Pseudoscience Overlord

[Zarkov]

If that is the case Fafalone, and I doubt it, then the whole solar system has a perfect symetry, with an assortment of masses,... I would have liked to have talked to someone about this, but I am just a crackpot.....it is hard to discuss anything.....and this is on ANY forum!

[Sayonara]

Then the solution is perfectly logical:

 

Split pseudoscience off into a "Rambling" forum, with categories (a) pseudoscience (b) metaphysics © Crackpotism.

 

And have a bloodbath to celebrate.

[Zarkov]

Call it "Coffee Table Science", and when it gains sufficient weight it can be moved to a more appropriate category.

[fafalone]

The reason it's hard to discuss is because it violates empircal data, logic, established laws, etc.

 

example: logic and current laws say since theres so force that could be causing the planets to accelerate beyond the escape velocity, it's far more logical and correct to note the effect of the suns gravity would actually pull them in closer.

[Zarkov]

What is gravity, Fafalone, I do not think anything can pull!

This is the debate.......and the answer is...

 

[fafalone]

Of course you don't think anything can pull, because it invalidates your other theory.

 

We know black holes attract objects, you contend that despite the massive gravity well causing this attraction, objects are being pushed into it? Since light particles are massless, how are they being pushed by another force?

[Zarkov]

That's my choice.

 

If the planets were stable or "attracted" to the sun how did they get in a power array ?

 

If "attraction" is OK, then why is it not possible to correctly simulate the solar system on computer, why is a more than 2 body program not solved ?

 

Why then do we see in the solar system an asteroid belt, or rings ?

 

Where does a suspended magnet get it's energy from to defy "gravity" (hold itself up) for eons if correctly set up ?

 

As long as yo'all know the answers, why should you ask questions !

 

I don't know all the answers, the only statement I know to be true is

 

"everything must change"

 

and I am keen to observe these changes.

 

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by Zarkov

Where does a suspended magnet get it's energy from to defy "gravity" (hold itself up) for eons if correctly set up ?

Presumably the answer you're looking for here is that the magnetic repulsion of the magnet is at least equal to the attraction for its mass caused by gravitational forces.

 

This is all well and good, but it does not 'disprove' the existence of pulling forces any more than cats disprove the existence of dogs.

 

Although to be perfectly fair, I know where you are coming from when you say that there is no such thing as a pulling force - it's a lingual concept we made up to explain pushless pushing.

[fafalone]

1) The planets are where they are now because they became trapped in orbit. The orbit is stable only on a relative scale, not an absolute scale (this is where to consider a change you're talking in billions of years).

 

2) We can simulate it. I have no idea where you get this one from, but planetary motion has been perfectly mapped. How do you think we do things like use the gravity of other planets to boost long range probes?

 

3) I'm not sure about the formation of the asteroid belt, but planets accelerating from some unknown force sure as hell doesn't account for it. Rings are nothing more than small rocks trapped in planetry orbit.

 

4) Magnets stay up because of magnetic repulsion. Didn't your mom ever tell you "opposits attract, similars repel", I'd say your science teacher, but it's quite obvious you have no formal scientific education.

[Zarkov]

OK :)

[aman]

I vominate Zarkov to be the moderator.

Just aman:banme:

[fafalone]

zarkov will get any kind of power on this site when emus spontaneously mutate into superintelligent beings and are born with the ability to recite from memory every word of the old testament in aramaic/hebrew.

 

of course, in zarkov's universe spin gravity can cause this to happen any day now.

[Zarkov]

Fafalone, I have worked out the surface "gravity" g, value for the Sun, has this ever been published?

 

Also a surface skimming satellite of the Sun would have to travel at 63% of the speed of light to remain a satellite.

 

There is still a problem with posting, I got an error message and had to hit refresh to move onto this post page.

[fafalone]

I'm sure it has. Not that it's all too important, since the sun's surface isn't solid anyway. Assuming you even find a point you can call the surface, since the most of the outer portion is gas increasing in density. And what definition of "satellite" are you using? Earth is a satellite of the sun (object orbitting it), and don't tell me earth is moving 63% c.

[Zarkov]

This one worked...

 

Totally theoretical, but the interesting point is that the g values for the planets past mars are all low 5-17%, this could explain the mystery accereration towards the Sun that all deep probe craft are experiencing.

 

[dragoon]

The sun is a giant ball of gasses it is impossible to know (that i know of) that there is any solid mass under all that gas. And if there is wouldnt it be crushed or destroyed some way by now since all that poisonous gas could probably erode all throughout the crust and core? And who says something has to move at 63% c to be considered a satallite? Do we have satallites all moving at 63% c around the Earth? if so and they crashed wouldnt that create a giant crater?

[Zarkov]

There is a problem with the program on your server.

 

If we need to talk of gravity it should be in the spin gravity thread.

 

The values of g for the planets past Mars, are low by between 5 - 17 %.

 

This could explain the mysterious acceleration towards the Sun that deep proble are experiencing.

 

This is a third try

[dragoon]

We are not flying into the sun... we go around it. no towards it. and if we are moving any way towards it at all we'll move away on the rebound. Zarvok you are dense

[Sayonara]

Jeez.

 

Even the spam threads descend into serious discussion here. I despair, I really do.

[aman]

I also had trouble getting to the site. Refresh gets me in.

I get what you are saying Zarkov on orbital speed. I haven't done the calculations myself but the closer the masses, the faster the orbit. Thanks for the figures to think on.

Just aman

[fafalone]

Don't encourage him :/

[aman]

Sometimes I can't argue and have to think. Other times it makes no sense at all. I agree that there should be some connection to the reality we know and it's missing, but it's all outside the box and should be shared. I'm waiting for the proofs.

Just aman

[Zarkov]

I made an error on the satellite figure it should have been the square root of that, which yields 437 kms/sec, a big difference.

 

The surface gravity is 271 m / sec^2

[fafalone]

actually the square root of 63% of the speed of light is 434.59km/s.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Zarkov

Actually Fafalone, I have a paper at Nature, being considered, that proves all the planets / moons are ejected from the Sun. Cool eh!!!

 

:)

 

my friend works for nature, what is the title of the paper, I'll ask him if he has seen it.