Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Movie - "The Principle"
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 120 (761429)
07-01-2015 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by JonF
07-01-2015 9:49 AM


Re: Galileo Was Wrong...about circular planetary orbits
Thanks JonF. I didn't realize people were making claims like that. I edited my message.
The video's calculations about the gravitational pull we see here on Earth has nothing on the direct measurements that the Ulysses spacecraft made when it was orbiting the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by JonF, posted 07-01-2015 9:49 AM JonF has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 77 of 120 (761430)
07-01-2015 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by New Cat's Eye
06-30-2015 4:45 PM


Re: Galileo Was Wrong...about circular planetary orbits
Any thoughts on the mass of the sun being waaay too huge for it to revolve around the Earth? See Message 59.
More to the point, why does relativistic warping of space due to mass explain the Mercury orbit anomaly if the mass is not that huge. See msg 44 on the "Galilio was wrong" thread.
As with Faith I think Suzanne Romano has trouble with the concept of what empirical evidence is and how it is used in science to validate theory.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2015 4:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 78 of 120 (761431)
07-01-2015 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Phat
07-01-2015 11:30 AM


Re: gullible in gullible out
Not in any "Science" forum unless allowances are made for pointing out that they are not and cannot be doing science until they accept the position that their belief, their God, their faith may well be wrong and is subject to being falsified and that their beliefs are not in anyway evidence of anything except the existence of their belief.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Phat, posted 07-01-2015 11:30 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 3180 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 79 of 120 (761438)
07-01-2015 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by New Cat's Eye
06-30-2015 4:45 PM


Re: Galileo Was Wrong...about circular planetary orbits
CatSci:
quote:
Any thoughts on the mass of the sun being waaay too huge for it to revolve around the Earth?
My thought is that this question is framed by Newtonian mechanics because it implies that only the forces caused by the mass of the two bodies stipulated - the Sun and the Earth - should be factored into the analysis. As framed, your question posits the Newtonian idea of Absolute Space, wherein the only things moving and exerting force are the bodies under consideration, the bodies plugged into a mathematical equation. IF the Sun and the Earth were the two bodies in a two-body system, indeed the mass of the Sun would be "waaaay too huge for it to revolve around the Earth."
But we do not live in a two body universe; wherefore Newton's law of two bodies cannot accurately measure reality. According to Ernst Mach, though the huge mass of the Sun has a great force of gravity, the combined masses of the stars have a corresponding force of gravity, which influences other bodies in the universe.
The answer to your question is that the entire universe rotates around its center of mass, carrying the stars and the Sun with it. The Earth being the universe's center of mass, the stars and the Sun rotate around the Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2015 4:45 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2015 12:29 PM Suzanne Romano has replied
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 07-01-2015 12:58 PM Suzanne Romano has replied
 Message 84 by JonF, posted 07-01-2015 1:07 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2015 1:23 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied
 Message 93 by NoNukes, posted 07-01-2015 4:59 PM Suzanne Romano has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 120 (761441)
07-01-2015 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Suzanne Romano
07-01-2015 12:10 PM


Re: Galileo Was Wrong...about circular planetary orbits
My thought is that this question is framed by Newtonian mechanics because it implies that only the forces caused by the mass of the two bodies stipulated - the Sun and the Earth - should be factored into the analysis. As framed, your question posits the Newtonian idea of Absolute Space, wherein the only things moving and exerting force are the bodies under consideration, the bodies plugged into a mathematical equation. IF the Sun and the Earth were the two bodies in a two-body system, indeed the mass of the Sun would be "waaaay too huge for it to revolve around the Earth."
Even with all the other planets in the equation, the sun is simply way to massive to revolve around the Earth.
And the other stars in the galaxy are too far away to have a non-negligible effect.
Forget the rest of the Universe for a second and just look at our solar system.
The sun is between 99.8 and 99.9 percent of the total mass of the solar system.
It is physically impossible for any one piece of that 0.1 - 0.2 percent of the total mass of the solar system to be at the center.
The other 99% of the mass, the sun, would pull too hard on that center piece for it to stay there.
According to Ernst Mach, though the huge mass of the Sun has a great force of gravity, the combined masses of the stars have a corresponding force of gravity, which influences other bodies in the universe.
Mach, whoever he is, is wrong.
The force of gravity on the Earth from the other stars is totally negligible in comparison to the force of gravity from the Sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Suzanne Romano, posted 07-01-2015 12:10 PM Suzanne Romano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Suzanne Romano, posted 07-01-2015 1:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 89 by kbertsche, posted 07-01-2015 3:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 3180 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


