Gravitational Pull

So I was reading the new FAQ when I saw

Introduction:



Q: Why does gravitational pull decrease as my height increases?

A: Because you are closer to the stars, which do have a gravitational pull.

So I was wondering, why is this so. When you look up at the sky they are tiny compared to the sun and moon but only about 3% farther away.  So they are obviously very small but THEY'RE GRAVITATIONAL PULL FROM 5000 KILOMETERS CAN MAKE A NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE!?! Assuming they are so dense, why don't they affect each other?

So I was reading the new FAQ when I saw

Quote from: Trekky0623 on November 10, 2007, 04:25:54 PM

Introduction:



Q: Why does gravitational pull decrease as my height increases?

A: Because you are closer to the stars, which do have a gravitational pull.

So I was wondering, why is this so. When you look up at the sky they are tiny compared to the sun and moon but only about 3% farther away.  So they are obviously very small but THEY'RE GRAVITATIONAL PULL FROM 5000 KILOMETERS CAN MAKE A NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE!?! Assuming they are so dense, why don't they affect each other?

They do affect each other.  Otherwise they wouldn't be moving in relation to each other.

Quote from: Guns N. Roses on November 20, 2007, 02:12:51 PM

So I was reading the new FAQ when I saw

Quote from: Trekky0623 on November 10, 2007, 04:25:54 PM

Introduction:



Q: Why does gravitational pull decrease as my height increases?

A: Because you are closer to the stars, which do have a gravitational pull.

So I was wondering, why is this so. When you look up at the sky they are tiny compared to the sun and moon but only about 3% farther away.  So they are obviously very small but THEY'RE GRAVITATIONAL PULL FROM 5000 KILOMETERS CAN MAKE A NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE!?! Assuming they are so dense, why don't they affect each other?

They do affect each other.  Otherwise they wouldn't be moving in relation to each other.

They are in fact, moving away from us... It's called the Doppler effect and it involves redshift. An object moving away from us emits lower frequency light than something standing still or moving towards us. So how do you explain this?

Shouldn't they be "sucking" each other in?

Shouldn't they be "sucking" each other in?

If they were very small and had intensive mass like the FE theory states, then yes.

But in real life, it's not. They're lighyears away and have about the same mass as the sun. Also, they're moving away from each other because of the initial expansion at the formation of the cosmos.

The FE theory is that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate.  Is it different in RE?

The FE theory is that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate.  Is it different in RE?

Not quite that different at all. In RE everything expands at a constant speed.

Also, if in FE the universe would expanding using with acceleration of 9,8m/sē, then we would accerelate limitlessly. Probably approaching the speed of light within a year.

Quote from: Thus Spake Roundy on November 20, 2007, 02:41:53 PM

The FE theory is that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate.  Is it different in RE?

Not quite that different at all. In RE everything expands at a constant speed.

Also, if in FE the universe would expanding using with acceleration of 9,8m/sē, then we would accerelate limitlessly. Probably approaching the speed of light within a year.

It is impossible to reach the speed of light.

Quote from: Guns N. Roses on November 20, 2007, 02:12:51 PM

So I was reading the new FAQ when I saw

Quote from: Trekky0623 on November 10, 2007, 04:25:54 PM

Introduction:



Q: Why does gravitational pull decrease as my height increases?

A: Because you are closer to the stars, which do have a gravitational pull.

So I was wondering, why is this so. When you look up at the sky they are tiny compared to the sun and moon but only about 3% farther away.  So they are obviously very small but THEY'RE GRAVITATIONAL PULL FROM 5000 KILOMETERS CAN MAKE A NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE!?! Assuming they are so dense, why don't they affect each other?

They do affect each other.  Otherwise they wouldn't be moving in relation to each other.

How do you explain them moving across the sky then? If they are all affecting each other, then each pass should be in a different place in the sky.

Quote from: Gigano on November 20, 2007, 02:44:42 PM

Quote from: Thus Spake Roundy on November 20, 2007, 02:41:53 PM

The FE theory is that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate.  Is it different in RE?

Not quite that different at all. In RE everything expands at a constant speed.

Also, if in FE the universe would expanding using with acceleration of 9,8m/sē, then we would accerelate limitlessly. Probably approaching the speed of light within a year.

It is impossible to reach the speed of light.

Are you suggesting that the FE model is impossible?

It is impossible to reach the speed of light.

NO SHIT SHERLOCK?!

That's what I am trying to point out: using gravitational acceleration to account for gravity can't be done!

a = 9m/s per second (9m/sē)

c = 2.99792485 * 10^8 m/s

So I'm going to calculate how long it takes to reach lightspeed using gravitational acceleration:

2.99792485 * 10^8 / 9 = 33310273.11 seconds = 9253 hours = 385.5 years

If gravity was produced by gravitational acceleration, we'd approach lightspeed within a year. Seeing that earth has been around longer than that, it's impossible. Even if you take in the fact that reaching lightspeed is an impossibility, parts CAN approach the speed of light. I have observed and studied the effects electrons reaching c, and it's madness.

