Rotation rate has nothing to do with orbital distance: Jupiter rotates in about 10 hrs and Venus in 243 days.
You are doing numerology, not science.
The New Perspective comments on "planets moving closer to the sun?"
- Thread starter The New Perspective
- Start date
You are doing numerology, not science.
The New Perspective
Registered Member
Greetings Janus58,
Do you have your data available to view online, I would be very interested to look at your statistics and findings. As you see this fits into the New Perspective with ease and offers supporting evidence for this simple planetary life-cycle. Very simple calculations as you see can be made offering a very insightfully realisations. I have made contact with Paul Mayer at the Chicago field museum. If you are happy to share your findings I would love to read your research. My email is thenewperspective@vodafone.co.nz
Thank you for your valuable contribution.
Do you have your data available to view online, I would be very interested to look at your statistics and findings. As you see this fits into the New Perspective with ease and offers supporting evidence for this simple planetary life-cycle. Very simple calculations as you see can be made offering a very insightfully realisations. I have made contact with Paul Mayer at the Chicago field museum. If you are happy to share your findings I would love to read your research. My email is thenewperspective@vodafone.co.nz
Thank you for your valuable contribution.
And thank you for ignoring the replies that show your calculations are meaningless and amount to nothing more than a feeble attempt to support your wild ass conjectures. You have proven you are simply a crank (if there was ever any question about that).
Translation: I made up a silly idea based on a lack of scientific knowledge.
Translation: I made a silly website that is full of falsehoods and absurdities.
Translation: One of my completely unevidenced conjectures is discussed using misinformation.
Translation: Not only do I make up silly ideas, i aslo make up evidence!
Translation: My wild ass guess..
I think dinosaurs were mammals.
At least this is somewhat funny....
The New Perspective
Registered Member
I was involved with an educational program at the local observatory. Classes of school children visiting would have a lesson in a discussion room. The exercise was about the planets. Simple pictures of our planets including the sun were presented to the children. Each planet had the basic details printed on them; distance from the sun, yearly cycle, hours per day... Children were selected to represent the planets holding the pictures and position themselves as the solar system. Questions were then asked about the solar system. Other children were selected to stand in a position to answer the questions, for example where would it be hotter than on Earth?, where would it be colder than Earth? One of the questions was where would a planet be if it had 500 days in a year? This the 8,9 and 10 year olds would answer in seconds.
Rings that would be produced by coral if they existed at the current positions of the planets;- (a day on the planet)
Mercury 1 Venus 1 Earth 365 Mars 670 Jupiter 10504 Saturn 25292
Logic would suggest that the ideal location for a planet to produce 420 rings would be between Earth and Mars.
As you see from these details that if a planet reduces it's rotation this is relative to its revolution and distance from the sun. If 420 rings were once produced and the Earth moves away from the sun including a slowing of it's rotation then this is working against the facts that we know.
Origin you don't really contribute anything intellectual to this thread apart from rude personal comments. Although amusing they make you sound silly, although I am always fascinated as to what you will try and put down.
Rings that would be produced by coral if they existed at the current positions of the planets;- (a day on the planet)
Mercury 1 Venus 1 Earth 365 Mars 670 Jupiter 10504 Saturn 25292
Logic would suggest that the ideal location for a planet to produce 420 rings would be between Earth and Mars.
As you see from these details that if a planet reduces it's rotation this is relative to its revolution and distance from the sun. If 420 rings were once produced and the Earth moves away from the sun including a slowing of it's rotation then this is working against the facts that we know.
Origin you don't really contribute anything intellectual to this thread apart from rude personal comments. Although amusing they make you sound silly, although I am always fascinated as to what you will try and put down.
Arguing with a crank is pointless.
That is 500 earth days, which works because there is an actual realitionship for distance vs orbital period. Not the silly crap you are talking about.
The relationship for distance between 2 masses and orbital period is:
$$T=2\pi\sqrt{\frac{a^3}{GM}} $$
I am not making rude personal comments, I am attacking your ideas (probably rather rudely...). I am not attacking you - I don't know you - you may make Mother Teresa look like a slacker, I don't know. Your ideas, however, I can see and based on evidence and observations they deserve to be roundly squashed and put out of their misery.
The New Perspective
Registered Member
Origin,
What is currently being discussed here is the number of rings recorded daily on coral as a rotation between the recordings of an annual revolution. What this is asking is how many days are there in a year on each planet. As I think you have stated, is that, the position is not closer to the sun but at a distance between Earth and Mars as the facts indicate.
I wonder if you could answer two questions for me please. I have asked many questions which you have not replied to. These questions will determine if you comprehend the current direction of what this thread is all about. Obviously you have as much time as necessary to answer the questions and the aid of experts and the internet as well as drawing from your own knowledge.
