Change of plan, I'm leaving tomorrow.
White Beard wrote:Jupiter's orbit is MUCH slower than earth, so leaving it fixed is "is a better approximation" in the near term. But none of that matters. We cannot conclude stability from either example. Your example is actually easier, so let's use it!
The net force of gravity on the earth is:
Fg = Fsun - Fjup (Along the line in between them)
Both of these are functions of the Earth's distance R from the Sun (because Jupiter is a constant distance from the sun)
If R does not change then Fg does not change.
Centripetal acceleration for a circular path is a = v^2 / R (towards the center)
And circular paths have constant R
So a constant circular path is a solution of your system anytime your mass times the centripetal acceleration balances the force of gravity and your path is initially a circle. Once a circle, always a circle. There is no remaining force of gravity to pull these objects together.
The earth is not drawn into your modified Jupiter example, it oscillates about a stable circular path. Like a mass on a spring as it goes around the sun.[/quote]You've completely missed the point. If you start with a stable two body system with the Earth orbiting the sun and then add Jupiter at a constant distance from the Earth as described before, what happens. Earth moves out towards Jupiter at an ever increasing rate of acceleration as the two orbit the sun. To compensate for the new body in the system you have to reduce Earths inertia so that the gravitational attraction of Jupiter is compensated for. So the simulations must be putting in the inertia values last of all to make it fit. That's cheating.
As I previously said, I can see that a three or more body system could be stable but the only way to do it is to infer each planets inertia based on exactly value needed to stabilise the system. How does the actual solar system achieve this? How is it that each body has exactly the right inertia? I can see it happening if the formation of the solar system is a smooth process because the initial cloud of gas is stable and if each planet is the exact same mass and distance from each other then the overall attraction from the matter on each side of each body would be the same as it was before the planets accreted when the system was just dust, but the official story of the solar system is one of a chaotic past with planets smashing into each other to form the moons and Uranus and Neptune migrating outwards because they can't have formed as far away from the sun as they are now. How does the simulation cope with planetary migration and planetary collisions? No chance in hell this could settle down into a stable system without the stabilising influence of an additional force because any changes to inertia in a purely gravitational system are permanent and cumulative, leading to gradually more chaotic system, not a less chaotic one.
Anderas wrote:The problem is that you just state something, repeat the same thing and again. period.
But from us you expect proves.
I keep repeating myself because I posted a list of questions at the start and none of them have been answered. I expect no more than reasonable evidence to support the claims that are made on faith in the system of mainstream science that are nothing than googled bits and pieces regurgitated back here and based on no understanding of the material, which is why it's normally taken completely out of context. I've given the evidence to support every one of my claims and in every case it's been far more than anyone else has been able to offer (google) to support theirs. The best one is the shape of galaxies. Gravity can't possibly make those shapes. That's enough to prove that some other force must be involved. The two nuclear force can't be responsible so that only leaves electromagnetism. That would be enough but then when this idea is actually tested in the lab by passing a current through plasma, those exact shapes are reproduced. It's not only wrong and invalid to claim there's no current running through the galaxies, it's also irrational.
Anderas wrote:El flesh posts a link to Bad Astronomer, Science explained for nobrainers, so it is the same niveau like your posts: You don't accept it because it is no proof.
El flesh posts a real scientific paper, you don't read it. (even if it contains a proof)
You mean this? "Monitoring the Dusty S-Cluster Oject (DSO/G2) on its Orbit towards the Galatic Center Black Hole" How random is that? Another link that has nothing at all to do with the discussion. He keeps claiming he's posted counter proofs but he just keeps posting stuff that doesn't address the issues and the times that he's posted links that do they're taken completely out of context. All he does is stick phrases in goolge and copy and paste links and then claim that he's somehow posted proof that the EU models are false. That's all he can do. He admitted from the start that he would be willing to accept the EU only if mainstream science endorses it. You can't reason with that mentally. By his own admission he's unwilling to let any evidence affect what he believes. That's why his arguments never have any substance and every time I point out specifically why his links don't support his claims or his arguments are based on misunderstandings he spits his dummy out and starts calling me names. If you go back and look at his most spiteful posts they're always after he's been called out for errors and shown up for not knowing what he's talking about. Look...
el_flesh wrote:aaaannnnnddd once again, the crackpot insists that proof is not proof. In the tradition of Jenny McCarthy, he insists that the proofs of specialists in the field are lying instead of him, that the entire Science community is "proven" wrong by simple geometry since Relativity "isn't true" and can therefore be ignored, and that University educated people who don't "understand" his off the wall entirely WRONG illustrations have "zero understanding of what you argue for or against".
