Nut Nut's Attempt At A Book About Politics & Society

I don’t know that only a small portion is due to the original state of collapsing matter cloud that created the earth, the collision with a mare size planet that created the moon etc. how do you know that?

Moses and his people wandered 40 years in the desert.

We have now wandered 40 pages into this conversation. In post #2 at the beginning, I introduced my understanding of God. One which is revealed through scientific inquiry.

My personal relationship with the idea of God is manifest in a quality we refer to as conscience. Conscience is a quality which is associated with sensations such as guilt or virtue. In buddhism, virtuous concepts are embedded in the eightfold path.

https://mindworks.org/blog/what-is-buddhist-eightfold-path/

Mindworks Meditation & Buddhist Path

What is the Buddhist Eightfold Path? (The 8 Elements) | Mindworks

They basically provide a guide to individual behavior which add up to a healthy society if they are practiced by a critical mass of citizens. Concepts like not killing are embedded in there.

I come here and put up with your collective nonsense because my conscience demands that I not be silent about a Holocaust. There isn't any amount of contempt or external pressure which is greater than the internal force which has propelled me to do this.

Not being an authority on other people, I don't know if they have an aspect of their person which can be described as a conscience. For example .... I don't suspect lions have a conscience. I see them as being purely instinctual creatures. Killing a zebra is automatic for them and necessary to survive.

Humans are not very forthcoming about their inner selves.

Are you saying an elliptical orbit is synonymous with an eccentric orbit?

They address the same feature, but are not synonymous. Eccentricity is a quantified variable which measures the magnitude of departure from circularity. Elliptical is a qualitative variable which doesn't convey magnitude of departure.

Edit: any orbit which has a positive eccentricity value is elliptical. But there are eccentricity values greater than 1 which describe the relationship between 2 bodies which are not in an orbital relationship.

An extremely high eccentricity value is exemplified by Haley's Comet. At 0.967 ..... it is extremely elliptical, but it's still technically orbiting the Sun and this is exemplified by it's recurring trips into our solar system. If somehow Haley's Comet were to break free of it's orbital connection with the Sun, then the eccentricity value would exceed 1.

No, this doesn’t make any sense. Other Planets don’t just cause eccentricity to increase, They can also cause it to decrease. You claimed you understood that but apparently didn’t. It would take a full detailed analysis of the angular momentum of the original dust cloud that created the Earth and moon to quantify thibgs to the degree you are trying to.

Eccentricity by definition is between 0 and 1.

To cut around all this stuff: if what you're predicting is true, then I would be in support of what you want to do. Fair?

But I don't know if what you're saying is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And that will never change, irrespective of what you post.

It's like if Sklansky started a thread: "Einstein was wrong and I can prove it." What am I supposed to do with that? I mean, I'd grab the popcorn and try to follow along, but I'm not going to guzzle iq juice and study math and physics for a decade to actually know if he's not missing something.

And even if some on here with the background to know agreed with him, that wouldn't be enough. On the other hand, if Roger Penrose said he can't see anything glaringly wrong with it, that's different. Or if it got published and less notables agreed, that's different too.

In other words, if you want to convince me what you’re saying is true, you first need to convince the people who convince me. So quit complaining about other people attacking your credibility, because you don’t have that kind of credibility to attack. Go out there in the real world and get that credibility if you want people to believe you.

One option is Penrose/less-notables. The other is to borrow someone else’s. And not the ~doomers; they have no credibility either. I know you don’t like them, but pushing the worst-case scenario from the IPCC gives you instant credibility.

Yes .... as explained ad nauseum .... they cause it to increase from 0.0034 to 0.058 and they cause it to decrease from 0.058 back to 0.0034. Like a (near) circle going round and round.

That's what happens in a Milankovitch Cycle. 94% of the total absolute variation in Earth's orbital eccentricity values come from the gravitational force of other planets.

Then why did you say "The result is an elliptical orbit" and try to back this up with arguments about eccentricity?

My point, that you did not comprehend, was that eccentricity could have been higher than .058 if Jupiter and Saturn were not there. Nobody here really knows.

I acknowledge that my original wording was imprecise. I have acknowledged that many times.

When I said the result was an elliptical orbit .... a more precise wording would have been that "the result explains the majority of the reasons for departure from a circular orbit".

The reason why I wrote it was because I was ignorant of that nuance at the time I wrote it and I was simply regurgitating my interpretation of what I was reading from sources like NASA.

Now that the dust has hopefully settled ..... the essence of what I was trying to communicate is indeed true. Most (not all) of the reason for variance in Earth's orbit is indeed from planetary gravitational forces and these forces are what trigger the feedback loops which drive the drastic change between ice ages and warm periods.

(0.058 - 0.0034)/2 = 0.0273

Not knowing everything involved I'd spitball 0.0273 as the Earth's theoretical eccentricity sans the planets. I know it's not that simple but is that the gist of it or am I missing something?

edit:[QUOTE=AI]You’re mixing up the variation caused by the planets with the baseline that exists without them.

The 0.058–0.0034 range you’re using is the total swing in eccentricity because of planetary perturbations. The midpoint of that range (~0.03) isn’t what Earth’s eccentricity would be without the planets — it’s just the average of their ongoing influence.

