|
Post by Andrew on Jul 5, 2015 17:35:20 GMT
Thomson was talking about barycenters and the center of gravity in the same breath.
>>David Thomson September 7, 2013 at 3:36 pm The tidal theory would only affect surface behavior of the Sun. The solar barycenter would be acting on the solid core of the Sun and causing it to move within the surrounding gases and liquids. It is this movement of the core that is supposed to drive the magnetohydrodynamics of solar behavior. ------------ Carsten Arnholm September 7, 2013 at 4:53 pm The barycenter is not “solar”. The Barycenter is the center of mass of the solar system. It is not physical in any other way. It cannot “act” on the core of the Sun, being it solid or not. In fact the barycenter cannot act on anything ------------ David Thomson September 7, 2013 at 5:55 pm If the center of the solar system is not at the center of the Sun, then why would you not think the Sun would be gravitationally moved? The Sun has no choice, except to be pulled toward the center of the solar system’s gravity. The Sun orbits the center of the solar system the same as the planets do. ---------------------------
It is clear he is muddled up on several levels and thinking the solar system has a center of gravity causing the planets to fall towards it in preference to the planets falling more or less towards the Sun as shown by the data and maths. You have been saying exactly the same thing.
>>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.
It is crazy talk to say the free fall argument is dishonest. It is just simple physics that the matter feels only the tidal forces and does not stir up solids compared to plasmas as Thomson was claiming
>>I though Nautonnier's criticisms hit the mark.
Obviously not. Nobody believes what Nautonnier claims they believe. Aside from sig nobody i have ever heard of disputes the Sun wobbles. Like you and Thomson, Nautonnier also could not understand the free fall physics and was derisive of it.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2015 17:39:18 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 short what I would say this is is one of your typical changes in goal posts type post. Nowhere in the discussion of potential effects on solar activity was any causal attribution given to the direction of fall for the earth, especially if it stopped dead in its tracks mid orbit. At best its irrelevant hairsplitting on a massive scale. Just about everybody I can see reading this thread has identified this approach of yours and apparently the approach of Svalgaard in a dishonest evalutation of the theory of affects of movements of the sun on solar activity. I have humored you in the interest of you better understanding the above facts. This is so much related to your style of argument like in a blanket heating a dead body that morphed into an increasingly irrelevant point that no heating was occurring but that heat was being redistributed while alleging and begging the question as to whether any real warming was occurring in the first place. Thats the problem with the insulation argument, here we are getting a good dose of the fact you have nothing to offer regarding the theory of solar change via barycentric driven solar movements either.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2015 17:44:55 GMT
Thomson was talking about barycenters and the center of gravity in the same breath. >>David Thomson September 7, 2013 at 3:36 pm The tidal theory would only affect surface behavior of the Sun. The solar barycenter would be acting on the solid core of the Sun and causing it to move within the surrounding gases and liquids. It is this movement of the core that is supposed to drive the magnetohydrodynamics of solar behavior. ------------ Carsten Arnholm September 7, 2013 at 4:53 pm The barycenter is not “solar”. The Barycenter is the center of mass of the solar system. It is not physical in any other way. It cannot “act” on the core of the Sun, being it solid or not. In fact the barycenter cannot act on anything ------------ David Thomson September 7, 2013 at 5:55 pm If the center of the solar system is not at the center of the Sun, then why would you not think the Sun would be gravitationally moved? The Sun has no choice, except to be pulled toward the center of the solar system’s gravity. The Sun orbits the center of the solar system the same as the planets do. --------------------------- It is clear he is muddled up on several levels and thinking the solar system has a center of gravity causing the planets to fall towards it in preference to the planets falling more or less towards the Sun as shown by the data and maths. You have been saying exactly the same thing. It is crazy talk to say the free fall argument is dishonest. It is just simple physics that the matter feels only the tidal forces and does not stir up solids compared to plasmas as Thomson was claiming >>I though Nautonnier's criticisms hit the mark. Obviously not. Nobody believes what Nautonnier claims they believe. Aside from sig nobody i have ever heard of disputes the Sun wobbles. Like you and Thomson, Nautonnier also could not understand the free fall physics and was derisive of it. The beat in my last post just goes on. Its all irrelevant. Its why gsharp bowed out suggesting the proper approach to criticizing his paper would be to prepare a peer reviewed rebuttal paper rather than resorting to endless irrelevant nitpicking of that discussed in a public forum. I spent some time studying linguistics and understand fully the tendency of everybody to not spend hours explaining finer points of words. Only in a disciplined environment like peer review can anybody legitimately take on linguistic issues where a great deal of attention is paid to the common agreement of the definition of particular words. The game you play is constant distraction and nitpicking. Its obnoxious and totally out of place. What you need to do is show why the points your are making have any relevancy to possible solar activity. If they don't all you are doing is obfuscating.