Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sun-Earth-Moon Gravity
mpc755
Member (Idle past 6072 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 07-29-2007


Message 106 of 119 (414996)
08-07-2007 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Chiroptera
08-07-2007 3:28 PM


I am not trolling.
You just made my point exactly in your previous email.
Sure, but the point in space where they used to exist certainly exists.
This is exactly my point!!! Ugh!!! The point in space where the mark was made by the lightning strike still certainly exists, but the mark itself has moved from that point in the millions of years it has taken the light to reach our observer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Chiroptera, posted 08-07-2007 3:28 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Chiroptera, posted 08-07-2007 4:27 PM mpc755 has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 119 (415001)
08-07-2007 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by mpc755
08-07-2007 3:45 PM


...the mark itself has moved from that point in the millions of years it has taken the light to reach our observer.
Not in the frame of reference of the mark itself. In that frame of reference, the mark isn't moving at all.

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by mpc755, posted 08-07-2007 3:45 PM mpc755 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by mpc755, posted 08-07-2007 5:11 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
mpc755
Member (Idle past 6072 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 07-29-2007


Message 108 of 119 (415005)
08-07-2007 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Chiroptera
08-07-2007 4:27 PM


The mark isn't moving at all in the reference frame of the mark itself, but it no longer exists where the light emitted from.
After millions of years, the point in space where the light emitted from and the point in space where the mark is are two separate points in space. After millions of years, we don't even know if the train and the mark even exist anymore, but we still know where the light emitted from.
Any observer, in any reference frame, would measure the distance the light traveled to reach her to where it emitted from, not to where the mark is now.
Edited by mpc755, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Chiroptera, posted 08-07-2007 4:27 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Chiroptera, posted 08-07-2007 5:44 PM mpc755 has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 119 (415013)
08-07-2007 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by mpc755
08-07-2007 5:11 PM


The mark isn't moving at all in the reference frame of the mark itself, but it no longer exists where the light emitted from.
You see, this shows that you don't even know what the words mean.
The mark isn't moving at all in its reference frame. So it is in the same position it was when the light from the lightning was emitted. Therefore, it is in the exact same position where the light from the lightning was emitted.
This is just what those words mean. "Not moving at all" means "in the same position that it has always been". If it has not moved at all since the lightning struck, then it is still in the same position right now where the lightning struck.
-
Any observer, in any reference frame, would measure the distance the light traveled to reach her to where it emitted from...
Exactly.
...not to where the mark is now.
Except for an observer in the reference frame of the mark itself, because according to her measurements the mark has never moved from that spot. So, according to a person in the same frame of reference as the mark from the lightning strike, that mark is in the same spot where the lightning struck, and so in the same spot from which the light she is observing was emitted. This is what "frame of reference" means. If you cannot understand this, then you don't understand the meaning of "frame of reference", and in that case any sentence you type with the words "frame of reference" is gibberish.

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by mpc755, posted 08-07-2007 5:11 PM mpc755 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by mpc755, posted 08-07-2007 6:29 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
mpc755
Member (Idle past 6072 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 07-29-2007


Message 110 of 119 (415023)
08-07-2007 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Chiroptera
08-07-2007 5:44 PM


...where the lightning struck...was emitted...

Yes, past tense. But after millions of years, when the light from the lightning strike reaches her, the flash of light she sees is no where near where the mark is now. The mark does not represent the distance the light traveled to reach her.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Chiroptera, posted 08-07-2007 5:44 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Chiroptera, posted 08-07-2007 7:13 PM mpc755 has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 119 (415027)
08-07-2007 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by mpc755
08-07-2007 6:29 PM


Time to shut this down.
Okay, so we can now conclude a couple of things.
(1) You have no idea what you are talking about.
(2) You don't really want to learn anything. You think that just disagreeing with something for the sake of disagreement marks you as an "independent thinker". I bet you are between 15 and 21 years old.
At any rate, there is no point in continuing this conversation. I did enjoy it. I enjoyed it for two reasons:
One reason is that your attempts at rebuttal gave me the opportunity to make further refinements in the explanation of frames of reference. I hope that anyone trying to understand something about "frames of reference" now has a little better understanding what the concept means. But I think that the basic idea has been explained about as much as it can be, and there is no point going further.
The other reason is that I participate in these evolution/creation debate forums because I enjoy the silly monkey dance that creationists do. You have that same mind set -- someone who doesn't have any understanding of the principles, yet you insist that you have something important to tell the world. I could go on for another couple of pages watching you dance around and make those funny faces and noises. However, the operators of this board have a different idea of the purpose of this board -- they are interested in foster an "intelligent debate" about the principles involved. That isn't going to happen here, since you don't understand the principles involved, and aren't really interested in learning them.
So I'm pretty much going to leave it there. It's been interesting for me, and it's been fun, but there is no more point in continuing. And we've gotten a bit from the Sun-Earth-Moon Gravity topic anyway.
Edited by Chiroptera, : typos