Quote from: Thus Spake Roundy on November 20, 2007, 03:04:59 PM

Quote from: Gigano on November 20, 2007, 02:44:42 PM

Quote from: Thus Spake Roundy on November 20, 2007, 02:41:53 PM

The FE theory is that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate.  Is it different in RE?

Not quite that different at all. In RE everything expands at a constant speed.

Also, if in FE the universe would expanding using with acceleration of 9,8m/sē, then we would accerelate limitlessly. Probably approaching the speed of light within a year.

It is impossible to reach the speed of light.

Are you suggesting that the FE model is impossible?

No... I'm saying that it's impossible to reach the speed of light.  Look up relativity.  If you do a search you can probably find a more technical explanation as to why the earth can accelerate constantly and never reach the speed of light.  I think it is accelerating at that rate from our frame of reference but not from that of an outside observer.

Quote from: Thus Spake Roundy on November 20, 2007, 03:04:59 PM

It is impossible to reach the speed of light.

NO SHIT SHERLOCK?!

That's what I am trying to point out: using gravitational acceleration to account for gravity can't be done!

a = 9m/s per second (9m/sē)

c = 2.99792485 * 10^8 m/s

So I'm going to calculate how long it takes to reach lightspeed using gravitational acceleration:

2.99792485 * 10^8 / 9 = 33310273.11 seconds = 9253 hours = 385.5 years

If gravity was produced by gravitational acceleration, we'd approach lightspeed within a year. Seeing that earth has been around longer than that, it's impossible. Even if you take in the fact that reaching lightspeed is an impossibility, parts CAN approach the speed of light. I have observed and studied the effects electrons reaching c, and it's madness.

You are a god. you just explained perfectly what i tried to do 6 months ago but failed at the calculations. i bow upon thee.

Quote from: Thus Spake Roundy on November 20, 2007, 03:04:59 PM

It is impossible to reach the speed of light.

NO SHIT SHERLOCK?!

That's what I am trying to point out: using gravitational acceleration to account for gravity can't be done!

I'm trying to point out that it can! 

Quote from: Gigano on November 20, 2007, 03:15:22 PM

Quote from: Thus Spake Roundy on November 20, 2007, 03:04:59 PM

It is impossible to reach the speed of light.

NO SHIT SHERLOCK?!

That's what I am trying to point out: using gravitational acceleration to account for gravity can't be done!

I'm trying to point out that it can! 

AND I JUST FREAKING PROVED IT CAN'T BE DONE! Using a statement you said yourself: It is impossible to reach the speed of light.

Quote from: Thus Spake Roundy on November 20, 2007, 03:18:14 PM

Quote from: Gigano on November 20, 2007, 03:15:22 PM

Quote from: Thus Spake Roundy on November 20, 2007, 03:04:59 PM

It is impossible to reach the speed of light.

NO SHIT SHERLOCK?!

That's what I am trying to point out: using gravitational acceleration to account for gravity can't be done!

I'm trying to point out that it can! 

AND I JUST FREAKING PROVED IT CAN'T BE DONE! Using a statement you said yourself: It is impossible to reach the speed of light.

No you didn't.  You're not taking relativity into account.  Go back to the FAQ where there should be a link to an explanation about frames of reference and how an object like the earth could accelerate infinitely without ever reaching the speed of light.

In simple terms, relative to us observers on earth, the earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s².  But, relative to an outside observer (not on earth), it would appear as if the earth were slowing down. 

Quote from: Thus Spake Roundy on November 20, 2007, 03:18:14 PM

Quote from: Gigano on November 20, 2007, 03:15:22 PM

Quote from: Thus Spake Roundy on November 20, 2007, 03:04:59 PM

It is impossible to reach the speed of light.

NO SHIT SHERLOCK?!

That's what I am trying to point out: using gravitational acceleration to account for gravity can't be done!

I'm trying to point out that it can! 

AND I JUST FREAKING PROVED IT CAN'T BE DONE! Using a statement you said yourself: It is impossible to reach the speed of light.

No, you fail.

I find it hard to believe you are a scientist or even educated.

Quote from: Thus Spake Roundy on November 20, 2007, 02:41:53 PM

The FE theory is that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate.  Is it different in RE?

Not quite that different at all. In RE everything expands at a constant speed.

Also, if in FE the universe would expanding using with acceleration of 9,8m/sē, then we would accerelate limitlessly. Probably approaching the speed of light within a year.

False.

Special Relativity forbids an object from ever reaching the speed of light.

w =     (u + v)     
        (1 + u*v/c²)



Where w is the new velocity, u (or 0m/s in this case) is the initial velocity, and v is the final velocity (or 9.8m/s for 1 second from universal acceleration). Now, after you find the w, plug it into the u on the new equation. Keep doing it until you reach 299,792,458m/s. Good luck.

