[Halc]

HI all;
So  to this "How does this papers findings fit with the numerous posts from Colin Halc and BC as to the requirement of an external torque force and the man on the back of the truck analogy ?".

The motion of the atmosphere of Venus is in equilibrium, not accelerating in its angular momentum, so it has no need of eternal torque in the form of a long stick pushing on its nonexistent moon.
Yes, the gravitational tides do exert a torque on Venus, as they do on all planets, including Pluto, which is the only 'planet' to become tide locked with something.  OK, Mercury as well, but in a weird way that doesn't keep one face point at something.

The air currents in this narrow band at the equator are driven mostly by thermal tides, which are also significant air movers on Earth and Mars, accounting for a larger tidal bulge than the gravitational tides, despite the fact that thermal tides effectively do not exert any external torque. The torque from the tides is all internal, and thus is balanced by equal and opposite torques (friction, turbulence, etc) to the point where there is no net torque by the atmosphere on the planet below it.

So you really need to consider what has been highlighted by that paper, you obviously haven't read it or don't understand the implications.

[Bored chemist]

what moon of venus is the stick pushing against exactly ?  ha ha ha you are funny

The thing that is in orbit around venus is the Sun (well, they are both in orbit round their centre of mass, but it's the same thing in the end- there's something to push against.

Why is that funny?

It's as if you didn't realise that the man on the truck is not on Venus, but surely you wouldn't be that silly?

This is funny.
There are two types of people; one group can extrapolate from the available information.

So you really need to consider what has been highlighted by that paper, you obviously haven't read it or don't understand the implications.

I considered the relevant implications.
If that paper implied that the conservation laws were broken then either it would be wrong, or it would line the authors up for a Nobel prize.

It seems much more likely that you have misunderstood it, and it does not suggest that the conservation laws have been broken.

[Bored chemist]

Now, perhaps you could stop posting bull an answer this

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:35:24
Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/10/2020 10:49:26
Just checking on something.
You chose the ISS. I presume that's a reference to the fact that it is in free fall because it is in orbit.
Is that correct?

[gem]

Hi all

So BC to this
"How does this papers findings fit with the numerous posts from Colin Halc and BC as to the requirement of an external torque force and the man on the back of the truck analogy ?."

you state;

It fits just fine.
If you gave the man a long stick so he could brace against the Moon, then he could push the truck.
Nobody has ever said that tides don't have an effect.
And that's what the paper refers to "The scientists discovered the Venusian atmosphere received angular momentum though thermal tides"

So when it's pointed out to you there is no moon you change your position to:

The thing that is in orbit around venus is the Sun (well, they are both in orbit round their centre of mass, but it's the same thing in the end- there's something to push against.

Now what exactly has that statement got to do with thermal tides ?

which from my understanding are caused by a variation in atmospheric pressure and therefore density due to the differential heating of the atmosphere by the sun, so called in analogy to the conventional gravitational tide.

So In keeping with my previous  statement;

However it is possible to increase/change momentum of the atmosphere due to the conditions/dynamics occurring ie solar input to a fluid changing density in a gravity field creating buoyancy force and subsequent acceleration.

Which has been disputed previously.

So Halc I ask again how does this papers findings, of continually generating fresh angular momentum to an atmosphere  by input of solar radiation possibly fit with your previous statements.

Maybe some of that angular momentum to sound momentum transferred by frictional coupling you didn't account for earlier will be included in your explanation.

[Halc]

[thermal tides] which from my understanding are caused by a variation in atmospheric pressure and therefore density due to the differential heating of the atmosphere by the sun, so called in analogy to the conventional gravitational tide.

Thermal and gravitational tides are not analogous since only the latter exerts an external torque on the system, and thus can change the system momentum.

However it is possible to increase/change momentum of the atmosphere due to the conditions/dynamics occurring ie solar input to a fluid changing density in a gravity field creating buoyancy force and subsequent acceleration.

OK, but then you're not considering a closed system. There is external force/torque in the system you're describing in this statement. It doesn't come from solar input, which is only contributing energy, not force.
We (the rest of us) are talking about the entire atmosphere, not a piece of it, in which case your statement does not hold up. The Venus atmosphere has essentially the same momentum from day to day. No increase as you're claiming.

