The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Earth_is_a_sphere_1 on August 24, 2015, 04:44:29 AM
-
Gravity has been studied for a long time. Newton came up with the theories about gravity in the 1600's. However Henry Cavendish did an experiment that proved all mass has gravity in 1797. The experiment is simple enough even you can do it.
There is 100% proof that gravity exists.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
-
What about the The Tamarack Mines Experiments (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm)?
-
Maybe we should organize our own experiment.
-
Two cables dropped 4000 feet drifting apart almost a foot validates the Cavendish experiment which proves gravity can pull things sideways towards solid mass.
-
How does two things repelling each other prove that two things should be attracting each other? You roundies almost seem like you just make up your act as you go along. You can't even get your stories together, let alone make a coherent statement.
-
Who said the cables are repelling each other???
The cables are attracted to the sides of the mine shaft by gravity. Everything with mass is attracted to everything else with mass. The cables have mass and the earth has mass. They are attracted to each other. This isn't rocket science.
-
Who said the cables are repelling each other???
The cables are attracted to the sides of the mine shaft by gravity. Everything with mass is attracted to everything else with mass. The cables have mass and the earth has mass. They are attracted to each other. This isn't rocket science.
Cables should be attracted to the center of mass, dummy. In other words, the middle of the Earth. They do not do that, as explained in the experiment. What are you going to make up next to explain that? Air currents or the sides of the shaft holes? Oh, wait, you people are already claiming those as excuses. ::)
-
Cables should be attracted to the center of mass, dummy. In other words, the middle of the Earth.
I assume you are not familiar with the Cavendish experiment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
Look it up on YouTube. Or better yet do the experiment yourself
-
Cables should be attracted to the center of mass, dummy. In other words, the middle of the Earth.
I assume you are not familiar with the Cavendish experiment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
Look it up on YouTube. Or better yet do the experiment yourself
I already countered your century old experiment with another one. Perhaps you have some kind of learning disability or a form of autism?
-
I already countered your century old experiment with another one. Perhaps you have some kind of learning disability or a form of autism?
You didn't counter anything. You only proved that you lack critical thinking skills.
The Cavendish experiment explains the Tamarack Mines Experiments!
Watch this short video and tell me what you see:
-
Why did you make me waste my time watching that video? It had nothing to do with the Tamarack Mines Experiment. It was simply a novelty sideshow demonstration. Perhaps now, you can explain your position without resorting to childish demonstrations? Just wondering. :-\
-
The moon goes around the Earth. If the theory of gravity were true, it would mean that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the Earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Do you see that happening? if gravity was working on the early Earth, then Earth's gravity would have caused Earth to have been bombarded out of existence with asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space junk being attracted to it. Then there is the question about tides. If the moon's "gravity" were responsible for a bulge underneath the water, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the Earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are two not one high tides every day.
-
The moon goes around the Earth. If the theory of gravity were true, it would mean that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the Earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Do you see that happening? if gravity was working on the early Earth, then Earth's gravity would have caused Earth to have been bombarded out of existence with asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space junk being attracted to it. Then there is the question about tides. If the moon's "gravity" were responsible for a bulge underneath the water, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the Earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are two not one high tides every day.
Sun's gravitational pull on the moon is nothing compared to earth's gravitational pull on the moon. Sun has greater mass but also a ridiculously great distance to both the moon and the earth.
-
The moon goes around the Earth. If the theory of gravity were true, it would mean that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the Earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Do you see that happening? if gravity was working on the early Earth, then Earth's gravity would have caused Earth to have been bombarded out of existence with asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space junk being attracted to it. Then there is the question about tides. If the moon's "gravity" were responsible for a bulge underneath the water, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the Earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are two not one high tides every day.
Sun's gravitational pull on the moon is nothing compared to earth's gravitational pull on the moon. Sun has greater mass but also a ridiculously great distance to both the moon and the earth.
True, that's why the theory of gravity is untrue. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. With a mass that much larger than the Earth, common sense should tell you the moon should be orbiting the sun.
-
The moon goes around the Earth. If the theory of gravity were true, it would mean that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the Earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Do you see that happening? if gravity was working on the early Earth, then Earth's gravity would have caused Earth to have been bombarded out of existence with asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space junk being attracted to it. Then there is the question about tides. If the moon's "gravity" were responsible for a bulge underneath the water, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the Earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are two not one high tides every day.
Sun's gravitational pull on the moon is nothing compared to earth's gravitational pull on the moon. Sun has greater mass but also a ridiculously great distance to both the moon and the earth.
True, that's why the theory of gravity is untrue. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. With a mass that much larger than the Earth, common sense should tell you the moon should be orbiting the sun.
Science isn't about common sense. That's another point. THe moon orbits the Earth the same way the earth orbits around the sun. Keeping that in mind, the Moon DOES Orbit the Sun. Correctly, because Sun has that much mass it keeps earth and planets together in orbit. If that didn't happen, t here wouldn't be life here.
-
Why did you make me waste my time watching that video? It had nothing to do with the Tamarack Mines Experiment. It was simply a novelty sideshow demonstration. Perhaps now, you can explain your position without resorting to childish demonstrations? Just wondering. :-\
Wow, you are slow. The Cavendish experiment proves that gravity pulls sideways. In the video you saw the weights on the string move sideways towards the lead bricks. Can you think of anything else that moved sideways? Don't hurt yourself trying to figure it out.
I'll just tell you since you won't get it. The weights that were hanging from 5 feet of fishing line moved a few inches. How far did the 4000 foot cable move that was dropped down a mine shaft? Can you connect the dots yet?
-
Here's more information. Skip to 3:00.
