- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: When an object enters the atmosphere it burns up from compression, not friction.
Posted on 7/25/22 at 11:59 pm to magildachunks
Posted on 7/25/22 at 11:59 pm to magildachunks
quote:Gaggle believes the earth is flat and covered by a dome and every single bit of evidence that says otherwise is faked.
Are you trying to argue that meteorites don't exist?
WTF are you trying to say here?
If you choose to continue to engage, do so purely for entertainment purposes as Gaggle's mind is closed and dysfunctional.
1
Posted on 7/26/22 at 12:03 am to Korkstand
An investigation into meteorites will only continue to confirm any suspicion that space isn't real. Look at that dinged up piece of iron. Why does everything always happen to be so flimsy and spurious?
Posted on 7/26/22 at 12:10 am to Gaggle
One more video and I'll let the thread be. Just another thing to think about.
the moon and Earth's ever changing speed
the moon and Earth's ever changing speed
This post was edited on 7/26/22 at 12:14 am
Posted on 7/26/22 at 12:13 am to GumboPot
quote:I don't know whether this is more semantics or pedantism, but aren't compression and shear both just work inputs which achieve the same result of increased molecular collisions and therefore temperature?
Friction is the resistance to shear of the fluid and depends on the fluid and surface properties. Resistance to shear is normally referred to as viscosity. Does temperature change when a fluid is sheared? I’d say yes however it’s small compared to the temperature contribution of compression that directly involves increasing the velocity of the atoms/molecules.
I don't mean to be argumentative, I'm just suggesting that maybe "friction" as the cause of increased temperature isn't entirely incorrect.
Posted on 7/26/22 at 12:14 am to Gaggle
quote:
An investigation into meteorites will only continue to confirm any suspicion that space isn't real.
quote:What do you think meteorites should look like?
Look at that dinged up piece of iron. Why does everything always happen to be so flimsy and spurious?
Posted on 7/26/22 at 12:36 am to Korkstand
I understand what you are getting at. IDK if an analogy can be drawn with pipeline or open channel hydraulics, something I’m very familiar with, friction does not cause a change in temperature. The effect of friction is pressure or head loss.
But here’s where compression and friction are linked. When pressure is lost the Joules Thomson effect occurs (e.g., refrigeration effect) and the temperature decreases because of expansion (opposite of compression).
The problem with saying friction is the main cause is there does not exist a model (formula) directly linking friction with temperature but there is a clear model to describe the heat in terms of kinetic energy from compression (or expansion if you were talking about cooling…removing heat).
But here’s where compression and friction are linked. When pressure is lost the Joules Thomson effect occurs (e.g., refrigeration effect) and the temperature decreases because of expansion (opposite of compression).
The problem with saying friction is the main cause is there does not exist a model (formula) directly linking friction with temperature but there is a clear model to describe the heat in terms of kinetic energy from compression (or expansion if you were talking about cooling…removing heat).
Posted on 7/26/22 at 12:37 am to Gaggle
quote:JFC
One more video and I'll let the thread be. Just another thing to think about.
the moon and Earth's ever changing speed
I'd rather not get into all the things wrong with that video (the whole thing), but just to maybe tickle your brain a little bit: do you think his math on how much the moon speeds up and slows down is correct? Because his logic is more confirmation of my theory that some people have a mental defect which severely limits their spatial reasoning.
He tries to explain that the moon revolves around earth at 2,300 mph, and the earth revolves around the sun at 67,000 mph, which means the moon has to speed up and slow down by 67,000 mph to "keep up with" the earth, as if to make it sound absurd that this is even a possibility. If you want to think of orbital motion this way, he's got it exactly backwards. He keeps changing his frame of reference for the moon's speed from the earth to the sun. The moon's "original speed" as he says is not 2,300 mph, it's quite obviously orbiting the sun at the same speed as the earth, on average. So the moon's speed relative to the sun ranges from 67,000-2,300 to 67,000+2,300, roughly. And given that it takes 2 weeks to speed up by 4,600 mph, the acceleration is minute. It amounts to roughly 0.0002 G.
Posted on 7/26/22 at 12:44 am to Korkstand
you are too much fun He was talking about directional changes. How is this speed change accounted for?
This post was edited on 7/26/22 at 1:09 am
Posted on 7/26/22 at 1:05 am to Gaggle
quote:Back at ya.
you are too much fun
quote:He completely whiffs on frames of reference.
