Religions > Atheism > Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived...............
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"duke" |
| Date: |
05 Sep 2005 07:01:39 PM |
| Object: |
Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
...............for me to ask a ball on a string question.
I have thoroughly enjoyed blowing the atheist challenged mind with the moon's
rotation and the single-rotation vs ball on a string scenarios.
So I ask:
1. Is it possible that, in the total scheme of time and motion, the moon
rotates on it's axis such that 1) the moon rotates EXACTLY (+/- zero error) and
in our current lifetime and EXACTLY at the right speed to EXACTLY match the
earth's monthly period to provide an EXACT same face to the earth with no
variation and 2) that said axis of rotation is EXACTLY perpendicular to the
earth's monthly rotation around the sun - again +/- zero error - or, viola, we
would see all sides of the moon.
2. Assume the shuttle flies into stable orbit perfectly nose forward. Will the
shuttle do a "nose over tail" flip with each rotation around the earth unless
small rockets motors are used to prevent such?
3. Assume an astronaut leaves the shuttle outboard on a tether to full length.
Given the oxygen, and the shuttle taking steps/no steps to always remain same
face to the earth, will he "reel" himself back into the shuttle automatically
with each rotation of the earth, or can he enjoy the same view for as long as he
wishes?
Ok, young atheist astronomers, what is your answer?
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
05 Sep 2005 09:02:01 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:514ph1tshjcpf5ofbtf7653q0ngjo3cqr2@4ax.com...
..............for me to ask a ball on a string question.
I have thoroughly enjoyed blowing the atheist challenged mind with the
moon's
rotation and the single-rotation vs ball on a string scenarios.
So I ask:
1. Is it possible that, in the total scheme of time and motion, the moon
rotates on it's axis such that 1) the moon rotates EXACTLY (+/- zero
error) and
in our current lifetime and EXACTLY at the right speed to EXACTLY match
the
earth's monthly period to provide an EXACT same face to the earth with no
variation and 2) that said axis of rotation is EXACTLY perpendicular to
the
earth's monthly rotation around the sun
"earth's monthly rotation around the sun"?
- again +/- zero error - or, viola, we
would see all sides of the moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
2. Assume the shuttle flies into stable orbit perfectly nose forward.
Will the
shuttle do a "nose over tail" flip with each rotation around the earth
unless
small rockets motors are used to prevent such?
If it started with zero angular momentum it would appear
to rotate relative to the earth.
Tidal forces would eventually cause its long axis
to lock radial to the earth, i.e. be in synchronous rotation.
An initial rocket kick could also put it in synchronous
rotation.
3. Assume an astronaut leaves the shuttle outboard on a tether to full
length.
Given the oxygen, and the shuttle taking steps/no steps to always remain
same
face to the earth, will he "reel" himself back into the shuttle
automatically
with each rotation of the earth, or can he enjoy the same view for as long
as he
wishes?
Tidal forces would cause the tether to be under tension and
radial to the center of the earth.
If the shuttle itself were also in synchronous rotation
there would be no winding.
<snip>
--
rb #2187
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
06 Sep 2005 11:37:35 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:02:01 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
2. Assume the shuttle flies into stable orbit perfectly nose forward.
Will the
shuttle do a "nose over tail" flip with each rotation around the earth
unless
small rockets motors are used to prevent such?
If it started with zero angular momentum it would appear
to rotate relative to the earth.
If, if, if. In a stable orbit, does it or not?
Tidal forces would eventually cause its long axis
to lock radial to the earth, i.e. be in synchronous rotation.
Ok, so it would tumble one time in one orbit around the earth..
An initial rocket kick could also put it in synchronous
rotation.
Ah, yes, those energy imparters.
3. Assume an astronaut leaves the shuttle outboard on a tether to full
length.
Given the oxygen, and the shuttle taking steps/no steps to always remain
same
face to the earth, will he "reel" himself back into the shuttle
automatically
with each rotation of the earth, or can he enjoy the same view for as long
as he
wishes?
