tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post6481611521540143600..comments2023-12-19T09:40:12.020-08:00Comments on The Emoluments of Mars: Another daft prediction that can easily be testedexpathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-91026201600664975322017-08-21T04:35:14.077-07:002017-08-21T04:35:14.077-07:00For the sake of correctness...
I should have used...For the sake of correctness...<br /><br />I should have used a sidereal day, so there's another 0.3% error in those speeds, on top of the other approximations...Two Percenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13236918586233850354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-4965125605508042752017-08-20T14:06:08.378-07:002017-08-20T14:06:08.378-07:00About means approximately.
The secret to tearing ...About means approximately.<br /><br />The secret to tearing a telephone book in half, is going to cost you. Send one thousand dollars in care of Patrick. Take the book and fold in in half, lengthwise. That will fan the pages so that you can start to tear each page singly one at a time. Then with a small tear at the edge of each page, you grip the entire book on each side of the aligned tears, and rip in opposite directions. It still takes a bit of strength, but it's much easier with the pages pre torn. That's Torsion. Torque would be if one end of the book were held in a vice, while you twist the other end. THE Orbs Whipererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08651754060614417385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-47636291319842165142017-08-20T06:45:09.612-07:002017-08-20T06:45:09.612-07:00« Can one re-post in the same chronological locati...« Can one re-post in the same chronological location as the deleted comment? »<br /><br />'fraid not. That's an inherent snag.expathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-85234956629468174302017-08-20T04:01:39.774-07:002017-08-20T04:01:39.774-07:00@Orbs:
Sorry, but you are babbling!
As the Earth...@Orbs:<br /><br />Sorry, but you are babbling!<br /><br /><i>As the Earth rotates at more than one thousand miles per hour, and the Moon orbits at more than two thousand miles per hour, it's like two hands ripping a telephone book in half. </i><br /><br />As xp@ said, miles per hour is not the correct way to refer to rates of rotation.<br /><br />But since you and "Anon" insist, let's look into it.<br /><br />You say Big Ben (in London) circles the axis [of rotation] ... at about 1,071 MPH.<br /><br />So, by my logic, in 24 hours Big Ben will travel 1,071 miles/h x 24h = 25,704 miles.<br /><br />From www.latlong.net, the latitude of The Tower of London, London, UK is 51.508530.<br /><br />However, according to Wikipedia, the circumference of the planet, in miles, is 24,901 miles at the Equator. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator ]<br /><br />Now, maybe I'm starting to understand your telephone book analogy. For that to happen, there will be a lot of ripping going on. You see, according to your assertion, Big Ben travels further in one day than any point on the Equator. There are a few obvious ways that can happen. Perhaps, the diameter of the Earth at the <br />51st - 52nd parallels north is greater than at the Equator, which not many people will agree with, or, miles along the 51st & 52nd parallels north are very much shorter than they are at the Equator. Or, somehow, Big Ben is in a time warp, which means it's somehow orbiting the planet's axis at a higher speed than the rest of the planet. Or Big Ben is a low altitude satellite (with a near impossible orbit), or on a (perpetual motion) rocket! Again, this defies popular belief.<br /><br />By my calculations, if the circumference of the planet is 24,901 miles at the Equator, the Equatorial radius of the planet must be about 3963 miles.<br /><br />Ignoring the fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid and assuming it's (i.e. it is) perfectly round, the radius of the parallel at 51.5 degrees north must be about 3963 cos(51.5°) = 2467 miles. A point on this line will travel 2piR = 15,500 miles in one 24 hour day. Therefore, its surface speed is almost 646 MPH, significantly less than 1,071 MPH as you state.<br /><br />Since you seem to be "off the mark" here, maybe you could explain your statement regarding the relevance of the orbital speed of the moon? What does it have to do with Earthquakes?<br /><br />Also, what mode of tearing do you imagine for that phone book? Is the book open, and being torn along its spine, or what?<br />Two Percenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13236918586233850354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-75985294522239070172017-08-19T17:13:47.753-07:002017-08-19T17:13:47.753-07:00"...even in jolly old London, where the speed..."