chapter5.htm

It is the lost art of contemplative or interpretative astronomy because the issues refer the motions of planets in space rather than their size or some other trivial matter that occupies awful people whether they call themselves astronomers, cosmologists, planetary scintists or some other variation on that theme.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598018

Am 21.12.2022 um 15:44 schrieb kellehe...@gmail.com:
> Theorists, although they call themselves astronomers, basically vandalised what planets represented for the first Sun-centred astronomers as the term 'planet' represents their wandering or direct/retrograde motion in contrast to the direct motion of the Sun in ecliptic longitudes and the original Ptolemaic reference system which Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo worked off-
>
> "Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times and
> stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the Sun
> always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various
> ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that
> is why they are called "planets" [Wanderers]. Copernicus

Renaissance physics is certainly not relevant anymore.

Sure, we could repeat the disputes between the Pope and Gallileo, for 
instance. But what is that good for?

Btw: I would always support Kepler in such a dispute.

The reason: I had once neighbors named 'Kepler', who were the 
grand-grand-somethings of Johannes Kepler.

That impressed me very much, and was one of the main reasons, that made 
me interested in physics.


...


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598022

On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 8:42:59 AM UTC, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Renaissance physics is certainly not relevant anymore. 
> 
> Sure, we could repeat the disputes between the Pope and Gallileo, for 
> instance. But what is that good for? 
> 
> Btw: I would always support Kepler in such a dispute. 

> TH

I wish that was a genuine question.

The central question between Pope and Galileo was whether the Ptolemaic reference system, which predicted eclipses and transits accurately, could also prove that the Earth moved while the Sun was central to that motion and those of all the other planets.

The answer is a definite no.

Only 21st-century observations from a satellite tracking along with the Earth can resolve the issue as it uses an older framework based on the annual transition of the stars from left (evening appearance) to the right (morning appearance) of the central Sun-

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

If you occupy yourself with the precepts of a late science fantasy novel by HG Wells then you are unlikely to enjoy the productive foundations for more creative interpretations of our solar system and galactic and Universal surroundings. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597977

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 10:59:10 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote: 
> > 
> > Hi NG 
> > 
> > In my view ‘geophysics’ is a misnomer. 
> > 
> > ‘Geo’ means ‘Earth’ and the science (‘-logy’) about Earth is therefore 
> > geology. 
> > 
> > Geology is a typical applied science and uses several other sciences as 
> > foundations, to which also physics belongs. 
> > 
> > The part of physics usable for geology should not be called 
> > ‘geophysics’, because Earth is just one of many possible planets and 
> > other planets than Earth are not supposed to maintain different physics. 
> > 
> > The physics usable for geology is therefore the subset of physics, which 
> > applies to planets in general, not only to Earth. A name like ‘planetary 
> > physics’ is therefore more appropriate to what physicists are supposed 
> > to deliver in valid and usable form to geology. 
> > 
> > TH
> Is Pluto a planet?

Plane-ets are in the solar plane.

> -- 
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, 
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
> and challenge 
> the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597982

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 10:59:10 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> > The physics usable for geology is therefore the subset of physics,
>> > which applies to planets in general, not only to Earth. A name like
>> > ‘planetary physics’ is therefore more appropriate to what physicists
>> > are supposed to deliver in valid and usable form to geology. TH
>>
>> Is Pluto a planet?
> 
> Plane-ets are in the solar plane.

which proves */_the_Earth_is_flat_/*. Flat solar plane, flat Earth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598005

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Is Pluto a planet?
> 
> Plane-ets are in the solar plane.

the short gypsy cocaine gay actor lacks brain cells. Watch him acting, 
dancing for the money, he impulsively begs for.

Most Cringe Thing You'll See Today： Zelensky Visits Washington And Talks 
To Biden 
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/IzuI8YiGed2n

why isn't his *short_gypsy_wife* not washing the wounds of the soldiers? 
Why is this bitch not helping for her war?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web