|
Post by Andrew on Jul 5, 2015 0:15:58 GMT
1. Newton would be wrong to say the focus of the earths orbit was the gravitational centers of the Sun mercury and Venus 2. Newtons Universal gravity law would be wrong 3. It would stick out like dogs balls in the Earth Sun distance data.I would say Newton's universal law of gravity would be wrong if one could not make a case for everything inside of earths orbit being located at one of the interior focal points of earth's orbit of the solar system center of gravity since everything is orbiting the same thing. Thats just an artifact of geometry. No sense complicating this to cover up your incorrect statements Andrew. The earth can only be gravitationally falling to the center of the sun The earth is falling approximately towards the center of the sun while generally speaking the sun and the earth are falling towards the sodding planets. So help me if you one more time say anything as stupid as you keep repeating about the earth being totally uninfluenced by the other planets and claiming i am saying that you are blocked. I am totally sick to death of your stupid responses. We are talking about simple physics that was understood 300 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2015 0:19:26 GMT
I have said: Almost towards the Sun principally around the Sun What first principle of physics is principally Andrew? In this case the only possible definition of "prinicipally" is the earth is not falling toward precisely the center of the sun. That place the earth is falling toward, close to the center of the sun Andrew, is the solar system's center of gravity. May as well call it what it is Andrew than continuing to dance around the topic like the barycenter dances with the movement of the planets.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 5, 2015 0:33:47 GMT
I have said: Almost towards the Sun principally around the Sun What first principle of physics is principally Andrew? In this case the only possible definition of "prinicipally" is the earth is not falling toward precisely the center of the sun. That place the earth is falling toward, close to the center of the sun Andrew, is the solar system's center of gravity. What do you mean by the solar systems center of gravity? Newton said "The focus of the orbit of the Earth [is] in the common centre of gravity of Venus, Mercury and the Sun.” which is in direct contradiction of your claim to fame. For us here on Earth the gravitational center is more or less the centre of the Earth. Mars will be more affected by Jupiter than the Earth is. Venus which is closer to the SSBC will be less affected by Jupiter And so forth. It should be easy to understand that the center of gravity you experience depends upon your location. The SSBC as a center of gravity has no meaning inside the solar system. It only has meaning when you are hugely distant from the solar system. >> That place the earth is falling toward, close to the center of the sun Andrew, is the solar system's center of gravity. I tried to get you to explain what you meant a few weeks ago. It seems a key idea for me to understand as at the moment I have absolutely no idea what you are telling me. >>The planet that loses its orbit speed will miss going through the barycenter because things do not go through barycenters they orbit them If an object is orbiting another object it is falling towards that object while travelling so fast at right angles to the gravitational force it never reaches the surface of the object (Newtons imagined a very rapid cannon firing a cannon ball on top of a very high mountain) . So if the object stops moving, it falls towards the main source of gravity it experiences. We therefore would fall towards near the center of the Sun. On the subject of the Earth Sun distance changing and this sticking out like dogs balls, if you take the example of Neptune and exclude all other planets other than the earth then in one year The Sun would travel about 2 degrees or 8823km around the circumference of its orbit created by Neptune. The barycenter is however 231,700km from the center of the Sun, and so if the Earth orbited the Sun Neptune barycenter, the Earth Sun distance would vary hugely by around 230,000km per year. Summary: I just do not understand what you believe or why you believe it. I cannot make sense of anything you are telling me.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2015 6:22:49 GMT
What do you mean by the solar systems center of gravity? The point you are falling towards, Andrew via Newton's universal law of gravity. Newton said the focus of Earths orbit was the gravitational centers of the Sun mercury and Venus which is in direct contradiction of your claim to fame. The focuses of an elipse are not what we are falling towards Andrew. You are confounding principles of geometry with the universal laws of gravity. For us here on Earth the gravitational center is more or less the centre of the Earth. Mars will be more affected by Jupiter than the Earth is. Venus which is closer to the SSBC will be less affected by Jupiter And so forth. It should be easy to understand that the center of gravity you experience depends upon your location. The SSBC as a center of gravity has no meaning inside the solar system. It only has meaning when you are hugely distant from the solar system. [/quote] Actually what you are doing is splitting meaningless hairs. First, Mars is not significantly more affected by Jupiter than the earth is. It is only that way half the time