Remember me
▼ Content

Celestial Mechanics


Celestial Mechanics07-02-2021 12:54
James___
★★★★★
(4159)
The image applies to all sorts of things. The Moon (or a satellite) orbiting the Earth (a planet) as well as atmospheric gasses. A complete walk through would show that gravity's ability to accelerate a satellite (atmospheric gasses) is equal to about 157k or 157º C. in our atmosphere. That's about 43,000 joules/watts of energy per liter of air. That's based on a mol being 22.4 liters of volume.
And with the force between 2 objects starting off with G(m1m2/r2), G is the universal constant. m1 is one mass/body and m2 is the primary source of gravity in the examples I'll be showing. r2 or r^2 will be the CoG or center of gravity to the CoM or center of mass which gives the mean radius.
m1 can be a planet, a moon or atmospheric gasses. An example is that the air we breath weighs 28.9647 g/mol. 1 mol has a volume of ~22.4 liters for reference purposes. This is if 1 mol of air is to be calculated as a satellite.
If the Earth is to be calculated as a satellite (it orbits the Sun so it is a satellite in that sense), its mass is 5.972 × 10^24 kg. The object of these explanations is to demonstrate that one mass is a primary body of force while the 2nd body is reacting to it. This can be used to infer the "gravity" of the primary body.
In the examples that I give, m1 will be the satellite while m2 is the primary body.
This will allow us to have "Sum Fun" with this. And with regards to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, gravity and what it affects becomes denser to the primary body but gravity's effect remains constant to the observer.


each day I'll take another step in this walk through. This will allow anyone interested to use their calculator to work ahead in the different examples that I will be demonstrating.

With a "mean radius", an ellipse is calculated as Pi * sqrt2 * 1/2A^2 + 1/2B^2. A is the shortest radii while B is the longest radii. The average of A + B/2 = mean radius for the purpose of this walk through.
Attached image:

07-02-2021 16:47
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(395)
James___ wrote:
The image applies to all sorts of things. The Moon (or a satellite) orbiting the Earth (a planet) as well as atmospheric gasses. A complete walk through would show that gravity's ability to accelerate a satellite (atmospheric gasses) is equal to about 157k or 157º C. in our atmosphere. That's about 43,000 joules/watts of energy per liter of air. That's based on a mol being 22.4 liters of volume.
And with the force between 2 objects starting off with G(m1m2/r2), G is the universal constant. m1 is one mass/body and m2 is the primary source of gravity in the examples I'll be showing. r2 or r^2 will be the CoG or center of gravity to the CoM or center of mass which gives the mean radius.
m1 can be a planet, a moon or atmospheric gasses. An example is that the air we breath weighs 28.9647 g/mol. 1 mol has a volume of ~22.4 liters for reference purposes. This is if 1 mol of air is to be calculated as a satellite.
If the Earth is to be calculated as a satellite (it orbits the Sun so it is a satellite in that sense), its mass is 5.972 × 10^24 kg. The object of these explanations is to demonstrate that one mass is a primary body of force while the 2nd body is reacting to it. This can be used to infer the "gravity" of the primary body.
In the examples that I give, m1 will be the satellite while m2 is the primary body.
This will allow us to have "Sum Fun" with this. And with regards to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, gravity and what it affects becomes denser to the primary body but gravity's effect remains constant to the observer.


each day I'll take another step in this walk through. This will allow anyone interested to use their calculator to work ahead in the different examples that I will be demonstrating.

With a "mean radius", an ellipse is calculated as Pi * sqrt2 * 1/2A^2 + 1/2B^2. A is the shortest radii while B is the longest radii. The average of A + B/2 = mean radius for the purpose of this walk through.


Since gravity is a constant, to all Earth situations, it is irrelevant.

