Disproval of the RE model

So, hey, does anyone have anything that the Round Earth model doesn't explain? Someone mentioned something about dust on oranges, but that showed naught but a horrendous understanding of gravity.

The RE model doesn't fully explain how the Earth was formed or how the moon came to being, but then again neither does the FE model. But a theory that isn't 100% complete doesn't mean that it isn't correct or incorrect. It's a theory that's all. But the RE model has certainly stood up to lots and lots of experiments and observations.

The earth was formed soon after the sun in the cloud of dust and gas that was circling the early sun. The particles of dust and rocks it each other and as they grew larger gravity drew them clsoer untill they formed themselves into the earth. Early in this development a body roughly equal in size to the earth at the time hit us and caused the moon to be thrown off. The moon began orbiting us and we regained the mass lost through more rocks and dust being attracted to the earths gravity.

Doesn't explain how the earth was formed indeed. And before any flat earthers refute this you better have an alternate meathod of earth creation that could result in a flat earth.

And don't jsut say God did it cause thats jsut a weak response from a beaten theory.

And don't jsut say God did it cause thats jsut a weak response from a beaten theory.

Sorry, but how is that theory any less arbitrary than your own?

Sorry, but how is that theory any less arbitrary than your own?

Do we really need to get into arguments about predictive value, falsifiability, and parsimony?  Yeah, I guess you could claim that using those traits as a metric for a theory is itself arbitrary, but then it would be fairly clear that you weren't really interesting in pursuing truth.

The earth was formed soon after the sun in the cloud of dust and gas that was circling the early sun. The particles of dust and rocks it each other and as they grew larger gravity drew them clsoer untill they formed themselves into the earth. Early in this development a body roughly equal in size to the earth at the time hit us and caused the moon to be thrown off. The moon began orbiting us and we regained the mass lost through more rocks and dust being attracted to the earths gravity.

Doesn't explain how the earth was formed indeed. And before any flat earthers refute this you better have an alternate meathod of earth creation that could result in a flat earth.

And don't jsut say God did it cause thats jsut a weak response from a beaten theory.

If everything after your silly 'big bang' is this soup of hot gas, why would anything coalesce or even be unevenly distributed?

Gravity. Even the tineist grain of sand has gravity. Over a long long long period of time enough of these will gather together to form a larger mass of gravity. This process continues untill we get our solar system as we know it. And for the record I never said anything an unevenly distributed mass of hot gas. Maybe at one point the whole universe was just one big cloud of gas. But as stars formed and the universe expanded the stars grew more distant from each other each taking their own cloud of gas which was traped in their gravity.

Gravity. Even the tineist grain of sand has gravity. Over a long long long period of time enough of these will gather together to form a larger mass of gravity. This process continues untill we get our solar system as we know it. And for the record I never said anything an unevenly distributed mass of hot gas. Maybe at one point the whole universe was just one big cloud of gas. But as stars formed and the universe expanded the stars grew more distant from each other each taking their own cloud of gas which was traped in their gravity.

I read your post and I think I found a contradiction.
First you say "Even the tineist grain of sand has gravity. Over a long long long period of time enough of these will gather together to form a larger mass of gravity."
And then you say "the universe expanded the stars grew more distant from each other"

So, which one is it? "gather together" or "grew more distant from each other"?

Or maybe the gravity you speak of only works on sand grains and doesn't work for stars? But stars are bigger with stronger gravity shouldn't they attract each other faster than grains of sand?

As far as stars formation from gas clouds goes, if you think about it; it actually is physically impossible (at least the way they explain the process).
First you got a bunch of gas particles, then at some area the density of gas particles increases and that area becomes hot and forms the core. BAM! right there if such an area becomes denser and hotter the gas would expand (as we know from the gas laws) and drive those particles apart, unless there is some kind of force to keep them together, and gravity would not do it, because it doesn't work very well between gas molecules.


And another question for you: if big bang burped out only Hydrogen where did all the other elements come from?

The universe is expanding, red shift proves this. While everything is moving away from the universal center their own gravity pulls them towards each other. Obviously this attraction cannot occur outside an objects gravity field. Meaning something 10 lightyears away isn't going to be fdrawn to our sun by gravity.

