NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/misc/1918

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 17.5 KB | 392 lines

Xref: sparky sci.misc:1918 sci.astro:13381 sci.geo.geology:2613 sci.physics:21664 alt.sci.planetary:432
Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!brunel!mt90dac
From: [e-mail] (Del Cotter)
Newsgroups: sci.misc,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology,sci.geo.meteorlogy,sci.physics,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Cosmos Without Gravitation
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 12:41:47 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Brunel University, West London, UK
Lines: 380

James

> >10.  Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the
> >continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse
> >should be true...
>
> huh? This appears to be from a 1939 paper.  Any recent observations?

Okay, if you've been involved in seabed mapping you know more about this
than me, but it sounds right that the gravity should be greater at sea level
ie. closer to the Earth's centre.  Probably Velikovsky was thinking 'Ah,
land = more mass = more gravity'.  But the land has the *same mass* as the
ocean bed.  It floats like an iceberg because it has lower density.  Can you
say 'isostatic equilibrium', Immanuel?
>
> >11.  The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times
> >greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because
> >of the large solar mass), is much smaller...

'The atmospheric pressure', what's that?  Pressure in the Sun's atmosphere,
like that in the Earth's, varies with depth.  Comparing the Sun's outer
atmosphere with the Earth's at sea level is comparing apples with oranges.
> >
> >12.  Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have a
> >latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it.

It should, and it does, but not to the naked eye.  Some observations,
Immanuel, are not obvious.  And the correct terms are polar radius and
equatorial radius.  Read the literature.
>
> Why should it?  Does someone have the supporting calculations that
> Velikovsky's paper does not provide?

Sorry, no calculations, but think of a pirouetting dancer's skirt.
>
> >13.  If planets and satellites were once molten masses...they would not
> >have been able to obtain spherical form, especially those which do not
> >rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)
>
> I do not see this conclusion.  Even drops of water, not rotating, go
> spherical in free fall.

The water drops are minimising surface energy, and the molten planets were
minimising potential energy.  The big ones would have done so even if they
were not molten.  Mountain ranges are ephemeral phenomena.  Rotation has
nothing to do with gravity, unless you are a crank.
>
> >14.  ...The Newtonian orbits (calculated) differ from the Keplerian, found
> >empirically.
>
> How so? (Do they?)  The space program seems to do quite well with Newtonian
> calculations...

Kepler's orbits would fit Newton's exactly in the two-body case.  Newton
allows for the perturbation caused by third, fourth etc. bodies.  Einstein
allows for changes in the shape of spacetime.  Science gets better, Immanuel.
>
> >15.  Perturbations of planets due to their reciprocal action are pronounced
> >in repulsion as well as attraction.
>
> huh?  In his paper he gave no references to this.  Anyone know anything?

Sounds like complete gibberish to me.  Where are your data, Immanuel?
>
> >16.  The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets...As
> >these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not
> >understandable from...theory of gravitation, which includes the principle
> >of the immutable gravitational constant.
>
> The time is 1898-1899.  What happened?

Gibberish
>
> >17.  The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change
> >the orbits of the satellites...but this change fails to materialize; a
> >regulating force seems to overcome this unequal light pressure on
> >primaries and secondaries.
>
> I may be incorrect, but photonic/solar wind pressure seems several orders of
> magnitude for this to have an observable effect.

You can say that again!
>
> >18. The sun moves in space...This motion, according to Lodge (1918) must
> >change the eccentricties of some of the planetary orbits to an extent that
> >far exceeds the observed values.
>
> Anything more recent than a 1918 calculation not borne out by observation?
> What did he do wrong?

Without an account of Lodge's paper, it's impossible to say.  Who was he?
If he was of the same intellectual calibre as Velikovsky, then is one
crank more plausible because he quotes another?

Doctor:      And who are you?
1st Patient: Napoleon!
Doctor:      Are you now?
1st Patient: Yes I am! God told me so!
Doctor:      Did he now?
2nd Patient: Yes I did!
>
> >19.  The motion of the perihelia of Mercury and Mars and of the nodes of
> >Venus differ from what is computed with the help of the Newtonian law of
> >gravitation...the irregularities in the movements of venus and mars cannot
> >be accounted for by Einstein's formula.
>
> What irregulatrities?

The motion of the perihelion of Mercury differs signicantly from Newtonian
calculations.  This is accounted for by General Relativity.  The rest is
unsupported assertion.
>
> >20.  Unaccounted for fluctuations in the lunar mean motion were calculated
> >from the records of lunar eclipses of many centuries and from modern
> >observations.
>
> And are they accounted for now?

