The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: hullo880 on May 10, 2011, 11:22:29 AM
-
It is impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat due to gravity.
This article can do the best justice to the idea:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-planets-round
I'm interested in your responses. Do you not believe in Gravity? If so, what causes us to stay fixed to the Earth's surface, whether it be round or flat?
-
I do not believe in gravity.
-
"If so, what causes us to stay fixed to the Earth's surface, whether it be round or flat?"
-
UA.
Please read our FAQ.
-
I did. I'm asking for your explanations.
For instance, why do the various models such as the McIntyre or Davis mentioned result in a flat earth?
Can you yourself explain or prove the answers, as my own efforts have been admittedly futile?
-
UA.
Please read our FAQ.
You still haven't answered about the lack of event horizon or redshift despite constantly mentioning special relativity whenever your speed assumptions are called into question. It's not in the FAQ.
-
UA.
Please read our FAQ.
You still haven't answered about the lack of event horizon or redshift despite constantly mentioning special relativity whenever your speed assumptions are called into question. It's not in the FAQ.
Please stop spamming every thread you find and attempting to derail them.
-
UA.
Please read our FAQ.
You still haven't answered about the lack of event horizon or redshift despite constantly mentioning special relativity whenever your speed assumptions are called into question. It's not in the FAQ.
Unless you are able to explain the FAQ as asked in this thread please leave. Thanks.
-
I did. I'm asking for your explanations.
For instance, why do the various models such as the McIntyre or Davis mentioned result in a flat earth?
Can you yourself explain or prove the answers, as my own efforts have been admittedly futile?
I'm having difficulty understanding the exact nature of your question(s).
-
It is impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat due to gravity.
This article can do the best justice to the idea:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-planets-round
I'm interested in your responses. Do you not believe in Gravity? If so, what causes us to stay fixed to the Earth's surface, whether it be round or flat?
It is not impossible for an object in space to exist that is non-perfectly or perfectly flat due to gravity.
Consider this:
As far as Infinite Planes go, Gravitational pull does not diminish with distance. Using Gauss's Law in relation to Gravitational Pull:
(http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/2513/latexw.gif)
-
1. Can you explain how that proves anything? Like explain what those terms mean.
2. Even if you are able to explain why, It doesn't explain how a flat object is created/formed.
....unless you're a creationist.
-
It is impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat due to gravity.
This article can do the best justice to the idea:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-planets-round
I'm interested in your responses. Do you not believe in Gravity? If so, what causes us to stay fixed to the Earth's surface, whether it be round or flat?
I missed where this article supports the assertion that it's impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat. At any rate, the Earth is demonstrably not perfectly flat so it seems like a non-issue (unless you'd like to reword your question to better reflect reality).
-
Ah, yes. I was going for something more along the lines of my post above yours. The object's creation. According to flat earth theory, the Earth is, well, flat. It's impossible for something to be created and formed flat in space (i.e. a planet), due to gravity.
Someone suggested the FAQ. I had already read it, and asked someone to explain it's answers.
If someone could get back on track with the thread with the above revision that would be great.
1. Explain the FAQ answers concerning gravity.
2. Explain how a flat Earth could be formed because of those answers.
Surely anyone well acquainted with Flat Earth theory should be able to explain what forces caused it to be flat.
-
1. Explain the FAQ answers concerning gravity.
The Earth is zooming through space. It is very fast.
2. Explain how a flat Earth could be formed because of those answers.
We don't know. Probably not because of a huge explosion of nothingness.
-
We don't know. Probably not because of a huge explosion of nothingness.
Wow. That WOULD be ridiculous. Good thing nobody actually thinks that.
-
Ah, yes. I was going for something more along the lines of my post above yours. The object's creation. According to flat earth theory, the Earth is, well, flat. It's impossible for something to be created and formed flat in space (i.e. a planet), due to gravity.
I'd like to know, again, where the article supports that it's impossible for something to form flat in space. It is, in fact, demonstrably wrong.
