|
Post by Andrew on Jul 4, 2015 19:33:38 GMT
You said the Earth falls towards the SSBC rather than the Sun? If that is your belief you are wrong and i have done my best to explain why you are wrong. If you want to argue your point you need to address what i have said about gravity weakening at the square of the distance so that I have more information as to the nature of how you are constructing your view point. Yet from what I understand. ..The measurable difference between our different view points has to be tiny I have no idea what you are talking about. By my reading of your text your statements are totally different to mine. If you are right (as i understand your words) the earth sun distance would vary hugely by up to 2 million km. Whereas in reality there are only very small changes.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jul 4, 2015 19:35:38 GMT
Er....I just said differences would have to be tiny?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 4, 2015 19:40:57 GMT
Er....I just said differences would have to be tiny? I have no idea what you are talking about. You told me i was wrong. The data supports my viewpoint and does not support yours.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jul 4, 2015 19:47:23 GMT
Yet from what I understand. ..The measurable difference between our different view points has to be tiny I have no idea what you are talking about. By my reading of your text your statements are totally different to mine. If you are right (as i understand your words) the earth sun distance would vary hugely by up to 2 million km. Whereas in reality there are only very small changes. Step back....obv our system is balanced as this does not happen. .. What are the small perturbations that occur within this balance as orbital positions change in relation to each other. How does this affect the position of the barycentre. ..
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 4, 2015 19:50:54 GMT
I have no idea what you are talking about. By my reading of your text your statements are totally different to mine. If you are right (as i understand your words) the earth sun distance would vary hugely by up to 2 million km. Whereas in reality there are only very small changes. Step back....obv our system is balanced as this does not happen. .. What are the small perturbations that occur within this balance as orbital positions change in relation to each other. How does this affect the position of the barycentre. .. I dont understand you and can only guess how i should answer you. You are obsessing over the word 'barycenter'. The barycenter is a mathematical point constructed using mass and distance only.The SS barycenter has no magic powers that can act on the Earth. The only relevant powers are the planets and they are huge distances away. The Earth and the Sun are pulled almost identically by the planets.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 4, 2015 19:55:08 GMT
the earth is NOT falling to the centre of the sun...It is falling to the barycentre because it, like the sun is ALSO affected by the gravitational pull of the other planets. Sigh. The Earth is not falling towards the center of mass of the Solar system. That seems to be what Icefisher is claiming but i can never pin him down to work out what the hell he is talking about. Newton said Earth orbits the center of mass of the Sun, mercury and Venus. You need to understand that gravity weakens at the square of the distance. The SSBC only becomes relevant if you have the same amount of time to fall as the distant planets very slowly move - which is the case for the Sun. For the Earth, the result is the Earth falls mainly towards the Sun. "the Earth falls mainly towards the Sun". But never arrives nor consistently gets closer which is the condition necessary for an orbit. In that sense of orbit objects fall mainly toward the solar system center of gravity, not the sun. Its basic high school physics and the application of net forces. In another sense of "periodic and self cancelling" divergence and convergence. Objects deviate less in their solar orbit than in the SSBC orbit. So the correct answer is objects fall mainly toward the solar system center mass but have less variation in their orbit around the sun than around the SSBC. So Andrew now that the topic has been clarified. Exactly what important point was Svalgaard trying to insert into the discussion? You were wrong about objects falling towards the center of the sun they are falling toward the solar system center mass in the orbit sense of falling which has nothing whatsoever to do with actual net distance of fall towards the object in question, which is zero. In the sense the sun tows the earth around distance wise from the barycenter does not change its "direction of fall" but instead changes its position relative to the SSBC and all the other objects in the system as do all the other objects in the system do to all the other objects. You can say Andrew that the sun is the single largest influence of all the other objects in the solar system. But whoever denied that? We have made some progress that we should recognize at this point. Andrew has abandoned his claim that the planets do not orbit the SSBC and now claims that objects fall principally toward the sun and principally orbits the sun(allowing now for them to somewhat non-principally fall toward and orbit the SSBC, whatever that means in Andrew's mind)
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jul 4, 2015 19:55:59 GMT
Step back....obv our system is balanced as this does not happen. .. What are the small perturbations that occur within this balance as orbital positions change in relation to each other. How does this affect the position of the barycentre. .. I dont understand you and can only guess how i should answer you. You are obsessing over the word 'barycenter'. The barycenter is a mathematical point constructed using mass and distance only.The barycenter has no magic powers. The only relevant powers are the planets and they are huge distances away. Yeah, I just assume barycentre is sum of all gravitational influences experienced by our solar system. And assume that these influences are primarily generated within this solar system. Not attributing more effect then it warrants... Again I come to why this is so important to u Andrew? U want to discredit barycentre influence on climate or what?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 4, 2015 20:01:19 GMT
I dont understand you and can only guess how i should answer you. You are obsessing over the word 'barycenter'. The barycenter is a mathematical point constructed using mass and distance only.The barycenter has no magic powers. The only relevant powers are the planets and they are huge distances away. Yeah, I just assume barycentre is sum of all gravitational influences experienced by our solar system. And assume that these influences are primarily generated within this solar system. Not attributing more effect then it warrants... Again I come to why this is so important to u Andrew? U want to discredit barycentre influence on climate or what? If you have nothing better to do then waste my time as I patiently do my best to explain simple ideas to you while you refuse to listen then it would be better for both of us if you went and played with your children or had an ice cream or looked in that mirror.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 4, 2015 20:02:19 GMT
