|
Post by Ratty on Apr 23, 2016 8:34:11 GMT
Phew! Thank goodness I haven't proposed a theory ...... Go on Ratty....give it a go!!!! Sorry, no .......... I'm very sensitive to criticism.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 23, 2016 9:03:41 GMT
The way I see it is a planet like earth exerts a pull on me towards its centre, yet I am tiny and can jump away from this force momentarily, therefore it's a weak force. It's strength comes the the absolute massive size of the objects involved. The planets evolved, I think we assume, from essential 'dust' where a nucleus started to develop, the sun, and the gravity it's formation produced encouraged the collection of matter into satellite planets. Therefore the solar system evolved around a balance of gravity. It is the perturbation of this balance that is hard to quantify and rationalise. I completely agree an upset to the balance is rational, but lack the means to express it mathematically and the physical implications for the sun or ourselves. Judging by the continued disagreement across several forums, I suspect mankind in general has this issue too. Perhaps it is our mathematical understanding of gravity that is at fault, so I blame Einstein and Hawkins, both clearly not up to it!! thats the thing as i understand it there is more than just one force at work yes you have gravity but you also have electromagnetism so as the very old religions say everything is connected maybe they are Have you noticed that the more advanced organic lifeforms on our planet seem to have gone a little more nutso as the sun's electro-magnetic field has been changing? Yes ... that would be us? Perhaps everything IS more connected than we'd like to admit. But, of course, I have many loose screws .... Are they dancing to a syncopated solar-magnetic beat? ??
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Apr 23, 2016 9:19:16 GMT
with are limited knowledge of our own greatness and our belief that we are it we yet can't see the whole picture .. most think if we can't see it or touch it it's not there. an old religion that know's somthing is there may call it a god but it's just elements of the vast unkown univeres at work .. like the man made thing called time we try to impose structure where there is non ..
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 1, 2016 12:42:40 GMT
What else apart from a hurricane could tip the result of the Presidential election? "Risk of big earthquake on San Andreas fault rises after quake swarm at Salton Sea"Could have more impact than volcanic activity in Iceland
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 1, 2016 17:12:15 GMT
This may be more of a question for Theo....
I have raised this point before but if the Sun is actually being perturbed by movement of the barycenter (I know I know but bear with me) then the bubble of liquid rock with a thin skin we call Earth will also be perturbed. Could the reason for the Solar dynamo malfunctioning and the seismic activity 'during a quiet sun' be due to perturbation in the path of the barycenter through space?
The centripetal force that causes the planets to stay in orbit in a continual acceleration has got to be considerable and if its vector changes more rapidly than normal one would expect some distortion of our thin skinned bubble of liquid rock
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 1, 2016 17:19:03 GMT
This may be more of a question for Theo.... I have raised this point before but if the Sun is actually being perturbed by movement of the barycenter (I know I know but bear with me) then the bubble of liquid rock with a thin skin we call Earth will also be perturbed. Could the reason for the Solar dynamo malfunctioning and the seismic activity 'during a quiet sun' be due to perturbation in the path of the barycenter through space? The centripetal force that causes the planets to stay in orbit in a continual acceleration has got to be considerable and if its vector changes more rapidly than normal one would expect some distortion of our thin skinned bubble of liquid rock One of those things that is undeniable and all that remains is quantification of its effects and then a connection how that forcing will affect entire continents that are always in motion and exact stresses that promote activity. So you might say we are probably working on the first 1% of the problem and there are a lot of people who simply say the science is settled.
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Oct 1, 2016 20:55:18 GMT
ohh it's going to be soon .. if you see quakes moving. you see the Americas s/a first then little blips across Mexico volcanos .. now its a case of .. a)the big one ... or it's the bigger one bc to Seattle .. I just would not want both which could happen .. then were in a whole different world ..