-
1. Can you explain how that proves anything? Like explain what those terms mean.
2. Even if you are able to explain why, It doesn't explain how a flat object is created/formed.
....unless you're a creationist.
That post proves an infinite flat plane is possible if Gauss's law holds in the physical universe.
Those are not the only two options; terra has always existed.
Ah, yes. I was going for something more along the lines of my post above yours. The object's creation. According to flat earth theory, the Earth is, well, flat. It's impossible for something to be created and formed flat in space (i.e. a planet), due to gravity.
Someone suggested the FAQ. I had already read it, and asked someone to explain it's answers.
If someone could get back on track with the thread with the above revision that would be great.
1. Explain the FAQ answers concerning gravity.
2. Explain how a flat Earth could be formed because of those answers.
Surely anyone well acquainted with Flat Earth theory should be able to explain what forces caused it to be flat.
Which faq answers specifically?
-
"I missed where this article supports the assertion that it's impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat. At any rate, the Earth is demonstrably not perfectly flat so it seems like a non-issue (unless you'd like to reword your question to better reflect reality)"
"Planets are round because their gravitational field acts as though it originates from the center of the body and pulls everything toward it."
First sentence.
Also don't stray away from my two questions posted above.
-
1. Can you explain how that proves anything? Like explain what those terms mean.
2. Even if you are able to explain why, It doesn't explain how a flat object is created/formed.
....unless you're a creationist.
That post proves an infinite flat plane is possible if Gauss's law holds in the physical universe.
Those are not the only two options; terra has always existed.
Ah, yes. I was going for something more along the lines of my post above yours. The object's creation. According to flat earth theory, the Earth is, well, flat. It's impossible for something to be created and formed flat in space (i.e. a planet), due to gravity.
Someone suggested the FAQ. I had already read it, and asked someone to explain it's answers.
If someone could get back on track with the thread with the above revision that would be great.
1. Explain the FAQ answers concerning gravity.
2. Explain how a flat Earth could be formed because of those answers.
Surely anyone well acquainted with Flat Earth theory should be able to explain what forces caused it to be flat.
Which faq answers specifically?
Ok. Do you believe the Earth has always existed, like an uncaused cause? What is your belief.
You also missed my point, which was that those mathematical equations don't prove what I mentioned. They also don't prove what you mentioned.
Specific Answers:
A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.
A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.
A3: In the Davis model, the infinite plane produces a finite gravitational field with a downward pull. Click here for the mathematical formulation behind this model.
I also see no mention of those "models" being mentioned outside of this site.
Could someone provide some sort of proof or source of their existence?
-
"Planets are round because their gravitational field acts as though it originates from the center of the body and pulls everything toward it."
Phobos? Proteus? Deimos? Thebe? The list goes on. Perhaps we should come up with new explanations...
-
"Planets are round because their gravitational field acts as though it originates from the center of the body and pulls everything toward it."
Phobos? Proteus? Deimos? Thebe? The list goes on. Perhaps we should come up with new explanations...
Those are all moons.
Broken off of, you guessed it, round objects such as planets.
Edit: If you think moons = planets you need to brush up on your science a bit.
-
Most of the "theories" I've read have been centered on the idea of accretion and/or capture -- not pieces "broken off planets".
-
"I missed where this article supports the assertion that it's impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat. At any rate, the Earth is demonstrably not perfectly flat so it seems like a non-issue (unless you'd like to reword your question to better reflect reality)"
"Planets are round because their gravitational field acts as though it originates from the center of the body and pulls everything toward it."
First sentence.
Also don't stray away from my two questions posted above.
That quote explains the theory behind why planets are round. It does not in any way state that it's impossible for something to be formed flat in space.
-
Most of the "theories" I've read have been centered on the idea of accretion and/or capture -- not pieces "broken off planets".
Pieces broken of off planets are what's behind accretion/capture.
None of the moons are flat either, so I fail to see your point.