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 5, 2015 17:54:32 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 short what I would say this is is one of your typical changes in goal posts type post. Nowhere in the discussion of potential effects on solar activity was any causal attribution given to the direction of fall for the earth, especially if it stopped dead in its tracks mid orbit. At best its irrelevant hairsplitting on a massive scale. Just about everybody I can see reading this thread has identified this approach of yours and apparently the approach of Svalgaard in a dishonest evalutation of the theory of affects of movements of the sun on solar activity. I have humored you in the interest of you better understanding the above facts. This is so much related to your style of argument like in a blanket heating a dead body that morphed into an increasingly irrelevant point that no heating was occurring but that heat was being redistributed while alleging and begging the question as to whether any real warming was occurring in the first place. Thats the problem with the insulation argument, here we are getting a good dose of the fact you have nothing to offer regarding the theory of solar change via barycentric driven solar movements either. More crazy talk. I have struggled to understand what you have been talking about for the last month and said what I said to get you to explain what on Earth you were thinking when you said the barycenter attracted objects like a magnet. It was simple to show the Earth is not being attracted to the barycenter like a magnet but was instead attracted to some place much closer to the sun. Most of the time i have no idea what you are talking about. There is no problem with the insulation argument. Obviously the greenhouse effect is simple physics a school boy can understand. The dead body thought experiment was perfect. The core heats the surface so that when insulated the surface becomes warmer. It is exactly analagous to what happens in the earth system. The dead body perfectly illustrates that the greenhouse effect does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. I am an honest person who does not change goal posts or lie. Your behaviour towards me is totally disgusting. You behave like some drug crazed f**kwit every time we have a conversation telling me i am lying and changing goal posts when all i want to do is show how muddled up you are. I hardly have any interest in the Earths climate. I am though interested in talking about scientific ideas. You barged into this conversation to tell me i was lying about Nautonnier. I told no lies. He was and remains totally confused about a number of things and like Sig refuses to explain why while telling me I have some kind of problem! In my strong view you were one of the strongest reasons this board fell apart and all the science people left. You attacked everybody in a disgusting manner while demonstrating you had almost no ability to think clearly and plenty of ability to be disgusting towards people. You Magellan and Sig make a good team. You grind down people with relentless stupidity invent whatever you need and refuse to bow down to reality. In a lessor way Nautonnier is the same. You were frothing at the mouth that the bricks in my sauna were heated by the sauna stove!! Unf**kingbelievable
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2015 18:09:21 GMT
One final thought on linguistic nitpicking. A center point in the study of linguistics and inductive logic, which is the sole logic used in solar system dynamics is a discussion about the meaning of the term "Present King of France". Since we should all know there is no present king of France its a complex question that has no determined answer. Here we are dealing with the solar system CoM vs the earth's perspective of the solarsystems CoG. Its not usual when the issue is irrelevant that words are used that do not have precise meanings but instead common unimportant meanings to the physics in actual question, except in the mind of the nitpicker who wants to know where the earth would fall, a totally irrelevant issue.
Its akin to being a typo hunter and ascribing some great ignorance to one who commits a typo in a typed presentation. Its obnoxious and its irrelevant. I think Thomson demonstrated very adroitly in his use of words he understood he was first dealing with an obfuscator in Svalgaard then dealing with some attack dog of Svalgaard's who actually did not understand the obfuscation Svalgaard was inserting into the discussion.
Thomson nimbly and correctly shifted to the term center of gravity for the planets and did so without writing a 20,000 word longwinded reply to address every single irrelevant point that might apply outside of his basic theory on the issue of the identification of barycenters.