(http://)
-
What about the The Tamarack Mines Experiments (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm)?
Why do you always use that particular link? You know it is debunked in the article itself:
At the present time I have been unable to locate any solid evidence that the proposed experiment using two mine shafts 3,200 feet apart was ever performed.
-
What about the The Tamarack Mines Experiments (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm)?
Why do you always use that particular link? You know it is debunked in the article itself:
At the present time I have been unable to locate any solid evidence that the proposed experiment using two mine shafts 3,200 feet apart was ever performed.
The author was being honest. That is a good trait to see in a RE'er, which we do not see often around here. He did not debunk the article. He simply gave a little commentary about the evidence he has seen. How is this a bad thing? Were you expecting him to lie?
-
There is no evidence the The Tamarack Mines Experiments ever took place...so it's pointless bringing them up.
Next.
-
Even if the Tamarack Mines are proven to be true the results are expected to occur on a round earth. The Cavendish experiment proves the events at the Tamarack Mines are completely normal and to be expected.
Skip to 3:00 and watch
-
Even if the Tamarack Mines are proven to be true the results are expected to occur on a round earth. The Cavendish experiment proves the events at the Tamarack Mines are completely normal and to be expected.
Skip to 3:00 and watch
The Cavendish experiment suggests that the weights should be attracted to each other, no repelled away from each other, lying disinformation agent.
-
Even if the Tamarack Mines are proven to be true the results are expected to occur on a round earth. The Cavendish experiment proves the events at the Tamarack Mines are completely normal and to be expected.
Skip to 3:00 and watch
The Cavendish experiment suggests that the weights should be attracted to each other, no repelled away from each other, lying disinformation agent.
What has more mass and more gravitational force? The steel balls or the earth? The steel balls were 12 feet apart from each other. How close were they to the sides of the mine shaft? I'm assuming closer than 12 feet.
If both lines were dropped 2 feet apart and the walls were 20 feet apart the lines would be attracted to each other like this:
| \ / |
But because they were closer to the walls than each other they were attracted to the walls, at least that's my theory
| / \ |
-
The concept of gravity seems to be the magic bullet explanation for all that science can not explain. Yes, dropping an object will cause it to fall. Simple enough, but gravity then goes on to become the glue that holds all the pieces together in the current scientific round earth model. This force is strong enough to keep the oceans from sliding down to the south pole, but not so strong as to pull the moon down to earth. The Sun which is supposed to have such a massive gravitational pull and is powerful enough to cause Pluto to orbit around it, is somehow not powerful enough to pull Mercury close enough to get sucked in. And then we are supposed to believe how gravity works with concepts such as normal force where you are standing because gravity is pushing you down, but the earth is "pushing" you back up.
-
The concept of gravity seems to be the magic bullet explanation for all that science can not explain. Yes, dropping an object will cause it to fall. Simple enough, but gravity then goes on to become the glue that holds all the pieces together in the current scientific round earth model. This force is strong enough to keep the oceans from sliding down to the south pole, but not so strong as to pull the moon down to earth. The Sun which is supposed to have such a massive gravitational pull and is powerful enough to cause Pluto to orbit around it, is somehow not powerful enough to pull Mercury close enough to get sucked in. And then we are supposed to believe how gravity works with concepts such as normal force where you are standing because gravity is pushing you down, but the earth is "pushing" you back up.
Read up on orbital mechanics, and then try again.
-
The concept of gravity seems to be the magic bullet explanation for all that science can not explain. Yes, dropping an object will cause it to fall. Simple enough, but gravity then goes on to become the glue that holds all the pieces together in the current scientific round earth model. This force is strong enough to keep the oceans from sliding down to the south pole, but not so strong as to pull the moon down to earth. The Sun which is supposed to have such a massive gravitational pull and is powerful enough to cause Pluto to orbit around it, is somehow not powerful enough to pull Mercury close enough to get sucked in. And then we are supposed to believe how gravity works with concepts such as normal force where you are standing because gravity is pushing you down, but the earth is "pushing" you back up.
Gravity is far from magical. All of it's properties including orbital mechanics and tides can be derived from the equasion F=(mMg)/d2.
It keeps the oceans from sliding off because there is no downward force for it to fight against, it does in fact pull in the Moon but the Moon's momentum keeps it in a doable orbit, Mercury is being pulled far stronger then Pluto but it's also moving many times faster so the additional centripetal force can fight against the stronger gravity to create a stable orbit, ect. I have personally programmed a basic orbital simulator and given only Newtonian laws of motion and gravity I can make a virtual ship get into various orbits and follow orbital mechanics.
There are actually many flat earthers that use magical forces such as aether as a magical explenation and they donNt have any math behind it at all. If your own point is any indication flat Earth theory is false.
-
I have never read any convincing evidence to support all the things that the theory of gravity is supposed to be responsible for. All the equations regarding gravity were easy to come up with, since modern scientists already knew the results they wanted and worked their way backwards. It seems to me that this argument will soon become irrelevant in any case once the great scientific minds of our day achieve their new goal of "proving" our universe is just a hologram.
-
once the great scientific minds of our day achieve their new goal of "proving" our universe is just a hologram.
Really?
-
I have never read any convincing evidence to support all the things that the theory of gravity is supposed to be responsible for. All the equations regarding gravity were easy to come up with, since modern scientists already knew the results they wanted and worked their way backwards. It seems to me that this argument will soon become irrelevant in any case once the great scientific minds of our day achieve their new goal of "proving" our universe is just a hologram.
Refer to the quote in my forum signature. "Science is not to prove yourself right, but to make you right." Scientists have no emd goal other then understanding how the universe works. Hologram universe is just one of many hypothisises and the goal of science is not to prove it but to learn if it's correct or not.
