| Creation & Evolution Forum 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. |
 | | 
14th June 2006, 01:07 AM
| | Veteran
  
| | Join Date: 1st June 2006
Posts: 1,394
Blessings: 86,844
Reps: 1,373 (power: 8) | | Originally Posted by Nathan Poe And if you were homeschooled, you might want to include a charge of domestic abuse.
This charge may turn up with fair regularity in the future I suspect. |
14th June 2006, 01:11 AM
| | Veteran
| | Join Date: 1st June 2006
Posts: 1,394
Blessings: 86,844
Reps: 1,373 (power: 8) | | Originally Posted by AngryNotice if space is a vaccum why wouldnt the sun and planets and other stuff be ripped apart ifits trying to even itself out??
but mercury isnt drawn into it, or devoured so why would this happen to the earth??? wouldnt it just orbit the sun? and then what happens to our moon??
thats not what i heard. ive been told always from start that the tides are because the earth is constantly moving and the oceansare literally sloshing around. like if you have a bowl of water and then move it around some parts will get higher or lower
Have you ever been accused of excesive consumption of Jack Daniels?
You do sound familiar. |
14th June 2006, 01:17 AM
| | Senior Member
 
| | Join Date: 11th June 2006 Location: Maryland
Posts: 732
Blessings: 92,852
Reps: 596,997,442,336,088 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by AngryNotice if space is a vaccum why wouldnt the sun and planets and other stuff be ripped apart ifits trying to even itself out??
Are you for real? Planets are held together by gravity, thus that is why gravity is essential. but mercury isnt drawn into it, or devoured so why would this happen to the earth??? wouldnt it just orbit the sun? and then what happens to our moon??
There are forces such as cetrifugal force pulling Mercury back into its orbit, and its mass only allows so much gravity to be exerted on it in the first place. thats not what i heard. ive been told always from start that the tides are because the earth is constantly moving and the oceansare literally sloshing around. like if you have a bowl of water and then move it around some parts will get higher or lower
No, research it a bit. High tide occurs when the moon is facing that ocean and literally pulls the ocean up, then low tide occurs when the moon is facing the other side of the ocean and pulls that ocean up, causing the waters on the first side to recede some. |
14th June 2006, 02:46 AM
|  | Melius servire volo
30    
 | | Join Date: 13th June 2006 Location: Princeton, NJ, USA
Posts: 408
Blessings: 79,234
Reps: 4,133 (power: 10) | | (Quotes are adjusted for readability; intent is kept exactly the same.) Originally Posted by AngryNotice If space is a vacuum, why wouldn't the sun and planets and other stuff be ripped apart if [space is] trying to even itself out?
If the atoms that made up the universe were doing nothing but sitting around, sure, the sun and everything else would be "even[ed] out". But they're not standing still. They're bonded to each other, they're attracted to each other, and they're moving.
It's due to the properties of matter. It's far easier for a gas or a liquid to "even itself out" in a vacuum because the molecules are less tightly bound to each other. Solids are... well... more solid. That's why asteroids and planets aren't reduced to mere space dust. Another reason is (guess what...) gravity. The planets are pulled towards their center of mass by their core's gravitational pull. Magnetism comes into the matter as well, but probably not nearly to the same degree. Originally Posted by AngryNotice But mercury isn't drawn into [the sun] or devoured, so why would this happen to the earth? Wouldn't it just orbit the sun? And then what happens to our moon?
Mercury does not orbit the sun at the same speed the earth does. It goes around the sun once about every 88 earth-days. Its faster velocity and smaller mass are reasons [edited] it's not sucked into the sun!
And there are some scientists who believe the moon is slowly moving away from the earth because its speed slightly slightly out-does the gravitational force between itself and the earth. The planets themselves might be in the same situation -- I don't know, I'm not an astronomer, I haven't made the calculations. Originally Posted by AngryNotice I've been told always from start that the tides are because the earth is constantly moving and the oceans are literally sloshing around. Like if you have a bowl of water and then move it around some parts will get higher or lower.
