Member
Originally Posted by Ken G
From the above analysis, The F and the R are both reduced, but its velocity keeps the same as the earth. So once the moon moves in between the Sun and the Earth, the moon will have redundant velocity and will go faster than the F and R need it. The moon will go ahead of the earth so that its V, the F and R can be kept balanced. Thus its orbit will change.
Banned
Frankly, you have provide a very good formula, and explain what happens when the moon should 'feel' .
A rotation "system" is hard to visualize, it is not completed when the math is applied to part of the rotational system, system cannot be consider piecewise, you are not the only one that impressed strongly.
When in doubt, we can all go back to Newton, who started all this..... anything that is against Newton, you should reconsider !
There's two basic here, the center of mass, and the torque of the system 's center of mass.
Basically, earth-moon is a rotating rod in space, the Sun's Gravitation force does not torque ... rod's center of mass, system would not wobble.
Member
Ken G, you are extremely right. But to do what you said, Mantiss would guess right that it may cost millions.
Last edited by Chineson; 2006-Feb-17 at 02:02 AM.
Member
Let's take the earth-moon as an earthmoon, the earthmoon-sun would be a rotating rod in the Galaxy.
Last edited by Chineson; 2006-Feb-21 at 02:24 AM.
Established Member
Uh, Chineson, how do you explain all the moons that do orbit in a direction opposite the rest of the solar system? According you your assertion this should be impossible, yet a number of moons do this. In addition, according to your conjecture Pluto and a number of other Kuiper belt objects and comets, which orbit well out of the plane of the rest of the planets, should be impossible. Also, the rings that all the gas giants possess orbit their respective planets well out of the plane of the solar system (otherwise they would not be visible from Earth), which is also impossible under your assertion. These facts are all perfectly in line with mainstream solar system models (no reputable solar system model could exist that can't explain these basic facts), but according to your assertion none of these would ever be possible.
In order for a hypothesis to be correct, it must be able to explain what is actually observed in real life.
Member
Oh, I understand what you mean now.No, you misunderstood a tongue in cheek post.
Note the (Sorry, just couldn't reisist. I'll be quiet now.) tag line.
Check out the BA's book. It demtyhifies the old saw that water goes down the drain the other way south of the equator because of the coriolis effect.
sigh. Having to explain takes all the fun away.
Oh, welcome to the BAUT!
Established Member
Oh, yeah, your first image has the arrow going in the wrong direction (it is pointing in the direction opposite of the change in the moon's orbit).
And what major aspects of solar system formation can mainstream models not explain? I was under the impression current models do an excellent job of explaining our solar system's formation, as well as what is observed in early solar solar system we can see from here.
Member
I believe there once lived polar bears of black or brown colors within the northern pole. But only the white bears survive. This evolution was not completed in a day. I know also there exist moons move in the opposite direction. They are the black bears. If they need to survive, they must turn themselves into white color or they would be extinct. This evolution will not be completed in the days that you and I can see, either.
Member
Can you explain why you say that it is pointing in the wrong direction?
Established Member
All indications are Pluto has existed in its present state for an extremely long time. If it had significantly changed its orbit we would be able to see its effect on Neptune. Also, if your assertion is correct we would expect to see some moons that are currently in transition from orbitting in a different plane to orbitting in the same plane. However, we see no such moons, all moons either orbit in basically the same plane but different directions. We would also expect to see different ring systems in different stages of change towards the plane of the solar system, since the different ring systems are different ages, but we see no such things. Your assertion predicts we will see systems in transition, yet we do not.
Member
Current mainstream models are based on imagined dusts and clouds. The theories were invented.They are inventions. My theory is based on analysis on the realistic planets and moons. My theory is a discovery.
Established Member
The moon's plane of rotation is rotating clockwise but the arrow is pointing counterclockwise. It is the same as in the lower image yet they are rotating in different directions.
Established Member
Dust and clouds are not imagined, they are well established. Nascent solar system matching the standard model have been observed elsewhere in the universe and there are still traces of it in our solar system today.
Your hypothesis still does not match the observed results.
And your hypothesis doesn't explain the origin of the solar system. It applies only to pre-existing solar systems. Your hypothesis would, if correct, explain what happens to planetary bodies and moons once they have formed, but does not even attempt to explain how they actually formed in the first place. Your hypothesis would, if correct, explain how stars can change the orbit of rogue planets it captures, but does not explain how the rogue planet would be caught in the first place or how the star itself formed. Even if true your hypothesis is at best a very small part of a planetary and moon capture model but comes no where near explaining that completely, not to mention the complete formation of the solar system.
Member
Pluto circles the sun in the same direction as our earth. It's not an exception.
Member
The changes can not be significant. It can not be measured by our eyes nor apparatus available on our earth currently, I think. It can only be measured by time, not by the life time of a human being as yours or mine.
Member
My original statement in my article is:
First, let’s suppose the moon’s orbit around the earth is vertical to the plane of the earth’s orbit and the direction is clockwise.
And the arrow is also pointing clockwise!
Member
You are right in some ways.
What I want to tell people in my article is that:
People have doubted for centuries why planets and moons move in the same direction around the sun and in the same sun's equator plane . We people cound not explain the reason for centuries. Then they searched the reasons in its origin and they started to hypothesesed a solar system origin theory, which is the mainstream now. But I want to say that planets and moons move in the same direction around the sun in the same sun's equator plane is not because of its origin, but it's an inevitable result of it movement mechanism. If you acknowledge that my theory is right for explain a planetary and moon capture model, you have accepted my theory.