Quote from: Thus Spake Roundy on November 20, 2007, 03:04:59 PM

It is impossible to reach the speed of light.

NO SHIT SHERLOCK?!

That's what I am trying to point out: using gravitational acceleration to account for gravity can't be done!

a = 9m/s per second (9m/sē)

c = 2.99792485 * 10^8 m/s

So I'm going to calculate how long it takes to reach lightspeed using gravitational acceleration:

2.99792485 * 10^8 / 9 = 33310273.11 seconds = 9253 hours = 385.5 years

If gravity was produced by gravitational acceleration, we'd approach lightspeed within a year. Seeing that earth has been around longer than that, it's impossible. Even if you take in the fact that reaching lightspeed is an impossibility, parts CAN approach the speed of light. I have observed and studied the effects electrons reaching c, and it's madness.

Your equations are wrong.  Also, no electron has ever reached c.  Saying otherwise is madness.

he said the flat earth would "approach" lightspeed, i.e. 99.99% of lightspeed, in a year.

this reminds me of something i mentioned in a different thread: 2 atomic clocks were sycronized, then one was loaded onto an airplane and lifted to 30,000 feet. then their times were compared, and the one in the air was running slightly faster, EXACTLY like einstein's relativity said it would!

but FErs don't believe in gravity, they babble about "dark energy" and "universal accelleration" instead!

also, it has been PROVEN that objects WEIGH less at high altitude than at ground level, which contradicts "dark energy".

But, gravity does not exist. Einsteins relativity states this.

Gravitation from celestial bodies acts on objects at high altitude, reducing their apparent weight.

he said the flat earth would "approach" lightspeed, i.e. 99.99% of lightspeed, in a year.

this reminds me of something i mentioned in a different thread: 2 atomic clocks were sycronized, then one was loaded onto an airplane and lifted to 30,000 feet. then their times were compared, and the one in the air was running slightly faster, EXACTLY like einstein's relativity said it would!

but FErs don't believe in gravity, they babble about "dark energy" and "universal accelleration" instead!

also, it has been PROVEN that objects WEIGH less at high altitude than at ground level, which contradicts "dark energy".

Bullshits and internets are indistinguishable.

Quote from: Gigano on November 20, 2007, 03:15:22 PM

Quote from: Thus Spake Roundy on November 20, 2007, 03:04:59 PM

It is impossible to reach the speed of light.

NO SHIT SHERLOCK?!

That's what I am trying to point out: using gravitational acceleration to account for gravity can't be done!

a = 9m/s per second (9m/sē)

c = 2.99792485 * 10^8 m/s

So I'm going to calculate how long it takes to reach lightspeed using gravitational acceleration:

2.99792485 * 10^8 / 9 = 33310273.11 seconds = 9253 hours = 385.5 years

If gravity was produced by gravitational acceleration, we'd approach lightspeed within a year. Seeing that earth has been around longer than that, it's impossible. Even if you take in the fact that reaching lightspeed is an impossibility, parts CAN approach the speed of light. I have observed and studied the effects electrons reaching c, and it's madness.

Your equations are wrong.  Also, no electron has ever reached c.  Saying otherwise is madness.

Madness!? This! Is! SPARTA!!!

he said the flat earth would "approach" lightspeed, i.e. 99.99% of lightspeed, in a year.

this reminds me of something i mentioned in a different thread: 2 atomic clocks were sycronized, then one was loaded onto an airplane and lifted to 30,000 feet. then their times were compared, and the one in the air was running slightly faster, EXACTLY like einstein's relativity said it would!

but FErs don't believe in gravity, they babble about "dark energy" and "universal accelleration" instead!

also, it has been PROVEN that objects WEIGH less at high altitude than at ground level, which contradicts "dark energy".

What?

Quote from: eric bloedow on November 20, 2007, 05:32:44 PM

he said the flat earth would "approach" lightspeed, i.e. 99.99% of lightspeed, in a year.

this reminds me of something i mentioned in a different thread: 2 atomic clocks were sycronized, then one was loaded onto an airplane and lifted to 30,000 feet. then their times were compared, and the one in the air was running slightly faster, EXACTLY like einstein's relativity said it would!

but FErs don't believe in gravity, they babble about "dark energy" and "universal accelleration" instead!

also, it has been PROVEN that objects WEIGH less at high altitude than at ground level, which contradicts "dark energy".

What?

We are accellerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2

Yes, and?

We are accellerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2

Maybe downwards or sideways depending on what is observing us. According to FE theory, the earth is accelerating northwards. Not only is it correct terminology, it should irritate a few FE'ers.

Northwards?  That doesn't even make sense.

Quote from: George_Bush on November 20, 2007, 07:05:59 PM

We are accellerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2

Maybe downwards or sideways depending on what is observing us. According to FE theory, the earth is accelerating northwards. Not only is it correct terminology, it should irritate a few FE'ers.

We're accelerating toward the center of the disc?