-
"I missed where this article supports the assertion that it's impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat. At any rate, the Earth is demonstrably not perfectly flat so it seems like a non-issue (unless you'd like to reword your question to better reflect reality)"
"Planets are round because their gravitational field acts as though it originates from the center of the body and pulls everything toward it."
First sentence.
Also don't stray away from my two questions posted above.
That quote explains the theory behind why planets are round. It does not in any way state that it's impossible for something to be formed flat in space.
Yes it does.
As I said, please don't stray away from my two questions.
1. Explain the FAQ answers concerning gravity.
2. Explain how a flat Earth could be formed because of those answers.
To make it easier:
A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.
A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.
A3: In the Davis model, the infinite plane produces a finite gravitational field with a downward pull. Click here for the mathematical formulation behind this model.
-
How did the first objects accrete without "pieces broken off planets?"
-
"I missed where this article supports the assertion that it's impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat. At any rate, the Earth is demonstrably not perfectly flat so it seems like a non-issue (unless you'd like to reword your question to better reflect reality)"
"Planets are round because their gravitational field acts as though it originates from the center of the body and pulls everything toward it."
First sentence.
Also don't stray away from my two questions posted above.
That quote explains the theory behind why planets are round. It does not in any way state that it's impossible for something to be formed flat in space.
Yes it does.
I still seem to be missing it. Can you bold the word "impossible" for me?
As I said, please don't stray away from my two questions.
1. Explain the FAQ answers concerning gravity.
2. Explain how a flat Earth could be formed because of those answers.
To make it easier:
A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.
A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.
A3: In the Davis model, the infinite plane produces a finite gravitational field with a downward pull. Click here for the mathematical formulation behind this model.
1) I have no idea what you need explaining. I'm not about to give a sweeping lecture on the principles of gravitation and gravitational effects on a flat Earth. Please be somewhat more specific.
2) Unknown.
-
I missed where this article supports the assertion that it's impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat. At any rate, the Earth is demonstrably not perfectly flat so it seems like a non-issue (unless you'd like to reword your question to better reflect reality).
It's not so much that an object in space can't be flat, it's more like an object beyond a certain mass can't be flat.
The IAU's definition mandates that planets be large enough for their own gravity to form them into a state of hydrostatic equilibrium; this means that they will reach a shape that is, if not spherical, then spheroidal. Up to a certain mass, an object can be irregular in shape, but beyond that point gravity begins to pull an object towards its own centre of mass until the object collapses into a sphere. Relaxing the demand for strict sphericity was mandated by the fact that many large objects in the Solar System, such as the planets Jupiter and Saturn, the moons Mimas, Enceladus and Miranda, and the dwarf planet Haumea,[64] have been distorted into oblate or prolate spheroids by rapid rotation or tidal forces
-
Relaxing the demand for strict sphericity was mandated by the fact that many large objects in the Solar System...
... refuse to conform to theory.
-
Relaxing the demand for strict sphericity was mandated by the fact that many large objects in the Solar System...
... refuse to conform to theory.
Only when taken out of context. ::)
-
I missed where this article supports the assertion that it's impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat. At any rate, the Earth is demonstrably not perfectly flat so it seems like a non-issue (unless you'd like to reword your question to better reflect reality).
It's not so much that an object in space can't be flat, it's more like an object beyond a certain mass can't be flat.
The IAU's definition mandates that planets be large enough for their own gravity to form them into a state of hydrostatic equilibrium; this means that they will reach a shape that is, if not spherical, then spheroidal. Up to a certain mass, an object can be irregular in shape, but beyond that point gravity begins to pull an object towards its own centre of mass until the object collapses into a sphere. Relaxing the demand for strict sphericity was mandated by the fact that many large objects in the Solar System, such as the planets Jupiter and Saturn, the moons Mimas, Enceladus and Miranda, and the dwarf planet Haumea,[64] have been distorted into oblate or prolate spheroids by rapid rotation or tidal forces
Even this never states that it's impossible for a flat object to be formed in space. It merely outlines one of the criteria for forming a planet (a criterion, I might add, that according to theory FE doesn't meet), so it's really not much of a step up from the previous quote.
