The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Rekt on March 14, 2017, 08:57:32 PM
-
Some may not understand how the Earth is kept rotating around the sun, in its orbit. I am not an astrodynamicist, but here is a simple explanation: The earth is pulled towards the sun at all times by gravity, therefore giving it speed towards the sun. However, the earth is moving sideways so fast that it misses. This is repeated over and over again, with the pull not strong enough to pull it all the way in but the sideways movement not fast enough to allow the earth to escape.
-
The "gravity" invented to explain the rotation of planets around the sun under RET cannot explain the rotation of galaxies, which rotate at a set uniform speed and apogee, much like a solid disk. Describing the movements of galaxies have been a challenge to astronomers.
See this article on softpedia.com (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Stars-escaping-out-of-the-Galaxy-17222.shtml):
"According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk – as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below)."
See this article on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem):
"In 1959, Louise Volders demonstrated that spiral galaxy M33 does not spin as expected according to Keplerian dynamics,[1] a result which was extended to many other spiral galaxies during the seventies.[2] Based on this model, matter (such as stars and gas) in the disk portion of a spiral should orbit the center of the galaxy similar to the way in which planets in the solar system orbit the sun, that is, according to Newtonian mechanics. Based on this, it would be expected that the average orbital speed of an object at a specified distance away from the majority of the mass distribution would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line in Fig. 1). At the time of the discovery of the discrepancy, it was thought that most of the mass of the galaxy had to be in the galactic bulge, near the center.
Observations of the rotation curve of spirals, however, do not bear this out. Rather, the curves do not decrease in the expected inverse square root relationship but are "flat" -- outside of the central bulge the speed is nearly a constant function of radius (the solid line Fig. 1). The explanation that requires the least adjustment to the physical laws of the universe is that there is a substantial amount of matter far from the center of the galaxy that is not emitting light in the mass-to-light ratio of the central bulge."
-
The "gravity" invented to explain the rotation of planets around the sun under RET cannot explain the rotation of galaxies, which rotate at a set uniform speed and apogee, much like a solid disk. Describing the movements of galaxies have been a challenge to astronomers.
See this article on softpedia.com (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Stars-escaping-out-of-the-Galaxy-17222.shtml):
"According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk – as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below)."
See this article on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem):
"In 1959, Louise Volders demonstrated that spiral galaxy M33 does not spin as expected according to Keplerian dynamics,[1] a result which was extended to many other spiral galaxies during the seventies.[2] Based on this model, matter (such as stars and gas) in the disk portion of a spiral should orbit the center of the galaxy similar to the way in which planets in the solar system orbit the sun, that is, according to Newtonian mechanics. Based on this, it would be expected that the average orbital speed of an object at a specified distance away from the majority of the mass distribution would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line in Fig. 1). At the time of the discovery of the discrepancy, it was thought that most of the mass of the galaxy had to be in the galactic bulge, near the center.
Observations of the rotation curve of spirals, however, do not bear this out. Rather, the curves do not decrease in the expected inverse square root relationship but are "flat" -- outside of the central bulge the speed is nearly a constant function of radius (the solid line Fig. 1). The explanation that requires the least adjustment to the physical laws of the universe is that there is a substantial amount of matter far from the center of the galaxy that is not emitting light in the mass-to-light ratio of the central bulge."
MAybe because galaxy rotations are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from orbits? Hence why they are not called "Galaxy Orbits?" This is a big strawman.
-
Tom, why did you use the word "apogee"? I'm trying to understand your point. Apogee is a term used do describe a location within an elliptical orbit. Can you help me understand what you are trying to say?
-
MAybe because galaxy rotations are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from orbits? Hence why they are not called "Galaxy Orbits?" This is a big strawman.
Galaxy rotations don't involve orbits in RET? ???
Tom, why did you use the word "apogee"? I'm trying to understand your point. Apogee is a term used do describe a location within an elliptical orbit. Can you help me understand what you are trying to say?
