Concept of Gravity

Mark Earnest wrote:
"Hagar" wrote in message
...
"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...
"west" wrote in message
news:K8v%g.5134$fA.404@trnddc05...
I use to think that heavenly bodies were like magnets that attract each
other. That was my concept of gravity. Now I realize that gravity is
more of
a space-time continuum. Problem is that I barely grasp this concept and
was
wondering if there was an illustration somewhere that would help?

A space-time continuum means it takes time to cover space, rather than
at one time being here, then, instantaneously, that is INSTANTANEOUSLY,
being over there!

Perhaps
this can be found in a text book or online? Homer Simpson's skit was
great
but I need something more serious and comprehensive. All comments are
appreciated. Thanks.
Gravity is an amazing thing. It proves why we can break the so called
speed of light.

That is because gravity is a force of constant acceleration....proving
that constant acceleration exists in the universe

as long as the gravitation force acting on the body is constant. Where
are you going to get that from?

....including among
interstellar spacecraft!
OK, I'm impressed. You just regaled Einstein's E=MC2 to the dustbin. By
all means DO explain to us mortal dummies how you manage to exceed the
SOL.

O.K. Now listen carefully, because I have only explained it ten million
times
to very blind scientists...

If gravity is a force of constant acceleration, then the planets are all
constantly accelerating around the Sun.


The planets all want to fly off in straight lines, but the sun's gravity
keeps them on their ellipses'. So, if "acceleration" has a directional
quantity as well as a change in speed, I'll give you that the planets
are "constantly accelerating".

This proves that if a certain bodies is accelerated fast enough, it will
continue to accelerate.

A body will only keep accelerating as long as there is some force
(gravity, in-built engine, etc.) acting upon it.


We know UFOs are here,

Do we? I, for one, do not KNOW UFOs are here! I suspect it, but I do not
know it.

so our speed of light must be way off...the speed of
light must be well over 186,000 miles per second.

Why? Even at 186,000 miles per second it is possible to get any where in
this universe.........given long enough time,........and enough fuel!

What we are measuring
when we seem to be measuring the speed of light is the velocity of light's
exterior.


I'd like to reply "What else do you expect us to measure the speed of?
The interior?" but to separate the interior from the exterior, as you
have done, is soooo rediculas. What, will the interior be arriving next
Tuesday week, or something!

Light, as with a comet, travels faster at its interior, while its exterior
drifts behind it.


The "tail" of a comet (not it's interior) appears on the non-sunward
side of the comet head, because the particles on the outside of the
comets body are detached from the body due to friction, then pushed out
from the body by the solar winds. These particles trail behind the comet
head as it approaches the sun, then trail IN FRONT OF the comet head as
it moves away from the sun.

All that considered, it is possible to reach the nearest stars, with modern
technology, in about thirty days.


All what considered? The heap of drivel you just spouted doesn't make
sense, so I wouldn't be booking my holiday next month on any of the
nearby stars, or their planets either!

Daniel

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Daniel" wrote in message
.. .
Mark Earnest wrote:
"Hagar" wrote in message
...
"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...
"west" wrote in message
news:K8v%g.5134$fA.404@trnddc05...
I use to think that heavenly bodies were like magnets that attract
each
other. That was my concept of gravity. Now I realize that gravity is
more of
a space-time continuum. Problem is that I barely grasp this concept
and was
wondering if there was an illustration somewhere that would help?

A space-time continuum means it takes time to cover space, rather than at
one time being here, then, instantaneously, that is INSTANTANEOUSLY, being
over there!

Perhaps
this can be found in a text book or online? Homer Simpson's skit was
great
but I need something more serious and comprehensive. All comments are
appreciated. Thanks.
Gravity is an amazing thing. It proves why we can break the so called
speed of light.

That is because gravity is a force of constant acceleration....proving
that constant acceleration exists in the universe

as long as the gravitation force acting on the body is constant. Where are
you going to get that from?

Where are you getting what you are saying from?


...including among
interstellar spacecraft!
OK, I'm impressed. You just regaled Einstein's E=MC2 to the dustbin.
By all means DO explain to us mortal dummies how you manage to exceed
the SOL.

O.K. Now listen carefully, because I have only explained it ten million
times
to very blind scientists...