Established Member
No, changes that occured in the past over long periods of time would leave recognizable traces in Neptune's orbit that would be detectable now. We would not have to actually see the changes occuring in order to know that they did, in fact, occur.
Established Member
Pluto's orbit is in the same direction as the rest of the solar system, but the orbit is significantly out of the plane of the rest of the solar system. You can see that from this picture (hosted by the National Air and Space Museum):
Order of Kilopi
The arrow is going the wrong way, it's true. If you imagine the orbit is a disk, then in the first picture we clearly see the right side of the disk. We should also see the right side of the tilted disk, if the orbit is just tilting down toward the plane. But if we are seeing the right side, and it should look clockwise, then the arrow must point the other way.
So let's summarize what we have discovered about the problems with your model:
1) the hypothesis does not solve the equations of motion of Newtonian mechanics, even though you claim it does (the only formula you offer does not even apply in this situation, and correct formulae will show you what really happens)
2) the hypothesis does not agree with observations
3) the hypothesis contains minor graphical errors that are no big deal but certainly don't inspire confidence.
On the brighter side, you are correct that the coriolis force will alter the orbit in this co-orbiting reference frame, but as pointed out by me and johntsang, this will only be necessary to insure that the plane of the torque-free Earth/Moon system does not change at all in the regular reference frame where the Earth moves in a circle around the Sun. If you are now ready for the truth, the truth is that your discovery is merely a somewhat misinterpreted re-discovery of conservation of orbital angular momentum. I'm sorry if that is a disappointment, we'd all like to really uncover some amazing truth. At least you had enough creativity to take a stab at it!
Established Member
Did you even read my post? I never once admit your hypothesis (please stop calling it a theory) comes anywhere near explaining a planetary capture, I never said it came anywhere near being right about anything. I said if it was correct, which I have said over and over it cannot be because it does not explain the solar system that we see, then it would still not do what you claim it does (offer a new model of solar system formation). Even if you are right, which you unequivocally aren't, there is no reason to think the solar system still didn't form under the standard model. Your theory does not contradict the standard model at all, it offers an alternative that, if true, could happen only under very specific and very rare circumstances but is in no way mutually exclusive with the standard model. You aren't right, though, this is simply another hole in your hypothesis.
And you still have not explained why we see no moons that are currently in transition between orbiting in the opposite direction to the rest of the solar system to orbiting in the same direction. All moons are either orbiting in the same direction as the solar system or the opposite direction, if your model is correct we would expect to see moons that are at various stages in between these two orbits. We see no such things.
Order of Kilopi
As a note, 2003 UB313's orbit makes Pluto's look mild by comparison. See the graph to the right on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_UB313#Orbit
It is far, far out of the plane of the ecliptic.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Member
Thank you for this. And it is corrected as follows:
and
Member
1) I have explained in my posts that my opinion can not be accurately proved currently. It's a guideline. Further proving activities are needed, though it might not be accomplished by myself.
2) no evidence to say that my opinion does not agree with observations. No observations had been paid attention to in this field before. No one found that millions of years ago the moon's orbit was the same gradient as it is now.
3)thanks for pointing out, it's corrected.
Last edited by Chineson; 2006-Feb-18 at 12:38 AM.
Member
No recognizable trace means not no occurrence.
Member
Millions years later, or even later, it will not be so gradient as now.Pluto's orbit is in the same direction as the rest of the solar system, but the orbit is significantly out of the plane of the rest of the solar system. You can see that from this picture (hosted by the National Air and Space Museum):
On the contrary, the case of Pluto's orbit is a counterevidence to the hypothesis you have accepted. It should be within the plane of the rest of the solar system.
According to my theory, it's not strange. I do not care how gradient its orbit is, but I believe it will be drawn colser by and by to the sun's equator plane.
Last edited by Chineson; 2006-Feb-18 at 12:42 AM.
Member
Even the moons orbiting in the opposite direction are being changing their orbit, we human being can not detect it. It's a business of millions of years. We can detect 4-5cms changes in our moon's orbit in diameter,please calculate if its orbit draws 2.3cms nearer to the sun's equator plane, how much the angle would change between the moon's orbit plane and the sun's. Please tell us what apparatus we can use to detect this angle change.
Furthermore, do you know anyone in the world who had noticed this problem before? If no, how can you say that the orbits make no change through the time of millions of years?
Last edited by Chineson; 2006-Feb-17 at 08:06 AM.
Member
Any exceptions (wrong direction or out of the ecliptic) are counterevidence to the mainstream model which it can not explain.
But my article is a reasonable explaination to any exceptions: Planets and moons need not to be born with the sun at the same time, or in the same place. That's why they are so different from each other now.
Last edited by Chineson; 2006-Feb-18 at 12:44 AM.
Member
The fourmula I use is not against Newton. On the contrary, I am right using the Newton theory.
Member
You are right, however the moon and the earth dance to and fro, if they are independent, the total angular momentum would not change theoretically. But they are not independent. Even the sun-planets system is not independent. It's not an easy work to work out how much it changes while the moon moves, but what I want to say is that it does change because the moon-earth system is not independent. It can be worked out, not by me maybe, but it can be worked out!
Last edited by Chineson; 2006-Feb-18 at 06:05 AM.
Posting Permissions
