Why Is The Moon Not Spinning Then?

common_sense_seeker said:
You sound like and intelligent guy with a capacity for lateral thinking
Click to expand...
Wow, you really have terrible judgement. PP is even dimmer and more delusional than you. I suppose you see in him a kindred spirit, someone unhindered by rationality, information or sanity.

common_sense_seeker said:
What do you make of the bombshell suggestion
Click to expand...
What you call 'bombshell' rational people call unjustified, unsupported and down right moronic.
 
Because nothing you say has any mathematical rigour and you twist and change so that your claims become, by construction, unsupportable but also unfalsifiable by experiment.

You can't prove there isn't a planet somewhere in the galaxy entirely populated by living gummi bears, all of whom speak English, but I'm pretty sure you'd agree it's a stupid and illogical claim to try and defend. You make stupid and illogical claims which have no evidence. You throw in concepts like 'non-baryonic matter' which you don't understand and think that because you don't understand it people will accept it. I have a fair amount of experience wiith theories involving non-baryonic matter and they are infinitely more detailed and subtle than your bullshit. You say "non-baryonic matter" and use it as a catch all, as some magical substance which explains everything and which has all the properties you require of it. Just like aether people do with aether. It always has all the properties to explain everything and prove mainstream science wrong except the property that it exists.

Funny that....
 
calculus doesn't describe the evolutionary history of a fundamental particle which is critical for a complete understanding. I'm developing an animation of existence before the big bang, which is so elegant in it's fractal simplicity that it is destined to change the world forever. Mainstream physics and mathematics suffers from a severe lack of ability to describe the entropy of matter and gravity. Your education was never based on this shortcoming so you are blind to the ridiculousness and group think psychology which leads this merry dance.
 
common_sense_seeker said:
calculus doesn't describe the evolutionary history of a fundamental particle which is critical for a complete understanding. I'm developing an animation of existence before the big bang, which is so elegant in it's fractal simplicity that it is destined to change the world forever. Mainstream physics and mathematics suffers from a severe lack of ability to describe the entropy of matter and gravity. Your education was never based on this shortcoming so you are blind to the ridiculousness and group think psychology which leads this merry dance.
Click to expand...
To Mod:

This post should be moved to the "jokes and funny stories" thread.
 
Venus is in orbital resonance with the Earth, showing the same face to us on each approach, which is presumably also the reason why the Moon doesn't rotate. :)
 
common_sense_seeker said:
Venus is in orbital resonance with the Earth, showing the same face to us on each approach, which is presumably also the reason why the Moon doesn't rotate. :)
Click to expand...
FALSE. Venus is in a resonate lock (orbit year to rotation period) of 3 to 2, as I recall. As its year is not in any integer relationship to Earth's year you are posting is both false and nonsense. Any photograph of Venus will look the same as Venus has a thick permanent cloud cover.

Your post is nonsense as well as false because the locking is achieved by gravity gradient forces and those of the Earth at Venus are essentially zero.

I may not have all fact exactly correct from memory, but any corrections will not keep your post from being both false and nonsense.
 
I posted off-the-cuff and I too need to check on the recent magazine article for exact clarification on the details. Back soon.
 
common_sense_seeker said:
Mainstream physics and mathematics suffers from a severe lack of ability to describe the entropy of matter and gravity.
Click to expand...

Wrong on both counts. In fact, entropy itself can be shown to arise directly from the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, and in the classical limit it agrees perfectly with what we've already known in that field for the last 100 years.[/QUOTE]
 
Billy T said:
FALSE. Venus is in a resonate lock (orbit year to rotation period) of 3 to 2, as I recall. As its year is not in any integer relationship to Earth's year you are posting is both false and nonsense. Any photograph of Venus will look the same as Venus has a thick permanent cloud cover.

Your post is nonsense as well as false because the locking is achieved by gravity gradient forces and those of the Earth at Venus are essentially zero.