If gravity is a force of constant acceleration, then the planets are all
constantly accelerating around the Sun.


The planets all want to fly off in straight lines, but the sun's gravity
keeps them on their ellipses'. So, if "acceleration" has a directional
quantity as well as a change in speed, I'll give you that the planets are
"constantly accelerating".


"Directional quantity" has nothing to do with it.
That is a mental aberration, indicative of someone being a retard.
The planets are simply accelerating.


This proves that if a certain bodies is accelerated fast enough, it will
continue to accelerate.

A body will only keep accelerating as long as there is some force
(gravity, in-built engine, etc.) acting upon it.


We know UFOs are here,

Do we? I, for one, do not KNOW UFOs are here! I suspect it, but I do not
know it.

You don't watch the skies much at night then do you?
Even if you do, you don't notice the "impossible" changes in direction
of some of the "aircraft."

Common with the ignorant.


so our speed of light must be way off...the speed of
light must be well over 186,000 miles per second.

Why? Even at 186,000 miles per second it is possible to get any where in
this universe.........given long enough time,........and enough fuel!

And how are you to be given "long enough time" when humans simply don't have
it?


What we are measuring
when we seem to be measuring the speed of light is the velocity of
light's exterior.


I'd like to reply "What else do you expect us to measure the speed of? The
interior?" but to separate the interior from the exterior, as you have
done, is soooo rediculas.

To the morons, who can't think, it is ridiculous.


What, will the interior be arriving next
Tuesday week, or something!

The light at the interior goes faster, not slower, than the exterior.


Light, as with a comet, travels faster at its interior, while its
exterior drifts behind it.


The "tail" of a comet (not it's interior) appears on the non-sunward side
of the comet head, because the particles on the outside of the comets body
are detached from the body due to friction, then pushed out from the body
by the solar winds. These particles trail behind the comet head as it
approaches the sun, then trail IN FRONT OF the comet head as it moves away
from the sun.

All that considered, it is possible to reach the nearest stars, with
modern technology, in about thirty days.

All what considered? The heap of drivel you just spouted doesn't make
sense, so I wouldn't be booking my holiday next month on any of the nearby
stars, or their planets either!

Just like all of the other ignoramus "scientists" who keep us in Earth
orbit...
....37 years after landing a man on the Moon!

Mark Earnest wrote:
"Daniel" wrote in message
.. .
Mark Earnest wrote:
"Hagar" wrote in message
...
"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...
"west" wrote in message
news:K8v%g.5134$fA.404@trnddc05...
I use to think that heavenly bodies were like magnets that attract
each
other. That was my concept of gravity. Now I realize that gravity is
more of
a space-time continuum. Problem is that I barely grasp this concept
and was
wondering if there was an illustration somewhere that would help?
A space-time continuum means it takes time to cover space, rather than at
one time being here, then, instantaneously, that is INSTANTANEOUSLY, being
over there!

Perhaps
this can be found in a text book or online? Homer Simpson's skit was
great
but I need something more serious and comprehensive. All comments are
appreciated. Thanks.
Gravity is an amazing thing. It proves why we can break the so called
speed of light.

That is because gravity is a force of constant acceleration....proving
that constant acceleration exists in the universe
as long as the gravitation force acting on the body is constant. Where are
you going to get that from?

Where are you getting what you are saying from?

I'm getting what I type from my mind, but where are you going to get
your constant gravitational force from?


...including among
interstellar spacecraft!
OK, I'm impressed. You just regaled Einstein's E=MC2 to the dustbin.
By all means DO explain to us mortal dummies how you manage to exceed
the SOL.
O.K. Now listen carefully, because I have only explained it ten million
times
to very blind scientists...

If gravity is a force of constant acceleration, then the planets are all
constantly accelerating around the Sun.

The planets all want to fly off in straight lines, but the sun's gravity
keeps them on their ellipses'. So, if "acceleration" has a directional
quantity as well as a change in speed, I'll give you that the planets are
"constantly accelerating".


"Directional quantity" has nothing to do with it.
That is a mental aberration, indicative of someone being a retard.
The planets are simply accelerating.

I'm sorry you have a mental aberration that makes you a retard!
last time I looked it took a year for the earth to orbit around the sun,
I'm pretty sure it will take the same time next orbit.