...even in jolly old London, where the speed limit is posted in metric."<br /><br />I shouldn't nitpick, but in jolly old London, as in the rest of the UK, speeds limits are posted in imperial (MPH), not metric.Purpleivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346503019213584899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-52052325142005717572017-08-19T16:11:29.513-07:002017-08-19T16:11:29.513-07:00Can one re-post in the same chronological location...Can one re-post in the same chronological location as the deleted comment?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-32161604350799711852017-08-19T14:51:09.668-07:002017-08-19T14:51:09.668-07:00You can't, but you can delete and re-post an e...You can't, but you can delete and re-post an edited text.expathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-7889391808953973852017-08-19T14:19:23.536-07:002017-08-19T14:19:23.536-07:00Okay, Patrick, so now tell me how to edit publishe...Okay, Patrick, so now tell me how to edit published posts, here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-28943808067700977142017-08-19T14:04:23.146-07:002017-08-19T14:04:23.146-07:00So I presume the uncontracted version of your sent...So I presume the uncontracted version of your sentence would be "The Moon rotates on it is axis about once every 27 days."<br /><br />You aren't making any sense at all, anon.expathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-22092459089351493922017-08-19T13:39:20.001-07:002017-08-19T13:39:20.001-07:00Big Ben circles the axis riding on the surface of ...Big Ben circles the axis riding on the surface of the planet at about 1,071 miles per hour, even in jolly old London, where the speed limit is posted in metric.<br /><br />The contraction for 'it is,' is 'it's,' as opposed to having multiple 'its,' as if as, 'dipshits'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-10216988036154943492017-08-19T12:40:09.731-07:002017-08-19T12:40:09.731-07:00« Earth rotates on it's axis at a speed of 1,0...« Earth rotates on it's axis at a speed of 1,071 miles per hour. »<br /><br />That sentence has no meaning. What part of the planet is travelling at 1,071 mph, and in relation to what?<br /><br />...and kill that apostrophe in "it's" please.expathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-78577627046258285782017-08-19T12:34:32.098-07:002017-08-19T12:34:32.098-07:00Tearing a telephone book in half, is a fine exampl...Tearing a telephone book in half, is a fine example of the application of Torsion; not to be confused, with Torque. Earth rotates on it's axis at a speed of 1,071 miles per hour. The Moon rotates on it's axis about once every 27 days and orbits Earth at a speed of 2,288 miles per hour. If the Moon were to orbit in the opposite direction from that which the Earth rotates on it's axis, which it doesn't, then there might also be Torsion applied to the affect on tides, but there's not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-60636537053127018682017-08-19T06:45:58.593-07:002017-08-19T06:45:58.593-07:00Whoever Theo is, he/she is wrong about the measure...Whoever Theo is, he/she is wrong about the measurement of rotation.expathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-51778323225847768272017-08-18T19:30:46.171-07:002017-08-18T19:30:46.171-07:00Theo does seem to say that the Moon orbits the Ear...Theo does seem to say that the Moon orbits the Earth, and that the Earth rotates, both of which can be measured in miles per hour.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-31097373557880300922017-08-18T01:56:26.716-07:002017-08-18T01:56:26.716-07:00Maybe I meant "seabed" underneath it...Maybe I meant "seabed" underneath it...Two Percenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13236918586233850354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-11465884362586923352017-08-18T01:50:18.699-07:002017-08-18T01:50:18.699-07:00xp@, it's a shame NASA doesn't mention the...xp@, it's a shame NASA doesn't mention the forces involved in making the land 40mm higher during the (eclipse). I reckon that would be an interesting number. Never mind.<br /><br /><br />Orbs: I'm sure you meant orbiting, not rotating. The Moon's rotation is almost one revolution per month... as the Moon is tidally locked with the Earth, meaning the same side (face) always faces Earth. Yes, it took torque to achieve that, but I'm not sure it's active any longer.<br /><br />Even if you meant ORBiting, again, that has very little to do with creating torque. Yes, there is a torque component, but it is induced by the restraining of the tidal water flows, due to land, harbours, bridges, narrow estuary mouths, tidal power generating stations, etc, getting in its way.