PS. a 3 year old can copy and paste
07-02-2021 19:25
James___
★★★★★
(4159)
With the mechanics, the gravitational constant is g = 6.6743 * 10^-11.
When calculating the velocity of an orbit, the capital v in front of the word orbit stands for velocity.
Vorbit = sqrt (square root) of gm/r. And with something orbiting the Earth like a satellite, it's mass doesn't matter. It's position relative to the center of the Earth does because that determines radius.
When the Earth's orbit becomes more elliptical, this will show how the Earth is accelerated. The Sun is attracting the Earth towards it and this is where the increase in velocity will allow the Earth to move further away from it.
I will work a few different problems because I will be estimating a change in the Earth's moment of Inertia. And this I think leads to a change in how the Earth orbits the Sun. To make a long story short, when glaciers melt at the end of an ice age, the Earth will start moving towards a more elliptical orbit.
And when ice builds up over 80,000 years or so (then an ice age happens), the Earth's moment of Inertia changes which allows for a more circular orbit around the Sun.
Basically with the Earth, if it spins faster on it's axis, its orbit becomes more circular. And as its spin slows, it's linear velocity will increase which is why its orbit becomes more elliptical. And that's where discussing Celestial Mechanics might allow for an understanding of why there are ice ages and inter-glacial periods.
This is where I'll take my time in going over some of the math. This will let anyone who's interested in becoming familiar with the math to do so. With using some of the formulas, not that difficult. In someone having figured them out, they did the hard work.
Edited on 07-02-2021 19:28
07-02-2021 19:37
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(395)
James___ wrote:
With the mechanics, the gravitational constant is g = 6.6743 * 10^-11.
When calculating the velocity of an orbit, the capital v in front of the word orbit stands for velocity.
Vorbit = sqrt (square root) of gm/r. And with something orbiting the Earth like a satellite, it's mass doesn't matter. It's position relative to the center of the Earth does because that determines radius.
When the Earth's orbit becomes more elliptical, this will show how the Earth is accelerated. The Sun is attracting the Earth towards it and this is where the increase in velocity will allow the Earth to move further away from it.
I will work a few different problems because I will be estimating a change in the Earth's moment of Inertia. And this I think leads to a change in how the Earth orbits the Sun. To make a long story short, when glaciers melt at the end of an ice age, the Earth will start moving towards a more elliptical orbit.
And when ice builds up over 80,000 years or so (then an ice age happens), the Earth's moment of Inertia changes which allows for a more circular orbit around the Sun.
Basically with the Earth, if it spins faster on it's axis, its orbit becomes more circular. And as its spin slows, it's linear velocity will increase which is why its orbit becomes more elliptical. And that's where discussing Celestial Mechanics might allow for an understanding of why there are ice ages and inter-glacial periods.
This is where I'll take my time in going over some of the math. This will let anyone who's interested in becoming familiar with the math to do so. With using some of the formulas, not that difficult. In someone having figured them out, they did the hard work.


And this is causing climate change how?

Be specific
07-02-2021 21:57
James___
★★★★★
(4159)
Swan wrote:
James___ wrote:
With the mechanics, the gravitational constant is g = 6.6743 * 10^-11.
When calculating the velocity of an orbit, the capital v in front of the word orbit stands for velocity.
Vorbit = sqrt (square root) of gm/r. And with something orbiting the Earth like a satellite, it's mass doesn't matter. It's position relative to the center of the Earth does because that determines radius.
When the Earth's orbit becomes more elliptical, this will show how the Earth is accelerated. The Sun is attracting the Earth towards it and this is where the increase in velocity will allow the Earth to move further away from it.
I will work a few different problems because I will be estimating a change in the Earth's moment of Inertia. And this I think leads to a change in how the Earth orbits the Sun. To make a long story short, when glaciers melt at the end of an ice age, the Earth will start moving towards a more elliptical orbit.
And when ice builds up over 80,000 years or so (then an ice age happens), the Earth's moment of Inertia changes which allows for a more circular orbit around the Sun.
Basically with the Earth, if it spins faster on it's axis, its orbit becomes more circular. And as its spin slows, it's linear velocity will increase which is why its orbit becomes more elliptical. And that's where discussing Celestial Mechanics might allow for an understanding of why there are ice ages and inter-glacial periods.
This is where I'll take my time in going over some of the math. This will let anyone who's interested in becoming familiar with the math to do so. With using some of the formulas, not that difficult. In someone having figured them out, they did the hard work.


