Notices
Results 1 to 32 of 32
Like Tree7Likes
  • 1 Post By MeteorWayne
  • 3 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: Eddison's Equilibrium; an explanation of 'water' planet stability in orbit

  1. #1 Eddison's Equilibrium; an explanation of 'water' planet stability in orbit 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    32
    Kalster (who is becoming something of a mentor as well as a rigorous reviewer of my work, something of a Russell to my Wittgenstein, which is both greatly appreciated and a bit frustrating when the criticism is just pedantic) has suggested i put this on here, rather than risk it being buried in another thread.

    Earth lies in a region that scientists call 'the Goldilocks zone', which is where it is neither to cold to freeze the water, not too hot for it to evaporate (so roughly 0-100 degress centegrade). None of the other planets in our solar systems are in this zone, so that is why there is no life (so far) on them.

    People will ask why is it in the goldilocks zone then? Well, if it wasn't we wouldn't exist, is science's usually answer, but I have given this a little bit more thought and come up with Eddison's Equilibrium (which I will publish in a more fleshed out form elsewhere), but essentially, if earth gets too hot the water evaporates and so earth gets lighter (rememer 3/4s of the surface is water) so it orbits the sun slightly further out (simple gravity), which cools it down meaning the evaporated water falls as snow and rain (the water cycle) and freezes, into ice and water, so the earth gets heavier and moves back nearer to the sun. The percentages involved in this are tiny (about 0.000001% difference), but it is probably enough to keep us in the Goldilocks zone indefinitely.

    There has been a suggestion that the figures are not accurate enough, so i need to stress that this is just an outline at this point. As to the criticism about whether it works or not I would liken it to spinning a balloon of gas, a balloon of water and a balloon of ice around, and comparing the centrifugal (definition available on wikipedia for non-scientists) force of each.

    To address one criticism directly, if some water evaporates the air in the balloon is equal to the mass of the water evaporated, hmmm, not convinced, as a balloon that is just water is still heavier than a balloon that is half water, half oxygen and half hydrogen, and I would be happy to have this tested by an independent authority.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Your understanding of orbits is faulty. The mass of the earth makes no difference.

    And as adelady pointed out, what evaporates from the surface goes into the atmosphere, or the ice feezes from water already here, so the mass doesn't change, even if it did make a difference.

    So your explanation is completely invalid.


    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    32
    Hi meteorwayne, I think you may be confusing subatomic orbits, which are quite specific (due to the specific size of sub atomic particles - i have a fairly comprehensive theory on this which i should be ready to publish in the next month or so) and orbits of stella bodies which are more of a continuum. Don't worry though, it's an easy mistake to make. Imagine swinging a balloon round on an elasticated string. The heavier the balloon the further out it's orbit would be.

    All i have provided is a mechanism for keeping the balloon (or planet) a specific distance out (or more accurately, within a range of distances). I might make a video on youtube which would perhaps explain it more clearly. I don't really want to explain it with equations as i'm not into 'show-off' science, as I've explained elsewhere, just explaining things in such a way that anyone can understand.

    Thanks for your input though, that's why i have posted this, so it can be assessed by other people in case there are any flaws in my reasoning or things that i have not considered (like Einsteins universal constant, which he called his biggest mistake).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Eddison View Post
    Eddison's Equilibrium (which I will publish in a more fleshed out form elsewhere), but essentially, if earth gets too hot the water evaporates and so earth gets lighter (rememer 3/4s of the surface is water) so it orbits the sun slightly further out (simple gravity), which cools it down meaning the evaporated water falls as snow and rain (the water cycle) and freezes, into ice and water, so the earth gets heavier and moves back nearer to the sun. The percentages involved in this are tiny (about 0.000001% difference), but it is probably enough to keep us in the Goldilocks zone indefinitely.
    You seem to be trying to address a non-existent problem. Even if this feedback mechanism existed (and it is pretty clear it doesn't) then it would only act to stabilise the orbit. But there is no particular reason that the earth wouldn't stay in the Goldilocks zone if it was already there. What would make the Earth hotter or colder? How much hotter or colder has the Earth actually been in the past? How large is the Goldilocks zone compared with your claimed effect?