The same can be said of Keplerian orbits versus the more general use of the term in other areas of science. Identity is a difficult topic in all of logic and mathematics and it is often needlessly and distractingly exploited by people with typo hunting mentalities. . . .and that includes you and Svalgaard.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 5, 2015 18:23:35 GMT
One final thought on linguistic nitpicking. A center point in the study of linguistics and inductive logic, which is the sole logic used in solar system dynamics is a discussion about the meaning of the term "Present King of France". Since we should all know there is no present king of France its a complex question that has no determined answer. Here we are dealing with the solar system CoM vs the earth's perspective of the solarsystems CoG. Its not usual when the issue is irrelevant that words are used that do not have precise meanings but instead common unimportant meanings to the physics in actual question, except in the mind of the nitpicker who wants to know where the earth would fall, a totally irrelevant issue. Its akin to being a typo hunter and ascribing some great ignorance to one who commits a typo in a typed presentation. Its obnoxious and its irrelevant. I think Thomson demonstrated very adroitly in his use of words he understood he was first dealing with an obfuscator in Svalgaard then dealing with some attack dog of Svalgaard's who actually did not understand the obfuscation Svalgaard was inserting into the discussion. Thomson nimbly and correctly shifted to the term center of gravity for the planets and did so without writing a 20,000 word longwinded reply to address every single irrelevant point that might apply outside of his basic theory on the issue of the identification of barycenters. The same can be said of Keplerian orbits versus the more general use of the term in other areas of science. Identity is a difficult topic in all of logic and mathematics and it is often needlessly and distractingly exploited by people with typo hunting mentalities. . . .and that includes you and Svalgaard. Thomson demonstrated he was utterly clueless and you support him. Neither of you can understand the nature of free fall and both of you insist on talking about the solar systems center of gravity while talking about the climate of the Earth when the Earth is relatively very near the Sun. Then typically you learn nothing and attack the person attempting to reason with you. Even after all this time you are still imagining you scored some points while talking about the greenhouse effect. What you successfully managed to do was waste about a year of my life including me setting aside parts of my house to create experiments to prove to you i was talking about very simple ideas anybody should be able to understand. I just underestimated your determination to cling onto your erroneous ideas. I imagined at the end of it you would become a better person, more humble and more prepared to be decent. Whereas the reality of it is it seems to excite you to realise i totally failed to teach you anything at all I really think you set out to f**k with me and waste my time just to get excited by my suffering and foolishly I forgot that I had come to that conclusion about you. The whole conversation with you and Magellan was insane. Spencers thought experiment was trivial and nothing I could do could get you clowns to concede you were mistaken while meanwhile you ran a tag team of constant abuse at my efforts to educate you. How can such things possibly be? It is beyond me to understand why you behave in such a disgusting manner towards me.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2015 18:34:25 GMT
More crazy talk. I have struggled to understand what you have been talking about for the last month and said what I said to get you to explain what on Earth you were thinking when you said the barycenter attracted objects like a magnet. It was simple to show the Earth is not being attracted to the barycenter like a magnet but was instead attracted to some place much closer to the sun. Most of the time i have no idea what you are talking about. Either you understand that barycenters are unique to orbiting objects or you do not. Your use of the term "the barycenter" is an explicit identity that only exists within the context of an explicit conversation. There are as many true barycenters as there are orbiting objects in the universe. . . .which includes our sun. Thus you yourself perpetuate the nonsense in an identical way that you accuse Thomson of doing while suggesting that Thomson is an idiot for not realizing he is talking nonsense. Thus with those premises in place you are an idiot and you would view yourself as an idiot if you actually knew what you are talking about which you don't because you are an idiot. How is that for logic? Myself I got pretty uneasy as soon as the term was introduced by you as I recall where you started calling for "the solar system barycenter (SSBC)" I would suggest that there is a minimum of 10 of those depending upon the focal point chosen each working on different time scales. We know the main line of discussion had the sun as the focal point. The barycenter(s) the planets orbit is different but in a sense since all are connected after 265 earth orbits one pluto orbit is completed and everything would have moved in accordance with the solar system barycenter shared by the sun with Pluto which is quite dynamic in nature. Surrounding the term "The Barycenter" or even "The Solar System Barycenter" are a lot of issues like with the Present King of France. The Present King of France while not existing has meanings and those meanings are built on all the Kings of France in history. Unlike the King of the United States which has a far lesser meaning having been no Kings of the United States in history. You have succumbed to and perpetuated the nonsense with your use of the term SSBC. You touched on it when you said it only applies to objects way outside of the solar system. But thats incorrect too. There are as many SSBCs as there objects in the universe with an object on the other side of us from the galaxy having one with a different focus. How many angels can dance on the head of pin? Why don't we argue that instead? It can't be more irrelevant that what this argument has been.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2015 18:44:30 GMT