Who has always told you this? Did you read it in the Bible? I can't find it there. Please provide a source for your explanation. If your premise is true -- that tides occur because of the movement (rotation?) of the earth -- then shouldn't the water be constantly sloshing only in one direction? That is, if you take a bowl of water and pull it in one direction, the water will slosh in the opposite direction.
However, if you try this experiment, you'll find that the water eventually settles into the system of the bowl; that is, the water eventually doesn't slosh, but moves uniformly with the bowl. Consider when you are sitting in a car and the car is not moving. When the car begins to move (especially if it accelerates at a high rate) you are pressed backwards against your seat: the car is moving forward but you aren't: the water sloshes backwards. However, you aren't constantly in this state. You eventually adjust to the system of the car (until the driver presses the brakes suddenly and you lean forward sharply).
But that's not how the tides work, because the universe is a very very large system. It's not a bowl of water on a table. We aren't flying off the earth because it's spinning quickly under us: we stay put because we're part of the system (due to gravity!). The oceans are part of that system as well. AngryNotice, what, exactly, is the purpose of your line of inquiry? Are you attempting to invalidate all of science because of your failure to comprehend a specific scientific observation? The laws of nature (and by that term, I mean the laws of physics and mathematics and biology, etc.) were authored by God, not man. We are merely observing them and producing the formulas that describe them. We didn't "create" gravity, we merely observe it and try to explain it.
Just because I don't understand differential equations, that does not mean math is a lie. Just because I don't speak Spanish doesn't mean Spain is a made-up country. Not everybody understands a particular concept; those that do understand it better than most are called "experts", and the rest of us often pay closer attention to what experts say than novices. The same goes for the Bible. You might not pay attention to my interpretations or deductions from Scripture, but you certainly pay attention to Paul's letters. And just because something Paul wrote is confusing (and you don't understand it) doesn't mean Paul is a phony.
So I ask again: what is your intent on seeking to point out the "fallacies of gravity"? Do you believe science and religion -- or more specifically, science and Christianity -- are incompatible?
Last edited by japhy; 14th June 2006 at 03:01 AM.
|
14th June 2006, 03:40 AM
|  | Titleless
31  
| | Join Date: 28th April 2004 Location: Maastricht
Posts: 9,755
Blessings: 88,870
Reps: 9,274,249 (power: 9,291) | | Originally Posted by Silent Bob Gravity.
You want to sue whoever is responsible for your education.
I would propose the death penalty
__________________ 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. --Aaron Levenstein |
14th June 2006, 04:01 AM
| | Junior Member
| | Join Date: 11th May 2006
Posts: 22
Blessings: 90,483
Reps: 237 (power: 0) | | | Argument from incredulity
YOUR Argument from incredulity holds no water and is based on your ignorance. Originally Posted by AngryNotice just curious if anyone can explain these errors that many people are aware of when it comes to the theory of gravity
Newtonian formulation of gravity is very accurate, and for the situations when more accuracy is needed general relativity is almost inconceivably accurate [ 15-20 decimalsplaces for sure] that doesn't sound like an error to me. Originally Posted by AngryNotice number 1. the way gravity reads, scientists have you think that objects of larger mass would have more of a gravitational pull then objects of smaller mass. so tell me how this makes sense
They do, you weigh more on the earth than you do on the moon. Originally Posted by AngryNotice when we look at the sun we see the earth orbiting the sun, and the moon obriting the earth. if gravity were true, shouldnt our moon be orbiting the sun???
IT does, it acually does a very complicated orbit as the TWO objects, the earth and moon orbit the sun togather. The center of the two bodies is about 100 miles from the surface of the earth which explains the fact that you get TWO high tides perday. Originally Posted by AngryNotice oh better yet, how come a planet way out in the distance such as neptune will orbit the sun, yet its moons will not orbit the sun???
They do just like our moon. they orbit the sun together with their planet. Originally Posted by AngryNotice something is wrong here, even at thise immense distances the moons will orbit the planets and not the sun, yet the suns "gravity" is strong enough supposedly to keep the planets in orbit.
