Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Problems in Newtonian Mechanics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • m in one year : 31558149,7635456

    29780 m/s

    939801699958,387968 m

    29779,999999999999999999999999998

    939801699958,38796799999999999994 m

    [I here used a calc with decimal comma instead of decimal point]

    Displacement of orbit would be less than one meter.

    First fudge factor : mass of Earth.

    If Newtonian heliocentrism is true, you measure it by comparison with mass of Sun, that having a presumed simple relation between mass and volume, and by orbits.

    Core of Earth is supposed to be Ni/Fe to account for the orbit.

    In traditional Christianity, that is the place where Hell is. Does Hell have the density of a Ni/Fe solid?

    Second fudge factor, what about interstellar matter?

    In a huge universe, it is presumed to be very scarce. But its dimming of starlight is the same amount of displaced light beams even if universe has a radius of 1 light day, meaning, interstellar matter would have to be lots denser.

    Also, having hydrogen in the interstellar matter be the "waters above the firmament" would make for one scenario for the Flood.

    So, how much could interstellar matter be slowing down as well?
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
      5,972,370,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg
      29,780 m/s

      177,857,178,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kgm/s

      200 tons = 200,000 kg
      29,780 m/s*2=59,560 m/s

      11,912,000,000 kgm/s * 1000,000,000 years

      = 4,350,768,660,000,000,000,000 accumulated kgm/s

      New momentum:
      177,857,178,599,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,995,649,231,340,000,000,000,000 kgm/s

      Relation of momentums: approximated to 1 by the calculator.

      In other words, I cannot do the check.

      Or, another calculator approximates to 0.99999999999999999999999999999994

      0.99999999999999999999999999999994*29,780 m/s

      From 29,780 m/s to 29,779.999999999999999999999999998 m/s if all of your factors are right.
      You made at least one error, and you're result is a bit low - I'll go over the actual numbers later, not enough time to format it into a post during the workday. But the actual results draw the same conclusion - the change is so minisculely small after 1,000,000,000 years that it has no meaningful effect on the Earth's orbit.

      So all your mocking about how wrong newtonian mechanics are for 'ignoring' this effect is simply based in ignorance of what the actual effect might be, and how much influence it might have on the Earth's orbit.

      e.g.
      Source: hans

      By "keep it going" I was not referring to a possible slowing down, I was referring to disruptions of orbit actually destroying the orbital quality of the movement, either tangentially or down to Earth.

      So, compensating for atmospheric drag (which would be a kind of friction) is needed, but no compensation in the least needed for compensating meteor shower, as if they could never ever at all cause any friction to any planet in an orbit ...

      © Copyright Original Source



      Do you suppose it is possible there are other areas of your argumentation that are equally based on ignorance of the actual facts and data?


      Jim
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
        One more detail before going to calculations.

        Meteor showers are not an everyday phenomenon, but are centered in one part of the "yearly orbit".

        So, what part of them is it (i e, how long) and what is the impact during that part? Probably more than 200 tons per day, since the 200 tons per day is an annual average, right?

        Also, remember I am not looking for a slowing down to standstill of orbital velocity, but for a change in it sufficiently great to disrupt the balance between itself as tangentially centrifugal and gravitation of sun as radially centripetal force.

        But God bless you very much for giving at least this much!

        (I might sneak on calculation bases you offered before you do the asked for clarifications).
        You can continue in ignorance or you can look up the research on the subject. The estimates range from 5 tons/day to 300tons/day, but the most common cited number I found was 200tons/day. But you can multiply that by 1000 and still not change the orbital velocity by 1 m/s in 1,000,000,000 years in our calculation. But remember, this calculation is using 2x the Earths orbital velocity to compute the amount of momentum - the average in reality a good bit less because meteors come from all directions and velocities - not just the opposite direction in a parallel Earth orbit. We also assumed the ALL the momemtum of the incoming mass is transfered into a reduction of orbital velocity. The reality is that some will accelerate the Earth (come from behind), and some will mostly transfer their momentum to the rotational momentum of the Earth (tangential strikes), either accelerating or decelerating the Earth. We have put forth a worst case here, and it still amounts to nothing in terms of its effect on the Earth's orbit.

