Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang and Conservation of angular momentum??
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(1)
Message 14 of 99 (559887)
05-12-2010 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by dennis780
05-12-2010 12:25 AM


Or Not
if the 'singularity' was spinning, this would explain the prevelance of rotation in the universe
Go out into your yard with a small weight tied onto the end of a thread. Swing this around over your head until it's going fast enough for the thread to snap. Then come back and report how much of the angular momentum was conserved.
9/16ths" nut: 17¢.
2 feet Mercerized cotton thread; 0.027¢.
Discovering you've no idea what you were talking about: Priceless.
Radiation energy caused these gasses to collapse on themselves
Not gravity then?
The sun is the largest celestial body in our solar system, having over 97% of all mass.
97% of what's left behind. What percentage is it of the original cloud? Now, if there was some kind of interaction with that cloud that could have induced a breaking action Hey! Just sayin'; ya' never know. Well, not if you don't bother to, like, read.
If the Big Bang is correct
The BBT has nothing to do with the piddling business of solar system formations. You might as well claim that the 1950s A-bomb tests have something to do with how the dust settles behind skittering cockroaches.
and The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum is correct, then we should observe the sun having 97% of the total rotational energy in our solar system.
Did you take magnetic drag into account?
Hey! Just sayin'.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 12:25 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 1:34 AM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 15 of 99 (559891)
05-12-2010 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by dennis780
05-12-2010 12:35 AM


Why do You Tempt Me
I've got to get up early to go to school.
The big bang is entirely in breach of the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, see my previous post.
See my previous post. And a physics book.
There would be evidence of this, on the surface of the planets, of which there is none to my knowledge.
Why set such a low standard of evidence? Makes me think you aren't really trying. How much surface evidence would your knowledge expect to find of a collision that would liquify said surface? How much on a gas giant? oow! Trick question.
And none of the planets have "wierd" axial orbits except for Jupiter, which rotates on it's side.
Is it only Jupiter that you have confused with Uranus? Or are you confusing Uranus for a font of knowledge?
Next time you want to sound smart, at least copy and paste from someone with intelligence.
Nor should one copy from someone who eats their paste.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 12:35 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 2:09 AM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(1)
Message 20 of 99 (559899)
05-12-2010 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by dennis780
05-12-2010 1:34 AM


Do the Expeiment
All of it. Until inertia acted on it.
Until inertia acted on it? You realize, don't you, that we're talking about inertia from the get go right?
If I spin the weight clockwise, and the tread snaps, it will travel away from center, rotating clockwise, and vice versa.
The nut will not be spinning at all.
I took the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum into account.
The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum doesn't exist in a vacuum, ya' know? Hey! wait yes it does. You tricked me. You're tricky.
Since I'm assuming you don't understand how planets and stars are formed, I'll respond with a question.
It's starting to look like you should assume nobody understands anything about anything 'cause your statements make you look a bigger ass then your questions.
Where is the gravity force coming from?
Gravity is the warping of space reacting to mass.
Since the big bang only contained the elements helium and hydrogen that formed gas clouds, what is celestial body is acting on these elements??
None: mass attracts mass. Not celestial body attracts stuff. Both He and H have mass, ipso facto, mutual attraction.
Heres a better question. What causes gravity? I'm going to bet you don't know, because no one knows. They only know that it acts on MASS.
Well, I live in MASS. so maybe I've got an in. Clue: we don't need to know its cause nearly so much as we need to know its behavior. That we have down pat.
I would suppose your an idiot.
You're spelling takes the sting out of the slight. Not to mention it seem strangely non sequitur. One would think the early synthesis of the Universe would have a lot to do with ones suppositions concerning the mental capacity of others, but still, I tend to believe other factors nearer at hand would be more pertinent.
Dumb question.
I've been told that there are no dumb question when it comes magnetic breaking during star formation.
Edited by lyx2no, : Typos.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 1:34 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 3:11 AM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(2)
Message 24 of 99 (559908)
05-12-2010 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by dennis780
05-12-2010 2:09 AM