This proves that if a certain bodies is accelerated fast enough, it will
continue to accelerate.
A body will only keep accelerating as long as there is some force
(gravity, in-built engine, etc.) acting upon it.

We know UFOs are here,
Do we? I, for one, do not KNOW UFOs are here! I suspect it, but I do not
know it.

You don't watch the skies much at night then do you?
Even if you do, you don't notice the "impossible" changes in direction
of some of the "aircraft."

I do, often, watch the night skies, identify planes, man-made
satellites, meteors, etc. Just never seen any "aircraft" make
"impossible" direction changes. By the way, "impossible" means it cannot
be done, not just difficult to do.


Common with the ignorant.

"I know you are, but what am I?"


so our speed of light must be way off...the speed of
light must be well over 186,000 miles per second.
Why? Even at 186,000 miles per second it is possible to get any where in
this universe.........given long enough time,........and enough fuel!

And how are you to be given "long enough time" when humans simply don't have
it?

So you can see that your theory is wrong, then?


What we are measuring
when we seem to be measuring the speed of light is the velocity of
light's exterior.

I'd like to reply "What else do you expect us to measure the speed of? The
interior?" but to separate the interior from the exterior, as you have
done, is soooo rediculas.

To the morons, who can't think, it is ridiculous.
whilst to the moron who thinks ridiculously, it all makes sense!



What, will the interior be arriving next
Tuesday week, or something!

The light at the interior goes faster, not slower, than the exterior.
Oh! O.K.! Sorry, so you're saying the interior (without any outside)
arrived last Wednesday and the exterior (without any guts) will arrive
next Friday week. O.K.!


Light, as with a comet, travels faster at its interior, while its
exterior drifts behind it.

The "tail" of a comet (not it's interior) appears on the non-sunward side
of the comet head, because the particles on the outside of the comets body
are detached from the body due to friction, then pushed out from the body
by the solar winds. These particles trail behind the comet head as it
approaches the sun, then trail IN FRONT OF the comet head as it moves away
from the sun.

All that considered, it is possible to reach the nearest stars, with
modern technology, in about thirty days.
All what considered? The heap of drivel you just spouted doesn't make
sense, so I wouldn't be booking my holiday next month on any of the nearby
stars, or their planets either!

Just like all of the other ignoramus "scientists" who keep us in Earth
orbit...
...37 years after landing a man on the Moon!


Well, I've never been in Earth orbit (but I'd like to have a go
someday), I'm in Sol orbit, along with the Earth, and Mercury, and
Venus, etc.

I will agree that it has taken us a long time to get nowhere since the moon.

Daniel


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Daniel" wrote in message
.. .
Mark Earnest wrote:
"Daniel" wrote in message
.. .
Mark Earnest wrote:
"Hagar" wrote in message
...
"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...
"west" wrote in message
news:K8v%g.5134$fA.404@trnddc05...
I use to think that heavenly bodies were like magnets that attract
each
other. That was my concept of gravity. Now I realize that gravity is
more of
a space-time continuum. Problem is that I barely grasp this concept
and was
wondering if there was an illustration somewhere that would help?
A space-time continuum means it takes time to cover space, rather than
at one time being here, then, instantaneously, that is INSTANTANEOUSLY,
being over there!

Perhaps
this can be found in a text book or online? Homer Simpson's skit was
great
but I need something more serious and comprehensive. All comments
are
appreciated. Thanks.
Gravity is an amazing thing. It proves why we can break the so
called speed of light.

That is because gravity is a force of constant
acceleration....proving that constant acceleration exists in the
universe
as long as the gravitation force acting on the body is constant. Where
are you going to get that from?

Where are you getting what you are saying from?

I'm getting what I type from my mind, but where are you going to get your
constant gravitational force from?

I am getting my idea of constant gravitational force from the currently
unbalanced equation of the force between a star and a revolving planet.

The star pulls on the planet with a force of constant acceleration...so the
planet must be countering with a force of constant acceleration of its own.

It is easy as that.


...including among
interstellar spacecraft!
OK, I'm impressed. You just regaled Einstein's E=MC2 to the dustbin.
By all means DO explain to us mortal dummies how you manage to exceed
the SOL.
O.K. Now listen carefully, because I have only explained it ten
million times
to very blind scientists...

