Angular acceleration of the earth

In hopes of redirecting this thread to something less hostile I would like to ask a question about this issue. In order for perihelic shift of an orbit to occur doesn't a slight increase of the angular velocity have to happen in order for the orbit to overshoot where it "should" have been, and isn't this an angular acceleration? It seems a "torque" has to be applied and mechanical work performed to get this to happen. I know Tom that you have ascribed this effect to the Earth's interaction with the elysium. Is work being performed by the elysium to create this acceleration?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jeremy]: Is work being performed by the elysium to create this acceleration?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Good question. It is really the same phenomenon as trying to accelerate a body near the speed of light. It takes disproportionately more work to get a given speed increment for a body traveling near c than for a body near rest. (This is for the same reason that it takes more time and work to paddle a canoe round trip downstream and upstream when there is a current than when the water is still. So it takes more time and work for electrons to orbit atoms when the atoms are moving through the elysium than when they are at rest.)

As this applies to perihelion advance, it takes more work by the Sun's gravity to accelerate Mercury through the elysium when Mercury is traveling faster than when it is traveling slower. And that differential is what produces the torque.

The expression "angular acceleration" is not used because it is ambiguous. We have two different words to distinguish scalar motion ("speed") from vector motion ("velocity"); but we have only one word for both types of acceleration. Is "angular acceleration" a scalar or a vector? It is undefined. -|Tom|-

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

(Flandern)
Look up the definitions of these terms. The term "angular acceleration" is not normally used with this implied meaning. With the normal meaning of that term, Earth has no angular acceleration. If it did, its period would change.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Hi makis, i myself thought of a similar concept of earths orbit. Hi Flandern, the above says the period would change, but what if the earth had both angular/orbital acceleration and decceleration which keeps it in a constant steady orbital period? Could this not then appear as though earth orbits in a constant motion?

Cheers
Self-teaching
dave

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

One thing that has aggravated us from the start was when you would sign up as several personalities and post messages under another name praising your own posts. It is easy for our webmaster to trace these aliases these days. -|Tom|-

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

At least I taught you the Continum Hypothesis, which you obviously lacked a knowledge off, and several other things regarding the paradoxes of infinity present in your models.

But you are overestimating the capabilities of your "system administrator". Can he really shuffle through the dozen or so proxies and determine beyond any doubt that this poster and Makis are the same person? You just took a wild guess (wilder than the Meta Model) because the level of the challenging of your theories was equivalent but I'm sure you and your so called administrator are at a loss regarding who is who in this board. Don't let that disturb you. Try to focuss on the issues and forget who is behind it. That has been one of your problems.

Alter ego is the greatest invention of nature and I hope you did not miss that 70's movie about it. Alter ego is here to stay and you must learn to live with it. Alter ego is everything around you, including your own ego.

Makis,JoeW & company

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Alter ego is the greatest invention of nature and I hope you did not miss that 70's movie about it. Alter ego is here to stay and you must learn to live with it. Alter ego is everything around you, including your own ego.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Good Troll philosophy here. Sounds suspiciously like "Well, juvenile trolls will always exist so just get used to it". I have chosen to use my actual first name because I don't feel I have to hide behind alter egos to say what I have to say. Maybe some do it because they don't want other posters tracking them down. But if you are truly using more than one identity to play some stupid game of bait and run then you are just an intellectual coward. Have the courage to accept the responsibility for everything you say under a single identity. Perhaps the multiple identities are necessary because you have too much ego for one personality?

Lets do the science and stop all the name calling what difference who posted what? The topic was and is of interest who ever it is that is posting.