On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:32:10 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 6/16/2023 8:24 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 2:08:40 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> >> On 6/16/2023 2:55 PM, RichD wrote:
> >>> On June 16, patdolan wrote:
> >>>> We also have the mathematical demonstration from fine young, acclaimed, and
> >>>> presumably atheist mathematicians
> >>>> ( here: https://youtu.be/Fm0hOex4psA?t=974 ) that all people
> >>>> on earth today are descended from a single mating pair of humans who lived
> >>>> around the time of Noah.
> >>>
> >>> A single pair, yes, but not necessarily a mating pair. No proof that
> >>> they "knew" each other -
> >>>
> >> There's "Y chromosome Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve", who were the most
> >> recent common ancestor of all men's Y Chromosome and everyone's
> >> mitochondrial DNA respectively. By knowing the mutation rates in the Y
> >> chromosome/mitochondrial DNA respectively, they can estimate how long
> >> ago they lived. I don't know the estimates but I do know they're
> >> significantly different. Not only weren't they a mating pair, they
> >> didn't even live during the same time.
> >>
> >> There is a genetic bottleneck from about 70,000 years ago when there was
> >> a near-extinction event for humans (a volcano I think) and all humans
> >> alive now are descended from a rather small population (a few thousand
> >> breeding pairs) which survived it.
>
> > Volrony, see my numeraphile link to educate yourself.
> Sorry, I prefer actual science.
>
> A genetic bottleneck of Noah, his wife and a few daughters-in-law is too
> tight and humanity is unlikely to have survived it. (see King Charles II
> to see what the outcome of such a family tree would be). Not to mention
> Adam & Eve themselves!
The humans on the ark had it way better than the rest of the species. There were at least three breeding pairs of humans; four, if you include 500 year old Noah and his 500 year old wife. All the other species were bottlenecked down to a single breeding pair.

The most dramatic bottleneck effect in the case of humans was that average lifespan decreased from around 800 years to around 80.

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 12:14:48 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 7:35:11?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 7:58:39?PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > El miércoles, 14 de junio de 2023 a las 23:25:42 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail:
> > > > > > since a beginning 4.5 billion years ago
> > > > > > Why has it not stopped?
> > > > > Over millions of years, Earth's rotation has been slowed significantly
> > > > > by tidal acceleration through gravitational interactions with the Moon.
> > > > > This gradual rotational deceleration is empirically documented by
> > > > > estimates of day lengths obtained from observations of tidal rhythmites
> > > > > and stromatolites; a compilation of these measurements[44] found that
> > > > > the length of the day has increased steadily from about 21 hours at 600
> > > > > Myr ago[45] to the current 24-hour value.
> > > >
> > > > Why hasn't the Earth stopped by the deceleration?
> > > > Why don't all astronomical bodies stop rotating?
> > > > Where are any examples of this in the universe?
> > > If you would be capable of finding out anything for yourself
> > > you would have found that all the big moons in the solar system
> > > are tidally locked.
> > > Of the primaries only Pluto is in tidal lock too,
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > Why not all the planets?
> > If entrenchment is the destiny of all astronomical bodies
> > why are they not already there?
> Your destiny is the grave.
> Why aren't you there?

I haven't stopped rotating.

If Mercury is the size of the Moon and it is subject
to much higher gravity why has it not tidal locked jan?
Why did the Moon but not Mercury?

> Jan

Am 17.06.2023 um 11:35 schrieb patdolan:
> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:52:15 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 16.06.2023 um 15:08 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>> On 2023-06-16 10:01:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>>>
>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 16.06.2023 um 04:58 schrieb Paparios:
>>>>>> El miércoles, 14 de junio de 2023 a las 23:25:42 UTC-4,
>>>>>> mitchr...@gmail:
>>>>>>> since a beginning 4.5 billion years ago
>>>>>>> Why has it not stopped?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Over millions of years, Earth's rotation has been slowed significantly
>>>>>> by tidal acceleration through gravitational interactions with the Moon.
>>>>>> This gradual rotational deceleration is empirically documented by
>>>>>> estimates of day lengths obtained from observations of tidal rhythmites
>>>>>> and stromatolites; a compilation of these measurements[44] found that
>>>>>> the length of the day has increased steadily from about 21 hours at 600
>>>>>> Myr ago[45] to the current 24-hour value.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Millions of years' is actually quite a small grid for time on planet
>>>>> Earth.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Earth history we are talking about billions of years.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'tidal forces' cannot destroy angular momentum of the Earth, because
>>>>> the effects of gravity of Moon on Earth are internal to the Earth.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, you are in denial of Newton's third law as well?
>>>
>>> Is that what he was trying to say? I thought it was just gibberish.
>>>
>> I am actually a proponent of the so called 'Growing Earth' theory.
>>
>> This is a theory of a contemporary of Alfred Wegner, who wrote a book
>> about the growing Earth in the year 1930 in Berlin.
>>
>> His name was Ott-Christoph Hilgenberg and his book had the title 'Vom
>> wachsenden Erdball' (only available in German).
>>
>> He was a geologist of the university of Charlottenburg (now part of Berlin).
>>
>> (btw: I spent most of my time at TU-Berlin in the very same building as
>> Hilgenberg.)
>>
>>
>> TH
> What is the earth's mass input, according to Hilgenberg? Is it dust and meteorites? Is it the mass of the sunlight captured in the carbon-carbon bonds of organic products of photosynthesis?
>

I wanted to show, that matter can be created out of nothing.

