Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #612945 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-06-14 20:25 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-06-16 01:11 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 86 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 20:25 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-14 20:48 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-14 23:22 -0500
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-15 04:07 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-15 19:24 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 02:59 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 15:04 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 07:52 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 17:56 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 09:38 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 18:46 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 09:55 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-06-16 11:55 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 13:10 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-16 17:08 -0400
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 14:21 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 17:24 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-17 08:32 -0400
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-17 19:30 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 19:36 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-17 19:30 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-17 14:59 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-18 01:15 -0400
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Homero Arendonk <kroo@okorooar.ad> - 2023-06-18 11:28 +0000
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 11:43 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-17 02:55 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 16:30 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-17 16:56 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Herbert Marqueringh <nhmm@rruarhei.te> - 2023-06-17 12:40 +0000
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-16 12:01 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 15:06 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 19:43 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-15 22:30 +1000
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-06-15 08:32 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-06-16 20:37 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-15 17:45 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 19:46 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-16 12:01 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 14:33 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-06-15 19:58 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-06-16 07:07 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-16 12:01 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 15:08 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-06-17 08:52 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 11:31 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-17 19:30 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-06-18 07:02 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-17 02:35 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-06-18 06:56 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-17 16:35 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-06-20 11:52 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-20 16:46 -0500
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:21 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 22:29 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-21 11:51 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-06-22 15:05 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-23 11:49 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-06-24 13:18 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-25 18:39 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-06-26 14:55 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-28 13:32 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-06-28 10:58 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 21:07 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-30 11:45 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 09:30 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-30 22:49 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 17:03 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 09:32 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-17 16:35 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 10:09 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-17 21:14 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 17:50 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-18 13:50 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 17:18 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-19 11:39 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-06-19 08:19 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 11:08 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-19 22:16 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 15:26 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-20 11:25 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-19 17:32 -0400
