IbdaMann physics mistake

Nope. Einstein never measured time dilation; it is not measurable. Clocks in different inertial frames of reference cannot be synchronized.

Einstein's following statement shows another inconsistency in his considerations.
"Let a ray of light depart from A at the time tA, let it be reflected at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time t'A. Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that tB − tA = rAB/c – v and t'A − tB = rAB/c + v, where rAB denotes the length of the moving rod—measured in the stationary system."

The inconsistency concerns the fact that he applies the Newtonian law of addition of velocities, while the end result of his theory forbids such an addition.

Besides that Einstein accepts velocities larger than c in one of the expressions above, while the outcome of his theory also forbids such velocities.

How do you know this? You weren't born 4 billion years ago. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth

I see you've decided to ignore the 0th law of thermodynamics. Everything has a temperature.

The zeroth laws imply that the temperature is a measure/indicator of thermal equilibrium. It states that if two bodies are in thermal equilibrium with each other and one of them is in thermal equilibrium with any third body, then all the three bodies will be in thermal equilibrium with each other.

Why is it necessary to include the zeroth law in the laws of thermodynamics?
It is only because of the Zeroeth Law that we can take temperature measurements.

Since a thermometer only indicates its own temperature, it must be allowed to equilibrate to the same temperature of the medium, in order to indicate the temperature of the medium. i.e Temperature of thermometer = temperature of the medium. This is the Zeroeth Law.

Into the Night wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

....and both of you are cracking my ass up! Tell me how you measure the temperature of the entire atmosphere? Tell me how you measure the entire ocean?

HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Eistein was able to measure time dilation more than 100 years ago. He had good clocks, made by swiss.

Never happened.
Illiteracy. Proper nouns are always capitalized.

Xadoman wrote:
Hey IbdaMann, which one of the moons rotates on its own internal axis. The moon on the left or the moon on the right? 130 Iq Swanny is unable to clear this one up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

The Earths tidally locked Moon rotates on it's own axis once every 27.3 days. Wikipedia does not have any moons.

130

Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth.

Xadoman wrote:

The Earths tidally locked Moon rotates on it's own axis once every 27.3 days. Wikipedia does not have any moons.

130

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

So I guess you think the moon on the left rotates on its axis as this is the the way the moon orbits around the earth.

This is a perfect example how 130Iq person could be brainwashed by mainsteam.

Quote from mainstream:

Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth.

In real life the moon does not rotate on its own axis. The moon rotates about external axis which is at the earth and moon barycentre.

If the moon would rotate about an external axis and also at the same time rotates about its internal axis then the moon would show all the sides to the earth. But it does not. It only rotates about an external axis( orbits around the earth and moon barycentre) and does not rotate about its internal axis. That is why the moon shows only one face to the earth.

Simple as that.

The moon on the right from this gif actually rotates on its axis :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The moon orbits counterclockwise and at the same time rotates exactly once over its axis clockwise.

According to IbdaMann the moon on the left rotates on its axis and the moon on the right does not. This is another physics mistake he has made.

Both IbdaMann and Swanny are in the same boat beliving that the moon rotates on its own internal axis. Nope. The moon rotates about external axis which is at the earth an moon barycentre. Simple as that.

The earth both rotates about and external axis( orbits around the sun) and rotates over its own interal axis. There are two axis of rotation. One is external and the other is internal. This is why the earth shows all his faces to the sun. This is why we have alternating day and night. Simple as that.

Yes! The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once on its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This means that the same side of the Moon always faces our planet.

Xadoman wrote:

Yes! The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once on its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This means that the same side of the Moon always faces our planet.

And that is exactly why you should not believe everything that comes out from mainstream. There is only orbiting which can be described as a single rotation about external axis. If you introduce the second rotation - about internal axis- then the moon would show all of its faces to the earth. Simple as that.

The difference between moon and earth:

Both are orbiting( the moon around the earth and the earth around the sun)

The moon does not rotate about its axis and therefore moves in a way that it shows only one face to the earth.

The earth on the other hand also rotates about its internal axis and therefore moves in a way that it shows all of its faces to the sun.


That is it. Simple as that.