You are right in that gravity was post-dicted by observation, but even ignoring all experiments on Earth proving gravity what was found is extremely convincing. Here I will give you a brief history of gravity:
For thousands of years it was known that Earth was round (even in the days before science there were few people so gullible that they believed Earth was flat) and it was thought that it was the center of the universe with everything orbiting it in a model first proposed by Socrates. That model didn't confirm with observations though and eventually it had to be modified very heavily to the extent that it was horrifically complicated. Then Copernicus proposed that the sun was the center and the planets orbited it, and this model matched observations amazingly and was much simpler then the geocentric model. Then Keppler compared the most precise observations of the time with the model and he found a bit of inconsistency, and after a lot of trial and error he learned that observations are matched perfectly if the orbits are slightly elliptic and that's when he came up with his laws of planetary motion. After that Newton figured out that a force that is proportional to mass and falls off over distance the same way that light does then he could derive Keppler's laws of planetary motion and at the same time his equasion explained why things fall as fast as they do. After that there were many experiments done to measure gravity in labs and they were successful. Now space ships use our knowlage of gravity and orbital mechanics to navigate around the solar system.
-
The concept of gravity seems to be the magic bullet explanation for all that science can not explain. Yes, dropping an object will cause it to fall. Simple enough, but gravity then goes on to become the glue that holds all the pieces together in the current scientific round earth model. This force is strong enough to keep the oceans from sliding down to the south pole, but not so strong as to pull the moon down to earth.
What would make the oceans "slide down to the south pole"? What makes south "down", and with respect to what? Do you think this because we traditionally orient our maps that way? Which way was "down" to the oceans before the first map was drawn?
The Moon is being pulled toward earth. If the Moon weren't being pulled toward earth, it would have gone flying off, never to be seen again, long ago.
The Sun which is supposed to have such a massive gravitational pull and is powerful enough to cause Pluto to orbit around it, is somehow not powerful enough to pull Mercury close enough to get sucked in.
Mercury is in orbit around the Sun. The Sun's gravity keeps it in orbit. Why would it get "sucked in"?
And then we are supposed to believe how gravity works with concepts such as normal force where you are standing because gravity is pushing you down, but the earth is "pushing" you back up.
What's hard to believe? Do you think you should get slurped into the earth if you're standing on solid ground? If you step off a cliff or tall building, you do get "sucked toward" the center of the Earth until you encounter something solid (or a liquid dense enough, like water, where you have enough buoyancy so you stop).
I have never read any convincing evidence to support all the things that the theory of gravity is supposed to be responsible for.
I can't argue with this. As far as I know, based mostly on your earlier post and this one, you've have never read anything factual about gravity, which would make your statement true.
All the equations regarding gravity were easy to come up with, since modern scientists already knew the results they wanted and worked their way backwards.
They were? Which "modern scientists" are you referring to? Einstein? His model of gravity was hardly "easy to come up with". It's still difficult to understand by most people, even today. Or did you mean, say, Newton and Kepler? Newton's formulas for gravity are simple and elegant, but deducing them was not easy.
As I say, I can't argue with your first statement since you seem to have read (or comprehended, if you did happen to see the words and symbols) nothing.
It seems to me that this argument will soon become irrelevant in any case once the great scientific minds of our day achieve their new goal of "proving" our universe is just a hologram.
Until then, we'll stick with what works well explaining what we see and measure, and accurately predicts what will happen.
-
If the force of gravity is constantly pulling my body towards the center of the earth as you claim is its nature, the ground is the only thing keeping me from being sucked into the core. Yet, our Sun with a much much much bigger gravitational pull doesn't try and constantly suck planets into its center, instead it keeps them just so neatly orbiting around itself and there is no barrier between the planets and the surface of the sun. In one instance gravity pulls things toward the center of an object because of its great mass, and in another case it simply keeps them just close enough for comfort and no more.
-
If the force of gravity is constantly pulling my body towards the center of the earth as you claim is its nature, the ground is the only thing keeping me from being sucked into the core. Yet, our Sun with a much much much bigger gravitational pull doesn't try and constantly suck planets into its center, instead it keeps them just so neatly orbiting around itself and there is no barrier between the planets and the surface of the sun. In one instance gravity pulls things toward the center of an object because of its great mass, and in another case it simply keeps them just close enough for comfort and no more.
You actually are being pulled by the Sun, but you don't notice because the Earth is being pulled at the exact same rate. Gravity effects everything, including the Earth and you, and your mass doesn't effect how fast things fall which you can easily test yourself. Because gravity reduces with distance the close up but comparatively light Earth is pulling you harder then the distant massive Sun, and this gravity is what keeps the Earth in orbit.
We find ourselves on a planet the perfect distance from the Sun simply because if it weren't the perfect distance then we wouldn't find ourselves here in the first place, so it's really no surprise.
Here is a great gravity simulator you can play with that's a lot better then the basic one I made: https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/my-solar-system/my-solar-system_en.html (https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/my-solar-system/my-solar-system_en.html)
Hopefully this will help you understand orbits a bit better ;)
-
Now that we got that out of the way, how much sense does the flat earth sun and moon orbit make? What keeps them in their path?
-
Now that we got that out of the way, how much sense does the flat earth sun and moon orbit make? What keeps them in their path?
Could it be some sort of Quantum Levitation?
(http://)
-
Could it be some sort of Quantum Levitation?
(http://)
Last I checked the Sun wasn't super cold.
-
Newtonian Gravity calculations can not even explain how Mercury orbits the sun. lol. They actually teach this stuff at school.
-
Newtonian Gravity calculations can not even explain how Mercury orbits the sun. lol. They actually teach this stuff at school.
