« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Universal Gravitation

  • 74 Replies
  • 12599 Views
?

jdoe

  • 388
  • +0/-0
Universal Gravitation
« on: November 19, 2007, 02:25:06 AM »
In RE Theory, the motions of the heavens are explained beautifully using Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, F=G*M*m/r^2, where G is the universal gravitational constant.  With a table of planet masses and sun-planet distances and a good knowledge of calculus and elementary physics, one can calculate the motions of the heavens with great accuracy.

If FE theory is correct, why can the universal gravitation equation can predict the motion of the planets so well if it is using the wrong assumptions of RE theory?
Logged
Mars or Bust
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2007, 05:23:59 AM »
A "table of planet masses" begs the question, because it presumes Newton's model is correct. It's not like people have actually gone and weighed the planets. It's invalid as evidence for Newton's theory because the only way it can be derived is by assuming that Newton is correct.
Logged
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2007, 12:43:33 PM »
Quote from: Dogplatter on November 19, 2007, 05:23:59 AM
A "table of planet masses" begs the question, because it presumes Newton's model is correct. It's not like people have actually gone and weighed the planets. It's invalid as evidence for Newton's theory because the only way it can be derived is by assuming that Newton is correct.

Mass, gravitational pull, and distance of objects have been measured for smaller objects. The equation amounts to anything with mass. Thus the equation can be used to find the mass of planets and the pull and from there, mass is used to determine velocity needed to maintain orbit ...which is measured by other methods and does confirm accurate variables.

But nonetheless accurate equations predicting behavior is not proof of the cause of the behavior.  :(
(Actual orbit vs. magic gliding)
Perhaps only it's probability of correctness is apparent because the uniformity of the planets movement with the equations.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 12:46:47 PM by L0gic »
Logged
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.
?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2007, 01:20:57 PM »
TB has a really long-winded and BS-filled explanation. Although the motions of the stars and planets are explained with newtonian gravity, but also relativity.
Logged
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2007, 01:26:50 PM »
Quote from: Archbishop Bishop on November 19, 2007, 01:20:57 PM
TB has a really long-winded and BS-filled explanation. Although the motions of the stars and planets are explained with newtonian gravity, but also relativity.

Relativity is an expansion of Newtonian gravity. For extreme circumstances, things change. Newtonian physics are more of a simplification than a replacement. The key is predictive power though, as so nicely stated by a fellow realist:

Quote from: Max Fagin on November 19, 2007, 01:20:01 PM
Buy a telescope, and observe that by assuming the Earth to be a sphere, and by assuming that the Earth and all the planets travel around the sun, you are able to predict the future motions and positions of the planets PERFECTLY.

In FE, you can't do this.  FE'ers are able to explain any single event (An eclipse, a planetary transit etc.) but FE is unable to provide a mathematical model whereby ALL these events and observations may be PREDICTED.

RE, by contrast, does do this, and it does it with an accuracy that is astounding.  With a greater accuracy then we are able to confirm in many cases.

Confirmed predictive power, that is the strongest evidence of that the Earth is spherical.
Logged
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.
?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2007, 01:34:49 PM »
lol agreed, however, the ptolmey system (geocentric with differents) predicted the motions of the planets much better than the heliocentric model for years, centuries even. The system was overly complex, fiddled until it fitted. Not until the idea of elliptical orbits did the heliocentric model predict the movements better.

Be careful of predictability, FE could if they wanted construct a system that gives the same predictions. They seem to do it for every other aspect of the theory.
Logged
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2007, 01:36:31 PM »
Quote from: Archbishop Bishop on November 19, 2007, 01:34:49 PM
lol agreed, however, the ptolmey system (geocentric with differents) predicted the motions of the planets much better than the heliocentric model for years, centuries even. The system was overly complex, fiddled until it fitted. Not until the idea of elliptical orbits did the heliocentric model predict the movements better.

Be careful of predictability, FE could if they wanted construct a system that gives the same predictions. They seem to do it for every other aspect of the theory.

But a model that is as simple as a few intuitive equations that we can derive ourselves?
Logged
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.
?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2007, 01:53:39 PM »
Hey, celestial gearing, UA, simplicity went out the window long before this site appeared.
Logged
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.
?

eric bloedow

Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #8 on: November 19, 2007, 06:39:35 PM »
i've said this on several threads, but i'll say it again here:

if you weigh an object at sea level, then weight it again at high altitude, it will weigh less, a FACT that is easily explained by gravity, but NOT by UA.

hey, it just occurred to me: if EVERYTHING is accellerating, that means YOU and I should be floating in the air, not "falling" to earth! whoops!!
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #9 on: November 19, 2007, 06:47:59 PM »
Quote from: eric bloedow on November 19, 2007, 06:39:35 PM
hey, it just occurred to me: if EVERYTHING is accellerating, that means YOU and I should be floating in the air, not "falling" to earth! whoops!!
Why?  We are only accelerating because we are in contact with the Earth.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2007, 07:05:47 PM »
The reason we are accelerating has nothing to do with floating.
Logged
?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2007, 04:22:40 AM »
TB would say "Blah blah blah the stars have a slight gravitational pull blah blah blah try proving it, blah blah blah I won't believe you blah blah blah LEAVE ME ALONE!"
Logged
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.
?