Re: Why do You Tempt Me
I'm sorry, are we writing a biography? Or debating?
It's just that I get, like, 97% of my self esteem fix from correcting errors made on the internet, so I can't let your posts lie without comment. I'm way too jazzed to sleep now. And I don't know if this qualifies as a debate so much as a punkfest.
Your previous post does not respond to the rotational energy of the sun, or lack thereof. Response?
Well, ya' see, that's where the magnetic breaking comes in. I didn't just write that because it's got some of my favorite letters in it. The rotational energy from the gas that remains behind can be bled off into the gasses that escape by magnetic field interactions. That's why it needs to be taken into account. If a magnetic figure skater bled off sufficient quantities of charged gas one would have to take that into account too.
Actually, no it's not. Since none of the planets with retrograde orbits are gas giants.
You need to wrap your head around Uranus instead of the other way round. Uranus is a retrograde, gas giant. With an axial tilt of 97.77 it is 7.77 past the mark. (Sorry, Dr. Jones*.) At 177.3 the only other retrograde planet is Venus. That makes two.
  1. ☿ 2.11'
  2. ♀ 177.3
  3. ♁ 23.26
  4. ♂ 25.13
  5. ♃ 3.13
  6. ♄ 26.73
  7. ♅ 97.77
  8. ♆ 28.32
That's eight. Didn't miss any, did I?
And liquify the evidence? Are you kidding me? I don't know what your taking in school, but i hope your money is refundable.
Them thar' crater makin' pebbles ain't got the juice to turn a planet around. Have you any idea how much energy one would have to impart to reverse the spin of even a wee planet? Crust melting magnitudes worth.
Furthermore, your argument for CoAM, insignificant magnetic breaking added to slow retrograde rotation is a good indication that Venus was turned about by collision.
No. Uranus has a retrograde orbit. Jupiter rotates on it's side. Stop talking.
I can't stop grinning. I just can't stop grinning.
Edited by lyx2no, : Insert Dr. Jones* venerable asterisk.
Edited by lyx2no, : Typos.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 2:09 AM dennis780 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by DrJones*, posted 05-12-2010 3:27 AM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 32 of 99 (559919)
05-12-2010 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by dennis780
05-12-2010 3:11 AM


Re: Do the Expeiment
Prove it. Thats an opinion without supporting evidence.
Dude, bust loose with the 17.027¢. and head out into the yard already. While you're out there climb up onto the roof and drop a golf ball and a bowling ball at the same time. There are things one should be able to do for themselves.
I`m hoping you are being sarcastic.
Not a lot of people hope that.
Wow this computer is bs. I can#t use quotations question marks anything. sorry. Bear with me on this reponse and I#ll reboot after.
I'd not be so sure it's your computer. My computer isn't able to see the my hilarious " in a vacuum." idiom just yet. I only know it printed because you referred to it. But not to worry, you're making enough errors of fact that I don't have to deride you for the technologically induced ones.
OH GOOD!! So you have documented evidence of gravity causing star formation question marks...
Cause I have evidence saying it#s radiation...hmmm, which should I go with...
You should go with mine, 'cause you don't read so good. What you have is, as you've already been told, radiation compressing stellar gasses. It's rather obvious that external radiation pressure can cause gasses to compress. But by the same token internal radiation pressure causes the gasses to disperse. Thank goodness for gravity being able to take over and overwhelm to save the day.
Speaking of days, do you know how many days it takes for a star to form? Hint: more days than anyone has ever had at their disposal to watch Cepheus B become a star. We know how stars form because we have millions of them in various stages of formation and can infer the formation in the same way we infer dancing on a TV screen.
OH GOOD!!! So you have evidence to support your theory question marks.
An alert reader would note that the phrase "magnetic breaking during star formation" was tinted blue. That means if you click on it you will be wisked off into the magic land of internet evidence (Not "proof": it's an epistemological thing.) of my statement.
Edited by lyx2no, : Typos.
Edited by lyx2no, : I was tired. Typo.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 3:11 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 4:37 AM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 34 of 99 (559921)
05-12-2010 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by DrJones*
05-12-2010 3:27 AM


Re: Why do You Tempt Me
They have retrograde/reverse rotations but not retrograde orbits. Unless I'm confusing terms.
You are, of course, right. My brain immediately corrected orbit to rotation without registering. I'll also go back and edit my post for your asterisk.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by DrJones*, posted 05-12-2010 3:27 AM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 5:02 AM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 44 of 99 (559947)
05-12-2010 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by dennis780
05-12-2010 4:37 AM


