# Thread: [Alsor on Axis wobbling (or not)]

1. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Alsor
1. The correct calculation must take into account the tidal deformations.
...and, when you do that, IF you do the calculations correctly, you will get precession, as I have shown you and as observation shows.

3. Gravitational equilibrium = equipotential surface (not necessarily perfectly and permanently, just an average over time - no evolution).
As I pointed out to you several times already, the above assertion is false.

4. Formal proof zero torque on the mass in equilibrium remains in force.

As I pointed out to you, your "formal proof" is false. As such, it is contradicted by observation.

2. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by Garrison
I'm not seeing any citations or evidence there, just more of your claims.
Another fact - with a quote.

Standard gravitational parameter was clearly underestimated in order to extend the period of Earth's orbit about 20.5 minutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar...onal_parameter

u = GM = 1.32712440018 * 10^20 [m3/s2];
M = 1.9891 * 10^30 kg, the mass of the Sun;

This can be determined the gravitational constant:
G '= u / M = 1.32712440018e20 / 1.9891e30 = 6.672e-11

Similarly, for the Earth:
u_e = 3.986004418 * 10 ^ 14; M_e = 5.9736 * 10 ^ 24 kg;
G_e = u_e / M_e = 3.986004418e14 / 5.9736e24 = 6.6727e-11 [1/s^2] / [kg/m3]

clearly shows that these constants differ quite significantly.
--------

T ^ 2 = a ^ 3 / u;
dT / T = 3 / 2 da / a - 1 / 2 du / u;

Semi-major axis 'a' can be determined by other methods, so da = 0, and:
dT / T = -1 / 2 du / u = T / Tp = 1 / 25700

du = - 2u * T / Tp = - u / 12850;

Thus: G = G '(1 + 1 / 12850) = 6.6725e-11

Much better.

Implicitly changed the orbital periods of other planets (theoretical - modeled),
but not periods of moons! So it can be easily verified.

3. Originally Posted by Alsor
Another fact - with a quote.

Standard gravitational parameter was clearly underestimated in order to extend the period of Earth's orbit about 20.5 minutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar...onal_parameter

u = GM = 1.32712440018 * 10^20 [m3/s2];
M = 1.9891 * 10^30 kg, the mass of the Sun;

This can be determined the gravitational constant:
G '= u / M = 1.32712440018e20 / 1.9891e30 = 6.672e-11

Similarly, for the Earth:
u_e = 3.986004418 * 10 ^ 14; M_e = 5.9736 * 10 ^ 24 kg;
G_e = u_e / M_e = 3.986004418e14 / 5.9736e24 = 6.6727e-11 [1/s^2] / [kg/m3]

clearly shows that these constants differ quite significantly.
--------

T ^ 2 = a ^ 3 / u;
dT / T = 3 / 2 da / a - 1 / 2 du / u;

Semi-major axis 'a' can be determined by other methods, so da = 0, and:
dT / T = -1 / 2 du / u = T / Tp = 1 / 25700

du = - 2u * T / Tp = - u / 12850;

Thus: G = G '(1 + 1 / 12850) = 6.6725e-11

Much better.

Implicitly changed the orbital periods of other planets (theoretical - modeled),
but not periods of moons! So it can be easily verified.
You can construct all the maths you like, if it conflicts with the measured reality of precession then it has no meaning. You have done nothing to address the evidence and make continual errors such as not realizing that axial precession and precession of the equinoxes are different terms for the same thing.

4. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Alsor
'Precession' of the equinoxes was measured, not the axis.
They are the same thing.

5. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Alsor
But, as I had already shown you, the tidal potentials are DIFFERENT for different points on the geoid. So, contrary to your claims, the torque is non-zero and this is confirmed by the observations.

6. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by macaw
But, as I had already shown you, the tidal potentials are DIFFERENT for different points on the geoid. So, contrary to your claims, the torque is non-zero and this is confirmed by the observations.