The measuring wheel – also known as a surveyor's wheel, clickwheel, odometer, or trundle wheel – is a tool used to measure distances. Measuring wheels have a counting mechanism that counts the number of rotations and uses the circumference of the wheel to calculate the distance covered.

Xadoman wrote:
Swanny, take a look at that measuring wheel:
https://www.sola.at/en/products/measuring-wheels-c249309

The measuring wheel – also known as a surveyor's wheel, clickwheel, odometer, or trundle wheel – is a tool used to measure distances. Measuring wheels have a counting mechanism that counts the number of rotations and uses the circumference of the wheel to calculate the distance covered.

Here the dotted lined circle represent the fence that is being measured with a measuring wheel.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fryy6jftlr?lang=et

One wheel runs inward and the other runs outward of the fence.



Swanny, how many rotations do you count for the inward and outward wheel?

So when proved wrong about the moon's rotation you merely change the subject to one where you believe that I will be wrong. What you need to accept however is that you will be dead and buried before you see me make a mistake, Others have accepted this as will you.

So again yes the moon rotates even though it is tidally locked with the Earth

Xadoman wrote:

So when proved wrong about the moon's rotation you merely change the subject to one where you believe that I will be wrong. What you need to accept however is that you will be dead and buried before you see me make a mistake, Others have accepted this as will you.

So again yes the moon rotates even though it is tidally locked with the Earth

Swanny, I know you see the outward wheel making 4 rotations and inward wheel making 2 rotations.
So Swanny measures the fence to be different length because he does not understand simple physics.

In real life both wheels turn 3 times over their internal axis. The fence could be imagined as a mirror.

And yes, the moon rotates , but only about an external axis which is at the moon and earth barycentre. Simple as that.

In overall:

The earth rotates about its internal axis and therefore it shows all of its faces to the sun.

The moon does not rotate about its internal axis and therefore it shows only one face to the earth. If the moon would start to rotate about its internal axis then we would see all the faces of the moon.

This is it, simple as that.

Xadoman wrote:
Swanny, here is another fence to be measured with a measuring wheel:

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/3fzbwqvebr?lang=et

Counting the rotations Swanny would again get to different lengths for the fence. Zero rotation for the inward and 2 rotations for the outward wheel.

In reality both wheels would count 1 rotation and give the same length for the fence.
Again, the fence could be imagined as a mirror.

Swanny, you really need to start to think for yourself and ditch the mainstream.

Xadoman wrote:

So when proved wrong about the moon's rotation you merely change the subject to one where you believe that I will be wrong. What you need to accept however is that you will be dead and buried before you see me make a mistake, Others have accepted this as will you.

So again yes the moon rotates even though it is tidally locked with the Earth

Swanny, I know you see the outward wheel making 4 rotations and inward wheel making 2 rotations.
So Swanny measures the fence to be different length because he does not understand simple physics.

In real life both wheels turn 3 times over their internal axis. The fence could be imagined as a mirror.

And yes, the moon rotates , but only about an external axis which is at the moon and earth barycentre. Simple as that.

In overall:

The earth rotates about its internal axis and therefore it shows all of its faces to the sun.

The moon does not rotate about its internal axis and therefore it shows only one face to the earth. If the moon would start to rotate about its internal axis then we would see all the faces of the moon.

This is it, simple as that.

Xadoman wrote:
[quote]So when proved wrong about the moon's rotation you merely change the subject to one where you believe that I will be wrong. What you need to accept however is that you will be dead and buried before you see me make a mistake, Others have accepted this as will you.

So again yes the moon rotates even though it is tidally locked with the Earth

Xadoman wrote:
And yes, the moon rotates , but only about an external axis which is at the moon and earth barycentre. Simple as that.

Xadoman wrote:
In overall:

The earth rotates about its internal axis and therefore it shows all of its faces to the sun.

Xadoman wrote:
The moon does not rotate about its internal axis and therefore it shows only one face to the earth.

Xadoman wrote:
If the moon would start to rotate about its internal axis then we would see all the faces of the moon.

Xadoman wrote:
This is it, simple as that.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

So when proved wrong about the moon's rotation you merely change the subject to one where you believe that I will be wrong. What you need to accept however is that you will be dead and buried before you see me make a mistake, Others have accepted this as will you.

