Angular acceleration of the earth

I am tired of reading the antics of basement dwelling wannabe participants who arent interested in science but rather in pretending to be intellectual by forwarding half-baked comments and problems that venture far from the topic and too often become personal attacks of the MM and the administration. I have begun to take this personally and am tired of attempting to identify alter egos and such. If you do not like this website and message board than hit the door, get out, leave, and dont come back. Do you think any of us here care if you delete us from your favorites? In case you wondered, no we don't. You can tell your wannabe friends and alter egos to leave too, as I wouldn't want to draw them away from the time needed to attend a local community college physics 1 class for non-majors. Get a clue. I am not ad hominem in my remarks, only fed up with those who get off on insulting scientists and other interested parties who believe in the principles of the scientific methods (above all evidence). The usual suspects, and you know who you are never provide evidence, only unfounded skeptism gleened from the pages of some pseudo-science magazines with pictures of little green men. To me this is personal. I have no aliases, no alter egos. I am Mark Vitrone. I attempt to moderate this board for Dr. Van Flandern and Meta Research. If you wish to participate in accordance with the charter of the site found on this site then do so. If not leave, go, get out. Thanks MV

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
(makis)
Q3: If your answer to Q2 is positive, don't you agree that changes in angular velocity result in an angular acceleration?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
(Flandern)
Look up the definitions of these terms. The term "angular acceleration" is not normally used with this implied meaning. With the normal meaning of that term, Earth has no angular acceleration. If it did, its period would change.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


Hi makis, i myself thought of a similar concept of earths orbit. Hi Flandern, the above says the period would change, but what if the earth had both angular/orbital acceleration and decceleration which keeps it in a constant steady orbital period? Could this not then appear as though earth orbits in a constant motion?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[kingdavid]: what if the earth had both angular/orbital acceleration and decceleration which keeps it in a constant steady orbital period? Could this not then appear as though earth orbits in a constant motion?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No, but it could produce an elliptical orbit such as Earth has. But there is no known possible source of that type of angular acceleration or deceleration, whereas we do know about the radial acceleration of gravity from the Sun. And the radial acceleration is sufficient to explain why Earth speeds up as it falls closer to the Sun and slows down as it recedes in its annual circuit.

Try a computer experiment, or read chapter six of my book to understand this better. -|Tom|-

This detail about the orbit of Earth could be resolved with data that should be available but in fact it seems data does not exist that shows the real orbit. We are all stuck with models that generate what ever they a programed to tell and that is assumed to be fact if not actual data.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

[Jim]: This detail about the orbit of Earth could be resolved with data that should be available but in fact it seems data does not exist that shows the real orbit. We are all stuck with models that generate what ever they a programed to tell and that is assumed to be fact if not actual data.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Why do you keep making this absurd claim? Modern data is available to anyone who wants it, for example from the NSSDC. But you have been told this before. Why don't you get some simple data and start to learn how to analyze data? It's not an easy subject to learn, but it sure beats spitting into the wind.

As I remarked recently, how can we successfully predict exactly when and where solar eclipses by the Moon will be visible if the models don't agree with real data?

All scientific models are required to make testable predictions that predict real data correctly. If a model cannot do that, it is not a part of science. It is considered philosophy or religion. -|Tom|-

Supplementing my previous answer, the experimentally inclined can take their own data. For example, to prove that Earth is closer to the Sun in January than in July, get a small telescope with a Sun projection screen (or add your own), and measure the difference in the visible Sun's diameter in those two months. The difference is about 3%, easily detected in a careful experiment.

Alternatively, you could set up a sundial, or just put a stake in the ground, and measure the time when its shadow reaches a due-north direction near noon. (I'm assuming you live in the northern hemisphere.) You can then determine that "mid-day" occurs earlier in some months and later in other months, showing that Earth's orbital speed is not constant. -|Tom|-