Plasmoid Collision Simulation

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by OilIsMastery, Dec 14, 2008.

  1. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    There is no string tieing the Earth to the sun and such a string would melt if you tried to tie it around the sun.

    Gravity is alleged to act at a distance through mathematical void aka the imagined "perfect vacuum" of "empty space."

    Electromagnetic force.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,189
    Because local groups of galaxies are gravitationally bound together, and this effect is larger than the expansion of the universe as a whole.

    This is a lie.

    Both Newton and Einstein did not rely on any concept of God or religion to describe gravity. Their descriptions are scientific, mathematical and well tested.

    Newton wasn't dumb. He realised that distant stars would attract each other if gravity was truly universal. Modern knowledge shows that indeed they do attract each other. But Newton didn't know about the big bang. We do. And that, even without concepts such as dark energy, could be enough to prevent the universe from collapsing, depending on the overall mass density of the universe.

    In the Newtonian picture, a force is required to make an object orbit. The Sun's gravity causes the Earth to orbit it. But a central force cannot affect the tangential velocity of an object orbiting in a circle. Hence, the Sun's gravity would not change the speed of the Earth if its orbit was perfectly circular. Now, in fact, the Earth's orbit is elliptical, and so things are a little more complicated. Still, the Newtonian description of gravity has no trouble explaining the orbits of the planets under the influence of the Sun's gravity.

    I can provide more information if you have further questions.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Not according to Newtonian gravity. If it's true that all galaxies are gravitatioanlly bound to eachother then how come galaxies aren't torn apart by infinite gravitational force in every direction?

    Wrong again.

    I suggest you actually read Isaac Newton's Principles of Math, Book 3, General Scholium: http://hss.fullerton.edu/philosophy/GeneralScholium.htm

    Well I guess if you consider God to be scientific, mathematical, and well tested.

    That's your opinion.

    He believed the stars were fixed, God magically created astronomical bodies with perfect orbital velocity, that time is absolute, alchemy, miracles, etc.

    So why don't the sun and Earth crash into eachother?

    If he were alive today he would agree with it because Big Bang is consistent with God.

    Electromagnetism perhaps? Or God as Newton claims?

    How is that possible?

    What gives the Earth tangential force? The Newtonian God?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    Gauss' law.

    Conservation of angular momentum.

    What tangential force (Hint: None is needed).
     
  8. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Gauss!!! Exactly. I agree 100%.

    Gravity is an illusion and inertia is of electromagnetic origin.

    "What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908

    "An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity." -- Bertrand Russell, physicist/philosopher, 1924

    "...in 1913—G. E. Hale published his paper on “The general magnetic field of the sun” (Contr. M. Wilson Obs., #71), in which he estimated the general magnetic field of the sun as of 50 Gauss intensity. At this intensity “under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation.” (Alfven) The last named author in his “cosmical Electro-dynamics” (Oxford, 1950, p. 2) shows that a hydrogen atom at the distance of the earth from the sun and moving with the earth’s orbital velocity, if ionized, is acted upon by the solar magnetic field ten thousand times stronger than by the solar gravitational field." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1952

    :roflmao:

    Why is that? Because of the Newtonian God?
     
  9. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Conservation of angular momentum.

    Next.
     
  10. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    What gave the Earth the perfect orbital velocity so as not to reach escape velocity or crash into the sun? Newton's God?
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,189
    OIM:

    What are you talking about? Yes, according to Newtonian gravity.

    This was explained to you previously. Gravity is an inverse-square force. It's strength drops off as distance from the source increases.

    Do you understand this?

    I see no mention of the word "gravity" or "gravitation" in your quoted passage.

    That's the opinion of the physical scientific community.

    You're hardly in a position to judge, knowing next to nothing about physics yourself.

    No. In fact, he was the first to realise that a "perfect orbital velocity" was not necessary. Many different orbits are possible with any given velocity. It was a triumph of Newton's theory of gravity.

    Newton did believe in alchemy and miracles - hardly surprising in a religious man of his time. But there is nothing about either of those in his scientific masterwork, the Principia.

    I explained this in the very post to which your reply refers.

    If you did not understand my explanation, just ask. Your arrogance in simply ignoring the effort I put into my response is just plain rude - it displays a lack of good upbringing and education about basic courtesy and good manners.

    If you have an ounce of decency, you will now apologise to me.

    Perhaps. Lots of things are consistent with God. So what?

    Gravity. As Newton claimed.

    I'm not sure what you're asking. Please be specific.

    As was pointed out to you, no tangential force is required or present.

    I have previously explained to you why gravity cannot be electromagnetic in origin.

    Poincare turned out to be wrong. 100 years have passed since this statement.

    This is correct. It does nothing to support the idea that gravity is really electromagnetism.

    I suggest that you are deliberately trying to deceive readers again. Is that your aim, or do you truly not understand why Russell's statement is irrelevant?

    There's little point in analysing the statements of a confirmed crackpot.
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,189
    There is no "perfect velocity". As long as a planet has less than the escape velocity from the Sun, it will orbit in an elliptical orbit.
     
  13. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Natural selection.

    At the early ages of the solar system, there were many small "planetessimals" orbiting with a great many different velocities and trajectories. Some collided and formed earth, some were ejected.
     
  14. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Yes there is. According to Newtonian gravity the orbital velocity is the perfect velocity of Divine Providence because were the Earth to exceed the orbital velocity it would pass escape velocity and fly into the depths of outer space. And were it to decrease below the orbital velocity it would crash into the sun due to alleged gravitational force as in free fall.

    So the Earth can't crash into the sun?
     