I need an 'experimental' proof for my 'book' about a connection between
GR and QM about 'structured spacetime'.

It is a somehow similar idea then 'aether theories', but has significant
differences.

(see here:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
)

Hilgenberg himself was an 'aetherist' and assumed, that aether would
'fall' into the inner Earth and conversts there into matter.

TH

Am 17.06.2023 um 11:31 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> On 2023-06-17 06:52:15 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Am 16.06.2023 um 15:08 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>> On 2023-06-16 10:01:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>>>
>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 16.06.2023 um 04:58 schrieb Paparios:
>>>>>> El miércoles, 14 de junio de 2023 a las 23:25:42 UTC-4,
>>>>>> mitchr...@gmail:
>>>>>>> since a beginning 4.5 billion years ago
>>>>>>> Why has it not stopped?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Over millions of years, Earth's rotation has been slowed
>>>>>> significantly
>>>>>> by tidal acceleration through gravitational interactions with the
>>>>>> Moon.
>>>>>> This gradual rotational deceleration is empirically documented by
>>>>>> estimates of day lengths obtained from observations of tidal
>>>>>> rhythmites
>>>>>> and stromatolites; a compilation of these measurements[44] found that
>>>>>> the length of the day has increased steadily from about 21 hours
>>>>>> at 600
>>>>>> Myr ago[45] to the current 24-hour value.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Millions of years' is actually quite a small grid for time on planet
>>>>> Earth.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Earth history we are talking about billions of years.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'tidal forces' cannot destroy angular momentum of the Earth,
>>>>> because
>>>>> the effects of gravity of Moon on Earth are internal to the Earth.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, you are in denial of Newton's third law as well?
>>>
>>> Is that what he was trying to say? I thought it was just gibberish.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I am actually a proponent of the so called 'Growing Earth' theory.
>>
>> This is a theory of a contemporary of Alfred Wegner, who wrote a book
>> about the growing Earth in the year 1930 in Berlin.
>
> Another poster who pretends to be knowledgeable but doesn't know how to
> spell prominent scientists' names, in this case Wegener's. You don't
> even have patdolan's excuse that this is a foreign name for you.

Sorry for a spelling mistake. But Wegener was not yet on my reading
list, hence I'm a little unfamiliar with his name.

>> His name was Ott-Christoph Hilgenberg and his book had the title 'Vom
>> wachsenden Erdball' (only available in German).
>
> It may have been a credible theory in 1930, but 93 years have passed
> since then. According to Wikipedia, "the theses of Ott Christoph
> Hilgenberg and Nikola Tesla were based on absorption and transformation
> of aether-energy into normal matter". Hmm. Do you believe in aether-energy?

Actually I needed a proof against the so called standard modell of
quantum mechanics.

This was required to justify my own invention called 'structured spacetime'.

see here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

So, I had actually no intention to venture into geology, but wanted to
show, that Earth does in fact grow from within.

This would falsify the very important paradigme called 'atomism' and the
idea of lasting particles (generated eventually in a 'big-bang').

TH
>> He was a geologist of the university of Charlottenburg (now part of
>> Berlin).
>>
>> (btw: I spent most of my time at TU-Berlin in the very same building
>> as Hilgenberg.)
>
> So? I did my doctoral work in the very same building as William Perkin
> Jr. Big deal, but it doesn't make me cite Perkin's ideas as gospel truth.
>