I was using GR in my example. You don't know the first thing about relativity. It doesn't in any way answer the question of the stability of the solar system. Newtonian gravitation works just as well for the example I've been discussing with White Beard. The only difference between Newtonian gravitation and GR with respect to the solar system is a slight measurable difference in the way Mercury orbits the sun, that's it.
el_flesh wrote:I'll let the other guys disprove you now in their fashion. But I will say BSbearer is merely bearing BS. Planets form by GRAVITATIONAL accretion. Not by "birth" from "electrical" stars.
That's not even true in the standard model. Electrostatic accretion occurs first, not gravitational, in the standard model! Also accretion isn't enough to start the process of planetary formation. There needs to be a shockwave from a nearby supernova. Supernovas aren't common enough for this to be a variable explanation but this just seems be one more thing that gets ignored. Once the shockwave has passed through the system accretion (remember an electrical process, even in the standard model) can then coalesce the dust into more concentrated regions. Once this clumps of matter reach a high enough mass, when they get to around mountain size, gravity starts to have an effect.
All this is irrelevant to the actual point of stars ejecting matter. That idea is meant to explain all the so called 'hot jupiters' that have been found at distances from their host stars where they couldn't possibly have formed. If they started further out and migrated inwards why don't they fall into the stars?
Another ad hoc addition to the nuclear fusion model that attemts to explain with a separate process something that the electrical model explains far more simply and within the core model itself. This is completely untested as a method of for heating the atmosphere of the sun to such a high temperature compared to its surface. You keep referring to stuff like this as proof.
I said before that I think black holes do exist. I said GR doesn't do a good job of describing them. It doesn't, any physicist will tell you that. GR can't give a coordinate system that covers the entire manifold, if it can't do that then it can never give a completely accurate set of coordinates and if it can't do that it's just an approximation, like Newtonian gravity but much better.
el_flesh wrote:Go smoke MOAR WEED!! You post like you're a pot head; knowing all reality!
I haven't smoked any for weeks but if I had it definitely wouldn't be a hindrance. You don't know much about the effects of weed.
el_flesh wrote:You don't have to count on WB for the links, Anderas, unless you mean BWB's "thought experiment" that WB is quickly tearing to shreds? Those links are self explanatory, and they destroy the EU claims of BWB.
If you really believe that then it only shows how little you understand about the information that you link. Either that or you're just lying again. How exactly is my thought experiment being "torn to shreds"?
el_flesh wrote:The only way he can get out of that is 1) claiming they are lying 2) ignoring them 3) putting up a wall of confusing BS that entirely obfiscates his utter lack of knowledge
Watch all three things happen at once.
You are completely full of *lemony goodness*!
el_flesh wrote:One thing I will admit I don't understand: if EU claims gravity doesn't exist, why does BSB claim Jupiter is tugging on Earth then? Is this another NEW hypothesis: the EU according to BSB?
Er, what? You think that the EU claims that gravity doesn't exist?
el_flesh wrote:That be some powerful wacky tabaccky he smokin.
I think you might need some. You definitely need to do something because what you're doing now isn't working.
el_flesh wrote:Tau Neutrinos would make up for the "missing" ones. We don't have detectors for Tau Neutrinos yet. Ignoramus.
If they can't be detected then they are in fact... invisible.
el_flesh wrote:It's really quite simple to make blanket statements and deny the proof given about coronal temperature difference, and the dozens of other PROOFS I posted to items YOU have raised before. The simple fact of the matter is that you act with the same immature psyc defense mechanisms that immature and less educated people do. You repeat BS that has been proven WRONG. All you do is repeat it again and again like a religious zealot, thinking it will suddenly be right.
It's not. The counter proof has been posted by myself and by others. If I don't disagree with WB or others, it's not because of a global "conspiracy". That's just paranoia.
And by the way - professional Scientists use references ALL THE TIME. Because without references, what they say amounts to your philosophy of "BELIEVE what I say". You can do that all you like; it fails to hide the fact that you aren't very well read; you will never get Science educated people to follow your weak-brained path.
Go. Live in your church of stupidity.
I would laugh at how dumb you are, but I'm very dismayed at the fact you can vote.
Wow. Completely ignoring the fact that nothing you've posted refutes anything I've said and hoping that people won't bother to read them and just believe you. I am well read. Professional scientists make a case in their own words and post references, not just post a bunch of references that have nothing to do with the topic then say, see, and then claim that these are "proofs". Scientists know that proof doesn't exist outside of mathematics, there's only evidence.