the other half of the time Mars is less affected by Jupiter than the earth is. All conditions you have mentioned that seem to be exceptions for orbiting bodies like Mars are only conditions that exist half the time and exist insufficiently to jerk the object out of orbit. Yes they are jerking on the object Andrew, just not enough to pull it out of orbit. For the other half of the orbit Mars has less influence and regains any losses of the first half of an orbit where Jupiters effect is stronger relative to the earth. Then it comes back around for a repetition and the net relative movement from the combined effect is zero. Second, It is no surprise the angle of pull will be different for every object in a different position. Thats just true its not a meaningful distinction denying the affects of the gravity of the planets as you effectively do when you claim the planets are primarily falling toward the sun ignoring the effects of other planets. I can see this conversation is going around the same circle we went around before. You just need to wrap your head around the facts of a dynamic system and the roles and ramifications of what different orbit periods have on the actual results and distances traveled in an randomly chosen period of time (e.g. the earth of the sun does not travel all the way to the SSBC of an outer planet in one year but only travels a fraction of that distance.) The inner planets have shorter orbit periods so the earth and the sun travel further than their influence on the SSBC in one year and complete a full orbit. Additionally nothing unique about the fact that there are situations in the solar system where the pull of the center mass is going to be less than some other effect. But these situations are not bodies orbiting the SSBC. These bodies are in situations where an orbit of the SSBC is impossible where other effects over ride the SS center of gravity. . . .either via possessing too little or too much inertial motion or because some other effect combined will cause the object to not orbit. So indeed half the time the sun's center will be closer to an orbiting body than solar system center of gravity. And like the effect of Jupiter on mars and mars on Jupiter that only occurs half the time the other half of the time the influence is less and equally less. For bodies where that is not true these objects will be either orbiting that other body or falling into it or will be flying off into space. You need to get your facts in line with reality. Jupiter does not have significantly more effect on Mars than earth precisely because they are all orbiting planets in the same system.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 5, 2015 6:59:59 GMT
the earth is not falling toward precisely the center of the sun. That place the earth is falling toward, close to the center of the sun Andrew, is the solar system's center of gravity. What do you mean by the solar systems center of gravity? The point you are falling towards, Andrew via Newton's universal law of gravity. Yes I was wrong about Mars. Are you saying a stopped Earth would fall towards SS CoM?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jul 5, 2015 7:02:14 GMT
The point you are falling towards, Andrew via Newton's universal law of gravity. Yes I was wrong about Mars. Are you saying a stopped Earth would fall towards CoM? A stopped Earth would end this endless discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 5, 2015 7:09:24 GMT
Yes I was wrong about Mars. Are you saying a stopped Earth would fall towards CoM? A stopped Earth would end this endless discussion. How can the discussion be endless if there is only one set of facts and realities that are correct?? As a former school teacher your behaviour is a bit odd. Why cant you contribute rather than just create trouble? The conversation is complicated because it has taken me a month to realise what Icefisher believes is true. Presumably now the target is clearer we can progress this to a conclusion eventually.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jul 5, 2015 7:13:22 GMT
with you Ratty
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 5, 2015 7:21:45 GMT
Stop being so bloody boring
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jul 5, 2015 7:25:19 GMT
A stopped Earth would end this endless discussion. How can the discussion be endless if there is only one set of facts and realities that are correct?? As a former school teacher your behaviour is a bit odd. Why cant you contribute rather than just create trouble? School teacher, air force officer, service station manager, computer programmer .... all retired and not contributing because I cannot understand the points of difference. PS: "cant" should have an apostrophe .... "can't"
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 5, 2015 8:19:47 GMT
How can the discussion be endless if there is only one set of facts and realities that are correct?? As a former school teacher your behaviour is a bit odd. Why cant you contribute rather than just create trouble? School teacher, air force officer, service station manager, computer programmer .... all retired and not contributing because I cannot understand the points of difference. PS: "cant" should have an apostrophe .... "can't" Icefisher is apparently saying the Earth is falling principally or is falling towards the center of mass of the solar system. Do you believe that to be true? Or are you saying you do not understand the subject?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jul 5, 2015 8:22:15 GMT
