In the interests of clarity, a minor revision to the Q and A session with DREM.
I am very pleased that I have managed to get a more detailed response from him and not another cut and paste repetition.
Here is DREM in action.
“Another Gish gallop from MikeR, in the form of a ridiculously extensive list of questions, as an attempt to evade, and change the subject.
“How many times do we have to be subject to your series of assertions?”
They are not just assertions, MikeR, everything has been backed up via the notes from Brown. I keep repeating them because I am right, and you are wrong.”
DREM, a Gish Gallop is evasion in response to a question, via a sequence of changes of topics, usually unrelated to the original question.
My questions are not in series, but in parallel and are all related to your belief that the only valid way to describe the motion of the Moon is via an axial non rotating Moon. I do however note some shape shifting going on with your answer to 7. We are making some progress.
Now with regard to your answers.
“ 1 . DREM, why do you think the term “translation” does not include rotation? See the definition of translation in my preceding comment.”
DREM – “Because they are two completely different motions, MikeR.”
My Response – Another repetitive assertion from DREM.
Translation describes motion where the spatial coordinates of a rigid object change so that all parts travel in parallel. See 5.1.2 of Brown. Rotational motion fits this definition perfectly.
“ 2 . Also why do you think that a single motion cannot be decomposed into two or more motions (and why restrict ourselves to just 2D **)?”
DREM – “Because the notes from Brown state that a motion is only to be categorized as a general plane motion if it does not fall into the category of a pure translation, or a pure rotation. The ball on a string etc is a case of pure rotation. However, if you erroneously choose to treat it as a general plane motion, then you are breaking it down into a translation plus a rotation. Still only one axis of rotation.”
My Response – This is the trickiest to explain because of the wording in the Brown notes which could lead to confusion for some.
However It is clear that rotational motion can be considered as 1. simply alone or alternatively as 2. a general plane motion where motion can be decomposed.
The first is a subset of the second. They are not discrete non overlapping sets ( I can do a Venn diagram if you like).
Accordingly, it is impossible to conceive that any motion of a rigid body ,that does not deform during motion, cannot be categorized within the paradigm of general planar motion. If you can think of a case, let me and everyone else know.
“ 3 . Why do you think a rigid body analogy, such as the merry-go-round analogy, is appropriate to the Earth and Moon system where both the Earth and Moon are both capable of rotating at independent rates?”
DREM – “As I have explained many times, the simple analogies serve a simple purpose. For one thing, to help make the point that you supposedly now accept – that something moving roughly like the moon, with one face generally always oriented towards the center of the revolution, can be described as moving in a pure rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass.”
My Response – yes, you have explained the single purpose of your analogy many times .
There are three types of analogies, useful, useless and totally useless.
Useless analogies are the domain of “argument by false analogy” where one common characteristic is used to imply that there is more general commonality than actually exists, i.e. my dog has a nose, I have a nose, I am therefore a dog.
The totally useless analogy is where there are no common characteristics. For the rigid body analogy to the Earth/Moon system, the closest commonality, is only seeing one side of the Moon which is at best only vaguely true (see 5. below). As Maxwell Smart used to say “only missed by that much”.
“ 4 . DREM, how do you explain the properties of elliptical orbits (i.e. variable orbital speed) using the rotating rigid body analogy?”
DREM – “I don’t. I explain the properties of elliptical orbits, like variable orbital speed, via Kepler’s laws, same as you do. That is beyond the scope of the analogies, as I have explained ad nauseam.”
My Response – yes DREM, the single rigid body analogy is a total useless analogy. Why would anyone in their right mind continue to primarily base their argument on this?
God only knows as he is only one who may have access to whatever is going on in DREM’s mind.
“ 5 . Related to 4. how do you account for libration using the rigid body analogy?”
DREM -” I don’t. It is beyond the scope of the analogies. I account for it as I have explained countless times to countless commenters. Go look it up.”
My Response – Excellent that you have cleared that up. You have no mechanism via analogy to account for libration. You say you have some other mechanism and that I should look it up. You have made thousands of comments over the past couple if years. Where is it? Better still just copy and paste from wherever it is, so we can appreciate it in its full glory. Don’t be ashamed.
“ 6 . DREM, why do you always evade when confronted with question 5?”
DREM – “I don’t. Go look it up”.
My Response – Again, I am not sure why you repetitively evaded answering, in our previous exchange on the specific matter of libration ( I will see if I can find that exchange), other than the shame factor.
“ 7 . DREM , why do you think tidal locking means freezing of the Moon’s axial rotation?”
DREM – ” I was not aware that I did. Not sure exactly what you mean by freezing. I can tell you, though, that from the Non-Spinner perspective, tidal locking at Spinner 1:1 (i.e. what a Spinner would see as one axial rotation per orbit) equals tidal locking at Non-Spinner 0:1 (zero axial rotations per orbit). They are the same thing, just seen in two different ways.”