On 6/17/2023 5:59 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:32:10 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 6/16/2023 8:24 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 2:08:40 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 6/16/2023 2:55 PM, RichD wrote:
>>>>> On June 16, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>> We also have the mathematical demonstration from fine young, acclaimed, and
>>>>>> presumably atheist mathematicians
>>>>>> ( here: https://youtu.be/Fm0hOex4psA?t=974 ) that all people
>>>>>> on earth today are descended from a single mating pair of humans who lived
>>>>>> around the time of Noah.
>>>>>
>>>>> A single pair, yes, but not necessarily a mating pair. No proof that
>>>>> they "knew" each other -
>>>>>
>>>> There's "Y chromosome Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve", who were the most
>>>> recent common ancestor of all men's Y Chromosome and everyone's
>>>> mitochondrial DNA respectively. By knowing the mutation rates in the Y
>>>> chromosome/mitochondrial DNA respectively, they can estimate how long
>>>> ago they lived. I don't know the estimates but I do know they're
>>>> significantly different. Not only weren't they a mating pair, they
>>>> didn't even live during the same time.
>>>>
>>>> There is a genetic bottleneck from about 70,000 years ago when there was
>>>> a near-extinction event for humans (a volcano I think) and all humans
>>>> alive now are descended from a rather small population (a few thousand
>>>> breeding pairs) which survived it.
>>
>>> Volrony, see my numeraphile link to educate yourself.
>> Sorry, I prefer actual science.
>>
>> A genetic bottleneck of Noah, his wife and a few daughters-in-law is too
>> tight and humanity is unlikely to have survived it. (see King Charles II
>> to see what the outcome of such a family tree would be). Not to mention
>> Adam & Eve themselves!
> The humans on the ark had it way better than the rest of the species. There were at least three breeding pairs of humans; four, if you include 500 year old Noah and his 500 year old wife. All the other species were bottlenecked down to a single breeding pair.
>
> The most dramatic bottleneck effect in the case of humans was that average lifespan decreased from around 800 years to around 80.

That's even worse. No way would they have survived a bottleneck of one
couple. No way would the genetic diversity of species be as much as it
is now in most species.

As I said, I go with the science.

On 6/17/2023 1:09 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 7:35:11 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 7:58:39?PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
>>>> El miércoles, 14 de junio de 2023 a las 23:25:42 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com:
>>>>> since a beginning 4.5 billion years ago
>>>>> Why has it not stopped?
>>>> Over millions of years, Earth's rotation has been slowed significantly
>>>> by tidal acceleration through gravitational interactions with the Moon.
>>>> This gradual rotational deceleration is empirically documented by
>>>> estimates of day lengths obtained from observations of tidal rhythmites
>>>> and stromatolites; a compilation of these measurements[44] found that
>>>> the length of the day has increased steadily from about 21 hours at 600
>>>> Myr ago[45] to the current 24-hour value.
>>>
>>> Why hasn't the Earth stopped by the deceleration?
>>> Why don't all astronomical bodies stop rotating?
>>> Where are any examples of this in the universe?
>> If you would be capable of finding out anything for yourself
>> you would have found that all the big moons in the solar system
>> are tidally locked.
>> Of the primaries only Pluto is in tidal lock too,
>>
>> Jan
>
> Why not all the planets?
> If entrenchment is the destiny of all astronomical bodies
> why are they not already there?

Because not enough time has passed, Roy.

> a slowing of rotation has never been measured for them.
> Man hasn't had the time to measure the Earth changing.

Except we already have measured it, Roy.

Volney wrote:

>> The most dramatic bottleneck effect in the case of humans was that
>> average lifespan decreased from around 800 years to around 80.
>
> That's even worse. No way would they have survived a bottleneck of one
> couple. No way would the genetic diversity of species be as much as it
> is now in most species. As I said, I go with the science.

in this aspect, you are a fossil record, with bad teeth. Why old cranium
skulls have good teeth, nothing missing, and you don't, huh??

*_Afghans_make_the_victory_over_US_anniversary_a_national_holiday_*
https://%72t.com/news/578222-afghanistan-new-public-holiday/

the afghans killed in 100% the opium production, and the capitalist
america got furious like hell, asking afghanistan for cocaine again and
again.

Congratulations Afghanistan for defeating the minion countries of the
Western cabal again! Third time including the two wars waged by the
British. Happy holiday. And by not allowing the opium trade Afghanistan is
costing the Western cabal banks billions in real cash that is laundered
through their branches which they use to prop up their fake money from
drug sales which are destroying Western lives as well as others around the
world. It is amazing how the greatest military in the world (lol) couldnt
shut down the opium trade while they were occupying Afghanistan. Funny
that isnt it, almost curious!

And while we are talking about the U.S commitment to justice, democracy
and human rights does anyone know which prison Baby Bush and Tony Bliar is
staying at? Just asking for a friend.

capitalist america, a shithole fascia of countries, populated by
criminals, united in fascism, terrorism and crimes.

Volney wrote:

>> Why not all the planets?
>> If entrenchment is the destiny of all astronomical bodies why are they
>> not already there?
>
> Because not enough time has passed, Roy.

The US withdrew from Afghanistan because it knew
*_that_Russia_would_supply_* the Taliban
*_with_devastating_weapons_as_retaliation_* for the upcoming war in
Ukraine *_which_was_pre_planned_*

it only takes 1 or max 2 submersed missiles to sink an aircraft carrier.
To sink it to the bottom.

After destroying the already poor country to the ground, They confiscated
the $9 billion savings it had!!!

