[Jaaanosik]

The only thing that is sure is that there are huge relative motion changes beneath the crust because that's the only explanation of the magnetic flip.

That's still not true.

You still haven't bothered to look up how a self excited dynamo works (or you haven't understood it)

You are going too fast.
There are so many pieces to the puzzle of the Earth magnetic field and you act like you know it all.
One of many questions. How many 'dynamos' down there, their shapes, sizes?
I'll leave it with you if you really think you know it all, there is no point to discuss it.

The rearrangement of the rotational inertia beneath the crust

Assuming you are talking about  the angular momentum, it's a single vector.
How do you "rearrange" it?

The wing nut flips and changes angular momentum vector orientation in the linked video.
Is the angular momentum constant in this case?
This is a tiny rigid body compare to the Earth.
The Earth is not a simple rigid body.
The Earth is a complex system and the external heat can change the internal heat flux, influencing the whole system.
The Earth is a sum of countless parts, many of them have own angular momentum, what is the total angular momentum?
Do you really think we are dealing with one vector? Really?
I am checking out,
Jano

[Bored chemist]

Do you really think we are dealing with one vector?

The angular momentum of the Earth is a single vector.

Your question is like saying "The Earth is really complicated- do you think it has only one mass? Really?"

Well, Obviously, yes.


.

Is the angular momentum constant in this case?

Yes
And, if you understood that, you would stop wittering on about this.
The angular momentum of the nut is fixed- it's roughly aligned with the axis that the nut is moving along.
That's the axis around which it spins.
The rate changes a bit as it flips because that alters the moment of inertia.

The Earth is a complex system and the external heat can change the internal heat flux, influencing the whole system.

Yes; but only a torque can change its angular momentum.
Do you really not understand that?

I am checking out,

Go to the library; check out some text books.

I'll leave it with you if you really think you know it all,

I'm not claiming to know "it all"
I'm pointing out one thing which is known by all.
Angular momentum is a conserved quantity.

[gem]

So BC, you statement below seems a little misplaced

You seem to have forgotten that the only other thing the air can "brace itself" against is that atmosphere.

in response to this statement in relation to the dynamics of the mass that is uncoupled from earth's surface contained within the atmosphere.

So in regards to what the mass of the air pushes against this is mostly the mass of other air especially when increasing momentum through the dynamics of changes in density occurring within the atmosphere, and as is well understood these changes in kinetic momentum are happening continually. (renewable) due to solar input to a fluid in a gravitational field creating the change/increase in kinetic momentum, through buoyancy effects.

So consider the design of a anemometer which simultaneously rotates into and away from the wind of equal speed to both halfs in relation to itself, whilst still transferring momentum to favour one direction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anemometer

BC You also state quite correctly

I'm pointing out one thing which is known by all.
Angular momentum is a conserved quantity.

which is not disputed, as energy is a conserved quantity also, but for both to be conserved to the earth requires certain conditions, and the earth's atmosphere does not fulfil the criteria of conditions for energy or momentum conservation, indeed given the friction occuring and subsequent transfer of momentum to the freedoms of movement we define as heat, which is then converted to radiation and emitted out to space is well understood.

So

Therefore the coefficient of friction will/should come into consideration to different latitudes. given the established wind patterns, and the conditions as set out as per the OP .

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AtmosphCircNT.png#/media/File:AtmosphCircNT.png

[Bored chemist]

and the earth's atmosphere does not fulfil the criteria of conditions for energy or momentum conservation

I never said it did.

Let's start by just reminding you that your obsession with energy is annoyingly irrelevant.
Momentum and energy are independently conserved.

Do you understand that?
One changes if you transfer energy to or from a system.
The other changes if you transfer momentum to or from a system.

So there's probably never going to be any call for you to mention energy in this thread ever again.

Can you agree to stop wasting time on it?

[gem]

so looks like we may agree on something;

Quote from: gem on Yesterday at 00:39:51
and the earth's atmosphere does not fulfil the criteria of conditions for energy or momentum conservation

BC

  I never said it did.

Good so far

BC

Let's start by just reminding you that your obsession with energy is annoyingly irrelevant.
Momentum and energy are independently conserved.

Do you understand that?
One changes if you transfer energy to or from a system.
The other changes if you transfer momentum to or from a system.

yes still pretty much in agreement apart from the

  Let's start by just reminding you that your obsession with energy is annoyingly irrelevant.

bit

and I am afraid we part company again on this:
BC

So there's probably never going to be any call for you to mention energy in this thread ever again.

Can you agree to stop wasting time on it?

So given the close relationship between kinetic energy and momentum of a system it would be difficult to have any meaningful discussion on momentum if you exclude the consideration of energy, as is clearly demonstrated in your previous posts, where you have referred to conservation of energy and sun's energy heat engine etc etc.

Indeed energy is the currency of the physical world

Therefore;

we need to consider the initial frictional drag that occurs in the direction of the air flow, that then creates the lift to the turbine blades, and the subsequent force that the said drag applies to the tower and its foundations.