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Oct 8, 2016 18:03:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Oct 9, 2016 3:27:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 9, 2016 6:12:30 GMT
How much force do you think would be required to move the Earth 1mm off its current vector - and you call that small? What is required to change the Earth's orbit by a half diameter of the Sun? Tiny? Really?? Just consider the inertia 1/ 2MV 2 even in free fall inertia exists and must be overcome to alter velocity. That is my problem - ask a basic question and you are shouted down, almost like being in SkS and asking for evidence of CO2 causing warming . All the planets are being 'accelerated' into orbits around the Sun. And we are told the force of gravity is too weak to do it. But it obviously is strong enough to accelerate gas giants like Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus into orbits. That is patently not a small force. Then the proponents of small force start waffling about 'gravity wells' which is just another way of expressing the strength of the force of gravity without talking about it. As far as I can see the Sun's motion around the barycenter drags Mars, the Earth, Venus and Mercury with it This will not be without effect on those planets. You can waffle about 'free fall' into the gravity well but if someone moves it then your free-fall has a different vector and changing to the new vector requires a force. That vector is in continual motion so there is a continual and varying force. If someone can identify a hole in that logic I will be interested to hear it. I have raised this point before but if the Sun is actually being perturbed by mov ement of the barycenter (I know I know but bear with me) then the bubble of liquid rock with a thin skin we call Earth will also be perturbed. Could the reason for the Solar dynamo malfunctioning and the seismic activity 'during a quiet sun' be due to perturbation in the path of the barycenter through space? The centripetal force that causes the planets to stay in orbit in a continual acceleration has got to be considerable and if its vector changes more rapidly than normal one would expect some distortion of our thin skinned bubble of liquid rock You need to think about what you saying, where over the course of many years, all attempts to reason with you have failed going back to about 2006 or more. If we orbit the Earth, the direction we are accelerating in, is continually changing, and yet we feel nothing other than tidal forces. No matter how complex the orbital shape becomes we cannot detect the continually changing acceleration other than by tidal forces. When we are in orbit we are not fixed to an object with velcro as the object is spun around. In outer space, if we have inertia we travel in a straight line until such time as a force acts upon us - where gravity acts upon us at the level of matter itself. We can feel absolutely nothing in a complex orbit. The forces are not being applied at the edges of objects but at core of the matter - other than the tidal forces. Consider this: You are in orbit around the Earth and at time t you are accelerating directly towards the Sun, but at t+1 your acceleration towards the sun has slowed and after one quarter of an orbit you have no acceleration towards the Sun caused by your orbit. Since time t you now have a totally new acceleration at right angles to your previous course and you experience nothing other than tidal forces. It should be clear a perfectly circular orbit is creating far more changes in acceleration than any orbital perturbations can create and yet we feel nothing other than tidal forces
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 9, 2016 7:22:10 GMT
How much force do you think would be required to move the Earth 1mm off its current vector - and you call that small? What is required to change the Earth's orbit by a half diameter of the Sun? Tiny? Really?? Just consider the inertia 1/ 2MV 2 even in free fall inertia exists and must be overcome to alter velocity. That is my problem - ask a basic question and you are shouted down, almost like being in SkS and asking for evidence of CO2 causing warming . All the planets are being 'accelerated' into orbits around the Sun. And we are told the force of gravity is too weak to do it. But it obviously is strong enough to accelerate gas giants like Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus into orbits. That is patently not a small force. Then the proponents of small force start waffling about 'gravity wells' which is just another way of expressing the strength of the force of gravity without talking about it. As far as I can see the Sun's motion around the barycenter drags Mars, the Earth, Venus and Mercury with it This will not be without effect on those planets. You can waffle about 'free fall' into the gravity well but if someone moves it then your free-fall has a different vector and changing to the new vector requires a force. That vector is in continual motion so there is a continual and varying force. If someone can identify a hole in that logic I will be interested to hear it. I have raised this point before but if the Sun is actually being perturbed by mov ement of the barycenter (I know I know but bear with me) then the bubble of liquid rock with a thin skin we call Earth will also be perturbed. Could the reason for the Solar dynamo malfunctioning and the seismic activity 'during a quiet sun' be due to perturbation in the path of the barycenter through space? The centripetal force that causes the planets to stay in orbit in a continual acceleration has got to be considerable and if its vector changes more rapidly than normal