To elaborate on my overall point: It might very well be appropriate to state that based on what we know of the universe now, it is impossible for a very massive object to be formed flat. But let's remember, "what we know of the universe now" is always wrong (in its entirety) and constantly modified. So to state that anything of this nature is impossible without that sort of qualifier would be intellectually dishonest, and I really doubt that any self-respecting scientist wouldn't admit to the distinction.
-
1) I have no idea what you need explaining. I'm not about to give a sweeping lecture on the principles of gravitation and gravitational effects on a flat Earth. Please be somewhat more specific.
2) Unknown.
You don't have to give a sweeping lecture.
As I said before, surely anyone well acquainted with Flat Earth theory should be able to explain what forces caused it to be flat.
I find it quite unbelievable that not one "flat earth" believer has been able to answer this.
-
1) I have no idea what you need explaining. I'm not about to give a sweeping lecture on the principles of gravitation and gravitational effects on a flat Earth. Please be somewhat more specific.
2) Unknown.
You don't have to give a sweeping lecture.
As I said before, surely anyone well acquainted with Flat Earth theory should be able to explain what forces caused it to be flat.
I find it quite unbelievable that not one "flat earth" believer has been able to answer this.
How, exactly, are we supposed to know?
-
Through science. Are you saying that you simply believe the Earth is flat because, well, it just is?
-
1. Can you explain how that proves anything? Like explain what those terms mean.
2. Even if you are able to explain why, It doesn't explain how a flat object is created/formed.
....unless you're a creationist.
That post proves an infinite flat plane is possible if Gauss's law holds in the physical universe.
Those are not the only two options; terra has always existed.
Ah, yes. I was going for something more along the lines of my post above yours. The object's creation. According to flat earth theory, the Earth is, well, flat. It's impossible for something to be created and formed flat in space (i.e. a planet), due to gravity.
Someone suggested the FAQ. I had already read it, and asked someone to explain it's answers.
If someone could get back on track with the thread with the above revision that would be great.
1. Explain the FAQ answers concerning gravity.
2. Explain how a flat Earth could be formed because of those answers.
Surely anyone well acquainted with Flat Earth theory should be able to explain what forces caused it to be flat.
Which faq answers specifically?
Ok. Do you believe the Earth has always existed, like an uncaused cause? What is your belief.
You also missed my point, which was that those mathematical equations don't prove what I mentioned. They also don't prove what you mentioned.
It does at least show a basis for an infinite flat object to exist and not collapse as you say to a sphere. Consider this, there is no horizontal center of mass for an infinite plane to collapse to; all the gravitational forces acting horizontally on an object cancel out.
Yes, I believe terra has existed for an infinite amount of time.
Specific Answers:
A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.
A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.
A3: In the Davis model, the infinite plane produces a finite gravitational field with a downward pull. Click here for the mathematical formulation behind this model.
A1: A power unknown force is accelerating the universe at 9.81m/s/s. Consider when you are in your car and you start accelerating, or on an elevator; you feel a pull either backwards or down/up. This pull is indistinguishable from gravity. THis is what causes gravitational pull. Dark energy in Bishop and McINtyres models pushes fuels the UA and this is basically the same idea.
A3: In my model an infinite plane (the earth) produces a gravitational pull that is finite. The mathematical basis for this was posted above. Basically, when one does the math one sees that an infinite massive plane would have its horizontal gravitational pulls cancelled out. This just leaves the vertical ones. When one sums up the vertical ones, it turns out to be a finite value (although it does not diminish with altitude. THis is what that math above explains.
-
I do not believe in gravity.
Hold on tight to something!!!
-
UA.
Please read our FAQ.
You still haven't answered about the lack of event horizon or redshift despite constantly mentioning special relativity whenever your speed assumptions are called into question. It's not in the FAQ.
