Electric Universe

[Gold Bearer]

I'm not going anywhere, BovineWasteBearer.
You're trying to actively destroy Scientific knowledge and I will not let you do that.

I’m doing nothing of the sort. Seriously, you’re not welcome, I’m sure you’re used to that wherever you go. If I could physically through you out from here I would.

You have no concept of the amount of gravity Sun exerts over the planets. It's far greater than the amount planets exert over planets. In fact, Jupiter's gravity needs to be taken into account for spaceflight, or you miss your mark. EU FAILS.

That has nothing to do with it. The gravitational pull exerted by the planets on each other can’t be reduced by the presence of the sun, that’s totally absurd.

As has been mentioned already (and you ignored) RELATIVITY needs to be taken into account or your GPS is way off. EU FAILS.

What? How does this have anything to do with anything?

Plasma discharges do not emit a continuous spectrum of light. Of course, what we see is a continuous spectrum as the standard model predicts. Once again, the EU model fails.

Yes. You don't know. We do. EU FAILS, over and over again.

Why would there energy source for the light have any effect on the absorbtion lines caused by that light moving through the atmosphere of the sun?

I KNOW that nobody in the EU (some of whom have even finished high school) knows about telescopes or what they show - or else they are deliberately IGNORING it like you: Protoplanetary disks. Stars "giving birth" is INDEED REFUTED by planets SEEN FORMING according to the standard model. Liar. EU FAILS.

How the hell do the observations of planetary disks refute the idea that stars eject matter? As I said, “The idea that stars eject matter comes from the observations of so many ‘hot Jupiters’ so close to their parent stars where they couldn’t have formed and if they migrated there then they would have fallen into the star.”

edit: Mercury is travelling in a straight line through curved space. That's how it doesn't get pulled in. You can demonstrate it with a marble spun on a lycra surface. There's no friction in space to slow down the planet, unlike the marble, so its orbit is stable over GA Years. EU FAILS. AGAIN.

Can you really not see just how utterly you’ve missed the point there? How does that answer the question? You use concepts that you have no understanding of. Viewing it as travelling in a straight line through curved space time doesn’t change anything. Also there’s still no difference between an object following a straight path through curved spacetime and an object following a curved path through flat spacetime. It’s inferred by measure the path of an object all you can say is the object is following a curved path through spacetime. It makes no difference which way round you look at it. But that’s not the issue, even if there were a difference there’s still the same outward pull, Jesus, this is so ridiculous.

I didn't ignore three posts addressed to me from the previous page; I was unaware they were here.

Bullshit! You were hoping you could get away with ignoring them.

I'll get to them later, as they appear to be bible related. It's far more important to crush pseudoscience bovine waste first; religion is super easy to crush. You have a whole load of FAIL to weasel around and cry "conspiracy" about. Keep a tab open on the crackpot index.

You’re obviously delusional as well as stupid.

This discussion is clearly well above your level of intelligence which is why the points you make to try to support your arguments are so ridiculous. You’ve got nothing worth while to add so all you’re doing is getting on peoples nerves. Piss off!


Sorry about this whitebeard, I hope this silliness doesn't put you off posting.

[StratosVX]

I didn't ignore three posts addressed to me from the previous page; I was unaware they were here. I'll get to them later, as they appear to be bible related. It's far more important to crush pseudoscience bovine waste first; religion is super easy to crush. You have a whole load of FAIL to weasel around and cry "conspiracy" about. Keep a tab open on the crackpot index.

Personally, reading your posts just makes me realize how prideful and arrogant you are. You can post all you want about what I said but I have no desire to have a conversation with someone like that. I hope for his sake Gold Bearer can ignore your posts too. You twist what is said, go way off topic when calls you out on something and you stoop to childish acts. Big Bene was trying to have a calm discussion with you and you pulled the same thing with him. I will have no part of it.