I may not have all fact exactly correct from memory, but any corrections will not keep your post from being both false and nonsense.
Click to expand...
I have the article in front of me; NewScientist 13th March 2010 'Venus and Earth, Strange Attractors' I got it 100% right according to Gerard Caudal of the University of Versailles-Saint Quentin (Journal of Geophysical research, in press). I'll email him about this thread right now.

THE heart of Venus may belong to Earth. Our planet could be tugging on the core of Venus, exerting control over its spin.

Whenever Venus and Earth arrive at the closest point in their orbits, Venus always presents the same face to us. This could mean that Earth's gravity is tugging subtly on Venus, affecting its rotation rate. That idea, raised decades ago, was disregarded when it turned out that Venus is spinning too fast to be in such a gravitational "resonance".

But Earth could still be pulling on Venus by controlling its core, according to calculations by Gérard Caudal of the University of Versailles-Saint Quentin (Journal of Geophysical Research, in press).

Caudal made large assumptions about Venus's interior, which we know little about. For his hypothesis to be correct, the planet would, like Earth, need a solid core surrounded by a liquid layer. This could allow the solid core to rotate slower than the rest of the planet. The core would also have to be heterogeneous, so that Earth can exert a variable tug as Venus spins. "There should be something that the gravity of the Earth could grasp," Caudal says.

David Stevenson of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena thinks the resonance theory is worth revisiting, even though persistent imperfections in the core are unlikely.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
New Scientist publishes ideas which are neither mainstream or even peer reviewed. If you'd done astronomy you'd know immediately that a number of BIG assumptions are needed to even have any hope of that being correct. And none of it is even vaguely supported by evidence. It's not contradicted by evidence but as my post from many months ago describing living gummi bears demonstrates a lack of evidence against something is not the same as supporting evidence.

You are hugely gullible CSS and you absolutely no critical thinking skills.
 
If a uniform gravitational field were possible it would make zero torque on any object, regardless of that object's shape. Torques are what is required to capture and keep a resonance relationship between orbit and spin periods. Earth's moon is in a 1 to 1 resonate lock. Earth's gravity at Venus is essentially uniform over the scale of Venus's diameter.

Even at time of least separation between Venus and Earth the Earth's gravity gradient is very small, still essentially zero. It is, I am just guessing 100,000,* times less than the sun's gravity gradient acting on Venus. As I recall the sun's gravity gradient has captured and locked Venus in a 3 to 2 resonance.

Anyone claiming that the tiny Earth's gradient could over come the sun's gradient torques on Venus is an idiot** or at least knows nothing about the subject.

*I am too lazy give it exactly but here is the ratio of sun to Earth's gravity gradient symbolically:

(M/m) x (D/d)^3 where M & m are the solar and Earth masses; and d & D are the distance of Venus from sun and Earth. Note d is essentially a constant as Venus is in a nearly circular orbit. I am just guessing that (D/d) is at least 3 at time of closest approach, and much larger later in Venus's orbit. So the Earth's torque is down compared to that of the sun, even at closest approach, by about 30 x (M/m) and (M/m) is huge number.

** To make an analogy which perhaps even you can understand, your idiot referenced is essentially claiming that a small atomic bomb can not apply enough torque to a train to knock it over but a rifle bullet fired into it from the side will, even though the torque supplied by the rifle bullet is 100,000 or more times less.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mmmm... gummi bears!