        Jim
        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-17-2017, 08:50 AM.
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
          m in one year : 31558149,7635456

          29780 m/s

          939801699958,387968 m

          29779,999999999999999999999999998

          939801699958,38796799999999999994 m

          [I here used a calc with decimal comma instead of decimal point]

          Displacement of orbit would be less than one meter.

          First fudge factor : mass of Earth.

          If Newtonian heliocentrism is true, you measure it by comparison with mass of Sun, that having a presumed simple relation between mass and volume, and by orbits.

          Core of Earth is supposed to be Ni/Fe to account for the orbit.

          In traditional Christianity, that is the place where Hell is. Does Hell have the density of a Ni/Fe solid?

          Second fudge factor, what about interstellar matter?

          In a huge universe, it is presumed to be very scarce. But its dimming of starlight is the same amount of displaced light beams even if universe has a radius of 1 light day, meaning, interstellar matter would have to be lots denser.

          Also, having hydrogen in the interstellar matter be the "waters above the firmament" would make for one scenario for the Flood.

          So, how much could interstellar matter be slowing down as well?
          And so, the numbers giving the answer you do not like, you move on, undaunted, unquestioning of your position, and propose possible 'other things' that might be wrong.

          That the core is Ni/Fe is well established. Seismic waves travel through the Earth from earthquakes. Their capacity to travel through the center of the Earth tells is the core is not empty. The amount of refraction of the wave based on various trajectories through the earth is consistent with a Ni/Fe core. As are other factors, like the generation of a magnetic field, Mass of the Earth relative to the moon, the fact the silica crust floats on the surface, the observed changes in the Earths rotational velocity over the eons as recorded in various types of varves and so on and so on.

          The interstellar medium is by far much LESS dense than the area of the solar system in which the Earth orbits. This can be observed directly through (1) the Zodiacal light caused by the increased dust in the ecliptic -the path of most planetary orbits, (2) measurements by the voyager probes, and indirectly in the lack of dimming or filtering of the light from the distant stars and galaxies whch would be invisible if the interstellar medium was more dense than that encountered in the Earth's orbit.

          Jim
          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-17-2017, 08:47 AM.
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            But remember, this calculation is using 2x the Earths orbital velocity to compute the amount of momentum - the average in reality a good bit less because meteors come from all directions and velocities - not just the opposite direction in a parallel Earth orbit.
            I am specifically thinking of the annual meteor shower. As far as I could gather it actually has a uniform direction (acc. Heliocentrism) at a certain angle backwards against supposed orbit.

            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            We also assumed the ALL the momemtum of the incoming mass is transfered into a reduction of orbital velocity. The reality is that some will accelerate teh Earth (come from behind), and some will mostly transfer their momentum to the rotational momentum of the Earth (tangential strikes), either accellerating or decelerating the Earth. We have put forth a worst case here, and it's still nothing.
            I'd have preferred sth which would not have reduced vectors to the one parameter of speed. Supposing the meteor shower comes from N, how much would a declination to S affect stability of orbit?
            http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

            Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              Seismic waves travel through the Earth from earthquakes. Their capacity to travel through the center of the Earth tells is the core is not empty. The amount of refraction of the wave based on various trajectories through the earth is consistent with a Ni/Fe core.
              Here I balk.

              I saw one diagram in which the seismic waves are all shown going outside the core. Also, the walls of Hell could be such that a shock from Australian side propagate via other side of Hell to Europe (or whatever).