Re: Do the Expeiment
Firstly, you were not being called stupid for spelling errors. You were being laughed at for a spelling/grammar error. You wrote " your an idiot." If you are going to call someone and idiot it would be a whole lot more effective it you were to write " you're an idiot."
I gave you logical evidence using the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, and the best you can do is, prove it?
Logical argument (not evidence) takes a back seat to empirical evidence such as you could garner for 17.027¢.
But your logical "evidence" falls short because it is only part of the story; hence, the line about LoCAM not existing in a vacuum. The phrase "not existing in a vacuum" is an idiom that means "Does not act alone." Yes angular momentum is conserved. But that does not mean it can not be transferred from one body to another. Stars have very powerful magnetic fields that are able to interact with the charged gasses that are being ejected from the stellar cloud during star formation. If this effect isn't taken into account one does in deed have a conundrum of LoCAM. But with it, that problem evaporates. And I certainly never said prove it. You are projecting.


[OT autobiography time]
You see, you think your the big guns in life because you managed to keep all your teeth brushing twice a day, and spewing 30 year old insults at random online geeks.
My insults are fresh, hip and tubular. And I am a geek.
Your biggest problem each month is finding enough change between the couch cushions so that your mom won't disconnect the internet again, and ruin your midnight WoW sessions.
My mum pays for the internet entire. She also gives me lunch and milk money. If Mum knew I was on the computer this much past my bedtime she'd disconnect me in a heart beat. But unfortunately for you she's in Maryland trying to fix her sister's family at the expense of her own.
Your [sic] not cool.
No, I'm not.
And judging from your responses, you're not all that intelligent either.
I don't think you've put in the effort to understand my responses.
I know...graphic. The truth stings like pee on a jellyfish tenticle wrapped around your nutsack. trust me, I'd know.
The folk tale is that urine relieves the sting of jellyfish not intensifies it. So your metaphor doesn't work save by my grace. In other words: I'm intelligent enough to know your intent and accord your allusion.[/OT autobiography time]

In fact, cepheus B was not OBSERVED either.
I do think "more days" covered that.
I've got a bus to catch. Go ahead, speculate upon the length of the bus.
Edited by lyx2no, : Pound.
Edited by lyx2no, : Typos.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 4:37 AM dennis780 has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 48 of 99 (560047)
05-12-2010 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by dennis780
05-12-2010 5:02 AM


Re: Why do You Tempt Me
k I don' t know who's reply i didn't answer, but one at a time please.
One at a time isn't likely but relax: It's a debate, not a race.
I have another experiment for you, d780. Locate a shallow puddle of murky water. Put your finger in water and move it in a straight line. Take note of the swirl pattern. But since your finger moved in a more or less straight line whence the swirls? And there are clockwise as well as counterclockwise swirls. How can this possibly be since all of the angular momentum of the big bang was either one way or the other? (Note to cd et al: I understand the BBT imparting net ang mo upon the Universe is nonsensical. I'm just not prepared to tackle the obvious with you-know-who.)
This Hubble image of Arp128 shows the aftermath of a collision of two galaxies. I hope you recognize this as the galactic "finger-puddle" equivalent. The following Subaru Telescope image of the antenna Galaxy shows clockwise and counterclockwise swirls.
We observe cw and ccw swirls on scales ps10-12< planetary scale < ps1012. Can we safely conclude we'll get cw & ccw swirls on the planetary scale merely from random, local motion; aka, turbulence?
Do you retire your BBT LoCAM argument?
Edited by lyx2no, : Complete question.
Edited by lyx2no, : Correct understatement.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 5:02 AM dennis780 has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(1)
Message 53 of 99 (561512)
05-21-2010 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by dennis780
05-20-2010 8:49 PM