Now given it is being argued that although there is torque the average net torque is zero to the system because, If the wind blows harder, it does so in all directions, or it pushes on something to move the other way.
Also the wind blows/moves in cycles/cells so does not favour a net force/change in momentum in one direction.

So in regards to what the mass of the air pushes against this is mostly the mass of other air especially when increasing momentum through the dynamics of changes in density occurring within the atmosphere, and as is well understood these changes in kinetic momentum are happening continually. (renewable) due to solar input to a fluid in a gravitational field creating the change/increase in kinetic momentum, through buoyancy effects.

So consider the design of a anemometer which simultaneously rotates into and away from the wind of equal speed to both halfs in relation to itself, whilst still transferring momentum to favour one direction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anemometer

Therefore the coefficient of friction will/should come into consideration to different latitudes. given the established wind patterns, and the conditions as set out as per the OP .

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AtmosphCircNT.png#/media/File:AtmosphCircNT.png

[Bored chemist]

Let me know when you learn enough to realise that the universe has three different currencies which are not interconvertible.

You can't make energy into angular momentum.
If you could it would break both conservation laws.

Until you understand this, you are never going to realise why you are wrong about the windmills.

[Jaaanosik]

Let me know when you learn enough to realise that the universe has three different currencies which are not interconvertible.

You can't make energy into angular momentum.
If you could it would break both conservation laws.

Until you understand this, you are never going to realise why you are wrong about the windmills.

I am not sure how much you know about pseudovectors/bivectors.
That's what the angular momentum is.
To simplify for readers here, we can say it is a vector.
Vector has magnitude and direction.
It is easy to show that adding energy to a rigid body can change the axis of rotation, changing the direction of the rotation.
It will change the angular velocity as well.
The angular momentum is not 'the same' as before,
Jano

[Bored chemist]

It is easy to show that adding energy to a rigid body can change the axis of rotation,

Then show it.
But no cheating.
You have to do it without applying a torque.
Only add energy.

[Jaaanosik]

It is easy to show that adding energy to a rigid body can change the axis of rotation,

Then show it.
But no cheating.
You have to do it without applying a torque.
Only add energy.

You need to understand this part first, 11:25min of the linked video.
The fact is the rotation changed in the video.





Imagine a bean can/cylinder with 'infinitely' strong walls.
The can is filled with ice, no empty space in the can, rigid body.
It will rotate 'forever' around the axis as in that video.
Applying heat will melt the ice. 
We have water and steam/gas in the can with a right amount of heat.
The water moves to the walls the steam stays in the middle, close to the axis of rotation.
The moment of inertia 'I' changed.
That leads to the angular velocity 'w (omega)' change because L=I*w and L is 'constant'.
The angular velocity change is an angular acceleration change.
That leads to the axis of rotation change through the right hand rule.
There was no contact, no external torque applied to the can, just heat,
Jano

[Halc]

Please, check this video:

There is an error in this video at about 10:10 where the angular momentum of Earth is depicted as reversing, due to a poor editing job of somebody just rotating a gif of the spinning Earth, which isn't how the motion would progress.
If you watch any of the real objects or actual computer simulations, the angular momentum of the various objects (wing nut, racket, soap bottle, etc) never change one bit.  It goes down in magnitude a bit due to friction since most of these objects are not spinning in a vacuum, but the direction of the momentum vector never changes (except in the one at 10:10).

You (Jano and gem) are seemingly claiming a change in momentum of these systems, which violates conservation laws. Energy input (without input of force or torque) has nothing to do with it, as BC and I repeatedly point out.

then there could be a cascade of events leading to big angular momentum changes.

Nonsense. The angular momentum of these systems is fixed at all times, or it would be if done in a vacuum. Our poorly shaved friend never asserts a change in any momentum vectors (again, excepting the one place where it does it in error).

[Bored chemist]

The water moves to the walls the steam stays in the middle, close to the axis of rotation.

And, like the legendary skater putting their arms out, the speed of rotation falls.
However, the moment of inertia rises. (More of the mass is further from the axis). For a given mass and length, a tube has a higher moment of inertia than a solid cylinder.

The two effects cancel out and the angular momentum stays exactly the same.

So, once again:

Then show it.
But no cheating.
You have to do it without applying a torque.
Only add energy.

[Bored chemist]

That leads to the angular velocity 'w (omega)' change because L=I*w and L is 'constant'.

You have accepted that L is constant, as part of your "proof" that L changes.


Were you expecting to be taken seriously?

[Jaaanosik]

That leads to the angular velocity 'w (omega)' change because L=I*w and L is 'constant'.

You have accepted that L is constant, as part of your "proof" that L changes.


Were you expecting to be taken seriously?

You just showed your ignorance (not understanding the analysis).
I'll have to leave you in your ignorance,
Jano

[Bored chemist]

The angular velocity change is an angular acceleration change.

That doesn't make sense.
What do you mean?

That leads to the axis of rotation change through the right hand rule.

