#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Concept of Gravity
"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! |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Concept of Gravity
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Concept of Gravity
"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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Concept of Gravity
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Concept of Gravity
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? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Concept of Gravity
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? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Concept of Gravity
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Concept of Gravity
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Concept of Gravity
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board | Golden Boar | Misc | 59 | January 12th 06 11:18 PM |
Putting relativity to the test, NASA's Gravity Probe B experimentis one step away from revealing if Einstein was right (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 7th 05 05:09 AM |
Can't get out of the universe "My crew will blow it up"!!!!!!!!!!! | zetasum | History | 0 | February 4th 05 11:06 PM |
Can't get out of the universe "My crew will blow it up"!!!!!!!!!!! | zetasum | Policy | 0 | February 4th 05 11:06 PM |
Gravity as Falling Space | Henry Haapalainen | Science | 1 | September 4th 04 04:08 PM |