Atmosphere Does Not Rotate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Question: If that were so [that the Earth is stationary], why do the mathematical equations that assume a rotating Earth predict the relationship between wind and pressure on a planetary scale so accurately? John, Climatologist --------- 2. Response:
There
is no difference between the products of equations of a rotating Earth
and/or
rotating universe about the Earth mathematically. If you knew anything
about Mach's principle you would know that a Machian universe and a
Relativistic universe with a rotating Earth are one and the same things
mathematically ... that is why the equations work so well ... simply
choosing one reference frame above the other and claiming it proves the
other reference
frames don't work (mathematically) or even that it or they are of some
different
mathematical origin within modern Cosmology is quite silly ... he
obviously knows
nothing of Relativity and certainly not Mach's principle on which
relativity's
equations are all based and depend upon ... you know, the same equations
that describe
a rotating Earth can also describe a rotating universe around a
stationary Earth. The choice of a rotating Earth over a Machian universe
is a purely
arbitrary based on philosophical preferences and NOT on solutions to
mathematical
equations!!! Allen Daves 3. Response: Thank you for the explanation and the link. The equations of course would be the same, but as even the link 'Restoring Forces' notes, air in a rotating atmosphere would experience a slightly different set of forces than air in a stationary atmosphere. I am thinking specifically about the so-called Coriolis force, which is not actually a force but a term that arises when the equations of motion are written in a rotating frame of reference. The presence or absence of the Earth's rotation may be tested by whether or not the large-scale motion of air in the atmosphere exhibits the effect of a rotating Earth, as described physically by the Coriolis effect. It turns out that the effect of a rotating Earth is so large as to dominate the wind patterns on a planetary scale, and I can discuss that in further detail if you like. But let's put that aside for the moment. Simpler concepts are discussed on the 'Restoring Forces' page, and I have found several errors with them, which I identify below. But first, I will assume that you ascribe to Newton's Laws of Motion as fundamental statements of non-relativistic physics. If you think that Newton was wrong about his Laws of Motion, then there is no need to correspond further and you need not continue reading. I'll not discuss the Introduction, as it refers to external material. Acentric (rotating World) Model: Paragraph 1 is correct. The caption to Figure 1 is incorrect. The caption states, "In a rotating atmosphere, an air molecule has to be forced to move from s1 to s2, even on a calm day, by some hitherto unknown vector field." In an assumed rotating world on a calm day, the air molecule was not at rest at s1, but instead was moving at precisely the same velocity as the ground beneath it. No force is required to force it to move from s1 to s2, since "Every body will persist in its state of rest or of uniform motion (constant velocity) in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it." (Newton's First Law). Maintenance of uniform motion requires no force. But you will note that the path it takes from s1 to s2 is not a straight line, but is curved. A vector force is indeed necessary to cause its direction of motion to change slightly in going from s1 to s2. I will discuss this force momentarily, but this is clearly not the force incorrectly presumed to exist by the caption of Figure 1. The passage beginning with "Let the position..." and ending with "v = f(R, h, a, phi)" is correct. The following paragraph, which begins "This implies..." is incorrect for the same reason that the caption to Figure 1 is incorrect. If we imagine calm winds throughout the Earth, a force must be present not because the air is accelerating in the direction of the Earth's rotation (it's not; the component of motion in the direction of the Earth's rotation is constant as the air rotates with the Earth), but because the path that each molecule of air takes is curved. If you imagine the path that such air would follow over the course of a complete (calm) day, it would make one complete rotation around the Earth's axis and return to where it started. This circular path implies the presence of a force, because without forces the air would travel in a straight line. We can make some further deductions about this force. The vector force must be oriented directly toward the Earth's axis, not toward the Earth's center, as a brief consideration of the geometry of the situation would illustrate (the circle of motion is centered at a point on the Earth's axis). It must be zero at the Poles, for air there is not moving or accelerating at all. It might be strongest at the Equator, for air velocities and accelerations are largest there, but the situation there is not unambiguous because the force of gravity would have the right orientation, at least, to cause the path of the air to curve appropriately. The next paragraph begins, "Clearly such a field does not exist..." This is nonsense arising from the error in the previous paragraph. This concludes Part 1. In Part 2, I will explain what this force is, what the consequences of its existence would be if the Earth were rotating, and why consideration of a calm atmosphere does not allow us to decide if