Quote from: "Flatearthersareretards"

Gravity. Even the tineist grain of sand has gravity. Over a long long long period of time enough of these will gather together to form a larger mass of gravity. This process continues untill we get our solar system as we know it. And for the record I never said anything an unevenly distributed mass of hot gas. Maybe at one point the whole universe was just one big cloud of gas. But as stars formed and the universe expanded the stars grew more distant from each other each taking their own cloud of gas which was traped in their gravity.

I read your post and I think I found a contradiction.
First you say "Even the tineist grain of sand has gravity. Over a long long long period of time enough of these will gather together to form a larger mass of gravity."
And then you say "the universe expanded the stars grew more distant from each other"

So, which one is it? "gather together" or "grew more distant from each other"?

Or maybe the gravity you speak of only works on sand grains and doesn't work for stars? But stars are bigger with stronger gravity shouldn't they attract each other faster than grains of sand?

As far as stars formation from gas clouds goes, if you think about it; it actually is physically impossible (at least the way they explain the process).
First you got a bunch of gas particles, then at some area the density of gas particles increases and that area becomes hot and forms the core. BAM! right there if such an area becomes denser and hotter the gas would expand (as we know from the gas laws) and drive those particles apart, unless there is some kind of force to keep them together, and gravity would not do it, because it doesn't work very well between gas molecules.


And another question for you: if big bang burped out only Hydrogen where did all the other elements come from?

Wow.

Just...let me pick my jaw up off the floor.

WOW.

Allow me to pose an analogy, dear reader. Now, let's say that cars drive on the right side of the road.

BUT WAIT!

In England, they drive on the left!

So which is it? Right or left?

And this is what I mean. Just because you get a result once doesn't mean you won't get it again.

The gravity between two objects is related to their mass and distance. However, given enough force, an object can escape gravity's pull. This is how rockets leave the earth. It is how you are able to jump.

As for your ridiculous gas "discovery:" it is possible for more than one force to act on an object at any given time. Therefore, if the force of the gravity acting on the particles is greater than the force acting on the gas particles to disperse, they will continue to cluster together. Of course, this occurs after they reach a critical mass.

As for how the elements formed, I suppose I can't fault you for simply not knowing. Heavier elements are formed when lighter elements collide with enough force to induce nuclear fusion, where the nuclei fuse together. For instance, two hydrogen atoms collide to form a helium atom, etc.

As for your ridiculous gas "discovery:" it is possible for more than one force to act on an object at any given time. Therefore, if the force of the gravity acting on the particles is greater than the force acting on the gas particles to disperse, they will continue to cluster together. Of course, this occurs after they reach a critical mass.

Care to explain what forces act on gas molecules before they reach critical mass, before the gravity can take over?

By fusion you mean the process that is happening inside a star, where 2 H atom collide and make He with a release on energy, and then He collide and so on, well the process will go on until it reaches iron (Fe) and then what? What about other elements? Where did they come from? (And don't tell me that you don't know that fusion cannot produce anything past iron).

Care to explain what forces act on gas molecules before they reach critical mass, before the gravity can take over?

Omg, you're right, gravity is the only force!  Help, help, I'm turning into a black hole because no repulsive forces exist between the particles that make up my body!

What about other elements? Where did they come from? (And don't tell me that you don't know that fusion cannot produce anything past iron).

Wow, you're really on top of your game today.  Clearly heavy elements can't be formed by fusion in supernovae.  Ah, of course -- God put them in the Earth so that the core would remain liquid so that we could have a magnetic field so that those bad old cosmic rays couldn't get in and kill His chosen people!

Sheesh.

I don't believe I said anything about gravity being the only force.
Now, if you know what force keeps a bunch of hot gas molecules from dissipating please enlighten me. Or you can just say "I don't know" that would be acceptable too. But there is no reason to make fun of my statements.

Wow, you're really on top of your game today. Clearly heavy elements can't be formed by fusion in supernovae. Ah, of course -- God put them in the Earth so that the core would remain liquid so that we could have a magnetic field so that those bad old cosmic rays couldn't get in and kill His chosen people!

Well, lets hear your "naturalistic" explanation of the existence of those elements. By the way "I don't know" would also be acceptable.

Now, if you know what force keeps a bunch of hot gas molecules from dissipating please enlighten me.

Really, it's so simple -- gravity = togetherness, electromagnetism = apartness.  I'm pretty sure this was covered someplace above.

But there is no reason to make fun of my statements.