A point on a spinning disk does not have an apogee, as it is a fixed distance from the center at all times, hence a "uniform apogee". My point is that the galaxies spin as if they were solid disks, not massive stars orbiting around each other.
-
MAybe because galaxy rotations are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from orbits? Hence why they are not called "Galaxy Orbits?" This is a big strawman.
Galaxy rotations don't involve orbits in RET? ???
I was simply describing the small-scale orbits of planets and spacecraft. I am not qualified to answer this question, I was merely providing an anecdotal description of orbits on a small scale.
-
MAybe because galaxy rotations are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from orbits? Hence why they are not called "Galaxy Orbits?" This is a big strawman.
Galaxy rotations don't involve orbits in RET? ???
I was simply describing the small-scale orbits of planets and spacecraft. I am not qualified to answer this question, I was merely providing an anecdotal description of orbits on a small scale.
Well, thanks for nothing I guess.
-
MAybe because galaxy rotations are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from orbits? Hence why they are not called "Galaxy Orbits?" This is a big strawman.
Galaxy rotations don't involve orbits in RET? ???
I was simply describing the small-scale orbits of planets and spacecraft. I am not qualified to answer this question, I was merely providing an anecdotal description of orbits on a small scale.
Well, thanks for nothing I guess.
If you don't want the information than don't listen, I was just providing my 2 cents.
-
MAybe because galaxy rotations are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from orbits? Hence why they are not called "Galaxy Orbits?" This is a big strawman.
Galaxy rotations don't involve orbits in RET? ???
I was simply describing the small-scale orbits of planets and spacecraft. I am not qualified to answer this question, I was merely providing an anecdotal description of orbits on a small scale.
Well, thanks for nothing I guess.
If you don't want the information than don't listen, I was just providing my 2 cents.
Do you really consider your anecdotal, unqualified opinions information?
A point on a spinning disk does not have an apogee, as it is a fixed distance from the center at all times, hence a "uniform apogee". My point is that the galaxies spin as if they were solid disks, not massive stars orbiting around each other.
Do any of the astrophysicists here have an answer for this that doesn't contradict their beliefs?
-
Do you really consider your anecdotal, unqualified opinions information?
Is the irony uncomfortable at all, or does it just whoosh right over your head?
A point on a spinning disk does not have an apogee, as it is a fixed distance from the center at all times, hence a "uniform apogee". My point is that the galaxies spin as if they were solid disks, not massive stars orbiting around each other.
Do any of the astrophysicists here have an answer for this that doesn't contradict their beliefs?
Ignoring Tom's perplexing use of the word "apogee", he is sort of correct. Galaxies do not spin as a solid disk, but their outer portion does spin faster than what we predict based on mass estimates. The most widely accepted explanation is dark matter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter). It is far from proven though.
If you have a better explanation, I would love to hear it. The great thing about science is that alternative theories are always welcome. May the best theory win.
-
The great thing about science is that alternative theories are always welcome.
FE?
-
MAybe because galaxy rotations are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from orbits? Hence why they are not called "Galaxy Orbits?" This is a big strawman.
Galaxy rotations don't involve orbits in RET? ???
I was simply describing the small-scale orbits of planets and spacecraft. I am not qualified to answer this question, I was merely providing an anecdotal description of orbits on a small scale.
Well, thanks for nothing I guess.
If you don't want the information than don't listen, I was just providing my 2 cents.
Do you really consider your anecdotal, unqualified opinions information?
A point on a spinning disk does not have an apogee, as it is a fixed distance from the center at all times, hence a "uniform apogee". My point is that the galaxies spin as if they were solid disks, not massive stars orbiting around each other.
Do any of the astrophysicists here have an answer for this that doesn't contradict their beliefs?
It's not opinion, it's an ancedotal description of a fact. And dark matter is a concept for how this galaxy spin discrepancy works
-
It's not opinion, it's an ancedotal description of a fact.
Ouch. You should probably look up the definition of the word "anecdotal". You're not making much sense.