If gravity is a force of constant acceleration, then the planets are
all constantly accelerating around the Sun.

The planets all want to fly off in straight lines, but the sun's gravity
keeps them on their ellipses'. So, if "acceleration" has a directional
quantity as well as a change in speed, I'll give you that the planets
are "constantly accelerating".


"Directional quantity" has nothing to do with it.
That is a mental aberration, indicative of someone being a retard.
The planets are simply accelerating.

I'm sorry you have a mental aberration that makes you a retard!
last time I looked it took a year for the earth to orbit around the sun,
I'm pretty sure it will take the same time next orbit.

This proves that if a certain bodies is accelerated fast enough, it
will continue to accelerate.
A body will only keep accelerating as long as there is some force
(gravity, in-built engine, etc.) acting upon it.

We know UFOs are here,
Do we? I, for one, do not KNOW UFOs are here! I suspect it, but I do not
know it.

You don't watch the skies much at night then do you?
Even if you do, you don't notice the "impossible" changes in direction
of some of the "aircraft."

I do, often, watch the night skies, identify planes, man-made satellites,
meteors, etc. Just never seen any "aircraft" make "impossible" direction
changes. By the way, "impossible" means it cannot be done, not just
difficult to do.

Just keep watching. If you are looking for UFOs, they seem to sense it.
If you keep watching for the impossible motions of aircraft, you will
finally see it.



Common with the ignorant.

"I know you are, but what am I?"


so our speed of light must be way off...the speed of
light must be well over 186,000 miles per second.
Why? Even at 186,000 miles per second it is possible to get any where in
this universe.........given long enough time,........and enough fuel!

And how are you to be given "long enough time" when humans simply don't
have it?

So you can see that your theory is wrong, then?

My theory says we can be to the nearest star in 1 month, to the farthest
star in the galaxy in 2, and to the nearest galaxy in 3, all with currently
technology.



What we are measuring
when we seem to be measuring the speed of light is the velocity of
light's exterior.

I'd like to reply "What else do you expect us to measure the speed of?
The interior?" but to separate the interior from the exterior, as you
have done, is soooo rediculas.

To the morons, who can't think, it is ridiculous.
whilst to the moron who thinks ridiculously, it all makes sense!



What, will the interior be arriving next
Tuesday week, or something!

The light at the interior goes faster, not slower, than the exterior.
Oh! O.K.! Sorry, so you're saying the interior (without any outside)
arrived last Wednesday and the exterior (without any guts) will arrive
next Friday week. O.K.!

No, the only effect is not what we see, but what happens.
The light that we see always travels at 186,000 miles per second.
But the interior of the light is much faster, and crosses the entire
universe in only 8 years. It is that speed, the interior light speed, that
defines how fast we can go in space. IOW, in normal physics, we cannot
cross the entire universe, from one side of it to the other, in less than 8
years.

Seem like a lot...even 8 years. But soon we will be zipping around the
currently known universe as we once did in luxury cruisers on the ocean.



Light, as with a comet, travels faster at its interior, while its
exterior drifts behind it.

The "tail" of a comet (not it's interior) appears on the non-sunward
side of the comet head, because the particles on the outside of the
comets body are detached from the body due to friction, then pushed out
from the body by the solar winds. These particles trail behind the comet
head as it approaches the sun, then trail IN FRONT OF the comet head as
it moves away from the sun.

All that considered, it is possible to reach the nearest stars, with
modern technology, in about thirty days.
All what considered? The heap of drivel you just spouted doesn't make
sense, so I wouldn't be booking my holiday next month on any of the
nearby stars, or their planets either!

Just like all of the other ignoramus "scientists" who keep us in Earth
orbit...
...37 years after landing a man on the Moon!

Well, I've never been in Earth orbit (but I'd like to have a go someday),
I'm in Sol orbit, along with the Earth, and Mercury, and Venus, etc.

I will agree that it has taken us a long time to get nowhere since the
moon.

Daniel

That is just great, Daniel. When most people throw a punch, they have no
idea why they got punched back.

Yes, why are we still in Earth orbit 37 years after landing a man on the
Moon?
I say something is screwy with science, as the UFOs are crossing the known
universe all the time.

