Some is converted to heat too.
But don't press me further....I'm unfamiliar with orbital & tidle meckanics.
Criminy, I can't even spell it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the moon getting nearer ?
- Thread starter james blunt
- Start date
But don't press me further....I'm unfamiliar with orbital & tidle meckanics.
Criminy, I can't even spell it.
My understanding is that the amount going into heat is fairly small, and that the rest shows up primarily in the orbital effects.
As he should. We have actual measurements, which always trump theoretical considerations, as well as a theoretical understanding.
On the other side, you have some meaningless equations which only show your lack of understanding of the issues involved.
Does it? There is a good reason for that, science, measurement, orbital mechanics and gravity all confirm it
No argument here.
I wonder if the same would be true for Enceladus?
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Have you seen this personally ? Have you seen the data ?
james blunt
Well-Known Member
We don't have anything unless you work for the department that deals with the measurement !
P.s My equations are simplified negative energy . My equations are correct to my theory .
A bit more information:
Lunar Laser Ranging experiment - Wikipedia
If you want the raw data set, it is available from this following:
LLR
Again, your opinion concerning your equations is based on your lack of knowledge in this area. Anyone with any experience in math understands them to be meaningless.
What have i to do with the data?
It is freely available on the internet, try searching arxiv.org or phys.org
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Dang. Just dang.
This exposes you, by the way. It is confirmed you have no idea what you are talking about.
ecco
Veteran Member
The question was unnecessarily shrouded in complexity.
However, a third grader of my acquaintance did get it right.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Your equations are absolutely meaningless... and I agree, they are definitely 'correct' for your 'theory'.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No. When you can't even do basic addition i don't think that anyone will take your "equations" seriously. You need to define all of your terms, you need to define all of your units, then you have to show that mathematically your concept gives the same results that we can measure in real life. And since you seem to have a huge problem with math i don't think that will ever happen.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Oh please , maths is added to the physics after the physics . Faraday an example .
My maths works and it is simple user friendly to explain process .
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
If that were the case, how could you know the Earth was gaining mass or the mass of the comic dust falling on it per year?
That makes absolutely zero sense but doesn't seem relevant to the fundamental error in your OP anyway. Are you going to address the loss of hydrogen and helium from the atmosphere at all?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, Faraday made an observation. Then he did countless experiments with measurements. Then he devised a formula whose math matched reality. You don't appear to know what to measure or how and you can't do the math.
In the world of physics you need to learn the math first.
exchemist
Veteran Member
No, you think again. The link provided in post 2 explains that it also loses over 50 thousand tonnes of hydrogen and helium to space every year.
This is explained by kinetic theory. The speed of thermal motion of the molecules, for these light gases, is so high* that for a significant fraction of them it exceeds the Earth's escape velocity.
That's why H and He disappear from the atmospheres of planets with modest gravity, while gas giants like Jupiter keep most of theirs.
*A kinetic theory result is that Temperature is proportional to thermal kinetic energy (1/2 mv²). From this it follows that, at a given temperature, in a gas made up of light molecules they have to be moving faster - to give the same kinetic energy - than in one made up of heavier molecules.
Last edited:
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Well , I can't be correct on all things .
ecco
Veteran Member
Example 1:
Joe has one pie. Betty has one pie.
Question: How many pies do Joe and Betty together have?
Answer 2.
Proof: 1 + 1 = 2
There, a simple, user friendly, easily explainable process.
Question: How many pies do Joe and Betty together have?
Answer 2.
Proof: 1 + 1 = 2
There, a simple, user friendly, easily explainable process.
Example 2:
Betty's pie measures 12 inches across. Joe's pie measures 12 inches across.
Question: What is the radius of each pie?
Answer: Huh?!? That isn't simple. It's not user friendly. I don't need to explain the process because it has no bearing on my wisdom.
Question: What is the radius of each pie?
Answer: Huh?!? That isn't simple. It's not user friendly. I don't need to explain the process because it has no bearing on my wisdom.
exchemist
Veteran Member
A truer word was never spoken.