[Jaaanosik]

Let's go slowly.

Slowly is probably less needed than being precise, and you are being anything but in this post.

Two CD players taped together, CDs inside, not spinning, friction-less bearings.
The external momentum as per the image.

Two CD players taped together (or for that matter, any system of components, connected or not) can only have one angular momentum vector and one linear momentum vector. I can only guess that the picture shows one of each, but lacking labels, I'm left guessing.

So let's say the top vector is the angular momentum vector, which means the assembly is tumbling forward (rolling away from the point of view (PoV).  If that's the case, the CDs are also spinning with the players just like the seatbelted occupant of a tumbling car must rotate with the car. So saying the player has angular momentum but the disks do not (are not spinning) is a contradiction.  It could be done if the player angular momentum was parallel to the disk rotation axis, but the picture shows a vector perpendicular to it.

The lower vector is then the linear momentum vector, which means the thing is moving to the right.

What happens?
The CD players rotate, the CDs inside do not rotate.

Impossible.  The CDs are not free to remain stationary if the case is tumbling like that.  Perhaps you need to attempt a more precise description of what you have in mind.  It would also help if you say if the CD players are facing the same way or opposite each other. The picture shows only one of them, not two taped together.

Any translation?

The vector at the bottom indicates a translation to the right. If I guessed wrong which was which, then the top vector indicates a translation to the left, and the bottom vector indicates rolling towards the PoV.

I would think for simplicity you'd have the thing start with zero linear momentum, but in fact you didn't specify it at all except for the hints from the unlabeled vectors in the picture.  If they mean different things, you should make them different colors. If you meant them both to be angular momentum, then it's wrong since an object can have only one angular momentum vector.

This is what I wrote in the post #369:

Halc,
yes, I do not have time to write long responses every day.
I found some time, here it is.

Let us consider two CD players with feet sides attached, taped, CDs not spinning.
CDs are either locked as a rigid body or they have friction-less bearings.
We apply the external forces as per the image, in the CDs parallel plane.
The plane goes through the feet touching points.

I want to create as simple scenario as possible.
Let us assume friction-less bearings.
The red arrows are the external momentum, in the plane as described.
Only CD players will rotate there is no friction to start CDs rotation.
The system is 'ideal', well balanced, no tumbling.
Is this understandable?

[Halc]

This is what I wrote in the post #369:

OK, that's like over 40 posts ago, and plenty of suggestions from you since then of different scenarios.

Let us consider two CD players with feet sides attached, taped, CDs not spinning.
CDs are either locked as a rigid body or they have friction-less bearings.

You need to spin the case then along the axis of rotation of the bearing then, not tumble it end over end as your vectors indicate.

We apply the external forces as per the image, in the CDs parallel plane.

You identified those vectors and momentum vectors in the prior post. Now they're external force vectors. This is what I mean about being precise.

OK, so you're imparting a spin to the thing counterclockwise, and the CDs do not spin with the case. Fine. That's just not what you said at all in the prior post.  The thing spins faster than it would if the CDs moved with the case since the moment is lower.

I want to create as simple scenario as possible.
Let us assume friction-less bearings.
The red arrows are the external momentum, in the plane as described.

Now we're back to momentum again. You said force just above. The two are not the same. I'm assuming force since two forces can be applied, but a thing cannot have two angular momentum vectors.

I see little hope of this going far enough to make your point if you cannot speak the language. The red arrows are not momentum if the thing spins counterclockwise. The momentum points at the PoV (at you).

Only CD players will rotate there is no friction to start CDs rotation.
The system is 'ideal', well balanced, no tumbling.
Is this understandable?

Yes, if I ignore the parts about the arrows being momentum, which is just wrong.
There is presumably no linear momentum, but you don't say that.  The center of gravity (CoG) stays put.  The thing has angular momentum pointing at the PoV due to the torque applied to it. No net linear force is applied since the red FORCE arrows are equal and opposite. The angular momentum vector is not depicted.

A CD player doesn't work like that, but a simple device with a disk on a frictionless bearing does.  A real CD player (unlike an LP player) always maintains a constant linear velocity, which means it runs fast at first, and slows as the music plays. It's pretty complicated, and thus a poor choice for an example. We're going with your simple frictionless disk.

[puppypower]

And why hasn't the status quo altered the rest of the theory to accommodate the implication of a moon sized object within the earth spinning faster than the surface?

Because it doesn't actually make a difference to us here on the surface.
You would need to explain exactly what "theory" you think needs updating.
Obviously the theory that they used to predict the rotation of the core  does not need to be updated due to the rotation of the core.

What do you think they have got wrong?

I envision the rotation of the huge and heavy iron core, dragging the rest of the earth through viscoelastic friction. If I placed a drill  mixer in the center of a bucket of fluid, the friction at the center will cause the entire bucket of liquid to move with the mixer. If I rotate the bucket at the same time, as log as the bucket is going slower than the mixer, it will be dragged along by the mixer.

