Why Is The Moon Not Spinning Then?

common_sense_seeker said:
Billy T gone quiet?
Click to expand...
Just like you've gone quiet about putting your physics where your mouth is when I asked you to explain in detail how you're considering deformations of the Moon under a non-constant gravitational field or how we're making 'novice' mistakes in the aeronautics of flying rays above the sea. Whenever you're asked to do anything technical (which you claim you can do, having worked in aerospace) you go quiet.

Before whining about other people not replying check how hypocritical you are. :rolleyes:
 
AN; I've noticed for a long time how you seem unable to concentrate on an individual's idea without reference to their unrelated previous ideas. Is this something you do with your students too? Shame on you. My cryptozoological interests aren't really connected with the idea of a non-baryonic innercore being reponsible for the moon's increase in orbit via internal tidal friction are they?(?)

No. I don't have detailed mathematical workings, although it wouldn't be impossible for a young genius to do some calculations based on the accurate figure of around 3cm/year increase in the moon's distance from the earth (perhaps linked with the calculation problems associated with internal tides on Io). I'm not interested myself. I've painted the picture. That's all I'm interested in. There's going to be around 100,000 people who read this thread. I just hope that it sparks the imagination of just one special person.

P.S Why not let Billy T speak for himself?
 
common_sense_seeker said:
Is this something you do with your students too?
Click to expand...
If my students make claims about how amazing their work is and then produce nothing they get zero. Which they don't want to do because they are paying to attend university and so are required to actually produce results.

common_sense_seeker said:
No. I don't have detailed mathematical workings, although it wouldn't be impossible for a young genius to do some calculations based on the accurate figure of around 3cm/year increase in the moon's distance from the earth (perhaps linked with the calculation problems associated with internal tides on Io). I'm not interested myself. I've painted the picture. That's all I'm interested in. There's going to be around 100,000 people who read this thread. I just hope that it sparks the imagination of just one special person.
Click to expand...
Ah the crank logic of "My conceptual idea is valid, I just need someone to fill in the details".
 
common_sense_seeker said:
AN; Let's leave at that shall we then?
Click to expand...
Once again you try to escape responsibility. You were the one who, in hypocritical fashion, queried BillyT's silence, yet you avoid answering most questions you are asked. Now that you have been put in your place, rather than fess up and admit it you post a weasely 'Let's leave it at that then'.
 
Billy T is obviously aware that I've made a valid explanation for the increase in distance of the moon (3cm/year) (although it would require a slight revision of natural philosophy since the time of Newton)
 
common_sense_seeker said:
Billy T is obviously aware that I've made a valid explanation for the increase in distance of the moon (3cm/year) (although it would require a slight revision of natural philosophy since the time of Newton)
Click to expand...
In what post number?

I have not seen much of anything you have posted that I would consider "valid" mainly because you either postulate materials or laws that there is no evidence for, Or in many cases make assumptions (also without evidence) that actually violate well established physics.

I became inactive in replying to you because of this and fact that you do not seem to learn from posts explaining the physics of the moon Earth system, which is consistent with the known laws of physics and does not make the "ad hoc" assumptions your alternative "explanations" postulate without evidence.

I am not interested in discussion your "imaginary universe" any more than I am the effect of 6 instead of 4 legs on a unicorn's max speed.
 
common_sense_seeker said:
AN; Let's leave at that shall we then?
Click to expand...
If you didn't make outlandish claims and act so hypocritically I would leave it. I'd never have started anything in the first place. But your constant "I'm such a bloody open minded genius whose rewriting biology and physics!" delusions and then your utter refusal to back up anything you say draws attention to you. I'm not the only one whose commented on your inability to back up claims or produce any actual work.

People don't say to me "Can you prove you can do that?" when I say "I know how to calculate differential cross sections in QED" because I am able to demonstrate a working understanding sufficient enough that they believe me. I don't get asked to provide pages of my own work because I don't make claims like I'm rewriting physics.

If you are going to make grand claims don't start crying when people decide you're a big fat liar because you never back up any claims.
 
Dr. Mabuse in post 157 of "A Note: Global Warming threads" quoted:

"The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about." - H. Jackson Brown

That sure seems appropriate here for those inventing their own theories as to why the Earth / moon separation is slowly and measurably increasing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's obvious that you're rattled by the simple logic. Quelle surprise.

Hah! There would appear to be room out there for some of us to deliberately flout the tendency and become generalists.
Click to expand...
Frank Ryan
 
Last edited:
cluelusshusbund said:
What do you mean by "supposedly".???

Anyhow... assumin that the rope was strong enuff an was atached at earfs equator... the rope woud wrap aroun earf as earf continues to rotate... an in about 10 days the moon coud be pulled into earf.!!!
Click to expand...

it would be cool though if we can experiment with moving it closer and see what would happen.
 
Billy T; would it be easier to discuss an imaginary, alternative universe much like ours, but which is slightly different? You're right, of course, with everything you say about the mechanics of our solar system. That isn't in dispute. In this different solar system, if the central core of a moon was composed of matter which experienced a greater acceleration than the rest of the body, could this not cause tidal friction and so slow the moon's spin and therefore move it to a higher orbit? Just talking about an imaginary universe.
Click to expand...
For any guests reading this post, the above quoted idea can also explain the problem of the 100,000 year glacial cycle (& the all important millennial cycle). Leave me a message if you want to know more.
 
Last edited:
A long thread. All of you looking at lots of different points of relativity. The Sun, the Earth. I like the part where the planets revolve around the moon when you are standing on it. Even without finding a stationary object in the Milky Way the planets orbiting the moon give you a high percentage chance that the moon is spinning. I would prefer the Black hole at the centre of the Milky Way as the slightly highest possibility of stationary, but yeah, the planets would not spin around the moon without some very odd physics going on. So that concluded it for me. The moon spins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top