Mark Earnest wrote:
"Daniel" wrote in message
.. .
Mark Earnest wrote:
"Daniel" wrote in message
.. .
Mark Earnest wrote:
"Hagar" wrote in message
...
"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...
"west" wrote in message
news:K8v%g.5134$fA.404@trnddc05...
I use to think that heavenly bodies were like magnets that attract
each
other. That was my concept of gravity. Now I realize that gravity is
more of
a space-time continuum. Problem is that I barely grasp this concept
and was
wondering if there was an illustration somewhere that would help?
A space-time continuum means it takes time to cover space, rather than
at one time being here, then, instantaneously, that is INSTANTANEOUSLY,
being over there!

Perhaps
this can be found in a text book or online? Homer Simpson's skit was
great
but I need something more serious and comprehensive. All comments
are
appreciated. Thanks.
Gravity is an amazing thing. It proves why we can break the so
called speed of light.

That is because gravity is a force of constant
acceleration....proving that constant acceleration exists in the
universe
as long as the gravitation force acting on the body is constant. Where
are you going to get that from?
Where are you getting what you are saying from?
I'm getting what I type from my mind, but where are you going to get your
constant gravitational force from?

I am getting my idea of constant gravitational force from the currently
unbalanced equation of the force between a star and a revolving planet.

Check out "Centrifugal Force" and "Centrifical Force"!


The star pulls on the planet with a force of constant acceleration...so the
planet must be countering with a force of constant acceleration of its own.

It is easy as that.

If only you new what the question was!!!


...including among
interstellar spacecraft!
OK, I'm impressed. You just regaled Einstein's E=MC2 to the dustbin.
By all means DO explain to us mortal dummies how you manage to exceed
the SOL.
O.K. Now listen carefully, because I have only explained it ten
million times
to very blind scientists...

If gravity is a force of constant acceleration, then the planets are
all constantly accelerating around the Sun.

The planets all want to fly off in straight lines, but the sun's gravity
keeps them on their ellipses'. So, if "acceleration" has a directional
quantity as well as a change in speed, I'll give you that the planets
are "constantly accelerating".

"Directional quantity" has nothing to do with it.
That is a mental aberration, indicative of someone being a retard.
The planets are simply accelerating.
I'm sorry you have a mental aberration that makes you a retard!
last time I looked it took a year for the earth to orbit around the sun,
I'm pretty sure it will take the same time next orbit.
This proves that if a certain bodies is accelerated fast enough, it
will continue to accelerate.
A body will only keep accelerating as long as there is some force
(gravity, in-built engine, etc.) acting upon it.

We know UFOs are here,
Do we? I, for one, do not KNOW UFOs are here! I suspect it, but I do not
know it.
You don't watch the skies much at night then do you?
Even if you do, you don't notice the "impossible" changes in direction
of some of the "aircraft."
I do, often, watch the night skies, identify planes, man-made satellites,
meteors, etc. Just never seen any "aircraft" make "impossible" direction
changes. By the way, "impossible" means it cannot be done, not just
difficult to do.

Just keep watching. If you are looking for UFOs, they seem to sense it.

Ahhh, right, the UFO's have ESP, big time! I understand now.

If you keep watching for the impossible motions of aircraft, you will
finally see it.

Yeah, about five minutes after you go Gagh Gagh (Sp??).


Common with the ignorant.
"I know you are, but what am I?"

so our speed of light must be way off...the speed of
light must be well over 186,000 miles per second.
Why? Even at 186,000 miles per second it is possible to get any where in
this universe.........given long enough time,........and enough fuel!
And how are you to be given "long enough time" when humans simply don't
have it?
So you can see that your theory is wrong, then?

My theory says we can be to the nearest star in 1 month, to the farthest
star in the galaxy in 2, and to the nearest galaxy in 3, all with currently
technology.


Then go and do it.....before "THEY" come and get you!

What we are measuring
when we seem to be measuring the speed of light is the velocity of
light's exterior.

I'd like to reply "What else do you expect us to measure the speed of?
The interior?" but to separate the interior from the exterior, as you
have done, is soooo rediculas.
To the morons, who can't think, it is ridiculous.
whilst to the moron who thinks ridiculously, it all makes sense!