<br /><br />The effect of that torque, perhaps surprisingly, it to slow down Earth's rotation, and speed up the Moon's orbiting, meaning that it is slowly moving away from Earth... The Lunar month, and our days are both getting very slightly longer. For these reasons, Tidal Power generation may not be such a great idea. It's the local universe, winding down...<br /><br />But life is short, to hell with future generations! <br /><br />Not too sure about your ripping phone book analogy, and last time I tried, the water had to be frozen before I could lever it. Don't confuse tides with water movement though! The moon doesn't "drag" the water (tides) "around" the planet, it merely acts like an energy wave passing through the water. The water rises, drawing more water from all sides, but after the moon has "gone" the water is pretty much in the same place (relative to the land underneath it) as it was before. Ocean currents excepted, of course.<br /><br /><br />Two Percenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13236918586233850354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-26340939075718431062017-08-17T12:58:36.689-07:002017-08-17T12:58:36.689-07:00The link I posted immediately above gives correct ...The link I posted immediately above gives correct information about correction for centrifugal force.<br /><br />Theadora: You cannot measure rotation in miles per hour. The unit is revolutions per [time].<br /><br />The rotation of the Moon plays no part in this whatever. You are mistaken.expathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-65491147024181522372017-08-17T11:39:00.181-07:002017-08-17T11:39:00.181-07:00The anti-gravity effect of centrifugal force from ...The anti-gravity effect of centrifugal force from Earth's rotation, reduces water weight, virtually increasing the Moon's gravitational affect on tides. As the Earth rotates at more than one thousand miles per hour, and the Moon orbits at more than two thousand miles per hour, it's like two hands ripping a telephone book in half. The rotation of the Moon, creates additional force in the form of torque; like leverage peeling back the lose water from a firm, tectonic plate.THE Orbs Whipererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08651754060614417385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-27973629337668549852017-08-17T07:38:46.959-07:002017-08-17T07:38:46.959-07:00This is worth reading.<a href="https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/what-gravitational-effects-happen-during-total-solar-eclipse" rel="nofollow">This is worth reading</a>.expathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-45162765317238533482017-08-15T16:03:37.545-07:002017-08-15T16:03:37.545-07:00@xp@:
Depends where you look! This might help?
...@xp@:<br /><br />Depends where you look! This might help?<br /><br /><i>The solar gravitational force on the Earth is on average 179 times stronger than the lunar, but because the Sun is on average 389 times farther from the Earth, its field gradient is weaker. The solar tidal force is 46% as large as the lunar.[34] More precisely, the lunar tidal acceleration (along the Moon–Earth axis, at the Earth's surface) is about 1.1 × 10−7 g, while the solar tidal acceleration (along the Sun–Earth axis, at the Earth's surface) is about 0.52 × 10−7 g, where g is the gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface.[35]</i> *<br /><br />...even if they missed out the critical "on average"...<br /><br />Actually, 0.52/1.1 => 47%, but I guess we have excessive rounding to blame for the differences.<br /><br />Personally, I find the whole thing very difficult to conceptualise from scratch, but I think the Wikipedia explanation is incomplete. I believe the antipodal high tides are actually a Centre of Mass (Centre of Balance) effect, which I didn't see mentioned, but I never read the whole thing closely.<br /><br />Anyway, it's fascinating that the Solar Tidal Force is so weak (and not dominant), when the Solar Gravitational Force is ~179 times the Lunar.<br /><br />I haven't read it anywhere, but I presume this is related to the lower density of water cf the rest of the planet. I mean, all surface water on Earth will be constantly being pulled towards the sun, and being liquid, is generally able to move in that direction. The gravitational gradient is not especially relevant here - even the water on the far side of the planet would want to move towards the sun, which of course shifts the centre of mass. Then, there are the centripetal forces which are greater on the antipodal oceans, probably negating the effect. As previously, it's all very complex.