Tidal forces would cause the tether to be under tension and
radial to the center of the earth.
If the shuttle itself were also in synchronous rotation
there would be no winding.
Ahhhhh, so he would remain always face to the earth totally enjoying the venue?
What would happen if the tether were "released". Would he begin to tumble once
for each orbit of the earth? That way the shuttle would not be dragging him
along so he would not be utilizing the shuttles thrusters to provide
positioning.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
07 Sep 2005 03:40:50 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:pi9sh1ti07vnl2n5befb6ejs7t638ks849@4ax.com...
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:02:01 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
2. Assume the shuttle flies into stable orbit perfectly nose forward.
Will the
shuttle do a "nose over tail" flip with each rotation around the earth
unless
small rockets motors are used to prevent such?
If it started with zero angular momentum it would appear
to rotate relative to the earth.
If, if, if. In a stable orbit, does it or not?
A stable orbit in itself does not determine the angular velocity
of the orbiting body (about its center of mass).
As you have stated the problem the initial angular velocity
is indeterminate, thus the 'if'.
Tidal forces would eventually cause its long axis
to lock radial to the earth, i.e. be in synchronous rotation.
Ok, so it would tumble one time in one orbit around the earth..
An initial rocket kick could also put it in synchronous
rotation.
Ah, yes, those energy imparters.
3. Assume an astronaut leaves the shuttle outboard on a tether to full
length.
Given the oxygen, and the shuttle taking steps/no steps to always remain
same
face to the earth, will he "reel" himself back into the shuttle
automatically
with each rotation of the earth, or can he enjoy the same view for as
long
as he
wishes?
Tidal forces would cause the tether to be under tension and
radial to the center of the earth.
If the shuttle itself were also in synchronous rotation
there would be no winding.
Ahhhhh, so he would remain always face to the earth totally enjoying the
venue?
It depends on how he/she is attached to the tether.
If the tether is attached to their feet and they are not
squirming around then they would not be facing the Earth.
What would happen if the tether were "released". Would he begin to tumble
once
for each orbit of the earth?
Nope. Initially the astronaut would appear to tumble (forward)
relative to the Earth, but much slower than one rotation
per orbit.
That way the shuttle would not be dragging him
along so he would not be utilizing the shuttles thrusters to provide
positioning.
Thrusters? If the system is in synchronous rotation
no thrusters are needed in order to maintain it.
What's your point, duke?
Does the person with the best knowledge of
astrophysics have the correct view regarding deities?
Does sigma( F ) = m*a ?
Is an F_God necessary in order to explain the motion
of the Moon?
--
rb #2187
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
07 Sep 2005 11:06:53 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 03:40:50 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
If it started with zero angular momentum it would appear
to rotate relative to the earth.
If, if, if. In a stable orbit, does it or not?
A stable orbit in itself does not determine the angular velocity
of the orbiting body (about its center of mass).
As you have stated the problem the initial angular velocity
is indeterminate, thus the 'if'.
You're hiding from answering the question.
Tidal forces would eventually cause its long axis
to lock radial to the earth, i.e. be in synchronous rotation.
Ok, so it would tumble one time in one orbit around the earth..
An initial rocket kick could also put it in synchronous
rotation.
Ah, yes, those energy imparters.
3. Assume an astronaut leaves the shuttle outboard on a tether to full
length.
Given the oxygen, and the shuttle taking steps/no steps to always remain
same
face to the earth, will he "reel" himself back into the shuttle
automatically
with each rotation of the earth, or can he enjoy the same view for as
long
as he
wishes?
Tidal forces would cause the tether to be under tension and
radial to the center of the earth.
If the shuttle itself were also in synchronous rotation
there would be no winding.
Ahhhhh, so he would remain always face to the earth totally enjoying the
venue?
It depends on how he/she is attached to the tether.
If the tether is attached to their feet and they are not
squirming around then they would not be facing the Earth.
What would happen if the tether were "released". Would he begin to tumble
once
for each orbit of the earth?
Nope. Initially the astronaut would appear to tumble (forward)
relative to the Earth, but much slower than one rotation
per orbit.