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-20 11:25 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 11:08 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-18 01:31 -0400
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Jon-Michael Roijacker <rjee@hhkajcnc.oo> - 2023-06-18 11:47 +0000
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-16 01:11 -0400
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 07:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kf2909F42shU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #613000 |
Am 16.06.2023 um 04:58 schrieb Paparios: > El miércoles, 14 de junio de 2023 a las 23:25:42 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com escribió: >> since a beginning 4.5 billion years ago >> Why has it not stopped? > > Over millions of years, Earth's rotation has been slowed significantly by tidal acceleration through gravitational interactions with the Moon. > This gradual rotational deceleration is empirically documented by estimates of day lengths obtained from observations of tidal rhythmites and stromatolites; a compilation of these measurements[44] found that the length of the day has increased steadily from about 21 hours at 600 Myr ago[45] to the current 24-hour value. > 'Millions of years' is actually quite a small grid for time on planet Earth. In Earth history we are talking about billions of years. The 'tidal forces' cannot destroy angular momentum of the Earth, because the effects of gravity of Moon on Earth are internal to the Earth. Therefore we need a different mechanism, which would make Earth spin slower with time and also make the distance from Earth to Moon larger. I would say: increasing mass of both (Earth and Moon) could be the reason. The effect is commonly called 'Growing Earth'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 12:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qceyja.gm9e571ja57ohN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #613008 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 16.06.2023 um 04:58 schrieb Paparios: > > El miércoles, 14 de junio de 2023 a las 23:25:42 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail: > >> since a beginning 4.5 billion years ago > >> Why has it not stopped? > > > > Over millions of years, Earth's rotation has been slowed significantly > > by tidal acceleration through gravitational interactions with the Moon. > > This gradual rotational deceleration is empirically documented by > > estimates of day lengths obtained from observations of tidal rhythmites > > and stromatolites; a compilation of these measurements[44] found that > > the length of the day has increased steadily from about 21 hours at 600 > > Myr ago[45] to the current 24-hour value. > > 'Millions of years' is actually quite a small grid for time on planet Earth. > > In Earth history we are talking about billions of years. > > The 'tidal forces' cannot destroy angular momentum of the Earth, because > the effects of gravity of Moon on Earth are internal to the Earth. Ah, you are in denial of Newton's third law as well? Jan -- "When misery rains, it pours."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 15:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kf356cF86p3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #613024 |
On 2023-06-16 10:01:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > >> Am 16.06.2023 um 04:58 schrieb Paparios: >>> El miércoles, 14 de junio de 2023 a las 23:25:42 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail: >>>> since a beginning 4.5 billion years ago >>>> Why has it not stopped? >>> >>> Over millions of years, Earth's rotation has been slowed significantly >>> by tidal acceleration through gravitational interactions with the Moon. >>> This gradual rotational deceleration is empirically documented by >>> estimates of day lengths obtained from observations of tidal rhythmites >>> and stromatolites; a compilation of these measurements[44] found that >>> the length of the day has increased steadily from about 21 hours at 600 >>> Myr ago[45] to the current 24-hour value. >> >> 'Millions of years' is actually quite a small grid for time on planet Earth. >> >> In Earth history we are talking about billions of years. >> >> The 'tidal forces' cannot destroy angular momentum of the Earth, because >> the effects of gravity of Moon on Earth are internal to the Earth. > > Ah, you are in denial of Newton's third law as well? Is that what he was trying to say? I thought it was just gibberish. -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-17 08:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kf53gqFh8h7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #613029 |