Are you saying Mercury's orbit can't be calculated? You are aware of General Relativity are you not?
In any event what school teaches General Relativity? Last I heard you need a good grasp of tensor calculus, which is far too advanced for high school.
You need several years of university undergraduate heavy beer drinking to understand the equations. ( At least that bit I remember ) The rest is a bit fuzzy.
-
Newtonian Gravity calculations can not even explain how Mercury orbits the sun. lol. They actually teach this stuff at school.
Are you saying Mercury's orbit can't be calculated? You are aware of General Relativity are you not?
In any event what school teaches General Relativity? Last I heard you need a good grasp of tensor calculus, which is far too advanced for high school.
You need several years of university undergraduate heavy beer drinking to understand the equations. ( At least that bit I remember ) The rest is a bit fuzzy.
Neil deGrasse Tyson said on a show I watched just a few hours ago that Mercury's obit can not be calculated. Are you calling him a liar? Maybe you think you are smarter than him?
-
If the force of gravity is constantly pulling my body towards the center of the earth as you claim is its nature, the ground is the only thing keeping me from being sucked into the core.
What's your speed relative to the center of the Earth? Is it fast enough to remain in free-fall continuously?
Here's a nice summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball) of what's needed.
Newtonian Gravity calculations can not even explain how Mercury orbits the sun. lol. They actually teach this stuff at school.
Yet, our Sun with a much much much bigger gravitational pull doesn't try and constantly suck planets into its center
What do you mean "doesn't try"?
instead it keeps them just so neatly orbiting around itself and there is no barrier between the planets and the surface of the sun.
It's the velocity with respect to each other and distance between them that causes that to happen.
In one instance gravity pulls things toward the center of an object because of its great mass, and in another case it simply keeps them just close enough for comfort and no more.
Nope. In both cases gravity pulls things toward the center of an object. In fact, in all cases this happens. If another object's velocity is low enough, which depends on the masses of the attracting bodies and the distance between them they'll orbit each other. If the velocity is too high, they'll escape from each other; too low and either is of non-zero size, they'll physically interact and no longer orbit.
Do you care to define "comfort"?
-
Newtonian Gravity calculations can not even explain how Mercury orbits the sun. lol. They actually teach this stuff at school.
Are you saying Mercury's orbit can't be calculated? You are aware of General Relativity are you not?
In any event what school teaches General Relativity? Last I heard you need a good grasp of tensor calculus, which is far too advanced for high school.
You need several years of university undergraduate heavy beer drinking to understand the equations. ( At least that bit I remember ) The rest is a bit fuzzy.
Neil deGrasse Tyson said on a show I watched just a few hours ago that Mercury's obit can not be calculated. Are you calling him a liar? Maybe you think you are smarter than him?
In this case I suspect you misunderstood what he said, the precession of Mercury's orbit is a well known example of where relativistic corrections are required, it is used often as a good proof of the accuracy of Einstein's GR You can google "Calculation of the orbit of Mercury" for yourself and read a few of the papers.
-
Newtonian Gravity calculations can not even explain how Mercury orbits the sun. lol. They actually teach this stuff at school.
Are you saying Mercury's orbit can't be calculated? You are aware of General Relativity are you not?
In any event what school teaches General Relativity? Last I heard you need a good grasp of tensor calculus, which is far too advanced for high school.
You need several years of university undergraduate heavy beer drinking to understand the equations. ( At least that bit I remember ) The rest is a bit fuzzy.
Neil deGrasse Tyson said on a show I watched just a few hours ago that Mercury's obit can not be calculated. Are you calling him a liar? Maybe you think you are smarter than him?
I'm not going to call anyone a liar based solely on what you say they said.
The chances that you misunderstood or are intentionally misrepresenting what was actually said are quite high. Can you provide an accurate transcript of exactly what he said, in context? Or did he really say "obit", in which case you're probably right in this case.
Thanks.
-
Newtonian Gravity calculations can not even explain how Mercury orbits the sun. lol. They actually teach this stuff at school.
Are you saying Mercury's orbit can't be calculated? You are aware of General Relativity are you not?
In any event what school teaches General Relativity? Last I heard you need a good grasp of tensor calculus, which is far too advanced for high school.
You need several years of university undergraduate heavy beer drinking to understand the equations. ( At least that bit I remember ) The rest is a bit fuzzy.
Neil deGrasse Tyson said on a show I watched just a few hours ago that Mercury's obit can not be calculated. Are you calling him a liar? Maybe you think you are smarter than him?
I'm not going to call anyone a liar based solely on what you say they said.
The chances that you misunderstood or are intentionally misrepresenting what was actually said are quite high. Can you provide an accurate transcript of exactly what he said, in context? Or did he really say "obit", in which case you're probably right in this case.
Thanks.
I am at work right now, but I can look up the exact name and episode I was watching on Netflix when I get home. It was one of those shows where he treats the viewer like they are all idiots and do not even know what a star is. He was probably just trying to explain gravity in his usual condescending tone when he said it, but I can assure you that he said what I paraphrased.
-
Newtonian Gravity calculations can not even explain how Mercury orbits the sun. lol. They actually teach this stuff at school.
Are you saying Mercury's orbit can't be calculated? You are aware of General Relativity are you not?
In any event what school teaches General Relativity? Last I heard you need a good grasp of tensor calculus, which is far too advanced for high school.
You need several years of university undergraduate heavy beer drinking to understand the equations. ( At least that bit I remember ) The rest is a bit fuzzy.
Neil deGrasse Tyson said on a show I watched just a few hours ago that Mercury's obit can not be calculated. Are you calling him a liar? Maybe you think you are smarter than him?