[whitebeard]

I'd like to actually see how a purely gravitational model that includes the influence of the planets on each other is capable of predicting a stable system, or I'm just taking it on faith that the simulation accurately recreates the pull of each planets on each of the others and in a way that calculates the varying distances as they happen rather than generalising the gravitational influence of each one on the others.

Again. You can see this in any open source simulator. There is no "generalizing" of the influence of gravity. There is no approximation of the forces involved. The forces are exactly as you would expect. And it is "stable". I can walk you through the process of writing a simulator. I will have time in about a week.

[Gold Bearer]

I'm going away for a while next weekend so I won't be reading it for ages. I'll just post the simplest way to show the problem I'm having again in case you didn't see it.

Let’s take Mercury as the simplest case. It has nothing orbiting inside it so all it gets is an outward pull. The inward pull caused by planets on the opposite side of the solar system would be negligible compared to the outwards pull so how is gravity alone able to provide a force that pushes Mercury towards the sun to keep it from drifting out?

[el_flesh]

I'm using just the one case you last asked; you are so stupid and full of crap it is unbelievable.

Gravity DOESN'T "pull" Mercury toward the sun. Planetary gravity DOESN'T "pull" Mercury outward. Educate yourself, because you are woefully undereducated, high school dropout: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg
No doubt you would call this all fantasy since your EU declares relativity wrong - despite gravitational lensing (the warping of space by massive objects due to their GRAVITY) being observationally proven.
There is a difference between a straight line through curved space and a curved line through unwarped space. The first one doesn't have a sideward force needing a sideward facing attitude control rocket constantly giving acceleration to provide a constant CURVED path like your second case. MORON.


This discussion is clearly well above your level of intelligence, which is why the points you make to try to support your arguments are so RETARDED.

[Gold Bearer]

You're still not getting it.

There's a gravitational force pulling Mercury outward but its orbit remains stable.

No amount of observed lensing can alter the fact that it's not what GR describes because GR predicts that the path of light will be curved around any massive body and this isn’t the case. The observed lensing close to the sun doesn’t happen outside of the sun’s atmosphere and there’s no lensing at the centre of the galaxy where there should be loads. Therefore GR’s prediction that mass causes gravitational lensing is proven false because it doesn’t happen whenever light passes close to a massive body.

There’s no such thing as curved space, it’s curved spacetime. It’s the addition of the fourth dimension that shows the curve.

There is no difference between an object following a straight path through curved spacetime and an object following a curved path through flat spacetime. The length contraction and time dilation that give rise to all the effects of curvature in four dimensions are properties of the curvature itself and not of spacetime. An object following a straight path through curved spacetime is physically indistinguishable from an object following a curved path through flat spacetime because you can only infer a curved path by measuring the path of an object and it’s the path itself that shows spacetime to be curved if you take the view that the object isn’t feeling a force. If you prefer then you can view spacetime as a fixed background with objects being directly affected by a force. It’s just whether you want to view it as a direct force that acts over a distance or an indirect one that acts on the medium. It makes no difference because there’s no test that can be performed (even in principle) that could ever distinguish between them.

Edit:
You can’t see the curvature of spacetime by looking at orbiting bodies, it’s not that literal. All you get in three dimensions is a shortening of distance (length contraction) in one dimension because any two objects are separated by a straight line (one dimension). What you see when you’re looking at orbit is the combination of a curved path through spacetime and a straight intertial (relative motion) path.

[Anderas]

El flesh, could you please stop giving GB names?

It is really embarassing reading your posts.


Gb, for mercury. When he overtakes Venus, he gets accelerated a little bit and Venus is getting a bit slower in the beginning. Ok?
That means Mercury lifts his sun's orbit a little bit. The faster he travels, the larger his orbit around the sun.

Then he passes Venus. After, Venus is behind him. That means Venus gets a little bit faster again, towed by Mercury. And Mercury gets slower again, because Venus is now behind him. Thus, Mercurys Orbit gets smaller again.