Am 16.06.2023 um 15:08 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: > On 2023-06-16 10:01:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: > >> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >> >>> Am 16.06.2023 um 04:58 schrieb Paparios: >>>> El miércoles, 14 de junio de 2023 a las 23:25:42 UTC-4, >>>> mitchr...@gmail: >>>>> since a beginning 4.5 billion years ago >>>>> Why has it not stopped? >>>> >>>> Over millions of years, Earth's rotation has been slowed significantly >>>> by tidal acceleration through gravitational interactions with the Moon. >>>> This gradual rotational deceleration is empirically documented by >>>> estimates of day lengths obtained from observations of tidal rhythmites >>>> and stromatolites; a compilation of these measurements[44] found that >>>> the length of the day has increased steadily from about 21 hours at 600 >>>> Myr ago[45] to the current 24-hour value. >>> >>> 'Millions of years' is actually quite a small grid for time on planet >>> Earth. >>> >>> In Earth history we are talking about billions of years. >>> >>> The 'tidal forces' cannot destroy angular momentum of the Earth, because >>> the effects of gravity of Moon on Earth are internal to the Earth. >> >> Ah, you are in denial of Newton's third law as well? > > Is that what he was trying to say? I thought it was just gibberish. > I am actually a proponent of the so called 'Growing Earth' theory. This is a theory of a contemporary of Alfred Wegner, who wrote a book about the growing Earth in the year 1930 in Berlin. His name was Ott-Christoph Hilgenberg and his book had the title 'Vom wachsenden Erdball' (only available in German). He was a geologist of the university of Charlottenburg (now part of Berlin). (btw: I spent most of my time at TU-Berlin in the very same building as Hilgenberg.) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-17 11:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kf5cqoFik60U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #613080 |
On 2023-06-17 06:52:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > Am 16.06.2023 um 15:08 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: >> On 2023-06-16 10:01:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: >> >>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Am 16.06.2023 um 04:58 schrieb Paparios: >>>>> El miércoles, 14 de junio de 2023 a las 23:25:42 UTC-4, >>>>> mitchr...@gmail: >>>>>> since a beginning 4.5 billion years ago >>>>>> Why has it not stopped? >>>>> >>>>> Over millions of years, Earth's rotation has been slowed significantly >>>>> by tidal acceleration through gravitational interactions with the Moon. >>>>> This gradual rotational deceleration is empirically documented by >>>>> estimates of day lengths obtained from observations of tidal rhythmites >>>>> and stromatolites; a compilation of these measurements[44] found that >>>>> the length of the day has increased steadily from about 21 hours at 600 >>>>> Myr ago[45] to the current 24-hour value. >>>> >>>> 'Millions of years' is actually quite a small grid for time on planet >>>> Earth. >>>> >>>> In Earth history we are talking about billions of years. >>>> >>>> The 'tidal forces' cannot destroy angular momentum of the Earth, because >>>> the effects of gravity of Moon on Earth are internal to the Earth. >>> >>> Ah, you are in denial of Newton's third law as well? >> >> Is that what he was trying to say? I thought it was just gibberish. >> > > > I am actually a proponent of the so called 'Growing Earth' theory. > > This is a theory of a contemporary of Alfred Wegner, who wrote a book > about the growing Earth in the year 1930 in Berlin. Another poster who pretends to be knowledgeable but doesn't know how to spell prominent scientists' names, in this case Wegener's. You don't even have patdolan's excuse that this is a foreign name for you. > > His name was Ott-Christoph Hilgenberg and his book had the title 'Vom > wachsenden Erdball' (only available in German). It may have been a credible theory in 1930, but 93 years have passed since then. According to Wikipedia, "the theses of Ott Christoph Hilgenberg and Nikola Tesla were based on absorption and transformation of aether-energy into normal matter". Hmm. Do you believe in aether-energy? > > He was a geologist of the university of Charlottenburg (now part of Berlin). > > (btw: I spent most of my time at TU-Berlin in the very same building as > Hilgenberg.) So? I did my doctoral work in the very same building as William Perkin Jr. Big deal, but it doesn't make me cite Perkin's ideas as gospel truth. -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-17 19:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qchaf8.l18xh0v2gzu6N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #613082 |