They do just like our moon. they orbit the sun together with their planet.
Have you looked at the Lagrange formulation lately?
I thought not. Originally Posted by AngryNotice number 2. why is it, only planets have orbits?? you could put a space shuttle in outter space and a astronaut will not orbit it. you could put the smallest pebbble into outter space and it will not orbit the space shuttle. why is this???? if gravity were true then surely such small objects would orbit larger ones, especially in space
it could --- depends on the relative position and velocity
we see asteroids not much bigger than manhattan with their own satelites. Originally Posted by AngryNotice number 3. on earth we see things that defy "gravity" on a daily basis. birds and airplanes for example. are you going to tell me that the gravity of the sun is strong enough to keep PLUTo in orbit but not an airplane or a little bird??????
They are not defying gravity at all, it takes energy to stay up in the air. Are you defying gravity when you sleep on your bed/? But you aren't on the ground!! you are ELEVATED! Originally Posted by AngryNotice number 4. scientists dont know how gravity works. or what it really is, and even then we see anaomolies in space that defy gravity
We seem to have a very good idea how gravity works. That is why we get such great predictions. The ONLY PROBLEMS WITH THE PRESENT THEORY of GRAVITY ARE WITH THE INTERIORS OF BLACK HOLES and the instant of the BIG BANG Originally Posted by AngryNotice so my point is that gravity(like other scientifist "tHeories" is very on shaky grounds. it doesnt have the evidnece to back it up, and when examined critically it falls under the pressure(no pun intended  )
General Relativity works great and by the way all theories are provisional Originally Posted by AngryNotice show me a pebble that orbits a mountain or a bird that orbits the earth and then gravity will make sense. or better yet just show me how gravity works(if it works at all) and then maybe it will be more than just a theory 
we already have examples of objects orbiting small asteroids. On the earth you can't have an orbit because you can't go fast enough. Try travelling 5.5 miles per second through our thick atmosphere and you get an idea how difficult that is. You might last about a second
ARE YOU KIDDING US? IS THIS A HOAX? Originally Posted by AngryNotice how do you evolutionsts explain gravity???
To you, the world evolutionist means any scientist. The term Evolution only applies to the change with time of the genetic aleles of populations of a species.
Last edited by freeble_dreibash; 14th June 2006 at 04:07 AM.
|
14th June 2006, 06:30 AM
|  | Trad Goth
41   
| | Join Date: 27th March 2004 Location: Durham
Posts: 2,843
Blessings: 80,982
Reps: 12,201 (power: 22) | | Originally Posted by AngryNotice if space is a vaccum why wouldnt the sun and planets and other stuff be ripped apart ifits trying to even itself out??
Gravity and other forces are at work. Originally Posted by AngryNotice thats not what i heard. ive been told always from start that the tides are because the earth is constantly moving and the oceansare literally sloshing around. like if you have a bowl of water and then move it around some parts will get higher or lower
Told by who? I very much doubt there is anyone that clueless connected to education in any way.
Ghost
__________________
Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is. - Popper, Sir Karl
Science does not deal in metaphysics. The existence or non-existence of God is a metaphysical question, and as such science neither attempts to prove or disprove God. |
14th June 2006, 08:15 AM
| | Senior Veteran
| | Join Date: 3rd April 2005
Posts: 4,665
Blessings: 94,413
Reps: 2,824 (power: 13) | | | Has anyone put this on FSTDT yet?
__________________
"the only lie is evolution itself. sometimes you must lie to defeat a lie. as silly as that might sound."
- AngryNotice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"It does not matter if I understand it or not. I just do not agree with it."
- JohnR7
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"I am not delusional.
I would probably outwit a professional psychiatrist,"
- Knowledge3
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
14th June 2006, 08:25 AM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 14th June 2006
Posts: 1
Blessings: 90,361
Reps: 20 (power: 0) | | Hello there, discovered this board with this thread and registered for it. Originally Posted by AngryNotice no i figured their "suits" were to protect them since space is supposedly cold. which is another question, why would space be cold if the planets are hot?