Excellent! Something for future generations to 'remember' what the
americans had done to Afghans.

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 12:14:48?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 7:35:11?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 7:58:39?PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > > El miércoles, 14 de junio de 2023 a las 23:25:42 UTC-4, mitchr...@:
> > > > > > > since a beginning 4.5 billion years ago
> > > > > > > Why has it not stopped?
> > > > > > Over millions of years, Earth's rotation has been slowed
> > > > > > significantly by tidal acceleration through gravitational
> > > > > > interactions with the Moon. This gradual rotational deceleration
> > > > > > is empirically documented by estimates of day lengths obtained
> > > > > > from observations of tidal rhythmites and stromatolites; a
> > > > > > compilation of these measurements[44] found that the length of
> > > > > > the day has increased steadily from about 21 hours at 600 Myr
> > > > > > ago[45] to the current 24-hour value.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why hasn't the Earth stopped by the deceleration?
> > > > > Why don't all astronomical bodies stop rotating?
> > > > > Where are any examples of this in the universe?
> > > > If you would be capable of finding out anything for yourself
> > > > you would have found that all the big moons in the solar system
> > > > are tidally locked.
> > > > Of the primaries only Pluto is in tidal lock too,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > Why not all the planets?
> > > If entrenchment is the destiny of all astronomical bodies
> > > why are they not already there?
> > Your destiny is the grave.
> > Why aren't you there?
>
> I haven't stopped rotating.

That doesn't prove you are not in your grave.

> If Mercury is the size of the Moon and it is subject
> to much higher gravity why has it not tidal locked jan?
> Why did the Moon but not Mercury?

This is becoming too tedious. Mercury -is- tidally locked.
Do find your own facts first, before rambling on, (and on)

Jan

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 4:50:27 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 12:14:48?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 7:35:11?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 7:58:39?PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > > > El miércoles, 14 de junio de 2023 a las 23:25:42 UTC-4, mitchr...@:
> > > > > > > > since a beginning 4.5 billion years ago
> > > > > > > > Why has it not stopped?
> > > > > > > Over millions of years, Earth's rotation has been slowed
> > > > > > > significantly by tidal acceleration through gravitational
> > > > > > > interactions with the Moon. This gradual rotational deceleration
> > > > > > > is empirically documented by estimates of day lengths obtained
> > > > > > > from observations of tidal rhythmites and stromatolites; a
> > > > > > > compilation of these measurements[44] found that the length of
> > > > > > > the day has increased steadily from about 21 hours at 600 Myr
> > > > > > > ago[45] to the current 24-hour value.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why hasn't the Earth stopped by the deceleration?
> > > > > > Why don't all astronomical bodies stop rotating?
> > > > > > Where are any examples of this in the universe?
> > > > > If you would be capable of finding out anything for yourself
> > > > > you would have found that all the big moons in the solar system
> > > > > are tidally locked.
> > > > > Of the primaries only Pluto is in tidal lock too,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > Why not all the planets?
> > > > If entrenchment is the destiny of all astronomical bodies
> > > > why are they not already there?
> > > Your destiny is the grave.
> > > Why aren't you there?
> >
> > I haven't stopped rotating.
> That doesn't prove you are not in your grave.
> > If Mercury is the size of the Moon and it is subject
> > to much higher gravity why has it not tidal locked jan?
> > Why did the Moon but not Mercury?
> This is becoming too tedious. Mercury -is- tidally locked.
> Do find your own facts first, before rambling on, (and on)
>
> Jan

You need to check your own facts jan.
Mercury is not tidally locked.
What is it locked to? not the Sun...
So why not? If everything is slowing
down by gravity Mercury ought to
be... with so many other astronomical
forms. We don't live in a tidally locked
universe. If you are right we should.

Mitchell Raemsch

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 4:50:27?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 12:14:48?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
[-]
> > > > > Why not all the planets?
> > > > > If entrenchment is the destiny of all astronomical bodies
> > > > > why are they not already there?
> > > > Your destiny is the grave.
> > > > Why aren't you there?
> > >
> > > I haven't stopped rotating.
> > That doesn't prove you are not in your grave.
> > > If Mercury is the size of the Moon and it is subject
> > > to much higher gravity why has it not tidal locked jan?
> > > Why did the Moon but not Mercury?
> > This is becoming too tedious. Mercury -is- tidally locked.
> > Do find your own facts first, before rambling on, (and on)
> >
> > Jan
>
> You need to check your own facts jan.
> Mercury is not tidally locked.

Your look again. It is.

> What is it locked to? not the Sun...

Yes, of course, the sun. What else?

> So why not? If everything is slowing
> down by gravity Mercury ought to
> be... with so many other astronomical
> forms.

Mercury has slowed down, until it locked.

> We don't live in a tidally locked
> universe. If you are right we should.

