Global warming is real


#2650

For which you have no basis whatsoever in fact. You cannot demonstrate the gravitational effects of any of them much less all of them that have occurred prior to very recent history.


#2651

That isn’t remotely true.


#2652

Dude. Can you show us examples of these star alignments in temples? I’m curious what the error is.


#2653

Wouldn’t that invalidate the Biblical global flood story?


#2654

Start with any of the Mesolithic sites such as Stonehenge and the pyramids.


#2655

What does anything in this discussion have to do with the bible? Once again you revert back to your bashing of religion when you have nothing else to offer.


#2656

But then, according to what I’ve heard from an expert, we would naturally go back to our original orbit.


#2657

Can you link to these records that you say go back 40,000 years?


#2658

I’ll correct myself. Adam’s calendar has been dated back to 75,000 years and the alignments still show to be accurate.


#2659

“sites” not records.


#2660

Only if the eccentricity induced was not large enough to defeat the stable forces in the system, mainly and namely momentum and gravity. Such a dramatic change would induce a change in the entire system.


#2661

It sounds like you think there is only one “equilibrium” orbit for our planet. Can you explain from a Physics perspective?


#2662

Not to anyone who’s actually read anything I’ve written on the subject.

Our orbit is not constant, never has been, it varies according to a very predictable cycle which can be calculated and verified through observation both in the future and the past.


#2663

What happens to this system when you place a new force on it? You claim that it changes the orbit. I’m with you there. Removing that force doesn’t mean the planet reverts back to the old orbit. It just means the planet will find its new “equilibrium”, distinct from the old.

This tension you imagine is better imagined where the k value (I know you know f=kx) is not a constant but a function of r (distance between sun and earth). You changed r when you modified the orbit, right?


#2664

No, there is only a new path established if the force acting on it is sufficiently large enough to permanently move it from it’s normal path.

As long as the constant forces remain so, it will otherwise return to the prior path.

Again, back to the guitar string. The forces holding that string or path in place remain while the temporary fluctuation wanes as the energy is dispersed.

The momentum and gravity which held us on the previous path have not changed and unless the force is sufficient to change the entire system, we will return to the original path.


#2665

I guess we’ll just have to disagree on the Physics here. Samm, Dantes and I disagree with you.

Here’s an interesting article touching on our subject. Note that they talk about using a large object to gradually nudge us away from our orbit. They don’t mention us moving back to our old orbit while the object is gone. Perhaps you should contact the NASA engineers and American astronomers where they are wrong?

How is the energy “dispersed”? Keep in mind laws of thermodynamics here.


#2666

They are talking about using a significant long term force to permanently alter our orbit.

To do that you have to induce a change to the entire system in order for that new orbit to remain constant.

Yes, thermodynamics says a limited amount of force can only cause a limited effect on any object. Once that energy is used up it ceases to influence the object being affected.

Only in the complete absence of resistance can a single push keep an object in constant motion no matter how much energy is transferred to that object.


#2667

Wildrose, you didn’t tell us how the vibrating string’s energy is dissipated? Please advise.


#2668

Yes i did, try reading what’s already been written, I’m not here to provide remedial education for you.


#2669

I missed what mechanism dissipates the energy.

Here’s what you said…

I didn’t see anything about energy dissipation of the string.