Confused about the sun

yeah the faq's say that the sun and the moon are spotlights shining on earth, if so how are these powered.
also, how can the sun and the moon posses gravity but the earth doesn't. does the earth not posses mass? 

Quote from: Theaceofjs on March 30, 2010, 10:55:25 AM

yeah the faq's say that the sun and the moon are spotlights shining on earth, if so how are these powered.
also, how can the sun and the moon posses gravity but the earth doesn't. does the earth not posses mass? 

You have touched on one of the massive flaws. Even if earth did have gravity, and it wasn't randomly flying upwards, it would collapse on itself to make a sphere anyway.

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 12:54:43 PM

Quote from: Theaceofjs on March 30, 2010, 10:55:25 AM

yeah the faq's say that the sun and the moon are spotlights shining on earth, if so how are these powered.
also, how can the sun and the moon posses gravity but the earth doesn't. does the earth not posses mass? 

You have touched on one of the massive flaws. Even if earth did have gravity, and it wasn't randomly flying upwards, it would collapse on itself to make a sphere anyway.

You mean the Earth would theoretically collapse on itself to make a sphere anyway.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 30, 2010, 03:57:22 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 12:54:43 PM

Quote from: Theaceofjs on March 30, 2010, 10:55:25 AM

yeah the faq's say that the sun and the moon are spotlights shining on earth, if so how are these powered.
also, how can the sun and the moon posses gravity but the earth doesn't. does the earth not posses mass? 

You have touched on one of the massive flaws. Even if earth did have gravity, and it wasn't randomly flying upwards, it would collapse on itself to make a sphere anyway.

You mean the Earth would theoretically collapse on itself to make a sphere anyway.

No, I mean it would physically collapse on itself to make a sphere.

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 05:14:09 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 30, 2010, 03:57:22 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 12:54:43 PM

Quote from: Theaceofjs on March 30, 2010, 10:55:25 AM

yeah the faq's say that the sun and the moon are spotlights shining on earth, if so how are these powered.
also, how can the sun and the moon posses gravity but the earth doesn't. does the earth not posses mass? 

You have touched on one of the massive flaws. Even if earth did have gravity, and it wasn't randomly flying upwards, it would collapse on itself to make a sphere anyway.

You mean the Earth would theoretically collapse on itself to make a sphere anyway.

No, I mean it would physically collapse on itself to make a sphere.

Interesting.  Can you provide some examples?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 30, 2010, 05:41:59 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 05:14:09 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 30, 2010, 03:57:22 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 12:54:43 PM

Quote from: Theaceofjs on March 30, 2010, 10:55:25 AM

yeah the faq's say that the sun and the moon are spotlights shining on earth, if so how are these powered.
also, how can the sun and the moon posses gravity but the earth doesn't. does the earth not posses mass? 

You have touched on one of the massive flaws. Even if earth did have gravity, and it wasn't randomly flying upwards, it would collapse on itself to make a sphere anyway.

You mean the Earth would theoretically collapse on itself to make a sphere anyway.

No, I mean it would physically collapse on itself to make a sphere.

Interesting.  Can you provide some examples?

According to gravity (Which FE agrees on, it does) Things as big as earth can't exist in such a thin form.

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 05:46:28 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 30, 2010, 05:41:59 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 05:14:09 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 30, 2010, 03:57:22 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 12:54:43 PM

Quote from: Theaceofjs on March 30, 2010, 10:55:25 AM

yeah the faq's say that the sun and the moon are spotlights shining on earth, if so how are these powered.
also, how can the sun and the moon posses gravity but the earth doesn't. does the earth not posses mass? 

You have touched on one of the massive flaws. Even if earth did have gravity, and it wasn't randomly flying upwards, it would collapse on itself to make a sphere anyway.

You mean the Earth would theoretically collapse on itself to make a sphere anyway.

No, I mean it would physically collapse on itself to make a sphere.

Interesting.  Can you provide some examples?

According to gravity (Which FE agrees on, it does) Things as big as earth can't exist in such a thin form.

Right, that's what I wanted.  Please provide evidence of another "thin" body the size of the Earth collapsing into a ball.  I mean, if you're going to state it as absolute fact rather than theory, I'm sure you're able to back it up with examples.

No.

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 05:56:51 PM

No.

Then you recognize that your statement has never been proven, right?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 30, 2010, 05:59:27 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 05:56:51 PM

No.

Then you recognize that your statement has never been proven, right?