Please stop spamming every thread you find and attempting to derail them.
Answer the question. It's directly relevant, unless you can't, of course.
-
It seems to me that this site is simply an explanation of accepted scientific principles applied to the hypothetical concept of a flat earth.
(Like, "what if" the Earth was flat).
Ex: It's not gravity, It's an unknown force at 9.81 m/s/s that for some unknown reason causes a flat Earth.
All the explanations I've seen are attempts to prove that a flat Earth is possible and not that it actually is. The explanations I've seen are quite vacuous and rely upon the assumption that Earth has always existed. They also rely on an unknown force that somehow causes Earth to be flat.
I admire the thought that has gone into this site and it's explanations, but there are no conclusions drawn. To me, this site is just a conspiracy theory created simply for the sake of having one.
I also admire your avatars, featuring many old men and past stately figures.
That's my two cents, and my conclusion. I was hoping to come to a conclusion on this site with the creation of this thread, and I have.
Thanks for your input and time,
hullo880
-
You titled the thread with a concept that is not proven by science so this is not the one to draw a conclusion that the site is not applicable to the purpose therein. You can not conclude that the Earth is flat or round but starting from a false premise.
If you are at the starting line of a running race, put your feet in the blocks getting into starting position, and upon hearing the starting gun you blast out of blocks running backwards in the wrong direction your failure of task is guaranteed.
Stay awhile and look within the site before you make a final decision of Earth shape. You may surprise yourself!
-
It is impossible for an object in space to exist perfectly flat due to gravity.
This article can do the best justice to the idea:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-planets-round
I'm interested in your responses. Do you not believe in Gravity? If so, what causes us to stay fixed to the Earth's surface, whether it be round or flat?
Yes, they do believe in gravity. From the FAQ:
Q: "What about tides?"
A: The gravitational pull of the celestial bodies provides tidal effects. Others believe that there is an object called the Sub-moon that sits underneath the Earth. The moon causes the tides, and the Sub-moon balances out the effect.
Which means that gravity has a measurable force. I would love to see one of the "researchers" here show with calculations how the various gravity vectors from celestial bodies or the "sub moon" produce the tides. You can't, because the tidal action is a fluid, circular motion. Project this onto a flat surface: ;)
(http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/moontides/TideAni.gif)
-
That is the most ridiculous graphic ever -- apparently the moon only controls the tides when aligned with the sun?
Speaking of solar tides, why is there no high tide at noon everyday?
-
Speaking of solar tides, why is there no high tide at noon everyday?
I don't understand the question...do you think it's noon everywhere at the same time? ???
-
Speaking of solar tides, why is there no high tide at noon everyday?
I don't understand the question...do you think it's noon everywhere at the same time? ???
Probably about as much as he thinks it's high tide everywhere at the same time.
-
That is the most ridiculous graphic ever -- apparently the moon only controls the tides when aligned with the sun?
Speaking of solar tides, why is there no high tide at noon everyday?
Because noon isn't when the sun is closest to the earth, just when our part of the earth is facing directly toward it. When the moon is aligned with the sun there are higher tides; only slightly because the moon exerts much more force on the earth than the sun (being closer). When the moon is perpendicular to the sun tides are reduced, again only a little bit.
However that's not the point.
The graphic was just intended to illustrate my point: The high tide moves around the earth. It doesn't reverse direction; it doesn't stop. It also moves across Antarctica from one side to the other. This can't be explained with any flat earth model; it only works with a spheroid. The effect of the sun further complicates it. It's similar to the problem with day and night but harder to explain.
-
Gravity is an absurd myth, a pseudo-religious fiction which derives from Plato's fanatical belief that the perfect form is that of a sphere. There is no such magical force, the Earth is flat and fixed in a single directional motion. Newtonian astronomy divests the Earth of its attribute of fixity, and conceives it as a rapidly moving globe, possessing three seperate and distinct motions, and influenced by other disturbing causes - a mere speck or atom amidst the endless congeries of suns, systems and revolving worlds. Who but the most infatuated dreamer, who but the most bewildered enthusiast, could credit a theory like this?