I'm saying you omitted an apostrophe, anathema to a retired teacher and disaster to a programmer.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2015 10:26:41 GMT
the earth is not falling toward precisely the center of the sun. That place the earth is falling toward, close to the center of the sun Andrew, is the solar system's center of gravity. The point you are falling towards, Andrew via Newton's universal law of gravity. Yes I was wrong about Mars. Are you saying a stopped Earth would fall towards SS CoM? First, I have been saying the earth is falling towards the center of gravity. That may very well different than the center of mass. I said that a lot earlier in this thread. There is a complicated time element in what happens with multiple planets. What I have said is given enough time the earth will have orbited both the sun and the SS CoM precisely without one being superior over the other. can see that conceptually given enough time the earth will complete an orbit of the center mass and knowing the physics of orbits it seems as if it must be falling toward the center of mass with a lot of perturbations along the way in the form of a looping orbit or as I characterized it at one point like a curveball pitch in baseball. But OTOH this CoM has had the same influence on the sun. The only thing we have different is I have all this falling to the CoG in the short run and the CoM in the longterm and in the longterm both are the same. I think its a unique property (balance of gravitational forces and inertial movement) of orbits that this occurs. The difference between you and I is I think that if the earth were falling towards the sun instead of the CoG it would be in danger of not orbiting the sun properly because it would miss it because the sun is moving toward the CoG (something we all seem to agree upon) a movement that is not accounted for in traditional orbit calculations. Call this leading the bird when shotgunning for ducks. If you aim at the duck you will miss it. If you aim the right distance ahead of the duck you will hit it. The shot will intercept the duck. In the second point, if the earths inertial movement stopped it would not maintain its orbit. Maintaining its orbit is necessary for canceling out changes in proportional influence via changing relative distances. A few simple conclusions can be drawn. The earth is not going to orbit anything. about 3/4 of the time the earth could not possibly pass through the CoG before hitting the sun because 1/2 the time the CoG is inferior to the sun and 1/2 the time roughly when the CoG is superior, the CoG is below the surface of the sun and finally its possible the CoG would cause the the earth to impact the backside of the sun in relationship to its direction of travel in the general direction of the sun. Probably need to ask a rocket engineer about slingshotting space craft around a planet to cause it to gain speed.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 5, 2015 12:37:22 GMT
Yes I was wrong about Mars. Are you saying a stopped Earth would fall towards SS CoM? First, I have been saying the earth is falling towards the center of gravity. That may very well different than the center of mass. I said that a lot earlier in this thread. There is a complicated time element in what happens with multiple planets. What I have said is given enough time the earth will have orbited both the sun and the SS CoM precisely without one being superior over the other. can see that conceptually given enough time the earth will complete an orbit of the center mass and knowing the physics of orbits it seems as if it must be falling toward the center of mass with a lot of perturbations along the way in the form of a looping orbit or as I characterized it at one point like a curveball pitch in baseball. But OTOH this CoM has had the same influence on the sun. The only thing we have different is I have all this falling to the CoG in the short run and the CoM in the longterm and in the longterm both are the same. I think its a unique property (balance of gravitational forces and inertial movement) of orbits that this occurs. The difference between you and I is I think that if the earth were falling towards the sun instead of the CoG it would be in danger of not orbiting the sun properly because it would miss it because the sun is moving toward the CoG (something we all seem to agree upon) a movement that is not accounted for in traditional orbit calculations. Call this leading the bird when shotgunning for ducks. If you aim at the duck you will miss it. If you aim the right distance ahead of the duck you will hit it. The shot will intercept the duck. In the second point, if the earths inertial movement stopped it would not maintain its orbit. Maintaining its orbit is necessary for canceling out changes in proportional influence via changing relative distances. A few simple conclusions can be drawn. The earth is not going to orbit anything. about 3/4 of the time the earth could not possibly pass through the CoG before hitting the sun because 1/2 the time the CoG is inferior to the sun and 1/2 the time roughly when the CoG is superior, the CoG is below the surface of the sun and finally its possible the CoG would cause the the earth to impact the backside of the sun in relationship to its direction of travel in the general direction of the sun. Probably need to ask a rocket engineer about slingshotting space craft around a planet to cause it to gain speed. Are