Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
How orbits work.
« 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.

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2811
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2017, 10:00:03 PM »
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:

    "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:

    "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."
« Last Edit: March 15, 2017, 03:14:17 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2017, 11:19:12 PM »
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:

    "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:

    "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.

Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2017, 12:13:25 AM »
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?

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2811
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2017, 03:18:04 AM »
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.

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2017, 12:40:07 PM »
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.

Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2017, 04:03:03 PM »
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.

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #7 on: March 16, 2017, 12:40:30 AM »
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.

Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #8 on: March 16, 2017, 05:10:02 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: March 16, 2017, 05:16:04 PM by TheTruthIsOnHere »

Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #9 on: March 16, 2017, 06:50:03 PM »
Do you really consider your anecdotal, unqualified opinions information?

Is the irony uncomfortable at all, or does it just whoosh right over your head?

Quote
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. 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.

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 418
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #10 on: March 16, 2017, 11:20:10 PM »
The great thing about science is that alternative theories are always welcome.

FE?
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #11 on: March 17, 2017, 12:22:26 AM »
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

*

Online Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1464
    • View Profile
Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2017, 02:25:32 AM »
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.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2017, 03:14:37 AM »
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!

Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2017, 06:14:48 PM »
 Does anyone know how to start an original post?

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2017, 08:59:01 PM »
Does anyone know how to start an original post?
Yes. Use the "New Topic" button.

Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2017, 04:53:47 PM »
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.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 4017
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2017, 06:41:12 PM »
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?

Quote
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?
FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

*

Online Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1147
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2017, 09:43:05 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2017, 09:58:45 PM by Jura-Glenlivet »
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

No one infers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood, but from the complex, the unknown, and the incomprehensible. Our ignorance is God; what we know is science. Robert Green Ingersoll

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2811
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How orbits work.
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2017, 10:27:04 PM »
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?