Governance of Earth's Rotation--A Strict Measurement

[B. John Jones]

I would be willing to bet, that the rotation of the earth is governed strictly by the positions of the moon and the sun, relative to the earth, which could be effectively measured and determined by 2 factors: 1) the distance between the earth and the moon; and 2) the correlation of the points of the cones of darkness, above the domes of darkness, of the earth and the moon.

[DrP]

They will play a part.... I would be willing to bet that it is a lot more complicated than that.

[Klaynos]

Those distances are well understood and measured. As is the earth's rotation time. How about rather than just spouting unsupported assertions you plot the data looking for correlations?

[swansont]

I would be willing to bet, that the rotation of the earth is governed strictly by the positions of the moon and the sun, relative to the earth, which could be effectively measured and determined by 2 factors: 1) the distance between the earth and the moon; and 2) the correlation of the points of the cones of darkness, above the domes of darkness, of the earth and the moon.

 

 

You lose.

 

The rotation of the earth is governed by angular momentum, meaning that a change in the mass distribution on the earth, or a change in rotational systems on the earth (e.g. a hurricane/typhoon) will change the rotation rate. If it was only the sun and the moon positions, one would expect an annual variation and an almost monthly variation (coinciding with the moon's position). But what we observe is more complicated.

 

This is a plot of the (excess) length of day, i.e. how much longer a day is than 86400 seconds. (You can see that sometimes this has been a negative number)

http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/amsci.png

 

There are small variations at intervals other than you'd expect, as well as a change on longer time scales.

 

As explained here

http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/EOP.html

the rotation also depends on precession and nutation, as well as "the variable components due to atmospheric, oceanic, and earth internal processes."

[B. John Jones]

 

 

You lose.

 

The rotation of the earth is governed by angular momentum, meaning that a change in the mass distribution on the earth, or a change in rotational systems on the earth (e.g. a hurricane/typhoon) will change the rotation rate. If it was only the sun and the moon positions, one would expect an annual variation and an almost monthly variation (coinciding with the moon's position). But what we observe is more complicated.

 

This is a plot of the (excess) length of day, i.e. how much longer a day is than 86400 seconds. (You can see that sometimes this has been a negative number)

http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/amsci.png

 

There are small variations at intervals other than you'd expect, as well as a change on longer time scales.

 

As explained here

http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/EOP.html

the rotation also depends on precession and nutation, as well as "the variable components due to atmospheric, oceanic, and earth internal processes."

 

All these changes/variations/differences you have mentioned will be offset with the otherwise negligible differences of the factors I've named for the earth and the moon, relative to the sun. That is, the moon governs not merely the rotation of the earth, but the underbelly of the night; and the sun governs the day.

(I have the feeling this might be moved into "speculations")

[swansont]

All these changes/variations/differences you have mentioned will be offset with the otherwise negligible differences of the factors I've named for the earth and the moon, relative to the sun.

 

What factors are you talking about? You were very clear in the OP: position of earth and moon. That's it.

 

That is, the moon governs not merely the rotation of the earth, but the underbelly of the night; and the sun governs the day.

 

This is a science discussion. Kindly leave this crap out of it, unless you are willing to rigorously define "governs"

[Strange]

 

All these changes/variations/differences you have mentioned will be offset with the otherwise negligible differences of the factors I've named for the earth and the moon, relative to the sun.

 

Please show, using data, that this is the case.

[B. John Jones]

 

Please show, using data, that this is the case.

 

I'm speculating now that this is in speculations. Anyway, I'm hardly a scientist or mathematician. I do study these things and draw, yes, intuitive conclusions. I'm offering a premise here, and an expectation.

[Strange]

 

I'm speculating now that this is in speculations. Anyway, I'm hardly a scientist or mathematician. I do study these things and draw, yes, intuitive conclusions. I'm offering a premise here, and an expectation.

 

And the data presented show it to be wrong.

 

The Speculations forum is not for random guesses. Read the rules: "Speculations must be backed up by evidence".

[swansont]

 

I'm speculating now that this is in speculations. Anyway, I'm hardly a scientist or mathematician. I do study these things and draw, yes, intuitive conclusions. I'm offering a premise here, and an expectation.

 

 

And your expectation is wrong, as I've shown. If you are going to continue to insist that you're right, you have to demonstrate it.

[B. John Jones]

 

What factors are you talking about? You were very clear in the OP: position of earth and moon. That's it.

 

 

This is a science discussion. Kindly leave this crap out of it, unless you are willing to rigorously define "governs"

 

If "rigorously" entails exclusive maths and sciences, I don't qualify to use the term "governance" in a scientific forum.

Edited June 15, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Strange]

 

At the risk of being censored, again, I didn't realize "crap," was a scientific term. Sorry, I know I shouldn't have said so.

 

When have you been censored?

 

Crap is not a scientific term but, as you refuse to be scientific in your approach, it is a reasonable description of your baseless assertions.

[B. John Jones]

 

 

And your expectation is wrong, as I've shown. If you are going to continue to insist that you're right, you have to demonstrate it.