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2023-06-17 06:52:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > > > Am 16.06.2023 um 15:08 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: > >> On 2023-06-16 10:01:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: > >> > >>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Am 16.06.2023 um 04:58 schrieb Paparios: > >>>>> El miércoles, 14 de junio de 2023 a las 23:25:42 UTC-4, > >>>>> mitchr...@gmail: > >>>>>> since a beginning 4.5 billion years ago > >>>>>> Why has it not stopped? > >>>>> > >>>>> Over millions of years, Earth's rotation has been slowed significantly > >>>>> by tidal acceleration through gravitational interactions with the Moon. > >>>>> This gradual rotational deceleration is empirically documented by > >>>>> estimates of day lengths obtained from observations of tidal rhythmites > >>>>> and stromatolites; a compilation of these measurements[44] found that > >>>>> the length of the day has increased steadily from about 21 hours at 600 > >>>>> Myr ago[45] to the current 24-hour value. > >>>> > >>>> 'Millions of years' is actually quite a small grid for time on planet > >>>> Earth. > >>>> > >>>> In Earth history we are talking about billions of years. > >>>> > >>>> The 'tidal forces' cannot destroy angular momentum of the Earth, because > >>>> the effects of gravity of Moon on Earth are internal to the Earth. > >>> > >>> Ah, you are in denial of Newton's third law as well? > >> > >> Is that what he was trying to say? I thought it was just gibberish. > >> > > > > > > I am actually a proponent of the so called 'Growing Earth' theory. > > > > This is a theory of a contemporary of Alfred Wegner, who wrote a book > > about the growing Earth in the year 1930 in Berlin. > > Another poster who pretends to be knowledgeable but doesn't know how to > spell prominent scientists' names, in this case Wegener's. You don't > even have patdolan's excuse that this is a foreign name for you. > > > > His name was Ott-Christoph Hilgenberg and his book had the title 'Vom > > wachsenden Erdball' (only available in German). > > It may have been a credible theory in 1930, but 93 years have passed > since then. Not even then. > According to Wikipedia, "the theses of Ott Christoph > Hilgenberg and Nikola Tesla were based on absorption and transformation > of aether-energy into normal matter". Tesla's mental health had deteriorated very much by then, and Hilgenberg has always been a nobody. It was thoroughly crackpot even then. > Hmm. Do you believe in aether-energy? Wouldn't be surprised, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-18 07:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kf7heqFsifqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #613082 |
Am 17.06.2023 um 11:31 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: > On 2023-06-17 06:52:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > >> Am 16.06.2023 um 15:08 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: >>> On 2023-06-16 10:01:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: >>> >>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Am 16.06.2023 um 04:58 schrieb Paparios: >>>>>> El miércoles, 14 de junio de 2023 a las 23:25:42 UTC-4, >>>>>> mitchr...@gmail: >>>>>>> since a beginning 4.5 billion years ago >>>>>>> Why has it not stopped? >>>>>> >>>>>> Over millions of years, Earth's rotation has been slowed >>>>>> significantly >>>>>> by tidal acceleration through gravitational interactions with the >>>>>> Moon. >>>>>> This gradual rotational deceleration is empirically documented by >>>>>> estimates of day lengths obtained from observations of tidal >>>>>> rhythmites >>>>>> and stromatolites; a compilation of these measurements[44] found that >>>>>> the length of the day has increased steadily from about 21 hours >>>>>> at 600 >>>>>> Myr ago[45] to the current 24-hour value. >>>>> >>>>> 'Millions of years' is actually quite a small grid for time on planet >>>>> Earth. >>>>> >>>>> In Earth history we are talking about billions of years. >>>>> >>>>> The 'tidal forces' cannot destroy angular momentum of the Earth, >>>>> because >>>>> the effects of gravity of Moon on Earth are internal to the Earth. >>>> >>>> Ah, you are in denial of Newton's third law as well? >>> >>> Is that what he was trying to say? I thought it was just gibberish. >>> >> >> >> I am actually a proponent of the so called 'Growing Earth' theory. >> >> This is a theory of a contemporary of Alfred Wegner, who wrote a book >> about the growing Earth in the year 1930 in Berlin. > > Another poster who pretends to be knowledgeable but doesn't know how to > spell prominent scientists' names, in this case Wegener's. You don't > even have patdolan's excuse that this is a foreign name for you. Sorry for a spelling mistake. But Wegener was not yet on my reading list, hence I'm a little unfamiliar with his name. >> His name was Ott-Christoph Hilgenberg and his book had the title 'Vom >> wachsenden Erdball' (only available in German). > > It may have been a credible theory in 1930, but 93 years have passed > since then. According to Wikipedia, "the theses of Ott Christoph > Hilgenberg and Nikola Tesla were based on absorption and transformation > of aether-energy into normal matter". Hmm. Do you believe in aether-energy? Actually I needed a proof against the so called standard modell of quantum mechanics. This was required to justify my own invention called 'structured spacetime'. see here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing So, I had actually no intention to venture into geology, but wanted to show, that Earth does in fact grow from within. This would falsify the very important paradigme called 'atomism' and the idea of lasting particles (generated eventually in a 'big-bang'). TH >> He was a geologist of the university of Charlottenburg (now part of >> Berlin). >> >> (btw: I spent most of my time at TU-Berlin in the very same building >> as Hilgenberg.) > > So? I did my doctoral work in the very same building as William Perkin > Jr. Big deal, but it doesn't make me cite Perkin's ideas as gospel truth. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-17 02:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d6a8f58-89e5-47a5-b538-7d0a6a19879en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613080 |