So again yes the moon rotates even though it is tidally locked with the Earth

Swanny, I know you see the outward wheel making 4 rotations and inward wheel making 2 rotations.
So Swanny measures the fence to be different length because he does not understand simple physics.

In real life both wheels turn 3 times over their internal axis. The fence could be imagined as a mirror.

And yes, the moon rotates , but only about an external axis which is at the moon and earth barycentre. Simple as that.

In overall:

The earth rotates about its internal axis and therefore it shows all of its faces to the sun.

The moon does not rotate about its internal axis and therefore it shows only one face to the earth. If the moon would start to rotate about its internal axis then we would see all the faces of the moon.

This is it, simple as that.

Are phases of the moon based on its rotation?

I have been watching online, at Time and Date, the past 15 days, the moon phasing from full to new.

Around Nov. 15, the moon started waning, approx. 7% per day, as I was tracking it. So I was thinking the new moon was gonna be Nov 29.

Why the hell is Time and Date saying it is gonna be Nov 30??

But then, when there is about 2 to 3 % light left before it blacks out, it hits the brakes!!

It goes from phasing out by about 7% per day, to about 2% per day!

Could you imagine, if Earth was spinning 1000 mph at the equator for every 14 days, then every 15th day it hit the brakes, and slowed its equatorial spin to 300 mph??

Shit would hit the fan!

Spongy Iris wrote:Are phases of the moon based on its rotation?

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Are phases of the moon based on its rotation?

No. The phases of the moon are all determined by the earth/moon relative position wrt the sun.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Are phases of the moon based on its rotation?

No. The phases of the moon are all determined by the earth/moon relative position wrt the sun.

Is that not determined by the moon rotating (orbiting) around the earth?

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Are phases of the moon based on its rotation?

No. The phases of the moon are all determined by the earth/moon relative position wrt the sun.

Is that not determined by the moon rotating (orbiting) around the earth?

Rotation of a body is not the orbit of a body.

The Moon both rotates about it's axis and orbits the Earth.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Are phases of the moon based on its rotation?

No. The phases of the moon are all determined by the earth/moon relative position wrt the sun.

Is that not determined by the moon rotating (orbiting) around the earth?

Rotation of a body is not the orbit of a body.

The Moon both rotates about it's axis and orbits the Earth.

I can always count on you for the revolution v rotation distinction.

Now my question is, does the moon's revolution slow down during the phase to new moon?

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Are phases of the moon based on its rotation?

No. The phases of the moon are all determined by the earth/moon relative position wrt the sun.

Is that not determined by the moon rotating (orbiting) around the earth?

Rotation of a body is not the orbit of a body.

The Moon both rotates about it's axis and orbits the Earth.

I can always count on you for the revolution v rotation distinction.

Now my question is, does the moon's revolution slow down during the phase to new moon?

No.

Spongy Iris wrote: Then why does the rate of decline in its shine slow down?

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: Then why does the rate of decline in its shine slow down?

Specifically because you are talking about relative positioning that follows elliptical, not linear, progression.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: Then why does the rate of decline in its shine slow down?

Specifically because you are talking about relative positioning that follows elliptical, not linear, progression.

Where in the orbit/revolution is the new moon phase?

Is it during the sharp turn of the elliptical path, or the wide turn of the elliptical path?

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: Then why does the rate of decline in its shine slow down?

Specifically because you are talking about relative positioning that follows elliptical, not linear, progression.

Where in the orbit/revolution is the new moon phase?

Is it during the sharp turn of the elliptical path, or the wide turn of the elliptical path?

Rotation does not cause Moon phases. The orbit does.

When the Moon is roughly between the Earth and the Sun, only the night side of the Moon is facing us, and we can't see it due to brightness of our own day (the Moon is not visible at night because it sets with the Sun).

Occasionally, the Moon crosses directly in front of the Sun, and we get a total solar eclipse.

The Moon's orbit is slightly elliptical. It's perigee is 251,300 miles away and it's apogee is 251,900 miles away. It's orbital speed is slightly less at apogee and slightly greater at perigee (see Kepler's laws).

