Stars and Gravity

i was going to post this earlier, but i needed to confirm the lack of gravity in the FE model.

stars are giant balls of mostly hydrogen, with helium or carbon depending on thier stages in life. regardless, all stars are constantly fusing these elements togoether to create alpha particles. Very high density and heat is needed for this to work, the kind that can only be created by gravity. Hydrogen just will not bond with itself at low speeds.

Even if stars were not formed from gravity, they will still need gravity to function. As the nuclear processes within them generate so much energy, they attempt to push outwards. Left unchecked, the stars will then blow themselves away. Stars in the RE model refrain form doing this by achieving Hydrostatic Equilibrium. This is a state where the star's outward pressure is equaled by gravity's inward one, keeping it a burning ball instead of a glob or mist.

Without gravity, stars would not form and the universe would remain consistantly hydrogen and space. Without gravity, existing stars would erupt into ionized hydrogen explosions. Is there a similar phenomena dubed "gravitation" that would take care of all this?

Obviously there is some sort of attracting phenomenon which affects the stars and planets.

In the scientific community we call this gravitation.

Obviously there is some sort of attracting phenomenon which affects the stars and planets.

So Tom, there is now a force (in FET) of attraction between Mass. You know, in RET, we call this gravity. It doesn't matter if we know the ultimate cause of it, all that is necessary is that we can uniquely identify that such a force between mass exists. Thank you for you confirmation.

Now, if these objects have a force of attraction, and they are also accelerated by the UA (or whatever), then why does the Earth not ahve this same force between mass. If it does have this force, then the amount of force that would be generated from the directly observable surface of the Earth would cause it to collapse into a sphere.

That is the real problem with any force of attraction between Mass and FET, as soon as you introduce any force of attraction between mass, you end up with a spherical (ie Round) Earth.

So Tom, there is now a force (in FET) of attraction between Mass. You know, in RET, we call this gravity.

Where did I say that it's an attraction of mass which exists in the heavens? It could just as well be an attraction of charges, an already known attracting phenomenon.

There's no reason to consider the unknown when the known already exists.

Quote from: Edtharan on March 21, 2009, 07:59:28 PM

So Tom, there is now a force (in FET) of attraction between Mass. You know, in RET, we call this gravity.

Where did I say that it's an attraction of mass which exists in the heavens? It could just as well be an attraction of charges, an already known attracting phenomenon.

There's no reason to consider the unknown when the known already exists.

Except when the known doesn't explain the observed.

Quote from: Edtharan on March 21, 2009, 07:59:28 PM

So Tom, there is now a force (in FET) of attraction between Mass. You know, in RET, we call this gravity.

Where did I say that it's an attraction of mass which exists in the heavens? It could just as well be an attraction of charges, an already known attracting phenomenon.

There's no reason to consider the unknown when the known already exists.

As we've told you repeatedly, no charges cannot explain the observed attractions. Opposite charges attract, proportional to the difference between the charges. Since all the bodies show attraction and since they all can't be oppositely charged, the idea fails even the first review.

As we've told you repeatedly, no charges cannot explain the observed attractions. Opposite charges attract, proportional to the difference between the charges. Since all the bodies show attraction and since they all can't be oppositely charged, the idea fails even the first review.

I'm sorry, but all bodies in the cosmos appear to be attracted to each other? Since when? Can you cite an example? Last I heard they all appeared to be spreading away from each other.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 21, 2009, 08:38:58 PM

As we've told you repeatedly, no charges cannot explain the observed attractions. Opposite charges attract, proportional to the difference between the charges. Since all the bodies show attraction and since they all can't be oppositely charged, the idea fails even the first review.

I'm sorry, but all bodies in the cosmos appear to be attracted to each other? Since when? Can you cite an example? Last I heard they all appeared to be spreading away from each other.

The planets orbiting the sun.  Stars within galaxies.  Galaxies colliding.  Black holes eating companion stars.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 21, 2009, 08:38:58 PM

As we've told you repeatedly, no charges cannot explain the observed attractions. Opposite charges attract, proportional to the difference between the charges. Since all the bodies show attraction and since they all can't be oppositely charged, the idea fails even the first review.

I'm sorry, but all bodies in the cosmos appear to be attracted to each other? Since when? Can you cite an example? Last I heard they all appeared to be spreading away from each other.

