Do you believe in just about evry astronomical definition, law, or anythign evr?

whats your point?

HELLO!! Calling all FE-ers please come and explain, i am taking your silence as a sign of defeat. Why do you refuse to explain? Can you explain?

DOES THIS PROVE YOU ARE WRONG? no?

IN THAT CASE GIVE MR AN ANSWER....

Here's my answer:  You are irritating to the point of contemptible silence. 

If the stars have a gravitational affect on the sun and the moon it will also have one on the earth.

Assuming the stars pull the earth, the moon and the sun at the same rate. There there would be no net change between the distance from the earth, the moon and the sun.

But seeing as the earth does have its own gravity, therefore would that not pull the moon and the sun towards the earth, which would mean they would eventually collide regardless of the stars???

Do you understand astronomy101 or should i draw you a nice felt tip pen colour picture, like the ones in your nursery?

You're assuming that the earth, the sun and the moon react the same to the "pulling" of the stars. You're wrong.

Here's my answer:  You are irritating to the point of contemptible silence. 

Here is my reply:     You cannot give me a proper answer so you are wrong to the point of laughter.

Quote from: lucky on March 01, 2007, 11:56:19 PM

If the stars have a gravitational affect on the sun and the moon it will also have one on the earth.

Assuming the stars pull the earth, the moon and the sun at the same rate. There there would be no net change between the distance from the earth, the moon and the sun.

But seeing as the earth does have its own gravity, therefore would that not pull the moon and the sun towards the earth, which would mean they would eventually collide regardless of the stars???

Do you understand astronomy101 or should i draw you a nice felt tip pen colour picture, like the ones in your nursery?

You're assuming that the earth, the sun and the moon react the same to the "pulling" of the stars. You're wrong.

No, you see Asterisque, assuming if the moon the sun and the earth react the same to the "pulling" of the stars, YOU ARE WRONG.

Because the moon the earth and the sun will also have a pull regardless of the stars. So why has the earth not crashed into the moon or sun?

Will this is just a wild guess, but i would say because the earth is spherical.

Do ant of you FE-ers care to elaborate on that. OR  will just not reply and in your silence admit defeat?

Quote from: lucky on March 01, 2007, 11:56:19 PM

If the stars have a gravitational affect on the sun and the moon it will also have one on the earth.

Assuming the stars pull the earth, the moon and the sun at the same rate. There there would be no net change between the distance from the earth, the moon and the sun.

But seeing as the earth does have its own gravity, therefore would that not pull the moon and the sun towards the earth, which would mean they would eventually collide regardless of the stars???

Do you understand astronomy101 or should i draw you a nice felt tip pen colour picture, like the ones in your nursery?

You're assuming that the earth, the sun and the moon react the same to the "pulling" of the stars. You're wrong.

The "Pulling", or gravity, is the same for all matter. The sun, moon, stars, and earth are all made of matter, and they all have a gravitational pull. Proof? For earth, there is gravity since we seem to "fall" towards it. The moon's gravity is seen in the ocean tides. The sun has a gravitational field since we orbit around it, and the sun also influences the tides to a degree. For the stars, look outside on a clear night and try to find the milky way "strip" of stars. Without gravity, stars would not form into galaxies. Also, look at the Andromeda galaxy, see how the star's gravity pulled it into the spiral galaxy that is so easy to spot? Oh and also, without gravity, stars, planets, everything we see would not form like it did, and the universe would be radically different.

Because the moon the earth and the sun will also have a pull regardless of the stars. So why has the earth not crashed into the moon or sun?

Will this is just a wild guess, but i would say because the earth is spherical.

You're actually saying that the Earth and the Sun are not crashing together because the Earth is "spherical" ?

The "Pulling", or gravity, is the same for all matter. The sun, moon, stars, and earth are all made of matter, and they all have a gravitational pull. Proof? For earth, there is gravity since we seem to "fall" towards it. The moon's gravity is seen in the ocean tides. The sun has a gravitational field since we orbit around it, and the sun also influences the tides to a degree. For the stars, look outside on a clear night and try to find the milky way "strip" of stars. Without gravity, stars would not form into galaxies. Also, look at the Andromeda galaxy, see how the star's gravity pulled it into the spiral galaxy that is so easy to spot? Oh and also, without gravity, stars, planets, everything we see would not form like it did, and the universe would be radically different.