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by mpc755, posted 08-07-2007 6:29 PM mpc755 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by mpc755, posted 08-07-2007 7:32 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 113 by mpc755, posted 08-09-2007 5:19 AM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 114 by mpc755, posted 08-13-2007 4:34 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
mpc755
Member (Idle past 6072 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 07-29-2007


Message 112 of 119 (415029)
08-07-2007 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Chiroptera
08-07-2007 7:13 PM


Re: Time to shut this down.
Removed rant.
Edited by mpc755, : No reason given.
Edited by mpc755, : Removed rant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Chiroptera, posted 08-07-2007 7:13 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
mpc755
Member (Idle past 6072 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 07-29-2007


Message 113 of 119 (415280)
08-09-2007 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Chiroptera
08-07-2007 7:13 PM


Re: Time to shut this down.
What if the two lightning strikes occur at points in space and do not leave marks on the train?
What if instead, the Observer on the train whips a long wooden rod through the lightning strike the instant he sees the light from it which causes the lightning strike to burn right through the rod.
Wouldn't the length of the rod be a good indication of how far the light traveled to reach him?
If he had multiple rods, he could keep whipping them through the lightning strike. He would then be able to tell how he is moving relative to the lightning strikes and calculate back to determine the exact distance the light from the lightning strikes traveled to reach him. He would then conclude that the lightning strikes occurred simultaneously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Chiroptera, posted 08-07-2007 7:13 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
mpc755
Member (Idle past 6072 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 07-29-2007


Message 114 of 119 (416067)
08-13-2007 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Chiroptera
08-07-2007 7:13 PM


Re: Time to shut this down.
Two observers on the train both standing at midpoint M'. One knows he is on a moving train and takes the embankment as his reference frame. The other observer takes the train as his reference frame.
The lightning strike occurs at A on the embankment and A' on the train and the light from the lightning strike reaches the observers on the train simultaneously.
The observer who knows he is on a moving train, and takes the embankment as his reference frame, says the light traveled from A on the embankment to reach them.
The observer who takes the train as his reference frame says the light traveled from A' on the train to reach them.
Both observers agree that there was a single lightning strike and they agree that the lightning strike reached them simultaneously but they disagree on the distance the light traveled to reach them.
The only way all this could occur is if the light from the lightning strike travels at different speeds to reach the two observers.
Edited by mpc755, : Clean up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Chiroptera, posted 08-07-2007 7:13 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Calypso, posted 09-12-2007 12:59 AM mpc755 has not replied

  
Calypso
Junior Member (Idle past 5155 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-05-2006


Message 115 of 119 (421319)
09-12-2007 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by mpc755
08-13-2007 4:34 PM


Re: Earth sun moon gravitation
I don't want to go too far off topic but I have a new question to pose about this, semi related to the earth sun moon gravitational attraction question in the OP.
If the Sun-Earth gravitational attraction is so much greater than the Earth-Moon, then why doesn't the Sun affect the tides more than the Moon for example? I'm guessing the answer will be distance is closer but isn't that taken into account with the gmm/r^2 equation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by mpc755, posted 08-13-2007 4:34 PM mpc755 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by NosyNed, posted 09-12-2007 2:06 AM Calypso has not replied
 Message 117 by Taz, posted 09-12-2007 3:20 AM Calypso has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 116 of 119 (421324)
09-12-2007 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Calypso
09-12-2007 12:59 AM


Tides
Tides are caused by a difference in the gravity from one side to the other. Since the distance from one side of the earth to the other is a large percentage of the distance between the earth and moon those are the higher tides.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Calypso, posted 09-12-2007 12:59 AM Calypso has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 117 of 119 (421326)
09-12-2007 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Calypso
09-12-2007 12:59 AM


Re: Earth sun moon gravitation
First of all, read my explanation on why the moon causes tides here.
The distance between earth and the sun is so much greater than the earth to the moon that the gravitational force between the earth and sun acting on the side of earth facing the sun is not that much different than the the force acting on the side facing away from the sun. The same thing cannot be said about the force between earth and moon. If you don't get it, I'm sure you'll get it eventually.
Hint: use your equation there and start plugging in some numbers to compare and contrast.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Calypso, posted 09-12-2007 12:59 AM Calypso has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Calypso, posted 09-12-2007 8:47 PM Taz has not replied

  
Calypso
Junior Member (Idle past 5155 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-05-2006


Message 118 of 119 (421480)
09-12-2007 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Taz
09-12-2007 3:20 AM


Re: Earth sun moon gravitation
yes, I get it now. Perfect explanation Tazmanius Devilus. Thanks very much. I knew it had something to do with distance, I was just way to tired last night to figure that out on my own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Taz, posted 09-12-2007 3:20 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by EighteenDelta, posted 09-13-2007 12:04 PM Calypso has not replied

  
EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 119 (421616)
09-13-2007 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Calypso
09-12-2007 8:47 PM


Re: Earth sun moon gravitation
I remember a great example from my physics classes that sticks with me after all these years.
if you hold a watermelon over your own head, it has more gravitational influence over your body than the moon due to the proximity differences, even given the significant mass differences.
the 'd^2' has a very large impact on outcome.

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Calypso, posted 09-12-2007 8:47 PM Calypso has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024