L=rmv
The law of conservation of angular momentum is not up for debate.
It is your understanding of it that is debatable.
There is a formula for it.
L=rmv.
Your skater's angular momentum, L, is conserved, so we can set her initial ang-mo, Li equal to her resultant ang-mo, Lr. This is equivalent to rimvi=rrmvr. Setting her mass equal to 1; rivi=↓rr↑vr. As your skater's radius decreased her velocity proportionally increased.
Have I established that we got it. You don't need to harp on the obvious.
Now, go buy a nut.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by dennis780, posted 05-20-2010 8:49 PM dennis780 has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 65 of 99 (561834)
05-23-2010 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by dennis780
05-23-2010 5:45 PM


OK Fine
Not to step on the good Doctor's toes, but how are you going to make him look stupid by proving him right? I'm sure he's used to that and has learned to live it down.
This law and formula is used to calculate velocity
No it's not. The formula p=mv can be algebraically manipulated to give velocity, but there are far easier ways to calculate velocity. One does not generally know the momentum of an object unless they have calculated it using its known velocity. Then they can use the know velocity to calculate the velocity using the formula v=v.
"momentum (pl. momenta; SI unit kgm/s, or, equivalently, Ns) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object (p = mv)."
Thought you were referring to angular momentum, L. Momentum, p, is another kettle of fish that isn't angular.
Velocity refers to an objects change in position, at a constant rate. Any change to this is called acceleration, or deceleration respectively. If anything, I would be refering to the acceleration of rotation, not it's velocity, since that would imply no change.
Ouch! Sorry that was a sympathy pain I was feeling for the Doctor.
Velocity is a vector quantity. Velocity can change accelerate while maintaining a constant speed by changing direction. You don't think the Sun is speeding up and slowing down as it goes around the Earth in a perfect circle, do you?
The LCAM formula (v = L/(mr) states that:
No. That is the formula for velocity as a function of L. The same argument would apply for this as applies to v as function of p: to wit, why?
Since the sun holds more than 97% of all mass in our solar system, when light elements collapsed, and distance to R decreased, the rotational energy (that must be conserved) would cause the body to rotate similarily around 97% faster than the planets surrounding it. This is not the case. The sun completes a rotation around once a earthly month. This CLEARLY VIOLATES the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.
The LoCAM states that ΔLsys = constant ↔ Στext. See that external torque. They mean it. Funny, I know, but the physics gangstas ain't fronten'.
If you assume that some outside force acted on it, it cannot be proven, and would just be another unproven theory added to the years of theories attempting to support the outdated and untested theory of evolution.
Or we could pull our hands from in front of our eye that we might observe the magnetic coupling of other systems forming. Calculate the strength of those coupling forces, note the duration of those forces and calculate just how much L would be transferred to the escaping dust and gas. And what do you know? We get what we observe: a slowly rotating Sun. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
You guys really enjoy attacking people when they have an educated opinion on scientific data.
We enjoy attacking you too.
Edited by lyx2no, : Because.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by dennis780, posted 05-23-2010 5:45 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 8:03 AM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 78 of 99 (565874)
06-21-2010 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by dennis780
06-21-2010 8:03 AM


Re: OK Fine
Haha, okay Lynx. I'm an oilfield worker, so if you are going to assume I know what any of the above is, then you are mistaken.
I assumed you’d know it based on your disagreement with it. Were I to tell you that there are surer methods of attaching the kelly than you’re currently using, wouldn’t you assume I knew something of what I assumed to speak? If not, should I be correcting you?
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and further assume that you screen is displaying this gibberish: "Lsys = constant ‘ext", and rewrite in almost English.
That was originally entered as unicode. It should have shown up as delta (915) L sub-sys = constant two headed arrow (8596) Sigma (931) tau (964) sub-ext. This means the change (delta) in a system's angular momentum (L) is to a constant not withstanding the exchange of the sum (sigma) of the external torque.
This means you can spin up or slow down a bowling ball if you apply the right force upon it with you hand, but if left to itself in the void it will continue to do whatever it is doing forever.
but I do not see any calculations.
Calculations are used to solve for specific examples. We are not solving a specific example at this time. We are discussing a generalization; to wit, How does the Sun have 97% of the mass and 2% of L in the system? The answer is: The Sun and planets are not the entirety of the system you are considering. You neglect the nebula it was formed out of.
Magnetic Coupling
Get yourself a bowling ball and two supermangnets. Fit one of the supermagnets into the thumb hole of the bowling ball. Now sweep the second supermangnet passed it. The torque you felt in you hand was magnetic coupling. Keep sweeping past the bowling ball in the same direction. Eventually the bowling ball will be spinning quickly in that direction. Now change the direction of your sweep. Eventually the ball will be spinning quickly in that direction.
I assume you don’t actually need to preform this experiment to know it’s outcome. You didn’t skip childhood and go straight to the oil fields, did you?
The Sun has a magnetic field. Ionized gas of the nebula has a magnetic moment. The source of work necessary for the gas to constantly realign with the Sun's constantly rotating field is the Sun's angular momentum.
(easy shot, I set you up!)
As a grandstander of the first order, I can unequivially state, set-ups take all the joy out of it.
Edited by lyx2no, : To repair the damage caused by my earlier rush to publish.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 8:03 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 10:28 PM lyx2no has replied
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 06-22-2010 7:49 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 87 of 99 (565963)
06-22-2010 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by dennis780
06-21-2010 10:28 PM


