No, just ignorant about physics and statistics and basic data analysis and about how this Universe works and unwilling to learn.

Considering I showed you that tidal friction can cause acceleration and deceleration of a planetary body, after you saying for months its only one way, I consider myself capable….I hope you are learning something.

It seems you have not learned anything at all.

I must be in the wrong universe :)

If you want to ignore the transfer of orbit speed to a planet through AM conservation, do so. But remember the Sun’s velocity changes too as it takes its 2 distinctively different paths, this may not turn out to be chicken feed.

Kepler’s 2nd law:
That’s my point…transfer of angular momentum without friction.
You must be particularly think today. Kepler’s 2nd law specifies that the AM cannot change. Kepler didn’t know this, but Newton knew. You are back to Kepler as if Newton and physicist since him never existed.

The boundary conditions might be favorable…if we go back the moon is closer and the bulge bigger…that’s the problem.

Dont forget Kepler’s 2nd Law.
——————————————————-
I’m not. It has nothing to do with transfer of Angular Momentum and friction, etc. Kepler’s 2nd law states [equivalently] that the orbital AM of a planet is constant, so when the planet is closer to the Sun, it has to move faster [AM=distance*speed]

That’s my point…transfer of angular momentum without friction.

Well, it’s you making that statement. And there is nothing wrong with that, once it is admitted that that is a violation of physical laws as we know them [and that one therefore must assume there are unknown laws controlling this, thus appealing to such unknowns].

Dont forget Kepler’s 2nd Law.
I’m not. It has nothing to do with transfer of Angular Momentum and friction, etc. Kepler’s 2nd law states [equivalently] that the orbital AM of a planet is constant, so when the planet is closer to the Sun, it has to move faster [AM=distance*speed]

If one wants to stick to the correlations being caused by angular momentum transfer, one must postulate that in spite of these shortcomings it somehow works anyway.

That’s a big statement…..the message is getting through.

As far as external tides are concerned the science was settled 100 years ago.

I have seen some some questions re the bulge theory, if we go back in time and reverse the current moon recession rate it would enter the destruction zone in 1.2 billion years. If the earths slowdown was purely based on tidal friction the recession rate would be slower when there was only one continent etc.

It all boils down to this: there are only three mechanisms within known physical laws that can transfer angular momentum:
1) tides with friction
2) magnetic torques due to stretching of file lines
3) the Poynting-Robertson effect caused by absorption [from one direction] and re-emission [in all directions] of light.

Dont forget Kepler’s 2nd Law.

But my main point is that you could get a two way result because of friction, the earth could increase and decrease its rotation because of tidal effects.
Don’t cling to this one because for all current planets at this time friction in the Sun is a one-way process. And it is not your point, I explained to you.

Your earlier point re AM is more a background process that must be conserved
It doesn’t matter in which direction the vectors point. Our physical understanding of this is solid and three hundred years old. If you postulate other [unknown] physical laws to be operating, anything goes, of course, but that was the hard slug I was referring to. but there must be other forces at playwell, none we know of.

It all boils down to this: there are only three mechanisms within known physical laws that can transfer angular momentum:
1) tides with friction
2) magnetic torques due to stretching of file lines
3) the Poynting-Robertson effect caused by absorption [from one direction] and re-emission [in all directions] of light.

All of these are much too small at the present time to have any measurable effect on the Sun [for 1 and 2] or planets [3].

If one wants to stick to the correlations being caused by angular momentum transfer, one must postulate that in spite of these shortcomings it somehow works anyway. This is an acceptable position as long as it is not coupled with a claim that these things are science-based.

If we go on the bulge theory (I dont think its generally accepted)
the only one there is and accepted by all, except pseudo-scientists peddling stuff on the Internet :-)

The reason I said not generally accepted is I dont think the science is settled on this one. The bodies responsible for collecting LOD measurements seem to be very non committal on the causes of slowing process mentioning external tides and other internal processes. Tidal friction due to continents is mentioned on several websites. This from the USNO
http://maia.usno.navy.mil/eop.html

” The secular variation of the rotational speed seen by the apparently linear increase in the length of the day is due chiefly to tidal friction. The Moon raises tides in the ocean diminishing the speed of rotation. This effect causes a slowing of the Earth’s rotational speed resulting in a lengthening of the day by about 0.0015 to 0.0020 seconds per day per century.