1/ Could you simply detail how we measure the distance to the sun?
The next question is about the only "evidence" put forward here, detailing why you and others believe the Earth is moving away from the sun. It seems to me that in answering this question a quick look on the internet brings up many references to a press article released of Krasinsky and Brumberg works.
2/ Can you explain simply how Krasinsky and Brumberg have measured the distance from Earth to the sun?
I do enjoy your debating, but I don't respect your rude expressions, they are however an expression of who you are.
What is currently being discussed here is the number of rings recorded daily on coral as a rotation between the recordings of an annual revolution. What this is asking is how many days are there in a year on each planet. As I think you have stated, is that, the position is not closer to the sun but at a distance between Earth and Mars as the facts indicate.
I wonder if you could answer two questions for me please. I have asked many questions which you have not replied to. These questions will determine if you comprehend the current direction of what this thread is all about. Obviously you have as much time as necessary to answer the questions and the aid of experts and the internet as well as drawing from your own knowledge.
1/ Could you simply detail how we measure the distance to the sun?
The next question is about the only "evidence" put forward here, detailing why you and others believe the Earth is moving away from the sun. It seems to me that in answering this question a quick look on the internet brings up many references to a press article released of Krasinsky and Brumberg works.
2/ Can you explain simply how Krasinsky and Brumberg have measured the distance from Earth to the sun?
I do enjoy your debating, but I don't respect your rude expressions, they are however an expression of who you are.
No that is only about the earth, coral does not grow on other planets.
Not sure what you are trying to say. The evidence from the coral rings indicate that the earth rotated faster in the past. It says nothing about the position of the earths orbit.
Sorry if I didn't answer your questions. It wouldn't matter anyway, because your mind is made up.
Oh goody a test!
Here is the explanation.
I believe they used the same method as I pointed out above.
And your belief in pseudoscience is an expression of who you are.
The New Perspective
Registered Member
Origin quotes;- I believe they used the same method as I pointed out above.
What you have just quoted here, is that you believe the Earth moves away from the sun as you have read a media summary or news article about the works of Krasinsky and Brumberg. But you are also quoting here that you have absolutely no idea what the calculations are about, and that you have not even read these calculations. You are saying you believe an article without any evidence and you have not even read the thesis and developed concept of Krasinsky and Brumberg works.
I quoted to you earlier a couple of comments from an expert panel that scrutinised this information. Have you read any other material or information apart from this news article that defines the Earth moves away from the sun?
What you are arguing here and debating is not science or even pseudoscience because you have no idea what it is even about. You are simply picking an news article not knowing what the article is about and arguing for it.
Does anybody from this thread have any idea what Krasinsky and Brumberg are saying? Has anyone even looked up this information?
A key figure of relativistic celestial mechanics of the second half of XX century has been Victor A.Brumberg, a scholar who presently lives in Boston (USA) and who is still active in research. Victor A.Brumberg has made a significan't contribution to general relativity and the science of relativistic planetary ephemerides of the solar system. Respect.
Victor A. Brumberg received the 2008 Brower Award from the Division of Dynamic Astronomy of the American Astronomical Society. The Brouwer Award was es-tablished to recognise outstanding contributions to the field of dynamical astronomy, including celestialmechanics, astrometry, geophysics, stellar systems, galactic and extragalactic dynamics.
As quoted earlier;-
It is without a doubt that the works are of great influence for Celestial mechanics and with no disrespect to the works, it as with all works have specialty areas. Here are a couple of important comments from the expert analytical overview of the theories, which should be considered.
1/A complete numerical experiment has to be realized to be convinced of the success of this approach. So, the question of the interest of the use of elliptic functions for the complete problem of the eight planets of the solar system remains open
2/However, as it was demonstrated by [17], these types of ephemerides did not have sufficient accuracy for being fitted directly to observations or to give accurate enough representation of the planet motions...
The mathematical brilliance is respected and planetary ephemerides revolutionised but do you understand them, have you read and studied them and do you know what they mean before ramming such theories down peoples throats guaranteed by you as law.
What you have just quoted here, is that you believe the Earth moves away from the sun as you have read a media summary or news article about the works of Krasinsky and Brumberg. But you are also quoting here that you have absolutely no idea what the calculations are about, and that you have not even read these calculations. You are saying you believe an article without any evidence and you have not even read the thesis and developed concept of Krasinsky and Brumberg works.
I quoted to you earlier a couple of comments from an expert panel that scrutinised this information. Have you read any other material or information apart from this news article that defines the Earth moves away from the sun?