He was talking about directional changes
quote:That is its speed relative to the earth, as always.
at the part of its path that is directionally opposite the Earth's revolution of the sun, the total original speed of the moon is 2,300 mph.
quote:Wrong. I don't know why you've subtracted 67,000 from itself, but it's not plus 2,300, it's minus since that is opposite to the direction that the earth is revolving around the sun. It's 67,000 - 2,300 to get the speed of the moon in the same direction as the earth relative to the sun. And once the moon gets around to the other side, it's 67,000 + 2,300.
Because the earth is moving 67,000 in one direction and the moon is going the opposite. 67,000-67,000. Plus the normal 2,300 of its relative revolution.
quote:What changes direction?
Then it changes direction in its revolution
quote:You not only don't get geometry, but now you've proven that you can't solve basic arithmetic problems.
There are more issues but you make such basic problems in even understanding the relevant issue because you are so quick to try to pounce.
Posted on 7/26/22 at 1:16 am to Gaggle
Wow, hell of an edit.
quote:How can I explain this to someone who doesn't believe in gravity?
How is this speed change accounted for?
Posted on 7/26/22 at 1:23 am to GumboPot
I always thought things burned up in the atmosphere because of the fire.
Posted on 7/26/22 at 1:25 am to Korkstand
I think you're right and he and I made some flubs with perspective. The point is the moon still must drastically change its overall velocity (considered in the direction of a straight tangent of Earth's orbit around the sun) quickly from the left inside Earth's orbit (67,000-2300) to its next position of behind earth (67,000+2,300 at a perpendicular tangent) then less drastically to its next position on Earth's right outside orbit (67,000+2,300). It's not even a uniform rate of change in velocity relative to a equal position change. If our 3 positions are A, B, and C respectively. The arc A to B is a basic inverse function of the arc B to C. They have the same distance, slope etc. However the velocity change of the moon A to B is not a simple function of the velocity change B to C. It's not inverted or even negative, double, or squared. And the ellipse further compounds this. And the earth too must necessarily make overall drastic, irregular velocity changes when you consider the sun's rotation of the milky way and on to infinity. And the point about this being rarely addressed is valid. The point that the reason we can't feel earth move being typically explained by a constant inertial velocity is valid. This shows it cannot be constant and it's interesting. The earth, moon, etc must speed up and slow down regularly, at various rates of change
This post was edited on 7/26/22 at 2:11 am
Posted on 7/26/22 at 2:36 am to Gaggle
quote:All of this is "addressed" by general relativity. It is well understood and extremely well-tested. And no one talks about these "drastic" changes in speed and direction because they are not at all drastic. The accelerations experienced by planets, moons, stars, and everything else out there are extremely small.
The point is the moon still must drastically change its overall velocity (considered in the direction of a straight tangent of Earth's orbit around the sun) quickly from the left inside Earth's orbit (67,000-2300) to its next position of behind earth 67,000 plus 2,300 at a perpendicular tangent to its next position of 67,000+2,300. And the earth must necessarily make overall drastic velocity changes when you consider the sun's rotation of the milky way, and on. And the point about this being rarely addressed is valid.
quote:Again, at rates of acceleration that are extremely tiny. Very small fractions of the acceleration felt from earth's gravity. Imperceptible.
The point that the reason we can't feel earth move being typically explained by a constant inertial velocity is valid. This shows it cannot be constant and it's interesting. The earth, moon, etc must speed up and slow down regularly.
It's all relative. It's all a matter of perspective. I'll refer you back to your statement:
quote:
I made some flubs with perspective
Posted on 7/26/22 at 2:39 am to Korkstand
Everything's always conveniently imperceptible. All we see and feel is an illusion.
Posted on 7/26/22 at 2:49 am to GumboPot
Wouldn’t there be friction all around it due to the compression? Same as a piston?
Posted on 7/26/22 at 4:29 am to GumboPot
Calling in sick to work because I learned my something new today.
Posted on 7/26/22 at 6:34 am to GumboPot
It's heating up due to both friction with the atmosphere and compression of the atmosphere. It's a system. Both parts will be in the equation to describe it, as well as the kinetic energy at entrance and the potential energy until either contact or burn-up. As to which is greater, it may start off as one (compression) and change to another (friction) as the object burns up, slows down, and gets smaller.
Posted on 7/26/22 at 6:43 am to Gaggle
quote:
Creating meteorite hoax to perpetuate space fiction and hide flat earth
You know that no one believes you think the earth is flat, right?
Posted on 7/26/22 at 6:46 am to Gaggle
quote:
All we see and feel is an illusion.
Do even Occam’s Razor, bro?
Posted on 7/26/22 at 8:06 am to LegendInMyMind
quote:
Physics isn't real.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News