In total, both have lost or gained nothing. Do you agree?

An orbit does not get wider or smaller if you apply a force to or from the center of gravity. If you do that,instead the orbit gets deformed by becoming elliptical instead round. The effect is similar if you are on a turnable bureau seat and you spin around with outstretched arms. If you pull in your arms, you spin faster, because the energy is not lost. On your bureau seat you're more or less fixed. If you do that to an orbit, the gained speed will throw you outward again on the other side of the center of gravity, making your orbit elliptical.

This second effect of Venus on Mercury is a lot more difficult to explain and needs either a lot of math, resulting in the empty resonance zones around the sun, or a good look at a well done graphical simulation.

The point is, these effects are very small per year. You would have to apply the same effect at the same mercury day per year, over a very long time to see it play out.

Venus and Mercury are meeting each other at a different Mercury day each year. So sometimes Venus is tugging and making mercurys orbit a bit elliptical, and sometimes she helps making the orbit round again. As it is quite random what she does this year, over a very long time, the effects will equalize each other out.

This is what they mean with not being in resonance. If they would be in resonance, the effects would add up, effectively shifting mercury into an orbit where the resonance disappears.

[Gold Bearer]

Gb, for mercury. When he overtakes Venus, he gets accelerated a little bit and Venus is getting a bit slower in the beginning. Ok?
That means Mercury lifts his sun's orbit a little bit. The faster he travels, the larger his orbit around the sun.

Then he passes Venus. After, Venus is behind him. That means Venus gets a little bit faster again, towed by Mercury. And Mercury gets slower again, because Venus is now behind him. Thus, Mercurys Orbit gets smaller again.

In total, both have lost or gained nothing. Do you agree?

I do (or would if they had the same mass as each other) but that doesn't take into account the effect axis of being on the outside or inside, only of being in front or behind on the axis at a right angle to it. It also doesn't take into account the larger mass of Venus.

An orbit does not get wider or smaller if you apply a force to or from the center of gravity. If you do that,instead the orbit gets deformed by becoming elliptical instead round. The effect is similar if you are on a turnable bureau seat and you spin around with outstretched arms. If you pull in your arms, you spin faster, because the energy is not lost. On your bureau seat you're more or less fixed. If you do that to an orbit, the gained speed will throw you outward again on the other side of the center of gravity, making your orbit elliptical.

Yes but the force isn't being applied that neatly in the case of the effects of gravity between the planets.

This second effect of Venus on Mercury is a lot more difficult to explain and needs either a lot of math, resulting in the empty resonance zones around the sun, or a good look at a well done graphical simulation

I don't understand how resonance zones work, or even why they would be there. In my mind the whole thing should a resonance zone of varying degree.

[Anderas]

For the resonance, i just updated my post while you were answering.

[Gold Bearer]

The point is, these effects are very small per year. You would have to apply the same effect at the same mercury day per year, over a very long time to see it play out.

Venus and Mercury are meeting each other at a different Mercury day each year. So sometimes Venus is tugging and making mercurys orbit a bit elliptical, and sometimes she helps making the orbit round again. As it is quite random what she does this year, over a very long time, the effects will equalize each other out.

This is what they mean with not being in resonance. If they would be in resonance, the effects would add up, effectively shifting mercury into an orbit where the resonance disappears.

Yea I understand that. I know what resonence is, I just don't get why strong resonance isn't virtually everywhere in the system.

What I said before about two bodies moving freely through space and passing each other is the best way to describe it. They speed up as they get closer to each other and slow down after as they move away from each other. This is what you were talking about when you said about Mercury passing Venus, but that doesn't take into account the outwards pull caused by Venus. In the two freely moving bodies example the parallel lines that they initially move on would be drawn together as they pass each other and the lines would cross over at some point after that. Nothing changes if they're orbiting a third body. Mercury's orbit should be pulled out passed Venus but it's not.