eric bloedow

Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2007, 10:52:28 AM »
ok, let's try again: universal acceleration makes EVERYTHING, every star, planet, moon, everything, accellerate at the EXACT same rate, in the EXACT same direction, which just HAPPENS to be the exact same direction the FE HAPPENS to be facing?

but if that was true, EVERY object ON earth, rocks, cars, people, EVERYTHING, would ALSO be accellerating at that exact same rate, and would therefore be totally WEIGHTLESS!

see my point?
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2007, 10:54:53 AM »
Quote from: eric bloedow on November 20, 2007, 10:52:28 AM
but if that was true, EVERY object ON earth, rocks, cars, people, EVERYTHING, would ALSO be accellerating at that exact same rate, and would therefore be totally WEIGHTLESS!
Except that the Earth blocks the DE from interacting with us.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2007, 10:57:18 AM »
Come to think of it, I thought DE was postulated to inhabit all space in the universe.
Logged
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2007, 11:09:19 AM »
DE is just a place holder name for it. 
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2007, 11:15:20 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on November 20, 2007, 11:09:19 AM
DE is just a place holder name for it. 
Ah, but what happened to UA then?
Logged
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2007, 11:54:31 AM »
UA is the name of the Dark Matter 'blanket' that the Earth rests on.  Unfortunately, DE is most often referred to by everyone as UA.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2007, 12:18:55 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on November 20, 2007, 11:54:31 AM
UA is the name of the Dark Matter 'blanket' that the Earth rests on.  Unfortunately, DE is most often referred to by everyone as UA.

Alright I got it. Thanks.  :D
Logged
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2007, 12:21:15 PM »
Sorry, I should have specified the Dark Matter 'blanket' that is the center of Dogplatter's model.  The FES standard model uses DE.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

eric bloedow

Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2007, 12:52:01 PM »
oh, once again the FE answer is "earth is unique, the laws of physics are totally different on earth than anywhere else in the entire universe"!

and the biggest problem with Dogplatter's model is that THAT earth would move differently and leave the planets behind! or crash into the moon!

« Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 01:12:12 PM by eric bloedow »
Logged
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2007, 12:54:29 PM »
Quote from: eric bloedow on November 20, 2007, 12:52:01 PM
oh, once again the FE answer is "earth is unique, the laws of physics are totally different on earth than anywhere else in the entire universe"!

I didn't see that typed anywhere. Nor is it true.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2007, 01:07:49 PM »
Yes, the Dark Energy that accelerates the earth, our USA. And the antimoon, of course.
Logged
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.
?

eric bloedow

Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #23 on: November 20, 2007, 01:11:57 PM »
and yet SOMEHOW has no effect or a different effect on objects sitting on the surface of the earth? rediculous!
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #24 on: November 20, 2007, 01:14:47 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on November 20, 2007, 10:54:53 AM
Quote from: eric bloedow on November 20, 2007, 10:52:28 AM
but if that was true, EVERY object ON earth, rocks, cars, people, EVERYTHING, would ALSO be accellerating at that exact same rate, and would therefore be totally WEIGHTLESS!
Except that the Earth blocks the DE from interacting with us.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

eric bloedow

Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #25 on: November 20, 2007, 01:21:47 PM »
yeah, right. then it would also block the DE from the moon, making the moon accellerate slower and crash into earth!

consider this: dark matter is a completely theoretical substance, made up as one of several explanations for holes in the Big Bang theory. there is no real proof it exists at all! and even the scientists who DO believe in it say it would follow NORMAL GRAVITY RULES!

BTW, one of the other related theories is the "cosmic string" theory, which would require there to be 11 dimensions instead of 3 or 4! i certainly don't believe THAT!
Logged
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #26 on: November 20, 2007, 01:25:44 PM »
Quote from: eric bloedow on November 20, 2007, 01:21:47 PM
consider this: dark matter is a completely theoretical substance, made up as one of several explanations for holes in the Big Bang theory. there is no real proof it exists at all! and even the scientists who DO believe in it say it would follow NORMAL GRAVITY RULES!

BTW, one of the other related theories is the "cosmic string" theory, which would require there to be 11 dimensions instead of 3 or 4! i certainly don't believe THAT!

Ok,

1. Dark Matter and following "gravity" have nothing to do with anything we're discussing.
2. String theory posits 10 dimensions, not 11.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 01:30:47 PM by divito the truthist »
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
?

eric bloedow

Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #27 on: November 20, 2007, 01:32:23 PM »
oops, i'm still confusing the 2 contradictory models: Dogplatter's "accellerator" is supposedly made of dark matter, according to him!

ok, 10 dimensions, anyway, it's absurd.
Logged
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #28 on: November 20, 2007, 01:34:26 PM »
Quote from: eric bloedow on November 20, 2007, 01:32:23 PM
ok, 10 dimensions, anyway, it's absurd.

You think String Theory is absurd?
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
?

eric bloedow

Re: Universal Gravitation
« Reply #29 on: November 20, 2007, 01:38:09 PM »
i consider it more absurd than "dark energy", which is in turn extremely absurd compared to gravity.

if some scientist creates some "dark matter" in a laboratory, i might believe in it.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
« previous next »