No. We don't "fall" towards Earth, it's moving towards us. I understand that, in physics, it's the same and exact thing, but it's no "proof" that the Earth has a gravitational pull.

You could easily proove that Earth had a gravitaional pull by suspending two large lumps of it on wires and measuring the distance by which they are pulled towards one another. If you did this with all known elements that occur naturally on earth then there you have your proof.

You could easily proove that Earth had a gravitaional pull by suspending two large lumps of it on wires and measuring the distance by which they are pulled towards one another. If you did this with all known elements that occur naturally on earth then there you have your proof.

Have you read about the Tamarack Mine experiments?

Quote from: TheDoctor on March 02, 2007, 08:41:45 AM

The "Pulling", or gravity, is the same for all matter. The sun, moon, stars, and earth are all made of matter, and they all have a gravitational pull. Proof? For earth, there is gravity since we seem to "fall" towards it. The moon's gravity is seen in the ocean tides. The sun has a gravitational field since we orbit around it, and the sun also influences the tides to a degree. For the stars, look outside on a clear night and try to find the milky way "strip" of stars. Without gravity, stars would not form into galaxies. Also, look at the Andromeda galaxy, see how the star's gravity pulled it into the spiral galaxy that is so easy to spot? Oh and also, without gravity, stars, planets, everything we see would not form like it did, and the universe would be radically different.

No. We don't "fall" towards Earth, it's moving towards us. I understand that, in physics, it's the same and exact thing, but it's no "proof" that the Earth has a gravitational pull.

So you think the earth has no gravitational pull?

But it obviously has a mass, and therefore it has to be affected by a gravitational field. Therefore it has a gravitational pull.

This is one of the most basic laws that gravity is a property of mass. Do all FE-ers dispute this law?

Quote from: lucky on March 02, 2007, 08:38:07 AM

Because the moon the earth and the sun will also have a pull regardless of the stars. So why has the earth not crashed into the moon or sun?

Will this is just a wild guess, but i would say because the earth is spherical.

You're actually saying that the Earth and the Sun are not crashing together because the Earth is "spherical" ?

What i am saying here is the standard model of the earth for RE-ers is spherical and in this model the earth orbits the sun. It is this orbit, which produces a centrifugal force between the earth and the sun that stops the earth crashing into the sun and the centripetal force stopping earth flying past the sun.

So you think the earth has no gravitational pull?

I think you're mistaking the upwards thrust of the Earth for a "gravitational pull".

What i am saying here is the standard model of the earth for RE-ers is spherical and in this model the earth orbits the sun. It is this orbit, which produces a centrifugal force between the earth and the sun that stops the earth crashing into the sun and the centripetal force stopping earth flying past the sun.

We agree on this, in your so-called "standard model".

So you are saying the earth has no gravitional pull?

Therefore the earth would have no gravity due to mass.

That would mean that the earth is completely uneffected by gravity.

As gravity is the force between two masses in the universe, the earth does not have a mass then?


Well, according to FE-ers...

Think that it was mentioned before, but gravity is WAY different that acceleration.

No, i did think you were an RE-er, my explaination was for asterisque who believes the earth has no gravity due to mass. Which is absurd. I mean at least give yourself a fighting chance by saying we feel "gravity" beause the earth is accelerating upwards coupled with its gravity due to mass. That makes the net acceleration 9.81 ms^-2.

No, i did think you were an RE-er, my explaination was for asterisque who believes the earth has no gravity due to mass. Which is absurd. I mean at least give yourself a fighting chance by saying we feel "gravity" beause the earth is accelerating upwards coupled with its gravity due to mass. That makes the net acceleration 9.81 ms^-2.

Yes, sorry 'bout that, thought you were quouting me there for a second, but I realize my mistake now.

Quote from: Astérisque on March 02, 2007, 08:09:12 AM

Quote from: lucky on March 01, 2007, 11:56:19 PM

If the stars have a gravitational affect on the sun and the moon it will also have one on the earth.