              Hell is not empty, but it has space. There are not only souls there now, but there will be risen bodies there later on too.
              http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

              Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                The interstellar medium is by far much LESS dense than the area of the solar system in which the Earth orbits. This can be observed directly through (1) the Zodiacal light caused by the increased dust in the ecliptic -the path of most planetary orbits, (2) measurements by the voyager probes, and indirectly in the lack of dimming or filtering of the light from the distant stars and galaxies whch would be invisible if the interstellar medium was more dense than that encountered in the Earth's orbit.
                But we do see dimming/filtering from all stars, it is just that you are attributing part of it to the medium "the area of the solar system in which the Earth orbits"?
                http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                  I am specifically thinking of the annual meteor shower. As far as I could gather it actually has a uniform direction (acc. Heliocentrism) at a certain angle backwards against supposed orbit.



                  I'd have preferred sth which would not have reduced vectors to the one parameter of speed. Supposing the meteor shower comes from N, how much would a declination to S affect stability of orbit?
                  Use your mind Hans. Do you suppose that a fraction of a millimeter per second over a billion years concentrating all the momentum in one direction is less likely or more likely to change the earth's orbit in some meaningful way than a thousand fold smaller deflection to the 'north or south'??? Further, there is not just 1 meteor shower per year, there are more than 40, and they come from many different directions, so the effect of one is altered or countered by the effect of another. Finally, these showers ARE taken into account with the 200 tons estimate we were using. Without them the estimate would be much, much smaller.

                  Jim
                  Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-17-2017, 09:00 AM.
                  My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                  If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                  This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                    Here I balk.

                    I saw one diagram in which the seismic waves are all shown going outside the core. Also, the walls of Hell could be such that a shock from Australian side propagate via other side of Hell to Europe (or whatever).

                    Hell is not empty, but it has space. There are not only souls there now, but there will be risen bodies there later on too.
                    The speed through a substrate and amount of refraction of the siesmic waves across differential boundaries depends upon both the density of the materials and their state (solid/liquid). There is nothing about what has been measured that can be interpreted as a large hollow cavity, or even a large amount of liquid water. However, there is always the possibility there exists some relatively small cavity somewhere in the interior of Earth (in fact, we can be sure at least closer to the surface such cavities do exist), and so the reality is a Ni/Fe core in the Earth is no threat whatsoever to your overly literal interpretation of the placement of Hell.


                    Jim
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                      But we do see dimming/filtering from all stars, it is just that you are attributing part of it to the medium "the area of the solar system in which the Earth orbits"?
                      Almost none. And extensive tests have been done to detect it. The intergalactic medium even more so!

                      A dust density equivalent to that seen in the ecliptic permeating interstellar space IIRC would render all known stars invisible in the visual spectrum, and their light severely altered if they were. We can look directly into the various dust clouds and star forming regions and can measure how much visible light can get through various densities (not to mention we can calculate the effect). We can use infrared to see the interior stars of the denser regions. (opacity of a cloud depends on cloud density, dust grain size, and the frequency of the light travelling through it).

                      In fact, we can see similar dust clouds to what we see in the Zodiacal light around other stars. They clearly represent a significant increase in density over the interstellar medium or they would not be visible at all!

                      Jim
                      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-17-2017, 09:18 AM.
                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        That the core is Ni/Fe is well established. Seismic waves travel through the Earth from earthquakes. Their capacity to travel through the center of the Earth tells is the core is not empty. The amount of refraction of the wave based on various trajectories through the earth is consistent with a Ni/Fe core. As are other factors, like the generation of a magnetic field, Mass of the Earth relative to the moon, the fact the silica crust floats on the surface, the observed changes in the Earths rotational velocity over the eons as recorded in various types of varves and so on and so on.

                        To be fair, I must temper my comments quoted above: the study of the Earth's core and planetary interiors in general is indirect with conclusions reached by impllication and application of known physics. It is unfair to imply - as I did - that the makeup of the core of our planet, or any planet for that matter, is nearly certain.

                        This site seems to have a fairly good discussion of the science behind the current interior model of the Earth

                        http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/earth_int.htm

                        Note that the mass of the Earth is derived from the known value of the gravitational constant, the Earth's radius, and the known attraction of the Earth to a given mass on the surface.