Sure,
Forever.
The moons of Saturn are attracted to Saturn.
You heard wrong.

The planets orbiting the sun.  Stars within galaxies.  Galaxies colliding.  Black holes eating companion stars.

That doesn't sound like universal attraction where "all bodies are attracted towards each other". That seems more like limited attraction only.

If all bodies in the cosmos were attracted towards each other they would all be moving towards each other. But they're not. They're all moving away from each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

Quote from: markjo on March 21, 2009, 08:51:53 PM

The planets orbiting the sun.  Stars within galaxies.  Galaxies colliding.  Black holes eating companion stars.

That doesn't sound like universal attraction where "all bodies are attracted towards each other". That seems more like limited attraction only.

If all bodies were attracted towards each other they would all be moving towards each other. But they're not. They're all moving away from each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

That you make the emboldened statement above demonstrates that you don't understand kinetics. Do you have any evidence that the science of kinetics is wrong and you, alone, are right?

Your link provides no support for your position, by the way. Stop referencing worthless links.

Quote from: Edtharan on March 21, 2009, 07:59:28 PM

So Tom, there is now a force (in FET) of attraction between Mass. You know, in RET, we call this gravity.

Where did I say that it's an attraction of mass which exists in the heavens? It could just as well be an attraction of charges, an already known attracting phenomenon.

There's no reason to consider the unknown when the known already exists.

In all known forces, there is both an attractive and repulsive force. So if there is an attraction, then it can not be one of these other force.

Now, I know you are not directly arguing for a new force (that just happens to exactly behave the way gravity does), but you are proposing one.

Actually, in other threads you ahve stated that there is a force that attracts mass that exists. You ahve used this to explain why the force of gravity gets smaller the further you are from the Earth. Direct measurements of the rate of fall of an object (in a gravimeter) show a distinct difference in rate of fall when the experiment is performed at sea level as compared to on top of a high mountain (I have posted the data before, so go search for it).

So, unless there is some force working as an attractive force between mass, then FET has no possible explanation for it, as this works on all types of matter regardless of the effect the other forces have with them. And, as you have, yourself, proposed that this attractive force exists that works on the mass of an object, then you ahve to accept hat you really have proposed that an attractive force exists between mass.

So either you ahve no idea what you are talking about, suffer form extreme amnesia, or are a hypocrite.

If a planet was the opposite charge of it's moons, that would suggest that all the moons would have the same charge. Why then do the moons not all push each other out of their orbits when they pass close to one another?

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 21, 2009, 08:38:58 PM

As we've told you repeatedly, no charges cannot explain the observed attractions. Opposite charges attract, proportional to the difference between the charges. Since all the bodies show attraction and since they all can't be oppositely charged, the idea fails even the first review.

I'm sorry, but all bodies in the cosmos appear to be attracted to each other? Since when? Can you cite an example? Last I heard they all appeared to be spreading away from each other.

Things can still "spread away from each other" and be attracted to each other. In this case the "spreading" just needs to overcome the force of attraction. Although the force of gravity is infinite, it is also considered a very weak force.

Things can still "spread away from each other" and be attracted to each other. In this case the "spreading" just needs to overcome the force of attraction. Although the force of gravity is infinite, it is also considered a very weak force.

If everything in the cosmos is expanding away from itself, how do you know that they're all attracted to one another? 

Quote from: thevelcrokid on March 22, 2009, 10:39:06 AM

Things can still "spread away from each other" and be attracted to each other. In this case the "spreading" just needs to overcome the force of attraction. Although the force of gravity is infinite, it is also considered a very weak force.

If everything in the cosmos is expanding away from itself, how do you know that they're all attracted to one another? 

By observation and experimentation. Again, explain in your 'no gravity' world how EM charges can keep Saturn's moon and ring particles in billions of stable orbits. "Gravity" does a great job, even predicting shepherding moons for the rings. What has FET's charge theory done to predict anything? Oh, and do tell us how the 'g' variation by altitude and motion of FPs are caused by gravity of the stars working on object on the FE and yet there's no gravity between the stars. Do you need even more special dirt?