-
The great thing about science is that alternative theories are always welcome.
FE?
Some theories are valued for their rigor and explanatory power, others for their comedic value.
It's not opinion, it's an ancedotal description of a fact. And dark matter is a concept for how this galaxy spin discrepancy works
Holy word salad, Batman!
-
Does anyone know how to start an original post?
-
Does anyone know how to start an original post?
Yes. Use the "New Topic" button.
-
So... we are more than willing to substitute "something, something, dark matter" into any situation we can't explain?
Yet Flat Earth Theory is supposed to have every single t crossed and every single i dotted and be some sort of universal theory of everything.
-
So... we are more than willing to substitute "something, something, dark matter" into any situation we can't explain?
No. Why would you think that?
Yet Flat Earth Theory is supposed to have every single t crossed and every single i dotted and be some sort of universal theory of everything.
Not everything, but maybe have something figured out before you claim its the truth?
-
What I don't get about the Toms and the Truths of this world is that while distrusting all that scientists/Astronomers put before them they use the same peoples work to illustrate their points.
The problem of galaxy rotation and it not fitting with Newtons inverse square law was discovered by astronomers (Vera Rubin et al.) in the seventies. The New Scientist has just run an article (Strangely Attractive) that runs through the history of the problem and how there is a case for radically re-thinking gravity , ending with an interview with Stacy McGaugh who worked with Rubin but who is working on modified Newtonian dynamics which works at the galaxy level but not at larger scales and how to reconcile that with dark matter that does.
We/they don't know everything, I would be deeply suspicious of anyone saying they did, but if you are going to oppose everything scientist say, you have to come up with something that at least works and you really can't take their work (that acknowledges a problem) and hold it up as proof they are wrong.
-
We/they don't know everything, I would be deeply suspicious of anyone saying they did, but if you are going to oppose everything scientist say, you have to come up with something that at least works and you really can't take their work (that acknowledges a problem) and hold it up as proof they are wrong.
How does gravity "at least work" if it is clearly not working in entire galaxies?
-
We/they don't know everything, I would be deeply suspicious of anyone saying they did, but if you are going to oppose everything scientist say, you have to come up with something that at least works and you really can't take their work (that acknowledges a problem) and hold it up as proof they are wrong.
How does gravity "at least work" if it is clearly not working in entire galaxies?
It is neither clearly working not clearly not working on the galactic scale. The state of the science is to collect enough information to determine what it is they don't know. Other than that it works fine all the way down to the subatomic scale as everyone knows.
-
Other than that it works fine all the way down to the subatomic scale as everyone knows.
Does it? I was under the impression that on very small scales relativity breaks down. Electrons don't orbit around a nucleus so much as zip and zap here and there. I've always found the fact that gravity is considered so obvious a fundamental force yet its functioning breaks down both at very small and very large scales suspicious. But perhaps it can be easily explained by saying that a Grand Creator put it here so it could be easily observed but only at scales we can view with our own eyes, such that it wasn't until we tried to really examine things closely that we saw that it didn't quite work right. Too big or too small and things get dark or random. But here in Mama Bear's bed things are "just right" so that gravity is a perfect explanation for everything all the time. I suppose if you are willing to believe in God any ridiculous thing can make sense, but I feel like a lot of people who argue in favor of gravity as a real thing don't even believe in God which is just bewildering. How can you believe that you are magically attached to a giant whizzing ball without also believing in Divine Providence having stuck you there? FET requires no God because it requires no magic. That is why it is the superior theory.
-
Other than that it works fine all the way down to the subatomic scale as everyone knows.
Does it? I was under the impression that on very small scales relativity breaks down. Electrons don't orbit around a nucleus so much as zip and zap here and there.
I misspoke. I meant it breaks down at the subatomic scale.
I've always found the fact that gravity is considered so obvious a fundamental force yet its functioning breaks down both at very small and very large scales suspicious. But perhaps it can be easily explained by saying that a Grand Creator put it here so it could be easily observed but only at scales we can view with our own eyes, such that it wasn't until we tried to really examine things closely that we saw that it didn't quite work right. Too big or too small and things get dark or random. But here in Mama Bear's bed things are "just right" so that gravity is a perfect explanation for everything all the time.