I think I may have been handling you in the wrong way. You clearly have very deep emotional issues that you need to resolve. Judging by the fact that you tried to argue with Big Bene in exactly the same way and made just as bad a job of it it's clear that you're harbouring a great deal of frustration, possibly sexual. What sort of person lies about their personal achievements like claiming to be a martial arts instructor when they know nothing about it and feels the need to attempt to talk down to people who obviously understand a lot more about the subject than they do? Clearly you're trying to compensate for feeling of inadequacy. When I look at your complete lack of social communication skills I think it's obvious that you're a very lonely person who fails at everything you try and is struggling to deal with rejection issues. There there. Would you like a virtual hug?
Anderas wrote:He does not behave, really, i am inclined to team up with you because of that.
Don't do it because of that, that's not relevant. Do it because it's what the evidence clearly shows.
Anderas wrote:But if there is somebody bringing you something worthy, you should at least read it and acknowledge it.
I would love to do exactly that but he hasn't posted anything close to that description, other than a couple of links (he's bound to get lucky occasionally with the amount of links he posts) that I have commented on.
Anderas wrote:If science is a big conspiration, why do they publish observations which are not fitting to their conspiracy; like the discovery of dark matter? Why don't they play being Canada, just surpressing everything they think doesn't fit to their line of communication?
lol Dark matter is a perfect example of them refusing to accept evidence that refutes their models. The evidence for the existence of dark matter is that it's needed to make the standard model work. That's not evidence! It's an as blatant example as you can get of twisting evidence to suit a theory rather than adjusting the theory to agree with the evidence. Instead of doing the correct thing and saying perhaps there's another force at work they say the missing matter is there but it's invisible. Instead of saying maybe all the redshift we're seeing is evidence that recession isn't the only cause of red shift they say that dark energy is present with no explanation of what dark energy might actually be. Instead of saying maybe there's not as much nuclear fusion occurring in the sun we though they invent a new type of neutrino that can't be detected.
White Beard wrote:Gold Bearer wrote:This is a topic I started to talk about something that interests me and you're not the only person I'm talking to. I'll say what the fraggle I like.
Did something change? As I recall you asked for my help.
Sorry to get snippy. It's talking to el_flesh, he's so annoying.
White Beard wrote:Responding to your own request is my ONLY interest in posting. If you didn't mean what you said, then I can stop posting. No big deal (and easier for me anyways). I can lead you steadily to an understanding with sufficient numerical evidence for "stability" of the solar system… showing you that ALL of the inter-body forces are indeed in there. And once you have this understanding, you will see that there really is no room (or need) for additional forces in the operation of the solar system. And any that may or may not still be there must be acting MANY MANY orders of magnitude weaker than Newton's Law of Gravitation in that system (for example: Relativity).
You're implying that the effects of GR are small compared to Newtonian gravity. Time dilation and length contraction (curved spacetime) explain all gravitational effects and completely replace Newtion's equations by giving an entirely different description of gravity. Newton's gravity isn't part of the standard model. You defended Newtonian gravity before as if it wasn't replaced a very long time ago as a true picture of how it works. It's only used now as an approximation, not as a description of how gravity actually works. It's very difficult for people to admit that something they're professionally and/or emotionally invested in is wring. If you have trouble doing with something that is officially wrong you can see how hard it must be for scientists to let go of models that are at the moment officially regarded as accurate. Darwin said that he didn't expect to change the minds of existing biologists but he hoped the next generation would prove him right. That's exactly what happened and that's also what will happen with the electric universe. It's been around for a while but it's only recently had the evidence to back it up.
White Beard wrote:I totally understand that you are usually replying to my post in larger posts. And for my part I only read the part of the post (and post of others) that are addressed to me or related to this narrow sub topic. If you cannot stay on topic in these few words that you do write in response to me, then we will not be able to get where we need to be. And I should just stop now. I would sincerely like to show you what you're missing in the gravity "simulations" you are running in your head. For my part, I have taken Newtonian Mechanics of about as far as it can go. This problem is not so bad. I think I can lead you to an understanding of your error.
I don't think I've made an error. Every time a new body is added to the system it destabilises it unless the inertia of each body is altered and gravity is incapable of doing that, which was my whole point. That's not a stable system, it's a bunch of stable systems with idealised inertia for each body that need to be altered every time there's any kind of change in the system.
This really will be my last post for at least a couple of months. I'm sick of it now anyway. It's pointless trying to reason with people who have already made up their minds.
Posted: April 30th, 2015, 7:10 am