Yes, the lunar mean motion has been decreasing due to tidal interactions
with the Earth for at least 600 million years.  This was considered to be
sufficient explanation at the time, but Velikovsky chooses to ignore this.
Too inconvenient.  One problem was that the current rate, extrapolated
backward, would have had the Moon crashing into the Earth 600 million years
ago.  Very Velikovskian, but unfortunately, the timescale is not biblical
enough.  Anyway, we now know that the current rate of recession is unusually
high because  of the current arrangement of the continents, particularly
South America, Africa and Australia.
>
> >21. (paraphrase: variance in altitude of ionosphere as observed through radio
> >transmissions cannot be explained by tidal forces)
>
> What does tide have to do with ionospheric effects?  Solar radiation, yes.

The variation of atmospheric height caused by thermal radiation is
incorrectly known as 'thermal tide'.  Neither this nor the other kind
of tide has anything to do with ionosphere height, which is caused by
UV radiation.
>[snip]
> >23.  The change in the angular velocity of comets is not in accordance with
> >the theoretical computations based on the theory of gravitation.
>
> He refers to a german encyclopedia article.  What is current data?

Did you see those pictures of Halley by the Giotto probe?  Huge geysers
shooting out of the ground as the comet warms up.  The comet is small
enough that this has a significant effect on the orbit.  This was known
in Immanuel's time.
>
> >24.Meteors, after entering the terrestrial atmosphere at about 200km above
> >the ground, are violently displaced towards the east.
>
> What is he talking about?

Gibberish.  Because the earth is spinning anticlockwise as seen from the
north pole, meteors statistically have a mean *westwards* velocity relative
to the ground.  They do not suddenly acquire this on contact with the
atmosphere.
>
> >25.  As the principle of gravitation leaves no room for the participation
> >of other forces in the ordinary movements of the celestial mechanism...
>
> Sure it does.  I'd be amazed at anything that claimed otherwise.

Immanuel says it doesn't, okay?  Seriously, the man's dead now, can't we
leave him alone?  There are plenty of live cranks to jump on.  Some of
them are friends of mine.  They are usually middle-aged men with a
commendable interest in science who unfortunately think they can make a
serious contribution without doing any numerical work whatsoever.  Hence
the problems with orders of magnitude.  One of these friends had decided
that the Earth's magnetic field could be explained by currents in the
ionosphere, which would also explain why some planets had a field and
others don't.  Now this was quite an achievement.  Without even a cursory
glance at the literature, he had discovered aeolospheric fields.  They
account for short term fluctuations in the field, and are measured in
nanoteslas.  The geomagnetic field is measured in microteslas.  Did this
bother him?  Naah.  What's a factor of a thousand between friends?

Anyway, hope this is useful.  I am not a meteorologist or geologist or
astronomer, so since this has nothing to do with materials science, don't
take my word for it.  Merry Christmas!
--
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       [e-mail]      |    ', ,','
     ','      |                                                  |      ','
From mt90dac Tue Dec 22 15:59:15 1992
Subject: Velikovsky
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 15:59:15 BST
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2-hd PL 10]


James

> >10.  Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the
> >continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse
> >should be true...
>
> huh? This appears to be from a 1939 paper.  Any recent observations?

Okay, if you've been involved in seabed mapping you know more about this
than me, but it sounds right that the gravity should be greater at sea level
ie. closer to the Earth's centre.  Probably Velikovsky was thinking 'Ah,
land = more mass = more gravity'.  But the land has the *same mass* as the
ocean bed.  It floats like an iceberg because it has lower density.  Can you
say 'isostatic equilibrium', Immanuel?
>
> >11.  The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times
> >greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because
> >of the large solar mass), is much smaller...

'The atmospheric pressure', what's that?  Pressure in the Sun's atmosphere,
like that in the Earth's, varies with depth.  Comparing the Sun's outer
atmosphere with the Earth's at sea level is comparing apples with oranges.
> >
> >12.  Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have a
> >latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it.

It should, and it does, but not to the naked eye.  Some observations,
Immanuel, are not obvious.  And the correct terms are polar radius and
equatorial radius.  Read the literature.
>
> Why should it?  Does someone have the supporting calculations that
> Velikovsky's paper does not provide?

Sorry, no calculations, but think of a pirouetting dancer's skirt.
>
> >13.  If planets and satellites were once molten masses...they would not
> >have been able to obtain spherical form, especially those which do not
> >rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)
>
> I do not see this conclusion.  Even drops of water, not rotating, go
> spherical in free fall.

The water drops are minimising surface energy, and the molten planets were
minimising potential energy.  The big ones would have done so even if they
were not molten.  Mountain ranges are ephemeral phenomena.  Rotation has
nothing to do with gravity, unless you are a crank.
>
> >14.  ...The Newtonian orbits (calculated) differ from the Keplerian, found
> >empirically.
>
> How so? (Do they?)  The space program seems to do quite well with Newtonian
> calculations...

Kepler's orbits would fit Newton's exactly in the two-body case.  Newton
allows for the perturbation caused by third, fourth etc. bodies.  Einstein
allows for changes in the shape of spacetime.  Science gets better, Immanuel.
>
> >15.  Perturbations of planets due to their reciprocal action are pronounced
> >in repulsion as well as attraction.
>
> huh?  In his paper he gave no references to this.  Anyone know anything?