I'm not saying your silly things.
Please don't pretend that I do,

Jan

And for more knowledgeable others:
What happens in the period shortly before the spin/orbit capture?
Is there a period of chaotic rotation, with periods of capture
and breaking free again, until the final lock sets in?
I guess this can only be explored numerically.

El lunes, 19 de junio de 2023 a las 5:39:09 UTC-4, J. J. Lodder escribió:
> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 4:50:27?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 12:14:48?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [-]
> > > > > > Why not all the planets?
> > > > > > If entrenchment is the destiny of all astronomical bodies
> > > > > > why are they not already there?
> > > > > Your destiny is the grave.
> > > > > Why aren't you there?
> > > >
> > > > I haven't stopped rotating.
> > > That doesn't prove you are not in your grave.
> > > > If Mercury is the size of the Moon and it is subject
> > > > to much higher gravity why has it not tidal locked jan?
> > > > Why did the Moon but not Mercury?
> > > This is becoming too tedious. Mercury -is- tidally locked.
> > > Do find your own facts first, before rambling on, (and on)
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > You need to check your own facts jan.
> > Mercury is not tidally locked.
> Your look again. It is.
> > What is it locked to? not the Sun...
> Yes, of course, the sun. What else?
> > So why not? If everything is slowing
> > down by gravity Mercury ought to
> > be... with so many other astronomical
> > forms.
> Mercury has slowed down, until it locked.
> > We don't live in a tidally locked
> > universe. If you are right we should.
> I'm not saying your silly things.
> Please don't pretend that I do,
>
> Jan
>
> And for more knowledgeable others:
> What happens in the period shortly before the spin/orbit capture?
> Is there a period of chaotic rotation, with periods of capture
> and breaking free again, until the final lock sets in?
> I guess this can only be explored numerically.

Not every case of tidal locking involves synchronous rotation. With Mercury, for example, this tidally locked planet
completes three rotations for every two revolutions around the Sun, a 3:2 spin–orbit resonance.

On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 8:19:09 AM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 19 de junio de 2023 a las 5:39:09 UTC-4, J. J. Lodder escribió:
> > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 4:50:27?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 12:14:48?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [-]
> > > > > > > Why not all the planets?
> > > > > > > If entrenchment is the destiny of all astronomical bodies
> > > > > > > why are they not already there?
> > > > > > Your destiny is the grave.
> > > > > > Why aren't you there?
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't stopped rotating.
> > > > That doesn't prove you are not in your grave.
> > > > > If Mercury is the size of the Moon and it is subject
> > > > > to much higher gravity why has it not tidal locked jan?
> > > > > Why did the Moon but not Mercury?
> > > > This is becoming too tedious. Mercury -is- tidally locked.
> > > > Do find your own facts first, before rambling on, (and on)
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > You need to check your own facts jan.
> > > Mercury is not tidally locked.
> > Your look again. It is.
> > > What is it locked to? not the Sun...
> > Yes, of course, the sun. What else?
> > > So why not? If everything is slowing
> > > down by gravity Mercury ought to
> > > be... with so many other astronomical
> > > forms.
> > Mercury has slowed down, until it locked.
> > > We don't live in a tidally locked
> > > universe. If you are right we should.
> > I'm not saying your silly things.
> > Please don't pretend that I do,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > And for more knowledgeable others:
> > What happens in the period shortly before the spin/orbit capture?
> > Is there a period of chaotic rotation, with periods of capture
> > and breaking free again, until the final lock sets in?
> > I guess this can only be explored numerically.
> Not every case of tidal locking involves synchronous rotation. With Mercury, for example, this tidally locked planet
> completes three rotations for every two revolutions around the Sun, a 3:2 spin–orbit resonance.

Orbital resonance is not tidal lock.
You two are liars.
There is no proof anything slows down by tides...

Mitchell Raemsch

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 8:19:09?AM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > El lunes, 19 de junio de 2023 a las 5:39:09 UTC-4, J. J. Lodder escribió:
> > > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 4:50:27?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 12:14:48?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [-]
> > > > > > > > Why not all the planets?
> > > > > > > > If entrenchment is the destiny of all astronomical bodies
> > > > > > > > why are they not already there?
> > > > > > > Your destiny is the grave.
> > > > > > > Why aren't you there?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I haven't stopped rotating.
> > > > > That doesn't prove you are not in your grave.
> > > > > > If Mercury is the size of the Moon and it is subject
> > > > > > to much higher gravity why has it not tidal locked jan?
> > > > > > Why did the Moon but not Mercury?
> > > > > This is becoming too tedious. Mercury -is- tidally locked.
> > > > > Do find your own facts first, before rambling on, (and on)
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > You need to check your own facts jan.
> > > > Mercury is not tidally locked.
> > > Your look again. It is.
> > > > What is it locked to? not the Sun...
> > > Yes, of course, the sun. What else?
> > > > So why not? If everything is slowing
> > > > down by gravity Mercury ought to
> > > > be... with so many other astronomical
> > > > forms.
> > > Mercury has slowed down, until it locked.
> > > > We don't live in a tidally locked
> > > > universe. If you are right we should.
> > > I'm not saying your silly things.
> > > Please don't pretend that I do,
> > >
> > > Jan
> > >
> > > And for more knowledgeable others:
> > > What happens in the period shortly before the spin/orbit capture?
> > > Is there a period of chaotic rotation, with periods of capture
> > > and breaking free again, until the final lock sets in?
> > > I guess this can only be explored numerically.
> > Not every case of tidal locking involves synchronous rotation. With
> > Mercury, for example, this tidally locked planet completes three
> > rotations for every two revolutions around the Sun, a 3:2 spin–orbit
> > resonance.
>
> Orbital resonance is not tidal lock.