                        The graviational constant is determined by measuring the attraction between known masses in a laboratory (see Cavandish experiment for the first such measurement)
                        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-17-2017, 09:45 AM.
                        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          To be fair, I must temper my comments quoted above: the study of the Earth's core and planetary interiors in general is indirect with conclusions reached by impllication and application of known physics. It is unfair to imply - as I did - that the makeup of the core of our planet, or any planet for that matter, is nearly certain.
                          Known physics - involving also the "known" one of orbits being fully explainable in Newtonian and Heliocentric terms.

                          Do you have a specific source for waves actually passing straight through core of Earth?
                          http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                          Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            This site seems to have a fairly good discussion of the science behind the current interior model of the Earth

                            http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/earth_int.htm
                            Gutenberg Seismic Discontinuity / Core-Mantle Boundary
                            Seismic waves recorded at increasing distances from an earthquake indicate that seismic velocities gradually increase with depth in the mantle (exceptions: see Low Velocity Zone and 670 km Discontinuity above). However, at arc distances of between about 103° and 143° no P waves are recorded. Furthermore, no S waves are record beyond about 103°. Gutenberg (1914) explained this as the result of a molten core beginning at a depth of around 2900 km. Shear waves could not penetrate this molten layer and P waves would be severely slowed and refracted (bent).

                            Lehman Siesmic Discontinuity / The Inner Core
                            Between 143° and 180° from an earthquake another refraction is recognized (Lehman, 1936) resulting from a sudden increase in P wave velocities at a depth of 5150 km. This velocity increase is consistent with a change from a molten outer core to a solid inner core.
                            I though no waves, and see no S waves pass directly through core.

                            Could P waves seeming to do so have another explanation?

                            Note, I jumped straight down without looking at what distinction between S and P waves is.

                            After checking, a P wave could displace the outer walls of Hell, these by solid in contact continue the movement on other side of Hell and therefore trasnmit the P wave.

                            What Causes the Earth's Magnetic Field?
                            Early ideas about what caused the compass needle to point toward the north included some divine attraction to the polestar (North Star), or attraction to large masses of iron ore in the arctic. A more serious hypothesis considered the Earth or some solid layer within the Earth to be made of iron or other magnetic material forming a permanent magnet. There are two major problems with this hypothesis. First, it became apparent that the magnetic field drifts over time; the magnetic poles move. Second, magnetic minerals only retain a permanent magnetism below their Curie temperature (e.g., 580°C for magnetite). Most of the Earth's interior is hotter than all known Curie temperatures and cooler crustal rocks just don't contain enough magnetic content to account for the magnetic field and crustal magnetization is very heterogeneous in any case.

                            The discovery of the liquid outer core allowed another hypothesis: the geodynamo.
                            Or, if Earth is not rotating, we miss out on the geodynamo ...?

                            Perhaps not:

                            The magnetic field is oriented around the axis of rotation of the Earth because the effects of the Earth's rotation on the moving fluid (coriolis force).
                            This part could be done by aether rotating around axis of Earth that far down too.
                            http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                            Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              Note that the mass of the Earth is derived from the known value of the gravitational constant, the Earth's radius, and the known attraction of the Earth to a given mass on the surface.

                              The graviational constant is determined by measuring the attraction between known masses in a laboratory (see Cavandish experiment for the first such measurement)
                              Hmmm ... perhaps.

                              But check the t of your keyboard. "The graviational constant".

                              Seriously, I had counted on gravitational constant being taken from Newtonian astronomy. You got me there.

                              Just wonder how exactly the Cavendish experiment can measure it.
                              http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                              Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                                Hmmm ... perhaps.

                                But check the t of your keyboard. "The graviational constant".

                                Seriously, I had counted on gravitational constant being taken from Newtonian astronomy. You got me there.

                                Just wonder how exactly the Cavendish experiment can measure it.
                                Don't know why, but my typing tends to drop letters. It is not confined to a single keyboard. Nevertheless, my typing skill - or lack thereof - is not the issue here.

                                Finding out how the Cavendish experiment works, or about subsequent experiments refining the result, is just a google away Hans. Feel free to look it up.



                                Jim
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X