you now agreeing the so called center of gravity the Earth falls towards is very close to the center of the Sun as per Newton and myself?? Judging by what you have written below it seems very very unlikely >>In the second point, if the earths inertial movement stopped it would not maintain its orbit. Maintaining its orbit is necessary for canceling out changes in proportional influence via changing relative distances. A few simple conclusions can be drawn. The earth is not going to orbit anything. about 3/4 of the time the earth could not possibly pass through the CoG before hitting the sun because 1/2 the time the CoG is inferior to the sun and 1/2 the time roughly when the CoG is superior, the CoG is below the surface of the sun and finally its possible the CoG would cause the the earth to impact the backside of the sun in relationship to its direction of travel in the general direction of the sun. I totally dont understand that text. You appear to be giving this CoG thing some special meaning which is beyond me to understand. What does it mean that the CoG is inferior to the Sun??? CoG is mainly created by the Sun. For the Earth, CoG is nowhere near the surface of the Sun ever. >>The difference between you and I is I think that if the earth were falling towards the sun instead of the CoG In my terms the Earth is falling towards a gravitional center that is not the center of the Sun, but which is near the center of the Sun. It is not at the center of the sun because of the planets. Simultaneously the same pull of the planets is causing both the Sun and the Earth to orbit the SS CoM. Yes the Sun and Earth are falling towards/orbiting the SSBC However if the earth stopped moving at each moment of time it would never be accelerating on a course for SS CoM unless by coincidence, instead at each moment of time it would always head almost directly towards the center of the Sun, where both the Sun and the Earth are being pulled almost identically by the planets as the Earth falls into the Sun In the case of Neptune in the 65 days the Earth takes to reach the Sun, Neptune moves the Sun 1571km around the 1,455,814km circumferance of the solar orbit that Neptune creates. Earth will move almost the same amount with a small difference due to the differential pull created by the Earth Sun distance. Jupiter has a more significant result for a solar orbital contribution having a circumferenc of 4,398229 and a much smaller period. Jupiter moves the Sun 65,000km by the time earth hits the Sun. Earth moves a similar amount with a small difference created by the Earth Sun distance. Therefore the ability of the planets to cause the Earths path to change with respect to the Sun is small compared to the larger barycenter contributions the planets make upon the Sun and Earth system moving together around the SS CoM >>The difference between you and I is A barycenter has no properties or abilities to change anything. The barycenter is mathematically the center of mass. The only thing capable of changing anything are the individual objects in the system. Versusthats total nonsense Andrew. You don't understand what a Barycenter is. Sure its a mathematical construct but it is a mathematical construct of real gravitational forces. All the objects in the solar system are pulled to this point as its the point of where all the forces balance out and anything outside of that point is attracted to it I am assuming you dont believe that any more??
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2015 16:49:21 GMT
Are you now agreeing the so called center of gravity the Earth falls towards is very close to the center of the Sun as per Newton and myself?? Judging by what you have written below it seems very very unlikely >>In the second point, if the earths inertial movement stopped it would not maintain its orbit. Maintaining its orbit is necessary for canceling out changes in proportional influence via changing relative distances. A few simple conclusions can be drawn. The earth is not going to orbit anything. about 3/4 of the time the earth could not possibly pass through the CoG before hitting the sun because 1/2 the time the CoG is inferior to the sun and 1/2 the time roughly when the CoG is superior, the CoG is below the surface of the sun and finally its possible the CoG would cause the the earth to impact the backside of the sun in relationship to its direction of travel in the general direction of the sun. I totally dont understand that text. You appear to be giving this CoG thing some special meaning which is beyond me to understand. Well it makes sense to me that barycenters in the first place is a complex topic. The earth has a barycenter with the sun but I am not sure what the meaning of it is since other planets are in play. That barycenter is deadon in line with the center of the sun and if it has an operational meaning in the real world the earth would be falling to the center of the sun. But thats not the case. I would think the barycenter for the earth is one that includes the gravitational pulls of all the planets in relationship to where the sun and planets sit instantaneously at any given moment in time. The earth's contribution to that will have no effect on the line of fall. But the earth will have a contribution to that of every other planet's and the sun's line of fall. So in effect for the purposes of direction of fall there is no concept of one single point that could be termed a universal SS barycenter that applies to every object in the same