Assuming the stars pull the earth, the moon and the sun at the same rate. There there would be no net change between the distance from the earth, the moon and the sun.

But seeing as the earth does have its own gravity, therefore would that not pull the moon and the sun towards the earth, which would mean they would eventually collide regardless of the stars???

Do you understand astronomy101 or should i draw you a nice felt tip pen colour picture, like the ones in your nursery?

You're assuming that the earth, the sun and the moon react the same to the "pulling" of the stars. You're wrong.

The "Pulling", or gravity, is the same for all matter. The sun, moon, stars, and earth are all made of matter, and they all have a gravitational pull. Proof? For earth, there is gravity since we seem to "fall" towards it. The moon's gravity is seen in the ocean tides. The sun has a gravitational field since we orbit around it, and the sun also influences the tides to a degree. For the stars, look outside on a clear night and try to find the milky way "strip" of stars. Without gravity, stars would not form into galaxies. Also, look at the Andromeda galaxy, see how the star's gravity pulled it into the spiral galaxy that is so easy to spot? Oh and also, without gravity, stars, planets, everything we see would not form like it did, and the universe would be radically different.

Equivalence Principle.

As gravity is the force between two masses in the universe...

So how does gravity influence things without mass?

Quote from: lucky on March 02, 2007, 10:16:02 AM

As gravity is the force between two masses in the universe...

So how does gravity influence things without mass?

Gravity can bend light, like when the powerful pull of a black hole does not let even light escape. Also, the sun bends starlight, during a solar eclipse you can see how the sun's gravity bends the starlight that goes around it. The less mass an object has, the less gravity affects it.

But lucky was claiming gravity was a force between masses.

No, i did think you were an RE-er, my explaination was for asterisque who believes the earth has no gravity due to mass. Which is absurd. I mean at least give yourself a fighting chance by saying we feel "gravity" beause the earth is accelerating upwards coupled with its gravity due to mass. That makes the net acceleration 9.81 ms^-2.

What causes gravity?  Mass?  Then why doesn't General Relativity play nicely with Quantum Mechanics?

Quote from: lucky on March 02, 2007, 10:25:29 AM

No, i did think you were an RE-er, my explaination was for asterisque who believes the earth has no gravity due to mass. Which is absurd. I mean at least give yourself a fighting chance by saying we feel "gravity" beause the earth is accelerating upwards coupled with its gravity due to mass. That makes the net acceleration 9.81 ms^-2.

What causes gravity?  Mass?  Then why doesn't General Relativity play nicely with Quantum Mechanics?

Quantum mechanics deals with really small particles, smaller than an atom, quarks. General relativity deals with big things, like planets and galaxies. It's hard to put these two theories together, since the small and large world are radically different. The subatomic world is random and chaotic, while the large world is calm and predictable. For example, a quark has a 2/5 chance to be HERE, a 1/9 chance to be THERE, a 1/10000 chance to be NEAR and THERE at the same time, and so on, very chaotic, literraly impossible to predict. Planets and stars are not like that, they are easily predicable. Jupiter can only be in one place, not THERE and HERE

Actually, Jupiter can be everywhere at once.

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on March 02, 2007, 02:17:33 PM

Quote from: lucky on March 02, 2007, 10:25:29 AM

No, i did think you were an RE-er, my explaination was for asterisque who believes the earth has no gravity due to mass. Which is absurd. I mean at least give yourself a fighting chance by saying we feel "gravity" beause the earth is accelerating upwards coupled with its gravity due to mass. That makes the net acceleration 9.81 ms^-2.

What causes gravity?  Mass?  Then why doesn't General Relativity play nicely with Quantum Mechanics?

Quantum mechanics deals with really small particles, smaller than an atom, quarks. General relativity deals with big things, like planets and galaxies. It's hard to put these two theories together, since the small and large world are radically different. The subatomic world is random and chaotic, while the large world is calm and predictable. For example, a quark has a 2/5 chance to be HERE, a 1/9 chance to be THERE, a 1/10000 chance to be NEAR and THERE at the same time, and so on, very chaotic, literraly impossible to predict. Planets and stars are not like that, they are easily predicable. Jupiter can only be in one place, not THERE and HERE

That's all well and good, but what about black holes?  Oops!

