Re: Mass increase is inferred.
- From: josephus <dogbird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:40:58 -0500
Florian wrote:
josephus <dogbird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:there is no speculation let suppose that the moon and the earth are in a 1/81.300588 weight ratio,
Use your brain. The data, i. e. the seafloor isochrons combined with the
absence of large recycling of the ocean crust as assumed by PT, show
that there is a gain of surface, therefore a gain of volume.
no there is not. absolutely there can be no increase of mass because
the moon has not collided with the earth. that is what happens because
the MOON is just fast enough to remain in orbit, if the mass increases
and the Moon is too slow it will "fall" toward the earth. that has not
been seen, if anything, the moon is receeding.
Here you're speculating that a gain of mass would not be associated with
a gain of momentum. You have absolutely no data to reach a conclusion
because you have no data on the matter generation mechanism either.
let us assume the moon is in a circular orbit just to simplify the math.
the moon is 1/81.3000588 of the earth
since we are in a circular orbit the velocity is Gm/r r = 3844070
I use the smaller moon ration. 81.3 the moon is smaller to start with.
ge = 3.986005e14*(1/81.3)/38440070 = v^2
v = sqrt( 3986005e14(1+1/81.3)/3844070) == 1116.526/s
we increase the earth by decreasing the moon
v = sqrt(3.986005e14*(1/79)/3844070) = 1130.51km/s
then change is velocity is 2%
since new -current = 13.99084 kms slow
the angle of the orbit changes toward the earth and will impact the earth. because it moves inside the Roche limit, the earth has a very hot time because of the stress on the moon. unlike the object that killed the dinosaurs the moon will melt the planet.
this was just a 3% change. changing slowly or quickly does not make any difference in the outcome. the moon will become too slow. and that is a big problem. dynamically it will lead to an earth/moon collision.
this is just mass, we do not care about density. besides this underestimates the change. I display km. but I do my calculation in meters. calculations are done center to center,
since the moon is predictable it is in a quasi stable orbit that precesses. but is receding from the earth.
there is no astronomical evidence that earth has increased in size (mass)
not if my decimal places are wrong they are all wrong the same way so it does not change the result. the moon WILL collide with the earth.
Either there is a density decrease or mass increase. As a density
decrease means a larger paleogravity that is not compatible with past
Fauna, there is necessarly a mass increase.
magic quibbles. mass changes will throw the earth/moon out of ballance. the moon will be too slow and will collide with the earth.
it has not been seen. increased mass, density etc all violate basic physics and chemistry.
No, because there is absolutly a source of energy. Find that source.
hokum. bogus physics. Thee is NO ENERGY available and the kinds of physics you are talking about is exothermic. if it ignites the earth would light up like a firefly. we would become a small sun.
no it would not there IS NO ETHER THEORY period. there is no such science. If it did we would have inertial propulsion. anti gravity and faster than light transportation. sigh, I wish so hard.
Sidenote: In ether-sink theories, matter is made of condensed and
organized ether. This organization results in a decrease in pressure
according to Bernoulli's principle. Therefore, any massive particle
generates a low pressure. Accumulation of matter generates huge
depression resulting in the gravity phenomenon. Gravity combines the
gradient of pressure in the ether and a spiraling inflow of ether. The
more massive, the stonger the flow and there you go with the gain of
momentum.
Of course, none of the above form a theory. But it could constitute a
good track.
and you have a problem with rational thinking,
This is the reason why I said that a mass increase is inferred by the
data.
Now we have no data to assert how, where and what kind of matter is
generated.
Do you finally get it or are you really the bonehead you look alike?
PS: YOu have a problem with your Caps key.
it matters that you evade the question of where does that mass come from. I know about stellar processes as an astronomer a star converts
H to He. and has a Carbon to Oxygen to Nitrogen cycle that sheds iron.
enough iron accumulates and as the star cools off it collapses and explodes in a cataclysm createing different elemens above iron and the
dust it throws off is the stuff you are made of. that process lights up
STARS. the earth is too cold. you are left with MAGIC.
There is no magic. There is an explanation but we don't know it nor have
the data to find it yet. Do you get it or should I use caps as well?
yes there is there is, the EE MAGIC MASS GENERATOR^tm
there is no nucleogenesis for cold earth core temperatures.
I am an astronomer and I did a back of the envelope calculation that says you are a kook and a liar
no other expaination exists.
Jeez, then you should quit your job! That's your job to find the
mechanism behind earth expansion, because the observations are clear.
The Earth has significantly expanded. Denying the obvious won't change
it. period.
josephus
--
I go sailing in the Summer and
look at STARS in the Winter.
"Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects"
Will Rogers Jr.
"it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
it is what you know that aint so"
Josh Billings.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Mass increase is inferred.
- From: Florian
- Re: Mass increase is inferred.
- References:
- Re: Mass increase is inferred.
- From: Florian
- Re: Mass increase is inferred.
- Prev by Date: Granny porn
- Next by Date: Re: Question out of curiosity - Mining the asteroid belt?
- Previous by thread: Re: Mass increase is inferred.
- Next by thread: Re: Mass increase is inferred.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