 

I'm not insisting that I'm right. You are insisting that I'm wrong.

[Klaynos]

 

I'm not insisting that I'm right. You are insisting that I'm wrong.

No, the data that swansont provided shows you're wrong.

 

You cannot just wave away the measurements the way you have. The universe does not agree with your intuition.

[swansont]

 

Crap is not a scientific term

 

 

"governance of bullshit"

[Strange]

 

I'm not insisting that I'm right.

 

So are you acknowledging that you were mistaken?

 

 

You are insisting that I'm wrong.

 

The data insists that you are wrong. (There is only one person making unsupported assertions here. You.)

[B. John Jones]

 

When have you been censored?

 

Crap is not a scientific term but, as you refuse to be scientific in your approach, it is a reasonable description of your baseless assertions.

 

Science was, and ought still to be, very free-form observations of nature, using tools, like lenses, with reference sometimes, or often, to "scientific terms."

 

Threads I start tend to be locked, and I tend to be "warned," simply for my opinion that nature is far greater than science, and that there is a Creator of the natural world, who cannot be proven anymore than I can prove my identity to you, or you to me.

[swansont]

 

I'm not insisting that I'm right. You are insisting that I'm wrong.

 

I provided evidence that suggests that. Do you acknowledge that you are wrong? Your response indicates that you disagreed. You have two options: agree that your hypothesis is wrong, or dig up further evidence and present a detailed model that show that it's not.

[B. John Jones]

 

 

"governance of bullshit"

 

Why do assertions about nature, offered peacefully, but boldly, make you more bitter?

Edited June 15, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Strange]

 

Science was, and ought still to be, very free-form observations of nature, using tools, like lenses, with reference sometimes, or often, to "scientific terms."

 

Science relies on more than "free form" observations. It require objective measurements and analysis of data. Something you are skipping over.

 

 

Threads I start tend to be locked, and I tend to be "warned," simply for my opinion that nature is far greater than science, and that there is a Creator of the natural world, who cannot be proven anymore than I can prove my identity to you, or you to me.

 

So, not censored then. Please don't lie.

 

And if it can't be proven, then it has no place on a science forum.

 

Why do assertions about nature, offered peacefully, but boldly, make you more bitter?

 

Why do you think anyone is bitter?

 

Why are you unable to either (a) provide some evidence for your assertion or (b) admit it was a guess that turned out to be wrong?

Edited June 15, 2016 by Strange

[swansont]

Science was, and ought still to be, very free-form observations of nature, using tools, like lenses, with reference sometimes, or often, to "scientific terms."

It really isn't. Free-form, that is. Looking at Saturn through a telescope is a neat experience IMO, and a doorway to science, but it isn't science all by itself.

 

Threads I start tend to be locked, and I tend to be "warned," simply for my opinion that nature is far greater than science, and that there is a Creator of the natural world, who cannot be proven anymore than I can prove my identity to you, or you to me.

Because this is a science site, and preaching is against the rules you agreed to follow when you joined.

[Strange]

Because this is a science site, and preaching is against the rules you agreed to follow when you joined.

 

It often seems that religious people think that rules don't apply to them.

[B. John Jones]

 

Science relies on more than "free form" observations. It require objective measurements and analysis of data. Something you are skipping over.

 

 

So, no censored then. Please don't lie.

 

And if it can't be proven, then it has no place on a science forum.

 

Science tries to measure natural phenomena precisely but there are always, for the most part, margins of error. Art is built-in to nature. Rigid, strict, approaches to learning and discovery are always inferior to intuitive approaches to learning and discovery--with all the same tools and analytical devices as we would with a "strictly strict" approach.

[swansont]

Why do assertions about nature, offered peacefully, but boldly, make you more bitter?

I don't like empty assertions because they are not science, and I'm here to discuss science.

 

I don't know how you conclude I'm bitter, but I don't care. It's one more intellectually dishonest tactic — assigning a personal motive to responses which allow you to discount the possibility that the disagreement could possibly be on merit.

Science tries to measure natural phenomena precisely but there are always, for the most part, margins of error. Art is built-in to nature. Rigid, strict, approaches to learning and discovery are always inferior to intuitive approaches to learning and discovery--with all the same tools and analytical devices as we would with a "strictly strict" approach.

It is a commonly repeated falsehood that science does not use intuition. Science doesn't use only intuition — rigor always has to be applied.

[Strange]

 

Science tries to measure natural phenomena precisely but there are always, for the most part, margins of error.

 

That is rather obvious.

 

 

Rigid, strict, approaches to learning and discovery are always inferior to intuitive approaches to learning and discovery--with all the same tools and analytical devices as we would with a "strictly strict" approach.

 

That is quite plainly wrong. All modern technology, from the computer you are using, to cures for cancer, to your favourite display technology, arise from rigorous application of the scientific process, not from intuition.

 

People have been using intuition for millennia to treat disease, for example. And they were largely unsuccessful. It is only with the advent of the scientific method that great leaps were made in healthcare, agriculture and every other aspect of life.