"Heat" is the manifestation of matter releasing energy. Vacuum is the absense of matter (where matter includes any atom or molecule i.e., gas are seen as matter), there are extremely few molecules in space and therefore nothing that could be heated by solar energy. Vacuum is therefore considered cold. On the other hand, it's extremely hard to actually cool in space (I could explain why, but it's a subject for a whole post on it's own), which is why satellites are shielded against heat in the first place. Originally Posted by AngryNotice no one has answered me to why its a vacuum
Look, it's not about "why", it is period, that's what normal humans call "a fact". A fact is not something that you discuss about it's something that is. Space is a near-vacuum, that's a fact, that's how it is, just as pure water freezes at 0°C under a 1atm pressure and is liquid between 0°C and 100°C (at 1atm again), just as birds fly and fishes swim. These are all facts, they are, you don't need to explain them for them to be.
Gravity is another fact. If you drop a ball or an apple it falls, if you jump from a building you fall and ultimately stop when you come in contact with the earth. You must understand that gravity is not a theory by itself.
Now there are two other things around gravity:
The first are the laws of gravity, which are mathematic formulas we derived from observation that allow us to understand the precise effects of gravity. The laws of gravity are our attempt to explain how: how does gravity affect our world beyond "two objets are attracted towards each other". Laws of gravity include Newton's Law which says that the force attracting two objects towards each other is a factor of the masses of the objects and the square of the distance between them. They're not facts, they're things we derived from facts, and then repeatedly verified against facts. Against the ones we derived them from first, and then against other facts.
The second is the Theory of Gravity. The theory of gravity tries to explain why gravity exists. This is the controversial part, and the one that doesn't quite work perfectly (as other have explained).
You can discuss the theory of gravity all you want (granted you understand it, which you don't, and which i don't either), but it won't change the fact that Gravity Is and that the Laws of Gravity work and have been experimentally verified to work for 400 years. Originally Posted by AngryNotice it is still admittingly an unknwon force that you guys dont really understand 100%. why would that be taughted as fact?? Because it is a fact in the first place.
Let's say you see that a baby is born with 3 arms, does the fact that you don't understand why he has 3 arms make his third arm somehow non-existant? Answer is that it doesn't, whether or not you understand the why he still has 3 arms.
Same thing with gravity, gravity is and whether or not we understand how it works isn't even relevant. Originally Posted by AngryNotice idont hate science
yes you do, of course you do. Originally Posted by AngryNotice but look around and ask yourself what has it really accomplished???
You're joking right? Life expectancy reaching 80 years old (compared to 40-50 two milleniums ago), dramatic drops in death at childbirth (for both children and mothers) as well as young deaths, dramatic drops in malnutrition and ilnesses (yes we do have new ilnesses such as cancer, because we can have them in the first place and because we now can diagnose them in the second one, 1000 years ago you just died, few people ever wondered why you died in the first place). Computers are results of science, as well as Internet, or cars (and thermic engines in general), or planes, or submarines, or space rockets, or iPods, home console, subways/undergrounds and trains.
And you're asking what science has accomplished? Everything for god's sake! Originally Posted by AngryNotice its not the Word of God and neverr will be
Flash news: the "Word of God" was written by men, and the current version was decided upon and bound a bit more than 1500 years ago in Rome (when "apocryphal" texts were rejected, accepted texts were edited, ...).
Hell, do you realize that you believe in God or in this "Word of God" without any single damn blasted proof?
Or do you? What are your proofs of God's existence? Originally Posted by AngryNotice what link???
The link to this thread. obviously. Originally Posted by AngryNotice if space is a vaccum why wouldnt the sun and planets and other stuff be ripped apart ifits trying to even itself out??