I'm not going to call anyone a liar based solely on what you say they said.
The chances that you misunderstood or are intentionally misrepresenting what was actually said are quite high. Can you provide an accurate transcript of exactly what he said, in context? Or did he really say "obit", in which case you're probably right in this case.
Thanks.
I am at work right now, but I can look up the exact name and episode I was watching on Netflix when I get home. It was one of those shows where he treats the viewer like they are all idiots and do not even know what a star is. He was probably just trying to explain gravity in his usual condescending tone when he said it, but I can assure you that he said what I paraphrased.
Don't bother, you can watch this instead.
! No longer available (http://#)
He confirms what I posted earlier. Sorry, jroa you must have misheard.
-
If the force of gravity is constantly pulling my body towards the center of the earth as you claim is its nature, the ground is the only thing keeping me from being sucked into the core. Yet, our Sun with a much much much bigger gravitational pull doesn't try and constantly suck planets into its center, instead it keeps them just so neatly orbiting around itself and there is no barrier between the planets and the surface of the sun. In one instance gravity pulls things toward the center of an object because of its great mass, and in another case it simply keeps them just close enough for comfort and no more.
No. The planets are going too fast to be sucked in. You can do the experiment with marbles and a sink. If you push the marbles fast enough, instead of plummeting straight into the sink, they will spiral down into it. Of course, they eventually get sucked into the sink, but that's because it's not a perfect experiment, as we can't perfectly simulate the gravitational attraction of the sun and the vacuum of space using a sink.
-
As I understand it, the current theory of how planets are in orbit around the sun is that they are being sucked toward the sun constantly, however they are supposed to be traveling so fast that their speed counteracts this effect. If this is to be true, then each planet must be traveling faster then the one before it to escape being pulled closer to the sun. Now what about satellites and space probes? These are way smaller than any planet and yet seem to be immune to being pulled towards the sun. How am I to believe that the sun is locked in a constant tug of war struggle with a planet the size and distance of Jupiter, meanwhile we can send a couple (minuscule in comparison) space probes to mercury with no worries they will be pulled away and into the sun. It just doesn't add up.
-
As I understand it, the current theory of how planets are in orbit around the sun is that they are being sucked toward the sun constantly, however they are supposed to be traveling so fast that their speed counteracts this effect. If this is to be true, then each planet must be traveling faster then the one before it to escape being pulled closer to the sun. Now what about satellites and space probes? These are way smaller than any planet and yet seem to be immune to being pulled towards the sun. How am I to believe that the sun is locked in a constant tug of war struggle with a planet the size and distance of Jupiter, meanwhile we can send a couple (minuscule in comparison) space probes to mercury with no worries they will be pulled away and into the sun. It just doesn't add up.
Space Probes and Satellites are not pulled by the sun because, I think, they are already moving at the same velocity the planets do.
-
Mercury travels at about 112,000 mph. Are you claiming the probes that explored that planet traveled at that speed?
-
Mercury travels at about 112,000 mph. Are you claiming the probes that explored that planet traveled at that speed?
They did not go from 0 to 112.000mph as you think.
112.000mph is 50km/s.
The orbital velocity of earth is 30km/s so they were already moving at that speed.
The deltaV would be 50-30=20km/s in change of velocity of the probe.
That 20km/s can be achieved with the rocket dV(change in velocity) and a gravitational slingshot on a body such as earth.
Although, It could be less if you have a calculated a trajectory that makes costs less speed to reach there.
-
As I understand it, the current theory of how planets are in orbit around the sun is that they are being sucked toward the sun constantly, however they are supposed to be traveling so fast that their speed counteracts this effect. If this is to be true, then each planet must be traveling faster then the one before it to escape being pulled closer to the sun. Now what about satellites and space probes? These are way smaller than any planet and yet seem to be immune to being pulled towards the sun. How am I to believe that the sun is locked in a constant tug of war struggle with a planet the size and distance of Jupiter, meanwhile we can send a couple (minuscule in comparison) space probes to mercury with no worries they will be pulled away and into the sun. It just doesn't add up.
Keep your mind open and working like that, you're doing a very good job.
-
New Horizons clocked in at about 37,000 mph, but Voyager 1 reached 38,350 mph leaving our solar system. These two are cited as the fastest of all our space probes. This is especially odd since they both achieved this feat going the opposite direction of our sun. One would expect that the fastest probe speed would be achieved by one of the crafts that explored Mercury, since they would have the additional benefit of increased speed as they accelerated towards the sun.
38,350 is impressive, but it is no where near the 112,000 to keep up with Mercury. To orbit Mercury, a probe would be required to be moving the same speed as the planet, and at the same exact time be accelerating against the gravitational pull of our sun to avoid getting sucked in.
-
New Horizons clocked in at about 37,000 mph, but Voyager 1 reached 38,350 mph leaving our solar system. These two are cited as the fastest of all our space probes. This is especially odd since they both achieved this feat going the opposite direction of our sun. One would expect that the fastest probe speed would be achieved by one of the crafts that explored Mercury, since they would have the additional benefit of increased speed as they accelerated towards the sun.
38,350 is impressive, but it is no where near the 112,000 to keep up with Mercury. To orbit Mercury, a probe would be required to be moving the same speed as the planet, and at the same exact time be accelerating against the gravitational pull of our sun to avoid getting sucked in.
Maybe you need to play this to better understand how orbits work: http://store.steampowered.com/app/343090/?l=dutch (http://store.steampowered.com/app/343090/?l=dutch)
Or you can watch this video about orbital mechanics: (http://)
Oh and about the mercury thing, we are not in a race with it. Probes and the like are usually ahead of it and as soon as it catches up with the probes we try to create and orbit. Once in orbit, the probes are indeed going at 112.000 mph relative to the sun.