I dont understand you and can only guess how i should answer you. You are obsessing over the word 'barycenter'. The barycenter is a mathematical point constructed using mass and distance only.The barycenter has no magic powers. The only relevant powers are the planets and they are huge distances away. Yeah, I just assume barycentre is sum of all gravitational influences experienced by our solar system. And assume that these influences are primarily generated within this solar system. Not attributing more effect then it warrants... Again I come to why this is so important to u Andrew? U want to discredit barycentre influence on climate or what? I think Andrew thinks it is important because he thinks Svalgaard thinks its important, but he can't explain why. My view is Svalgaard sees his comments as an expletive disparaging a theory he doesn't favor rather than the scientific argument that Andrew thinks it is.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jul 4, 2015 20:03:11 GMT
Yeah, I just assume barycentre is sum of all gravitational influences experienced by our solar system. And assume that these influences are primarily generated within this solar system. Not attributing more effect then it warrants... Again I come to why this is so important to u Andrew? U want to discredit barycentre influence on climate or what? If you have nothing better to do then waste my time as I patiently do my best to explain simple ideas to you while you refuse to listen then it would be better for both of us if you went and played with your children or had an ice cream or looked in that mirror. Seriously. ...u are a major not a very nice person Andrew.....all comms are now ceased.....good luck.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jul 4, 2015 20:04:22 GMT
If you have nothing better to do then waste my time as I patiently do my best to explain simple ideas to you while you refuse to listen then it would be better for both of us if you went and played with your children or had an ice cream or looked in that mirror. Seriously. ...u are a major not a very nice person Andrew.....all comms are now ceased.....good luck. Guess what....I didn't write not a very nice person!!! Funny
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 4, 2015 20:07:46 GMT
Sigh. The Earth is not falling towards the center of mass of the Solar system. That seems to be what Icefisher is claiming but i can never pin him down to work out what the hell he is talking about. Newton said Earth orbits the center of mass of the Sun, mercury and Venus. You need to understand that gravity weakens at the square of the distance. The SSBC only becomes relevant if you have the same amount of time to fall as the distant planets very slowly move - which is the case for the Sun. For the Earth, the result is the Earth falls mainly towards the Sun. "the Earth falls mainly towards the Sun". But never arrives nor consistently gets closer which is the condition necessary for an orbit. In that sense of orbit objects fall mainly toward the solar system center of gravity, not the sun. Its basic high school physics and the application of net forces. As explained countless times using Newtons Gravitation law the Earth cannot be falling mainly towards the SSBC. Newton said the Earth was orbiting the center of mass of the Sun Mercury and Venus and that is sufficient for me. We are talking about simple physics which are backed up by highly accurate solar system measurements >>"the Earth falls mainly towards the Sun". But never arrives nor consistently gets closer which is the condition necessary for an orbit. Good grief
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 4, 2015 20:11:32 GMT
The correct answer and it can be demonstrated mathematically. The earth falls principally toward the sun in comparison to any pair of objects in the solar system that includes the sun. But the earth falls principally towards the SSBC and secondarily towards the sun when all objects are offered up into the calculation. Excluding non system objects that point is precise and any calculation of "principally falling towards" will only be precise when all objects are included in the calculation.
And no Andrew. The strawman you desperately want to erect that people believe the SSBC has magical properties is something you entirely made up in your desperation to make people look stupider than you.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 4, 2015 20:19:07 GMT
The correct answer and it can be demonstrated mathematically. The earth falls principally toward the sun in comparison to any pair of objects in the solar system that includes the sun. But the earth falls principally towards the SSBC and secondarily towards the sun when all objects are offered up into the calculation. Excluding non system objects that point is precise and any calculation of "principally falling towards" will only be precise when all objects are included in the calculation. What the hell are you you talking about now?? The earth is not falling principally towards the SSBC when all the objects are in the Solar system as they are today. Obviously it is falling principally towards the Sun. I have explained why that is true. The data supports it. Newton agreed.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 4, 2015 21:09:38 GMT
The correct answer and it can be demonstrated mathematically. The earth falls principally toward the sun in comparison to any pair of objects in the solar system that includes the sun. But the earth falls principally towards the SSBC and secondarily towards the sun when all objects are offered up into the calculation. Excluding non system objects that point is precise and any calculation of "principally falling towards" will only be precise when all objects are included in the calculation. What the hell are you you talking about now?? The earth is not falling principally towards the SSBC when all the objects are in the Solar system as they are today. Obviously it is falling principally towards the Sun. I have explained why that is true. The data supports it. Newton agreed. Your calculations are wrong. The calculations prove that when only considering gravity the earth is falling precisely towards the gravitational center mass of the solar system. The only reason its position varies in relationship to the SSBC is because of the inertial movement of all the planets including the earth. If there were no other planets then the earth would be falling towards both the sun and the barycenter because they would by definition be in direct alignment. But gravitationally speaking the earth always falls toward the barycenter, ends up orbiting it whether there are other planets or not. When there are other planets the earth does not gravitationally fall toward the sun but instead the solar system gravitational center but still manages to orbit the sun and the barycenter but on different time scales. The earth ends up orbiting the sun precisely because and only because of the fact the sun is also falling toward the barycenter. If the sun were not following the rules of gravity and possess inertia in the direction of the SSBC the earth would not precisely orbit the sun. You still have not mathematically described how the earth primarily falls toward the sun Andrew and until you do you are going to be wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!
|
|