-
Universal Acceleration is an absurd myth, a pseudo-religious fiction which derives from James' fanatical belief that the perfect form is that of a plane. There is no such magical force, the Earth is round and in orbit around the sun. Planarist astronomy divests the Earth of its attribute of circlitude, and conceives it as a rapidly moving disc, possessing but one distinct motion, and influenced by an unknowable cause - a mere speck or atom amidst the endless demonic upward acceleration. Who but the most infatuated dreamer, who but the most bewildered enthusiast, could credit a theory like this?
-
Gravity is an absurd myth... Who but the most infatuated dreamer, who but the most bewildered enthusiast, could credit a theory like this?
John Davis, among others.
-
It seems to me that this site is simply an explanation of accepted scientific principles applied to the hypothetical concept of a flat earth.
(Like, "what if" the Earth was flat).
Ex: It's not gravity, It's an unknown force at 9.81 m/s/s that for some unknown reason causes a flat Earth.
All the explanations I've seen are attempts to prove that a flat Earth is possible and not that it actually is. The explanations I've seen are quite vacuous and rely upon the assumption that Earth has always existed. They also rely on an unknown force that somehow causes Earth to be flat.
I admire the thought that has gone into this site and it's explanations, but there are no conclusions drawn. To me, this site is just a conspiracy theory created simply for the sake of having one.
I also admire your avatars, featuring many old men and past stately figures.
That's my two cents, and my conclusion. I was hoping to come to a conclusion on this site with the creation of this thread, and I have.
Thanks for your input and time,
hullo880
^ I love this guy
-
Curved Earth Society, please refrain from making low-content posts in the discussion forums, and read our Forum Rules.
-
A1: A power unknown force is accelerating the universe at 9.81m/s/s. Consider when you are in your car and you start accelerating, or on an elevator; you feel a pull either backwards or down/up. This pull is indistinguishable from gravity. THis is what causes gravitational pull. Dark energy in Bishop and McINtyres models pushes fuels the UA and this is basically the same idea.
A3: In my model an infinite plane (the earth) produces a gravitational pull that is finite. The mathematical basis for this was posted above. Basically, when one does the math one sees that an infinite massive plane would have its horizontal gravitational pulls cancelled out. This just leaves the vertical ones. When one sums up the vertical ones, it turns out to be a finite value (although it does not diminish with altitude. THis is what that math above explains.
[/quote]
Then what is microgravity? As I go up a mountain or up in a shuttle, g decreases? I posted in another thread about this but it has gone through all the normal "Gravity does not exist, Gravitons haven't been found, it's all a hoax" stuff as this thread.
-
Then what is microgravity? As I go up a mountain or up in a shuttle, g decreases?
The stars have a slight pull.
-
Then what is microgravity? As I go up a mountain or up in a shuttle, g decreases?
The stars have a slight pull.
Why is that?
-
Then what is microgravity? As I go up a mountain or up in a shuttle, g decreases?
The stars have a slight pull.
This is not true; gravity simply does not exist, it is a made-up force. And nobody has gone up in a shuttle.
-
But there is so much science done under microgravity, not all was sponsored by "NASA" or other space agencies. You are further stating that all this research is bunk and any results gained from these observances are false to some degree.
Some of these observances have aided in developing new HIV drugs and further understanding respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and various metabolic diseases.
-
Not with the help of gravity. If these drugs were discovered by gravity-believers, it was in spite of, not because of, their belief in thge fictional force of gravity.
-
Not with the help of gravity. If these drugs were discovered by gravity-believers, it was in spite of, not because of, their belief in thge fictional force of gravity.
These drugs were discovered by people who believe in micro-gravity. I am sorry you believe otherwise. Loved the discussion, I'm out.