So Halc I ask again how does this papers findings, of continually generating fresh angular momentum to an atmosphere  by input of solar radiation ...

I don't recall any such 'findings' in the paper. Nowhere does it say that the momentum changes. It is in equilibrium, with minor fluctuations (small momentum exchanges with the ground) over time just like on any rocky planet (less fluctuation with the gas giants) that averages to zero change over time. Yes, there's heat from the sun, and that creates wind (ooh, they discovered wind on Venus, surprise!), and wind is air moving, but that cannot change the momentum of the system since there is no eternal torque exerted at any point.

[Bored chemist]

So when it's pointed out to you there is no moon you change your position to:

That's not a change in position.
I said you need something to push against.
To be fair, I'm not the first person to say this. It's generally attributed to Newton.
Are you saying it is wrong?
If so; good luck.

Either they are really tides and are a result of gravity (OK, it's a pull rather than a push).
Or they are not, in which case they must be due to the (damned near vacuum) "air" at the top of the atmosphere pushing against the layers lower down.

And if it's the latter case, on average they must push each other equally hard, and the two pushes must cancel out.
You are correct in saying that I didn't look into it very carefully.
That's because I didn't need to- not since Newton's day.

Now, perhaps you could stop posting bull an answer this

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:35:24
Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/10/2020 10:49:26
Just checking on something.
You chose the ISS. I presume that's a reference to the fact that it is in free fall because it is in orbit.
Is that correct?

[gem]

Hi all

So Halc in regards to Venus atmosphere having approx the same angular momentum is true however it is not a closed/isolated system,
Also the paper does state that thermal tides are generating angular momentum, not transferring it from say the momentum of the solid planet.

If you factor in atmospheres are uncoupled from the Solid planet and generates this net motion within the atmosphere ( action reaction pairing within the atmosphere by displacement)

Therefore angular momentum created,
Which brings angular momentum transfers to other forms of momentum such as sound waves and thermal motion in inelastic collisions.

Therefore this in effect is a continuing flux of the amount of momentum of a System. ( and factors in momentum such as the transfers like sound)

Consider does earth’s atmosphere transfer more momentum back out to space than it directly receives from the sun ?

It can do this because it’s not a closed system!

[Bored chemist]

the paper does state that thermal tides are generating angular momentum

Then it is wrong.
You can't.
It's a conserved quantity.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:37:38
Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/10/2020 21:39:41
Now, perhaps you could stop posting bull an answer this

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:35:24
Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/10/2020 10:49:26
Just checking on something.
You chose the ISS. I presume that's a reference to the fact that it is in free fall because it is in orbit.
Is that correct?

[Halc]

So Halc in regards to Venus atmosphere having approx the same angular momentum is true however it is not a closed/isolated system

It is until you've identified an eternal torque being applied to it. None are mentioned in the article, so if we're going by that, it is a closed system.

Also the paper does state that thermal tides are generating angular momentum, not transferring it from say the momentum of the solid planet.

That is an internal torque from the atmosphere, not an external one, so there's no external momentum transfer identified. I also notice you choose to ignore the equal and opposite momentum transfer applied by the same atmosphere that cancel it out, all identified in the same paragraph.

Therefore angular momentum created

This qualifies your post to be in the new theories section. Please desist in posting your own ideas born of ignorance in the actual science sections of the forum.

Which brings angular momentum transfers to other forms of momentum such as sound waves and thermal motion in inelastic collisions.

None of this belongs in this section either. Post these irrelevant assertions in a new topic in New Theories.

Consider does earth’s atmosphere transfer more momentum back out to space than it directly receives from the sun ?

Momentum cannot be transferred to or from space.

It can do this because it’s not a closed system!
[/quote]

[Bored chemist]

This qualifies your post to be in the new theories section.

Not while we have a "That CAN'T be true!" section.

Would one of the Mods please oblige...

[gem]

Hi all,

So where do I begin after that kicking, maybe BC first.

Not while we have a "That CAN'T be true!" section.

Would one of the Mods please oblige

Then maybe Halc

Momentum cannot be transferred to or from space.

So I think Halcs statement should be put straight in to that section.

Now given you didn't know sound waves carried/transfer momentum may be forgiven but there are some pretty famous equations for electromagnetic radiation.