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:52:15 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 16.06.2023 um 15:08 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: > > On 2023-06-16 10:01:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: > > > >> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote: > >> > >>> Am 16.06.2023 um 04:58 schrieb Paparios: > >>>> El miércoles, 14 de junio de 2023 a las 23:25:42 UTC-4, > >>>> mitchr...@gmail: > >>>>> since a beginning 4.5 billion years ago > >>>>> Why has it not stopped? > >>>> > >>>> Over millions of years, Earth's rotation has been slowed significantly > >>>> by tidal acceleration through gravitational interactions with the Moon. > >>>> This gradual rotational deceleration is empirically documented by > >>>> estimates of day lengths obtained from observations of tidal rhythmites > >>>> and stromatolites; a compilation of these measurements[44] found that > >>>> the length of the day has increased steadily from about 21 hours at 600 > >>>> Myr ago[45] to the current 24-hour value. > >>> > >>> 'Millions of years' is actually quite a small grid for time on planet > >>> Earth. > >>> > >>> In Earth history we are talking about billions of years. > >>> > >>> The 'tidal forces' cannot destroy angular momentum of the Earth, because > >>> the effects of gravity of Moon on Earth are internal to the Earth. > >> > >> Ah, you are in denial of Newton's third law as well? > > > > Is that what he was trying to say? I thought it was just gibberish. > > > I am actually a proponent of the so called 'Growing Earth' theory. > > This is a theory of a contemporary of Alfred Wegner, who wrote a book > about the growing Earth in the year 1930 in Berlin. > > His name was Ott-Christoph Hilgenberg and his book had the title 'Vom > wachsenden Erdball' (only available in German). > > He was a geologist of the university of Charlottenburg (now part of Berlin). > > (btw: I spent most of my time at TU-Berlin in the very same building as > Hilgenberg.) > > > TH What is the earth's mass input, according to Hilgenberg? Is it dust and meteorites? Is it the mass of the sunlight captured in the carbon-carbon bonds of organic products of photosynthesis?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-18 06:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kf7h4aFsh02U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #613083 |
Am 17.06.2023 um 11:35 schrieb patdolan: > On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:52:15 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 16.06.2023 um 15:08 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: >>> On 2023-06-16 10:01:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: >>> >>>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Am 16.06.2023 um 04:58 schrieb Paparios: >>>>>> El miércoles, 14 de junio de 2023 a las 23:25:42 UTC-4, >>>>>> mitchr...@gmail: >>>>>>> since a beginning 4.5 billion years ago >>>>>>> Why has it not stopped? >>>>>> >>>>>> Over millions of years, Earth's rotation has been slowed significantly >>>>>> by tidal acceleration through gravitational interactions with the Moon. >>>>>> This gradual rotational deceleration is empirically documented by >>>>>> estimates of day lengths obtained from observations of tidal rhythmites >>>>>> and stromatolites; a compilation of these measurements[44] found that >>>>>> the length of the day has increased steadily from about 21 hours at 600 >>>>>> Myr ago[45] to the current 24-hour value. >>>>> >>>>> 'Millions of years' is actually quite a small grid for time on planet >>>>> Earth. >>>>> >>>>> In Earth history we are talking about billions of years. >>>>> >>>>> The 'tidal forces' cannot destroy angular momentum of the Earth, because >>>>> the effects of gravity of Moon on Earth are internal to the Earth. >>>> >>>> Ah, you are in denial of Newton's third law as well? >>> >>> Is that what he was trying to say? I thought it was just gibberish. >>> >> I am actually a proponent of the so called 'Growing Earth' theory. >> >> This is a theory of a contemporary of Alfred Wegner, who wrote a book >> about the growing Earth in the year 1930 in Berlin. >> >> His name was Ott-Christoph Hilgenberg and his book had the title 'Vom >> wachsenden Erdball' (only available in German). >> >> He was a geologist of the university of Charlottenburg (now part of Berlin). >> >> (btw: I spent most of my time at TU-Berlin in the very same building as >> Hilgenberg.) >> >> >> TH > What is the earth's mass input, according to Hilgenberg? Is it dust and meteorites? Is it the mass of the sunlight captured in the carbon-carbon bonds of organic products of photosynthesis? > I wanted to show, that matter can be created out of nothing. I need an 'experimental' proof for my 'book' about a connection between GR and QM about 'structured spacetime'. It is a somehow similar idea then 'aether theories', but has significant differences. (see here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing ) Hilgenberg himself was an 'aetherist' and assumed, that aether would 'fall' into the inner Earth and conversts there into matter. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-17 16:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qcgr81.166ve2xx0fnhzN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #613029 |