What, will the interior be arriving next
Tuesday week, or something!
The light at the interior goes faster, not slower, than the exterior.
Oh! O.K.! Sorry, so you're saying the interior (without any outside)
arrived last Wednesday and the exterior (without any guts) will arrive
next Friday week. O.K.!

No, the only effect is not what we see, but what happens.
The light that we see always travels at 186,000 miles per second.
But the interior of the light is much faster, and crosses the entire
universe in only 8 years.

So how come the light from distant Galaxys can take five billion years
or more to get to us. Or are we just seeing the exterior light of these
galaxys and the interior light got here yonks ago!!

It is that speed, the interior light speed, that
defines how fast we can go in space. IOW, in normal physics, we cannot
cross the entire universe, from one side of it to the other, in less than 8
years.

Seem like a lot...even 8 years. But soon we will be zipping around the
currently known universe as we once did in luxury cruisers on the ocean.

Light, as with a comet, travels faster at its interior, while its
exterior drifts behind it.

The "tail" of a comet (not it's interior) appears on the non-sunward
side of the comet head, because the particles on the outside of the
comets body are detached from the body due to friction, then pushed out
from the body by the solar winds. These particles trail behind the comet
head as it approaches the sun, then trail IN FRONT OF the comet head as
it moves away from the sun.

All that considered, it is possible to reach the nearest stars, with
modern technology, in about thirty days.
All what considered? The heap of drivel you just spouted doesn't make
sense, so I wouldn't be booking my holiday next month on any of the
nearby stars, or their planets either!
Just like all of the other ignoramus "scientists" who keep us in Earth
orbit...
...37 years after landing a man on the Moon!
Well, I've never been in Earth orbit (but I'd like to have a go someday),
I'm in Sol orbit, along with the Earth, and Mercury, and Venus, etc.

I will agree that it has taken us a long time to get nowhere since the
moon.

Daniel

That is just great, Daniel. When most people throw a punch, they have no
idea why they got punched back.

I'm pretty sure most people would know why they got punched back after
punching someone else.


Yes, why are we still in Earth orbit 37 years after landing a man on the
Moon?
I say something is screwy with science, as the UFOs are crossing the known
universe all the time.


I'd say something is screwy....maybe not with science, but....

Daniel

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

If gravity is a force of constant acceleration, then the planets are all
constantly accelerating around the Sun.

In Genesis 5 people had lifespans up to 1000 years. The Hebrew
patriarchs, and some descendants, had abnormally long lifespans; i.e.

Abraham 175 years
Isaac 180
Jacob 147
Joseph 110
Moses 120

Let's assume these ages are correct. Perhaps the ages in Gen 5 were
based on the moon, and every new moon was a new year; sounds absurd, but
when people worshipped lunar deities, maybe they developed an exlusiuvely
lunar calendar, and maybe only the seasons were reckoned on a solar
calendar.
But that wouldn't apply to the patriarchs, for then Abraham would have
died when he was about 15 solar years old, having had a full, rich life, not
to mention becoming a self-made millionaire when he was about 2.
Suppose the Earth retained about the same speed of rotation on it's
axis, but it's orbit around the sun was somewhere around twice as fast in
the time of Abraham, and then in order a few short generations it slowed
down to its present 365 day orbit.
So either the Earth was revolving around the sun faster, or every planet
in the solar system was and, perhaps because the sun's axial speed slowed
down (I assume it has an axial spin), all the planets rates of revolution
were dragged down.
My question is: Is there any test that could be done to prove or
disprove that the Earth once revolved more quickly around the sun,
especially if all the planets decelerated at the same rate?

First of all, since the time when mankind was born, about 5 million years
ago, the moon has been in about the same orbit as it is today.

2nd the bible was writen by men who made up what ever they wanted to make it
a "Holy Book" and that means the ages of those so called long lived people
are nothing but pipe dreams.

That book was writen by man so as to control men.



--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html


"skddlbyp" wrote in message
...


If gravity is a force of constant acceleration, then the planets are all
constantly accelerating around the Sun.

In Genesis 5 people had lifespans up to 1000 years. The Hebrew
patriarchs, and some descendants, had abnormally long lifespans; i.e.