Of course it is a lock.
It is stable against (not too big) perturbations.

> You two are liars.
> There is no proof anything slows down by tides...

And where do you think that the energy
that is dissipated by the tides comes from?
Or the energy that is generated by a tidal power plant?
(like the one at La Rance, Normandie for example)

Jan

On 6/19/2023 2:08 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 8:19:09 AM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:

>> Not every case of tidal locking involves synchronous rotation. With Mercury, for example, this tidally locked planet
>> completes three rotations for every two revolutions around the Sun, a 3:2 spin–orbit resonance.
>
> Orbital resonance is not tidal lock.

It certainly is, as it is a state reached by the influence of tides.

There are many tidal lock resonances possible. The 1:1 resonance (the
moon locked to the earth) is just one of them.

On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 1:15:50 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 8:19:09?AM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > > El lunes, 19 de junio de 2023 a las 5:39:09 UTC-4, J. J. Lodder escribió:
> > > > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 4:50:27?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 12:14:48?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > [-]
> > > > > > > > > Why not all the planets?
> > > > > > > > > If entrenchment is the destiny of all astronomical bodies
> > > > > > > > > why are they not already there?
> > > > > > > > Your destiny is the grave.
> > > > > > > > Why aren't you there?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I haven't stopped rotating.
> > > > > > That doesn't prove you are not in your grave.
> > > > > > > If Mercury is the size of the Moon and it is subject
> > > > > > > to much higher gravity why has it not tidal locked jan?
> > > > > > > Why did the Moon but not Mercury?
> > > > > > This is becoming too tedious. Mercury -is- tidally locked.
> > > > > > Do find your own facts first, before rambling on, (and on)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jan
> > > > >
> > > > > You need to check your own facts jan.
> > > > > Mercury is not tidally locked.
> > > > Your look again. It is.
> > > > > What is it locked to? not the Sun...
> > > > Yes, of course, the sun. What else?
> > > > > So why not? If everything is slowing
> > > > > down by gravity Mercury ought to
> > > > > be... with so many other astronomical
> > > > > forms.
> > > > Mercury has slowed down, until it locked.
> > > > > We don't live in a tidally locked
> > > > > universe. If you are right we should.
> > > > I'm not saying your silly things.
> > > > Please don't pretend that I do,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > And for more knowledgeable others:
> > > > What happens in the period shortly before the spin/orbit capture?
> > > > Is there a period of chaotic rotation, with periods of capture
> > > > and breaking free again, until the final lock sets in?
> > > > I guess this can only be explored numerically.
> > > Not every case of tidal locking involves synchronous rotation. With
> > > Mercury, for example, this tidally locked planet completes three
> > > rotations for every two revolutions around the Sun, a 3:2 spin–orbit
> > > resonance.
> >
> > Orbital resonance is not tidal lock.
> Of course it is a lock.

It is still not a tidal lock. Orbital resonance is something different.
They are not equal.

Why is it not slowing down for tidal lock "orbital period to rotation" that
is equal?

> It is stable against (not too big) perturbations.
> > You two are liars.
> > There is no proof anything slows down by tides...
> And where do you think that the energy
> that is dissipated by the tides comes from?
> Or the energy that is generated by a tidal power plant?

What is rising and lowering in a power plan jan?
How much energy comes from that?
Is that your green new deal?
I think you are tempting by more lies.