So as stated previously energy is the currency of the physical world hence ;
 
There is a relationship between photon momentum p and photon energy E that is given by total energy of a particle as E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc)^2. We know m is zero for a photon, but p is not, so that E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc)^2 becomes E = p/c, or rearranged gives

       p =E/c        and is equivalent to Compton’s result         p=h/λ.


So light matter interaction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

and the continuous reverse effect of Thermal radiation being electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of particles in matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation


I'm afraid this is not a new theory and is/should be included in any calculations of conservation,  I can knock out a few approx numbers earth and its atmosphere if it helps put some values to it, seeing how its so new and all

There are no values for the total momentum of sound waves per sec on earth, that you seem to be ignoring, but there is pretty good data for the energy of light waves.

[Bored chemist]

I see  that you didn't mention the obvious one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
but I guess that's because you don't really know what you are talking about.
Your problem is that Halc's still correct.

At best he's guilty of sloppy language. He said "Momentum cannot be transferred to or from space."
rather than "Momentum cannot be transferred to or from space unless some bunch of aliens are pointing a light source specifically at one side of the planet."

The Sun, for example, shines pretty much evenly across the face of the Earth.
So it produces no torque.
And all the other radiation sources are the same (as well as being too far away to matter).

So, are you blaming little green men (and a beam that we somehow don't notice...)
or do you accept that he's practically speaking correct?
Given what reaches us from space,
Momentum cannot be transferred to or from space.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:37:38
Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/10/2020 21:39:41
Now, perhaps you could stop posting bull an answer this

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:35:24
Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/10/2020 10:49:26
Just checking on something.
You chose the ISS. I presume that's a reference to the fact that it is in free fall because it is in orbit.
Is that correct?

[Bored chemist]

There are no values for the total momentum of sound waves per sec on earth,

Yes there is- since we are talking about effects that come in from outside the Earth.
We have a pretty much exact value for the momentum carried to us via sound.
It's zero.
It's exactly zero- because sound does not carry through space.

Interesting to see you bang on about something irrelevant. Are you trying to distract attention from the fact that you don't have a valid argument?
Well, it's not working.
In space, nobody can hear you scream.

but there is pretty good data for the energy of light waves.

There's even evidence for the momentum they carry.
But they are not (on average) carrying angular momentum.
So they don't change the spin of the Earth.

It's as if you still have not got to grips with the fact that momentum and energy are different.
You can't convert one into the other.

[gem]

HI all
So I believe a little reminder is required for clarity for the reader as to the reference to sound waves generated by frictional coupling of earth's atmosphere in the part of this thread before it was split, and the relevance to my referring to it in my the last post, and to address the misleading aspect of anyone suggesting sound waves traveling through space

Below is the posts of earlier in this discussion

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80717.300

So what Halc stated is clearly wrong as he believes sound waves don't  transfer momentum, and what BC states is disingenuous and incorrect given the dynamics under discussion are the frictional coupling of the atmosphere and the surface of the earth which are not perfectly elastic coupling therefore sound waves do exist and are transferring momentum out symmetrically, which as stated previously under the laws of conservation, a percentage of said momentum came from the angular momentum of the solid earth/atmosphere total.

So as I stated before, for you position to be credible you need to address this continuous transfer away from the angular momentum budget.

So Bc nobody is suggesting sound is traveling through space.

What is the focus is the momentum carried away from the frictional coupling of earth's surface with the atmosphere, and needs an explanation given sound waves can generate heat. In fact, sound waves almost always generate a little bit of heat as they travel and almost always end up as heat when they are absorbed.
 
which gives 
Frictional coupling is known to alter the rotational velocity of earth.
 
Sound carries momentum away from said frictional collisions.

which by  turn  converts to thermal motion.
   
Then leads to a continuous effect of Thermal radiation (being electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of particles in matter) allowed to transfer some of this momentum out to space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation

[Halc]

I
Your problem is that Halc's still correct.

At best he's guilty of sloppy language. He said "Momentum cannot be transferred to or from space."
rather than "Momentum cannot be transferred to or from space unless some bunch of aliens are pointing a light source specifically at one side of the planet."