Abraham 175 years
Isaac 180
Jacob 147
Joseph 110
Moses 120

Let's assume these ages are correct. Perhaps the ages in Gen 5 were
based on the moon, and every new moon was a new year; sounds absurd, but
when people worshipped lunar deities, maybe they developed an exlusiuvely
lunar calendar, and maybe only the seasons were reckoned on a solar
calendar.
But that wouldn't apply to the patriarchs, for then Abraham would have
died when he was about 15 solar years old, having had a full, rich life,
not
to mention becoming a self-made millionaire when he was about 2.
Suppose the Earth retained about the same speed of rotation on it's
axis, but it's orbit around the sun was somewhere around twice as fast in
the time of Abraham, and then in order a few short generations it slowed
down to its present 365 day orbit.
So either the Earth was revolving around the sun faster, or every
planet
in the solar system was and, perhaps because the sun's axial speed slowed
down (I assume it has an axial spin), all the planets rates of revolution
were dragged down.
My question is: Is there any test that could be done to prove or
disprove that the Earth once revolved more quickly around the sun,
especially if all the planets decelerated at the same rate?

skddlbyp wrote:
If gravity is a force of constant acceleration, then the planets are all
constantly accelerating around the Sun.

In Genesis 5 people had lifespans up to 1000 years. The Hebrew
patriarchs, and some descendants, had abnormally long lifespans; i.e.

Abraham 175 years
Isaac 180
Jacob 147
Joseph 110
Moses 120

Let's assume these ages are correct. Perhaps the ages in Gen 5 were
based on the moon, and every new moon was a new year; sounds absurd, but
when people worshipped lunar deities, maybe they developed an exlusiuvely
lunar calendar, and maybe only the seasons were reckoned on a solar
calendar.
But that wouldn't apply to the patriarchs, for then Abraham would have
died when he was about 15 solar years old, having had a full, rich life, not
to mention becoming a self-made millionaire when he was about 2.
Suppose the Earth retained about the same speed of rotation on it's
axis, but it's orbit around the sun was somewhere around twice as fast in
the time of Abraham, and then in order a few short generations it slowed
down to its present 365 day orbit.
So either the Earth was revolving around the sun faster, or every planet
in the solar system was and, perhaps because the sun's axial speed slowed
down (I assume it has an axial spin), all the planets rates of revolution
were dragged down.
My question is: Is there any test that could be done to prove or
disprove that the Earth once revolved more quickly around the sun,
especially if all the planets decelerated at the same rate?


More quickly around the sun would mean the Earth would have had to have
been closer to the Sun. It seems more likely that the Earth moves
closer to the Sun over time, not farther away. Unless the Sun's
rotation is imparting energy to the Earth, like the Earth is imparting
energy to the Moon, moving it farther away over time. But even then,
the scriptures would have to be billions of years old for this to be
the reason for the recorded old age of the patriarchs! More likely it
was all the healthy natural nuts, grains, oats, and goat yogurt they
ate, and no high trans fatty acid cheeseburgers!

Double-A

More quickly around the sun would mean the Earth would have had to have
been closer to the Sun. It seems more likely that the Earth moves
closer to the Sun over time, not farther away. Unless the Sun's
rotation is imparting energy to the Earth, like the Earth is imparting
energy to the Moon, moving it farther away over time. But even then,
the scriptures would have to be billions of years old for this to be
the reason for the recorded old age of the patriarchs! More likely it
was all the healthy natural nuts, grains, oats, and goat yogurt they
ate, and no high trans fatty acid cheeseburgers!

Double-A

I don't really understand the astro-physics of it. I'm not sure if the
sun spins, or, if it does, it exerts a gravitational force in the direction
of the spin. May be confusing a gravitational field with an
electro-magnetic field.
The diet was probably healthier. The climate was probably healthier, too.

skddlbyp wrote:
I don't really understand the astro-physics of it. I'm not sure if the
sun spins, or, if it does, it exerts a gravitational force in the direction
of the spin.

I may be wrong, but if the sun spins, wouldn't centrigugal force cause
less gravitational force in the direction of the spin? I read that on
earth you weigh slightly less at the equator than at the poles due to
centrifugal force. Would this be true of the sun also? In another
thread in this forum, a discussion of black holes, it was implied that
black holes have stronger gravity at their poles than at their equators
due to their very rapid spin.

Doug