    To address one criticism directly, if some water evaporates the air in the balloon is equal to the mass of the water evaporated
    The "thing" that is orbiting the Sun is the Earth plus its atmosphere plus the moon and various man-made satellites. The mass of that lot is pretty stable (apart from a few tons of space dust every day). Moving water from the oceans to the atmosphere doesn't make any difference to the total mass of the system.

    not convinced, as a balloon that is just water is still heavier than a balloon that is half water, half oxygen and half hydrogen, and I would be happy to have this tested by an independent authority
    .

    Huh? If you have one litre of water and convert it to steam, it still has a mass of 1 kg. If you dissociate the water into hydrogen and oxygen, it will still have a mass of 1kg.

    [OK, there is a really, really tiny mass difference due to the bonding energy of the water molecules. But that is immeasurably small, so I think we can ignore it in this case. Especially as you have done no calculations at all yet.]
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Eddison View Post
    Hi meteorwayne, I think you may be confusing subatomic orbits, which are quite specific (due to the specific size of sub atomic particles ...
    Can you explain what "subatomic orbits" being "quite specific" means? As the position of an orbiting electron is not precisely defined [cf previous thread] I'm not quite sure how it can be "specific". Also, electrons are normally treated as point particles so I'm not sure what you mean by its "specific size" either.

    All i have provided is a mechanism for keeping the balloon (or planet) a specific distance out (or more accurately, within a range of distances).
    Why wouldn't it stay in the same orbit anyway?

    I don't really want to explain it with equations as i'm not into 'show-off' science, as I've explained elsewhere, just explaining things in*such a way that anyone can understand.
    I assume that means that you can't do the math. If you are unable to explain it mathematically, which is the only language everyone understands without ambiguity, then you don't have much hope.

    Thanks for your input though, that's why i have posted this, so it can be assessed by other people in case there are any flaws in my reasoning or things that i have not considered (like Einsteins universal constant, which he called his biggest mistake).
    Does that mean you are willing to admit some of your previous errors (instead of just pretending they never happened)?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    32
    Hello again Strange, sorry I should have cited you as well as Kalster in my paper... anyway, i think my theory explains things like ice-ages and hot periods. As I said though, it's just a general outline at the moment, and you are probably right to challenge me to flesh it out with the maths. That will follow in due course (unless someone else would like to help me with it???).

    I'm not sure what you are getting at with the one kilogram of steam? That would need a massive balloon and so wouldn't swing as far out as the more massive balloon. I don't want to just throw science in your face, but if you had a star, yep, big gravitational pull, but collapse it into a singularity and the mass is exponentially increased, which also exponentially increases it's gravity.

    As I said to MeteorWayne though, even though your criticisms don't really stand up to scrutiny I appreciate the time and consideration you have given to them, as answering these helps me (believe it or not) to even better understand Eddison's Equilibrium (we can just say EE for short).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Eddison View Post
    Hello again Strange, sorry I should have cited you as well as Kalster in my paper... anyway, i think my theory explains things like ice-ages and hot periods.
    I thought it was supposed to stabilise the orbit not cause more variation?

    I'm not sure what you are getting at with the one kilogram of steam?
    You seemed to be saying that the same amount of "stuff" (water, whatever) would not have the same mass if it was in liquid versus gaseous form. This is obviously incorrect. 1 kg of water will make 1 kg of steam or 1 kg of H + O.

    That would need a massive balloon and so wouldn't swing as far out as the more massive balloon.
    Are you saying that orbital radius is dependent on volume of the planet as well?

    I don't want to just throw science in your face, but if you had a star, yep, big gravitational pull, but collapse it into a singularity and the mass is exponentially increased, which also exponentially increases it's gravity.
    Er... no. Where do you get this stuff. The mass of a black hole (or singularity, if there is such a thing) is exactly the same as the mass of the matter that went to make it up.