  15. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    4.5 billion years of no friction. Hmm. I guess millions of gigavolts and amps of cosmic rays and Birkeland currents and the catastrophic impact craters are a figment of my imagination just like electromagnetism.
     
  16. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    We know just a tad more than did Newton about gravity and how star systems form. So stop with the 350 year old references.


    No. The tiny bit of energy loss in the Earth's orbit due to gravitational radiation is more than compensated by the Sun's loss of mass due to electromagnetic radiation and solar wind. The Earth is slowly retreating from the Sun.
     
  17. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    You're the one who believes in the 321 year old reference!!! Gravity is 320 years old! Get over it! It's the 21st century. We have electromagnetism now.

    "What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908

    "An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity." -- Bertrand Russell, physicist/philosopher, 1924

    "...in 1913—G. E. Hale published his paper on “The general magnetic field of the sun” (Contr. M. Wilson Obs., #71), in which he estimated the general magnetic field of the sun as of 50 Gauss intensity. At this intensity “under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation.” (Alfven) The last named author in his “cosmical Electro-dynamics” (Oxford, 1950, p. 2) shows that a hydrogen atom at the distance of the earth from the sun and moving with the earth’s orbital velocity, if ionized, is acted upon by the solar magnetic field ten thousand times stronger than by the solar gravitational field." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1952

    "But then if there were events of this character, discharges between planets and so on, I put one of the most outrageous claims before the scientific readers, that in the solar system and in the universe generally, not just gravitation and inertia are the two forces of action but that also electricity and magnetism are participating in the mechanism, so the Lord was not just a watchmaker. The universe is not free of those forces with which the man makes his life easy already more than 100 years. They were unknown practically or little known in the time of Newton in the second half of the 17th century. But today we know that electricity and magnetism, these are not just small phenomena that we can repeat as a kind of a little trick in the lab, that they permeate every field from neurology into botony and chemistry and astronomy should not be free...and it was admitted by authorities that this was the most outrageous point in my claims. But the vengeance came early and swiftly. In 1960, already in 1955, radio noises from Jupiter were detected and this was one of the crucial tests that I offered for the truth of my theory. In 1958, the magnetosphere was discovered around the Earth, another claim. In 1960, the interplanetary magnetic field was discovered and solar plasma, so-called solar wind, moving rapidly along the magnetic lines and then it was discovered that the electromagnetic field of the Earth reaches the moon ." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1966

    Link please...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,189
    I'm not sure what you're claiming here. Possibilities:

    1. You're making an argument akin to the anthropic principle, about how "lucky" human beings are that the Earth has the right orbit to ensure that life exists and that Earth supports people etc. Such an argument has nothing to do with Newtonian gravity.

    OR

    2. You're claiming that there is not a large range of velocities in which a planet like Earth can orbit the Sun, but just one "special" velocity which must be finely tuned. This is simply a false claim, as I pointed out in a previous post.

    This comment makes option (2) seem likely. You are mistaken. There is no single orbital velocity, as I explained previously.

    Do you understand yet?

    No. You needn't worry about that.
     
  19. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    Gauss' law for gravitation (glad you agree!) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss's_law_for_gravitational_fields, http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~varnes/Teaching/321Fall2004/Notes/Lecture20.pdf.


    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=317
    There is an effect which is making us move very slowly away from the Sun. That is the tidal interaction between the Sun and the Earth. This slows down the rotation of the Sun, and pushes the Earth farther away from the Sun. You can read about tides, as they relate to the Earth-Moon system here. The principle for the Sun-Earth system should be the same. But how big of an effect is this? It turns out that the yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and the Sun from this effect is only about one micrometer (a millionth of a meter, or a ten thousandth of a centimeter). So this is a *very* tiny effect.

    There is another effect which is also small, but somewhat bigger than the tidal effect. The Sun is powered by nuclear fusion, which means the Sun is continuously transforming a small part of its mass into energy. As the mass of the Sun goes down, our orbit gets proportionally bigger. However, over the entire main sequence lifetime of the Sun (about 10 billion years), the Sun will only lose about 0.1% of its mass, which means that the Earth should move out by just ~150,000 km (small compared to the total Earth-Sun distance of ~150,000,000 km). If we assume that the Sun's rate of nuclear fusion today is the same as the average rate over those 10 billion years (a bold assumption, but it should give us a rough idea of the answer), then we're moving away from the Sun at the rate of ~1.5 cm (less than an inch) a year. I probably don't even need to mention that this is so small that we don't have to worry about freezing.​
     
  20. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    No. I am not making that argument. Newtonian gravity makes that argument!

    PLease read Newton's Principles of Math Book 3 General Schlium so you can understand what I'm talking about.

    http://hss.fullerton.edu/philosophy/GeneralScholium.htm

     
  21. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    I agree because the sun and Earth are not attracted to eachother gravitationally but rather repelled by eachother magnetically.
     
  22. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    Bunk. Justify this claim, with mathematics.
     
  23. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Already done and the Nobel Prize was won in 1970: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannes_Alfvén

    "...in 1913—G. E. Hale published his paper on “The general magnetic field of the sun” (Contr. M. Wilson Obs., #71), in which he estimated the general magnetic field of the sun as of 50 Gauss intensity. At this intensity “under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation.” (Alfven) The last named author in his “cosmical Electro-dynamics” (Oxford, 1950, p. 2) shows that a hydrogen atom at the distance of the earth from the sun and moving with the earth’s orbital velocity, if ionized, is acted upon by the solar magnetic field ten thousand times stronger than by the solar gravitational field." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1952
     

Share This Page