I'm quietly confident that the Hayabusa samples will be at least approximately 34% gummi bear. I'm currently seeking investors to establish a gummi-bear farm and processing plant on Itokawa.

common sense seeker, are you in?
 
common_sense_seeker said:
I have the article in front of me; NewScientist 13th March 2010 'Venus and Earth, Strange Attractors' I got it 100% right according to Gerard Caudal of the University of Versailles-Saint Quentin (Journal of Geophysical research, in press). I'll email him about this thread right now.
Click to expand...
Billy T; Gerard Caudal is a top class reference and much better informed than either yourself or AN, or are you disputing this fact?
 
common_sense_seeker said:
Billy T; Gerard Caudal is a top class reference and much better informed than either yourself or AN, or are you disputing this fact?
Click to expand...
Yes, I dispute it as it is not a fact, if he states what you report, he is ill informed or an idiot (or probably both). Again here from prior post is the relative torque of the sun compared to that of the Earth acting on Venus:

"(M/m) x (D/d)^3 where M & m are the solar and Earth masses; and d & D are the distance of Venus from sun and Earth. Note d is essentially a constant as Venus is in a nearly circular orbit. I am just guessing that (D/d) is at least 3 at time of closest approach, and much larger later in Venus's orbit. So the Earth's torque is down compared to that of the sun, even at closest approach, by about 30 x (M/m) and (M/m) is huge number. ..."

M/m = 330,000 and the mean distance of Venus from sun, in millions of Kms is 108.3 = my "d" and Earth's is 149.6 so my D = 149.6 -108.3 = 41.3E6 Km when Earth and Venus are aligned. (I named them backwards as D < d. Reason this happened is I was thinking of Mercury instead of Venus when I named them.)

Thus (D/d)^3 = 0.145, not the 30 I had guessed. None the less, 0.145 x 330,000 = 47,850 or in words:

The effect of the suns as a "torque locker" on Venus's spin rate is almost 48 thousand times greater than the effect of the Earth on Venus. Note that is only when Venus is directly between the Earth and sun. At other times the sun's torque is more than 1,000,000 times greater and it acts over the entire orbit of Venus with essentially constant strength, where as the Earth's is greatly reduced when Venus is far from aligned with Earth.

My train analogy still holds, but perhaps is more accurate if the atomic bomb is replaced by a box car full of TNT setting next to train and exploding vs a rifle bullet fired into the train. Your "expert" is stating the the effect of the box car full of TNT exploding next to the train is not important compared to the rifle bullet hitting it when it comes to supplying the torque needed to tip the train over.

Would you not call any one stating that the solar torque, which is always at least 47,850 times greater (and at times more than 1,000,000 times greater) than that of the Earth on Venus is unimportant compared to the Earth's tiny torque on Venus an "idiot"? Probably he is not capable of doing the simple calculation of the relative torques I have now done with numerical values for you.

BTW while looking up the values I noticed that Venus is in a 1 to 1 lock, not the 3 to 2 I recalled - that is Mercury. (Orbit period 89 earth days and rotation in 59 days)* Also you or he (or both) have false information. Venus does not keep the same side turned to the Earth. Now these are observational facts, not just your (or my) opinion!

* Reason those two numbers are not exactly in the ratio 3 to 2 is that the orbital period given is in sideral time Earth days, not Earth clock days.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
Yes, I dispute it as it is not a fact, if he states what you report, he is ill informed or an idiot (or probably both)..
Click to expand...
Oh, so you don't need to read the NewScientist article or the original paper to know that you're always right and you never need to apologise for calling people liars unnecessarily??
 
common_sense_seeker said:
Oh, so you don't need to read the NewScientist article or the original paper ...
Click to expand...
That is correct. I do not have time to read trash masker raiding as a scientific journal's article.

I use well established physics (and observational facts) to conclude there is no way a torque which at best* is 47,850 times weaker than the sun's could overpower the sun's torque on Venus. I don't need to read a paper which is not even good for toilet paper.

------------
* When Venus is far from aligned with Earth, the sun's torque is more than 1,000,000 times stronger and it is essentially a constant torque over the entire orbit of Venus as that orbit is nearly circular.

BTW, I have not called either you or him a "liar" - Fools, ignorant, ill-informed, idiots, etc. would be correct, but to be a liar you need to be telling something that you do not believe - I assume both you and he believe his nonsense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top