What you are arguing here and debating is not science or even pseudoscience because you have no idea what it is even about. You are simply picking an news article not knowing what the article is about and arguing for it.
Does anybody from this thread have any idea what Krasinsky and Brumberg are saying? Has anyone even looked up this information?
A key figure of relativistic celestial mechanics of the second half of XX century has been Victor A.Brumberg, a scholar who presently lives in Boston (USA) and who is still active in research. Victor A.Brumberg has made a significan't contribution to general relativity and the science of relativistic planetary ephemerides of the solar system. Respect.
Victor A. Brumberg received the 2008 Brower Award from the Division of Dynamic Astronomy of the American Astronomical Society. The Brouwer Award was es-tablished to recognise outstanding contributions to the field of dynamical astronomy, including celestialmechanics, astrometry, geophysics, stellar systems, galactic and extragalactic dynamics.
As quoted earlier;-
It is without a doubt that the works are of great influence for Celestial mechanics and with no disrespect to the works, it as with all works have specialty areas. Here are a couple of important comments from the expert analytical overview of the theories, which should be considered.
1/A complete numerical experiment has to be realized to be convinced of the success of this approach. So, the question of the interest of the use of elliptic functions for the complete problem of the eight planets of the solar system remains open
2/However, as it was demonstrated by [17], these types of ephemerides did not have sufficient accuracy for being fitted directly to observations or to give accurate enough representation of the planet motions...
The mathematical brilliance is respected and planetary ephemerides revolutionised but do you understand them, have you read and studied them and do you know what they mean before ramming such theories down peoples throats guaranteed by you as law.
Your use of colored text has not made your idea more appealing.
Your idea and the supporting evidence you supplied in the OP is most certainly pseudoscience.
Sorry, but you need real evidence to back up your ideas. You simply have not done so as of yet.
Your idea and the supporting evidence you supplied in the OP is most certainly pseudoscience.
Sorry, but you need real evidence to back up your ideas. You simply have not done so as of yet.
The New Perspective
Registered Member
The evidence being discussed at the moment was gratefully supplied by Janus58. Do you have any evidence? I would love to see it, I have asked many times.
Origin Quotes "The evidence from the coral rings indicate that the earth rotated faster in the past. It says nothing about the position of the earths orbit."
Origin you have given me a little faith for your perseverance and for realising what is being discussed now. You are not necessarily correct however. There are in actual fact two basic possibilities in establishing a 420 count. The first is that which you have stated the rotation has slowed down, but the second is that the revolution has got smaller. Both together are also possibilities. That is why by looking at the current position and facts given by all of the planets you can determine the most likely scenario.
If the Earth is slowing down hence an increase in time for a rotation as you have stated then magnify this process millions or billions of years. What will the logical change be. The evidence from the current facts about the solar system tells us that the planets with a slower and longer rotations are actually the inferior planets of Mercury and Venus at a position closer to the sun. Alternatively the planets with a faster rotation are the planets further from the Earth. You have answered the question yet you have not deduced the conclusion based on the facts of the current solar system statistics, unless you are just being stubborn. Rotation in planetary motion is not considered independent. You can find formulae connecting rotation and revolution if you prefer to view it in a more complex manner.
For those referred to this conversation with regards to analytical formula's for planetary perturbations then the point of making assumptions should be emphasised. When using the elliptic formulae for spacecraft and satellite orbits or point calculations for planets and bodies then a constant mass is obvious, but when considering the long-term planetary movement calculations, consideration should be made for a variable mass. Long-term atmospheric changes as mentioned previously in this thread need to be considered. The most influential and most important being the process of Earth and other planets through the Goldilocks zone. Consider the potential movement of Earth towards the sun, neglecting the belief of, or not, for this movement. The amount of water currently residing on Earth will be altered by a shift closer to the sun. The obvious evaporation and removal of water from Earth over a considerable period will alter the mass of Earth thus changing the mass from a constant, ultimately effecting the outcome of the formulae. Likewise determining the mass of Mars.
Origin Quotes "The evidence from the coral rings indicate that the earth rotated faster in the past. It says nothing about the position of the earths orbit."
Origin you have given me a little faith for your perseverance and for realising what is being discussed now. You are not necessarily correct however. There are in actual fact two basic possibilities in establishing a 420 count. The first is that which you have stated the rotation has slowed down, but the second is that the revolution has got smaller. Both together are also possibilities. That is why by looking at the current position and facts given by all of the planets you can determine the most likely scenario.
