Re: Mass increase is inferred.

Florian wrote:

josephus <dogbird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Florian wrote:


josephus <dogbird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



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.



there is no speculation


Oh yes there is! You assume that there are no possible gain of momentum.
That is pure speculation about a phenomenon that is completely unknown:
pure bull***.



let suppose that the moon and the earth are in a 1/81.300588 weight ratio,


mass, not weight.



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


change in velocity is change in energy and momentum. and fancy footwork not withstanding the NIL RESULT belongs to me. I say expansion did not happen, mass cannot hide from gravity and the equations I point to can be found in any book on celestial mechanics. the earth and moon are partners and if one increases the other moves closer.

Here you go. Fact is that the moon did not crash. It shows that your
assumption that there is no gain of momentum is wrong.
Back to your blackboard dude!

aw shuck you mean you cant ague about it. WE AGREE the moon did not collide but any increase in mas will change (m1+m2) thee mass relation and GM/r = v^2


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.

Gravitation would provide plenty of energy.

no --Gravitation is the most expensive of all. think of it in terms of hiding mass from gravity. that is difficult and has all kinds of weird consequences. so if you know how to hide from gravity, let me know and we will get incredibly rich.

Thee is NO ENERGY available and the kinds of physics you are talking about is exothermic.

Nope, you talked about exothermic.

ps nuclear bombs are exothermic and they burn matter.

all the manufacturing methods in the star are exothermic, that is what lights the star.

if it ignites the earth would light up like a firefly. we would become a small sun.


Yet another strawman.
no its a straw man because you dont have an answer that will not make you look loony as a june bug.
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.


no it would not there IS NO ETHER THEORY period. there is no such science. If it did we would have inertial propulsion.
Inertial propulsion? Word salad. Inertia oppose any change in velocity,
it does not promote it.

anti gravity
Whatever, if gravity corresponds to the pressure gradient of an ether
sink, then antigravity would correspond to the pressure gradient of
an ether source. There are no such thing as a largescale ether source.

anti gravity is just another name for Inertial propulsion. If you think Inertial propulsion is word salad what the hell do you think ether source is. It is nonexistent physics Michelson and Morely were LOOKING FOR IT, and they refuted it.


and faster than light transportation.


Utopia. No perturbation of the ether can propagate faster than c, the
velocity of a wave perturbation in the ether.

obviously you dont know any high energy physics or you would know about entanglement.
sigh, I wish so hard.

look up entanglement.

wish as long as you want. It can't exist. period.

ether does not exist and currently no one knows how to bend space without massive matter. but strange physics

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.


and you have a problem with rational thinking,


LOL, You're the one evoking utopic ideas like antigravity and the like.


no I said the MAGIC MASS GENERATOR implies these things, because it can
hide from gravity and it can hide from sensors. it is amazing stuff that keeps the moon in orbit. that is as close to anti gravity as you can get. YOU keep implying this stuff.

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.


Fact prove you are wrong. The Earth is expanding. There is certainly a
way. for example, if matter is just highly ordered ether, it is not
difficult to rationalize that the ether flow putatively associated to
the gravitation would be created by ether condensation into matter. More
and more ether is organized into matter which fuel a stonger inflow of
ether, hence the increase in the rate of expansion.

ok show me the RAW DATA that shows a total increase in the diameter of the earth. ether as fuel. that is as good as cold fusion. first you have to be able to show the ether is real and can flow with gravity. then you can claim it as a fuel.


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.

I am an astronomer and I did a back of the envelope calculation that
says you are a kook and a liar

and this says you dont know what physics is so you punt. You keep saying I should do you pseudoscience for you. and I should retire because you dont have any other reply.

You're an old man short of good ideas to build the physics that would
give a mechanistic basis for Earth expansion. It's high time to retire.

no it is YOUR CLAIM. you have the responsibility to provide proof of your own claim. you have to do the homework and you have to find RAW DATA to support your model and make that into a hypothesis.

You tell me what happens in the CORE of a BLACK HOLE. what do you find there and what happens if the temperature is high enough? how big is it? You tell me if you know so much physics that no one else knows.

a question : what is space made of. it has structure and it has virtual particles. What is space? the stuff that gets bent by mass. and the stuff that holds a black hole together.

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.
.