    Are you willing to admit some of your previous errors (instead of just pretending they never happened)?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    32
    Sorry strange, I meant density in that instance. I suppose you'll want co-authorship for that!!!
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Eddison View Post
    Sorry strange, I meant density in that instance. I suppose you'll want co-authorship for that!!!
    Trust me. I don't want any association with anything you write.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    32
    Hmmm, I have a feeling that you might change that view in a few weeks. Anyway, no hard feelings, just a good old scientific debate!!!
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Be sure and let us know when you start with some real science, because do far you're 0 for 27 posts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    This is 'the speed of sound is as fast as anything can go' and the 'theory of reality'?

    The only place his paper will be 'published' is on his own website.

    Or maybe Mad Magazine would take it for some light humor.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    This is 'the speed of sound is as fast as anything can go' and the 'theory of reality'?

    The only place his paper will be 'published' is on his own website.

    Or maybe Mad Magazine would take it for some light humor.
    I think you will find that Mad Magazine have a tough editorial policy: the light humour has to be funny!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Eddison
    Earth lies in a region that scientists call 'the Goldilocks zone', which is where it is neither to cold to freeze the water, not too hot for it to evaporate (so roughly 0-100 degress centegrade). None of the other planets in our solar systems are in this zone, so that is why there is no life (so far) on them.
    Both Venus and Mars likely lie within the Goldilocks zone.

    The problem for Mars was that it was too small. Result: low gravity - easy escape of atmospher; exacerbated by loss of magnetic field because of early cooling of core - atmospheric erosion by solar win.

    In the case of Venus the runaway greenhouse effect may well have been caused by the absence of plate tectonics which on Earth sequesters a large volume of carbon dioxide and therefore inhibits the greenhouse effect.


    Now, other members have pointed out how your essential thesis is wrong. You don't seem to get that yet. Let me repeat myself: your idea is wrong - whether water is present in oceans or in the atmosphere it does not alter the mass of the Earth, or its orbit. Since that is the basis of your thesis your thesis is wrong. Am I getting through to you yet? You are wrong. If you will concede this now we can close the thread and save you further embarrassment.

    The percentages involved in this are tiny (about 0.000001% difference), but it is probably enough to keep us in the Goldilocks zone indefinitely.
    Let us suppose these differences are real (which they aren't, since you are wrong. [Did I mention that?]) How would these tiny differences handle the increase of luminosity of the sun of over 25% over the life of the planet?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    32
    Hi John Galt, thanks for your imput, I appreciate the time and consideration that you have given to my paper, but I'm afraid you don't seem to understand what I am talking about. The goldilocks zone is the area where WATER can exist in a LIQUID form (sorry the capitals are not me shouting, just emphasing important words). You seem to have sequeyed into liminosity, which relates to the suns flourescence.

    This is the unfortunate thing about the internet, if we were in a classroom or a pub I could probably explain this to you no problem, but when I type it out I'm not sure what knowledge people have and what background info I need to give. That's why this sort of thing is helpful, because if i can identify the parts that people don't understand I can perhaps explain those in more detail.

    Anyway, you have contributed some helpful points regarding Mars and Venus, which will help people to understand the broader picture, and which seem to bolster my theory. I'm currently trying to think of sum way to scientifically test my theory (like the eclipse proof of einsteins SToR), but I am struggling a bit... watch this space
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Tom, it appears you have a reading comprehension problem (among other obvious ones) John Galt said that Mars and Venus probably were in the Goldilocks Zone, but that issues with the planets temselves caused the loss of liquid water. Right Goldilocks Zone, Wrong planets.

    As has been pointed out repeatedly, your founding ideas are wrong.

    The sun dors not flouresce.

    The solar luminosity (the correct term) is increasing, and will continue to. Since the earth.s orbital distance hasn't changed in billions of years, how do you acount for us remaining in the zone with a 25% icrease in the sun's output?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Eddison View Post
    You seem to have sequeyed into liminosity, which relates to the suns flourescence.
    You do realise that the sun's luminosity relates to it's heat output? (And the sun doesn't fluoresce.)