Because gravity holds them together. Do you realize that the mass of earth is estimated at 5.9742×1024 kg? That's 5974200000000000000000000kg. The average human is under 70kg btw. Originally Posted by AngryNotice but mercury isnt drawn into it, or devoured
Because mercury is much smaller than the earth (therefore has a smaller mass, and is therefore less attracted to the sun than the earth would be) and goes much faster. Orbital speed (the speed at which planets orbit around the sun) is the key, because centrifugal forces depend on speed and pull objects from the point around which they rotate. This means that mercury is subjected to much higher centrifugal forces than the earth would be, and these centrifugal forces compensate the gravity forces. Centrifugal forces vary with the square of the angular velocity, mercury goes twice as fast as the earth (in it's orbit around the sun), which means that you could see the centrifugal forces it's subject to as 4 times what the earth is subject to.
Is it clearer? Originally Posted by AngryNotice so why would this happen to the earth???
Because the earth travels half as fast as mercury through space. Would earth orbit (roughly)as fast as mercury it wouldn't drop in the sun. It may be destroyed by tide forces though, i don't know about that one. Originally Posted by AngryNotice and then what happens to our moon??
Dunno, I'm not much of a physicist and I don't have the time to do the calculs. It would probably leave us and fall into the sun though. Originally Posted by AngryNotice thats not what i heard. ive been told always from start that the tides are because the earth is constantly moving and the oceansare literally sloshing around.
The person who told you that is either an idiot or a liar. If that was the case we couldn't predict tides, and we can, with an extreme precision. And as strange as it *may* seem, we do know (and have measured) tides are higher when the moon and the sun are in alignment (i.e., when their gravitic forces combine).
Tides perfectly fit a gravitic model and are predictable based on the laws of gravity, Occam's razor therefore tells us that they're more than likely due to gravity.
Tides are caused by the gravitic pull of the moon, and high tides are caused by the combined gravitic pulls of the moon and the sun. |
14th June 2006, 10:52 AM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 18th May 2006
Posts: 12
Blessings: 90,372
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | The amount of misunderstanding shown in this post is so amazing I'm still trying to decide if it's a troll or what... Originally Posted by AngryNotice number 1. the way gravity reads, scientists have you think that objects of larger mass would have more of a gravitational pull then objects of smaller mass. so tell me how this makes sense
"Gravity reads" in different ways, but it only works in one way, the way it does. Models try to explain the experimental evidence, that's all. The better our understanding, the better (usually) models... when we look at the sun we see the earth orbiting the sun, and the moon obriting the earth. if gravity were true, shouldnt our moon be orbiting the sun???
well, it is orbiting the Sun, right? But if you mean, like any other planet or planetoid would, then the answer is that it's too close to the Earth to ignore the mutual gravitational pull. Earth and Moon are orbiting each other around a point that's so much closer to the Earth that simply falls inside Earth's own planetary shape (this is because Earth is so many times more massive than the Moon). The Earth-Moon system is orbiting the point determined by all other planetary bodies pulling and pushing each other and the Sun (which is, again, so much more massive than the rest of the Solar System bodies that that point falls well within inside the Sun). In all cases, the Moon seems to be orbiting the Earth, and the Earth seems to be orbiting the Sun, because they are much more massive than the bodies that seem to be orbiting. Two equally massive bodies would orbit each other around a point in the middle (effectively, chasing each other). oh better yet, how come a planet way out in the distance such as neptune will orbit the sun, yet its moons will not orbit the sun??? something is wrong here, even at thise immense distances the moons will orbit the planets and not the sun, yet the suns "gravity" is strong enough supposedly to keep the planets in orbit.
The force of mutual pulling between two masses is directly proportional to them and inversely proportional to the square of the distance (that's Newton's fomula). This means that the Sun and Neptune are massive enough so that their gravitational attraction is significant enough to bind them together, but that the gravitational pull of Neptune to its satellites is much bigger, because even when its gravitational "ability" is smaller than the Sun's, its distances is so many bigs smaller...
It's like you can hear better someone whispering to your ear than someone shouting at 400 yards: distance matters. number 2. why is it, only planets have orbits?? you could put a space shuttle in outter space and a astronaut will not orbit it.