Not from my point of view., nor from that of, for example, an ant on the bean tin.
If he sees the axis of rotation of his tin is lined up with a distant star then, even if the material inside melts + tumbles (like the water bottle in in the video) the axis of rotation will still point at the star.
The rotation rate will also change but, if our clever ant calculates the moment of inertia of his bean tin world and multiplies it by  the rate of rotation, he always  get the same answer even though the axis of rotation changes (wrt the tin's axis)

[gem]

So Halc states

You (Jano and gem) are seemingly claiming a change in momentum of these systems, which violates conservation laws. Energy input (without input of force or torque) has nothing to do with it, as BC and I repeatedly point out

If you read what I have stated I believe it is quite clear how the change in momentum of the mass of the fluid atmosphere occurs,

ie; due to the energy input from the sun via electromagnetic radiation to a fluid in a gravitational field converts that energy to kinetic energy, and how that changes the momentum of the atmosphere due to buoyancy effect results in the transfer of said kinetic momentum to the earth's surface.

Due to frictional drag, therefore applying a force and torque to the solid of the earth's crust, subsequently means a transferring of some of the momentum gained in this process to the earth's crust, and some to the momentum we observe as heat.

which can ultimately be lost to the system via radiation to space.

However given the fact that occurs once the blades are in motion, we need to consider the initial frictional drag that occurs in the direction of the air flow, that then creates the lift to the turbine blades, and the subsequent force that the said drag applies to the tower and its foundations.

Now given it is being argued that although there is torque the average net torque is zero to the system because, If the wind blows harder, it does so in all directions, or it pushes on something to move the other way.
Also the wind blows/moves in cycles/cells so does not favour a net force/change in momentum in one direction.

So in regards to what the mass of the air pushes against this is mostly the mass of other air especially when increasing momentum through the dynamics of changes in density occurring within the atmosphere, and as is well understood these changes in kinetic momentum are happening continually. (renewable) due to solar input to a fluid in a gravitational field creating the change/increase in kinetic momentum, through buoyancy effects.

So consider the design of a anemometer which simultaneously rotates into and away from the wind of equal speed to both halfs in relation to itself, whilst still transferring momentum to favour one direction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anemometer

Therefore the coefficient of friction will/should come into consideration to different latitudes. given the established wind patterns, and the conditions as set out as per the OP

I believe all of the above are correct in regards to the conservation laws and its naive to argue for the atmosphere to fulfil the criteria of conservation of momentum when its clearly stated momentum can change due to the pressure gradient/buoyancy.

indeed BC agrees

Quote from: gem on Yesterday at 00:39:51
and the earth's atmosphere does not fulfil the criteria of conditions for energy or momentum conservation

BC
Quote
  I never said it did.

[Bored chemist]

Due to frictional drag, therefore applying a force and torque to the solid of the earth's crust,

Just like the man on the truck bed.

[Bored chemist]

I believe all of the above are correct in regards to the conservation laws and its naive to argue for the atmosphere to fulfil the criteria of conservation of momentum when its clearly stated momentum can change due to the pressure gradient/buoyancy.

indeed BC agrees

Yes, I agree.
But the point remains. The atmosphere may "borrow" angular momentum from the solid Earth (Though, even for a hurricane, the effect is tiny) but, the sum of their momenta is still the same as it was. And when the hurricane stops, it returns exactly the same angular momentum as it "borrowed.
For the planet earth, as a whole, including the atmosphere, the angular momentum is constant.

[Bored chemist]

the momentum we observe as heat.

which can ultimately be lost to the system via radiation to space.

Learn to read...

You can't make energy into angular momentum.
If you could it would break both conservation laws.

[Jaaanosik]

The angular velocity change is an angular acceleration change.

That doesn't make sense.
What do you mean?

That leads to the axis of rotation change through the right hand rule.

Not from my point of view., nor from that of, for example, an ant on the bean tin.
If he sees the axis of rotation of his tin is lined up with a distant star then, even if the material inside melts + tumbles (like the water bottle in in the video) the axis of rotation will still point at the star.
The rotation rate will also change but, if our clever ant calculates the moment of inertia of his bean tin world and multiplies it by  the rate of rotation, he always  get the same answer even though the axis of rotation changes (wrt the tin's axis)

If we go with three planes and three axes of rotation.
The angular velocity change caused by melted water will generate angular acceleration due to change of the rotational inertia in one of the axis.
This angular acceleration leads to angular velocity changes in other rotational axes.
The total net angular momentum is conserved but individual axes have big changes.
The ant, accelerated observer, will undergo acceleration changes.
The acceleration during the flip/transition  is not constant as it was before melting.
The inertial observer agrees, the individual axes undergo changes during the transition.

If he sees the axis of rotation of his tin is lined up with a distant star then, even if the material inside melts + tumbles (like the water bottle in in the video) the axis of rotation will still point at the star.

Yes, the axis will be there but the angular velocity around this axis will be changing during the flip/transition.
Jano

[Bored chemist]

Yes, the axis will be there but the angular velocity around this axis will be changing during the flip/transition.

Yes it will

And so will the moment of inertia; it will also change; in lock step with the rotation rate.

But the product or the two, which is the angular momentum,  will be constant.
The angular momentum is a conserved quantity. The angular velocity and the moment of inertia are not conserved.

Which is what the science has said all along.