Mitchell Raemsch

> (like the one at La Rance, Normandie for example)
>
> Jan

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 1:15:50?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 8:19:09?AM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> > > > El lunes, 19 de junio de 2023 a las 5:39:09 UTC-4, J. J. Lodder:
> > > > > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 4:50:27?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 12:14:48?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder:
> > > > > > > > > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > [-]
> > > > > > > > > > Why not all the planets?
> > > > > > > > > > If entrenchment is the destiny of all astronomical bodies
> > > > > > > > > > why are they not already there?
> > > > > > > > > Your destiny is the grave.
> > > > > > > > > Why aren't you there?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I haven't stopped rotating.
> > > > > > > That doesn't prove you are not in your grave.
> > > > > > > > If Mercury is the size of the Moon and it is subject
> > > > > > > > to much higher gravity why has it not tidal locked jan?
> > > > > > > > Why did the Moon but not Mercury?
> > > > > > > This is becoming too tedious. Mercury -is- tidally locked.
> > > > > > > Do find your own facts first, before rambling on, (and on)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You need to check your own facts jan.
> > > > > > Mercury is not tidally locked.
> > > > > Your look again. It is.
> > > > > > What is it locked to? not the Sun...
> > > > > Yes, of course, the sun. What else?
> > > > > > So why not? If everything is slowing
> > > > > > down by gravity Mercury ought to
> > > > > > be... with so many other astronomical
> > > > > > forms.
> > > > > Mercury has slowed down, until it locked.
> > > > > > We don't live in a tidally locked
> > > > > > universe. If you are right we should.
> > > > > I'm not saying your silly things.
> > > > > Please don't pretend that I do,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > > >
> > > > > And for more knowledgeable others:
> > > > > What happens in the period shortly before the spin/orbit capture?
> > > > > Is there a period of chaotic rotation, with periods of capture
> > > > > and breaking free again, until the final lock sets in?
> > > > > I guess this can only be explored numerically.
> > > > Not every case of tidal locking involves synchronous rotation. With
> > > > Mercury, for example, this tidally locked planet completes three
> > > > rotations for every two revolutions around the Sun, a 3:2 spin–orbit
> > > > resonance.
> > >
> > > Orbital resonance is not tidal lock.
> > Of course it is a lock.
>
> It is still not a tidal lock. Orbital resonance is something different.
> They are not equal.
>
> Why is it not slowing down for tidal lock "orbital period to rotation" that
> is equal?

Mercury's orbit is too elliptical.
It will circularise, in anothe Gy or so,
and after that Mercury will settle in a 1/1 lock.
Just have some patience.

> > It is stable against (not too big) perturbations.
> > > You two are liars.
> > > There is no proof anything slows down by tides...
> > And where do you think that the energy
> > that is dissipated by the tides comes from?
> > Or the energy that is generated by a tidal power plant?
>
> What is rising and lowering in a power plan jan?

Guess what, the answer is water.

> How much energy comes from that?

About 500 GWh per year.

> Is that your green new deal?
> I think you are tempting by more lies.

Nothing Green Deal about it.
The La Rance tidal power plant has been producing that much power
for more than 50 years already.

Again, where do you think that energy comes from?

Jan

> Mitchell Raemsch
>
>
> > (like the one at La Rance, Normandie for example)
> >
> > Jan

Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 6/19/2023 2:08 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 8:19:09?AM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
>
> >> Not every case of tidal locking involves synchronous rotation. With
> >> Mercury, for example, this tidally locked planet completes three
> >> rotations for every two revolutions around the Sun, a 3:2 spin–orbit
> >> resonance.
> >
> > Orbital resonance is not tidal lock.
>
> It certainly is, as it is a state reached by the influence of tides.
>
> There are many tidal lock resonances possible. The 1:1 resonance (the
> moon locked to the earth) is just one of them.

Mitch is confused, as usual, and also in terminology.
There are 'orbital resonances'
in which the periods of -orbits- are locked.
The classic example are the Jovian moons. (in 1:2:4)

And there are 'spin-orbit' resonances, in which the -axial rotation-
aka spin, is locked to the orbital period.
The classic example is the Moon, in 1:1 lock,
and, as we know now, Mercury in 3:2 lock.
Other ratios are possible.

Jan

On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 2:25:14 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On 6/19/2023 2:08 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 8:19:09?AM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> >
> > >> Not every case of tidal locking involves synchronous rotation. With
> > >> Mercury, for example, this tidally locked planet completes three
> > >> rotations for every two revolutions around the Sun, a 3:2 spin–orbit
> > >> resonance.
> > >
> > > Orbital resonance is not tidal lock.
> >
> > It certainly is, as it is a state reached by the influence of tides.

They are seen to be not equal.

> > There are many tidal lock resonances possible. The 1:1 resonance (the
> > moon locked to the earth) is just one of them.
> Mitch is confused, as usual, and also in terminology.
> There are 'orbital resonances'
> in which the periods of -orbits- are locked.
> The classic example are the Jovian moons. (in 1:2:4)

This doesn't prove rotation slows down jan.
Those Moons formed that way instead.

>
> And there are 'spin-orbit' resonances, in which the -axial rotation-
> aka spin, is locked to the orbital period.
> The classic example is the Moon, in 1:1 lock,
> and, as we know now, Mercury in 3:2 lock.
> Other ratios are possible.
>
> Jan

Orbital resonances and tidal locks are not the same.
They are to different things. Tidal locks are equal 1:1.
Beyond tidal locks are resonances that are not equal.
Why are not all forms tidally locked?
Gravity acts on all the stars... so why are they not
slowing down?