(1)
Message 81 of 120 (761443)
07-01-2015 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Phat
07-01-2015 11:13 AM


Re: gullible in gullible out
Phat:
quote:
Awww give her a chance! I respect Faith in part largely due to the fact that she has hung in there so long after being repeatedly dogpiled by others who preach the gospel of logic, reason, and reality. If Suzanne was as tough as Faith, she would fit in here quite nicely. Perhaps she would eventually learn to express her beliefs more in her own words and less cut & paste. Or perhaps she would become more like the way you want her to be---a critical thinker who supports reasoned argumentation with evidence.
Mighty nice of ya, Phat.
'preciate 'er.
Thing is, I'm not allowed to speak of faith here. Faith will not be tolerated. I would love to have a go with the folks here on the subject of Natural Philosophy. But then they would accuse me of cutting and pasting from St. Thomas Aquinas and the Magisterium of the Church.
What Suzanne Romano obviously fails to understand (and which makes her a crank and a cook and an irrelevant cutting and pasting time waster), is that every other person on this forum has a degree in Physics, Logic, Philosophy, and/or other science, and has been pre-qualified as an expert in their field as a criterion for membership. No one on this forum who does not have a degree in Physics posts anything related to Physics, and so on. Indeed, any comment now adorning this board - the comments of Suzanne Romano excepted (for she apparently qualified for membership under a different set of posting guidelines) - has the guarantee and bears the royal stamp of having been submitted by a qualified expert with a degree in the field of science under discussion.
Only Suzanne Romano posts comments about subjects wherein she has no professional expertise or official recognition. Everyone else here is a world renowned scientist of one sort or another.
And if a poster should quote another expert, like Hegel, Kant, Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Voltaire, et. al., this is not cutting and pasting. It is only cutting and pasting if Suzanne Romano quotes an authority.
Furthermore, no member of this forum believes anything on the word of another because that would certainly not be rational or logical. Indeed many members of this forum cannot post regularly because they are too busy in labs, observatories, expeditions, and space flights. They are all busy making sure (on their own steam and power) that every single thing they ever read in a textbook is empirically true.
See, Phat, it's a double standard called: Leveling the field.
Now, if you will please excuse me, I am going to review the GWW segment on the Michelson-Morley experiment. Then I am going to write another synopsis, using the GWW material and the independent research I have gathered over the course of ten years. Then I am going to post that synopsis on this forum, if they don't ban me first. Then the members will have at me. Then I will answer some of the more intelligent replies. Then I will go and write again. And so forth, and so on, blah, blah, blah.
See ya!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Phat, posted 07-01-2015 11:13 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 07-01-2015 1:34 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied
 Message 91 by Phat, posted 07-01-2015 4:22 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 82 of 120 (761446)
07-01-2015 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Suzanne Romano
07-01-2015 12:10 PM


Re: Galileo Was Wrong...about circular planetary orbits
Suzanne Romano writes:
But we do not live in a two body universe; wherefore Newton's law of two bodies cannot accurately measure reality. According to Ernst Mach, though the huge mass of the Sun has a great force of gravity, the combined masses of the stars have a corresponding force of gravity, which influences other bodies in the universe.
We can calculate the force of attraction between Earth and Sun by using this equation:
Plugging in the values we get:
The nearest star is Alpha Centauri, a binary star system, at about 4 light years away. Plugging in the values for Earth and Alpha Centauri we get:
The force of attraction between the Earth and Alpha Centauri is 11 orders of magnitude smaller, so negligible as to be safely ignored for calculating orbits within the solar system to even a third level of accuracy. It would take roughly a hundred billion Alpha Centauris at 4 light years away to equal the force of attraction of the sun. There are certainly at least that many stars in the Milky Way galaxy, but Alpha Centauri is the closest one, so the gravitational attraction of the rest is proportionally less by the inverse square of the distance and can again be safely ignored for calculations within the solar system. Also, while we're in the outer part of an arm, we're still surrounded by stars on all sides whose gravitational effects will tend to cancel out.
This is not to say that the remote effects of gravity of all the stars and gas in the galaxy amount to nothing, just that its effects are too small to be bothered with for calculations within the solar system. The gravitational effects of the stars and gases and dark matter that comprise our galaxy are what give it its shape and structure and rotation. The Milky Way is apparently a barred galaxy with two arms.
--Percy
PS - Math corrections welcome, I dashed through looking up the values, getting them in the right units, and doing the calculations. Distances are m, mass is kg.
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
Edited by Percy, : Clarify final paragraph.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Suzanne Romano, posted 07-01-2015 12:10 PM Suzanne Romano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Suzanne Romano, posted 07-02-2015 6:15 PM Percy has replied

