[Bored chemist]

If you are saying that the conservation laws don't work with accelerating objects then you have a different problem.
All collisions obviously require that things accelerate.
So the law should never apply- yet, by observation, it always does.

[Bored chemist]

I'm still wondering how Gem is going to explain away the fact that addition works.

[gem]

So BC not sure where you got the idea I stated this

If you are saying that the conservation laws don't work with accelerating objects then you have a different problem.

So just to repeat.

the conservation laws for momentum would not allow buoyancy effect to occur within its closed/isolated system

from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

  Momentum depends on the frame of reference, but in any inertial frame it is a conserved quantity, meaning that if a closed system is not affected by external forces,

and this from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy

This can occur only in a non-inertial reference frame, which either has a gravitational field or is accelerating due to a force other than gravity defining a "downward" direction

and the resulting consequences, this from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

Forces that can change the momentum of a droplet include the gradient of the pressure and gravity,

So BC in reply number 17 as you stated yourself

The world's weather is a giant heat engine driven by the Sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine#:~:text=In%20thermodynamics%20and%20engineering%2C%20a,to%20a%20lower%20state%20temperature.

which relies on the expansion and contraction of gases therefore constantly changing the gradient of pressure through changes to the density of the atmosphere and therefore constantly changing the kinetic energy of the atmosphere and its momentum (direction and speed)

So the problem is the earth's atmosphere cannot achieve conservation of momentum if its being altered by the dynamics described. 
Due to not being a closed/isolated system

[Bored chemist]

So BC not sure where you got the idea I stated this

Every time you say that the angular momentum of the Earth can change without an external torque acting on it.
It is, as you keep stressing the importance of the fact, an isolated system.
The atmosphere can't push the world for the same reason that the man on the truck bed can't push the truck.

You seem to be trying to elevate the terms isolated and closed to the status of holy writ.

It's not magical.
Classically:
(1) A system to which you can't add or remove stuff will not change mass
(2) A system to which you can't add or  remove energy will  change energy
(3)A system to which you can not apply a force will not change momentum.
(4) A system to which you can't apply a torque  will not change angular momentum.
Those are pretty much tautologically true.
Since Einstein's day the first pair of those are a bit more flexible, but only in a very clearly defined way.

Historically, in thermodynamics it was important to lump together some of those statements of the obvious.
If you have a system to which you can add or subtract matter then you can't sensibly define what it will do- because it depends on the matter you might add.The same goes for applying forces to it. Those forces just complicate the issue.
So, they invented the "closed system" where tautologies 1 and 3 apply.
 

Similarly, for some calculations, you want to prevent energy entering or leaving the system.
And that's why they invented the "isolated system"- as  a shorthand for a system where tautology 2 also applies.

If thermodynamics dealt with angular momentum they would have invented another term for systems where tautology 4 also applied. They didn't.

But, if they had done, the Earth would be on the list.


I'm still waiting for youto explain where the torque comes from.
And then there are these.

(1) simple symmetry
(2) analysis of the energy involved- if the rotation of the Earth was contributing more energy to the weather than the Sun, then we would see the change in rotation rate; Stonehenge wouldn't line up any more.
(3) The law of conservation of angular momentum says it's impossible without an external torque.
(4) the definition of angular momentum in terms of torque time and moment of inertia means that without a torque, the change in angular momentum (and thus rotational kinetic energy is zero.
(5) straightforward analogies in the form of "when the skater stops waving their arms about they are still spinning at the same rate as when they started and the man on the truck who thinks he's helping.

And then, of course, there's Noether's theorem.

[gem]

so BC you previously stated

  Either that post agrees with the conservation laws, in which case it's redundant, or it disagrees, in which case it's wrong.

You seem to be trying to elevate the terms isolated and closed to the status of holy writ.

you seem to be contradicting yourself again.


Also for your information this from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
 

In logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.

So does the solar energy received change the momentum of the mass of the atmosphere or not ?.

Also your up against mainstream thinking if you believe the man on the truck represents the atmosphere.

which states

fluctuations are very probably generated by the interaction between the solid Earth and the atmosphere.

Also you may need to add "not" to your point 2

[Bored chemist]

you seem to be contradicting yourself again.

In what way?

So does the solar energy received change the momentum of the mass of the atmosphere or not ?.