And this is causing climate change how?

Be specific



I'm not really into that debate. It can take 80,000 years for the temperature to have the drop necessary to have an actual ice age. This thread is called Celestial Mechanics for a reason. It's about how things in space move around the Sun or a planet.
In this thread, I plan on staying On Topic.
08-02-2021 05:57
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(395)
James___ wrote:
Swan wrote:
James___ wrote:
With the mechanics, the gravitational constant is g = 6.6743 * 10^-11.
When calculating the velocity of an orbit, the capital v in front of the word orbit stands for velocity.
Vorbit = sqrt (square root) of gm/r. And with something orbiting the Earth like a satellite, it's mass doesn't matter. It's position relative to the center of the Earth does because that determines radius.
When the Earth's orbit becomes more elliptical, this will show how the Earth is accelerated. The Sun is attracting the Earth towards it and this is where the increase in velocity will allow the Earth to move further away from it.
I will work a few different problems because I will be estimating a change in the Earth's moment of Inertia. And this I think leads to a change in how the Earth orbits the Sun. To make a long story short, when glaciers melt at the end of an ice age, the Earth will start moving towards a more elliptical orbit.
And when ice builds up over 80,000 years or so (then an ice age happens), the Earth's moment of Inertia changes which allows for a more circular orbit around the Sun.
Basically with the Earth, if it spins faster on it's axis, its orbit becomes more circular. And as its spin slows, it's linear velocity will increase which is why its orbit becomes more elliptical. And that's where discussing Celestial Mechanics might allow for an understanding of why there are ice ages and inter-glacial periods.
This is where I'll take my time in going over some of the math. This will let anyone who's interested in becoming familiar with the math to do so. With using some of the formulas, not that difficult. In someone having figured them out, they did the hard work.


And this is causing climate change how?

Be specific



I'm not really into that debate. It can take 80,000 years for the temperature to have the drop necessary to have an actual ice age. This thread is called Celestial Mechanics for a reason. It's about how things in space move around the Sun or a planet.
In this thread, I plan on staying On Topic.


It might take a million years, and the dopey humans who screamed the whole time will be meaningless the entire time as well. The last ice age peaked about 20000 years ago, from 20000 to 10000 years ago 90 percent of the ice melted, from 10000 years ago until today it is still melting, it might continue melting for another 100000 years. Do you want all mammals killed because the aliens say that mammals farting are destroying the Earth?

If so wake up
08-02-2021 05:58
James___
★★★★★
(4159)
With a satellite orbiting the Earth, these are the basic numbers that need to be used.
The gravitational constant (g) is 6.6743 x 10^-11, that's 10 to the negative 11th power.
The Earth's mass is 5.9736 x 10^24, 10 to the 24th power.

The Earth's radius is 6371 km. If a satellite is orbiting 786 km above the Earth then the formula would be
the sqrt of 6.6743 x 10^-11 x 5.9736 x 10^24 divided by 6371 x 10^3 (6731000) is the same number, it's in meters and not km x 10^3.
The orbital velocity is 7.465 km/s. Why does this matter? This can be used to infer the Sun's mass and the Earth's distance from it. With my pc, I found out that I need to break up the problem into it's different parts. I think trying to solve the equation all at the same time is more than my processor could handle.

The last 3 rows of calculations shown on my calculator is how I worked this problem.

Attached image:


Edited on 08-02-2021 06:00
08-02-2021 06:14
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(395)
James___ wrote:
With a satellite orbiting the Earth, these are the basic numbers that need to be used.
The gravitational constant (g) is 6.6743 x 10^-11, that's 10 to the negative 11th power.
The Earth's mass is 5.9736 x 10^24, 10 to the 24th power.