the Earth is rotating. But I do not wish to continue if you disagree with what I have said so far, for that would build confusion upon confusion. So let me know if you have any questions or would like me to go on. John, Climatologist ----------4. Response: This is exactly why the nature and properties of the "aether" which were long ago abandoned in favor of the philosophical assumption that the Earth does move are so important ...since you begin with the assumption that the Earth does move you ignore the experiments and observations that tell us about those properties . The fictitious forces are real forces in a Geostatic universe for they arise out of the Aethers ability to act upon mass as it rotates around the static Earth ... When you ignore the properties of it, of course you're going to "see things" differently because you are looking at the nature of forces and thus how and why they are "created" in a completely different manner but this does not mathematically make them different. Math can only describe it, but cannot tell you which is the truth ... The Coriolis forces et al are not a problem of the Geostatic Model, it is a problem for the observer to understand due to his own cherry-picking of observation, assumptions and preconceived conclusions, in spite of logic, observations and experimentation (LOE) ... The fact is a rotating Earth creates contradictions of its own model ... whereas a static Earth with a rotating aether or firmament about the Earth contains no such contradictions and can be shown to make more sense with fewer and less outlandish assumptions about how strange the universe is ... The fact is that observations and experiment at face value all favor the Geostatic Model ... only in one's wildest imagination which is what it is that the universe is so strange that it only looks like and behaves like the Earth is at the center and not moving in some bizarre non-demonstrable but very much assumed cosmic sets of illusions ... When the preponderance of evidence is examined one has to ask the question: How in the world can anyone come to the conclusion that the Earth is moving?!?!?! Allen Daves ---------- 5. Response: My first thought on this is that there are no genuinely "scientific" (factual, truthful) math equations that can be derived from an assumption [that the Earth is rotating]. Anything built on an unproven and unprovable assumption can only produce another assumption, supported by mathematical fumididdles, perhaps, but no facts. Marshall Hall ---------- 6. Response: Keep in mind that at this point we are only considering whether the assumption of a rotating Earth leads to a logical absurdity regarding the forces acting on the atmosphere. If it does, we would have evidence that the Earth is not rotating. If it does not lead to a logical absurdity, it does not prove that the assumption is correct, only that we can't exclude the possibility of a rotating Earth on this basis. Also keep in mind that Newton's Laws of Motion are consistent with the possibility of an aether. Mainstream science did not abandon the idea of an aether until over 200 years after Newton's Laws were formulated. If the reader does not consider Newton's laws to be correct, then no physical argument can be made and we are left with "it sure seems like the Earth is stationary", to which I would agree that it sure seems that way. [red highlight added] But, given the fundamental laws of motion, I noted earlier that if the Earth were rotating, calm winds would still require the air to be moving in a circle about the Earth's axis along with the Earth beneath it, and there must be some force acting on the air to cause it to be continuously change direction (i.e. move in a circle). The same reasoning, by the way, applies to the Earth's oceans, as the water on the surface of the ocean is also moving in a circle about the Earth's axis along with the Earth beneath it. So this force is acting on the water, too. Now it's time for a fun thought experiment. Imagine a planet-sized object that is made completely of water (of uniform composition, temperature, etc.) and is rotating on its axis. Let's, for the time being, ignore this extra force I've been talking about. What shape will this object have? If the object were not rotating, the answer is simple: it would be spherical, due to its own gravity. For if any point on its surface were higher than any other point, the water would flow "downhill" to smooth things out. But if the object is rotating and there's no force other than gravity acting on it, a spherical surface doesn't work. Water at, say, 45 degrees north latitude, with no force other than gravity, would tend to move in what is known as a "great circle", which takes it toward the Equator. The water south of the Equator would likewise be carried by inertia toward the Equator. Our liquid planet would develop a bulge at the Equator, a shape known as an "oblate spheroid". If this equatorial bulge gets too big, the water would flow downhill away from the equator and make the planetary object more spherical. But as we just saw, if the bulge is too small, the rotation of the object will fling water toward the Equator and make the planetary object less spherical. Somewhere in between these two extremes, there must be a bulge whose size is just right, whereby the competing effects of inertia (trying to cause the water to flow toward the Equator) and gravity (trying to cause the water to flow away from the Equator) balance each other, and the liquid will adjust itself to that shape at equilibrium. So the planet-sized object will be