planets' orbits

Quote

Dont think that after 150 posts i havent read the FAQ. How thick can you be...
Wait since when did you stop believing in a flat sun. Since when is it round by you guys?

Since when was it flat?

Quote

How the hell do all the planets in the solar system orbit something only 32 miles in diameter.

How do electrons orbit an atom only picometers in diameter?

Quote

Why does this "form of electromagnetism"(enlighten me as to how this could work) not exist on the earth.

Where did I say that it doesn't?

Quote

FAQ quotes that are contradictary to your statements tom
Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"

A: The celestial bodies have a slight gravitational pull.

No, the FAQ doesn't contradict me.

Gravitation is not the same as gravity. Gravitation is an action word which means that bodies are attracted towards each other. Two magnets are said to "gravitate"towards each other. Your neighborhood mailman "gravitates" towards the local Thai restaurant.

Gravity is a specific mechanism under in which bodies are attracted by mass.

In the FET the sun is a tiny little shinny ball that circles around and its gravitacional field is strong enough to hold up all planets in the "solar system" in each respective orbit.

According to the FET the sun is really close to the earth, like 3000 miles away, but its gravity is strong enough to maintain even Jupiter, that is really far away and is very big, in its orbit. Now, if this was really true, the earth would have been torn apart by the sun's gravitacional field along time ago. We are too close to the FE sun to not be affected in a very destructive way by its gravity.

Anyway, this wasn't even my point. My point is, you can not say that what keeps a electron in  its "orbit" around the proton  is the same thing that keeps  planets  in theirs orbit around the sun. Not according to some scientist.

Atomic orbitals are typically described as hydrogen-like wave functions over space, indexed by the n, l, and m quantum numbers or by the names used in electron configurations. Despite the obvious analogy to planets revolving around the Sun, electrons cannot be described as solid particles and so atomic orbitals rarely, if ever, resemble a planet's elliptical path. A more accurate analogy might be that of a large and often oddly-shaped atmosphere (the electron), distributed around a relatively tiny planet (the atomic nucleus). Because of the difference from classical mechanical orbits, the term "orbit" for electrons in atoms, has been replaced with the term orbital. The orbital names (s, p, d, f) are derived from the characteristics of their spectroscopic lines: sharp, principal, diffuse, and fundamental, the rest being named in alphabetical order.

You can find the whole article at http://wapedia.mobi/en/Atomic_orbital



With this information you can safely conclude that the answer given by Tom Bishop is not correct. You can't say that what keep planets in orbit is the same thing that keep electrons in orbit, becouse electrons aren't planets in the same way that dogs aren't cats.

Firstly, you assume the planets in FET are as big and massive as in the RET. Secondly, you assume the inverse square law holds.

Firstly, you assume the planets in FET are as big and massive as in the RET. Secondly, you assume the inverse square law holds.

So, the other planets are just tiny little balls just like the moon and the sun?

And again as we still have no answer, why are these other orbiting planets round and the earth is flat?

How can you measure the mass of the Earth or any other planet?
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae170.cfm?CFID=17977808&CFTOKEN=19887136

How You Can Measure the Size of Planets
http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/how-you-can-measure-the-size-of-planets-605078.html


As you can see, the science has ways to measure those things.

Now, if you want to refute these well-known theories you must provide a valid argument to suport your claims. And when I mean argument, I mean mathematical and/or physical arguments.

ps: note that none of my links are from wikipedia.

RE wins?

So, the other planets are just tiny little balls just like the moon and the sun?

Yes.

And again as we still have no answer, why are these other orbiting planets round and the earth is flat?

Other planets are not the earth.

How can you measure the mass of the Earth or any other planet?
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae170.cfm?CFID=17977808&CFTOKEN=19887136

How You Can Measure the Size of Planets
http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/how-you-can-measure-the-size-of-planets-605078.html

As you can see, the science has ways to measure those things.

Who confirmed those calculations?

Who collected all of the earth's mass and confirmed that those calculations were correct?

Quote

So, the other planets are just tiny little balls just like the moon and the sun?

Yes.

Quote

And again as we still have no answer, why are these other orbiting planets round and the earth is flat?

Other planets are not the earth.

Quote

How can you measure the mass of the Earth or any other planet?
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae170.cfm?CFID=17977808&CFTOKEN=19887136

How You Can Measure the Size of Planets
http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/how-you-can-measure-the-size-of-planets-605078.html

As you can see, the science has ways to measure those things.

Who confirmed those calculations?

Who collected all of the earth's mass and confirmed that those calculations were correct?

If you show to me that their calculation is not correct,  I will believe in you.

If you show to me that their calculation is not correct,  I will believe in you.

Damnit man! He's a conspiracist, not a physicist!

If you show to me that their calculation is not correct,  I will believe in you.

Those figures are calculated - imaginary and hypothetical figures for what the mass of the earth would be if it were a sphere of a certain size. They cannot be considered correct because they were never demonstrated so in the first place.

Quote

So, the other planets are just tiny little balls just like the moon and the sun?

Yes.

How tiny?

Has anyone done any calculations as to how small they really are?

size of a 5mm ballbearing?
size of a marble?
size of a football?
size of a beachball?

Quote from: lexotan on June 10, 2009, 08:12:56 AM

If you show to me that their calculation is not correct,  I will believe in you.

Those figures are calculated - imaginary and hypothetical figures for what the mass of the earth would be if it were a sphere of a certain size. They cannot be considered correct because they were never demonstrated so in the first place.