way. Barycenters are always uniquely relative to the object you are focusing one. And that will be the direction of fall for that object. For the earth that barycenter will be close to the sun. For pluto it will be much further away. That is perhaps not well described in my previous comments. To have a barycenter I think you have to a focus object that is going to dance with the rest of the solarsystem, whether it be the sun, the earth, Jupiter or Pluto. From a solar perspective that barycenter is as described by the so-called solar system barycenter being used from that focus. And its a ways away from the sun and the sun is headed there at the moment before the planets rearrange themselves. But that barycenter is not the same barycenter that exists from the perspective of the earth which instead of excluding a deflection force only for the sun in positioning it now the earth is the one excluded and the sun is included as a "deflection force". This changing position of the barycenter depending upon the focal object can I believe be averaged out over time, like at a minimum the time it takes for the planet furthest from the sun to complete an orbit. . . .keeping in mind that the further from the sun an object is the slower the raw speed of the planet orbiting it is and the longer the orbit path is. So you might say I agree with you from the earth's perspective, but you were the one that brought the earth's perspective into the conversation as it was never discussed directly on WUWT as far as I know. In fact when David Thomson was challenged on it he did not use the term barycenter he used the term CoG. Svalgaard injected himself when Thomson said the planets also orbit the barycenter. My comment a long time ago in this thread that yes in one sense that is true namely over a long period of time at least enough time for the slowest most furthest out planet to complete an entire orbit. We further discussed Svalgaard's narrow use of the word orbit that is not used in all of science where a broader definition is used. Hairsplitting by Svalgaard on a massive scale! The pea is a long way from the sun and so is its barycenter with the sun. The sun is going to rotate around the peas barycenter (in the fashion of a curve ball having more than one rotation going on). A football probably shows more. A nice tight spiral is where one rotation dominates and what a quarterback tries to achieve but sometimes besides spiraling its going end over end too at the same time. I mean who knows what effects these have on the sun? Astrometeorology attempts to explain it largely via inductive logic. Lord Kelvin crapped all over inductive logic much preferring laboratory work. Svalgaard craps all over it too while at the same time he uses it himself in his own papers as do most scientists in this day and age. Its called statistics. I am not sure there is more discipline going on in this day and age in the use of statistics or not. The math has gotten more complex but its relevance in my view has paid a price. Astrometeorologists may or may not be as advanced in the use of statistics as scientists but that doesn't mean what they do use is inferior to scientists are currently using. I would offer up certain papers and the use of statistics by Mann and Santer as examples of a crappy use of statistics. Steve McIntyre has made a second career for himself critiquing the crappy use of statistics by the science community. I though Nautonnier's criticisms hit the mark. I don't think Svalgaard was making relevant criticisms. He was definitely splitting hairs which there appears to obviously be a lot of room for. But how much of this hair splitting is relevant? I don't see a basis for any of it being relevant. Finally my highschool physics teacher engrained in me a concept of the force of gravity being more of a deflecting force from the direction something is traveling. If its not traveling its going to fall to the center of gravity that object sees. I see nothing wrong specifically with formulating one concept of a solar system barycenter but can see the possibility that it might be difficult to make any math resulting from it work out if the wrong perspective is chosen. I think clearly the discussions I was linked to were focusing on the barycentric effects being experienced by the sun. The sun though is rotating around multiple barycenters while always traveling in the direction of one barycenter like that curve ball or end over end football spiral pass. And finally I find the concept of freefall being used in deceptive manners with claims that it cannot be felt when freefall is all objects do subject only to gravitational pulls. I think thats just pure obfuscation. So anyway I am out of breath and don't have the time to review all that was said above so take no credit for mistakes. Either you get it or you don't but I think there is a lot going on in this barycentric dance of the sun, forces that are felt, forces that could have effects on solar activity and so on. I think we should declare this subject as a dead horse as where the earth freefalls to seems totally irrelevant to the concept of a solar barycenter with the rest of the solar system. Perhaps the key concept is two objects or groups of objects rotating around each other until one choses a fixed point in space that is instead of being fixed is a dynamic point in space and tries to view it from a fixed point of view where only the weaker object rotates around the other.by virtue of having the larger orbit of the two.
|
|