-
New Horizons clocked in at about 37,000 mph, but Voyager 1 reached 38,350 mph leaving our solar system. These two are cited as the fastest of all our space probes. This is especially odd since they both achieved this feat going the opposite direction of our sun. One would expect that the fastest probe speed would be achieved by one of the crafts that explored Mercury, since they would have the additional benefit of increased speed as they accelerated towards the sun.
38,350 is impressive, but it is no where near the 112,000 to keep up with Mercury. To orbit Mercury, a probe would be required to be moving the same speed as the planet, and at the same exact time be accelerating against the gravitational pull of our sun to avoid getting sucked in.
You are very ill informed. Not only is Voyager 1 NOT the fastest space probe (the Helios 2 holds that title, that reached a top speed of 157,000mph), but a brief google search reveals that MESSENGER, which orbited Mercury, reached a top speed of more than 140,000mph. Voyager 1 is probably mentioned often because it reached the fastest speed while ascending in its orbit, rather than descending.
The easiest way to learn about orbital mechanics is to play the game Kerbal Space Program. It's fun, educative, and the basic principles of orbital mechanics are quite accurate, even though the solar system isn't to scale, to make the gameplay easier.
-
I appreciate both of your suggestions, but at the end of the day these are video games. Simulations that could be programmed with any physics the game designer wanted. Assuming that the probes safely reached Mercury and then were pulled into that planets orbit, how could these probes have stopped themselves from being pulled into the sun?
-
New Horizons clocked in at about 37,000 mph, but Voyager 1 reached 38,350 mph leaving our solar system. These two are cited as the fastest of all our space probes. This is especially odd since they both achieved this feat going the opposite direction of our sun. One would expect that the fastest probe speed would be achieved by one of the crafts that explored Mercury, since they would have the additional benefit of increased speed as they accelerated towards the sun.
38,350 is impressive, but it is no where near the 112,000 to keep up with Mercury. To orbit Mercury, a probe would be required to be moving the same speed as the planet, and at the same exact time be accelerating against the gravitational pull of our sun to avoid getting sucked in.
That depends on what you measure your velocity relative to. There is no preferred frame of reference so there is no absolute measure of speed.
-
New Horizons clocked in at about 37,000 mph, but Voyager 1 reached 38,350 mph leaving our solar system. These two are cited as the fastest of all our space probes. This is especially odd since they both achieved this feat going the opposite direction of our sun. One would expect that the fastest probe speed would be achieved by one of the crafts that explored Mercury, since they would have the additional benefit of increased speed as they accelerated towards the sun.
38,350 is impressive, but it is no where near the 112,000 to keep up with Mercury. To orbit Mercury, a probe would be required to be moving the same speed as the planet, and at the same exact time be accelerating against the gravitational pull of our sun to avoid getting sucked in.
That depends on what you measure your velocity relative to. There is no preferred frame of reference so there is no absolute measure of speed.
I think that 112.00 mph he talks about is relative to the sun. And as i said earlier, you need the planet to catch up with you, not the other way around.
-
New Horizons clocked in at about 37,000 mph, but Voyager 1 reached 38,350 mph leaving our solar system. These two are cited as the fastest of all our space probes. This is especially odd since they both achieved this feat going the opposite direction of our sun. One would expect that the fastest probe speed would be achieved by one of the crafts that explored Mercury, since they would have the additional benefit of increased speed as they accelerated towards the sun.
38,350 is impressive, but it is no where near the 112,000 to keep up with Mercury. To orbit Mercury, a probe would be required to be moving the same speed as the planet, and at the same exact time be accelerating against the gravitational pull of our sun to avoid getting sucked in.
That depends on what you measure your velocity relative to. There is no preferred frame of reference so there is no absolute measure of speed.
I think that 112.00 mph he talks about is relative to the sun. And as i said earlier, you need the planet to catch up with you, not the other way around.
There was a probe that visited Mercury, and if you are right then it is in fact the fastest probe. I thing the measured it's velocity relative to Mercury.
Technically you are going nearly the speed of light relative to solar particles, so "the fastest space probe" is not really a very noteworthy title.
-
For arguments sake, lets say the probe reaches the orbital path of Mercury, puts on its brakes, and just waits for the planet to catch up to it.
All measures of speed aside, how are these probes able to avoid falling prey to the gravitational pull of the sun?
-
For arguments sake, lets say the probe reaches the orbital path of Mercury, puts on its brakes, and just waits for the planet to catch up to it.
All measures of speed aside, how are these probes able to avoid falling prey to the gravitational pull of the sun?
Well space probes don't do that. Space breaks (that don't use a ton of fuel fuel) are not a real thing and they violate countless laws of physics. A space craft approaching mercury does it by putting it's self in a curse that intersects Mercury's orbit and it's timed so Mercury and the space craft meet there at the same time.
The space probe avoids falling into the Sun because of it's velocity, it is in orbit like the planets which in layman's terms means it has enough speed that the centripetal force of it going around the Sun cancels out gravity.
-
For arguments sake, lets say the probe reaches the orbital path of Mercury, puts on its brakes, and just waits for the planet to catch up to it.
All measures of speed aside, how are these probes able to avoid falling prey to the gravitational pull of the sun?
Brakes are not needed. It just needs to wait for mercury to catch up with it.
And they already falling prey to the gravitational pull of the sun. Because it has an orbit around the sun so it can get to mercury in the first place.
-
I appreciate both of your suggestions, but at the end of the day these are video games. Simulations that could be programmed with any physics the game designer wanted. Assuming that the probes safely reached Mercury and then were pulled into that planets orbit, how could these probes have stopped themselves from being pulled into the sun?
