Problems in Newtonian Mechanics

[hansgeorg]

At this point, we've done gravitational slingshots using nearly every planet in the solar system.

Nice.

All of which required gravitation forces to have very precise values, or they would have failed.

How precise?

We've also used relativity to predict the behavior of neutron stars orbiting each other at incomprehensibly vast distances from Earth.

Or a light day away, if you happen to be insane.

For neutron stars you have definitely NOT tested with gravitational slingshots, though.

Not to 'keep it going', but (in very low earth orbit) to compensate for atmopheric drag, or perhaps drag imposed by the solar wind, or with the desire to keep it in a very precise position or orbital characteristics (e.g. geostationary).

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 ...

That is the kind of thing I'd like more mathematical info about before even beginning to trust it.

You know what happens if an orbit isn't precise? It either goes radially (spiralling) inward or tangentially outward ...

Ugh - It will be interesting to see which mistake in interpretation or translation has led you to this conclusion -verse and which translation please.

I thought I had already presented it at least once, if not twice, you did not answer and you seem a bit short of memory?

Well, here goes.

Job 38:[7] When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?

This leaves two possibilities, taken literally, namely either "morning stars" are alive in and of themselves, or they are guided by some living things lower than God (or they would not be praising Him), but vastly higher than man in powers over the inanimate (or they would not be [guiding] morning stars). Either they or that guiding power has the capacity to praise God.

Baruch 3:[34] And the stars have given light in their watches, and rejoiced: [35] They were called, and they said: Here we are: and with cheerfulness they have shined forth to him that made them.

Here it is all stars, not just "morning stars".

Either they are alive themselves, or guided by angels, since "animate stars" or angels are the options for rejoicing, being called and answering with verbal answers, being cheerful to their maker and Lord.

Note also "in their watches" suggests something military, and some connection to Lord of Hosts ... let's go to Judges.

Judges 5:[20] War from heaven was made against them, the stars remaining in their order and courses fought against Sisara.

Here the options are stars are alive and able to influence things on earth so far as to fight - or angels are guiding stars so that they can use the physical (or possibly also non-physical) powers of stars to influence things on earth so far as to fight.

You keep leaving out the fact that the only motions observable are those that can be explained my forces such as gravity, or large explosions or massive magnetic fields etc. And it is not just the motions Hans.- it is the spectra of the light, it's red or blue shift, the behaviour of materials near the objects, etc. etc. Every physical effect is simulated to the most infinite detail relative to a universe billions of years across populated by trillions upon trillions of stars.

Dancers usually similate effects which can be accounted for by automata (at least the older and more stately dances of Europe, more like Square Dance than Gitterbug). Why are they not deceiving?

So, the fact that all, in theory and not checking and double checking and triple checking every detail of everything can be accounted for by forces is not necessarily an indication it is best accounted for by forces. Especially if you need both Heliocentrism and Billions of Light Years to make the forces work.

With billions of light years, you are either courting the convolution of "light holes" or "decreasing velocity of light", or going against God who denied any lapse of time (or significant such) between the very beginning and the creation of Adam and Eve (Mark 10:6).

Again - if the universe is ACTUALLY billions of years across there is no real issue if you want to think God uses angels to maintain the basic forces. It's when you have them all doing a big show to make it appear as if the universe is really big and governed by regular forces so that mankind can be deceived into thinking that is the way things are that your theology breaks down and becomes incompatible with the revelation of Scripture.

You leave out the fact that only a very tiny proportion of mankind is looking at the details you interpret this way, while most if given a look would not interpret them so. Therefore, there is not an intentional deception of mankind as a whole, there is a taken into account of a side effect consisting in your deceiving yourself, and that side effect is insignificant compared to the vast majority of mankind.

Which majority did not own telescopes, which majority observed things with the naked eye, which majority concluded (when observing close enough) that retrogrades and fine tuned temporal orbits (like year, month, the Venus cycle which takes five years seen from earth before repeating itself and so on) require spirits to guide and those spirits require a Lord.

In other words, the majority has for much longer than you were around, been doing the right conclusions : the most basic forces of the universe are not studied by physics, but by theology of one type or another.