    I'm not sure what knowledge people have and what background info I need to give.
    I think you can safely assume that most people on this forum know a heck of a lot more than you do (just based on what you have said so far: a succession of grossly inaccurate schoolboy howlers).

    I'm currently trying to think of sum way to scientifically test my theory
    How about calculating the size of the predicted effect and comparing it with the size of the Goldilocks zone.

    Oh no, that's right, I remember. You don't want to do any math because that would be "showing off".
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    32
    This is EXACTLY what Eddison's Equilibrium explains. As the sun heats the planet the water evaporates, so the planet moves further out (staying in what I'm tentatively calling the 'Eddison Region', a region that allows a planet to stay constantly in the Goldilockks zone even as the luminosity of the parent star changes over time), where it would then fall as rain.

    I'm started to wonder if this shouldn't have been put in the physics forum rather than the new hypothesis forum, as a lot of the people reviewing it, no offence, but they don't seem to understand what I'm positing. I know you're trying to be helpful, and i appreciate it, I really do, but we seem to be going round in circles a bit now.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Eddison View Post
    This is EXACTLY what Eddison's Equilibrium explains. As the sun heats the planet the water evaporates, so the planet moves further out (staying in what I'm tentatively calling the 'Eddison Region', a region that allows a planet to stay constantly in the Goldilockks zone even as the luminosity of the parent star changes over time), where it would then fall as rain.
    Please demonstrate, in appropriate mathematical detail, how the heating effect of the sun alters the orbit to keep the planet in the Goldilocks zone.

    I'm started to wonder if this shouldn't have been put in the physics forum
    That would require you to know some physics and some mathematics.

    they don't seem to understand what I'm positing
    We understand perfectly well. That is how we can point out the many obvious and rather trivial flaws.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    but they don't seem to understand what I'm positing. I know you're trying to be helpful, and i appreciate it, I really do, but we seem to be going round in circles a bit now.
    That's because we do understand that you're ridiculously wrong. You have such huge gaps in your knowledge that it's more holes than fabric.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Eddison View Post
    Hi John Galt, thanks for your imput, I appreciate the time and consideration that you have given to my paper, but I'm afraid you don't seem to understand what I am talking about.
    I understand exactly what you are talking about and recognise that you have a limited understanding of your topic. While I am very open to the idea that I can learn from others I have seen nothing in any of your posts to suggest I can learn from you anything more than the already established observation that some people are capable of great foolishness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Eddison View Post
    The goldilocks zone is the area where WATER can exist in a LIQUID form (sorry the capitals are not me shouting, just emphasing important words).
    Oversimplified to the point of being incorrect. The moon occupies approximately the same space as the Earth yet liquid water does not exist there. Why? Because there is no atmosphere. Why is there no atmosphere? Too little gravitational attraction, hence a low escape velocity, hence an early loss of any atmosphere that may have been present.

    Water was present on Venus in its youth. Liquid water. With different tectonics and the presence of life liquid water might still be present on Venus. It is likely on the margin of the Goldilocks zone, but still within it: a terraforming opportunity for our descendants. Equally, the problem for Mars is its low gravity. It too is probably within the Goldilocks zone.

    In short, you were mistaken in your statement. That is not a problem. Your naive attempt to cover up that mistake just makes you look doubly foolish. I believe you stated elsewhere that you are thirty six years old. If that is correct don't you think it's time you grew up?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Eddison View Post
    You seem to have sequeyed into liminosity, which relates to the suns flourescence.
    Apart from the fact that the sun doesn't have flourescence, you have missed the central point. Since the temperature of the Earth is dependent on the luminosity of the sun, how has the temperature been maintained in an equable range by your process when the sun's luminosity has increased by over 25% since its move to the main sequence? Are you going to attempt to answer that, please?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Eddison View Post
    This is the unfortunate thing about the internet, if we were in a classroom or a pub I could probably explain this to you no problem, but when I type it out I'm not sure what knowledge people have and what background info I need to give.
    Don't worry. I am well versed in this area. I have dozens of textbooks and monographs relating to exobilogy and planetology, not to mention over four hundred related research papers. I seriously doubt you have anything of value to offer me.