No, I recognise that my statement has been proven by way of all large celestial objects being round and therefore not flat so no examples can be given. It is in gravity's nature to make things round.

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 06:02:35 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 30, 2010, 05:59:27 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 05:56:51 PM

No.

Then you recognize that your statement has never been proven, right?

No, I recognise that my statement has been proven by way of all large celestial objects being round and therefore not flat so no examples can be given. It is in gravity's nature to make things round.

Oh dear God.

Please look up the converse fallacy of accident before posting again.

According to gravity (Which FE agrees on, it does) Things as big as earth can't exist in such a thin form. Done. Please don't go arguing against things that your theory requires in order to work. It make you look like a nub.

I didn't say "All things are round therefore gravity must make all things round"

No, I recognise that my statement has been proven by way of all large celestial objects being round and therefore not flat

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 05:46:28 PM

According to gravity (Which FE agrees on, it does) Things as big as earth can't exist in such a thin form. Done. Please don't go arguing against things that your theory requires in order to work. It make you look like a nub.

I don't believe in gravity.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 06:27:50 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 05:46:28 PM

According to gravity (Which FE agrees on, it does) Things as big as earth can't exist in such a thin form. Done. Please don't go arguing against things that your theory requires in order to work. It make you look like a nub.

I don't believe in gravity.

So it doesn't exist? I don't believe in Belgium. It must not exist.

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 06:48:10 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 06:27:50 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 05:46:28 PM

According to gravity (Which FE agrees on, it does) Things as big as earth can't exist in such a thin form. Done. Please don't go arguing against things that your theory requires in order to work. It make you look like a nub.

I don't believe in gravity.

So it doesn't exist? I don't believe in Belgium. It must not exist.

Before man had an understanding of magnetic attraction, it could have been said that magnets operated on some sort of magic.
Likewise, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes were acts of the gods before we understood those processes as well.

I think this gravity business, which is as of yet a very poorly understood phenomenon, to the the equivalent of the new for for 'magic.'
We're recognize there is a force there, and we're still trying to understand exactly how it works.
I'm personally not anywhere near satisfied with the explanation for gravity.  I'm dissatified with gravity in both RE and FE.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 07:00:57 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 06:48:10 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 06:27:50 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 05:46:28 PM

According to gravity (Which FE agrees on, it does) Things as big as earth can't exist in such a thin form. Done. Please don't go arguing against things that your theory requires in order to work. It make you look like a nub.

I don't believe in gravity.

So it doesn't exist? I don't believe in Belgium. It must not exist.

Before man had an understanding of magnetic attraction, it could have been said that magnets operated on some sort of magic.
Likewise, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes were acts of the gods before we understood those processes as well.

I think this gravity business, which is as of yet a very poorly understood phenomenon, to the the equivalent of the new for for 'magic.'
We're recognize there is a force there, and we're still trying to understand exactly how it works.
I'm personally not anywhere near satisfied with the explanation for gravity.  I'm dissatified with gravity in both RE and FE.

Once again, I turn your attention to Bendy light. Nobody can explain it so I am equally dissatisfied with it's existence.

Which is why we have that giant circle of proton smashing.


They are trying to understand how it works, let them get around to it.

Quote from: flyingmonkey on March 30, 2010, 07:37:53 PM

Which is why we have that giant circle of proton smashing.


They are trying to understand how it works, let them get around to it.

That shit broke and killed everyone, didn't it?

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 07:42:12 PM

Quote from: flyingmonkey on March 30, 2010, 07:37:53 PM

Which is why we have that giant circle of proton smashing.


They are trying to understand how it works, let them get around to it.

That shit broke and killed everyone, didn't it?

Huh?  It did? lol.  I just heard it broke, I didn't know anyone died.

Smashing two protons or hadrons together doesn't really prove the existance or lack of gravity.  It's a novel idea, but I think since the results of the experiment are inferrences rather than cold hard facts, it's still going to be debatable, and always will be.
I personally don't have the solution to this problem, I'm just identifying there is one.  And that's the first step, you know ;-)
If it's anything like all the other gravity experiments, it's gonna go like this:
In experiment A, we expect to see X!
During experiment A, we observed Y!
Well...what we meant to say is that X is actually Y, in the sense that Y = X + B!
So, it's conclusive, what we predicted stands.
And this is how we got Dark matter in the first place.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 08:08:32 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 07:42:12 PM

Quote from: flyingmonkey on March 30, 2010, 07:37:53 PM

Which is why we have that giant circle of proton smashing.


They are trying to understand how it works, let them get around to it.

That shit broke and killed everyone, didn't it?

Huh?  It did? lol.  I just heard it broke, I didn't know anyone died.

Smashing two protons or hadrons together doesn't really prove the existance or lack of gravity.  It's a novel idea, but I think since the results of the experiment are inferrences rather than cold hard facts, it's still going to be debatable, and always will be.
I personally don't have the solution to this problem, I'm just identifying there is one.  And that's the first step, you know ;-)
If it's anything like all the other gravity experiments, it's gonna go like this:
In experiment A, we expect to see X!
During experiment A, we observed Y!
Well...what we meant to say is that X is actually Y, in the sense that Y = X + B!
So, it's conclusive, what we predicted stands.
And this is how we got Dark matter in the first place.

Nobody died.

But when you become a super mega scientist like the guys doing the hadron shit, you can then come and tell us that it's invalid.

I'm not saying it's invalid.  How can I say it's invalid if the experiment hasn't even been carried out yet.  It's so far beyond my understanding of physics I'd have no way of knowing one way or the other.  For all I freaking know, smashing together two protons creates a grapefruit.
However, based on what I have read and seem to understand, everything else to prove or disprove gravity has been rather loopey.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 08:35:22 PM

I'm not saying it's invalid.  How can I say it's invalid if the experiment hasn't even been carried out yet.  It's so far beyond my understanding of physics I'd have no way of knowing one way or the other.  For all I freaking know, smashing together two protons creates a grapefruit.
However, based on what I have read and seem to understand, everything else to prove or disprove gravity has been rather loopey.

Gravity doesn't need proving; it's the effect we see and feel. It needs explaining, that's all.

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 08:38:18 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 08:35:22 PM

I'm not saying it's invalid.  How can I say it's invalid if the experiment hasn't even been carried out yet.  It's so far beyond my understanding of physics I'd have no way of knowing one way or the other.  For all I freaking know, smashing together two protons creates a grapefruit.
However, based on what I have read and seem to understand, everything else to prove or disprove gravity has been rather loopey.

Gravity doesn't need proving; it's the effect we see and feel. It needs explaining, that's all.

So, explain.  Gravity could be caused by something else entirely (like perpetual momentum). 

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 10:52:49 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 08:38:18 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 08:35:22 PM

I'm not saying it's invalid.  How can I say it's invalid if the experiment hasn't even been carried out yet.  It's so far beyond my understanding of physics I'd have no way of knowing one way or the other.  For all I freaking know, smashing together two protons creates a grapefruit.
However, based on what I have read and seem to understand, everything else to prove or disprove gravity has been rather loopey.

Gravity doesn't need proving; it's the effect we see and feel. It needs explaining, that's all.

So, explain.  Gravity could be caused by something else entirely (like perpetual momentum). 

You mean the motion that creates more energy than it uses, breakig the law of thermodynamics?

2fst4u is right, Gravity is the phenomenon of all matter being attracted to each other.  We know how much gravity is exerted by how much mass.  Everything else is theory. 
It's like light before we knew about photons and waves.  We called it light.  We knew what it did.  We just didn't know HOW it did it.

Quote from: Lorddave on March 31, 2010, 05:13:15 AM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 10:52:49 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 30, 2010, 08:38:18 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 08:35:22 PM

I'm not saying it's invalid.  How can I say it's invalid if the experiment hasn't even been carried out yet.  It's so far beyond my understanding of physics I'd have no way of knowing one way or the other.  For all I freaking know, smashing together two protons creates a grapefruit.
However, based on what I have read and seem to understand, everything else to prove or disprove gravity has been rather loopey.

Gravity doesn't need proving; it's the effect we see and feel. It needs explaining, that's all.

So, explain.  Gravity could be caused by something else entirely (like perpetual momentum). 

You mean the motion that creates more energy than it uses, breakig the law of thermodynamics?

2fst4u is right, Gravity is the phenomenon of all matter being attracted to each other.  We know how much gravity is exerted by how much mass.  Everything else is theory. 
It's like light before we knew about photons and waves.  We called it light.  We knew what it did.  We just didn't know HOW it did it.

Explain to me then how much engery is 'used' by gravity, and how we measure this use.
Gravity doesn't appear to use any energy.  It's just some intrinsic property of matter, apparently.