Incorrect. In a complete empty space, it would.
But "outer space", where shuttles and astronauts usually go, is not empty. Thus, it will actually orbit something: the Earth. The gravitational force between the shuttle and the astronaut is really small, and Earth wins.
Actually this will answer many of your questions: the gravitational ability of a single pound of matter is really small. You have to have a really big number of pounds involved to start noticing gravitational forces (and you need planetary-scale masses to notice planetary-like phenomena, like orbits, etc...)
The second part of the trick to answer most of your questions is that space is not empty: it's full of gravitation generated by the Sun, the planets, etc... A pebble in space would only orbit around the shuttle if there were no other massive body around. But there are, and thus the pebble orbits the Earth. And so does the shuttle. number 3. on earth we see things that defy "gravity" on a daily basis. birds and airplanes for example. are you going to tell me that the gravity of the sun is strong enough to keep PLUTo in orbit but not an airplane or a little bird??????
The Sun is perfectly able to attract an airplane. Actually you have to make really fast and powerful airplanes (called far-reaching starcrafts) that move at speeds you wouldn't believe (and that are so much beyond the human experience it takes quite a lot to get used to) to get them move away from the Sun.
But Airplanes and birds just have to fight Earth's gravitational pull (and suffer, a bit, the effects of the Moon's own grvitational pull). That's, again, because they are so much (in the order of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of times) closer to the Earth... Again, distance matters. As to why they fly, it's actually thanks to the gravitational pull of Earth's, and other forces generated by their engines and wings, carefully balanced against friction against the air. number 4. scientists dont know how gravity works. or what it really is, and even then we see anaomolies in space that defy gravity
Nobody knows what Gravity is. It's actually a name language has to refer to certain kind of phenomena perceived by humans. When our perceptions become better (by using Science and the tools Technology allows us to use) those perceptions became bigger, and our explanations needed better models.
The anomalies are only when compared to our previous experience, or what our models would lead us to expect: nothing is unnatural in Nature. Those "anomalies" are clear indications that our models are missing something. Then we try to learn what's missing, and change our models correspondingly. Scientific knowledge is not fixated: as far as it's there to better understand nature, it must evolve to do just so; outdated knowledge is as dangerous as erroneous knowledge. so my point is that gravity(like other scientifist "tHeories" is very on shaky grounds. it doesnt have the evidnece to back it up, and when examined critically it falls under the pressure(no pun intended )
No pun detected. But I'm still waiting for a critical examination. You have only shown you don't understand the theory, not the methods, nor what you can simply experiment by yourself. show me a pebble that orbits a mountain or a bird that orbits the earth and then gravity will make sense. or better yet just show me how gravity works(if it works at all) and then maybe it will be more than just a theory
if you are truly serious about learning what gravitation really is, then it will only a matter of years of study. If you are being hypocritical, then nothing will be able to teach you your error.
you are asking for phenomena that don't occur in Nature because they are not natural (in a way, because, as the case of the Moon orbiting the Sun, everything on Earth is orbiting Earth but stopped by Earth's surface from doing the whole orbit: if you go high enough from Earth's surface you can finally make the whole orbit).
if to understand a Scientifical theory, or a Natural phenomenum, you need a mythical miracle, you have far greater problems to care of than understanding gravitation... But you won't be able to see that, either, of course... how do you evolutionsts explain gravity???
Gravity is not an evolutionary thing, as it has nothing to do with life, or living beings. But all living beings must take gravitation into account: that explains many biological organs and phenomena, including your sense of equilibrium and women's menstrual cycle, to name some typical phenomena you can experiment on a daily basis.
The sum of your ignorance and defiance to evidence because of your beliefs is worrisome... I won't comment on the faith part, as you are to believe in whichever you want; about your ignorance, I'll tel lyou that is solvable if you are sincere in your quest of knowledge, and proudless enough to accept what you are taught.
sorry, and good luck. Really. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
