Global warming is real


Then go back and read. I’m not here to provide you a remedial education.

Let me give you a hint, look for the discussion about the amplitude of the string’s vibrations.


Lots of experts in here. It’s nice to see this complicated topic in such capable hands.

I’m sure that each forum expert agrees with the overwhelming scientific consensus of the other experts in climate science out there.

It took time, but it warms my soul to see the deniers come around.


As you said in another thread just a minute ago, just directly answer the question.

What mechanism is dissipating the guitar strings energy if we take friction out?


It’s already been answered multiple times, I’m not here to provide you a remedial education.

If you’re too lazy to read the thread I’m not going to repeat it for you.


Here’s a great excerpt from wiki on energy dissipation of oscillating bodies:

Waves or oscillations, lose energy over time, typically from friction or turbulence. In many cases, the “lost” energy raises the temperature of the system. For example, a wave that loses amplitude is said to dissipate. The precise nature of the effects depends on the nature of the wave: an atmospheric wave, for instance, may dissipate close to the surface due to friction with the land mass, and at higher levels due to radiative cooling.

In a vacuum, the string doesn’t see air friction. It still would see boundary friction effects but if you could remove that I believe the string would oscillate forever.


Even in a vacuum the string eventually returns to stillness. This has been done and verified many times experimentally.

There is a limited amount of energy imparted to that string which is under constant tension which returns it eventually to an amplitude of zero.

This has been explained to you over, and over again.


Ok, I searched the Internet and found a physics PhD who says no, it wouldn’t oscillate forever. Luckily he gave the actual reason which makes sense.

The oscillation of the string Induces a compression/tension cycle at the bends of the wire near the ends. Locally this causes heating up and energy will be lost as it flows from hot to cold. Eventually you lose your energy of the vibration.

All right, that makes sense. I must have missed where you posted that detailed explanation. :smile:


Here’s the link if anyone is interested:


It’s 100% true based on your own statements.

The evidence that supports your theory that our orbit returns to some normal is that we haven’t observed a change in our orbit despite having it periodically perturbed by other objects.

That would require we have been able to observe the perturbations in the first place.


You just keep making it up when you obviously know better.

You don’t have to measure an effect to observe it and know it occurred.

The math tells us that any object that with gravity that interacts with us affects our orbit which you even admitted until you saw it was hurting your argument.

When you have an honest, fact based argument to make by all means do so, it will be a refreshing change.


You keep hiding from the weakness in your argument by playing semantics, so I guess I have to play along.

Has there ever been any alteration in our orbit caued by one of these objects to a degree that we’ve been able to observe in hunanity’s history?


I’m not hiding anything, you keep making false claims about what I’ve said and I merely call you on them. They are all documented above.

Observe? Yes, Measure no, physics tells us whether they are observed measured, or go unnoticed every object interaction with our gravity affects our orbit to varying degrees, which you even admitted until like many other things you realized that the truth would not support or help your arguments.


No it doesn’t. We’re talking hypothetically about an NEO changing Earth’s orbit, not about when the Moon was created.


Okay. Great. Can you name one time when we’ve observed a modification of our orbit that somehow “reverted” back to normal.


You brought up the creation of the moon (4 billion years ago) as an example.


No and none is required.

We know the objects pass us, we know their gravity affects our orbit, yet we also know that in spite of them we can document back as far as 75,000 years that our orbit has remained relatively stably throughout the long term.

The only way that is possible is that after those objects pass us we return eventually to the same predicable, observed, orbital cycle.

We can document even more accurately recent history, and predict our position accurately at any point in the future absent some new force changing the equilibrium of the entire system.


If you are responding to me, please stick with what I have said, not what someone else said.


The funny part is that he admitted over a thousand posts ago that it’s quite possible NEO’s have affected our orbit and climate in the past but still won’t give up attempting to discredit the theory because I’m the one who initially posited it.

He just can’t let it go because he’s so desperate to find some way to show me to be wrong.

Pretty pathetic.


You didn’t read the post did you. I said IF that object had not collided with Earth it would have changed our orbit. (It most likely changed our obit when it collided too, but that’s a different discussion.) It’s no wonder you are so easily confused.


he lost the plot about 2,000 posts ago and ans been wondering agrily and blindly through the tread since.