The Earth's radius is 6371 km. If a satellite is orbiting 786 km above the Earth then the formula would be
the sqrt of 6.6743 x 10^-11 x 5.9736 x 10^24 divided by 6371 x 10^3 (6731000) is the same number, it's in meters and not km x 10^3.
The orbital velocity is 7.465 km/s. Why does this matter? This can be used to infer the Sun's mass and the Earth's distance from it. With my pc, I found out that I need to break up the problem into it's different parts. I think trying to solve the equation all at the same time is more than my processor could handle.

The last 3 rows of calculations shown on my calculator is how I worked this problem.


Assuming that all of that is correct.

So what? I mean do you have a point?
Edited on 08-02-2021 06:20
08-02-2021 06:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8625)
James___ wrote:
With a satellite orbiting the Earth, these are the basic numbers that need to be used.
The gravitational constant (g) is 6.6743 x 10^-11, that's 10 to the negative 11th power.
The Earth's mass is 5.9736 x 10^24, 10 to the 24th power.

The Earth's radius is 6371 km. If a satellite is orbiting 786 km above the Earth then the formula would be
the sqrt of 6.6743 x 10^-11 x 5.9736 x 10^24 divided by 6371 x 10^3 (6731000) is the same number, it's in meters and not km x 10^3.
The orbital velocity is 7.465 km/s. Why does this matter? This can be used to infer the Sun's mass and the Earth's distance from it. With my pc, I found out that I need to break up the problem into it's different parts. I think trying to solve the equation all at the same time is more than my processor could handle.

The last 3 rows of calculations shown on my calculator is how I worked this problem.


You have to state your hypothesis eventually. Go ahead, lay it on us.

.
Attached image:

08-02-2021 17:30
James___
★★★★★
(4159)
IBdaMann wrote:

You have to state your hypothesis eventually. Go ahead, lay it on us.

.



Sun (it's a pun), I'm going to have Sum Fun with this. I'm going to show the power of copy and paste.


With that said, if we use the Sun's mass of 1.989 × 10^30 kg as "m" in
sqrt gm/r, then the Earth's velocity should agree with what we observe.
But first I'll calculate the Moon's velocity around the Earth. While the Moon's mass is 0.07346 x 10^24, that won't matter. This is where we'll need to wait and see what the numbers show. It's velocity is said to be 1.022 km/. I'll be confirming this.
This is the "Trust but Verify" method. And it might show that the Earth is unique among the inner planets beyond it's atmosphere.

Edited on 08-02-2021 17:48
08-02-2021 18:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8625)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You have to state your hypothesis eventually. Go ahead, lay it on us..

... if we use the Sun's mass of 1.989 × 10^30 kg as "m" in
sqrt gm/r, then the Earth's velocity should agree with what we observe.
But first I'll calculate the Moon's velocity around the Earth. While the Moon's mass is 0.07346 x 10^24, that won't matter. This is where we'll need to wait and see what the numbers show. It's velocity is said to be 1.022 km/. I'll be confirming this.
This is the "Trust but Verify" method. And it might show that the Earth is unique among the inner planets beyond it's atmosphere.

I really hate to splash cold water on a cognitive bonfire such as yours but yours is not an experiment seeking to prove a theory false (scientific method) but is merely a demonstration of existing science, i.e. seeking to provide additional supporting evidence which is not really value added beyond convincing you further of that for which you already are convinced.


.
Attached image:

08-02-2021 18:30
James___
★★★★★
(4159)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You have to state your hypothesis eventually. Go ahead, lay it on us..

... if we use the Sun's mass of 1.989 × 10^30 kg as "m" in
sqrt gm/r, then the Earth's velocity should agree with what we observe.
But first I'll calculate the Moon's velocity around the Earth. While the Moon's mass is 0.07346 x 10^24, that won't matter. This is where we'll need to wait and see what the numbers show. It's velocity is said to be 1.022 km/. I'll be confirming this.
This is the "Trust but Verify" method. And it might show that the Earth is unique among the inner planets beyond it's atmosphere.

I really hate to splash cold water on a cognitive bonfire such as yours but yours is not an experiment seeking to prove a theory false (scientific method) but is merely a demonstration of existing science, i.e. seeking to provide additional supporting evidence which is not really value added beyond convincing you further of that for which you already are convinced.