This would not be the case, if we assume there is zero friction between the  mixer and fluid, which is not a good assumption at the pressures assumed at the earth's core. The pressure is what is allowing the iron to be a solid at the core temperatures. If there was no pressure, iron should be a gas at core temperatures.  Pressure induced friction allows torque to be transmitted.

One additional feature for the water continuity model of the earth; water phase boundaries define the various layers of the inner and outer earth, is the oxygen; O2, in the atmosphere. This is induced by solar energy via photosynthesis. The O2 creates a powerful oxidation potential for electrons to flow toward the atmosphere; global oxidation potential. This potential integrates life with the core dynamics, via the continuity of water from atmosphere to core.

At the water phase boundary near the outer core, water is ionic and then becomes metallic at the condtions at the core core. The ionic water phase is a matrix of O-2 and H+. The oxygen accepts electrons as the hydrogen proton strips them from iron. The atmospheric oxygen is O+2. The result is an election flow upward, through the continuity of water; various phase combinations of oxygen and hydrogen. 

If you look at oxygen, it can accept two more electrons than it has protons; O-2. The affinity of oxygen for these two extra electrons is not based on the electrostatic force since the charge becomes imbalanced. It is based on the magnetic side of the EM force; electron orbital addition via the magnetic force. The oxidation of the iron core, via ionic water; hydrogen and oxygen, shifts the EM force to the magnetic side; earth's magnetic field.

[Bored chemist]

I envision the rotation of the huge and heavy iron core, dragging the rest of the earth through viscoelastic friction. If I placed a drill  mixer in the center of a bucket of fluid, the friction at the center will cause the entire bucket of liquid to move with the mixer. If I rotate the bucket at the same time, as log as the bucket is going slower than the mixer, it will be dragged along by the mixer.

Only because friction with the Earth stops this  happening.

And, isolated in space, there's no way that can happen to the \Earth, is there?

It is based on the magnetic side of the EM force

Bollocks.
Oxygen atoms and oxide ions are non magnetic.

The oxidation of the iron core, via ionic water; hydrogen and oxygen, shifts the EM force to the magnetic side; earth's magnetic field.

The sort of hogwash we would expect from someone who thinks that a 30% drop in GDP is a sign of a good economy.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80578.msg615231#msg615231

And that homoeopathy works
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80667.msg615361#msg615361

[Jaaanosik]

This is what I wrote in the post #369:

OK, that's like over 40 posts ago, and plenty of suggestions from you since then of different scenarios.

Let us consider two CD players with feet sides attached, taped, CDs not spinning.
CDs are either locked as a rigid body or they have friction-less bearings.

You need to spin the case then along the axis of rotation of the bearing then, not tumble it end over end as your vectors indicate.

We apply the external forces as per the image, in the CDs parallel plane.

You identified those vectors and momentum vectors in the prior post. Now they're external force vectors. This is what I mean about being precise.

OK, so you're imparting a spin to the thing counterclockwise, and the CDs do not spin with the case. Fine. That's just not what you said at all in the prior post.  The thing spins faster than it would if the CDs moved with the case since the moment is lower.

I want to create as simple scenario as possible.
Let us assume friction-less bearings.
The red arrows are the external momentum, in the plane as described.

Now we're back to momentum again. You said force just above. The two are not the same. I'm assuming force since two forces can be applied, but a thing cannot have two angular momentum vectors.

I see little hope of this going far enough to make your point if you cannot speak the language. The red arrows are not momentum if the thing spins counterclockwise. The momentum points at the PoV (at you).

Only CD players will rotate there is no friction to start CDs rotation.
The system is 'ideal', well balanced, no tumbling.
Is this understandable?

Yes, if I ignore the parts about the arrows being momentum, which is just wrong.
There is presumably no linear momentum, but you don't say that.  The center of gravity (CoG) stays put.  The think has angular momentum pointing at the PoV due to the torque applied to it. No net linear force is applied since the red FORCE arrows are equal and opposite. The angular momentum vector is not depicted.

A CD player doesn't work like that, but a simple device with a disk on a frictionless bearing does.  A real CD player (unlike an LP player) always maintains a constant linear velocity, which means it runs fast at first, and slows as the music plays. It's pretty complicated, and thus a poor choice for an example. We're going with your simple frictionless disk.

Halc,
I am glad you are pointing out the difference between the force and the momentum.
Here is my take on it.
It does not meter how the input is described, force or momentum, because what is more important is the output.
We want to analyze the resulting momentum, angular and linear, and for that we need the resulting velocities of all the parts of the system.
The input as force: 'm*a' means we need to find out how long the force was applied, all other details to find out the resulting velocities of all the parts of the system.
The input as momentum: 'm*v' means we need to find out the collisions, what collided, where it went, at what velocities, ... again, all the details to find out the resulting velocities of all the parts of the system.