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2023-06-16 10:01:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: > > > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > > > >> Am 16.06.2023 um 04:58 schrieb Paparios: > >>> El miércoles, 14 de junio de 2023 a las 23:25:42 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail: > >>>> since a beginning 4.5 billion years ago > >>>> Why has it not stopped? > >>> > >>> Over millions of years, Earth's rotation has been slowed significantly > >>> by tidal acceleration through gravitational interactions with the Moon. > >>> This gradual rotational deceleration is empirically documented by > >>> estimates of day lengths obtained from observations of tidal rhythmites > >>> and stromatolites; a compilation of these measurements[44] found that > >>> the length of the day has increased steadily from about 21 hours at 600 > >>> Myr ago[45] to the current 24-hour value. > >> > >> 'Millions of years' is actually quite a small grid for time on planet > >> Earth. > >> > >> In Earth history we are talking about billions of years. > >> > >> The 'tidal forces' cannot destroy angular momentum of the Earth, because > >> the effects of gravity of Moon on Earth are internal to the Earth. > > > > Ah, you are in denial of Newton's third law as well? > > Is that what he was trying to say? I thought it was just gibberish. Well, THs: ================ The 'tidal forces' cannot destroy angular momentum of the Earth, because the effects of gravity of Moon on Earth are internal to the Earth. =============== Newton's third law says that this is impossible. (so I asked) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-20 11:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fffaf9cf-4550-4edb-a2ed-44f0511cded6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613106 |
On June 17, J. J. Lodder wrote: > ================ > The 'tidal forces' cannot destroy angular momentum of the Earth, because > the effects of gravity of Moon on Earth are internal to the Earth. > =============== > > Newton's third law says that this is impossible. Newton's third isn't completely reliable. I visit the gym twice a week, and do sit ups regularly, on an inclined bench. At the end of a set, at my limit, I throw my arms forward violently. The arms' momentum carries me up, for the last one. I can't do it without this move. If Newton's third ruled, this wouldn't work. The forward momentum would be nullified by a backward reaction thrust of my torso; no profit. So that law isn't universal, it's refuted empirically. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-20 16:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <LPWdnWHGSJuAgw_5nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #613314 |
On 6/20/23 1:52 PM, RichD wrote: > Newton's third isn't completely reliable. > > I visit the gym twice a week, and do sit ups regularly, on an > inclined bench. At the end of a set, at my limit, I throw my arms > forward violently. The arms' momentum carries me up, for the last > one. I can't do it without this move. > > If Newton's third ruled, this wouldn't work. The forward momentum > would be nullified by a backward reaction thrust of my torso; no > profit. > > So that law isn't universal, it's refuted empirically. No, you just don't understand the mechanics of what you did. When you thrust your arms forward, the board behind your back absorbed the reaction force, transmitting it to the room, floor, and earth, making it unobservable. Your arms moved forward essentially inertially, and when they reached the limit of your arms' extension, their momentum carried your torso forward. So the earth moved backward, and your torso moved forward. Momentum is conserved, and Newton's third is valid. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-20 15:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dc576bb5-ff1d-4be2-b263-49d3aa98269fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613326 |
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 2:46:12 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/20/23 1:52 PM, RichD wrote: > > Newton's third isn't completely reliable. > > > > I visit the gym twice a week, and do sit ups regularly, on an > > inclined bench. At the end of a set, at my limit, I throw my arms > > forward violently. The arms' momentum carries me up, for the last > > one. I can't do it without this move. > > > > If Newton's third ruled, this wouldn't work. The forward momentum > > would be nullified by a backward reaction thrust of my torso; no > > profit. > > > > So that law isn't universal, it's refuted empirically. > No, you just don't understand the mechanics of what you did. > > When you thrust your arms forward, the board behind your back absorbed > the reaction force, transmitting it to the room, floor, and earth, > making it unobservable. Your arms moved forward essentially inertially, > and when they reached the limit of your arms' extension, their momentum > carried your torso forward. > > So the earth moved backward, and your torso moved forward. Momentum is > conserved, and Newton's third is valid. > > Tom Roberts Tom? The Earth is moving so why don't we feel it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-20 22:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a93dc1c1-23d7-41aa-a281-a01e079560adn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613326 |