How does the moon avoid being pulled into the Earth? ;)
-
I appreciate both of your suggestions, but at the end of the day these are video games. Simulations that could be programmed with any physics the game designer wanted. Assuming that the probes safely reached Mercury and then were pulled into that planets orbit, how could these probes have stopped themselves from being pulled into the sun?
How does the moon avoid being pulled into the Earth? ;)
Exactly. How does it? Every moon, planet, satellite, and probe is conveniently always moving at the exact speed it needs to be to avoid being a victim of gravity. According to science gravity is the force that does whatever we need it to do.
-
I appreciate both of your suggestions, but at the end of the day these are video games. Simulations that could be programmed with any physics the game designer wanted. Assuming that the probes safely reached Mercury and then were pulled into that planets orbit, how could these probes have stopped themselves from being pulled into the sun?
How does the moon avoid being pulled into the Earth? ;)
Exactly. How does it? Every moon, planet, satellite, and probe is conveniently always moving at the exact speed it needs to be to avoid being a victim of gravity. According to science gravity is the force that does whatever we need it to do.
Yes, it does seem like a catch all excuse. If a calculation does not work, all you have to do is sprinkle a little dark energy or dark matter onto the equation and voila, the equation works now. lol
-
Haha
-
I appreciate both of your suggestions, but at the end of the day these are video games. Simulations that could be programmed with any physics the game designer wanted. Assuming that the probes safely reached Mercury and then were pulled into that planets orbit, how could these probes have stopped themselves from being pulled into the sun?
How does the moon avoid being pulled into the Earth? ;)
Exactly. How does it? Every moon, planet, satellite, and probe is conveniently always moving at the exact speed it needs to be to avoid being a victim of gravity. According to science gravity is the force that does whatever we need it to do.
Almost everything that wasn't moving at the right speed has already crashed into us or into the other planets. The rest are simply what was moving at the right speed. You know, kinda like natural selection.
It also has to do with the fact that it's not that hard at all for an object to have the right speed to get into an orbit. And no jroa, no dark energy is needed for any of the orbits of the planets etc.
-
Magnetism. Duh.
How does the moon avoid being pulled into the Earth? ;)
The magnetism between 3 magnetic objects (the earth, the sun and the moon) is a giant perpetual motion machine. It is that simple.
Note to honest folks:
Do not let the liars off the hook. They are deliberately hiding the truth about torsional magnetic oscillation science so that the world can not understand what is obvious to plain sight.
-
I appreciate both of your suggestions, but at the end of the day these are video games. Simulations that could be programmed with any physics the game designer wanted. Assuming that the probes safely reached Mercury and then were pulled into that planets orbit, how could these probes have stopped themselves from being pulled into the sun?
How does the moon avoid being pulled into the Earth? ;)
Exactly. How does it? Every moon, planet, satellite, and probe is conveniently always moving at the exact speed it needs to be to avoid being a victim of gravity. According to science gravity is the force that does whatever we need it to do.
You know when they say that its constantly falling? Well that's because it is. Objects in an orbit are falling just as fast as the planet curves away from it.
If the object is not going fast enough it will crash into the planet because it falls faster than the planet curves away from it.
It is technically rocket science but trust me, it is not that difficult to understand.
-
Magnetism. Duh.
How does the moon avoid being pulled into the Earth? ;)
The magnetism between 3 magnetic objects (the earth, the sun and the moon) is a giant perpetual motion machine. It is that simple.
Note to honest folks:
Do not let the liars off the hook. They are deliberately hiding the truth about torsional magnetic oscillation science so that the world can not understand what is obvious to plain sight.
Uh... What? I mean, what? Are you drunk?
-
Exactly. How does it? Every moon, planet, satellite, and probe is conveniently always moving at the exact speed it needs to be to avoid being a victim of gravity. According to science gravity is the force that does whatever we need it to do.
Every moon and planet that was not moving at orbital velocity would have crashed long ago, so only the ones in orbit stick around. Space probes are purposely accelerated to the exact velocity required which is known because it can easily be calculated.
-
In the site's FAQ it does say that the earth is accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2
To be fair, that's the same in a lot of ways (in all ways I can think of) as mass slightly attracting each other and the earth being so big relative to us that we're pulled towards it so as to create an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2.
-
In the site's FAQ it does say that the earth is accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2
To be fair, that's the same in a lot of ways (in all ways I can think of) as mass slightly attracting each other and the earth being so big relative to us that we're pulled towards it so as to create an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2.
Only there is something very, very important that flat earthers seem to miss: it is well known that the gravity isn't constant everywhere. And then there also is the Cavendish experiment, that no flat earther has ever managed to debunk, so they just ignore it.
-
In the site's FAQ it does say that the earth is accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2
To be fair, that's the same in a lot of ways (in all ways I can think of) as mass slightly attracting each other and the earth being so big relative to us that we're pulled towards it so as to create an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2.
Only there is something very, very important that flat earthers seem to miss: it is well known that the gravity isn't constant everywhere. And then there also is the Cavendish experiment, that no flat earther has ever managed to debunk, so they just ignore it.
Gravity isn't constant everywhere because it is well known that the theory of gravity is full of holes. This fact is often overlooked by the pious disciples of mainstream science, because if the theory had no holes, it would work so brilliantly. :)
-
I really don't know how any sane person accepts the theory of gravity as it is. Take this educational link from NASA for example: http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/Why_Do_Astronauts_Float.html#.VeZIs_lViko (http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/Why_Do_Astronauts_Float.html#.VeZIs_lViko)
Things float in space because they are actually in a state of freefall. Are you kidding me? Anyone with a brain can see they are not falling, in some cases they are even rising!