Sounds like complete gibberish to me.  Where are your data, Immanuel?
>
> >16.  The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets...As
> >these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not
> >understandable from...theory of gravitation, which includes the principle
> >of the immutable gravitational constant.
>
> The time is 1898-1899.  What happened?

Gibberish
>
> >17.  The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change
> >the orbits of the satellites...but this change fails to materialize; a
> >regulating force seems to overcome this unequal light pressure on
> >primaries and secondaries.
>
> I may be incorrect, but photonic/solar wind pressure seems several orders of
> magnitude for this to have an observable effect.

You can say that again!
>
> >18. The sun moves in space...This motion, according to Lodge (1918) must
> >change the eccentricties of some of the planetary orbits to an extent that
> >far exceeds the observed values.
>
> Anything more recent than a 1918 calculation not borne out by observation?
> What did he do wrong?

Without an account of Lodge's paper, it's impossible to say.  Who was he?
If he was of the same intellectual calibre as Velikovsky, then is one
crank more plausible because he quotes another?

Doctor:      And who are you?
1st Patient: Napoleon!
Doctor:      Are you now?
1st Patient: Yes I am! God told me so!
Doctor:      Did he now?
2nd Patient: Yes I did!
>
> >19.  The motion of the perihelia of Mercury and Mars and of the nodes of
> >Venus differ from what is computed with the help of the Newtonian law of
> >gravitation...the irregularities in the movements of venus and mars cannot
> >be accounted for by Einstein's formula.
>
> What irregulatrities?

The motion of the perihelion of Mercury differs signicantly from Newtonian
calculations.  This is accounted for by General Relativity.  The rest is
unsupported assertion.
>
> >20.  Unaccounted for fluctuations in the lunar mean motion were calculated
> >from the records of lunar eclipses of many centuries and from modern
> >observations.
>
> And are they accounted for now?

Yes, the lunar mean motion has been decreasing due to tidal interactions
with the Earth for at least 600 million years.  This was considered to be
sufficient explanation at the time, but Velikovsky chooses to ignore this.
Too inconvenient.  One problem was that the current rate, extrapolated
backward, would have had the Moon crashing into the Earth 600 million years
ago.  Very Velikovskian, but unfortunately, the timescale is not biblical
enough.  Anyway, we now know that the current rate of recession is unusually
high because  of the current arrangement of the continents, particularly
South America, Africa and Australia.
>
> >21. (paraphrase: variance in altitude of ionosphere as observed through radio
> >transmissions cannot be explained by tidal forces)
>
> What does tide have to do with ionospheric effects?  Solar radiation, yes.

The variation of atmospheric height caused by thermal radiation is
incorrectly known as 'thermal tide'.  Neither this nor the other kind
of tide has anything to do with ionosphere height, which is caused by
UV radiation.
>[snip]
> >23.  The change in the angular velocity of comets is not in accordance with
> >the theoretical computations based on the theory of gravitation.
>
> He refers to a german encyclopedia article.  What is current data?

Did you see those pictures of Halley by the Giotto probe?  Huge geysers
shooting out of the ground as the comet warms up.  The comet is small
enough that this has a significant effect on the orbit.  This was known
in Immanuel's time.
>
> >24.Meteors, after entering the terrestrial atmosphere at about 200km above
> >the ground, are violently displaced towards the east.
>
> What is he talking about?

Gibberish.  Because the earth is spinning anticlockwise as seen from the
north pole, meteors statistically have a mean *westwards* velocity relative
to the ground.  They do not suddenly acquire this on contact with the
atmosphere.
>
> >25.  As the principle of gravitation leaves no room for the participation
> >of other forces in the ordinary movements of the celestial mechanism...
>
> Sure it does.  I'd be amazed at anything that claimed otherwise.

Immanuel says it doesn't, okay?  Seriously, the man's dead now, can't we
leave him alone?  There are plenty of live cranks to jump on.  Some of
them are friends of mine.  They are usually middle-aged men with a
commendable interest in science who unfortunately think they can make a
serious contribution without doing any numerical work whatsoever.  Hence
the problems with orders of magnitude.  One of these friends had decided
that the Earth's magnetic field could be explained by currents in the
ionosphere, which would also explain why some planets had a field and
others don't.  Now this was quite an achievement.  Without even a cursory
glance at the literature, he had discovered aeolospheric fields.  They
account for short term fluctuations in the field, and are measured in
nanoteslas.  The geomagnetic field is measured in microteslas.  Did this
bother him?  Naah.  What's a factor of a thousand between friends?

Anyway, hope this is useful.  I am not a meteorologist or geologist or
astronomer, so since this has nothing to do with materials science, don't
take my word for it.  Merry Christmas!
--
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       [e-mail]      |    ', ,','
     ','      |                                                  |      ','

--
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       [e-mail]      |    ', ,','
     ','      |                                                  |      ','