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 3180 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 83 of 120 (761448)
07-01-2015 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by New Cat's Eye
07-01-2015 12:29 PM


Re: Galileo Was Wrong...about circular planetary orbits
CatSci:
quote:
Mach, whoever he is, is wrong.
Ernst Mach - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2015 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2015 1:07 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied
 Message 86 by JonF, posted 07-01-2015 1:11 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 84 of 120 (761449)
07-01-2015 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Suzanne Romano
07-01-2015 12:10 PM


Re: Galileo Was Wrong...about circular planetary orbits
It is impossible for the Earth to be the center of mass and be stationary. The planets move; therefore the center of mass of the solar system moves. Note that the center of mass is not the point at which all gravitational forces cancel out. For example, the Sun-Jupiter system (from the first reference below):
The L1 point is the point where the Sun's and Jupiter's gravity cancel out. Far from the center of mass.
References:
As the Universe Turns
Dialogue on the Center of Mass of the Universe, Part 1
Dialogue on the Center of Mass of the Universe, Part 2
Claims that Mach's principle and the gravitational force of the rest of the universe overpower the gravity within the solar system must be accompanied by calculations. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. — Christopher Hitchens.
But we do not live in a two body universe; wherefore Newton's law of two bodies cannot accurately measure reality.
No model can measure reality absolutely accurately. But Newton's laws (which apply to any number of bodies, whether or not an analytic solution can be obtained) measure reality accurately enough for the masses and velocities found in the Solar system. If you want to demonstrate that Newton's laws are not sufficiently accurate, show us the calculations.
As if you could.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Suzanne Romano, posted 07-01-2015 12:10 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 120 (761450)
07-01-2015 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Suzanne Romano
07-01-2015 1:02 PM


Re: Galileo Was Wrong...about circular planetary orbits
Suzanne, we don't debate by video and we don't debate by links. We type out our responses to each other. That was in the rules you agreed to when you signed up.
What does the video say? How is it relevant?
Do you have any thoughts on what I wrote?
The other stars in the galaxy have a negligible gravitational effect on the Earth compared to our Sun.
The Sun is way too massive to revolve around the Earth in our Solar System.
This has yet to be addressed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Suzanne Romano, posted 07-01-2015 1:02 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 86 of 120 (761451)
07-01-2015 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Suzanne Romano
07-01-2015 1:02 PM


Re: Galileo Was Wrong...about circular planetary orbits
Mach's principle has not been established as part of any model of the Universe. It may or may not be valid. The jury is still out.
Of course, you could present the evidence that Thirring's paper is relevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Suzanne Romano, posted 07-01-2015 1:02 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 87 of 120 (761454)
07-01-2015 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Suzanne Romano
07-01-2015 12:10 PM


geocentrism and mercury
The answer to your question is that the entire universe rotates around its center of mass, carrying the stars and the Sun with it. The Earth being the universe's center of mass, the stars and the Sun rotate around the Earth.
Which fails to explain the orbit of Mercury and why it is in the gravity well of the sun but not in the rest of the universe and why that gravity well causes the anomalous behavior.
What you posit for the universe pulling the sun around the earth would mean that the orbit of Mercury would be elongated in the purported direction of the sun's movement.
Of course you would need to understand relativity to see why this is a problem, and high school physics education is just not sufficient.
But we do not live in a two body universe; wherefore Newton's law of two bodies cannot accurately measure reality. According to Ernst Mach, though the huge mass of the Sun has a great force of gravity, the combined masses of the stars have a corresponding force of gravity, which influences other bodies in the universe.
Which would distort the gravity well around the sun and pull Mercury into a different orbit -- one extended in the direction of the purported solar orbit. Can you explain how the forces of the universe would cancel out for Mercury but not for the sun?
See The 200-year-old mystery of Mercury's orbit solved! for information on the orbit anomaly and solution.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Suzanne Romano, posted 07-01-2015 12:10 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 88 of 120 (761456)
07-01-2015 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Suzanne Romano
07-01-2015 12:46 PM