.



Between you and Swan, sheesh....
At the moment I'm demonstrating that I'm not using random numbers. At the same time the math might show that everything is as it should be. But in that, there is an anomaly. This can also get into other things. And for what I'm posting, I don't think anyone in here is familiar with it.
And if no one is familiar with the math and how it applies to Celestial Mechanics, then I'd have no basis for any hypothesis that I might want to consider. That's where this slow walk through some basic relationships in astrophysics will help everyone to understand that any hypothesis that I would state would be based on science that has been demonstrated to be correct. And I plan on enjoying this. It's not my job, just is something that I find interesting.
08-02-2021 19:18
James___
★★★★★
(4159)
@All, the Earth's velocity is 29.78 km/s. With Venus, it's velocity is 35.02 km/s.
This can give us the inverse square strength of the Sun's gravitational field. Does this matter? In a way it does because it would show proportionality of force.
The Earth does have the Moon among other things. So in time, some of it will come back to the Earth's climate. I have mentioned that the Earth is slowly moving away from the Sun. Over a period in the thousands of years, the solar constant will decrease.
With the Moon, it had it's closest orbit to the Earth around 1910. And the previous time the Moon was so close to the Earth? About the year 900.
And some of what I'll be showing is how the Earth's linear momentum changes. This in turn will influence its orbit around the Sun. And that can say an "overall" cooling trend is under way. There will be warm periods which will be shorter than the cold periods as the Earth over the next 80,000 years will be heading towards an ice age.
At the same time, I plan on showing where there is a source of energy in the Earth's atmosphere that has been overlooked. And it's this "extra energy" that would allow my experiment to work. This is because it would encourage atmospheric gasses to seek an equilibrium according to the laws of thermodynamics.
This means that it's best that I go slow so everyone will be familiar with the math and why I think what I do.


p.s., and guys, no one has ever explained why ice ages happen every so often.
So if my math is right, then I'll be showing where I understand why.

p.s.s., I have already stated about how the Earth's linear velocity or momentum changing affects its orbit around the Sun. Just made sure it was clear to everyone in this post.
Edited on 08-02-2021 19:42
09-02-2021 03:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8625)
James___ wrote:At the moment I'm demonstrating that I'm not using random numbers.

... because you are using arbitrary numbers. Guess what that gets you.

James___ wrote: At the same time the math might show that everything is as it should be.

Everything is always as it should be. If you can find something that is not as it should be then you will have found nature violating physics ... which cannot logically happen. If nature is violating physics then we assume that the physics is wrong.

So once again, if you are merely generating supporting evidence for existing science, nobody is going to care. Again, please forgive the splash of cold water.

.
Attached image:


Edited on 09-02-2021 03:17
09-02-2021 05:47
James___
★★★★★
(4159)
IBdaMann wrote:
You have to state your hypothesis eventually. Go ahead, lay it on us..



Are you aware that both the Medieval Warm Period and our current Industrial Warm Period both had the Moon in its closest orbit to the Earth? Between ~900 AD and ~1910 AD that the Moon's orbit never brought it closer to the Earth?
I'm just not sure why you're bringing the Moon into this for.

p.s., ~ means "about", around, etc.
Attached image:

09-02-2021 05:58
James___
★★★★★
(4159)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:At the moment I'm demonstrating that I'm not using random numbers.

... because you are using arbitrary numbers. Guess what that gets you.

James___ wrote: At the same time the math might show that everything is as it should be.

Everything is always as it should be. If you can find something that is not as it should be then you will have found nature violating physics ... which cannot logically happen. If nature is violating physics then we assume that the physics is wrong.

So once again, if you are merely generating supporting evidence for existing science, nobody is going to care. Again, please forgive the splash of cold water.

.