one would expect some distortion of our thin skinned bubble of liquid rock You need to think about what you saying, where over the course of many years, all attempts to reason with you have failed going back to about 2006 or more. If we orbit the Earth, the direction we are accelerating in, is continually changing, and yet we feel nothing other than tidal forces. No matter how complex the orbital shape becomes we cannot detect the continually changing acceleration other than by tidal forces. When we are in orbit we are not fixed to an object with velcro as the object is spun around. In outer space, if we have inertia we travel in a straight line until such time as a force acts upon us - where gravity acts upon us at the level of matter itself. We can feel absolutely nothing in a complex orbit. The forces are not being applied at the edges of objects but at core of the matter - other than the tidal forces. Consider this: You are in orbit around the Earth and at time t you are accelerating directly towards the Sun, but at t+1 your acceleration towards the sun has slowed and after one quarter of an orbit you have no acceleration towards the Sun caused by your orbit. Since time t you now have a totally new acceleration at right angles to your previous course and you experience nothing other than tidal forces. It should be clear a perfectly circular orbit is creating far more changes in acceleration than any orbital perturbations can create and yet we feel nothing other than tidal forces What do you mean we don't feel anything. I feel climate change every day as the earth rotates through the light of the sun. Am I prepared to say I know all I feel is 100% related to the amount of solar light I feel? Well no doubt it is dominant but it can be dominant and still leave room for a couple of degrees of climate variation from something else over the course of a couple hundred years or more. And of course one can say the same thing about the annual cycle around the sun. The seasons are definitely noticeable and likewise I am not going to make a ill informed claim that nothing else could be present that has an impact. As Dr Syun Akasofu says we need to understand natural variability to understand the minor forms of variability. . . .and we are not there yet, thus your argument is invalid.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 9, 2016 11:13:54 GMT
All very interesting Andrew, but the Sun is perturbed in its motion by the larger planets which will also perturb the motion of the Earth. It is one method of identifying stars that have planets as they 'wobble'. So the rate and vector of acceleration of the Earth are also changing. It is not a nice simple unchanging Copernican circle.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 9, 2016 20:02:30 GMT
As everyone knows an orbiting planet is continually accelerating as its velocity vector is being curved into the orbit by a 'centripetal force' not only that but as the Sun wobbles the Earth wobbles with it. >>an orbiting planet is continually accelerating as its velocity vector is being curved into the orbit by a 'centripetal force' What do you mean by 'its velocity vector is being curved into the orbit'?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 10, 2016 1:18:39 GMT
Transverse acceleration (perpendicular to velocity) causes change in direction. If it is constant in magnitude and changing in direction with the velocity, we get a circular motion. For this centripetal acceleration we have a = v 2/r = w 2r v, is orbital velocity of orbiting body, r, is radius of the circle w is angular speed, measured in radians per unit time. The formula is dimensionless, describing a ratio true for all units of measure applied uniformly across the formula. If the numerical value of a is measured in meters per second per second, then the numerical values for v, will be in meters per second, r, in meters, and w in radians per second. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_orbitPut simply the application of centripetal force in this case gravity must cause an acceleration in this case a continual change in velocity (speed in a direction). If somehow the centripetal force were to stop the Earth would stop orbiting and fly off at a tangent. A change in the vector of the centripetal force w due to a motion of the Sun will change the acceleration direction and the inertia of the mass of the Earth will cause stresses within the Earth. There will be similar inertial forces within the sun as its velocity is changed due to the orbit of the major planets. This is what will drive the solar dynamo and cause the various periodic changes within the Sun.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 10, 2016 1:28:07 GMT
Transverse acceleration (perpendicular to velocity) causes change in direction. If it is constant in magnitude and changing in direction with the velocity, we get a circular motion. For this centripetal acceleration we have a = v 2/r = w 2r v, is orbital velocity of orbiting body, r, is radius of the circle w is angular speed, measured in radians per unit time. The formula is dimensionless, describing a ratio true for all units of measure applied uniformly across the formula. If the numerical value of a is measured in meters per second per second, then the numerical values for v, will be in meters per second, r, in meters, and w in radians per second. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_orbitYou quoting wiki is not going to help me understand why you think the velocity vector is being curved. Neither will it help me understand what you mean by the Earths "current vector" How much force do you think would be required to move the Earth 1mm off its current vector
|
|