[hansgeorg]

So, thinking about my short statement earlier: the Earth has been used for gravity assists (i've verified Cassini, think there are others). Gravity assists only work if the object is moving in orbit. Therefore, we know the earth is moving in orbit.

To elaborate on this a bit: gravity assists work in two ways. In the first, the spacecraft in question falls towards the planet, gaining momentum. "Aha!" you say, "it'll just lose that again on the way out". Except the planet is moving. So, while it gained momentum on the way in, the planet is further away from the spacecraft's location on the way out, so the pull back is less. You get a net game.

The second part is what's happens while the spacecraft is on closest approach. Because of its trajectory, it ends up behind the orbiting planet. In this position, the planet pulls the craft along with it through the orbit, accelerating it. At the cost of an immeasurably small slowdown in the planet's orbit, the spacecraft receives a big boost.

While none of this works for traveling in a straight line, the amount of speed gained by the spacecraft can be substantial, overcoming the extra distance by covering it much, much faster.

But note the key thing: for any of this to work, the planet must be moving in an orbit. If it's stationary, the spacecraft simply smacks right into it, or has an equal gain and loss of momentum on the way in and out, respectively. And, since this has been done with earth, we know earth must be moving in an orbit.

This one stumped me again ... well, last time was not for long ...

[hansgeorg]

The redshift/blueshift of a moving object is a change in the frequency characteristics of its light caused by its motion. It is a Doppler shift. We can use Doppler shift to measure velocities, and we do - police use it to set speed traps, both with light and radio waves.

Stars or any other objects at distances less that around 5 million light years that are moving relative to the Earth do in fact have red or blue shifted light that corresponds to real physical velocities. And for each and every such object measured, the amount of visible motion corresponds precisely to it blue or red shift AND it's apparent distance.

Suppose all of it is actually red shifted.

One cause of red shift is second order Doppler, according to CMI:

66. How is red-shift explained?

.... [in a list of four explanations directly about red shift inserted in comment] ....

Second-Order Doppler Effect. A light source moving at right angles (tangentially) to an observer will always be red-shifted. This can be observed in the laboratory by using a high-speed turntable.

This would give a wanted alternative.

[oxmixmudd]

Suppose all of it is actually red shifted.

One cause of red shift is second order Doppler, according to CMI:



This would give a wanted alternative.

Not hardly. There are many blue shifted objects, the Andromeda Galaxy being one of them. Many stars. Only the distant galaxies are all red-shifted.


Jim

[Roy]

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 ...

That is the kind of thing I'd like more mathematical info about before even beginning to trust it.

Then do the maths. Calculate the change in velocity of the Earth due to a meteor impact. Or you could calculate how much effect the Shoemaker-Levy comet had on Jupiter's orbital velocity. It's high-school stuff.

But the maths doesn't really matter, since angels could be giving the Earth or Jupiter an extra boost after the impact, to maintain the orbit. Right?

You know what happens if an orbit isn't precise?

Yes. It varies. The orbital parameters change gradually or, if an impact is involved, suddenly. The object goes into a different orbit. Sometimes that orbit is parabolic or hyperbolic; sometimes it intersects the orbited body.

It either goes radially (spiralling) inward or tangentially outward ...

So you don't know what happens if an orbit isn't precise.

[oxmixmudd]

Then do the maths. Calculate the change in velocity of the Earth due to a meteor impact. Or you could calculate how much effect the Shoemaker-Levy comet had on Jupiter's orbital velocity.

It is indeed simple to get at least a worst case. Hans, here are a couple of ideas to help. First, the average amount of material that impacts the earth on a daily basis is around 200 tons. The average velocity estimate varies a good bit, but you could just use twice the Earth's orbital velocity as an unrealistically high number for an average. And you could make the very worst case assumption all the momentum of those collisions is taken from the Earth's orbital momentum.

So now momentum is hust mass times velocity. You have the mass and velocity of the average amount of material slowing the earth. Convert them to meters per second and kilograms. The mass of the Earth is about 5.972 x 10**24, and the orbital velocity is about 30000 m/s

Once you get the two momentum numbers, you can subtract them to see the worst case effect on the earth. And you can multiply the dust momentum number by 365x1,000,000,000 to see the momentum change over 1,000,000,000 years.