How 'bout, to inflate my fragile ego?  Or, to rearrange the social hierarchy on this forum with me above you?  Or, cuz it's fun!

Well, lets hear your "naturalistic" explanation of the existence of those elements.

Er, you have to add energy from outside to fuse stuff heavier than iron.  Supernova fusion occurs at higher energy than in stable stars, because a supernova is undergoing gravitational collapse and hence compression.

By the way "I don't know" would also be acceptable.

Wha?  Did you think I'd be stumped by your "challenge"?  Or that I'm somehow so mentally or physically crippled as to be unable to undertake the modicum of research required to find this out?

-Erasmus

So I think this has proven the round earth model does explain the formation of the earth, with internal consistency (by which I mean flat earthers who dont believe in gravity will find this explanation bs but since the round earth model of the univers HAS gravity it is consistent internally) So is there anything else flat earthers think the RE model doesn't explain? I'm especially curious if there is any visible phenomenons that it can't explain . The FE model has plenty of those (boats on the horizxon) which it doesn't explain with any consistency but merely says atmospheric distortions. I defy you to find something RE cannot explain.
An enraged
Cinlef

BTW Erasmus, did you notice how we are the only 2 people that argue evolution vs. creation after a while.
Funny fact.

So I think this has proven the round earth model does explain the formation of the earth, with internal consistency (by which I mean flat earthers who dont believe in gravity will find this explanation bs but since the round earth model of the univers HAS gravity it is consistent internally) So is there anything else flat earthers think the RE model doesn't explain? I'm especially curious if there is any visible phenomenons that it can't explain . The FE model has plenty of those (boats on the horizxon) which it doesn't explain with any consistency but merely says atmospheric distortions. I defy you to find something RE cannot explain.
An enraged
Cinlef

Dear moderator, why did you delete my post?

Really, it's so simple -- gravity = togetherness, electromagnetism = apartness.

I agree with this statement. But what does it have to do with my question?
I'll ask it again:

What force keeps a bunch of hot gas molecules from dissipating in star formation process?

 
Supernova fusion occurs at higher energy than in stable stars, because a supernova is undergoing gravitational collapse and hence compression.

Ok, I got you, supernova collapses makes more energy, energy is used to fuse atoms into heavier elements, I presume including Polonium (that has half-life of about 140 days). Then how come Polonium halos are found in granite all over the world? Wouldn't the atom decay waaay before even getting to Earth? Check out work of Robert Gentry on polonium halos for more specific information.

What force keeps a bunch of hot gas molecules from dissipating in star formation process?

Gravity dominates electromagnetism over large distances.  Get enough gas in a large space (say 10 parsecs across), and there will be enough gravitational pressure to crush the particles near the center.  This has been seen in simulation.

From "Universe" 5ed by Kaufmann and Freedman, p. 498, "Protostars form in cold, dark nebulae":

"In order for a star to condense, gravity ... must overwhelm the pressure pushing it apart.  This means stars will most easily form in regions where the interstellar material is relatively dense, so that atoms and dust grains are close together and gravitational attraction is enhanced.

"To assist star formation, the pressure of the interstellar medium should be relatively low.  This means that the interstellar medium should be as cold as possible...

"The only parts of the interstellar medium with high enough density and low enough temperature for stars to form are the dark nebulae.  Many of these ... were discovered and catalogued around 1900 by Edward Barnard and are known as Barnard objects...  The density of the gas and dust within a Barnard object ... is indeed quite high by cosmic standards...  [Their] temperatures are very low, only about 10K...

"Within these clouds, the densest portions can contract under their own mutual gravitational attaction and form clumps called protostars."

It later goes on to describe calculations in the 50's have predicted that protostars, which begin as much larger than our solar system, slowly collapse and build up internal temperatures.  These calculations, though it doesn't describe them, probably involve the use of Green's functions to compute forces by integration; if you're interested in reproducing the work yourself, you'll need to read up on multivariate calculus and Green's functions.  Also, see the work of Louis Henyey (U.S.) and C. Hayashi (Japan), both from the 1950's.

I understand that the last bit, "the densest portions can contract under their mutual gravitation attraction", effectively dodges your question.  But I hope you can at least see that it doesn't have to start out very hot, and that 10 parsecs of gas will generate quite a lot of gravitational attraction.  Lastly, you should remember that for objects far from the center of mass C of an complex body, you may treat the complex body as a point mass located at C for the purposes of calculating both gravitational and electromagnetic forces.