Who said gravity is a perfect explanation for everything? What a weird position.
I suppose if you are willing to believe in God any ridiculous thing can make sense, but I feel like a lot of people who argue in favor of gravity as a real thing don't even believe in God which is just bewildering. How can you believe that you are magically attached to a giant whizzing ball without also believing in Divine Providence having stuck you there?
Because of evidence.
FET requires no God because it requires no magic.
Yes, well if I make up properties of a theory to make it sound ridiculous it will also sound ridiculous.
That is why it is the superior theory.
And it is a terrible theory because it can't offer up a cogent explanation for what we observe. If I were to be as dishonest as you, I would just use your terrible "Magic" argument on various components that have been offered up: like UA. It is even less descriptive than gravity as a theory. Gravity has trouble describing the very very big and the very very small. UA has trouble describing anything outside a completely homogeneous space, which, as we know, does not exist.
[/quote]
-
How does gravity "at least work" if it is clearly not working in entire galaxies?
As you wrote that, did you hear a swooshing noise? That was the point I was making, going over your head.
-
Who said gravity is a perfect explanation for everything? What a weird position.
I'm just quoting you guys here; I certainly never did!
I suppose if you are willing to believe in God any ridiculous thing can make sense, but I feel like a lot of people who argue in favor of gravity as a real thing don't even believe in God which is just bewildering. How can you believe that you are magically attached to a giant whizzing ball without also believing in Divine Providence having stuck you there?
Because of evidence.
Psssh, flimsy at best.
FET requires no God because it requires no magic.
Yes, well if I make up properties of a theory to make it sound ridiculous it will also sound ridiculous.
This doesn't address the issue.
That is why it is the superior theory.
And it is a terrible theory because it can't offer up a cogent explanation for what we observe.
It is a superior theory because it doesn't strain to make up cogent explanations for what we observe.
If I were to be as dishonest as you, I would just use your terrible "Magic" argument on various components that have been offered up: like UA. It is even less descriptive than gravity as a theory. Gravity has trouble describing the very very big and the very very small. UA has trouble describing anything outside a completely homogeneous space, which, as we know, does not exist.
At least UA is consistent with what we observe, whether it is the correct theory or not. Gravity is simply not consistent with what we observe!
-
I'm just quoting you guys here; I certainly never did!
Who are you quoting?
Psssh, flimsy at best.
Well I'm convinced.
This doesn't address the issue.
There isn't anything to address. You don't even define what "magic" is.
It is a superior theory because it doesn't strain to make up cogent explanations for what we observe.
Maybe you should read the wiki a bit more then. I point you to the explanation of sunsets and the EA as examples of completely straining credulity.
At least UA is consistent with what we observe, whether it is the correct theory or not.
UA does not explain the heterogeneity of gravitational measurements on Earth. It's actually a non-starter because it does not match any observation. The observations that falsify it have been around for centuries, and specifically the last century has shown it to be utterly impossible without some serious modification, which is non-existent, unless Tausami decides to show up.
Gravity is simply not consistent with what we observe!
It is completely consistent and extremely accurate at a wide variety of scales and has been perfectly successful at modelling and predicting a great number of phenomena. You really should have said, "Gravity is simply not consistent with everything we observe!" That would actually be a statement that could be taken seriously. It isn't consistent at extremely large and extremely small scales, as has been already mentioned, for reasons that no one can state with confidence. Obviously this is where the most important science will happen, and it will be found that indeed there is some aspect of the fundamental interaction called gravity that needs to be thrown out or modified, I hope it will happen.
-
That is why it is the superior theory.
And it is a terrible theory because it can't offer up a cogent explanation for what we observe.
It is a superior theory because it doesn't strain even bother to make up cogent explanations for what we observe.
Fixed that for you.