If the Earth is slowing down hence an increase in time for a rotation as you have stated then magnify this process millions or billions of years. What will the logical change be. The evidence from the current facts about the solar system tells us that the planets with a slower and longer rotations are actually the inferior planets of Mercury and Venus at a position closer to the sun. Alternatively the planets with a faster rotation are the planets further from the Earth. You have answered the question yet you have not deduced the conclusion based on the facts of the current solar system statistics, unless you are just being stubborn. Rotation in planetary motion is not considered independent. You can find formulae connecting rotation and revolution if you prefer to view it in a more complex manner.
For those referred to this conversation with regards to analytical formula's for planetary perturbations then the point of making assumptions should be emphasised. When using the elliptic formulae for spacecraft and satellite orbits or point calculations for planets and bodies then a constant mass is obvious, but when considering the long-term planetary movement calculations, consideration should be made for a variable mass. Long-term atmospheric changes as mentioned previously in this thread need to be considered. The most influential and most important being the process of Earth and other planets through the Goldilocks zone. Consider the potential movement of Earth towards the sun, neglecting the belief of, or not, for this movement. The amount of water currently residing on Earth will be altered by a shift closer to the sun. The obvious evaporation and removal of water from Earth over a considerable period will alter the mass of Earth thus changing the mass from a constant, ultimately effecting the outcome of the formulae. Likewise determining the mass of Mars.
Last edited:
The evidence supplied by Janus58 refutes your idea. Did you misread what he wrote?
From what I have seen it seems only you think there is a connection between a planets rotation and the distance from the sun.
That would be a great piece of evidence! By all means you supply this evidence to support your idea! I will anxiously await your reply.
The New Perspective
Registered Member
These details are from The International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS). This addresses the coral ring evidence. It does not account for the evidence which is, that a year once had 420 days approximately 400 million years ago.
"The length of the solar day (LOD) is defined to be 24 hours long (or also 86,000 seconds in length). In the last half of the Twentieth Century, the length of the solar day was very accurately measured for the first time using atomic clocks. These very accurate measurements show an increase in the length of the day of 0.0017 seconds (or 1.7 milliseconds) for the century. It is here significant that these measurements additionally show Earth's rotation is changing at a variable rate. Essentially, the measurements do not reflect that Earth's rotation changes at any constant rate."
Throughout a time-stretch of some 50-million years, the definition for the solar year may have remained at about 365.24 days. "No satisfactory conclusion can here be arrived at due to inaccuracy inherent in the process of matching-up coral growth rings to the seasonal progression versus the tiny amount by which Earth's rotation is presumed to be slowing down (only 0.001 to 0.002 seconds per century)."
"It should be obvious from the cited research of mollusk shells that the length of the synodic month of 29.5 days can be interpreted to have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years into the past."
I am not sure if you have read these papers, but this is a detailed account of what I am trying to suggest, but it has all of the physics and maths.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.68.3879&rep=rep1&type=pdf
1. Introduction In the first paper of this series the author introduced a new cosmological theory, the Scale Expanding Cosmos (SEC) theory and showed how this theory might resolve several longstanding problems with the Standard Cosmological Model (SCM) based on the big bang. In this paper I will investigate a new feature predicted by the SEC theory – cosmic drag. Cosmic drag would cause relative velocities of freely moving objects to diminish with time and angular momenta of rotating system to dissipate. This paper discusses how cosmic drag could explain the formation and shape of spiral galaxies. Evidence for cosmic drag in the solar system, which would cause the planets to spiral toward the Sun, is presented and why this phenomenon has not been detected previously is discussed. The paper concludes with suggesting how cosmic drag might be verified by observations in the solar system.
"The length of the solar day (LOD) is defined to be 24 hours long (or also 86,000 seconds in length). In the last half of the Twentieth Century, the length of the solar day was very accurately measured for the first time using atomic clocks. These very accurate measurements show an increase in the length of the day of 0.0017 seconds (or 1.7 milliseconds) for the century. It is here significant that these measurements additionally show Earth's rotation is changing at a variable rate. Essentially, the measurements do not reflect that Earth's rotation changes at any constant rate."
Throughout a time-stretch of some 50-million years, the definition for the solar year may have remained at about 365.24 days. "No satisfactory conclusion can here be arrived at due to inaccuracy inherent in the process of matching-up coral growth rings to the seasonal progression versus the tiny amount by which Earth's rotation is presumed to be slowing down (only 0.001 to 0.002 seconds per century)."
"It should be obvious from the cited research of mollusk shells that the length of the synodic month of 29.5 days can be interpreted to have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years into the past."