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 21, 2009, 08:38:58 PM

As we've told you repeatedly, no charges cannot explain the observed attractions. Opposite charges attract, proportional to the difference between the charges. Since all the bodies show attraction and since they all can't be oppositely charged, the idea fails even the first review.

I'm sorry, but all bodies in the cosmos appear to be attracted to each other? Since when? Can you cite an example? Last I heard they all appeared to be spreading away from each other.

If those objects appear to be spreading away from each other, it does not mean that they do not exhibit any attraction at all.

Quote from: thevelcrokid on March 22, 2009, 10:39:06 AM

Things can still "spread away from each other" and be attracted to each other. In this case the "spreading" just needs to overcome the force of attraction. Although the force of gravity is infinite, it is also considered a very weak force.

If everything in the cosmos is expanding away from itself, how do you know that they're all attracted to one another? 

Attraction does not mean that things will 100% of the time get closer to each other. There are so many variables to count for.

An example for you Tom. Get 2 magnets. Put them together so they 'stick' together.

Now, very slowly, start pulling them apart.

As soon as you slowly start pulling them apart, do they lose all attraction 100%? Or do they still attract each other while still moving away?


EDIT: As the ones who have done this example before know the outcome, we call all say Tom has his thought process going the wrong way. Maybe they let some noob have a go at using his account, instead of one of the others.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 22, 2009, 12:46:18 PM

Quote from: thevelcrokid on March 22, 2009, 10:39:06 AM

Things can still "spread away from each other" and be attracted to each other. In this case the "spreading" just needs to overcome the force of attraction. Although the force of gravity is infinite, it is also considered a very weak force.

If everything in the cosmos is expanding away from itself, how do you know that they're all attracted to one another? 

By observation and experimentation.

What experiments did you conduct on the cosmos to prove that they are all attracted towards each other?

If those objects appear to be spreading away from each other, it does not mean that they do not exhibit any attraction at all.

It doesn't lead to the conclusion that they do exhibit attraction either. In fact it leads to the direct opposite conclusion.

I'm not sure why you insist that something is happening when it's not.

Attraction does not mean that things will 100% of the time get closer to each other. There are so many variables to count for.

An example for you Tom. Get 2 magnets. Put them together so they 'stick' together.

Now, very slowly, start pulling them apart.

As soon as you slowly start pulling them apart, do they lose all attraction 100%? Or do they still attract each other while still moving away?


EDIT: As the ones who have done this example before know the outcome, we call all say Tom has his thought process going the wrong way. Maybe they let some noob have a go at using his account, instead of one of the others.

If things are moving away from each other it cannot be concluded that they are attracted to each other.

If magnets are observed to be moving away from each other at an accelerated rate, does it lead to the conclusion that they are attracted to each other? No.

If the stars are all moving away from each other at an accelerated rate, does it lead to the conclusion that they are all attracting each other? No it doesn't.

If Mary puts a restraining order against John and moves to another state, does it lead to the conclusion that Mary is attracted to John? Nope. (But I'm sure you'll tell me that Mary is attracted to John, and that it was her invisible step mother who filed the restraining order in her name and forced her to move away)

The fact is that the conclusion of universal gravitation between all bodies in the cosmos is an unfounded speculation with no relation to the real world. There is absolutely no evidence behind that assertion. There is no observational, experimental, or meaningful evidence suggesting that all bodies in the heavens are attracted towards each other.

they are attracted to eachother to a DEGREE. not so much that they collide at rapid speeds, because for every galaxy, super cluster etc, there is a black hole. it keeps the cluster together. this is the super massive black hole. there is one in the centre of the milkyway and it is not strong enough to pull everything in, but not so weak everything drifts off. this is caused by gravity


"If things are moving away from each other it cannot be concluded that they are attracted to each other."
ill give you an example. have a tug of war contest, with one side obviously underpowered and one over. the one with more people is the local gravity giant. aka, star, or planet if you have a moon. the smaller team is the regional gravity source. have a knot in the middle of the rope. this is the body being acted on. aka moon to a planet or a planet to a star. pull against eachother. the bigger team will invariably end up with the knot closer to them. there will obviously be some resistance tho, due to the other gravity source or team in this analagy. now do it again with no other team. no resistance. easy. even if one force can not overpower another, it doesnt mean that it has no effect. you seem to be unable to grasp that.

its hard to measure the effect the sun has on the moon compared to the earth does to the moon, when these things are so massive. if you remove one from the equation, we are all fucked, so thats ouy of the question

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 22, 2009, 05:12:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 22, 2009, 12:46:18 PM

Quote from: thevelcrokid on March 22, 2009, 10:39:06 AM

Things can still "spread away from each other" and be attracted to each other. In this case the "spreading" just needs to overcome the force of attraction. Although the force of gravity is infinite, it is also considered a very weak force.