No.
Not in any circumstance (apart from by photon pressure which we have already pointed out is too small to be responsible for the weather)
It remains tautologically thrue that you can not change the momentum without adding or subtracting momentum.

Also you may need to add "not" to your point 2

Why would I do that?

Also your up against mainstream thinking if you believe the man on the truck represents the atmosphere.

which states
Quote
fluctuations are very probably generated by the interaction between the solid Earth and the atmosphere.

No, I'm the one on the side with mainstream physics.
If the man runs around on the truck bed he can produce (small) movements of the truck, but theses are temporary and stop when he does
They are fluctuations, but they don't impart a long term change to the momentum of the truck.

I'm still waiting for you to explain where the torque comes from.

[gem]

So
Quote from: gem on Today at 01:31:49
So does the solar energy received change the momentum of the mass of the atmosphere or not ?.

to which you reply

  No.
Not in any circumstance (apart from by photon pressure which we have already pointed out is too small to be responsible for the weather)
It remains tautologically thrue that you can not change the momentum without adding or subtracting momentum.

So you are arguing that the solar input of electromagnetic radiation to the earth does not provide any change to the momentum (speed and direction ) of the earth's atmosphere via absorption of thermal radiation and electromagnetic radiation and consequential energy transfers to various kinds that we can observe as the weather (wind and rain)that causes the motion of the masses of air within the atmosphere.

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

your statement seems to contradict this from the above link
Quote
Forces that can change the momentum of a droplet include the gradient of the pressure and gravity,

this occurs due to a change/decrease in density of warmed air displaced by colder more dense air.

In regards to your man on the truck analogy to represent the roles of the atmosphere (man) and the truck (earths surface) where you state

If the man runs around on the truck bed he can produce (small) movements of the truck, but theses are temporary and stop when he does
They are fluctuations, but they don't impart a long term change to the momentum of the truck.

To be a correct representation of the atmosphere the man should arrive on the back of the truck already in possession of a speed and direction heading from the rear to the front (kinetic momentum) gained from an action reaction away from the truck which he then transfers via a deceleration/collision ethier with the bed of the truck or a abrupt stop when he stops at position he was pictured in.

[Bored chemist]

To be a correct representation of the atmosphere the man should arrive on the back

He did.
About 4.5 billion years ago,.
Since then he has been break-dancing on the bed of the truck.
The point is that he's no longer pushing it along the road.

So you are arguing that the solar input of electromagnetic radiation to the earth does not provide any change to the momentum (speed and direction ) of the earth's atmosphere via absorption of thermal radiation and electromagnetic radiation and consequential energy transfers to various kinds that we can observe as the weather (wind and rain)that causes the motion of the masses of air within the atmosphere.

No.
I have pointed out at what I thought was tedious length that I'm ignoring photon pressure- the momentum of the EM radiation itself (though the effect is, to a first order approximation, zero). I'm not saying that doesn't exist; I'm saying it's far too small to drive the weather.
Setting that side...
For a start, it's not me saying it, it's the conservation law saying it.
Two qualifications you missed.
First I'm saying  it provides no NET change in momentum and also I'm actually talking about angular (rather than linear) momentum.

It's like saying the explosion of  a grenade provides momentum to the bits of shrapnel (obviously- were you trying to straw-man this?) but it doesn't chance the momentum of the CoG of the grenade.
On average the momentum transfer to all the bits is zero.

What I'm really saying is that the Earth's rotation does not provide the energy for the weather.,
However that statement is a consequence of the same conservation laws.

Now, will you stop pussyfooting about and answer the damned question.
If the angular momentum is changing, what is providing the external torque.

[gem]

ok when I stated

To be a correct representation of the atmosphere the man should arrive on the back of the truck already in possession of a speed and direction heading from the rear to the front (kinetic momentum) gained from an action reaction away from the truck which he then transfers via a deceleration/collision ethier with the bed of the truck or a abrupt stop when he stops at position he was pictured in.

and your response

He did.
About 4.5 billion years ago,.
Since then he has been break-dancing on the bed of the truck.
The point is that he's no longer pushing it along the road.

Funny    but wrong, the mass of air  (the man) after colliding with the truck and transferring some of its momentum will then be displaced by his colder denser mates (displaced, due to friction of the collision and change in density )whilst also being warmed further from the solar input due to proximity to earth's surface, will rise in the atmosphere and regain fresh momentum to potentially transfer to the earth's surface again  and again and again. (renewable)

which brings this point you raised 
 

He did.
About 4.5 billion years ago,.