shaped like an oblate spheroid, and the details (the amount of non-sphericity) will depend on the rate of rotation and the size of the object. Next, suppose you're on a rowboat on this imaginary planetary ocean, at, say, 45 degrees latitude, with only the force of gravity acting on you and the rowboat. Will the rowboat drift downhill toward the North Pole? No, for the same reason that the water's not moving toward the North Pole: the inertia of the rowboat on this rotating planet is trying to cast it toward the Equator, and the two effects are in balance. The situation is precisely analogous to a stock car rounding a banked curve. The banking of the curve allows gravity to counteract the tendency of inertia to fling the car off the top of the curve, allowing the car to cruise round the curve without undue lateral stress on the wheels. Applying the same terminology, we could say that the planetary ocean is slightly "banked", allowing you and the rowboat to proceed in a circle at constant latitude. If the stock car is moving at perfect speed, the driver won't feel any side-to-side force at all, but will simply be pressed into his or her seat a bit harder than normal. Similarly, you, the rowboat, and the ocean beneath you would feel no side-to-side force, just what seems to be a downward force. And just as the downward force experienced by the stock car driver is directly perpendicular to the car and the track beneath him/her (and NOT oriented toward the center of the Earth), the downward force experienced by you, the rowboat, and the ocean beneath you is directly perpendicular to the ocean's surface and is NOT QUITE oriented toward the center of the imaginary liquid planet. So, the force I identified in Part 1 is nothing more than gravity, causing the air, the water, and the rowboat to travel in a circle around the Earth's axis because the equator is slightly uphill relative to the Poles. An oblate spheroid shape would provide the gravitational force needed to allow the air and water to rotate around the Earth's axis at the same rate that the Earth itself would be rotating. Unfortunately, whether the Earth is non-rotating and spherical, or rotating and an oblate spheroid, an observer (you or me) would perceive nothing more than a downward force, with downward literally (and circularly!) defined as the direction of the force we feel. So it is not possible, from common experience, to distinguish the two possibilities, and calm air would remain at the same latitude and longitude in either case. Thus, the argument [in the Restoring Forces research essay] is incorrect: consideration of the forces acting on calm air does not lead to an absurdity in the case of a rotating oblate-spheroid Earth. It also does not lead to an absurdity in the case of a non-rotating spherical Earth; air would remain calm and motionless relative to the Earth in either case. I'll consider the Coriolis effect next. John, Climatologist ---------- 7. Response: i. The air in a rotating universe around a stationary Earth would work the same for the forces operating in the same way are identical, only the source of the force would be different?!?!?! .... the motions do not determine the effects, the variances in the cosmological gravity sources does and has the same effect either way (point source). Pulling on an elastic membrane with 40 lbs of force will look identical to a point source of pushing on it with 40lbs of force... same thing... Earth spinning and somehow creating a fictional force on the atmosphere, or the cosmos pulling on the atmosphere in exactly the same way?!?!?!
ii. There is a logical absurdity here. It is the fact that in GR theory, which all the cosmology explanations depend on, the Earth's accelerations with respect to the Sun and Moon cannot be detected according to General Relativity (free-fall/equivalence-principle/inertia = gravity which proves his own argument is nonsense, for the force creating the four bulges still originates cosmically and not from the Earth itself. The fundamental fault of his argument is that he is trying to originate the forces acting on the atmosphere from the Earth... trying to have both of two incompatible things - he wants to have his cake and eat it too) ... and yet the Moon and the Sun are said to accelerate the oceans so as to cause the tides ... thus we have the Earth's accelerations both detectable and non-detectable with respect to the same bodies at the same time in the same way?!?! (Note: tides lead, not lag the Moon).
iii. There is nothing in Newtons laws that prevent or otherwise affect the issue and arguments under consideration ... the forces that create all these atmospheric motions do not originate from the Earth they originate with the Earth's orientation with respect to the cosmological source thus even in his own construct it matters not what the source of the relative motion is ...... (whether it be the Earth or the cosmos) ... The logical absurdity here is his argument and the assumptions he uses. iv. All observations and experiment show a stationary Earth and/or the Earth at the center of all observable mass not just because we are looking out from this vantage point, but concentric shells of distribution of mass, double galaxies, gamma-ray bursters, et al ... the logical absurdity he is trying to create only exists in his own reasoning ... trying to appeal to observation and logic while ignoring it when it clearly demonstrates just the opposite position. Allen Daves ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOME
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|