<br /><br />No wonder we haven't handled Earthquake Prediction yet, but I do like a lot of what Jim Berkland considered. A good example of a lateral thinker! He points (ok, pointed) clearly to a number of directions that Earthquake Research should be following, so I find <b>USGS seismologist Jerry Seaton's</b> criticisms of him particularly churlish, even if it is just (un)"professional" jealousy.<br /><br />* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TideTwo Percenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13236918586233850354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-66496319078807902017-08-14T13:55:20.727-07:002017-08-14T13:55:20.727-07:00FYI: From that wikipedia article--the tidal force ...FYI: From that wikipedia article--the tidal force of the Sun is about 45% that of the Moon. I presume they mean the mean of the Moon's force as it oscillates between apogee and perigee.expathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-6955592699100932702017-08-14T12:09:35.696-07:002017-08-14T12:09:35.696-07:00I've posted several links above to Jim Berklan...I've posted several links above to Jim Berkland's website and facebutt page. Here's another link to a list of results, along with a note from the site's, webmaster:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.syzygyjob.com/predict.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.syzygyjob.com/predict.html</a><br /><br />SITEMASTER'S NOTE: Scoring of close calls was done by me, in a way that I deemed as fair. If you have any difficulty with the method, please email me, Will Fletcher with your concerns. Thank you. reporter@syzygyjob.comTHE Orbs Whipererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08651754060614417385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-2564458624661038492017-08-13T17:34:42.281-07:002017-08-13T17:34:42.281-07:00Hmmmm!
I got THAT wrong!
Sorry Orbs. No 'S&#...Hmmmm!<br /><br />I got THAT wrong!<br /><br />Sorry Orbs. No 'S' in Whiperer.<br /><br />Dunno why not tho'<br /><br />Oh, the power of <b>S</b>uggestion!Two Percenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13236918586233850354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-31553587586344432132017-08-13T17:09:52.749-07:002017-08-13T17:09:52.749-07:00Indeed!
And regarding earthquakes, it therefore s...Indeed!<br /><br />And regarding earthquakes, it therefore seems likely that the Moon may have an influence thereon, even if the timing thereof is not particularly apparent.<br /><br />Here's another thought (quite apart from my view that the Moon did not form in Earth orbit): maybe the Moon's presence actually promotes continuing Earthly earthquakes and volcanism, due to the fact that it is constantly stressing and distorting the planet's crust. xp@ and i had a discussion about volcanism wrt Mars, in another thread.<br /><br />Regarding: <br /><br /><i>Stuart Robbins' statistical survey. He found NO correlation between syzygy and quakes, and no correlation between lunar perigee and quakes either. Think about that.</i><br /><br />As suggested, I did, for 5 seconds ;-) I don't know what data he used, nor what methods (and I haven't looked, yet anyway). Maybe he's wrong! (You can't prove a negative!* You should know that, James.) So, maybe correlations exist, but he just didn't find 'em. <br /><br />I'd be curious to know more about, as Orbs says:<br /><br /><i>as Jim Berkland has proven</i>.<br /><br /><br /><b>@The Orbs Whisperer:</b> We might be able to accept it, if we could see it. What standard of proof? Where is it?<br /><br />Meantime, here's another question: how does the Earth's core remain molten, 4.5 billion years later?<br /><br />2%<br /><br />* Woo-ccusers usually don't let that get in the way of a good debunking.Two Percenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13236918586233850354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-59324883642649970512017-08-13T16:09:49.898-07:002017-08-13T16:09:49.898-07:00Good question, actually. Ocean tides occur because...Good question, actually. Ocean tides occur because of the gravity gradient across the diameter of the Earth. To put it simply, the Moon attracts the ocean nearest it more strongly than it does the ocean on the far side. Since the diameter of the Earth is ~6.8% of the distance to the Moon this secondary gravitational effect is non-negligible.<br /><br />The gravitational force of the Sun is way bigger but the diameter of the Earth is a mere 0.0017% of the distance to the Sun. Ergo the tidal influence from the Sun is less.<br /><br />Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force<br /><br />A corollary of this is that my statement "This is kinda swamped by the solar force of 3.6 x 10^22 newtons" may be problematic.James Concannonnoreply@blogger.com