    Please excuse me Tom if I come across as patronising, but it is very difficult to treat your foolish posts in any other way. I am sure you are a very nice person and help old ladies across the road, but as a prospective amateur scientist you should give some thought to taking up crochet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Eddison View Post
    Anyway, you have contributed some helpful points regarding Mars and Venus, which will help people to understand the broader picture, and which seem to bolster my theory.
    If you think my observations bolster your theory then look again. They don't and they won't. I shall be happy to help you understand this, but first you have to lose the rissible stance that you actually know what the **** you are talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Eddison View Post
    I'm currently trying to think of sum way to scientifically test my theory (like the eclipse proof of einsteins SToR), but I am struggling a bit... watch this space
    You don't have a theory. You don't even understand what a theory is. (Look up the wikipedia article for a proper explanation.) You don't even have a hypothesis. It's doubtful that what you have could even be honoured with the description speculation. What you actually have is what is technically known as a dipshit, dumb-ass idea. (And frankly as they go it is third rate.)

    Please continue to post, but try using your thought processes in future. You will find it does not hurt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    This might be an appropriate time to mention Pablo's First Law of Internet Discussion.


    Regardless of the topic, assume someone else commenting knows more about it than you do.

    Pablo's First Law of Internet Discussion - I Speak of Dreams
    KALSTER and Strange like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Until such times as they demonstrate otherwise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    This might be an appropriate time to mention Pablo's First Law of Internet Discussion.


    Regardless of the topic, assume someone else commenting knows more about it than you do.

    Pablo's First Law of Internet Discussion - I Speak of Dreams
    Excellent advice. And from the same place:
    And there is another thing to remember:

    You are entitled to your own opinion,
    but you are not entitled to your own facts.
    Or more pointedly, the 1950 Bernard Baruch version:

    Every man has a right to his own opinion,
    but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.
    If you remember that, you may save yourself from the foolish flaw that is the arrogance of ignorance.
    KALSTER likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Your understanding of orbits is faulty. The mass of the earth makes no difference.

    And as adelady pointed out, what evaporates from the surface goes into the atmosphere, or the ice feezes from water already here, so the mass doesn't change, even if it did make a difference.

    So your explanation is completely invalid.
    This, the first reply in your thread, completely destroyed your argument right off the bat Tom.

    The points were:

    1) The mass of the earth does not matter. This follows directly from Newtonian gravity and before you say it, yes, according to Einstein too. Even if evaporating water made the earth lighter, it would not make any difference.

    2) Evaporating water does not affect the mass of the earth-moon system in any way. Your expanding balloon analogy is nonsense. If a balloon full of ice of 10kg changes state to water vapour, it would still have a mass of 10kg. Your confusion might be placing the analogy in our atmosphere, where the decreased density would increase buoyancy, but even there mass would be unaffected.

    There is no way to get past these two points and your ignorance of these basic problems reduces your exhibited base knowledge to below that of school children, the extreme opposite of your claimed abilities. That demonstrates a strong delusion on your part.

    Your response to this will determine how welcome you will be here after that.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    32
    Thanks Adelady and Strange, but it's pretty obvious they just don't get it, so we should try to educate them rather than mocking them. I'm going to go back to the drawing board and try to rewrite this up in more simplistic terms... they are sappnig both my energy and enthusiasm a bit though, so it might be a while now. Sorry
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Eddison View Post
    Thanks Adelady and Strange, but it's pretty obvious they just don't get it, so we should try to educate them rather than mocking them. I'm going to go back to the drawing board and try to rewrite this up in more simplistic terms... they are sappnig both my energy and enthusiasm a bit though, so it might be a while now. Sorry
    I don't know who you think doesn't "get it" or who is being mocked (apart from you, for obvious reasons).