If you had bothered in read the link I posted, you'd have seen that  indeed that website shows how those everything were calculated based on real experiments.

So far your only argument is that all experiments ever done by the mankind regarding astronomy is totally incorrect, but you haven't proved nothing you said.

I don't care if you say that my experiments were incorrect, I'm not that clever, but I haven't said that the earth is in fact a glove, brilhant men did.

For instance, Stephen Hawking is  specialist in Astronomy, do you think that a brilhant man like him would never notice that Nasa was sending to him fake data? Do you really think we wound't notice?

Or Albert Einstein, do you really think that Albert Einstein wound't notice that all experiments done in the world regarding the roundiness of the earth are in fact incorrect?

Just like any good cult, the leader, in this case, Tom Bishop, is all knowing and is never wrong. He is obviously more intelligent then any previous thought genius's or founders of this thing so called "physics".

Tom Bishop is all knowing, bow before him.

 

But on a serious note, this Flat Earth Society has such a small following for a reason. You can't prove someone who is out of their mind wrong. This forum is just a bunch of crazies getting together, wearing their tinfoil hats to keep NASA out of their heads, and prove any naysayer wrong with a witty one liner argument. Dancing around the idea of an actual intelligent argument, they often resort to the child like antics of answering a question, with a question. They try to convey intelligence with the sheer amount of followers to support and attack a naysayer.

Ultimately, this forum is a fail. NASA is not a conspiracy, the moon landing wasn't staged, and the Earth is round. Prove it you say? Just look at one of NASA's published pictures.

If you still don't believe me, wait until Virgin Mobile launches their commercial space shuttle and buy a ticket. If you manage to afford a ticket you'll probably still say, but the window is concave! Giving the appearance the Earth is round!

You can believe the Earth is flat, I really don't care. But if you put yourself publicly out on the internet, you will get a response from us naysayers.

Even though I'm arguing right now, I'm not all serious about it. I find this site too damn amusing to stop reading.

Even though I'm arguing right now, I'm not all serious about it. I find this site too damn amusing to stop reading.

Don't worry, the assimilation process is relatively painless.

Just like any good cult, the leader, in this case, Tom Bishop, is all knowing and is never wrong. He is obviously more intelligent then any previous thought genius's or founders of this thing so called "physics".

Tom Bishop is all knowing, bow before him.

 

But on a serious note, this Flat Earth Society has such a small following for a reason. You can't prove someone who is out of their mind wrong. This forum is just a bunch of crazies getting together, wearing their tinfoil hats to keep NASA out of their heads, and prove any naysayer wrong with a witty one liner argument. Dancing around the idea of an actual intelligent argument, they often resort to the child like antics of answering a question, with a question. They try to convey intelligence with the sheer amount of followers to support and attack a naysayer.

Ultimately, this forum is a fail. NASA is not a conspiracy, the moon landing wasn't staged, and the Earth is round. Prove it you say? Just look at one of NASA's published pictures.

If you still don't believe me, wait until Virgin Mobile launches their commercial space shuttle and buy a ticket. If you manage to afford a ticket you'll probably still say, but the window is concave! Giving the appearance the Earth is round!

You can believe the Earth is flat, I really don't care. But if you put yourself publicly out on the internet, you will get a response from us naysayers.

Even though I'm arguing right now, I'm not all serious about it. I find this site too damn amusing to stop reading.

This forum is indeed very interesting.

Don't worry, the assimilation process is relatively painless.

Oh dear, I should be careful! 

that ticket takes more than money.

you actualy have to train even after you bought the ticket.  It's no joyride.

Well yeah, you have to be fit and be prepared to enter a environment without gravity. We should be careful talking about this though. There might be a backlash saying space travel has never been done before and is not possible. Considering NASA is evil. 

Well yeah, you have to be fit and be prepared to enter a environment without gravity. We should be careful talking about this though. There might be a backlash saying space travel has never been done before and is not possible. Considering NASA is evil. 

perhaps you become brainwashed during the training!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2009, 10:03:21 AM

Quote from: lexotan on June 10, 2009, 08:12:56 AM

If you show to me that their calculation is not correct,  I will believe in you.

Those figures are calculated - imaginary and hypothetical figures for what the mass of the earth would be if it were a sphere of a certain size. They cannot be considered correct because they were never demonstrated so in the first place.

If you had bothered in read the link I posted, you'd have seen that  indeed that website shows how those everything were calculated based on real experiments.

So far your only argument is that all experiments ever done by the mankind regarding astronomy is totally incorrect, but you haven't proved nothing you said.

I don't care if you say that my experiments were incorrect, I'm not that clever, but I haven't said that the earth is in fact a glove, brilhant men did.

For instance, Stephen Hawking is  specialist in Astronomy, do you think that a brilhant man like him would never notice that Nasa was sending to him fake data? Do you really think we wound't notice?

Or Albert Einstein, do you really think that Albert Einstein wound't notice that all experiments done in the world regarding the roundiness of the earth are in fact incorrect?

lets'go back to the topic, shall we?

I want answers 

They don't have any, Its all smoke and mirrors.

Just like any good cult, the leader, in this case, Tom Bishop, is all knowing and is never wrong. He is obviously more intelligent then any previous thought genius's or founders of this thing so called "physics".

Tom Bishop is all knowing, bow before him.

Word.

They don't have any, Its all smoke and mirrors.

True dat!