That way the shuttle would not be dragging him
along so he would not be utilizing the shuttles thrusters to provide
positioning.
Thrusters? If the system is in synchronous rotation
no thrusters are needed in order to maintain it.
What's your point, duke?
Does the person with the best knowledge of
astrophysics have the correct view regarding deities?
Does sigma( F ) = m*a ?
Is an F_God necessary in order to explain the motion
of the Moon?
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
08 Sep 2005 03:01:27 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:iesuh1p2roig85qvg3s57hjg9qm0n7bu88@4ax.com...
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 03:40:50 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
If it started with zero angular momentum it would appear
to rotate relative to the earth.
If, if, if. In a stable orbit, does it or not?
A stable orbit in itself does not determine the angular velocity
of the orbiting body (about its center of mass).
As you have stated the problem the initial angular velocity
is indeterminate, thus the 'if'.
You're hiding from answering the question.
That's the answer, duke.
If you say it isn't, why do you say it isn't?
Are you saying that a body may only have one possible
angular velocity about its center of mass
when it enters a particular orbit?
Tidal forces would eventually cause its long axis
to lock radial to the earth, i.e. be in synchronous rotation.
Ok, so it would tumble one time in one orbit around the earth..
An initial rocket kick could also put it in synchronous
rotation.
Ah, yes, those energy imparters.
3. Assume an astronaut leaves the shuttle outboard on a tether to
full
length.
Given the oxygen, and the shuttle taking steps/no steps to always
remain
same
face to the earth, will he "reel" himself back into the shuttle
automatically
with each rotation of the earth, or can he enjoy the same view for as
long
as he
wishes?
Tidal forces would cause the tether to be under tension and
radial to the center of the earth.
If the shuttle itself were also in synchronous rotation
there would be no winding.
Ahhhhh, so he would remain always face to the earth totally enjoying the
venue?
It depends on how he/she is attached to the tether.
If the tether is attached to their feet and they are not
squirming around then they would not be facing the Earth.
What would happen if the tether were "released". Would he begin to
tumble
once
for each orbit of the earth?
Nope. Initially the astronaut would appear to tumble (forward)
relative to the Earth, but much slower than one rotation
per orbit.
That way the shuttle would not be dragging him
along so he would not be utilizing the shuttles thrusters to provide
positioning.
Thrusters? If the system is in synchronous rotation
no thrusters are needed in order to maintain it.
What's your point, duke?
Does the person with the best knowledge of
astrophysics have the correct view regarding deities?
Does sigma( F ) = m*a ?
Is an F_God necessary in order to explain the motion
of the Moon?
Avoiding the questions?
--
rb #2187
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
08 Sep 2005 11:29:54 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 03:01:27 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
You're hiding from answering the question.
That's the answer, duke.
If you say it isn't, why do you say it isn't?
Are you saying that a body may only have one possible
angular velocity about its center of mass
when it enters a particular orbit?
You brought it up. You tell everybody. Different than what it is?
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
08 Sep 2005 03:40:05 PM |
|
|
In article <pi9sh1ti07vnl2n5befb6ejs7t638ks849@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:02:01 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
2. Assume the shuttle flies into stable orbit perfectly nose forward.
Will the
shuttle do a "nose over tail" flip with each rotation around the earth
unless
small rockets motors are used to prevent such?
If it started with zero angular momentum it would appear
to rotate relative to the earth.
If, if, if. In a stable orbit, does it or not?
Oh, for pity's sake...
A "stable orbit" means that it will remain in orbit indefinitely,
neither falling into the atmosphere nor being flung out of
orbit. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any rotational
components of the body.
A satellite may have componets of rotation about three
axes and still be in a stable orbit.
A satellite may have one face perfectly fixed toward the
earth and not be in a stable orbit -- and if that
face remains prefectly fixed, the the satellite is either
rotating or moving directly away from the earth.