If everything in the cosmos is expanding away from itself, how do you know that they're all attracted to one another? 

By observation and experimentation.

What experiments did you conduct on the cosmos to prove that they are all attracted towards each other?

Quote from: Paralyzed Night on March 23, 2009, 12:01:35 AM

If those objects appear to be spreading away from each other, it does not mean that they do not exhibit any attraction at all.

It doesn't lead to the conclusion that they do exhibit attraction either. In fact it leads to the direct opposite conclusion.

I'm not sure why you insist that something is happening when it's not.

Quote

Attraction does not mean that things will 100% of the time get closer to each other. There are so many variables to count for.

An example for you Tom. Get 2 magnets. Put them together so they 'stick' together.

Now, very slowly, start pulling them apart.

As soon as you slowly start pulling them apart, do they lose all attraction 100%? Or do they still attract each other while still moving away?


EDIT: As the ones who have done this example before know the outcome, we call all say Tom has his thought process going the wrong way. Maybe they let some noob have a go at using his account, instead of one of the others.

If things are moving away from each other it cannot be concluded that they are attracted to each other.

If magnets are observed to be moving away from each other at an accelerated rate, does it lead to the conclusion that they are attracted to each other? No.

If the stars are all moving away from each other at an accelerated rate, does it lead to the conclusion that they are all attracting each other? No it doesn't.

If Mary puts a restraining order against John and moves to another state, does it lead to the conclusion that Mary is attracted to John? Nope. (But I'm sure you'll tell me that Mary is attracted to John, and that it was her invisible step mother who filed the restraining order in her name and forced her to move away)

The fact is that the conclusion of universal gravitation between all bodies in the cosmos is an unfounded speculation with no relation to the real world. There is absolutely no evidence behind that assertion. There is no observational, experimental, or meaningful evidence suggesting that all bodies in the heavens are attracted towards each other.

LOL. Wrong. Please learn to learn.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2009, 12:37:16 AM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 22, 2009, 05:12:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 22, 2009, 12:46:18 PM

Quote from: thevelcrokid on March 22, 2009, 10:39:06 AM

Things can still "spread away from each other" and be attracted to each other. In this case the "spreading" just needs to overcome the force of attraction. Although the force of gravity is infinite, it is also considered a very weak force.

If everything in the cosmos is expanding away from itself, how do you know that they're all attracted to one another? 

By observation and experimentation.

What experiments did you conduct on the cosmos to prove that they are all attracted towards each other?

Quote from: Paralyzed Night on March 23, 2009, 12:01:35 AM

If those objects appear to be spreading away from each other, it does not mean that they do not exhibit any attraction at all.

It doesn't lead to the conclusion that they do exhibit attraction either. In fact it leads to the direct opposite conclusion.

I'm not sure why you insist that something is happening when it's not.

Quote

Attraction does not mean that things will 100% of the time get closer to each other. There are so many variables to count for.

An example for you Tom. Get 2 magnets. Put them together so they 'stick' together.

Now, very slowly, start pulling them apart.

As soon as you slowly start pulling them apart, do they lose all attraction 100%? Or do they still attract each other while still moving away?


EDIT: As the ones who have done this example before know the outcome, we call all say Tom has his thought process going the wrong way. Maybe they let some noob have a go at using his account, instead of one of the others.

If things are moving away from each other it cannot be concluded that they are attracted to each other.

If magnets are observed to be moving away from each other at an accelerated rate, does it lead to the conclusion that they are attracted to each other? No.

If the stars are all moving away from each other at an accelerated rate, does it lead to the conclusion that they are all attracting each other? No it doesn't.