Hope this helps.

Then how come Polonium halos are found in granite all over the world? Wouldn't the atom decay waaay before even getting to Earth? Check out work of Robert Gentry on polonium halos for more specific information.

I am ignorant on the subject of polonium halos.  However, a possible quick answer to the question, "Why do we find polonium at all, wouldn't it decay before it reaches the Earth from the nearest supernova?" is that while its travelling through space, it isn't polonium yet, but decays some time after its arrival here.  Polonium is one of the stages of uranium decay, and uranium has a very long half life.  As long as uranium arrives here from someplace, it will eventually turn into polonium, which may then be found in halo form -- whatever that is -- in granite.

I will seek out more information on polonium halos.

-Erasmus

I still don't see a valid reason why your cloud of hot gas should coalesce into anything at all, besides a colder cloud of hot gas...

Why would two atoms that weigh the same, attract each other, when they are balanced out by thousands of other similiar atoms around them in this gas cloud.

Plus, why would they condense past the point of the repulsion of EM forces? Just try the math yourself, a uniformly distributed, and uniformly dense, particle cloud will stay that way, and never reach a point where it passes the EM boundaries.

Thank you for the explanation of the theory behind star formation, that was quite educational. However it stil doesn't explain how it is done on molecular level. I agree with johnsmith on this one.

In you furhter studies of polonium you'll learn that polonium is not one of the stages on Uranium decay, but is actually a metal that is formed from Lead by some process I forgot the name of.

Polonium halo is leftover ring from Po atom decay (kind of like a little halo after explosion) go to http://www.halos.com for more info on it.

I still don't see a valid reason why your cloud of hot gas should coalesce into anything at all, besides a colder cloud of hot gas...

First off I distinctly said "cold gas".  Secondly, when things condense, they get hotter, not colder, so it would be a "hotter cloud of previously cold gas," not a "colder cloud of hot gas," whatever that means.

Why would two atoms that weigh the same, attract each other, when they are balanced out by thousands of other similiar atoms around them in this gas cloud.

How 'bout those atoms at the edge of the cloud?  What balances out the attraction they feel towards the center?

Plus, why would they condense past the point of the repulsion of EM forces?

Cuz their combined mass is so unbelievably huge, maybe.

Just try the math yourself,

Strong words... did *you* try the math yourself?

a uniformly distributed, and uniformly dense, particle cloud will stay that way

Wrong.  Thermodynamics.  Need more details?

-Erasmus

Quote from: "johnsmith"

I still don't see a valid reason why your cloud of hot gas should coalesce into anything at all, besides a colder cloud of hot gas...

First off I distinctly said "cold gas".  Secondly, when things condense, they get hotter, not colder, so it would be a "hotter cloud of previously cold gas," not a "colder cloud of hot gas," whatever that means.

Quote

Why would two atoms that weigh the same, attract each other, when they are balanced out by thousands of other similiar atoms around them in this gas cloud.

How 'bout those atoms at the edge of the cloud?  What balances out the attraction they feel towards the center?

Quote

Plus, why would they condense past the point of the repulsion of EM forces?

Cuz their combined mass is so unbelievably huge, maybe.

Quote

Just try the math yourself,

Strong words... did *you* try the math yourself?

Quote

a uniformly distributed, and uniformly dense, particle cloud will stay that way

Wrong.  Thermodynamics.  Need more details?

-Erasmus

Why the fuck are you being such a pissy bitch?

What about the ones at the edge? They're moving pretty damn fast from a huge explosion, if they're actually attracted to the center, everything would stop, reverse, re-squish, due to this 'unbelievably huge' mass. And by colder cloud, I meant that they would continue their radial expansion, thus becoming COLDER by relative volume. And I have tried the math, YOU obviously haven't. It's really simple, just try it with two, three, or four particles. See if there's any actual change in the mean distance between them.

Also, aren't you wrong by your thermodynamic statement? Air, lets say, is rather uniformly dense and distributed. According to thermodynamics, isn't it MORE unlikely it'll colesce into a solid ball, than remain this cloud of gas?