Mitchell Raemsch

On June 17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> ================
> The 'tidal forces' cannot destroy angular momentum of the Earth, because
> the effects of gravity of Moon on Earth are internal to the Earth.
> ===============
>
> Newton's third law says that this is impossible.

Newton's third isn't completely reliable.

I visit the gym twice a week, and do sit ups regularly, on
an inclined bench. At the end of a set, at my limit, I throw
my arms forward violently. The arms' momentum carries
me up, for the last one. I can't do it without this move.

If Newton's third ruled, this wouldn't work. The forward
momentum would be nullified by a backward reaction thrust
of my torso; no profit.

So that law isn't universal, it's refuted empirically.

--
Rich

On 6/20/23 1:52 PM, RichD wrote:
> Newton's third isn't completely reliable.
>
> I visit the gym twice a week, and do sit ups regularly, on an
> inclined bench. At the end of a set, at my limit, I throw my arms
> forward violently. The arms' momentum carries me up, for the last
> one. I can't do it without this move.
>
> If Newton's third ruled, this wouldn't work. The forward momentum
> would be nullified by a backward reaction thrust of my torso; no
> profit.
>
> So that law isn't universal, it's refuted empirically.

No, you just don't understand the mechanics of what you did.

When you thrust your arms forward, the board behind your back absorbed
the reaction force, transmitting it to the room, floor, and earth,
making it unobservable. Your arms moved forward essentially inertially,
and when they reached the limit of your arms' extension, their momentum
carried your torso forward.

So the earth moved backward, and your torso moved forward. Momentum is
conserved, and Newton's third is valid.

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 2:46:12 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/20/23 1:52 PM, RichD wrote:
> > Newton's third isn't completely reliable.
> >
> > I visit the gym twice a week, and do sit ups regularly, on an
> > inclined bench. At the end of a set, at my limit, I throw my arms
> > forward violently. The arms' momentum carries me up, for the last
> > one. I can't do it without this move.
> >
> > If Newton's third ruled, this wouldn't work. The forward momentum
> > would be nullified by a backward reaction thrust of my torso; no
> > profit.
> >
> > So that law isn't universal, it's refuted empirically.
> No, you just don't understand the mechanics of what you did.
>
> When you thrust your arms forward, the board behind your back absorbed
> the reaction force, transmitting it to the room, floor, and earth,
> making it unobservable. Your arms moved forward essentially inertially,
> and when they reached the limit of your arms' extension, their momentum
> carried your torso forward.
>
> So the earth moved backward, and your torso moved forward. Momentum is
> conserved, and Newton's third is valid.
>
> Tom Roberts

Tom? The Earth is moving so why don't we feel it?

On Tuesday, 20 June 2023 at 23:46:12 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/20/23 1:52 PM, RichD wrote:
> > Newton's third isn't completely reliable.
> >
> > I visit the gym twice a week, and do sit ups regularly, on an
> > inclined bench. At the end of a set, at my limit, I throw my arms
> > forward violently. The arms' momentum carries me up, for the last
> > one. I can't do it without this move.
> >
> > If Newton's third ruled, this wouldn't work. The forward momentum
> > would be nullified by a backward reaction thrust of my torso; no
> > profit.
> >
> > So that law isn't universal, it's refuted empirically.
> No, you just don't understand the mechanics of what you did.

And he doesn't understand that we're FORCED!!!
To THE BEST WAY!!!

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On June 17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > ================
> > The 'tidal forces' cannot destroy angular momentum of the Earth, because
> > the effects of gravity of Moon on Earth are internal to the Earth.
> > ===============
> >
> > Newton's third law says that this is impossible.
>
> Newton's third isn't completely reliable.

It is, absolutely and completely.
If it weren't momentum conservation wouldn't hold.
Do you doubt momentum conservation too?
Do you believe that your arm swing motions could serve
as reactionless rocket drive?

Jan

[snip misunderstood physics]

On June 21, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Newton's third isn't completely reliable.
>
> It is, absolutely and completely.
> If it weren't momentum conservation wouldn't hold.
> Do you doubt momentum conservation too?
> Do you believe that your arm swing motions could serve
> as reactionless rocket drive?

Temper, temper. You sound like a religious believer, throwing a
tantrum when his god is challenged.

I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself, JJ. Tennis players know
that a racket delivers more power - pace, as they say - with loose
stringing. Does that make sense?

Hit a ball against a solid wall, then against a net. Does the net
return it faster? Is it an energy source? How can a racket with
loose stringing return with more pace than tight tension?

It's another counter-example to Newton's third.

--
Rich