Which quite a while ago I compared the total solar input over that time scale to the rotational kinetic energy of the earth,
which makes for an interesting comparison, similar to the stonehenge example.

Which brings us to your statement,

Now, will you stop pussyfooting about and answer the damned question.
If the angular momentum is changing, what is providing the external torque.

I believe the question is flawed, if you follow the logic that the atmosphere is changing momentum continually (therefore not conserved)  and is able to transfer momentum with the earth's surface via collision/friction, which is observed in the data of LOD, we have several options to consider.

1, No change in momentum has occurred

2, The forces of the trade winds and polar winds 0-30 and 60-90 degree regions, are exactly matched by the prevailing winds in the 30-60 degree regions so LOD is maintained.

3, , The forces of the trade winds and polar winds 0-30 and 60-90 degree regions, that have frictional contact with the surface, are NOT exactly matched by the prevailing winds in the 30-60 degree regions, would require a external torque force. (ie the LOD is the earth's terminal velocity, balance between all frictional drag and external force)

[Jaaanosik]

I am wondering, what is the external torque causing Venus to slow down the rotation:

http://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Could_Venus_be_shifting_gear

However, surface features seen by Venus Express some 16 years later could only be lined up with those observed by Magellan if the length of the Venus day is on average 6.5 minutes longer than Magellan measured.

[Bored chemist]

1, No change in momentum has occurred

OK
If no change in angular momentum has occurred then we are still spinning at the same rate (which is good- ask the people who built stonehenge).
But that in turn means that the rotational kinetic energy also has not change.
Which means that the Earth has not transferred energy to the weather (which was the original point that Alan messed up) and it also means that there's no net transfer of rotational energy to or from the atmosphere.

That says that the atmosphere does not produce a net torque on teh earth 9or vice versa)

Also, since the definition of a torque is that it changes angular momentum,
There is no torque.
And, since a windmill has a radius (wrt the centre of the Earth) any net force would produce a net torque.
But there isn't one so there isn't a net torque provided to the atmosphere via the windmill (or, indeed, a tree).

So the answer to the OP is "No"
(as it always clearly was).

2, The forces of the trade winds and polar winds 0-30 and 60-90 degree regions, are exactly matched by the prevailing winds in the 30-60 degree regions so LOD is maintained.

3, , The forces of the trade winds and polar winds 0-30 and 60-90 degree regions, that have frictional contact with the surface, are NOT exactly matched by the prevailing winds in the 30-60 degree regions, would require a external torque force. (ie the LOD is the earth's terminal velocity, balance between all frictional drag and external force)

Congratulations on finally working out what Halc, others and I  said ages ago.
The torques all balance out.

his colder denser mates (displaced, due to friction of the collision and change in density )

The problem there is that the Earth is a very big truck and his colder mates were also already on it.
You have converted the break dance to a square dance, but otherwise changed nothing.

[Jaaanosik]

...

So the answer to the OP is "No"
(as it always clearly was).
...

Windmills do affect the Earth rotation.
Windmills are gyros and they are prevented from doing the precession therefore they torque the Earth.
Jano

[Colin2B]

Windmills do affect the Earth rotation.
Windmills are gyros and they are prevented from doing the precession therefore they torque the Earth.
Jano

Sorry Jano, but that would only work if all the windmills faced the same way, but, as has been pointed out previously, the winds go round in circles so nett effect = 0

Or to put it another way

...

So the answer to the OP is "No"
(as it always clearly was).
...

[Jaaanosik]

Windmills do affect the Earth rotation.
Windmills are gyros and they are prevented from doing the precession therefore they torque the Earth.
Jano

Sorry Jano, but that would only work if all the windmills faced the same way, but, as has been pointed out previously, the winds go round in circles so nett effect = 0

Or to put it another way

...

So the answer to the OP is "No"
(as it always clearly was).
...

I went by OP:

If all windmills on earth are designed to catch only eastward wind,  while westward wind can blow freely,  will it accelerate earth rotation?

I am not sure what was changed and discussed.
Just saying that under right conditions a windmill torques the Earth.

[Bored chemist]

I am not sure what was changed and discussed.

Among other things , this:

There's also the change in angular velocity which takes place when I climb the stairs.
But that's reversed when I come back down again.