You want a meaningful answer, you have to ask a
meaningful question.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
08 Sep 2005 11:31:02 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 15:40:05 +0000 (UTC), (Cary
Kittrell) wrote:
In article <pi9sh1ti07vnl2n5befb6ejs7t638ks849@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:02:01 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
2. Assume the shuttle flies into stable orbit perfectly nose forward.
Will the
shuttle do a "nose over tail" flip with each rotation around the earth
unless
small rockets motors are used to prevent such?
If it started with zero angular momentum it would appear
to rotate relative to the earth.
If, if, if. In a stable orbit, does it or not?
Oh, for pity's sake...
A "stable orbit" means that it will remain in orbit indefinitely,
neither falling into the atmosphere nor being flung out of
orbit. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any rotational
components of the body.
stable is stable.
A satellite may have componets of rotation about three
axes and still be in a stable orbit.
stable is stable.
A satellite may have one face perfectly fixed toward the
earth and not be in a stable orbit -- and if that
face remains prefectly fixed, the the satellite is either
rotating or moving directly away from the earth.
You're still ducking the answer.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
08 Sep 2005 11:46:39 PM |
|
|
In article <0ci1i1lfp9jssgcg06llqtl58ucmmahoc7@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 15:40:05 +0000 (UTC), (Cary
Kittrell) wrote:
{...}
Oh, for pity's sake...
A "stable orbit" means that it will remain in orbit indefinitely,
neither falling into the atmosphere nor being flung out of
orbit. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any rotational
components of the body.
stable is stable.
Great! Now define "a stable orbit" for me.
A satellite may have componets of rotation about three
axes and still be in a stable orbit.
stable is stable.
Well, that should make it a snap: what is your definition
of "a stable orbit"?
Don't chicken out now, hear?
A satellite may have one face perfectly fixed toward the
earth and not be in a stable orbit -- and if that
face remains prefectly fixed, the the satellite is either
rotating or moving directly away from the earth.
You're still ducking the answer.
I just gave you the answer; and at some length.
You're just dooking that answer.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
09 Sep 2005 05:41:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 23:46:39 +0000 (UTC), (Cary
Kittrell) wrote:
In article <0ci1i1lfp9jssgcg06llqtl58ucmmahoc7@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 15:40:05 +0000 (UTC), (Cary
Kittrell) wrote:
{...}
Oh, for pity's sake...
A "stable orbit" means that it will remain in orbit indefinitely,
neither falling into the atmosphere nor being flung out of
orbit. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any rotational
components of the body.
stable is stable.
Great! Now define "a stable orbit" for me.
Don't need to. The shuttle is in one.
A satellite may have componets of rotation about three
axes and still be in a stable orbit.
stable is stable.
Well, that should make it a snap: what is your definition
of "a stable orbit"?
Don't chicken out now, hear?
Gotcha again.
You're still ducking the answer.
I just gave you the answer; and at some length.
You're just dooking that answer.
Nope, you're hiding from trying to answer the question.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
09 Sep 2005 06:06:02 PM |
|
|
In article <l7i3i1d6eqh4pcvalksgekhafnn7dvli87@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 23:46:39 +0000 (UTC), (Cary
Kittrell) wrote:
In article <0ci1i1lfp9jssgcg06llqtl58ucmmahoc7@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 15:40:05 +0000 (UTC), (Cary
Kittrell) wrote:
{...}
Oh, for pity's sake...
A "stable orbit" means that it will remain in orbit indefinitely,
neither falling into the atmosphere nor being flung out of
orbit. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any rotational
components of the body.
stable is stable.
Great! Now define "a stable orbit" for me.
Don't need to. The shuttle is in one.
Yes? And how is that?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
08 Sep 2005 09:41:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:01:39 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
I have thoroughly enjoyed blowing the atheist challenged mind with the moon's
rotation and the single-rotation vs ball on a string scenarios.
Actually, it is your limitless ignorance, and stupidity, that we find mind
blowing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
09 Sep 2005 09:46:54 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:41:20 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
Actually, it is your limitless ignorance, and stupidity, that we find mind
blowing.