I did mention a change in the Earth's Moment of Inertia or MoI. This is where I'll want to verify the math first. It's just that most people in here won't consider that a shift in momentum might run in ~100,000 year cycles. And this change in momentum would also affect the Moon. This is because the Moon is conserving the Earth's momentum. Still, we have no need to talk about the Moon.
I still need to show the math where the Moon as a satellite of the Earth is in agreement with v = sqrt gm/r. And then if the Earth orbiting the Sun is in agreement with that formula, it wouldn't be arbitrarily arrived at but a conclusion that has been deduced. I grew up watching Ellery Queen and reading Sherlock Holmes.
And with me, I actually want people to give a little thought to the math because it's so easy to do. With the basics of why planets have a gravitational attraction or why satellites orbit, and this I think I'll be able to take into "Why do we have ice ages and inter-glacial periods". And this is where we can have Sum Fun with math.


p.s., this might explain why the seas are getting a little warmer besides ozone depletion. It's He11, you can see the heat rising.


p.s.s., resources are becoming limited, why going Green and water powered might work.

Attached image:


Edited on 09-02-2021 06:02
09-02-2021 19:44
James___
★★★★★
(4159)
Xadoman wrote:
James, I have to admit that I do not fully understand the mechanism how the moon drifts away from the earth but I know it is true. It has something to do with tides and rotational energy. My question on the other hand is about tidal lock. Eventually the earth and moon will reach to the tidal lock and moon stops drifting away from the sun. Is this tidal lock an absolute 100% lock or could it be that there are some tiny fluctuations from this lock that would cause "mini tides" and therefore also friction and heat that is caused by the mini tides. We know that energy is lost during the friction, my question is what energy is going to be lost? Kinetic energy of the earth and moon? Will they eventually stop moving? Would the moon start closing the earth then?



What I'm kind of focusing on is that when the Earth's spin changes, this changes how the Moon orbits around it. This is where melting glaciers can slow the Earth's spin on it's axis.
I'm thinking this allows for a slight increase in the Earth's linear momentum as it orbits the Sun. If so, this would be because as the Earth spins on it's axis, it's converting some of the Sun's gravitational energy into work. It's known that satellites and planet's can affect the gravity of the other. And I'm thinking this can affect spin as well. The Earth does have it's magnetic field. It would be nice to find out if it becomes stronger when the Earth's orbit is closer to the Sun. That would support such a relationship.
Since about all planets in our solar system (Pluto is odd) has a similar elliptical direction. This shows the Sun is moving through the galaxy. This I think allows for a slight gravity assist.
Attached image:

09-02-2021 20:02
James___
★★★★★
(4159)
Xadoman, this might be a better explanation. Both the Earth and the Sun rotate in a counterclockwise direction. This means that the faster the Earth rotates, the more it will be in disagreement with the Sun's gravitational field.
Where the arrows are is where both gravitational fields will be rotating in different directions. The night time side of the Earth's gravitational field will be moving in the same direction as the Sun's.
And while the Earth and the Moon are massive, this is why the Moon's orbit might run in ~1,000 year cycles. If the Earth spins a little faster and slows linearly as a result, then gravity assist becomes less and the Moon moves closer to the Earth.
Attached image:

09-02-2021 23:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15054)
James___ wrote:
Xadoman, this might be a better explanation. Both the Earth and the Sun rotate in a counterclockwise direction. This means that the faster the Earth rotates, the more it will be in disagreement with the Sun's gravitational field.
Where the arrows are is where both gravitational fields will be rotating in different directions. The night time side of the Earth's gravitational field will be moving in the same direction as the Sun's.
And while the Earth and the Moon are massive, this is why the Moon's orbit might run in ~1,000 year cycles. If the Earth spins a little faster and slows linearly as a result, then gravity assist becomes less and the Moon moves closer to the Earth.

Gravity has no rotating field.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-02-2021 01:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8625)
James___ wrote:Xadoman, this might be a better explanation. Both the Earth and the Sun rotate in a counterclockwise direction. This means that the faster the Earth rotates, the more it will be in disagreement with the Sun's gravitational field.

The sun's gravitational field isn't very disagreeable at all despite having a lot of pull within the solar system.