The corresponding change in velocity for the Earth would then just be 30,000 x <new earth momentum>/<old Earth momentum>.

Do the calcs hans and tell us how much the Earth is slowed in meters per second, worst case, in a billion years at the current rate of impact with solar system debris.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

It is indeed simple to get at least a worst case. Hans, here are a couple of ideas to help. First, the average amount of material that impacts the earth on a daily basis is around 200 tons. The average velocity estimate varies a good bit, but you could just use twice the Earth's orbital velocity as an unrealistically high number for an average. And you could make the very worst case assumption all the momentum of those collisions is taken from the Earth's orbital momentum.

So now momentum is hust mass times velocity. You have the mass and velocity of the average amount of material slowing the earth. Convert them to meters per second and kilograms. The mass of the Earth is about 5.972 x 10**24, and the orbital velocity is about 30000 m/s

Once you get the two momentum numbers, you can subtract them to see the worst case effect on the earth. And you can multiply the dust momentum number by 365x1,000,000,000 to see the momentum change over 1,000,000,000 years.

The corresponding change in velocity for the Earth would then just be 30,000 x <new earth momentum>/<old Earth momentum>.

Do the calcs hans and tell us how much the Earth is slowed in meters per second, worst case, in a billion years at the current rate of impact with solar system debris.


Jim

Slight clarification - the change in velocity would be 30000 - (30,000 x <new earth momentum>/<old Earth momentum>)

the italicized value is the velocity at the end of the day having started at 30000 m/s

To avoid a round accusations of 'laziness' (why do YOU do them!), I will point out I have done the calculations, and stand waiting for Hans to do them so we can discuss the result.


Jim

[TheLurch]

Between that calculation and his need to explain away gravitational assists, i'm readying the popcorn for his next few responses.

Though i'm also prepared for the answer being angels again.

[oxmixmudd]

Between that calculation and his need to explain away gravitational assists, i'm readying the popcorn for his next few responses.

Though i'm also prepared for the answer being angels again.

It would appear our 'smarter than the averager bear' geocentrist isn't quite up to a few simple calculations? Or perhaps doesn't want to discuss the outcome? I'll give him another 24 hours or so and then, I'll post a summary of the result and its implications for his arguments and implications.

Jim

[TheLurch]

It would appear our 'smarter than the averager bear' geocentrist isn't quite up to a few simple calculations? Or perhaps doesn't want to discuss the outcome? I'll give him another 24 hours or so and then, I'll post a summary of the result and its implications for his arguments and implications.

You made it so it was just fill in the blanks, pull out the calculator. I could even do that, and i went into biology because math was too hard.

[hansgeorg]

First, the average amount of material that impacts the earth on a daily basis is around 200 tons. The average velocity estimate varies a good bit, but you could just use twice the Earth's orbital velocity as an unrealistically high number for an average.

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).

[hansgeorg]

It would appear our 'smarter than the averager bear' geocentrist isn't quite up to a few simple calculations? Or perhaps doesn't want to discuss the outcome? I'll give him another 24 hours or so and then, I'll post a summary of the result and its implications for his arguments and implications.

Actually, theologyweb is not the only place where I have been debating. Last week I was notifying a man who had sponsored a video by AronRa (Alan the Atheist / Alan Whistler) of my response to AronRa.

Here is a link to that debate. You will appreciate that the text mass (not transferred) means I had other things to do. Not only that, but I have also been doing a debate in French under a Canadian Atheist's blog post, which had been provoked by me. That has also taken some time. You will appreciate that the text mass (not transferred) means I had other things to do.

[hansgeorg]

You have the mass and velocity of the average amount of material slowing the earth. Convert them to meters per second and kilograms. The mass of the Earth is about 5.972 x 10**24

Tons or kg?

[oxmixmudd]

Tons or kg?

You should use kg and meters/sec throughout
.

[hansgeorg]

Do the calcs hans and tell us how much the Earth is slowed in meters per second, worst case, in a billion years at the current rate of impact with solar system debris.

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.