As far as I remember second law of thermodynamics says: "the total entropy of any thermodynamically isolated system tends to increase over time". More plainly things fall apart and don't come together to form more complex things, unless the energy is added to the system and the system has an intelegent process to utilize that energy, system will fall apart.

However it stil doesn't explain how it is done on molecular level.

Honestly, me neither; not fully at least.  But an important part will be to treat the gas cloud as its center of mass for the purposes of determining what peripheral particles will do; obviously the stuff near the outside will be attracted to this center.  This attraction will place pressure on the stuff just below the surface, which is now not only attracted to the center (albeit to a lesser degree), but is also under the pressure of all the stuff above it (radially speaking), and so forth.  The pressure at the center of any fluid body will be higher than it is at the surface.

[/quote]In you furhter studies of polonium you'll learn that polonium is not one of the stages on Uranium decay, but is actually a metal that is formed from Lead by some process I forgot the name of.[/quote]

See Wikipedia's article on the Radium series to see how uranium decays into polonium (twice, in fact; the one you mentioned with the 140-day half life is Po 210).  The latter result is two steps away from lead, which as it turns out is stable in this chain.

Polonium halo is leftover ring from Po atom decay (kind of like a little halo after explosion) go to http://www.halos.com for more info on it.

Neat.

-Erasmus

Cinlef, you speak the truth.

Indeed, if FE'ers do not believe in gravity, then to disprive our model they must first disprove gravity. I wish them luck  :wink:

Why the fuck are you being such a pissy bitch?

Just your lucky day I guess.

What about the ones at the edge? They're moving pretty damn fast from a huge explosion,

Aren't we talking about a huge cloud of cold gas?  Where does the explosion enter in?

if they're actually attracted to the center, everything would stop, reverse, re-squish, due to this 'unbelievably huge' mass.

Sure, except for the escape velocity issue... but I still don't know what explosion we're discussing.

And by colder cloud, I meant that they would continue their radial expansion,

Except that the verb you used was "coalesce" in that sentence; that's what I was going on.

And I have tried the math, YOU obviously haven't. It's really simple, just try it with two, three, or four particles.

And you think that two, three, or four nearly massless yet highly charged particles particles is a good model for a several-solar-mass, many-parsec-wide cloud of cold gas?

Also, aren't you wrong by your thermodynamic statement?

So far, I don't think so.

Air, lets say, is rather uniformly dense and distributed. According to thermodynamics, isn't it MORE unlikely it'll colesce into a solid ball, than remain this cloud of gas?

Funny you should mention air.  Ever notice how it's denser near the middle of the ball than it is in, say, the ionosphere?  I guess one of the reasons it doesn't collapse *completely* is that darn old Earth keeps getting in the way.

So, the details on the thermodynamics issue is that a large massive object has more gravitational potential energy than a small massive object (the whole "mgh" thing).  Collapsing is a way to make that energy go away; in the case of collapsing gas clouds, this gravitational energy is converted into heat and radiated off.  Thermodynamics says that if I have more energy (say, gravitational potential) than my neighbor (say, cold, empty space), I will lose some of it (say, as heat) to him.

-Erasmus

My bad. It is Po-218 with 3.8 day half life.

My bad. It is Po-218 with 3.8 day half life.

Okay... but are you now satisfied that it could come, indirectly, from stars?

Quote from: "Malrix"

However it stil doesn't explain how it is done on molecular level.

Honestly, me neither; not fully at least.  

There are two nuclear forces, weak and strong. The weak nuclear force is the result of an atom splitting, while the strong results from them fusing. The subatomic particles in the nuclei of atoms cause atoms to repel one another via the weak nuclear force. However, once they get within a certain distance of each other, the strong nuclear force overpowers the weak, and the atoms fuse. What could compress the atoms, and get them bunched up together so closely that the stronger nuclear force takes over? Gravity.

The laws of thermodynamics only appear to be violated because the stars seemingly use up more fuel than they have, but this illusion is dispelled when astrophysical reaction chains are taken into account. The hydrogen-hydrogen reaction is just one of many fusion reactions taking place in stars. In the heavier stars, the Carbon-Nickel-Oxygen cycle is more common. Our own star will switch from a proton-proton chain to a triple-alpha process, which converts helium into carbon. This change in reactions gives the illusion of the violation of thermodynamics, but the potential energy is miscalculated when people fail to take into account the change of atoms from one type to another. Eventually, the chain of reactions will end.