Re: OK Fine
My question is, what is me? What do I represent? Since I have to act on the bowling ball.
From Wiki:
A T Tauri star is a type of pre-main sequence star that is being heated through gravitational contraction and has not yet begun to burn hydrogen at its core. They are variable stars that are magnetically active. The magnetic field of these stars is thought to interact with its strong stellar wind, transferring angular momentum to the surrounding protoplanetary disk. This allows the star to brake its rotation rate as it collapses.
The surface friction of the ball/hand junction is the magnetic coupling, and you are the protoplanetary disk.
I think Dr. Adequates explanation was better.
Just as well. I’ve been under the impression that the magnetic interaction that slowed the star’s rotation was between the star and the material of the disk that the star was blowing back into space by the stellar wind, not with the stellar wind itself. (I’m looking into it rather than insisting that I’m right and giving Dr. A what-for.) However, the princilple is the same: look for the missing L in the ejected material.
Does magnetic coupling affect the earth and other planets as well? And if so, why less than the sun?
The Earth and other planets have only the puniest of magnetic fields and eject next to nothing by comparison.
Does the entire milky way effect every celestial body inside it?
The question is vague to the point of meaningless. Does doffing ones hat slow the rotation of the Earth? (Yes.)
Or is there a relative distance that the effects would be minimal or zero (depending on size and energy)?
Buy discriptive nouns on eBay.
I'm going to assume you are talking about a kelly hose? Or a kelly pump.
I just typed oil drilling terms into my search box and picked one from out of the middle. Just a little reading is all it took me to find out that there is no such thing as a kelly hose or a kelly pump. I can draw natural assumptions based on very minimal reading.
Either way, one can draw natural assumptions based on very minimal reading. It is not a requirement to hold a doctorate in any particular subject, or else even I would not be allowed to talk about the oilfield. Experience and training are two key elements to general knowledge. By informing myself (reading books)
How’d it work for me? Don’t think you did better.
I believe my opinion can be heard.
I generally prefer to not be heard spouting rubbish, but one man’s meat as they say.
I'm going to assume that you do not hold degrees in every subject you respond to
I hold no degree of any kind. Not even a high school diploma.
and using your logic, only the most knowledgable is allowed to argue.
My logic demands no such thing. It does demand that one not be wrong if one wants to be right.
But then whom does he argue with?
It’s the being right bit, not the arguing bit, that makes demands upon ones education.
The sun is not specific?
Your argument is about conservation of angular momentum negating naturalist hypotheses of creation. The Sun is only being used as an example. Would your arguement faulter if applied to the Beta Carotene system in the Carrot Nebula?
I'm confused.
I already told you: making it easy spoils the fun.
Can you not use the formulas provided to calculate the loss of rotation due to magnetic coupling inside the tachocline?
Not me. But I don’t have to be able calculate a specific to understand a general. By observing an apple I can surmise what keeps the moon in tow. And then I can go read Newton’s Philosophi Naturalis Principia Mathematica and see if I’m not right.
If not, explain. It seems that we can calculate the earths loss of rotation, so why not the sun?
We can’t because those mean spirited physicists who can won’t include our names as contributors to their papers.
You should really try to get Dr. A’s link to render. It's better too. It’s got me buying yet another book. (Thank you, Dr.)
I'll take your word for it.
Take nobodie’s word for it. That seem’s to be how you got yourself into this mess. Learn to understand it, and the creationists or we can’t lie to you anymore.