In a true two-body Sun–Earth system, damping during formation would have left the orbit almost circular, probably somewhere around 0.001–0.005. So the planets don’t explain 94% of Earth’s “departure from circularity.” They explain the oscillations of a baseline that was already slightly non-zero.[/QUOTE]
never mind.

Aha .... you have a very spicy imagination ecriture.

That somehow the gravitational forces of Saturn and Jupiter could draw the Earth from something naturally moderately elliptical into a near perfect circle around the Sun. That somehow those planets push the Earth from elliptical into a more perfect circle.

Is your contemplation of mathematical possibilities completely divorced from any sort of common sense ?

Gravity doesn't push ..... it's pulls. Jupiter and Saturn pull the Earth away from the Sun when the Earth is in the middle. That pulling causes the increase in eccentricity.

No. You keep thinking circular is default. It is not.

Yes .... you are missing something.

The gravitational impact of Jupiter and Saturn on Earth oscillates. When the earth is in the middle, these planets pull the Earth slightly away from the Sun.

When the Sun is in the middle, the gravitational impact of these planets on Earth is virtually nil. The Sun is 1,000x the size of Jupiter and much closer to the Earth.

So .... the Earth is oscillating between periods of high and low gravitational impact and high and low eccentricity. The higher eccentricity is associated with the higher gravitational impact.

It is not logical that Jupiter and Saturn pull the Earth toward the Sun when they are on the opposite side of it in the same manner that they pull the Earth toward themselves when they are on the same side of it.

I'm saying the dynamics are more complicated. Gravity can expel planets. even though gravity only attracts, for example.

No I don't. I have accepted that circular is not the default. Please stop trying to pretend that you can read my mind.

It's not logical (to me) that Jupiter or Saturn could much affect the pull the Sun has on the Earth. If space was like a big stretched out piece of rubber I could see how it could change the terrain as the planets moved around.

From ChatGPT

why does jupiters gravitational pull on earth vary ?

🌌 Jupiter’s gravitational pull on Earth varies primarily due to changes in distance and orbital positions within the solar system. Here's a breakdown of the key factors:

🪐 1. Elliptical Orbits
Both Earth and Jupiter orbit the Sun in elliptical (non-circular) paths.

This means the distance between Earth and Jupiter changes over time, affecting the strength of Jupiter’s gravitational influence.

When the two planets are on the same side of the Sun (called opposition), they are closest, and Jupiter’s gravitational pull is strongest.

From an academic point, this is actually rather interesting.

After further reflection, I can't conclude that the non-gravitational portion of departure from circularity is <= 0.0034.

However, the baseline understanding that the variation in Earth's eccentricity is indeed as NASA states .... due to changes in gravitational influences from other planets like Jupiter and Saturn still holds.

I'm freeing myself from any representation of authority about what the quantification of non-gravitational impacts might be and I find such quantification irrelevant to the academic purpose I am attempting to pursue here.

I will simply say that the Earth's recent eccentricity range has oscillated between 0.0034 and 0.058 and that the reasons for this oscillation are the changes in gravitational impacts of other planets like Jupiter and Saturn. Those changes in planetary gravitational impacts are the trigger for the feedback loops that have historically (throughout human history) driven Earth between cyclical ice ages and warm periods.

I concede that I am not an expert on orbital mathematics. It was never my intention to represent myself as such.

The entire purpose of illuminating the existence of Milankovitch Cycles was to promote awareness of GHG / warming feedback loops. A topic I have a more thorough grasp of.

You seem to be saying a whole lot of different things at once here.

The first is a statement which indicates that your mind is closed and will never change.

The second is a statement that I need to convince the people who convince you ..... but you don't tell me who those people are that you trust.

Third is an allusion to the IPCC as a credible source. Are you serious about that ? Is that the people who you trust ?

Before I make any further effort to try and convince you, I'd like a bit of clear communication .... not the mixed messaging you are sending.

And yet you insulted everyone and took a victory lap saying that people in this chat finally learnt something in their life.

From this whole debacle one can only imagine your next answer to the next problem, something along the line of :

I'm freeing myself from any representation of authority about XOXO might be and I find such quantification irrelevant to the academic purpose I am attempting to pursue here.
checkmate mfks!

One thing I want to say is that if the standard is the "whole truth", that's an impossible standard to achieve. Earth systems are incredibly nuanced and subject to future discovery. No person can represent themselves as being able to tell the "whole truth".

In a court of law, there is a concept of reasonable doubt. In science there may be a variety of competing cogent explanations for observed phenomena.

I think a standard which can be attained here is one that meets the criteria of beyond a reasonable doubt.

When there is a one clear and cogent explanation and no competing explanation, then we might reasonably conclude that the clear and cogent explanation is accurate.

It's not as if we are denying the opposition here an opportunity to present their case. There is simply an absence of anyone willing to present that alternative case.

All of the energy is being expended in an attempt to disqualify a witness on the basis of subject matter which is irrelevant to the relationship between elevated GHG levels and human consequences. I confess. I'm not omniscient and I do make mistakes. I'm human. I'm not an expert in orbital dynamics as a whole ..... I'm simply well apprised about the variability in orbital dynamics which are relevant to changes in Earth's recent climate history.

I don't know what you mean my non gravitational, but if only the Earth and sun existed, the Earth's orbit would have probably some eccentricity. None of us here know what that would be to compare it what the measured values are to make the comparison you were trying to. An actual expert in how stars and planetary systems form probably could, but I don't think I know enough to guess.