If Mary puts a restraining order against John and moves to another state, does it lead to the conclusion that Mary is attracted to John? Nope. (But I'm sure you'll tell me that Mary is attracted to John, and that it was her invisible step mother who filed the restraining order in her name and forced her to move away)

The fact is that the conclusion of universal gravitation between all bodies in the cosmos is an unfounded speculation with no relation to the real world. There is absolutely no evidence behind that assertion. There is no observational, experimental, or meaningful evidence suggesting that all bodies in the heavens are attracted towards each other.

LOL. Wrong. Please learn to learn.

if you are going to argue, please actually give arguments and example based on fact rather than "YOUR WRONG"...that gives everyone on your side a bad name

they are attracted to eachother to a DEGREE.

Proof? If they are moving away from each other how can you conclude that they are attracted to each other by any degree?

Quote

they are attracted to eachother to a DEGREE.

Proof? If they are moving away from each other how can you conclude that they are attracted to each other by any degree?

proof they dont? just because they are moving appart doesnt mean there isnt some force (regardless of how small) trying to slow them down

Quote

they are attracted to eachother to a DEGREE.

Proof? If they are moving away from each other how can you conclude that they are attracted to each other by any degree?

You can. If you look at my previous posts you will see you are wrong.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2009, 02:32:17 AM

Quote

they are attracted to eachother to a DEGREE.

Proof? If they are moving away from each other how can you conclude that they are attracted to each other by any degree?

You can. If you look at my previous posts you will see you are wrong.

all you said is you are wrong in your last post. also , these guys are trying to argue with tested, confirmed and accepted scientific fact. if they wana prove it, they can present evidence to support their outlandish claims

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2009, 02:32:17 AM

Quote

they are attracted to eachother to a DEGREE.

Proof? If they are moving away from each other how can you conclude that they are attracted to each other by any degree?

proof they dont? just because they are moving appart doesnt mean there isnt some force (regardless of how small) trying to slow them down

Are you even listening to yourself?

"Just because invisible fairies are pulling the stars apart doesn't mean that there aren't other fairies trying to push them back together"

 

Quote from: lupey on March 23, 2009, 02:37:54 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2009, 02:32:17 AM

Quote

they are attracted to eachother to a DEGREE.

Proof? If they are moving away from each other how can you conclude that they are attracted to each other by any degree?

proof they dont? just because they are moving appart doesnt mean there isnt some force (regardless of how small) trying to slow them down

Are you even listening to yourself?

"Just because invisible fairies are pulling the stars apart doesn't mean that there aren't other fairies trying to push them back together"

 

i never said anything about fairies?
the same force pulling them one way is pulling them another aswell. this is G R A V I T Y. it is not a fictional force like everyone here seems to think. its real. its been proven. eveyrone knows its real. the gravity from stars, super clusters, back holes etc is exerting this force on everything within the reach of it. the one that has the highest gravity will pull things in that direction. you only made your self look like an idiot by mentioning fairies even though i never mentioned them. in any way. you just tried to put a childish spin on it to make me look stupid. mission failed

proof gravity exists? drop an object. why does it hit the ground? not some retarded universal acceleration shit, but gravity. UA doesnt even make sence. oh yeah, and news flash. the ua speed was 9.8m/s^2 because thats earths gravitational pull, due to its size and mass. it should therefore be different on every planet, they have diferent ammounts of gravity. they cant all be using you "UA" at different speeds. theyd be alot further appart by now. much, much farther. there is no UA. just gravity

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 22, 2009, 05:12:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 22, 2009, 12:46:18 PM

Quote from: thevelcrokid on March 22, 2009, 10:39:06 AM

Things can still "spread away from each other" and be attracted to each other. In this case the "spreading" just needs to overcome the force of attraction. Although the force of gravity is infinite, it is also considered a very weak force.

If everything in the cosmos is expanding away from itself, how do you know that they're all attracted to one another? 

By observation and experimentation.

What experiments did you conduct on the cosmos to prove that they are all attracted towards each other?

As you know, there are no experiments which can be performed on the cosmos. We are not Gods. However we can observe and define theories to account for those observations. Something FE fails deeply to do.

To answer your question, comets will deviate their course and orbit the sun in an eliptic fashion. Likewise, asteroids which pass close to planets will be "attracted" to the planet, and their course will be deviated. Thus attraction is observed.

See Keplars Laws of planetary motion.