Hi Percy
I’ve not been able to find the time to learn [] yet. Do you have a handy totorial perchance? Thanks.
Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.
Edited by lyx2no, : Waiting for the dentist. Magnetic coupling

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 10:28 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by dennis780, posted 06-26-2010 2:30 PM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 90 of 99 (566793)
06-27-2010 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by dennis780
06-26-2010 2:30 PM


Re: OK Fine
If you enter [qs]Material to be quoted.[/qs] you’ll get
Material to be quoted.


Let me see if I get this straight. You suggest that all you have to do is a little reading and you can argue cosmology with experts. I do a little reading yet am unable to argue oil rigging with someone who doesn’t even work on a rig.
You say that my logic demands that only the most knowledgable is allowed to argue. I tell you I have no qualifications whatsoever.
Do you think there might be a point that you’re missing?
[Lyx’s logic] demands that one interpretation of data is absolutely correct.
Where do you get this absolutest stuff from? My logic demands that Occam’s Razor be used. Occam didn’t suggest that parsimony eliminates all possibilities but the more likely, but that the parsimonious solution is the more likely.
Do you argue that all interpretations are equals? If not you’re not really making an argument at all, but filling space so that no one will notice it’s empty. If you are arguing that they’re equal then you’re just plain ol’ nuts.
Directly to your argument: your solution to the Sun’s slower then expected rate of rotation is not the most parsimonious because you (stubbornly) haven’t taken into account all credits and debits; i.e., magnetic coupling.
I meant by any meaningful amount?
Your question was vague. If cavediver, in Socratic elenchus, had asked the question, it would have been vague. However, cavediver doesn’t have a history of basing whole slabs of his arguments upon the wisperings of gnats, leaving me able to understand where he’s leading. You, on the other hand
But I don’t have to be able calculate a specific to understand a general.
You do have to calculate it. Or find calculcations for it.
Do you understand the difference between a calculation and an equation?
H=½(v2sin2θa-1) is an equation. It indicates that the ultimate ballistic hight of an object can be determined if said variables are known. But it is not without value if absolute values are not known. I know that Mars has a lesser gravitational acceleration than Earth; therefore, I can see that, other parameters being equal, an object on Mars will reach a grater hight then it would on Earth.
Or, knowing Mars has .11 the mass and .53 the radius of Earth, I can, using another equation, calculate that Mars has .38 the gravitaional acceleration of Earth. I can then consider that under the first equation and calculate the object would go 2.6 times higher on Mars than on Earth.
And even though Mars is a specific planet, and Earth is a specific planet, and ballistic trajectories are a specific action, my generalization is of signficant value to Michael Jordan in the 25th century.
this is how debate works. I say something, you prove me wrong.
Shift the the burden of proof much?
How about you establishing that there are no factors influencing the Sun’s rotational rate other than CofL. You have on more than one occation been given evidence, specific and general, that that is not the case. You have ignored it each time. I can asure you that that is not how debate works.
Take nobodie’s word for it.
Your spelling says it all, and so does your logic. Take nobody's word for it implies that I should believe no one. So, I cannot believe what scientists say (whether they argue my view or yours), since I should not trust them.
I know that your correction was not ment in good faith, but I’m a pernicious pedant and appreciate it anyway. Especially as it’s a systematic error.
Again you presume too much about my logic. It implies that you should recognize that people err. You know spelling mistakes and such.
I unabashedly follow cavediver around like a puppy (If I don't he'll poo on the rug), but that is because it would be foolish of me to think that I could understand the material with a little reading better than he can with lots of reading. Even then, if he starts telling me that something works this way or that way, let’s say how high a projectile will go, that violates what I do know about how high projectiles will go because I understand the equation, I will try to find the source of the error. I’d also trust the source is me for the initial investigation.
I hope your research for evolution exceeds that of drilling processes.
What in God’s green Earth does evolution have to do with conservation of angular momentum?

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by dennis780, posted 06-26-2010 2:30 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by dennis780, posted 08-20-2010 10:33 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024