The question seemed to be about a cumulative effect- where a mill running for 2 days changed the speed of the Earth more than running it for 1 day.

[gem]

Ok, Jaaanosik, you are raising something related, there, of great importance

I am wondering, what is the external torque causing Venus to slow down the rotation:

http://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Could_Venus_be_shifting_gear

To a phenomena I was aware of, only because I believed it should be occurring and so when I Looked it turns out we have data to confirm it, 
Similar to the underlying annual changes to LOD, so you have skipped a long way ahead of the narrative, and as alluded to in my first post on this matter will have to be addressed in new theories but is something I intended to use, but will expect data to show another contradiction the opposite way also (a speeding up) Fluctuating.



However to prepare the ground, BC when I stated 

1, No change in momentum has occurred

2, The forces of the trade winds and polar winds 0-30 and 60-90 degree regions, are exactly matched by the prevailing winds in the 30-60 degree regions so LOD is maintained.

3, , The forces of the trade winds and polar winds 0-30 and 60-90 degree regions, that have frictional contact with the surface, are NOT exactly matched by the prevailing winds in the 30-60 degree regions, would require a external torque force. (ie the LOD is the earth's terminal velocity, balance between all frictional drag and external force)

These are separate explanations/options that the merits (truth) of each would have to be considered as to the sustainability of wind energy electrical generation for man's use long term.

ie 1 & 3 should be ok  2 would require coefficient of friction balance

[Jaaanosik]

I am not sure what was changed and discussed.

Among other things , this:

There's also the change in angular velocity which takes place when I climb the stairs.
But that's reversed when I come back down again.

The question seemed to be about a cumulative effect- where a mill running for 2 days changed the speed of the Earth more than running it for 1 day.

Under right conditions 2 days effect can be bigger than 1 day effect.
The Sun heats the ground, the air, there is a wind caused by the external energy input.
If all is aligned well then yes, 2 days effect can be bigger than 1 day effect due to the external energy input.

[Jaaanosik]

Ok, Jaaanosik, you are raising something related, there, of great importance

I am wondering, what is the external torque causing Venus to slow down the rotation:

http://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Could_Venus_be_shifting_gear

To a phenomena I was aware of, only because I believed it should be occurring and so when I Looked it turns out we have data to confirm it, 
Similar to the underlying annual changes to LOD, so you have skipped a long way ahead of the narrative, and as alluded to in my first post on this matter will have to be addressed in new theories but is something I intended to use, but will expect data to show another contradiction the opposite way also (a speeding up) Fluctuating.



However to prepare the ground, BC when I stated 

1, No change in momentum has occurred

2, The forces of the trade winds and polar winds 0-30 and 60-90 degree regions, are exactly matched by the prevailing winds in the 30-60 degree regions so LOD is maintained.

3, , The forces of the trade winds and polar winds 0-30 and 60-90 degree regions, that have frictional contact with the surface, are NOT exactly matched by the prevailing winds in the 30-60 degree regions, would require a external torque force. (ie the LOD is the earth's terminal velocity, balance between all frictional drag and external force)

These are separate explanations/options that the merits (truth) of each would have to be considered as to the sustainability of wind energy electrical generation for man's use long term.

ie 1 & 3 should be ok  2 would require coefficient of friction balance

It would be interesting to align the Earth LoD variation with the Sun's 22 year cycle.
Just for fun.

[Colin2B]

Just saying that under right conditions a windmill torques the Earth.

Under the right conditions maybe, but not due to locking precession around the tower axis. Go back to basic gyroscope theory and tell me why that is.

[Bored chemist]

These are separate explanations/options that the merits (truth) of each would have to be considered as to the sustainability of wind energy electrical generation for man's use long term.

I focussed on the one that is correct.
Try posting the others on an anti-science forum.

I am not sure what was changed and discussed.

Among other things , this:

There's also the change in angular velocity which takes place when I climb the stairs.
But that's reversed when I come back down again.

The question seemed to be about a cumulative effect- where a mill running for 2 days changed the speed of the Earth more than running it for 1 day.

Under right conditions 2 days effect can be bigger than 1 day effect.
The Sun heats the ground, the air, there is a wind caused by the external energy input.
If all is aligned well then yes, 2 days effect can be bigger than 1 day effect due to the external energy input.

Are you deliberately missing the point?
In your world, would the third day produce an even bigger effect and so on?