.
Attached image:

10-02-2021 02:18
James___
★★★★★
(4159)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:Xadoman, this might be a better explanation. Both the Earth and the Sun rotate in a counterclockwise direction. This means that the faster the Earth rotates, the more it will be in disagreement with the Sun's gravitational field.

The sun's gravitational field isn't very disagreeable at all despite having a lot of pull within the solar system.

.




Nah. This is probably one thing they overlooked when considering the Earth's atmosphere being warm. I guess the question is, why does the Earth's orbit become more circular during an ice age?
That's why I think if it's spinning a little faster then it's moving a little slower. That would mean that with v = sqrt gm/r that a planets rotational momentum might matter. That also would decrease any gravity assist from the Sun. After all, the Sun isn't stationary, is it?
It's possible that what Newton might've calculated is actually a planet's momentum. If you consider that Venus has a day that is 243 Earth days and Mercury has a day that is 58.67 Earth days, it's possible that a planet's momentum is like E = MC^2. Linear momentum x/+ angular momentum = total momentum.
That's where considering the math might show such a relationship within Newton's work. It's just that with Venus' atmospheric pressure being ~93 times greater than the Earth's, that suggests it has a stronger gravitational field as well. Yet because it's a smaller planet, they say it's less dense. And everyone knows that the Sun exerts much more gravitational force closer to it. This means that Venus should be denser than the Earth. Or at least exposed to more compressive forces.
It's always possible that Venus is smaller than the Earth because it's surface has burned off. That's where I think they got Venus wrong. It's like if a shark dives deep down in the ocean. It'll be exposed to pressure that's extreme. But that's because of the field it's in. Venus might be the same thing.
11-02-2021 00:27
James___
★★★★★
(4159)
The Moon's velocity is 1,022 km/s. Using the v = sqrt gm/r, the same answer will show.
Yet the formula used actually comes out with a much different answer. It's 31.345 km/s.
This is because of its mass. The Earth weighs about 81 times more than the Moon does.
This is why I think the Earth's spin on its axis is important. If it spins just a little faster, the wobble that it and the Moon has might decrease. And in turn the orbit around the Sun would become more circular. And this in turn would reduce any gravity assist that the Earth and the Moon receive from the Sun.
Basically, when the orbit becomes elliptical enough to cause an actual ice age, the Moment of Inertia on the Earth will change. As a result it's spin will become faster. And such changes probably won't be noticeable in anyone's lifetime.
11-02-2021 00:46
keepit
★★★★★
(2073)
Not that i'm an expert but i think a rotating black hole (almost all of them rotate) has a rotating gravitational field. I could very well be wrong. Does anhone here know anything?
11-02-2021 02:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15054)
keepit wrote:
Not that i'm an expert but i think a rotating black hole (almost all of them rotate) has a rotating gravitational field. I could very well be wrong. Does anhone here know anything?


Gravity has no rotating field. It also has no direction, other than toward a mass.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-02-2021 03:48
keepit
★★★★★
(2073)
Where did you get that info ITN?
11-02-2021 04:14
James___
★★★★★
(4159)
keepit wrote:
Not that i'm an expert but i think a rotating black hole (almost all of them rotate) has a rotating gravitational field. I could very well be wrong. Does anhone here know anything?



Every mass or body has some type of spin. Sometimes I wonder if Black Holes might actually be where space is stretched by the galaxy. Many Black Holes give off gasses along its axis.
Attached image:

11-02-2021 05:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8625)
James___ wrote: Every mass or body has some type of spin.

Are you saying that I have no mass?

James___ wrote: Sometimes I wonder if Black Holes might actually be where space is stretched by the galaxy.

A black hole is where time-space is curved a lot. Within a black hole's inertial frame of reference, time moves more slowly.

James___ wrote:Many Black Holes give off gasses along its axis.

Black holes do not "give off" anything. Their gravity prevents anything from escaping.

.
Attached image:

11-02-2021 05:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8625)
keepit wrote:Where did you get that info ITN?

It's like you simply cannot learn.

Most people, unlike you, are able to learn and don't rely on Wikipedia to do their thinking for them.