I am not sure if you have read these papers, but this is a detailed account of what I am trying to suggest, but it has all of the physics and maths.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.68.3879&rep=rep1&type=pdf
1. Introduction In the first paper of this series the author introduced a new cosmological theory, the Scale Expanding Cosmos (SEC) theory and showed how this theory might resolve several longstanding problems with the Standard Cosmological Model (SCM) based on the big bang. In this paper I will investigate a new feature predicted by the SEC theory – cosmic drag. Cosmic drag would cause relative velocities of freely moving objects to diminish with time and angular momenta of rotating system to dissipate. This paper discusses how cosmic drag could explain the formation and shape of spiral galaxies. Evidence for cosmic drag in the solar system, which would cause the planets to spiral toward the Sun, is presented and why this phenomenon has not been detected previously is discussed. The paper concludes with suggesting how cosmic drag might be verified by observations in the solar system.
So this is evidence that you believe shows that the Earth's rotation is not slowing down? But you said rotation is tied to the distance from the sun. So if the rotation of the Earth is not changing then according to your claim the Earth is not getting closer to the sun.
This paper sounds like a cosmic drag....
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Let's take a quick look at that paper. Section 3 start with the (correct) observation that an absolute reference frame is needed for the Cosmic Drag idea to be coherent. It correctly states that this seems in violation of GR. It then continues to justify the introduction of an absolute frame of reference by stating that:
1) Galaxies have small relative velocities;
2) The CMB has a dipole;
3) An absolute frame of reference is needed to explain the phenomena of inertia (in Quantum Mechanics?);
4) An absolute frame of reference is needed to explain non-local phenomena in Quantum Mechanics.
1 is rubbish; ever heard of gravity? Of course gravitationally bound objects will have small relative velocities!
2 is rubbish; the CMB was emitted, thus it must have had a frame of reference in which its source was stationary. However, this frame differs per position. So this is actually good evidence against an absolute frame of reference.
3 is rubbish to my knowledge; one can do Quantum Mechanics just fine without even introducing relativity. Additionally, Quantum Mechanics is (can be made) compatible with the special theory of relativity, so no, an absolute frame of reference is not needed as far as I can see, and certainly not for the phenomena of inertia.
4 is so vague and unspecific, I have no idea why this would be true.
Because the introduction of the needed absolute frame of reference is unfounded, this basically kills the idea right there. Even if the rest of the derivations is solid, the foundation is gone, and thus this is merely fanciful speculation flying in the face of a cool one hundred years of evidence for GR.
The New Perspective
Registered Member
Origin quotes So this is evidence that you believe shows that the Earth's rotation is not slowing down? But you said rotation is tied to the distance from the sun. So if the rotation of the Earth is not changing then according to your claim the Earth is not getting closer to the sun.
The evidence supplied by Janus stated that a year, approximately 400 million years ago, had 420 days.
Origin quoted The evidence supplied by Janus58 refutes your idea. Did you misread what he wrote? (He or She?)
The theory presented supporting this evidence is that the Earth is slowing in it's rotation.
But according to the experts (IERS) as qouoted in my previous post, this is not the case.
When the observation isn't supported by the calculations or theory, one must reconsider the calculations and theory. I have presented the number of days experienced on each of our planets
Mercury 1 Venus 1 Earth 365 Mars 670 Jupiter 10504 Saturn 25292
To obtain a 420 day year, if you increase the radius of the Earth's orbit, increasing the revolution you will achieve this. This you will disagree with but it is a possibility and at the moment the most logical possibility according to the data and concepts presented here.
The thread is My boyfriend's roommate has a theory that the planets are moving closer to the sun and eventually Earth will become inhabitable and Mars will form life once it moves closer to the sun. Is this possible or no?
According to theories and evidence presented here, this is definitely a possibility worthy of consideration.
The evidence supplied by Janus stated that a year, approximately 400 million years ago, had 420 days.
Origin quoted The evidence supplied by Janus58 refutes your idea. Did you misread what he wrote? (He or She?)
The theory presented supporting this evidence is that the Earth is slowing in it's rotation.
But according to the experts (IERS) as qouoted in my previous post, this is not the case.
When the observation isn't supported by the calculations or theory, one must reconsider the calculations and theory. I have presented the number of days experienced on each of our planets
Mercury 1 Venus 1 Earth 365 Mars 670 Jupiter 10504 Saturn 25292
To obtain a 420 day year, if you increase the radius of the Earth's orbit, increasing the revolution you will achieve this. This you will disagree with but it is a possibility and at the moment the most logical possibility according to the data and concepts presented here.
The thread is My boyfriend's roommate has a theory that the planets are moving closer to the sun and eventually Earth will become inhabitable and Mars will form life once it moves closer to the sun. Is this possible or no?
According to theories and evidence presented here, this is definitely a possibility worthy of consideration.