My Response – yes there is some validity in the 0:1 mode using a non-inertial reference frame but unfortunately it’s not that useful with regard to understanding energetics and angular momentum.
That is why the (1:1) mode, using an inertial reference frame, is preferred by astronomers and physicists.
You have made the remarkable claim,on more than one occasion (correct me if I am wrong), that the Moon does not rotate on its axis with respect to any reference frame. You now seem to be wavering with regard to this claim. Do you still stand by this? If not then we can agree and terminate these exchanges.
““ 8 . DREM, why do you think scientists have bothered to publish direct empirical measurements of the Moon’s axial rotational rate over the past 40 to 50 years , if it is always exactly zero?”
DREM – “They mistake the change in orientation of the moon for axial rotation. So what they are publishing is data on the rate of change in orientation of the moon”.
My Response – Professional astronomers who devote years and resources to these measurements are mistaken. You propose a very interesting hypothesis.
However the astronomers could tell very, very easily whether it is a rate of change of the orientation from their measurements. The orbital motion of the Moon is elliptical and, if your hypothesis was correct, they would easily see the rate of change vary from the Moon’s perigee to apogee.
“ 9 . Additionally why do these scientist publish measured data about the orientation of the Moon’s rotational axis if the axis does not exist , as it is just a figment of the imagination of these deluded scientists”
DREM – “Because they think the moon rotates on its own axis”.
My Response – They have good reasons to think this. See previous answer.
“ 10 . DREM, why do you think generations of astronomers and physicists , since the time of Newton, are so stupid as to not realise that the Moon does not rotate, if this is the case?”
DREM – “I do not think they are stupid.”
My Response – Good, are they just deluded?
“ 11 . As a corollary to 10. , why do you think that you and a few special colleagues have this unique insight that has evaded nearly every other professional astronomer and physicist?”
DREM – “I don’t.”
My Response – I am glad that you have changed your mind on this matter . I recall that you have made claims that you have some original thoughts ( or words to that effect) that the mainstream are blissfully unaware of.
“ 12 . As a corollary to 11., DREM, have you heard of the term “delusions of grandeur”?”
DREM – “Yes.”
My Response – DREM, do you have a formal diagnosis and a treatment plan?
DREM – I think that is everything…
I have many more questions so we can continue the Q and A session if you like.
DREM, I know you are such a glutton for punishment.
MikeR
In the interests of clarity, a minor revision to the Q and A session with DREM.
I am very pleased that I have managed to get a more detailed response from him and not another cut and paste repetition.
Here is DREM in action.
“Another Gish gallop from MikeR, in the form of a ridiculously extensive list of questions, as an attempt to evade, and change the subject.
“How many times do we have to be subject to your series of assertions?”
They are not just assertions, MikeR, everything has been backed up via the notes from Brown. I keep repeating them because I am right, and you are wrong.”
DREM, a Gish Gallop is evasion in response to a question, via a sequence of changes of topics, usually unrelated to the original question.
My questions are not in series, but in parallel and are all related to your belief that the only valid way to describe the motion of the Moon is via an axial non rotating Moon. I do however note some shape shifting going on with your answer to 7. We are making some progress.
Now with regard to your answers.
“ 1 . DREM, why do you think the term “translation” does not include rotation? See the definition of translation in my preceding comment.”
DREM – “Because they are two completely different motions, MikeR.”
My Response – Another repetitive assertion from DREM.
Translation describes motion where the spatial coordinates of a rigid object change so that all parts travel in parallel. See 5.1.2 of Brown. Rotational motion fits this definition perfectly.
“ 2 . Also why do you think that a single motion cannot be decomposed into two or more motions (and why restrict ourselves to just 2D **)?”
DREM – “Because the notes from Brown state that a motion is only to be categorized as a general plane motion if it does not fall into the category of a pure translation, or a pure rotation. The ball on a string etc is a case of pure rotation. However, if you erroneously choose to treat it as a general plane motion, then you are breaking it down into a translation plus a rotation. Still only one axis of rotation.”
My Response – This is the trickiest to explain because of the wording in the Brown notes which could lead to confusion for some.
However It is clear that rotational motion can be considered as 1. simply alone or alternatively as 2. a general plane motion where motion can be decomposed.
The first is a subset of the second. They are not discrete non overlapping sets ( I can do a Venn diagram if you like).
Accordingly, it is impossible to conceive that any motion of a rigid body ,that does not deform during motion, cannot be categorized within the paradigm of general planar motion. If you can think of a case, let me and everyone else know.
“ 3 . Why do you think a rigid body analogy, such as the merry-go-round analogy, is appropriate to the Earth and Moon system where both the Earth and Moon are both capable of rotating at independent rates?”
