[geocentrism] Re: Atmospheric rotation anomaly
- From: "Gary L. Shelton" <GaryLShelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:23:15 -0500
Robert you are speaking a language I haven't heard in awhile, words of
concurrence. They sound very nice. Thank you. I applaud and encourage
your efforts.
If you really want to hammer these ideas out, I've got a place for you to do
that. Go to BadAstronomy.com and get hooked up with their Bulletin Board.
Once there, you will want to drop down to the subsection titled "Against the
mainstream" and click there. Then, you can either begin a new thread, or
read the various existing thread titles and see if you want to jump in on
one of those. I thoroughly encourage you to go to the thread I started
there entitled "Relative Motion Fails When Applied to Planes". If you read
the whole 9 pages that now are posted, you will see my progressing
assertions and questions, plus just a lot of information, and you will learn
some of the responses to the questions and issues you state below. I
highly, highly suggest this. BA is unfriendly waters. Take your ideas
there and see if they float....
(BTW, you will have to register if you wish to post, but you can read posts
without doing so, much like here.)
Now I want to comment on some of what I see you've written based upon what I
think you would find there. (I'm playing Devil's Advocate).
Robert Bennett (RB) wrote:
> I can sympathize with Gary Shelton [THANKS!]; this atmospheric rotation
anomaly seems
> to depend on air that's schizophrenic - it's actually a non-viscous gas,
> but acts like a solid when surrounding the Earth! It's not mechanically
> coupled to the Earth, but rotates with it at basically every altitude, as
> though it were. It even moves fastest in the same direction as the
(alleged)
> rotation (jet streams)!
Robert, it sounds like you are thinking like I was. I did cease using the
word "solid", though, when the talk began to be only about fluid dynamics
and Newton's first law.
RB wrote:
> Here's my problem. Global wind patterns are said to be principally
> determined by:
>
> > 1) The earth's rotation, West to East: Air's inertia should cause upper
> level winds to move East to West, with the greatest at the equator, where
> the tangential speed is the greatest (1000 mph), but zero at the poles.
As the entire BA board (oh well, maybe not everyone) believes in evolution,
they also believe that the earth somehow came into existence spinning and
"outgassing" its atmosphere, as one person put it, thereby giving birth to
an atmosphere that was rotating from the get go. Hence, your assumption of
"Air's inertia" will be assailed. You'll have to explain and defend it. (I
believe you are talking about an effect of a spinning liquid being slowed by
the edge of the container it is in.) I assume the East to West you refer to
is RTTE (relative to the earth)? For they will obviously tell you that the
air is still rotating West to East RTTS (relative to the stars), though just
slower to a starbound observer.
Are you prepared to explain and defend your basic assumption that the upper
air stream should be east to west?
RB wrote:
> Surface air at the equator should be dragged along at the boundary layer
at
> the same rotational speed as the equator, but should increase in speed
> relative to the surface with increasing altitude, finally approaching 1000
> mph.
Robert, I think I am a little incredulous to this one myself, if I properly
understand you. You are saying that the air that the earth originally
propelled will GAIN angular momentum compared to the ground that is,
presumably, the original engine? Do I follow? I think the BA board will
ask how this is supposed to work.
>
> 2) The temperature difference between the tropics and polar regions: Warm
> rising air of less density at the equator creates a pressure gradient with
> the cold descending polar air of greater density. This creates high level
> winds moving away from the equator towards both poles. Virtual Coriolis
> forces cause deflection to the right in the Northern hemisphere, to the
left
> in the South.
>
> My objective is just to understand the effect of rotation. The high
altitude velocity
> profile with latitude angle lat should be v(lat) = 1000 mph cos(lat), The
> velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0
> to 1000 MPH.
Indeed, understanding the effect of rotation is what this is all about. Any
statements with the helping verb "should" will require defense. Be
forewarned.
> 1) If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be East to West, at the
> equator, but it's not.