Tidal elongation is calculated from the gravitational equilibrium.
The potential is uniform over the entire surface (tangential acceleration must be zeroed).

There is no other option - unbalanced mass has no fixed shape.

Check it out yourself:
calculate the potential in the two extreme points on the Earth - the nearest and farthest from the moon.

7. Originally Posted by Alsor
The potential is uniform over the entire surface (tangential acceleration must be zeroed).

There is no other option - unbalanced mass has no fixed shape.
The Earth's gravitational field varies across the geoid, as you would know if you had read the link for GOCE that I provided earlier, it is not uniform. Also do you now accept that axial precession and precession of the equinoxes are the same thing? If so then by your own statement:

'Precession' of the equinoxes was measured, not the axis.

8. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Alsor
No, I am not.

The potential is uniform over the entire surface (tangential acceleration must be zeroed).

It isn't, I have already shown you the correct calculations and I have showed you the observations that support the correct calculations.

Check it out yourself:
calculate the potential in the two extreme points on the Earth - the nearest and farthest from the moon.
They are different. Precisely the point that you keep denying.

9. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by Garrison
The Earth's gravitational field varies across the geoid, as you would know if you had read the link for GOCE that I provided earlier, it is not uniform. Also do you now accept that axial precession and precession of the equinoxes are the same thing? If so then by your own statement
Geoid is equipotential by definition.
Acceleration changes on the surface, not potential.

Originally Posted by Garrison
I use only the elementary rules of geometry - they are indestructible.
Some arguments against?

10. Originally Posted by Alsor
Geoid is equipotential by definition.
Acceleration changes on the surface, not potential.

I use only the elementary rules of geometry - they are indestructible.
Some arguments against?
Please answer the question that you avoided in that response to my post. And don't you think that perhaps in describing the behaviour of the real earth physics and the experimental measurements that have been made are rather more useful than your simplistic geometrical model?

11. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by macaw
It isn't, I have already shown you the correct calculations and I have showed you the observations that support the correct calculations.

They are different. Precisely the point that you keep denying.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newton.pdf
12. Gravitational Potential Theory

html version - Tidal Elongation:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...n/node111.html
"... the condition for equilibrium is that the total potential be constant over the surface of the spheroid."

I wish you a little humility.

12. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by Garrison
Please answer the question that you avoided in that response to my post. And don't you think that perhaps in describing the behaviour of the real earth physics and the experimental measurements that have been made are rather more useful than your simplistic geometrical model?
Real physics and measurements show very clearly, and without any doubt that the precession of Earth's axis does not exist.
Calculate date of several solar eclipses.

The simpler the better.
The simplest rule is strongest, and therefore stand beyond all belief, illusion, bungling and deception.

13. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Alsor

html version - Tidal Elongation:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...n/node111.html
"... the condition for equilibrium is that the total potential be constant over the surface of the spheroid."
The above refers to the fluids (oceans) on the Earth. I have explained to you several times that the Earth is not a fluid and that the Sun and the Moon and that the other planets exert a NON-NULL torque causing the wobbling of the Earth axis AS OBSERVED. In order to learn about this, you only needed to keep on reading the same source, the chapter on nutation.
Last edited by macaw; 2011-Jul-02 at 01:10 PM.

14. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Alsor
Real physics and measurements show very clearly, and without any doubt that the precession of Earth's axis does not exist.

Observation says the contrary. Meaning that your ATM is falsified.

15. The OP has been suspended for 7 days for rudeness. Please hold additional questions until his return.

16. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by macaw
The above refers to the fluids (oceans) on the Earth. I have explained to you several times that the Earth is not a fluid and that the Sun and the Moon and that the other planets exert a NON-NULL torque causing the wobbling of the Earth axis AS OBSERVED. In order to learn about this, you only needed to keep on reading the same source, the chapter on nutation.
No, the calculations relate to a homogeneous sphere of mass.

