Is the moon getting nearer ?

[Native]

Let's go over this a little bit more just for fun.
Say that the force of gravity suddenly disappeared between the Earth and the Moon. The Moon would go off, but not on a radius, but on a tangent. You forgot the conservation of momentum. It would go in a straight line, starting as a tangent to its orbit at the time that gravity "stopped". You mentioned "orbital momentum", the correct term that you wanted to use is "angular momentum". That would have to be conserved too. But angular momentum is the cross product of the momentum and the radius. The object would not move in a circle since its radius would keep growing larger and larger. The angle between the radius and the momentum would keep getting smaller but since the radius is growing that would make up for it. The angular momentum would be conserved. The magnitude of the angular momentum would be m*v*r*sin(angle between r and v).

All over in cosmos there is no objects moving in a "straight line", since all objects have a "angular momentum" - (thanks for your correction).
For my part "gravity" already has dissapered between the Earth and the Moon, simply for the fact that it never has been there in the first place
You:
"The object would not move in a circle since its radius would keep growing larger and larger".
It still would move in an enlarging circular motion. Or in a spiraling motion, if you will.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"It comes in little packets called "photons"? I assume you mean "particle photons" here? If so, your electromagnetic explanation is pure nonsens.

Tell me why. Then I will explain why you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All over in cosmos there is no objects moving in a "straight line", since all objects have a "angular momentum" - (thanks for your correction).
For my part "gravity" already has dissapered between the Earth and the Moon, simply for the fact that it never has been there in the first place
You:
"The object would not move in a circle since its radius would keep growing larger and larger".
It still would move in an enlarging circular motion. Or in a spiraling motion, if you will.

You do not know what angular momentum is. I simplified it to a two object case, but even with many objects an orbit is not necessary to have angular momentum.

And if you can't do the math you can't support your claims.

 

[Native]

Tell me why. Then I will explain why you are wrong.

There is no need to tell you, is there? You´ll still hold on to the strange mathematical quantum idea that light is particles - even if you started with explaining light as an electromagnetic radiation.

 

[Native]

You do not know what angular momentum is. I simplified it to a two object case, but even with many objects an orbit is not necessary to have angular momentum.
And if you can't do the math you can't support your claims.

You and your pathetic and patronizing "you don´t know this or that".
Everything from the smallest atom to galactic motions of course have angular momentum, you just fail to combine the smallest parts with the bigger part. Of course you´re excused in this because everything in your mind starts off with a Big Bang and the strange linear time scale - where the angular momentum cannot be dynamically explained at all. So you just hold your horses with your artificial besserwissen attitudes.

I don´t give a daim for your mathematical calculations when it comes to anything else but calculating "how much a wooden board expands in sunshine -)

Modern cosmology start to went completely wrong in the Einsteinian mathematical period.

Enjoy this video

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no need to tell you, is there? You´ll still hold on to the strange mathematical quantum idea that light is particles - even if you schizophrenic started with explaining light as an electromagnetic radiation.

You do get that quantum theory is one of the best tested in the history of science, yes?

 

[exchemist]

The moon is moving away because the N-field density is increasing . What this means to you is proportionate to the inverse , filling up from the center out .

Now I know your mediocre minds can't grasp this , but that is not my problem.

"N-field" would be the Nuttah field, I take it, named after the eminent, strait-jacketed physicist Dr. Antoine Bärking-Nuttah.

Regarding the interpretation of this, I see you say that what this means to me is proportionate to the inverse - of its meaning, presumably, i.e. what it does not mean. It seems to me this is a condition that can only be satisfied when the meaning is exactly zero, since the inverse of zero is also zero. That makes sense, at any rate.

The bit about increasing density make sense, too.

 

[exchemist]

"It comes in little packets called "photons"? I assume you mean "particle photons" here? If so, your electromagnetic explanation is pure nonsens.

Got it! You and James are in a competition, to see who can be the stupidest troll! I'm afraid you are up against stiff competition there. But keep at it - you could still prevail.

 

[ratiocinator]

No , 10 + 15 = 25

Are you saying it doesn't ?

10 + 15 = 25 = 10 - (-15)

-(-15) = 15

 

[Native]

Got it! You and James are in a competition, to see who can be the stupidest troll! I'm afraid you are up against stiff competition there. But keep at it - you could still prevail.

Ordinary and polite debaters would of course have made their factual arguments and NOT personal comments

 

[Native]

You do get that quantum theory is one of the best tested in the history of science, yes?

MY focus is on the overall cosmological theories and not small specifics.

 

[exchemist]

Ordinary and polite debaters would of course have made their factual arguments and NOT personal comments

If you were limited to factual arguments, your contributions to this forum would be brief indeed.

 

[Native]

If you were limited to factual arguments, your contributions to this forum would be brief indeed.

In this sense you´re surely the expert since you only posts personal issues.

 

[ratiocinator]

MY focus is on the overall cosmological theories and not small specifics.

You were talking about light an photons. Physics is physics and you seem to be struggling even with Newtonian mechanics. You also posted an anti-relativity, anti-science video.

Relativity has also been extensively tested and is currently being used by the GPS system to compensate for time dilation due to relative motion and the earth's gravity (curved space-time).

Relativity and quantum mechanics are counter-intuitive but people don't just believe them because they want to for some reason, it's because they work. You need quantum mechanics to design semiconductors, which make your electronic devices work. There are even components that depend on classically (non-quantum) impossible processes, like the tunnel diode.

This isn't just obscure science, it's engineering.

 

[Native]

You also posted an anti-relativity, anti-science video.

I bet you didn´t even watch the video

 

[ratiocinator]

I bet you didn´t even watch the video

Far enough to get to the attempted ridiculing of very well tested ideas and the equating of counter-intuitive with irrationality.

The irony is that he's using technology based on the ideas he ridicules to spread his nonsense.

 

[Native]

The irony is that he's using technology based on the ideas he ridicules to spread his nonsense.

I wouldn´t say that. It´s rather logics and natural sense.

 

[ratiocinator]

I wouldn´t say that. It´s rather logics and natural sense.

I don't know what you mean by "logics and natural sense". The point is that the mathematical models that he seems to hate so much are the same ones that are used by engineers to design stuff. If you want to design (say) a tunnel diode, you can't use "common sense" or classical ideas about energy barriers and what can and can't get through them. You need the mathematics of quantum mechanics to calculate the wave-function of your charge-carriers and hence the probability of them penetrating the potential barrier.

 

[Native]

I don't know what you mean by "logics and natural sense". The point is that the mathematical models that he seems to hate so much are the same ones that are used by engineers to design stuff. If you want to design (say) a tunnel diode, you can't use "common sense" or classical ideas about energy barriers and what can and can't get through them. You need the mathematics of quantum mechanics to calculate the wave-function of your charge-carriers and hence the probability of them penetrating the potential barrier.

He is talking of the logics in cosmological principles and not of your mentioned dingenotes.

 

[ratiocinator]

He is talking of the logics in cosmological principles and not of your mentioned dingenotes.

What are "logics" and what are "dingenotes"?

Anyway - the point is that mathematical physics is mathematical physics, we are applying the same techniques to cosmology as everything else. To go back to your previous mistake, the reason the moon would escape the earth tangentially, and in a straight line, is the same reason people throw the discus the way they do: Tangents and Circles