But I'm the one that knows what I'm taking about, and you're playing ignorantly
with wikipedia.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
05 Sep 2005 08:40:41 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net)
made the light shine upon us with this:
<plonk>
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
Plonked by Raytard
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
05 Sep 2005 08:49:23 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:40:41 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net)
made the light shine upon us with this:
<plonk>
Gotcha, vic. It's better to run and hide that admit you got caught with your
pants down around your ankles on this one.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
06 Sep 2005 05:59:23 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:40:41 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net)
made the light shine upon us with this:
<plonk>
Gotcha, vic. It's better to run and hide that admit you got caught with your
pants down around your ankles on this one.
I simply think Uncle Vic had enough. After all, you're just a troll. A
persistent one, I must admit, but a troll nonetheless.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
06 Sep 2005 11:29:11 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 01:59:23 -0400, Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com> wrote:
Gotcha, vic. It's better to run and hide that admit you got caught with your
pants down around your ankles on this one.
I simply think Uncle Vic had enough. After all, you're just a troll. A
persistent one, I must admit, but a troll nonetheless.
Nope, a troll has no interest in the subject matter. I have deep interest in
Catholicism, the tragedy of Katrina, and moon rotation. You're atheist buddies
just booted themselves in the collective *****.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
06 Sep 2005 04:13:20 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
1. Is it possible that, in the total scheme of time and motion, the moon
rotates on it's axis such that 1) the moon rotates EXACTLY (+/- zero error) and
in our current lifetime and EXACTLY at the right speed to EXACTLY match the
earth's monthly period to provide an EXACT same face to the earth with no
variation and 2) that said axis of rotation is EXACTLY perpendicular to the
earth's monthly rotation around the sun - again +/- zero error - or, viola, we
would see all sides of the moon.
Uh, no. It's called tidal locking. It happens to large bodies
in orbit. It's a well-understood principle of physics. Here, learn
something:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
06 Sep 2005 09:28:53 PM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
1. Is it possible that, in the total scheme of time and motion, the moon
rotates on it's axis such that 1) the moon rotates EXACTLY (+/- zero error) and
in our current lifetime and EXACTLY at the right speed to EXACTLY match the
earth's monthly period to provide an EXACT same face to the earth with no
variation and 2) that said axis of rotation is EXACTLY perpendicular to the
earth's monthly rotation around the sun - again +/- zero error - or, viola, we
would see all sides of the moon.
Uh, no. It's called tidal locking. It happens to large bodies
in orbit. It's a well-understood principle of physics. Here, learn
something:
Kind of piggybacking here, but is Duke actually making an effort to
learn something, or was there some ulterior motive?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
06 Sep 2005 11:45:06 PM |
|
|
Ash wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
1. Is it possible that, in the total scheme of time and motion, the moon
rotates on it's axis such that 1) the moon rotates EXACTLY (+/- zero error) and
in our current lifetime and EXACTLY at the right speed to EXACTLY match the
earth's monthly period to provide an EXACT same face to the earth with no
variation and 2) that said axis of rotation is EXACTLY perpendicular to the
earth's monthly rotation around the sun - again +/- zero error - or, viola, we
would see all sides of the moon.
Uh, no. It's called tidal locking. It happens to large bodies
in orbit. It's a well-understood principle of physics. Here, learn
something:
Kind of piggybacking here, but is Duke actually making an effort to
learn something, or was there some ulterior motive?
I think Duke is asserting that because the moon is tidal locked in its
orbit, that god must have done it.
Regards,
Scott S
#1526
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
06 Sep 2005 11:47:08 PM |
|
|
On 06 Sep 2005 09:13:20 -0700, "Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Uh, no. It's called tidal locking. It happens to large bodies
in orbit. It's a well-understood principle of physics. Here, learn
something:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Oh, noooooooooooo. If not for wikipedia, atheists would have no knowledge at
all!!!!!!!!!!!!