    In case you don't realise, adelady's and my posts were targeted at you.

    You are the one who needs to realise that pretty much everyone on this forum has more knowledge of science than you.

    You are the one who needs to stop demonstrating the "arrogance of ignorance".

    In case you haven't heard of it, you might want to look up the Dunning-Kruger syndrome. You appear to be a classic victim.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

    I don't think you need to simplify your explanation further; you are already presenting something that only a 12 year old would consider seriously. You need to provide more detail to justify this idea.

    Please demonstrate, in appropriate mathematical detail, how the heating effect of the sun alters the orbit to keep the planet in the Goldilocks zone.

    If you cannot do that, we will have to conclude that you are unable to provide any theoretical or observational support for this idea.

    By the way, when are you going to admit to being wrong on many previous occasions?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    He might actually be 12 claiming to be 36... Then again, we have come across this level of delusion before. It is just so extreme that it is difficult to wrap one's head around it each time.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    So his argument is basically that water converted to steam weighs less? lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    lol and isn't the speed of the earth the only thing that determines its orbital radius? lol it has nothing to with mass!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Bizarre, isn't it. With every post he reveals ever greater gaps in his basic knowledge.

    As KALSTER said in another thread, it seems implausible that anyone can be as ignorant of basic science as Tom_Eddison repeatedly demonstrates. He also admits to being unable to do, or even understand, any basic mathematics. And yet he claims to be smarter than anyone else here. (He has kindly thrown KALSTER a few crumbs of condescension in this thread!)

    It does suggest that he could just be trolling. But the repeated comparisons to Galileo, Wittgenstein (!) and others make me think that it may be a delusional disorder. Or just a 12 year old with a highly inflated ego (I blame the parents).

    Either way, he is certainly a fascinating, and highly entertaining, case study.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Eddison View Post
    This is EXACTLY what Eddison's Equilibrium explains. As the sun heats the planet the water evaporates, so the planet moves further out (staying in what I'm tentatively calling the 'Eddison Region', a region that allows a planet to stay constantly in the Goldilockks zone even as the luminosity of the parent star changes over time), where it would then fall as rain.

    I'm started to wonder if this shouldn't have been put in the physics forum rather than the new hypothesis forum, as a lot of the people reviewing it, no offence, but they don't seem to understand what I'm positing. I know you're trying to be helpful, and i appreciate it, I really do, but we seem to be going round in circles a bit now.
    Since you've repeatedly been shown your starting assumptions are completely wrong, and ignored it to the point of not even acknowledging what has been said I wouldn't worry abpout the Physics forum This will be in the Trash Bin soon enough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Please don't delete or lock this thread. It may be the single most entertaining thing I've read all week. I just got a $30 ticket because my campus has 30,000 students and 8,000 parking spaces, so I really needed this little pick-me-up.

    Now, if I'm reading this "paper" correctly, the idea is that a planet warms up thanks to the fluorescence of the Sun (I always knew it was glow-in-the-dark, probably scratch-and-sniff, too) and the liquid water on that planet then turns to gas. When this happens, the planet begins to move out of the Goldilocks zone and into the humbly-named Eddison zone because, as we all know, when you increase temperature, but volume and pressure remain the same, water gets lighter (take that, Jaques Charles!).

    Any chance of seeing some equations or proofs related to this theory? I'd love to take a peek at it before it rocks the world on the cover of Scientific American.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Asteroid's orbit around sun mimics Earth's orbit? How can that be?
    By GreatBigBore in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 18th, 2011, 07:56 PM
  2. Island of Stability
    By Martian_Monkey in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 7th, 2010, 04:22 PM
  3. Stability of wheels
    By Thriller in forum Physics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 10th, 2007, 05:08 PM
  4. Stability of the HA
    By Mike NS in forum Physics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: April 9th, 2007, 10:26 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •