Robittybob1

One can wait 8 years, or even 18 years, but what about 100 years? Who would be checking the one hundred year old threads on the Science Forum for the challenge to see who was right? I'd imagine it bugged Einstein when he was dying to think he will never find out whether he was right or wrong over gravitational waves.

When I read Gees responses I understand the situation she is in. Even if someone is hijacking the thread will it be supported by the moderators if she was to report it? Over the years I have felt it was actually detrimental to complain for the moderators would prefer no one discussing the "supernatural" in any way so a discussion on whether there should be a restriction on the consumption of pork is just the best thing out i.e. hijacking the thread is the best thing. Complain more and she may have received some warning herself just for annoying the moderators for would this forum really pull up some of its best posters over an issue like that? I have yet to see it.

So you are claiming after 8 years one lot will be right and the other lot will be wrong? And not only that but you have picked the winning side. 8 years is still a short time span in the scientific development timescale, e.g compare that to the 100 years for the discovery of gravitational waves. So I was surprised that AI gave such a short and optimistic timescale of just 8 years, what say it is made a little more realistic and extended out to 100 years, and then we'll see who is right.

In the post before you said "So the atmosphere as a whole then possesses the momentum originally owned by the meteor as well as the very much larger momentum it already had due to its attachment to the Earth system". There seemed to be two components to the momentum and one of them was called "momentum originally owned by the meteor" Is that the same as it "original momentum" Can you define this term please? "Before it is burning up" it will have the combination of both sources of momentum (acceleration gained from the Sun (+Solar system) and the Earth), I'd imagine, so how do you measure the "original momentum"? For that sounds like the final momentum rather than the original.

How did you define "original" in this case? Where was this "original momentum" measurement taken?

I think we misunderstand each other. The Earth is ever so little attracted toward the meteor but since the mass is extremely large the relationship of momentum gained by the meteor is balanced by the momentum gained (opposite direction) by the Earth. Does that imply a meteor can not change the Earth's momentum? No because it would have had momentum due to the fall towards the Sun as well. Whether that will change the spin rate will depend on the position of impact on the surface i.e. leading side or trailing side.

That is very similar to what I was saying but just one point is that in the case of an elliptical orbit I believe the change between the PE and KE is 1:1 (nothing was lost) but where there is loss due to drag it is 50:50. On a quantum level it would read something like this "1 quanta of energy if loss to drag means there has to be a 2 quanta change in PE to get an increase of 1 quanta in KE". You can't get other ratios for you can't split the quanta up into smaller components. But I see the problem now is how to differentiate the effects of energy exchange during an elliptical orbit (where the quanta are exchanged 1:1) with the RB Law effect of 2:1:1 split. I have found that with the new understanding of the time delay in the RB law mechanism it has become indistinguishable from an elliptical orbit. I am trying to develop the terminology to talk about it. I must try the example first and it might clarify my understanding. An Object in circular orbit, encounters drag, it is slowed and falls (loss of PE) as if in an elliptical orbit. The elliptical orbit will have a shorter period. Which if thought of as a circular orbit (for calculation purposes) would have a reduced radius and an increased tangential velocity (hence KE increase). That elliptical orbit will be maintained indefinitely so I am now left in a position of not being able to define when the RB Law completes the process. So maybe we are forced to say the whole RB law is instantaneous for at the moment of impact energy is lost and the elliptical orbit is established instantaneously at that point too. The elliptical orbital characteristics accounts for the loss of PE and increase in KE. So does that provide the solution to the paradoxical situation of something speeding up because it was slowed down?

The origin of the RB relates to situations where there was an external force being applied. From the OP It is split when there is a loss of energy to an external influence. I had already understood how a planet moves in an elliptical orbit with the exchange or PE to KE and back. I was not intending to make any comment on the Kepler Laws. When there is an 1:1 exchange there is an elliptical orbit but when the exchange is split 50:50 there has been an external force. RB Law implies there was nothing in between i.e you can't get a 75:25 split between PE and KE. Do you think there are intermediary values? The complication we have discovered is that the exchange from one type to the other takes forever unless you circularise the orbit (for calculation purposes only) of the body. That is why I was going to attempt the problem and investigate it further. "Mechanical energy" is not a term I use that often but it maybe the preferred term to either PE or KE for those two are being continually exchanged (So ME is the sum of those two)

Thanks for answering the Q. It was the "Dr" bit in you username made me wonder if you were a psychologist or such like. There were also other recent posts that had a leaning toward an interest in medical issues. I could be called Doctor in my country because of the degree I have so I look out for those that have similar knowledge. "Do you think I am wrong? Do you think it is telepathy that he is experiencing? *shakes head*" I will answer that question if the your own bias wasn't so obvious. Interesting bits now appearing about the Holy Ghost was this from an edit or did I miss it before?