>
> 2) There are 2 jet streams , North and south mid-latitudes; both West to
> East: but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction, if the Earth
> rotates West to East
>
> 3) The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50
knots,
> way below the rotational predictions
Is your defense in place for 1 and 2? With number 3, you will be told it is
in perfect accord with rotational predictions. As a matter of fact one
person told me that he wouldn't hesitate to fly into the atmosphere of
Jupiter as it would not be inhospitable to airflight. Another said we have
sent numerous probes to Mars, why didn't they get blown away by the
predicted 500 mph equatorial windspeeds there?
You know, Robert, I have just thought of something else here. If indeed the
atmosphere of, say, Jupiter or the Earth, or Mars, or Saturn, or any of
them, is rotating as alleged, then someone or some craft entering from space
should surely get smashed by rapidly rotating air, do you think? I really
want to see what the BA people have to say about this....
>
> It seems like the Earth isn't rotating, but variable winds are being
caused
> by thermal and pressure gradients caused by solar heating. Rotation only
> seems to be discussed in theory re the secondary Coriolis side effect, not
> the main feature - the transition from an accelerated frame - the Earth -
to
> an inertial frame - empty space.
Robert, you have a lot more time put into the science of this than myself.
I again encourage you to take it to BA.
>
>
>
> How can winds of 1000 mph not appear in a predictive model of terrestrial
> air patterns? ?
BA will have a way, you can bet on that. I believe you will find it to be
Newton's 1st Law. That is, the atmosphere, once turning, will be still
RTTE. Over billions of years the earth has had ample time to fully impart
its angular momentum to the atmosphere. Plus, we're talking a "river" of
air around the earth here. It is not unreasonable to see various currents,
just like the ocean, all the while the river "as a whole" will be turning at
rotational speed. I believe that's what you'll get.
>
>
>
> I turned to other planets with atmospheres to try to resolve this:
>
> Venus is virtually spinless; it rotates once every 243 days, with a paltry
5
> MPH equatorial surface speed. The upper atmosphere should be calm. Far
from
> it. The wind pattern follows the spinning ball in fluid model, with 200
MPH
> East to West winds at the equatorial high altitudes, decreasing with
> increasing latitude and decreasing altitude, just as I expected to find
on
> Earth!
Examples from other planets are great as they illustrate fluid dynamics that
should also apply on earth.
>
> 2 jet streams, in opposite directions in each hemisphere, like Earth?
> Nope. High in the atmosphere the winds decrease with latitude, as the
> rotation model predicts. Sort of one big jet stream at altitude, tapering
> off away from the equator.
>
> Except for stronger winds of 28,000 MPH, Jupiter resembles Venus at the
> equator and in the absence of distinct jet streams. Saturn has rings as
> well as surface zones. Winds in the zones can be 3 times those of Jupiter
> ==> 75,000 MPH !!! But Earth only rotates 40% slower than these 2
planets,
> yet the equatorial winds are as much as 1,000 times slower on Earth !
Robert, do you have backup for the numbers above? Remember, one guy would
fly right into Jupiter's air.
>
> This whole area of rotational effects on planetary wind circulation is
very
> puzzling. The fact that in all the references I've consulted no one but me
> seems concerned about this is also a puzzle.
>
> Please forward this to someone who can give a solid technical answer based
> on the law of gas dynamics and mechanics.
Goto BadAstronomy.com. give 'em heck.
Thanks for chiming in at this time.
Gary
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> Robert Bennett
>
>
............................................................................
> ..................
> Also, recently GaryLShelton asked
>
> Ecclesiastes 1:5 says "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and
> hasteth to his place where he arose."
>
> My question is why was the word "hasteth" used? If the sun is regularly
> travelling around the globe, why would it be "hasting" during our night
> more
> than at any other time? For naturally our day would be someone else's
> night to
> "haste" through.
>
> Douay-Rheims translation for Eccl 1:5 says " the sun riseth, and goeth
> down, and returneth to his place.."
> I guess haste makes waste....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