-
James, I believe that was his point. These crystals cannot form in the presence of earth's gravity, or whatever term you choose to call the nominal 9.8m/s2 acceleration that is felt at or near the earth's surface.
-
Then these discoverers were confused as to their method of discovery.
-
No James, I think that you might be confused as to the method of their discovery. These discoveries were made in an environment with the absence of the nominal acceleration commonly referred to as "gravity". How is such an environment possible if the earth is flat and sustained space flight is impossible?
-
Why is that?
While I do not know the reason, it is evident that stars must have a pull towards their centre. Otherwise, the gas they consist of would just spread out, thus vapourising the star in question.
-
Why is that?
While I do not know the reason, it is evident that stars must have a pull towards their centre. Otherwise, the gas they consist of would just spread out, thus vapourising the star in question.
Considering the distance to those stars, that pull might as well not exist.
-
Considering the distance to those stars, that pull might as well not exist.
It has to exist to hold the stars together.
-
Considering the distance to those stars, that pull might as well not exist.
It has to exist to hold the stars together.
I was referring to the effect that pull has on Earth.
-
Well, but what about those orphan planets just wandering around with no star, no solar system?
-
Well, but what about those orphan planets just wandering around with no star, no solar system?
What about them? Unless one decides to barrel through our solar system, they aren't a problem.
-
It's just that the accepted RET requires a star's gravity to explain planet formation
-
It's just that the accepted RET requires a star's gravity to explain planet formation
Those planets almost certainly did form around a star, but got ejected out of their solar system at some point.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/05/18/the-galaxy-may-swarm-with-billions-of-wandering-planets/
We see lots of massive planets huddling close in to their parent stars, far closer than any reasonable model can predict. Most likely, these planets form farther out in their native solar system and then migrate inwards toward the star as they plow through the material left over from their formation. Any planet between them and their star will be affected; some will shift orbit, dropping toward the star themselves, others will get flung into wide orbits, and others still will be tossed out of the system entirely.
It’s those last that are so interesting. If the inward-moving planet is, say, five times the mass of Jupiter, it can gravitationally eject a smaller planet, even one as massive as Jupiter. And we do see lots of very massive planets orbiting close in to their stars. This strongly implies that for every "hot super-Jupiter" we see, there is one or more planet that got kicked out of the system, sent out into the galaxy at large á la Space: 1999.
-
Your "almost certainly" isn't quite accurate, is it?
"They may have formed in proto-planetary disks, and subsequently scattered into unbound or very distant orbits,"
The paper, was written by two teams who used gravitational microlensing to analyze tens of millions of Milky Way stars over a twoyear period.
"The implications of this discovery are profound," commented German astronomer Joachim Wambsganss in Nature. "We have a first glimpse of a new population of planetary-mass objects in our galaxy. Now we need to explore their properties, distribution, dynamic states and history."
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Free+floating+planets+found+without+stars/4806815/story.html#ixzz1MqRSzKe0 (http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Free+floating+planets+found+without+stars/4806815/story.html#ixzz1MqRSzKe0)
-
Your "almost certainly" isn't quite accurate, is it?
"They may have formed in proto-planetary disks, and subsequently scattered into unbound or very distant orbits,"
The paper, was written by two teams who used gravitational microlensing to analyze tens of millions of Milky Way stars over a twoyear period.
"The implications of this discovery are profound," commented German astronomer Joachim Wambsganss in Nature. "We have a first glimpse of a new population of planetary-mass objects in our galaxy. Now we need to explore their properties, distribution, dynamic states and history."
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Free+floating+planets+found+without+stars/4806815/story.html#ixzz1MqRSzKe0 (http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Free+floating+planets+found+without+stars/4806815/story.html#ixzz1MqRSzKe0)
Now you're just being needlessly anal.
-
No. 'May' does not mean 'almost certainly.'
-
Horatio, just wait until you hear the FET explanation for rogue planets.
-
No. 'May' does not mean 'almost certainly.'
In scientific speak, it does.
The prevailing theory is that they formed in planetary disks. End of story.