I said the this:

What happens?
The CD players rotate, the CDs inside do not rotate.

... and I also asked this:

Any translation?

Because, as you correctly pointed out:

The think has angular momentum pointing at the PoV due to the torque applied to it.

This means there was angular acceleration generating the rotation that ended in the angular momentum.
The CD players system will start to translate in the direction of this angular momentum.
Do you agree?

[Kryptid]

It does not meter how the input is described, force or momentum, because what is more important is the output.

According to conservation laws, both input and output are equally important because they must match each other.

[Bored chemist]

The input as force: 'm*a' means we need to find out how long the force was applied, all other details to find out the resulting velocities of all the parts of the system.
The input as momentum: 'm*v' means we need to find out the collisions, what collided, where it went, at what velocities, ... again, all the details to find out the resulting velocities of all the parts of the system.

Close.
What you apply to the object is an "impulse".
That's the integral of a force WRT time (or force times time if the force is constant).
It is mathematically the same as a change in momentum.

But, it says a lot that you are ignoring the fact that we are talking about rotation, but you are talking about a change in linear momentum.

Why can't you recognise that they are independent?

[evan_au]

Apologies - I haven't read all 454 responses to this thread, so this may be covered already. But my small contribution:

Can heat affect Earth's rotation?

As the Earth's atmosphere warms, it expands. This expansion slows down the rotation of the atmosphere, which couples to the rotation of the Earth.

The effect is small but measurable over long periods.

See: https://astronomynow.com/2015/06/30/nasa-explains-why-30-june-will-get-an-extra-leapsecond/

[Halc]

The CD players system will start to translate in the direction of this angular momentum.
Do you agree?

You're confusing linear momentum with angular momentum.  No, I do not agree.

The angular momentum of the players is zero at first, and since it is a conserved quantity, the only way it can acquire angular momentum is via external torque, which you say is being applied to it (the presumably force arrows in the picture).

[puppypower]

I envision the rotation of the huge and heavy iron core, dragging the rest of the earth through viscoelastic friction. If I placed a drill  mixer in the center of a bucket of fluid, the friction at the center will cause the entire bucket of liquid to move with the mixer. If I rotate the bucket at the same time, as log as the bucket is going slower than the mixer, it will be dragged along by the mixer.

Only because friction with the Earth stops this  happening.

And, isolated in space, there's no way that can happen to the \Earth, is there?

It is based on the magnetic side of the EM force

Bollocks.
Oxygen atoms and oxide ions are non magnetic.

The oxidation of the iron core, via ionic water; hydrogen and oxygen, shifts the EM force to the magnetic side; earth's magnetic field.

The sort of hogwash we would expect from someone who thinks that a 30% drop in GDP is a sign of a good economy.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80578.msg615231#msg615231

And that homoeopathy works
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80667.msg615361#msg615361

Follow my logic. Oxide is O-2, which means it has two more electrons than protons. If only the electrostatic force was active, this would not be stable due to the charge imbalance. The reason this change imbalance is stable is because moving elections within orbital addition; octet rule, have a magnetic component to balance this out. 

A moving electron creates a magnetic field. The magnetic fields of moving electrons, adding via the orbitals, binds the extra two electrons of O-2 together. This enhanced magnetic aspect of the EM force can overcome the electrostatic repulsion, within the same EM force. We do not measure a substantial magnetic field from O-2 since the octet cancels the field via vector addition. This stability holds the extra electrons.

It is not clear how this magnetic affect, needed to stabilize O-2, multiples into the magnetic field. However, a wild card may be a metallic water phase boundary. Metals, including metallic water  are excellent conductors. Metallic water may conduct both electrons and protons. This will lower the magnetic ratio of the O-2 matrix, for an external amplification. Surface O2 feels the push and becomes ripe for adding electrons.

[Bored chemist]

Follow my logic.

You don't have any.
You are trying to rewrite the whole of chemistry- without the benefit of understanding it.

It is not clear how this magnetic affect, needed to stabilize O-2, multiples into the magnetic field

The reason that it is  "unclear" is that it is tosh you have made up.

[Jaaanosik]

The CD players system will start to translate in the direction of this angular momentum.
Do you agree?

You're confusing linear momentum with angular momentum.  No, I do not agree.

The angular momentum of the players is zero at first, and since it is a conserved quantity, the only way it can acquire angular momentum is via external torque, which you say is being applied to it (the presumably force arrows in the picture).

Are you saying the CD players system will not move int the direction of the angular acceleration?

[Bored chemist]

Are you saying the CD players system will not move int the direction of the angular acceleration?

Unless something changes the angular momentum, there is no angular acceleration.
The only thing that can change the angular momentum is a torque.

[Halc]

Are you saying the CD players system will not move int the direction of the angular acceleration?

In the absence of pre-existing motion in that direction, or a net force accelerating it in that direction, of course the system will not move in that direction.  Such would be a violation of Newton's first law.