^and galactic rotation and distribution?

Quote from: TheDoctor on March 02, 2007, 03:26:39 PM

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on March 02, 2007, 02:17:33 PM

Quote from: lucky on March 02, 2007, 10:25:29 AM

No, i did think you were an RE-er, my explaination was for asterisque who believes the earth has no gravity due to mass. Which is absurd. I mean at least give yourself a fighting chance by saying we feel "gravity" beause the earth is accelerating upwards coupled with its gravity due to mass. That makes the net acceleration 9.81 ms^-2.

What causes gravity?  Mass?  Then why doesn't General Relativity play nicely with Quantum Mechanics?

Quantum mechanics deals with really small particles, smaller than an atom, quarks. General relativity deals with big things, like planets and galaxies. It's hard to put these two theories together, since the small and large world are radically different. The subatomic world is random and chaotic, while the large world is calm and predictable. For example, a quark has a 2/5 chance to be HERE, a 1/9 chance to be THERE, a 1/10000 chance to be NEAR and THERE at the same time, and so on, very chaotic, literraly impossible to predict. Planets and stars are not like that, they are easily predicable. Jupiter can only be in one place, not THERE and HERE

That's all well and good, but what about black holes?  Oops!

Oops? Why oops? Because I didnt mention black holes? Wows, not mentioning black holes cracked the entire round earth theory to pieces, o noes!

Once again you are wrong. The reason that he feels heavier is because air pushing down on him is now an extra variable to gravity pulling down on him. In space, for example, no matter how much you accelerate or how fast you move you will not feel the presence of pressure because there are no forces acting on your body.

I'm sorry but you are a fucking idiot. Peter Griffon looks like a genius next to you!

IF your statement was true then you would NOT feel a gravitational pull backwards while accelerating in a fucking car.

BUT you would feel a gravitational pull while traveling at a constant speed in a fucking motorcycle.

Why? Because the car isolates the passengers from the air outside so you have no air pressure against you while the motorcyclist is subjected to constant air pressure.

Quote from: TheDoctor on March 02, 2007, 03:26:39 PM

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on March 02, 2007, 02:17:33 PM

Quote from: lucky on March 02, 2007, 10:25:29 AM

No, i did think you were an RE-er, my explaination was for asterisque who believes the earth has no gravity due to mass. Which is absurd. I mean at least give yourself a fighting chance by saying we feel "gravity" beause the earth is accelerating upwards coupled with its gravity due to mass. That makes the net acceleration 9.81 ms^-2.

What causes gravity?  Mass?  Then why doesn't General Relativity play nicely with Quantum Mechanics?

Quantum mechanics deals with really small particles, smaller than an atom, quarks. General relativity deals with big things, like planets and galaxies. It's hard to put these two theories together, since the small and large world are radically different. The subatomic world is random and chaotic, while the large world is calm and predictable. For example, a quark has a 2/5 chance to be HERE, a 1/9 chance to be THERE, a 1/10000 chance to be NEAR and THERE at the same time, and so on, very chaotic, literraly impossible to predict. Planets and stars are not like that, they are easily predicable. Jupiter can only be in one place, not THERE and HERE

That's all well and good, but what about black holes?  Oops!

For the sake of being an idiot I have to ask...

Do you mean black holes are a singularity?

Black holes include a singularity.
BTW, with all that complexity about quarks, probability as in previous post, together with other quantum weirdness, singularities and the like,  I think that gives FE a certain latitude in explaining things before RE physics complains about FE requiring a lot of ad hoc explanation.
Personally, I think the apparent wall of ice is a singularity at the South Pole.  If conventional physics can have wormholes and point singularities in black holes, why can't FE have a singularity too?

Black holes include a singularity.
BTW, with all that complexity about quarks, probability as in previous post, together with other quantum weirdness, singularities and the like,  I think that gives FE a certain latitude in explaining things before RE physics complains about FE requiring a lot of ad hoc explanation.
Personally, I think the apparent wall of ice is a singularity at the South Pole.  If conventional physics can have wormholes and point singularities in black holes, why can't FE have a singularity too?

Because RE-ers usually have something called proof.