On Tuesday, 20 June 2023 at 23:46:12 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/20/23 1:52 PM, RichD wrote: > > Newton's third isn't completely reliable. > > > > I visit the gym twice a week, and do sit ups regularly, on an > > inclined bench. At the end of a set, at my limit, I throw my arms > > forward violently. The arms' momentum carries me up, for the last > > one. I can't do it without this move. > > > > If Newton's third ruled, this wouldn't work. The forward momentum > > would be nullified by a backward reaction thrust of my torso; no > > profit. > > > > So that law isn't universal, it's refuted empirically. > No, you just don't understand the mechanics of what you did. And he doesn't understand that we're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-21 11:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qco727.u9i24b1siyi4eN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #613314 |
RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote: > On June 17, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > ================ > > The 'tidal forces' cannot destroy angular momentum of the Earth, because > > the effects of gravity of Moon on Earth are internal to the Earth. > > =============== > > > > Newton's third law says that this is impossible. > > Newton's third isn't completely reliable. It is, absolutely and completely. If it weren't momentum conservation wouldn't hold. Do you doubt momentum conservation too? Do you believe that your arm swing motions could serve as reactionless rocket drive? Jan [snip misunderstood physics]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-22 15:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <94885e3c-44cc-49c8-b5b8-7b04c26860bdn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613369 |
On June 21, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> Newton's third isn't completely reliable. > > It is, absolutely and completely. > If it weren't momentum conservation wouldn't hold. > Do you doubt momentum conservation too? > Do you believe that your arm swing motions could serve > as reactionless rocket drive? Temper, temper. You sound like a religious believer, throwing a tantrum when his god is challenged. I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself, JJ. Tennis players know that a racket delivers more power - pace, as they say - with loose stringing. Does that make sense? Hit a ball against a solid wall, then against a net. Does the net return it faster? Is it an energy source? How can a racket with loose stringing return with more pace than tight tension? It's another counter-example to Newton's third. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-23 11:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qcrzjm.jmdg68i55o89N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #613494 |
RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote: > On June 21, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> Newton's third isn't completely reliable. > > > > It is, absolutely and completely. > > If it weren't momentum conservation wouldn't hold. > > Do you doubt momentum conservation too? > > Do you believe that your arm swing motions could serve > > as reactionless rocket drive? > > Temper, temper. You sound like a religious believer, throwing a > tantrum when his god is challenged. > > I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself, JJ. Tennis players know > that a racket delivers more power - pace, as they say - with loose > stringing. Does that make sense? > > Hit a ball against a solid wall, then against a net. Does the net > return it faster? Is it an energy source? How can a racket with > loose stringing return with more pace than tight tension? > > It's another counter-example to Newton's third. You are weaseling. Can you build a reactionless rocket drive by having a tennis court inside your rocket's cabin? Yes? No? Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-24 13:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b65f201b-027b-46a2-ab15-53e0c84cca7cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613520 |