Does a balloon rise because it is falling?
Open your eyes people, common sense will tell you it doesn't add up.
-
I really don't know how any sane person accepts the theory of gravity as it is. Take this educational link from NASA for example: http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/Why_Do_Astronauts_Float.html#.VeZIs_lViko (http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/Why_Do_Astronauts_Float.html#.VeZIs_lViko)
Things float in space because they are actually in a state of freefall. Are you kidding me? Anyone with a brain can see they are not falling, in some cases they are even rising!
Does a balloon rise because it is falling?
Open your eyes people, common sense will tell you it doesn't add up.
Why do you feel the need to simplify complex ideas?
-
I didn't simplify anything, I am just posting here what NASA says.
-
I didn't simplify anything, I am just posting here what NASA says.
And then didn't believe it because of "common sense".
-
Exactly.
-
Exactly.
So yes, you are try to over simplify things. If you were moving in a bus with no windows, everyone around you would seem like they are stationary. But we know, they are not.
If everything in the space station is falling, it will seem as if everything is stationary as well. If you simplify complex ideas, they can seem wrong.
-
Exactly.
So yes, you are try to over simplify things. If you were moving in a bus with no windows, everyone around you would seem like they are stationary. But we know, they are not.
If everything in the space station is falling, it will seem as if everything is stationary as well. If you simplify complex ideas, they can seem wrong.
Some ideas are wrong.
In your example of the bus I would perceive everyone around me as stationary. I can agree with that.
Now when it comes to objects floating in space, please explain how I can know that they are falling and not floating.
-
Exactly.
So yes, you are try to over simplify things. If you were moving in a bus with no windows, everyone around you would seem like they are stationary. But we know, they are not.
If everything in the space station is falling, it will seem as if everything is stationary as well. If you simplify complex ideas, they can seem wrong.
Some ideas are wrong.
In your example of the bus I would perceive everyone around me as stationary. I can agree with that.
Now when it comes to objects floating in space, please explain how I can know that they are falling and not floating.
You can't unless you can see the whole picture. That is why you don't want to simplify it.
-
In the site's FAQ it does say that the earth is accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2
To be fair, that's the same in a lot of ways (in all ways I can think of) as mass slightly attracting each other and the earth being so big relative to us that we're pulled towards it so as to create an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2.
Only there is something very, very important that flat earthers seem to miss: it is well known that the gravity isn't constant everywhere. And then there also is the Cavendish experiment, that no flat earther has ever managed to debunk, so they just ignore it.
Gravity isn't constant everywhere because it is well known that the theory of gravity is full of holes. This fact is often overlooked by the pious disciples of mainstream science, because if the theory had no holes, it would work so brilliantly. :)
The acceleration down to earth not being constant everywhere actually means that it's not constant, which means that the Earth can't be accelerating upwards at a constant 9.8 m/s^2.
-
In the site's FAQ it does say that the earth is accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2
To be fair, that's the same in a lot of ways (in all ways I can think of) as mass slightly attracting each other and the earth being so big relative to us that we're pulled towards it so as to create an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2.
Only there is something very, very important that flat earthers seem to miss: it is well known that the gravity isn't constant everywhere. And then there also is the Cavendish experiment, that no flat earther has ever managed to debunk, so they just ignore it.
Gravity isn't constant everywhere because it is well known that the theory of gravity is full of holes. This fact is often overlooked by the pious disciples of mainstream science, because if the theory had no holes, it would work so brilliantly. :)
No. You don't understand. The irregularity of gravity in different locations is PREDICTED by the theory of gravity. When you are on a mountain that is 5000 meters high and your friend is on sea level, he is closer to the center of gravity of Earth, so he experiences gravity more intensely. The difference is too little to be easily observable though. It's also known that since the radius of the earth on the equator is larger than its radius on the poles, combined with the (very slight) centrifugal acceleration experienced there, means that there is a slight difference in the acceleration of gravity compared to the poles. Then you've got the fact that the ground is full of caverns or denser minerals etc., which means that if you've got an accurate enough device, you can actually detect the resulted irregularities of the gravitational field.
-
The moon goes around the Earth. If the theory of gravity were true, it would mean that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the Earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Do you see that happening? if gravity was working on the early Earth, then Earth's gravity would have caused Earth to have been bombarded out of existence with asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space junk being attracted to it. Then there is the question about tides. If the moon's "gravity" were responsible for a bulge underneath the water, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the Earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are two not one high tides every day.
Sun's gravitational pull on the moon is nothing compared to earth's gravitational pull on the moon. Sun has greater mass but also a ridiculously great distance to both the moon and the earth.
True, that's why the theory of gravity is untrue. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. With a mass that much larger than the Earth, common sense should tell you the moon should be orbiting the sun.
yes, this is indeed correct, if you forget that distance also has a lot to do with the strength of gravity on an object
-
And it does orbit the sun. It just "happens" to also orbit the earth. XaeXae posted a link to a very nice simulator. You might wanna check it out.
-
The moon goes around the Earth. If the theory of gravity were true, it would mean that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the Earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Do you see that happening? if gravity was working on the early Earth, then Earth's gravity would have caused Earth to have been bombarded out of existence with asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space junk being attracted to it. Then there is the question about tides. If the moon's "gravity" were responsible for a bulge underneath the water, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the Earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are two not one high tides every day.
Sun's gravitational pull on the moon is nothing compared to earth's gravitational pull on the moon. Sun has greater mass but also a ridiculously great distance to both the moon and the earth.
True, that's why the theory of gravity is untrue. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. With a mass that much larger than the Earth, common sense should tell you the moon should be orbiting the sun.
Do you know what the theory of gravity is?