Re: gullible in gullible out
Suzanne Romano writes:
Thing is, I'm not allowed to speak of faith here. Faith will not be tolerated.
Sure you are, and sure it is. And if you want to tell us that you believe in geocentrism out of faith (and you have) then that's fine. But you're also telling us that geocentrism has scientific support, and since this thread has been placed in a science forum then that's what you have to prove.
I would love to have a go with the folks here on the subject of Natural Philosophy.
And they at you, so just propose a new thread targeted for the Is It Science? or Faith and Belief forums.
What Suzanne Romano obviously fails to understand (and which makes her a crank and a cook...
A crank and a cook! What a wonderful combination!
...and an irrelevant cutting and pasting time waster), is that every other person on this forum has a degree in Physics, Logic, Philosophy, and/or other science, and has been pre-qualified as an expert in their field as a criterion for membership. No one on this forum who does not have a degree in Physics posts anything related to Physics, and so on. Indeed, any comment now adorning this board - the comments of Suzanne Romano excepted (for she apparently qualified for membership under a different set of posting guidelines) - has the guarantee and bears the royal stamp of having been submitted by a qualified expert with a degree in the field of science under discussion.
The only criterion for membership is acceding to the registration agreement. We do have a goodly number of members knowledgeable about science, which makes sense since this site exists to examine creationist claims that their ideas are supported by science.
Only Suzanne Romano posts comments about subjects wherein she has no professional expertise or official recognition. Everyone else here is a world renowned scientist of one sort or another.
I think what more distinguishes you from others here is that they write about what they know while you write about things you don't know.
And if a poster should quote another expert, like Hegel, Kant, Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Voltaire, et. al., this is not cutting and pasting. It is only cutting and pasting if Suzanne Romano quotes an authority.
The Forum Guidelines do not disallow cutting and pasting:
  1. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.
But you've relied upon extremely lengthy cut-n-pastes that still exceed in magnitude your own words by quite a margin. The Forum Guidelines make clear that lengthy cut-n-pastes are discouraged. We want your own words written as direct responses to what others have written to you in the same manner.
Furthermore, no member of this forum believes anything on the word of another because that would certainly not be rational or logical.
Each generation of scientists builds on what came before. There's no need to reestablish what has already been scientifically established, though of course there's always the responsibility to never consider any scientific finding sacrosanct (the property of falsifiability).
Now, if you will please excuse me, I am going to review the GWW segment on the Michelson-Morley experiment. Then I am going to write another synopsis, using the GWW material and the independent research I have gathered over the course of ten years. Then I am going to post that synopsis on this forum, if they don't ban me first. Then the members will have at me. Then I will answer some of the more intelligent replies.
I don't see what reviewing the MM experiment and then posting a synopsis has to do with the current discussion. I think you'd be better off just moving on to the last step, forthrightly answering the replies posted to you. So far you've replied to only 37% of those replies.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Suzanne Romano, posted 07-01-2015 12:46 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 89 of 120 (761463)
07-01-2015 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by New Cat's Eye
07-01-2015 12:29 PM


Re: Galileo Was Wrong...about circular planetary orbits
According to Ernst Mach, though the huge mass of the Sun has a great force of gravity, the combined masses of the stars have a corresponding force of gravity, which influences other bodies in the universe.
Mach, whoever he is, is wrong.
Maybe Mach was wrong on this, but I doubt it. I suspect he was talking about something like the effects of one star's gravity on nearby stars, and whoever quote-mined him for Suzanne distorted and misinterpreted what he said.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2015 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2015 4:04 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2015 4:27 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 120 (761466)
07-01-2015 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by kbertsche
07-01-2015 3:56 PM


Re: Galileo Was Wrong...about circular planetary orbits
According to Ernst Mach, though the huge mass of the Sun has a great force of gravity, the combined masses of the stars have a corresponding force of gravity, which influences other bodies in the universe.
Mach, whoever he is, is wrong.
Maybe Mach was wrong on this, but I doubt it. I suspect he was talking about something like the effects of one star's gravity on nearby stars, and whoever quote-mined him for Suzanne distorted and misinterpreted what he said.
Yeah, I don't know where that came from. But the idea that the combined masses of the stars have a force of gravity on Earth that corresponds to that of our Sun is so wrong it is simply ridiculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by kbertsche, posted 07-01-2015 3:56 PM kbertsche 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