Even after all this time you are still imagining you scored some points while talking about the greenhouse effect. What you successfully managed to do was waste about a year of my life including me setting aside parts of my house to create experiments to prove to you i was talking about very simple ideas anybody should be able to understand. I just underestimated your determination to cling onto your erroneous ideas. I imagined at the end of it you would become a better person, more humble and more prepared to be decent. Whereas the reality of it is it seems to excite you to realise i totally failed to teach you anything at all I really think you set out to f**k with me and waste my time just to get excited by my suffering and foolishly I forgot that I had come to that conclusion about you. The whole conversation with you and Magellan was insane. Spencers thought experiment was trivial and nothing I could do could get you clowns to concede you were mistaken while meanwhile you ran a tag team of constant abuse at my efforts to educate you. How can such things possibly be? I must have led a very sheltered life. It is beyond me to understand why you behave in such a disgusting manner towards me. Well if you want to get back into the greenhouse argument we can do that in a different thread. I think we left off with me asking you to produce an engineering model which you did but then you failed to show a source of heating using two different theories, back radiation and the insulation argument, that did not reconcile adequately to the 2nd law of thermodynamics or the inverse square of distance law of radiation, respectively.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 5, 2015 18:45:59 GMT
More crazy talk. I have struggled to understand what you have been talking about for the last month and said what I said to get you to explain what on Earth you were thinking when you said the barycenter attracted objects like a magnet. It was simple to show the Earth is not being attracted to the barycenter like a magnet but was instead attracted to some place much closer to the sun. Most of the time i have no idea what you are talking about. Either you understand that barycenters are unique to orbiting objects or you do not. Your use of the term "the barycenter" is an explicit identity that only exists within the context of an explicit conversation. There are as many true barycenters as there are orbiting objects in the universe. . . .which includes our sun. Thus you yourself perpetuate the nonsense in an identical way that you accuse Thomson of doing while suggesting that Thomson is an idiot for not realizing he is talking nonsense. Thus with those premises in place you are an idiot and you would view yourself as an idiot if you actually knew what you are talking about which you don't because you are an idiot. How is that for logic? Myself I got pretty uneasy as soon as the term was introduced by you as I recall where you started calling for "the solar system barycenter (SSBC)" I would suggest that there is a minimum of 10 of those depending upon the focal point chosen each working on different time scales. We know the main line of discussion had the sun as the focal point. The barycenter(s) the planets orbit is different but in a sense since all are connected after 265 earth orbits one pluto orbit is completed and everything would have moved in accordance with the solar system barycenter shared by the sun with Pluto which is quite dynamic in nature. Surrounding the term "The Barycenter" or even "The Solar System Barycenter" are a lot of issues like with the Present King of France. The Present King of France while not existing has meanings and those meanings are built on all the Kings of France in history. Unlike the King of the United States which has a far lesser meaning having been no Kings of the United States in history. You have succumbed to and perpetuated the nonsense with your use of the term SSBC. You touched on it when you said it only applies to objects way outside of the solar system. But thats incorrect too. There are as many SSBCs as there objects in the universe with an object on the other side of us from the galaxy having one with a different focus. How many angels can dance on the head of pin? Why don't we argue that instead? It can't be more irrelevant that what this argument has been. You live in a fantasy world of your creation. Nautonnier said Astronomers were disputing the idea the Sun moved around a barycenter. He said he almost got banned from blogs for asking why our sun was different to other stars with planets. Then you started attacking me, calling me a liar and on it goes. The fact of the matter the board is full of people with strange ideas, including you, and because of you and the others it is not possible to have a science based discussion where physics chemistry and reality are allowed to decide what is true or false. No matter what it is, latent heat, greenhouse effect or barycenters, icefisher and his chums can be relied upon to defend stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2015 18:50:35 GMT
Thomson demonstrated he was utterly clueless and you support him. The only thing I saw Thomson do perhaps cluelessly was insert the article "the" in front of the word "barycenter". But thats something you have done repeatedly yourself. By definition a barycenter is a point between two objects about which both objects orbit. That suggests there is no "the barycenter" except within the explicit language of the sentence it is being used (giving perhaps some forgiveness like typos to run on sentence structures) So my conclusion is if Thomson is clueless because of that you are clueless to the same degree. The difference is Thomson has demonstrated an adroitness to change terms when appropriate, something you have been coming up short on.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 5, 2015 18:51:51 GMT