The irregular changes in speed appear to be the result of random accelerations, but may be correlated with physical processes occurring on or within the Earth. These cause the length of the day to vary by as much as 0.001 to 0.002 seconds. Irregular changes consist of “decade fluctuations” with characteristic periods of five to fifteen years as well as variations which occur at shorter time scales. The decade fluctuations are related apparently to processes occurring within the Earth. The higher frequency variations with periods less than two years are now known to be related largely to the changes in the total angular momentum of the atmosphere.

Periodic variations are associated with periodically repeatable physical processes affecting the Earth. Tides raised in the solid Earth by the Moon and the Sun produce variations in the length of the day with amplitudes on the order of 0.00005 seconds and with periods of 18.6 years, 1 year, 1/2 year, 27.55 days, 13.66 days and others. A standard model including 62 periodic components, can be employed to correct the observations for tidal effects. Changes in the total angular momentum of the atmosphere have also been shown to be correlated with changes in the length of the day.

The rotational speed of the Earth remains essentially unpredictable in nature due to incompletely understood variations. Because of this, astronomical observations continue to be made regularly with increasing accuracy, and the resulting data are the subject of continuing research in the field. ”

Leif Svalgaard (09:36:05) :

Perhaps a clarification: as long as the Sun is the only tidal mechanism this holds, but if you slow down the Earth further, the Earth’s rotation and the lunar period would no longer match and lunar tidal effects would pick up again. One has to be VERY precise in these things.

Perhaps this might be one area where a tidal effect from one body can have a knock on effect to another body, the moon would have acceleration and orbit changes because of the Sun’s tide. But my main point is that you could get a two way result because of friction, the earth could increase and decrease its rotation because of tidal effects. But having said that, both of my scenario’s are secondary processes.

Your earlier point re AM is more a background process that must be conserved and only forces can make actual changes ie rotation etc is interesting. We have discussed friction but there must be other forces at play. Looking at elliptical orbits and orbit velocity changes which result from gravity alone is one area, and what happens with the movement of the Sun in its orbit and how angular momentum must be conserved in relation to the bodies orbiting the Sun is an intriguing question that perhaps has more answers to come.

Perhaps a clarification: as long as the Sun is the only tidal mechanism this holds, but if you slow down the Earth further, the Earth’s rotation and the lunar period would no longer match and lunar tidal effects would pick up again. One has to be VERY precise in these things.

There is only one school of thought. The ‘angular momentum’ is not a mechanism per se, but a constraint on what can happen [whatever process works must keep the AM the same]. Only a force can change anything. And that the Moon moves out when accelerated is what is supposed to happen. Think of the space station having to fire its engines now and then to attain a higher orbit, whenever atmospheric drag has lowered it. If you want to even higher, e.g. to the Moon, you have to let the engine burn a lot longer.

The Martian example: tidal effects work no matter what shape the bodies have and they don’t have to be fluid or gases. The effect is so large because the moons are so close. If you move our Moon in to 1/10th the distance, the tidal effects go up thousand fold as they depend on the cube of the distance [which is why even mighty Jupiter raises such a minuscule tide on the Sun].

If we go on the bulge theory (I dont think its generally accepted)
the only one there is and accepted by all, except pseudo-scientists peddling stuff on the Internet :-)

eventually over time the earth’s rotation would slow to match the lunar period which would only leave the Sun as a tidal mechanism. The earth would slow further putting the moon in a faster orbit
Once the Sun is the only tidal mechanism, any further slowing of the Earth will have no effect on the Moon. I think I may have failed completely in getting that across; perhaps one more time: tides raised by one body will not have any effect on the orbit of another body.

So maybe there is a possibility of tides increasing rotation?
I think I said that several times. If the orbital revolution is faster than rotation, it goes the other way [Phobos], but in the solar system all planets have periods greater than 27 days. Interesting enough, in the early solar system when the planets were forming, friction between a planet and the solar system protoplanet disk caused the planet to loose energy and migrate closer to the Sun. Some exoplanets are very close to their suns, not because they formed there [it is too hot], but because they moved there by tidal forces. Tides are very important in the universe and are well-understood. The crucial point is that one must calculate what their sizes are to establish how important they are for any particular case, and for the present solar system, the tides raised by the planets are just too small to have any effect.