Your question should have been "what is your rational basis for asserting that?" and not "who does your thinking for you and why were you told to believe that?" as would apply in your case.

.
Attached image:

11-02-2021 05:54
keepit
★★★★★
(2073)
IBD,
Black holes give off hawking radiation (E=MC2) from each pole. It's one of the first things you learn about black holes. Your mental programming is holding you back.
11-02-2021 06:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8625)
keepit wrote:IBD, Black holes give off hawking radiation

First, I just want to point out that you are a moron.

keepit, you are a moron.

So, just for laughs, do you deny that black holes have gravity so intense that they have event horizons from which nothing can escape?

If you deny this then we obviously need not proceed any further.

If you do not deny this then how do you reconcile this with your assertion above?

- Jusk Yurious
.
Attached image:

11-02-2021 07:04
James___
★★★★★
(4159)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: Every mass or body has some type of spin.

Are you saying that I have no mass?

James___ wrote: Sometimes I wonder if Black Holes might actually be where space is stretched by the galaxy.

A black hole is where time-space is curved a lot. Within a black hole's inertial frame of reference, time moves more slowly.

James___ wrote:Many Black Holes give off gasses along its axis.

Black holes do not "give off" anything. Their gravity prevents anything from escaping.

.



And what if some galaxies create a local worm hole? What would that look like?
11-02-2021 09:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15054)
keepit wrote:
Where did you get that info ITN?


Okay. Describe a polarity to gravity. Describe how it has a positive and negative pole.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-02-2021 17:08
keepit
★★★★★
(2073)
ITN,
I should have used the phrase "axis of rotation" rather than "poles" because poles can be understood in the magnetic sense which is inappropriate.

IBD,
Sure, black holes have an event horizon. That's the second thing you learn about black holes. The hawking radiation has to do with virtual particles. I don't have time to figure it out right now but i'll try later. Google it. BTW, you made a lot of claims of "moron" there. Do you have a personal problem or do you get paid for that?
Edited on 11-02-2021 17:12
11-02-2021 17:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8625)
keepit wrote:Sure, black holes have an event horizon.

Then how do they emit any radiation?

You are claiming that black holes emit radiation while conceding that they cannot. Explain yourself. Is it merely the case that you slept through the second grade which is why you never learned anything thereafter requiring that foundation, such as event horizons?

keepit wrote: The hawking radiation has to do with virtual particles. I don't have time to figure it out right now

Too late. You already declared me to be wrong, but now you are saying that you haven't figured it out yet. So explain yourself and your apparent contradiction.

Until you do, you're a moron who babbles gibberish in a desperate attempt to appear smart and relevant.

.
Attached image:

11-02-2021 19:02
keepit
★★★★★
(2073)
Black holes are pretty mysterious. Stephan Hawking is famous for his opinions on black holes. What are you famous for IBD - claiming every one is a moron?
11-02-2021 19:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8625)
keepit wrote:Black holes are pretty mysterious. Stephan Hawking is famous for his opinions on black holes.

You failed. You still need to explain your apparent contradiction. You are free to attempt to change topics but you remain a total moron until you explain yourself.

Enjoy.


keepit wrote:What are you famous for IBD - claiming every one is a moron?

What a lofty opinion you hold of yourself, thinking you are everyone. Are you also everything? Everywhere?

Too funny.

I think you can start to see why you are a total moron.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-02-2021 19:15
keepit
★★★★★
(2073)
I can see you have personal problems and i can see that i'm not a moron.
11-02-2021 19:16
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(407)
The gravity causes the moon to drift away from the earth. Seems quite a paradox to me.
11-02-2021 19:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8625)
keepit wrote:I can see you have personal problems and i can see that i'm not a moron.

You have worked very hard to establish yourself as a total moron. I think it's a little late in the ball game to be having regrets.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-02-2021 19:41
James___
★★★★★
(4159)
Xadoman wrote:
The gravity causes the moon to drift away from the earth. Seems quite a paradox to me.



This is most likely caused by changes in the Earth's spin. That would influence the Earth's gravitational field.




Join the debate Celestial Mechanics:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact