Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
I haven't read any of the posts that except for the one I quoted when I posted. After I read through some of the posts, I see that other's have reached the same conclusion that I have.
most of my questions have been answered but these are still just answers according to something that we cant see still. i still dont understand why gravity would become less powerful as things get further out,
For the same reason why your flashlight doesn't remain as bright as it is from 1 yard away when one sees it from 1 mile away.
like if the gravity pull of the sun is strong enough to move pluto but not enough to move a little space ship near earth.
But it is! The little spaceship near earth is fully caught by the sun's gravity, it just orbits both the sun and the earth at the same time. What should we see instead according to your understanding of gravity?
__________________ "One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. [...] Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it."
Here is a simple graphic representation of why gravity gets weaker the farther you get from an object. Note you can do the same thing with light intensity and demonstrate it with a flashlight if you want to try.
This is not from some theory it is just a matter of what is observed.
Very simply the total amount of pull (gravitational force) exerted by an object is constant, it acts over an area that is equal in all directions. If you double the distance from the source (2rE in the diagram)the force now has to distribute itself over an area that is 4 times as large(giving Ge/4). Simple clue, the squares are all the same size.
This can be seen very easily if you remember back to about eigth grade when you learned the surface area of a sphere. If you calculate the area for a radius of 1 and for a radius of two you will see that the area for the radius of 2 is 4 times that for the radius of one.
This is not evolution, it is not even physics it is just algebra, and this relationship has been known for probably 2000 years or more. The relationship has been measured many times and agrees as far as can be measured.
This is the effect that determines why bodies orbit etc. If you do not understand this, please take the time to say why you think you do not understand it, please don't just respond with it is not in the bible.
most of my questions have been answered but these are still just answers according to something that we cant see still. i still dont understand why gravity would become less powerful as things get further out, like if the gravity pull of the sun is strong enough to move pluto but not enough to move a little space ship near earth.
but mostly importantly im left with a better understanding at why evolutionists arent taken seriously, when the first reply to your questions is to tell me im not being sincere. but then again to see some lacking morals isnt shocking when they dont read the bible
Gravity has less to do with how far something is from the source than how massive the object being acted upon is. Pluto is far mroe massive than a spaceship and will cause more gravity to be pulled on it, just as an ant cannot be put into orbit around a mountain, there is just not enough mass in ratio to its surroundings.
Here is a simple graphic representation of why gravity gets weaker the farther you get from an object. Note you can do the same thing with light intensity and demonstrate it with a flashlight if you want to try.
This is not from some theory it is just a matter of what is observed.
Very simply the total amount of pull (gravitational force) exerted by an object is constant, it acts over an area that is equal in all directions. If you double the distance from the source (2rE in the diagram)the force now has to distribute itself over an area that is 4 times as large(giving Ge/4). Simple clue, the squares are all the same size.
This can be seen very easily if you remember back to about eigth grade when you learned the surface area of a sphere. If you calculate the area for a radius of 1 and for a radius of two you will see that the area for the radius of 2 is 4 times that for the radius of one.
This is not evolution, it is not even physics it is just algebra, and this relationship has been known for probably 2000 years or more. The relationship has been measured many times and agrees as far as can be measured.
This is the effect that determines why bodies orbit etc. If you do not understand this, please take the time to say why you think you do not understand it, please don't just respond with it is not in the bible.
]
I understand that, spherical divergence. I have to correct for that when I am processing seismic data.
1/t*v^2 is the correction if I'm not mistaken
But I probably am
It's hard being a geologist in the geophysics industry
I understand that, spherical divergence. I have to correct for that when I am processing seismic data.
1/t*v^2 is the correction if I'm not mistaken
But I probably am
It's hard being a geologist in the geophysics industry
I am guessing that seismic divergence is the degree that a signal falls off relative to distance ie the same signal from twice as far away is 1/4 as strong in which case it is exactly the same thing.
It is just the inverse square law, and it applies to anything that increases as the square of one dimension.
Second demo,
Take 4 jellybeans, or other objects of your choice and a ruler 1foot is good.
Draw a square 1 ft. on a side, put the four objects in it. you have a unit density of 4 per square fout.
Now take your ruler and draw a square that is 2 feet on a side and draw the lines at each foot so that you have a big square with four little squares the size of the first square .
Distribute your objects evenly to to the large square, ie one per little square.
you now have a density of 4 per 4 square feet or 1 per square foot.
So you can see that by doubling one dimension you reduced the other by a factor of 4
If objects were pull from gravity, moving twice as far away means the pull is 1/4 what it was.
The relative effect for anything that is constand from a source will fall off as the inverse of the distance times itself
I am guessing that seismic divergence is the degree that a signal falls off relative to distance ie the same signal from twice as far away is 1/4 as strong in which case it is exactly the same thing.
It is just the inverse square law, and it applies to anything that increases as the square of one dimension.
Second demo,
Take 4 jellybeans, or other objects of your choice and a ruler 1foot is good.
Draw a square 1 ft. on a side, put the four objects in it. you have a unit density of 4 per square fout.
Now take your ruler and draw a square that is 2 feet on a side and draw the lines at each foot so that you have a big square with four little squares the size of the first square .
Distribute your objects evenly to to the large square, ie one per little square.
you now have a density of 4 per 4 square feet or 1 per square foot.
So you can see that by doubling one dimension you reduced the other by a factor of 4
If objects were pull from gravity, moving twice as far away means the pull is 1/4 what it was.
The relative effect for anything that is constand from a source will fall off as the inverse of the distance times itself
Correct it is the inverse square law in effect as a spherical wavefront moves out from our source we have to compensate for the fact that as it travels further the same amount of energy is carried over a larger area.
This is not evolution, it is not even physics it is just algebra, and this relationship has been known for probably 2000 years or more. The relationship has been measured many times and agrees as far as can be measured.
but evolution DOES depend on gravity to make its point. i mean if we are to believe what evolutionists say we need to accept the package deal of "theories" like gravity, continental drift, the fossils and more. even the long agers and old earthers claims fit the mold a little too perfectly. hmmm.......
but anyways evolutionists like to pretend that gravity has nothing to do with their theory but it does because if there is no gravity then any creature could of become bipedal and then they are wrong. but with gravity rhey say its a rare thing that only people have because we "Evolved" that way
Originally Posted by azmurath
Gravity has less to do with how far something is from the source than how massive the object being acted upon is. Pluto is far mroe massive than a spaceship and will cause more gravity to be pulled on it, just as an ant cannot be put into orbit around a mountain, there is just not enough mass in ratio to its surroundings.
so if you have a vaccum and at the top is a sphere(the sun) and connected to it is a thin string which connects to another object(like a spaceship model or another spere_. are you telling me that the string will break for a 1 pound "weighted" spaceship model but not a 50 pound "sphere" representing pluto????
but evolution DOES depend on gravity to make its point. i mean if we are to believe what evolutionists say we need to accept the package deal of "theories" like gravity, continental drift, the fossils and more. even the long agers and old earthers claims fit the mold a little too perfectly. hmmm.......
It all works! It's a conspiracy!
Seriously, what did you expect? That in the last 400 years since Newton came up with gravitational theory no one had ever asked a question about it?
but anyways evolutionists like to pretend that gravity has nothing to do with their theory but it does because if there is no gravity then any creature could of become bipedal and then they are wrong. but with gravity rhey say its a rare thing that only people have because we "Evolved" that way
Any creature could become bipedal if they evolved to redistribute their mass. Other species already are - look at birds and kangaroos, for example. Were does evolution dictate that only humans can be bipedal? That implies we're special somehow - that's a religious notion, not a scientific one.
As far as we know, life would still have evolved if the gravity at the surface was not 9.8 m/s^2. Higher or lower, we still could have adapted.
so if you have a vaccum and at the top is a sphere(the sun) and connected to it is a thin string which connects to another object(like a spaceship model or another spere_. are you telling me that the string will break for a 1 pound "weighted" spaceship model but not a 50 pound "sphere" representing pluto????
I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. Pluto and spaceships both orbit the Sun, unless the spaceship can overcome the gravitational force of the Sun through acceleration (which they do if we send them to Pluto). What's this about strings?
most of my questions have been answered but these are still just answers according to something that we cant see still. i still dont understand why gravity would become less powerful as things get further out, like if the gravity pull of the sun is strong enough to move pluto but not enough to move a little space ship near earth.
but mostly importantly im left with a better understanding at why evolutionists arent taken seriously, when the first reply to your questions is to tell me im not being sincere. but then again to see some lacking morals isnt shocking when they dont read the bible
Really?? If you say things like:
Originally Posted by you
you didnt answer my queestion. if space is a vacuum and we are protected from our "Atmopshere" what protects the astronauts from being sucked out of their space ship? they dont have an atmosphere. and also, where would they be "sucked" too??? why would space be a vacuum?
At what point exactly should we get the idea that you're being sincere. Are you really serious that you didn't think about that Space Shuttle thingie surrounding the astronauts? Are you really serious that the fact that they need to wear pressure suits when they go outside the space craft didn't ring any bells with you?
Sincere? You? Not if it hit you in the face.
__________________
Tom
'What luck for rulers, that men do not think.'
-Ascribed to Adolf Hitler-
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glas by Lewis Caroll-
Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
Linear Mode