Even after all this time you are still imagining you scored some points while talking about the greenhouse effect. What you successfully managed to do was waste about a year of my life including me setting aside parts of my house to create experiments to prove to you i was talking about very simple ideas anybody should be able to understand. I just underestimated your determination to cling onto your erroneous ideas. I imagined at the end of it you would become a better person, more humble and more prepared to be decent. Whereas the reality of it is it seems to excite you to realise i totally failed to teach you anything at all I really think you set out to f**k with me and waste my time just to get excited by my suffering and foolishly I forgot that I had come to that conclusion about you. The whole conversation with you and Magellan was insane. Spencers thought experiment was trivial and nothing I could do could get you clowns to concede you were mistaken while meanwhile you ran a tag team of constant abuse at my efforts to educate you. How can such things possibly be? I must have led a very sheltered life. It is beyond me to understand why you behave in such a disgusting manner towards me. Well if you want to get back into the greenhouse argument we can do that in a different thread. I think we left off with me asking you to produce an engineering model which you did but then you failed to show a source of heating using two different theories, back radiation and the insulation argument, that did not reconcile adequately to the 2nd law of thermodynamics or the inverse square of distance law of radiation, respectively. You made some incomprehensible statements, as you do, when the molecular sieve thought experiment proved you understood how the greenhouse effect worked. All through that conversation you claimed i was lying. I could not even use the same equation you were already aware of without receiving your toxic stupidity. I even had to write to Engineers toolbox to get them to correct and extend their chart and you even used that to pretend i was lying and changing goal posts. All conversations with you play out the same way. Faced with reality you accuse others of lying.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2015 18:55:01 GMT
Thomson demonstrated he was utterly clueless and you support him. The only thing I saw Thomson do perhaps cluelessly was insert the article "the" in front of the word "barycenter". But thats something you have done repeatedly yourself. By definition a barycenter is a point between two objects about which both objects orbit. That suggests there is no "the barycenter" except within the explicit language of the sentence it is being used (giving perhaps some forgiveness like typos to run on sentence structures) So my conclusion is if Thomson is clueless because of that you are clueless to the same degree. The difference is Thomson has demonstrated an adroitness to change terms when appropriate, something you have been coming up short on. well by your own quote above. Nautonnier did not use the article "the" with barycenter. He used the article "a". Since "the barycenter" is an appropriate expression to use in an explicit context somebody bringing up nonsense about the affect of that barycenter on other objects is what is nonsense and a misuse of the article "the". A thorough study of logic should fix your problem Andrew.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 5, 2015 18:56:26 GMT
Thomson demonstrated he was utterly clueless and you support him. The only thing I saw Thomson do perhaps cluelessly was insert the article "the" in front of the word "barycenter". But thats something you have done repeatedly yourself. By definition a barycenter is a point between two objects about which both objects orbit. That suggests there is no "the barycenter" except within the explicit language of the sentence it is being used (giving perhaps some forgiveness like typos to run on sentence structures) So my conclusion is if Thomson is clueless because of that you are clueless to the same degree. The difference is Thomson has demonstrated an adroitness to change terms when appropriate, something you have been coming up short on. Pull the other one sonny. You and him cannot understand free fall and made out the ssbc was some kind of center of gravity and neither of you will listen to reason. You made out that wuwt was about climate when it was about barycenters and now you are pathetically trying to make out there is something strange about the barycenter when it is normal to talk about the sun, the world etc etc etc
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2015 18:57:50 GMT
The only thing I saw Thomson do perhaps cluelessly was insert the article "the" in front of the word "barycenter". But thats something you have done repeatedly yourself. By definition a barycenter is a point between two objects about which both objects orbit. That suggests there is no "the barycenter" except within the explicit language of the sentence it is being used (giving perhaps some forgiveness like typos to run on sentence structures) So my conclusion is if Thomson is clueless because of that you are clueless to the same degree. The difference is Thomson has demonstrated an adroitness to change terms when appropriate, something you have been coming up short on. Pull the other one sonny. You and him cannot understand free fall and made out the ssbc was some kind of center of gravity and neither of you will listen to reason. You made out that wuwt was about climate when it was about barycenters and now you are pathetically trying to make out there is something strange about the barycenter when it is normal to talk about the sun, the world etc etc etc Yadda yadda yadda!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 5, 2015 18:58:31 GMT
The only thing I saw Thomson do perhaps cluelessly was insert the article "the" in front of the word "barycenter". But thats something you have done repeatedly yourself. By definition a barycenter is a point between two objects about which both objects orbit. That suggests there is no "the barycenter" except within the explicit language of the sentence it is being used (giving perhaps some forgiveness like typos to run on sentence structures) So my conclusion is if Thomson is clueless because of that you are clueless to the same degree. The difference is Thomson has demonstrated an adroitness to change terms when appropriate, something you have been coming up short on. well by your own quote above. Nautonnier did not use the article "the" with barycenter. He used the article "a". Since "the barycenter" is an appropriate expression to use in an explicit context somebody bringing up nonsense about the affect of that barycenter on other objects is what is nonsense and a misuse of the article "the". Grow up. You accused me of lying about Nautonnier. The guy is totally confused.
|
|