Thanks for that
Back on topic
An good example of perceived "chaos" in the Solar System when analysed via Newtonian "attraction" logic is the Earth's Moon
By calculation, the Sun "attracts" the Moon twice as strongly as the Earth and yet the Moon remains in a reasonably stable Earth orbit....
Now trying to extend this logic to all the planets, moons etc in the Solar System just leads to an unstable system... and yet the Solar System appears reasonably stable.
This n-body problem with Newtonian mechanics is well documented.
Without being pedantic about mathematical/observational chaos, Newtonian mechanics just does not work using mass-attracting-mass as the mechanism of action.
Attraction is a modern day, unbelievably silly misconception. Nothing can attract (ie transmit force at a distance...or pull... anything else... it is an impossibility)
The philosophers of old knew this.
But modern man is in total mental regression, and many "modern" cosmological theories are just lead balloons full of hot air.
The curvature of spacetime explains orbits quite well, you know.
And, if we detect gravitational waves from binary neutron stars, what then?
In any case, the Solar System is *not* necessarily stable, since a particular feature of chaotic systems is their unpredictability (analyytically). It all *could* fly apart at any moment, although it does not seem likely since the orbits have been modeled quite a way into the future (and all the models agree with observations so far: have you ever used ORSA--a wonderful piece of modeling software for any Solar System you can imagine and one that has successfully predicted many an asteroid flyby).
Zarkov
20th May 2008 - 09:10 AM
QUOTE
The curvature of spacetime explains orbits quite well, you know.
LOL, no I didn't know that..... what a load
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The curvature of spacetime explains orbits quite well, you know. |
LOL, no I didn't know that..... what a load
And, if we detect gravitational waves from binary neutron stars, what then?
Well you tell when this crap occurs and..... LOL... no never mind
you stick to your fallacies.
ofelas
20th May 2008 - 09:28 AM
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 20 2008, 09:10 AM)
LOL, no I didn't know that..... what a load
Well you tell when this crap occurs and..... LOL... no never mind
you stick to your fallacies.
I suppose you've never heard of GR, either. Why am I not surprised?
Zarkov
20th May 2008 - 09:35 AM
QUOTE
GR,
gggrrrrrrrrrr !
A theory based upon a theory based upon nothing................
Yes I thought you would be a grrrrrrrrr advocate
LOL
ofelas
20th May 2008 - 09:51 AM
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 20 2008, 09:35 AM)
gggrrrrrrrrrr !
A theory based upon a theory based upon nothing................
Yes I thought you would be a grrrrrrrrr advocate
LOL
Oh, OK. You are a troll. Gawdz, you idiots are hard to tell from legitimate mad crackpots nowadays. You can almost pull off the crank-crazy scientist bit, but your ignorance of the theories in question betrays you in the end...
Zarkov
20th May 2008 - 06:53 PM
QUOTE
your ignorance of the theories in question betrays you in the end...
quick to judge
without knowing what are the alternatives..
OK
barakn
20th May 2008 - 07:43 PM
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 18 2008, 11:58 PM)
By calculation, the Sun "attracts" the Moon twice as strongly as the Earth and yet the Moon remains in a reasonably stable Earth orbit....
I don't suppose you noticed, but the Moon is also orbiting the Sun.
ofelas
20th May 2008 - 08:42 PM
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 20 2008, 06:53 PM)
quick to judge
without knowing what are the alternatives..
OK
...that's your assumption. You sound like the rest of them: creationists who think that if only I were aware of the wonders of ID I'd abandon my "belief" in evilution immediately, and religious proselytizers who assume that I haven't heard "the news". Since I am not only aware of alleged "alternatives" but also directly aware and work with the evidence supporting the theories you so glibly and ignorantly reject, I think I am at least two steps ahead of you. Two giant steps.
Zarkov
20th May 2008 - 10:51 PM
That's OK, discussions do not always agree
but it is a great opportunity for the people involved to learn.
barakn
20th May 2008 - 10:57 PM
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 20 2008, 10:51 PM)
There have been numerous reports via spectroscopic "evidence" that such and such... and here add "water"
has been found... but it is never there... until you can get some and analyse it, you just have light.... and what does this light mean ??????????
However via chemistry, this is the concrete experience... you have water or not.
Now space chemistry would say (from experiment) that water is completely unstable...if it ever formed...
water is a breakdown product of the
primary compound made by reacting H2 and O2 together
This means, where H2 and O2 in whatever form are, they combine to either -OH or condense as H2O2.
These products are stable in space, so why would water ever form ???
Water is a LIFE made "unnatural" substance therefore it is a signature for the presence of LIFE, just as oxygen is also "unnatural" and also made/liberated by LIFE.
Off topic. Please keep your threads straight.
Zarkov
20th May 2008 - 10:58 PM
Thanks for jumping into my grave before I have finished dying... that post BTW went to water.
MjolnirPants
20th May 2008 - 10:59 PM
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 20 2008, 10:51 PM)
Now space chemistry would say (from experiment) that water is completely unstable...if it ever formed...
water is a breakdown product of the
primary compound made by reacting H2 and O2 together
This means, where H2 and O2 in whatever form are, they combine to either -OH or condense as H2O2.
These products are stable in space, so why would water ever form ???
Water is a LIFE made "unnatural" substance therefore it is a signature for the presence of LIFE, just as oxygen is also "unnatural" and also made/liberated by LIFE.
Oh dear lordy why don't you shut up? You keep talking about evidence and experiments that back you up but it just don't exist! If it did, you woulda given us some of it.
Seriously son, you really don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. It's like you're making it up as you go along.
Get wise, boy. People would stop callin you names and whatnot if you'd stop posting this kinda crap.
Zarkov
20th May 2008 - 11:29 PM
QUOTE
Seriously son, you really don't have the slightest clue
I don't suppose you have ever studies chemistry is any depth...
Seriously lad, you are about to drown in your own excrement.
N O M
20th May 2008 - 11:38 PM
QUOTE (Zerkoff+)
That's OK, discussions do not always agree
but it is a great opportunity for the people involved to learn.
Then learn.
MjolnirPants
20th May 2008 - 11:49 PM
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 20 2008, 11:29 PM)
I don't suppose you have ever studies chemistry is any depth...
In
faaaaaaar greater depth than you have, kiddo.
And I ain't claiming to even have a degree in it. I just know enough to not claim that water can't exist without the presence of life because it's so "unstable."
You don't even know what "unstable" means in chemistry.
N O M
22nd May 2008 - 01:14 AM
QUOTE (ofelas to Zerkoff+)
I am at least two steps ahead of you. Two giant steps.
More like two steps onto the train, half an hour trip to the airport, a brief walk to the plane and a 13 hour flight ahead
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.