Due to Earth's orbit around the Sun, the relative positions of apogee and perigee vary throughout the year. If you examine the Moon from a sidereal view, those positions don't vary at all.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: Then why does the rate of decline in its shine slow down?

Specifically because you are talking about relative positioning that follows elliptical, not linear, progression.

Where in the orbit/revolution is the new moon phase?

Is it during the sharp turn of the elliptical path, or the wide turn of the elliptical path?

Rotation does not cause Moon phases. The orbit does.

When the Moon is roughly between the Earth and the Sun, only the night side of the Moon is facing us, and we can't see it due to brightness of our own day (the Moon is not visible at night because it sets with the Sun).

Occasionally, the Moon crosses directly in front of the Sun, and we get a total solar eclipse.

The Moon's orbit is slightly elliptical. It's perigee is 251,300 miles away and it's apogee is 251,900 miles away. It's orbital speed is slightly less at apogee and slightly greater at perigee (see Kepler's laws).

Due to Earth's orbit around the Sun, the relative positions of apogee and perigee vary throughout the year. If you examine the Moon from a sidereal view, those positions don't vary at all.

I don't see how this answers why the phase out slows dramatically when there is about 2 to 3% left before the new moon.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
No, it doesn't.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
No, it doesn't.

Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote:
No, it doesn't.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
No, it doesn't.

Stop spamming.

How many of your posts are to tell someone ELSE to "Stop spamming."

Xadoman wrote:IbdaMann thinks that temperature is not the cause of the atmosphere. He instead thinks that the atmosphere is the cause of the temperature.

Xadoman wrote:According to IbdaMann we can pump greenhouse gases into our atmosphere and make the planet warmer and warmer.

Xadoman wrote: According to his math the incredibly thick atmosphere causes the surface of the Venus to be very hot.

Xadoman wrote: The planet has been cooling for billions of years.

Xadoman wrote: At once the surface was molten. Then it started to cool down.

Xadoman wrote: The oceans and CO2 and other gases were up in the sky. The atmosphere was incredibly thick and hot.

Xadoman wrote: It cooled until the oceans started to rain down. There was not enough energy to keep them up in the sky.

Xadoman wrote: The atmosphere was still quite thick and warm.

Xadoman wrote:The surface of the earth is at about 15 celsius on average.

What? You would be correct that temperature does not create atmosphere. Atmosphere has, does not cause, temperature.

That's any gas, not just some fictitious physics-violating gas with magickal superpowers.

The pressure does that.

How do you know this?

How do you know this?

Too funny!

Xadoman wrote:

What? You would be correct that temperature does not create atmosphere. Atmosphere has, does not cause, temperature.

Blatant lie. Temperature is the driving force for the atmosphere to form.

Xadoman wrote:
Without temperature the atmosphere would collapse on earth due to the gravity.

Xadoman wrote:
Only temperature could cause the gas particles to move against gravity and rise into the air.

Xadoman wrote:
[quote]
That's any gas, not just some fictitious physics-violating gas with magickal superpowers.

The pressure does that.

Xadoman wrote:
How would you increase the air pressure on earth?

Xadoman wrote:
According to your logic pumping more gases into the atmosphere should do it.

Xadoman wrote:
Actually to increase the pressure you need to rise the temperature of earth.

Xadoman wrote:
If the temperature of the earth would increase, more gases would rise into the atmosphere.

Xadoman wrote:
The additional energy flow must be constant to sustain the new and thicker atmosphere in the sky.
WRONG. You cannot 'thicken' the atmosphere of Earth or any other body.
[quote]Xadoman wrote:
One time burn for gasification does not help.

Xadoman wrote:
The cause of the rise of the pressure was additional energy which raised the temperature of earth.

Xadoman wrote:
IbdaMann thinks that the thicker atmosphere would rise the temperature because of the pressure but that is upside down cause and effect.

Xadoman wrote:
Right is: more temperature= more pressure
Wrong is: more pressure = more temperature

Xadoman wrote:
If you say so. Making water gaseous is just a matter of raw energy. The earth was at one point so hot that water was in gaseous state up in the sky. Simple physics.

Xadoman wrote:
IbdaMann, you are a smart guy. Accept that this time you have been proven wrong.