DREM – “As I have explained many times, the simple analogies serve a simple purpose. For one thing, to help make the point that you supposedly now accept – that something moving roughly like the moon, with one face generally always oriented towards the center of the revolution, can be described as moving in a pure rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass.”
My Response – yes, you have explained the single purpose of your analogy many times .
There are three types of analogies, useful, useless and totally useless.
Useless analogies are the domain of “argument by false analogy” where one common characteristic is used to imply that there is more general commonality than actually exists, i.e. my dog has a nose, I have a nose, I am therefore a dog.
The totally useless analogy is where there are no common characteristics. For the rigid body analogy to the Earth/Moon system, the closest commonality, is only seeing one side of the Moon which is at best only vaguely true (see 5. below). As Maxwell Smart used to say “only missed by that much”.
“ 4 . DREM, how do you explain the properties of elliptical orbits (i.e. variable orbital speed) using the rotating rigid body analogy?”
DREM – “I don’t. I explain the properties of elliptical orbits, like variable orbital speed, via Kepler’s laws, same as you do. That is beyond the scope of the analogies, as I have explained ad nauseam.”
My Response – yes DREM, the single rigid body analogy is a total useless analogy. Why would anyone in their right mind continue to primarily base their argument on this?
God only knows as he is only one who may have access to whatever is going on in DREM’s mind.
“ 5 . Related to 4. how do you account for libration using the rigid body analogy?”
DREM -” I don’t. It is beyond the scope of the analogies. I account for it as I have explained countless times to countless commenters. Go look it up.”
My Response – Excellent that you have cleared that up. You have no mechanism via analogy to account for libration. You say you have some other mechanism and that I should look it up. You have made thousands of comments over the past couple if years. Where is it? Better still just copy and paste from wherever it is, so we can appreciate it in its full glory. Don’t be ashamed.
“ 6 . DREM, why do you always evade when confronted with question 5?”
DREM – “I don’t. Go look it up”.
My Response – Again, I am not sure why you repetitively evaded answering, in our previous exchange on the specific matter of libration ( I will see if I can find that exchange), other than the shame factor.
“ 7 . DREM , why do you think tidal locking means freezing of the Moon’s axial rotation?”
DREM – ” I was not aware that I did. Not sure exactly what you mean by freezing. I can tell you, though, that from the Non-Spinner perspective, tidal locking at Spinner 1:1 (i.e. what a Spinner would see as one axial rotation per orbit) equals tidal locking at Non-Spinner 0:1 (zero axial rotations per orbit). They are the same thing, just seen in two different ways.”
My Response – yes there is some validity in the 0:1 mode using a non-inertial reference frame but unfortunately it’s not that useful with regard to understanding energetics and angular momentum.
That is why the (1:1) mode, using an inertial reference frame, is preferred by astronomers and physicists.
You have made the remarkable claim,on more than one occasion (correct me if I am wrong), that the Moon does not rotate on its axis with respect to any reference frame. You now seem to be wavering with regard to this claim. Do you still stand by this? If not then we can agree and terminate these exchanges.
““ 8 . DREM, why do you think scientists have bothered to publish direct empirical measurements of the Moon’s axial rotational rate over the past 40 to 50 years , if it is always exactly zero?”
DREM – “They mistake the change in orientation of the moon for axial rotation. So what they are publishing is data on the rate of change in orientation of the moon”.
My Response – Professional astronomers who devote years and resources to these measurements are mistaken. You propose a very interesting hypothesis.
However the astronomers could tell very, very easily whether it is a rate of change of the orientation from their measurements. The orbital motion of the Moon is elliptical and, if your hypothesis was correct, they would easily see the rate of change vary from the Moon’s perigee to apogee.
“ 9 . Additionally why do these scientist publish measured data about the orientation of the Moon’s rotational axis if the axis does not exist , as it is just a figment of the imagination of these deluded scientists”
DREM – “Because they think the moon rotates on its own axis”.
My Response – They have good reasons to think this. See previous answer.
“ 10 . DREM, why do you think generations of astronomers and physicists , since the time of Newton, are so stupid as to not realise that the Moon does not rotate, if this is the case?”
DREM – “I do not think they are stupid.”
My Response – Good, are they just deluded?
“ 11 . As a corollary to 10. , why do you think that you and a few special colleagues have this unique insight that has evaded nearly every other professional astronomer and physicist?”
DREM – “I don’t.”
My Response – I am glad that you have changed your mind on this matter . I recall that you have made claims that you have some original thoughts ( or words to that effect) that the mainstream are blissfully unaware of.
“ 12 . As a corollary to 11., DREM, have you heard of the term “delusions of grandeur”?”
DREM – “Yes.”
My Response – DREM, do you have a formal diagnosis and a treatment plan?
DREM – I think that is everything…
I have many more questions so we can continue the Q and A session if you like.
DREM, I know you are such a glutton for punishment.
LikeLike