That's not momentum being transferred to or from space. It is coming from photons in this case, which, if external to the system, constitutes external force.  Similarly a meteor coming in is momentum being applied by the meteor, not from space, despite the fact that the meteor happens to occupy space.

I stand by my original statement.

Yes, gem has identified a conceivable source of torque if you work out the effect to something like 40 digits. Somehow I don't think the super-rotation of a segment (around 1/1000th) of the atmosphere of Venus is caused by the net angular momentum of random incoming photons.

Momentum cannot be transferred to or from space.

Indeed.  If it can, then one could answer a question like what's the momentum of the 1000 km diameter sphere of space 1-light hour directly north of Earth?  Not the momentum of the contents of that volume, but the momentum of the space itself.

gem's post about momentum being converted to heat is straight up nonsense. He again confuses energy with momentum.

[Bored chemist]

So Bc nobody is suggesting sound is traveling through space.

Then nobody is talking about it affecting the spin of the Earth

What is the focus is the momentum carried away

Momentum is a conserved quantity.
You can not "carry it away" unless there is somewhere to carry it to.
And  there's no plausible way to carry it away from the Earth.
So the rotation of the Earth stays constant.

Why are you trying to argue about this?

Sound carries momentum away from said frictional collisions.

In which direction, and where to?
On average the  sound spreads out symmetrically- so there is no net change in momentum.
There is nowhere for it to spread to except the Earth which is where it came from.

If you really want to look ai impractically tiny effects, they do exist.
But none of them involves turning heat into momentum- because that's impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarkovsky_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarkovsky%E2%80%93O%27Keefe%E2%80%93Radzievskii%E2%80%93Paddack_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting%E2%80%93Robertson_effect

[gem]

Hi all,

So BC thank you for the links for radiation pressure, just to confirm I am not suggesting this is a source of torque.

I am questioning the validity of the atmosphere's/earths suitability to conserve momentum.

Therefore to that end  I am labouring the point of momentum carried by sound waves due to frictional coupling and you quite rightly state;

On average the  sound spreads out symmetrically

So I would ask firstly, where did the momentum that is known to be carried/transferred by sound waves transfer from, because of the frictional coupling between surface and atmosphere ?

(Momentum of sound = energy/phase velocity)

secondly, given that sound waves ultimately converts to heat (thermal motion of matter)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation   "part in brackets below direct quote from link provided"

and it is known Thermal radiation (being electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of particles in matter)
transfer momentum in wave form, therefore  where did the momentum carried by thermal radiation transfer from also ?

        p =E/c =h/λ. 

So Halc/BC Not confusing heat and momentum, and how do you account for thermal radiation then leaving the earth's atmosphere/surface out to space ?

[Bored chemist]

I am questioning the validity of the atmosphere's/earths suitability to conserve momentum.

Fine.
Show the error in Emmy's working
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

So I would ask firstly, where did the momentum that is known to be carried/transferred by sound waves transfer from, because of the frictional coupling between surface and atmosphere ?

There isn't any momentum in the set of sound waves produced by an event.
The initial momentum is zero, and no momentum is provided, so the total final momentum of the sound waves is still zero.

There is some to the left and some to the right, but their sum is exactly zero.

That's because it's a conserved quantity.
Why are you not understanding this?

[gem]

Hi all,

So BC you refer to Noether's theorem to counter my position of questioning the validity of the atmosphere's/earths suitability to conserve momentum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

We have covered this previously, but just to restate the earth's atmosphere does not fulfil the requirements for conservation laws of momentum as required by Noether's theorem.

As is demonstrated by it having a pressure gradient, also it not being an inertial reference frame, (Lorentz invariance) and therefore the subsequent buoyancy effect due to solar input (anisotropic) is known to change momentum, so therefore momentum is not conserved in the atmosphere.

Given the inelastic collisions that produce sound waves are known to affect the momentum total of the solid earth by way of change in LOD, and lets say its a transfer of momentum from earth to atmosphere, we know sound waves are produced and as you say;

There is some to the left and some to the right, but their sum is exactly zero.

Yes sound waves carry momentum away in all directions so each part if added up from the scene of the collision sum to zero but they carry momentum away as is detected by anyone listening, so how is that momentum recovered to be transferred back to the solid earth and maintain its length of day ?