On June 23, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> Newton's third isn't completely reliable. > >>> If it weren't momentum conservation wouldn't hold. >>> Do you doubt momentum conservation too? >>> Do you believe that your arm swing motions could serve >>> as reactionless rocket drive? > >> You sound like a religious believer, throwing a >> tantrum when his god is challenged. >> I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself, JJ. Tennis players know >> that a racket delivers more power - pace, as they say - with loose >> stringing. Does that make sense? >> Hit a ball against a solid wall, then against a net. Does the net >> return it faster? Is it an energy source? How can a racket with >> loose stringing return with more pace than tight tension? >> It's another counter-example to Newton's third. > > You are weaseling. > Can you build a reactionless rocket drive > by having a tennis court inside your rocket's cabin? Why does a loosely strung racket return the ball faster than a solid surface racket? You're 0 for 2, JJ. One more chance. Build a road in a triangle design; a large closed loop. Drive once around it, and naturally end up facing the same direction as the start. That's one revolution: 360*. And you have traversed all 3 angles of the triangle. Evidently, this universe's geometry is non-Euclidean. Can you model this peculiarity with general relativity? What does it tell us about spacetime on the earth's surface? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-25 18:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qcw7iq.dng6wh1wn510N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #613643 |
RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote: > On June 23, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>> Newton's third isn't completely reliable. > > > >>> If it weren't momentum conservation wouldn't hold. > >>> Do you doubt momentum conservation too? > >>> Do you believe that your arm swing motions could serve > >>> as reactionless rocket drive? > > > >> You sound like a religious believer, throwing a > >> tantrum when his god is challenged. > >> I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself, JJ. Tennis players know > >> that a racket delivers more power - pace, as they say - with loose > >> stringing. Does that make sense? > >> Hit a ball against a solid wall, then against a net. Does the net > >> return it faster? Is it an energy source? How can a racket with > >> loose stringing return with more pace than tight tension? > >> It's another counter-example to Newton's third. > > > > You are weaseling. > > Can you build a reactionless rocket drive > > by having a tennis court inside your rocket's cabin? > > Why does a loosely strung racket return the ball faster > than a solid surface racket? > You're 0 for 2, JJ. > > One more chance. Build a road in a triangle design; a large > closed loop. Drive once around it, and naturally end up > facing the same direction as the start. > > That's one revolution: 360*. And you have traversed all 3 angles > of the triangle. Evidently, this universe's geometry is non-Euclidean. > > Can you model this peculiarity with general relativity? What does > it tell us about spacetime on the earth's surface? Stop weaseling. Can you propel a rocket by playing tennis inside with loosely strung rackets? (thereby violating Newton's third law and momentum conservation? Again: Yes? No? Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-26 14:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac6b3c1c-bc41-4343-9728-0caf69f0a44dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613706 |
On June 25, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>> Newton's third isn't completely reliable. > >>>>> If it weren't momentum conservation wouldn't hold. >>>>> Do you doubt momentum conservation too? > >>>> You sound like a religious believer, throwing a >>>> tantrum when his god is challenged. >>>> I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself, JJ. Tennis players know >>>> that a racket delivers more power - pace, as they say - with loose >>>> stringing. Does that make sense? >>>> Hit a ball against a solid wall, then against a net. Does the net >>>> return it faster? How can a racket with loose stringing return with >>>> more pace than tight tension? >>>> It's another counter-example to Newton's third. > >>> Can you build a reactionless rocket drive >>> by having a tennis court inside your rocket's cabin? > >> Why does a loosely strung racket return the ball faster >> than a solid surface racket? >> You're 0 for 2, JJ. >> One more chance. Build a road in a triangle design; a large >> closed loop. Drive once around it, and naturally end up >> facing the same direction as the start. >> That's one revolution: 360*. And you have traversed all 3 angles >> of the triangle. Evidently, this universe's geometry is non-Euclidean. >> Can you model this peculiarity with general relativity? What does >> it tell us about spacetime on the earth's surface? > > Stop weaseling. > Can you propel a rocket by playing tennis inside > with loosely strung rackets? > (thereby violating Newton's third law and momentum conservation? You're flailing. 0 for 3, JJ. Try this: I) Alice and Bob face each other, a mile apart. They approach, each walking at 2 mph. A bee starts at Alice's shirt, flying between them, back and forth, at 4 mph. What total distance does the bee fly? II) After their collision, they separate, each walking backward, at 2 mph, to their starting points. The bee again flies 4 mph, back and forth. Does he finish at Alice, Bob, or the middle? This shows that nature behaves in a way that isn't time symmetric. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web