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
09 Sep 2005 11:49:23 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 06 Sep 2005 09:13:20 -0700, "Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Uh, no. It's called tidal locking. It happens to large bodies
in orbit. It's a well-understood principle of physics. Here, learn
something:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Oh, noooooooooooo. If not for wikipedia, atheists would have no
knowledge at all!!!!!!!!!!!!
So do you have any problems with the principle of tidal locking?
RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
09 Sep 2005 05:54:48 PM |
|
|
On 9 Sep 2005 04:49:23 -0700, "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@dds.nl> wrote:
Oh, noooooooooooo. If not for wikipedia, atheists would have no
knowledge at all!!!!!!!!!!!!
So do you have any problems with the principle of tidal locking?
You can repeat it - you can't explain it.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
10 Sep 2005 06:15:18 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 9 Sep 2005 04:49:23 -0700, "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@dds.nl> wrote:
Oh, noooooooooooo. If not for wikipedia, atheists would have no
knowledge at all!!!!!!!!!!!!
So do you have any problems with the principle of tidal locking?
You can repeat it - you can't explain it.
Tidal locking *is* the explanation. What is your problem?
RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
10 Sep 2005 01:00:01 PM |
|
|
On 9 Sep 2005 23:15:18 -0700, "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@dds.nl> wrote:
You can repeat it - you can't explain it.
Tidal locking *is* the explanation. What is your problem?
But what does it mean? It's 2 nice words, but not an explanation. What is
tidal locking.
But more critically, why does it result in rotation, which visually, and
scientifically, is the same as "like a ball on a string"?
Or, as I like to ask, why is up?
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
10 Sep 2005 04:38:51 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 9 Sep 2005 23:15:18 -0700, "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@dds.nl> wrote:
You can repeat it - you can't explain it.
Tidal locking *is* the explanation. What is your problem?
But what does it mean? It's 2 nice words, but not an explanation. What is
tidal locking.
You have been explained numerous times what tidal locking is. And
if you don't believe us, why don't you do any research yourself?
Here, another resource to help you on your quest (not that I expect
you to read and/or understand it:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/tidal.html
But more critically, why does it result in rotation, which visually, and
scientifically, is the same as "like a ball on a string"?
It doesn't, since gravity doesn't behave like that. The claim
that it does only comes from you and not from anyone else.
RS
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
10 Sep 2005 10:15:33 PM |
|
|
Richard Smol wrote:
duke wrote:
On 9 Sep 2005 04:49:23 -0700, "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@dds.nl> wrote:
Oh, noooooooooooo. If not for wikipedia, atheists would have no
knowledge at all!!!!!!!!!!!!
So do you have any problems with the principle of tidal locking?
You can repeat it - you can't explain it.
Tidal locking *is* the explanation. What is your problem?
Severe brain damage.
Unwillingness to research tidal locking.
--
"Today the official spokesman for the Foxes
agreed an investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed."
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
05 Sep 2005 10:33:46 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:514ph1tshjcpf5ofbtf7653q0ngjo3cqr2@4ax.com:
..............for me to ask a ball on a string question.
I have thoroughly enjoyed blowing the atheist challenged mind with the
moon's rotation and the single-rotation vs ball on a string scenarios.
So I ask:
No need to ask anything. Just posting an admission that were wrong will do.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
06 Sep 2005 11:44:02 PM |
|
|
On 6 Sep 2005 10:33:46 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
No need to ask anything. Just posting an admission that were wrong will do.
Klazmon.
You're no 9 that doesn't know.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MJSD" |
|
| Title: Re: Well, it's been fun, but the time has apparently arrived............... |
05 Sep 2005 07:32:57 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:514ph1tshjcpf5ofbtf7653q0ngjo3cqr2@4ax.com:
1. Is it possible that, in the total scheme of time and motion, the
moon rotates on it's axis such that 1) the moon rotates EXACTLY (+/-
zero error) and in our current lifetime and EXACTLY at the right speed
to EXACTLY match the earth's monthly period
You've got to be kidding me...
Look up the etymology of the word "month". It comes from the word "MOON".
It's a man-created measurement based on _the phases of the moon_.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Month
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