Steel Earth!?
Deformation would be practically the same as on the liquid, which can be easily calculated.

Nutation - amplitude up to 20 arc second only, not 23 degrees.
Precession is exactly zeroed by the tidal deformations, which are not included in the calculation.

17. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by macaw
Observation says the contrary. Meaning that your ATM is falsified.
Misinterpretation.
Contrary to the elementary laws of mechanics, and even arithmetic, and with observations of the phases of the Moon, Venus, etc.

18. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Alsor
No, the calculations relate to a homogeneous sphere of mass.

Steel Earth!?
Not steel but rock. And not homogenous but inhomogenous (made of different types and different states of aggregation). And not a spheroid but a geoid, with mountains, like the Himalayas.

Deformation would be practically the same as on the liquid, which can be easily calculated.
That's the whole point, that the Earth is NOT a perfect fluid, this is why you keep producing false results.

Nutation - amplitude up to 20 arc second only, not 23 degrees.
Precession is exactly zeroed by the tidal deformations, which are not included in the calculation.
Precession, "wobble" and nutation are all different names for the same non-null effect. No matter how you try to twist things.

19. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Alsor
Misinterpretation.
Contrary to the elementary laws of mechanics, and even arithmetic, and with observations of the phases of the Moon, Venus, etc.
Last edited by macaw; 2011-Jul-11 at 05:04 PM.

20. Banned
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
137
Originally Posted by macaw
Wiki is self contradictory in this matter:
Sirius is moving and not moving;

Venus has two different syndodic periods, and two different orbital periods.

Saros cycles were calculated without precession, thus we observe systematically non-existent eclipses: Sun and Moon!

Originally Posted by macaw
Not steel but rock. And not homogenous but inhomogenous (made of different types and different states of aggregation). And not a spheroid but a geoid, with mountains, like the Himalayas.
I do not see the calculations of rocks, but only a homogeneous gravitational mass.

Fragmented rocks are much more liquid than solid steel ball.

Sphere composed of a million of solids is very rigid?
Just like a ball of sand.

Contact forces do not have anything to say on a scale of hundreds and thousands of miles.

Originally Posted by macaw
[Precession, "wobble" and nutation are all different names for the same non-null effect. No matter how you try to twist things.
Perhaps, but change the direction of the axis with an amplitude of 18 arcsec in the cycle of the month, year, or 8 years, is significantly different from the continuous changes of direction, which steadily accumulates and reaches 47 degrees after 12,800 years.

21. Originally Posted by Alsor
Misinterpretation.
Contrary to the elementary laws of mechanics, and even arithmetic, and with observations of the phases of the Moon, Venus, etc.
I think I have asked this before, please show where the 'laws of mechanics' rule out the precession of the earth as a process?
Also please explain the nature of the 'misinterpretation?

So far you have offered nothing but links that contradict your position and assertions that all evidence that contradict it is somehow flawed. It is past time you showed unequivocal experimental support for your position, or a coherent mathematical theoretical basis to support it.

22. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Alsor
Wiki is self contradictory in this matter:

No, it is very clear in the case of the Earth.

I do not see the calculations of rocks, but only a homogeneous gravitational mass.

Fragmented rocks are much more liquid than solid steel ball.

Sphere composed of a million of solids is very rigid?
Just like a ball of sand.

Contact forces do not have anything to say on a scale of hundreds and thousands of miles.

Perhaps, but change the direction of the axis with an amplitude of 18 arcsec in the cycle of the month, year, or 8 years, is significantly different from the continuous changes of direction, which steadily accumulates and reaches 47 degrees after 12,800 years.
I have no idea what you are talking about.

23. Originally Posted by Alsor
Wiki is self contradictory in this matter:
Sirius is moving and not moving;

Venus has two different syndodic periods, and two different orbital periods.
I think a simple solution there is to not use wiki!

And I'm a big fan of wiki.

24. And so we have come to the end of another ATM thread.
ETA: the 30 day limit was reached.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•