Do the mod notes cross threads? In the thread about the stages of Sun development I saw one mod note, I PM'd the moderator with an explanation and got warning points without making any further posts in that thread, yet within that thread there had derogatory posts about me, and others had tried to hijack the thread (I feel it would have been hijacking if I had done the same in another thread). I don't report incidents often for in general I have felt it a waste of time. I have noticed others post comments in their posts alerting moderators to issues, do these work?

Do you have some sort of medical background DrP?

The post by Gees was several years old. I was looking for the most recent policy on warning points and this thread seemed to be the most recent. That was good advice. "focus more on submitting thoughtful, intelligent, internally consistent, interesting, inherently awesome posts" that sounds like Nirvana. Maybe when you are a left handed, Christian psychic trying to prove that life started on Mercury you are always going to have difficulty submitting thoughtful, intelligent, internally consistent, interesting, inherently awesome posts. "Striving to be better" - you do get fatigued after a while. Your brain fades, it becomes overloaded, it needs time to recover, yet the forum can be rather demanding if you let it.

The gravity wave sensors were very sensitive to motion eg trucks going past etc. The sort of experiment you describe would tend to produce quite considerable ground shaking. It might be difficult to separate the two.

I would say that teamwork is important too. I watched a documentary on Einstein and he had according to it help from brilliant physicians and mathematicians in order to come up with his GR and SR formulas. The recent gravitational wave discovery was the effort of a huge team of up to 1000 scientists. Sending spacecraft on voyages of discovery will be the culmination of 10s of thousands of individuals. I would say get involved with a good team.

One thing I've noticed is the number of threads that have serious spelling errors in their title. That to me makes a thread very suspect from the beginning. I prefer a title that catches the eye and expresses what the subject is about. If there are spelling errors in the text being quoted I will correct them. I make mistakes and often I find people joke about my errors, but personally I wouldn't do that to anyone else. Writing skills and conversation skills may go hand in hand. You are very fluent in your writing, and I wish I could do the same. The more you post the more skilled you become at being 100% clear in what you are saying. There are many factors in a person's background that has shaped a person, it may not just be intelligence but intelligence would certainly rank highly when it comes to writing skills.

One thing that caught me by surprise was that the notification came to me via my gmail account rather than the internal message system.

@ Studiot - How do you handle linear momentum for a proportion of the momentum would have been gained by the Earth attracting the meteor to itself. How do you determine its natural speed? [The one it would have if it passed the Earth's orbit unassisted by Earth's gravity] I have been thinking this one through maybe you could treat the meteor as coming from infinity and work out its velocity gained in the free fall to the Earth, also compare that to the free fall speed towards the Sun at the height of the Earth's orbit. Would the final speed be the addition of both of these?

What I have been thinking is we could test it out. Have a planet of mass m in a circular orbit r instantaneously impacting with meteor that takes away an amount of the KE (10%?) but does not add or subtract any mass. Calculate the circular orbit prior to the collision and the elliptical orbit after the collision and see if the RB law holds just for the amount of KE lost (represents drag). The the average PE based on the planet's parameters at the intersection of the orbit and the semi minor axis. Does the change in KE = 1/2 * change in |PE|

No I was just wondering what the current policy was. So it seems pretty discretionary. I might feel like I didn't deserve some of the points but it only gets worse if a person complains bitterly. Thanks.

Is this the current policy on warning points?

Ellipses are neat! But at this point the velocity is not tangential. There are only two places where the velocity is tangential and that is at the perihelion and the aphelion but the speeds there are either too slow or too fast.

And I suppose they would be at the points where the orbit could be treated as circular. Is that correct? Those positions are somewhere down the sides of the ellipse, definitely not at the perihelion (too slow) or the aphelion (too fast) positions. Wiki on elliptical orbits Whereabouts on an ellipse is the point where the orbital radius is equal to the semi-major axis? According to this site it is the point of maximum bulge where the semi minor axis meets the orbit path. http://www.mrelativity.net/inertiagravity/Inertia&Gravity4_files/image004.gif

What I do struggle with is that we seem to need Newtonian formulas to make quick calculations yet we don't use the terminology that Newton would have used. We have to describe the physics in terms of the Einsteinian spacetime model but use Newtonian formulas to calculate the parameters. In future when I use Newtonian formulas my description will be Newtonian.

Maybe J.C.MacSwell would care to comment as to whether the idea is complete. It is realising that the falling takes half of the orbital circumference to complete that makes it easier to understand. In fact it falls too far and gains too much velocity and throws itself back out to the position it started at, when at the end of the impulse. The large amount of time between the loss of orbital energy and attaining the correct velocity for a circularised orbit is the thing I have come to appreciate. If one was to go back through the thread you would see how I struggled to understand as to whether this was instantaneous or delayed effect but J.C.MacSwell has convinced me it is delayed.

Yes it was a little funny but it didn't make me laugh. By telekinetic do you mean "make things happen on tele"? The event was broadcast on Television.