It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# A Question thats allways bothered me!

page: 2
1
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 10:37 AM

Originally posted by theflashor
yea it makes sense then but why is the moon moving away whats pulling it? the sun?

nothing is pulling it away

its trying to fly in a straight line, but the earths gravity is pulling on it casuing it to curve its trajectory around us

if the earth instantly lost its ability to generate gravity the moon would fly off in a more or less straight line until enough gravity from another source was applied to begin its curving trajectory all over again

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 11:06 AM

Originally posted by noobfun
actually you can just figure it out with Newtons laws of gavity, Einstien only had to get involved in solar system gravity equations becasue 1 planet behaved slightly different, mercury was litterally millimeteres in hundreds of years out of sync, Einsteins work gives us a better understanding of how it effects objects in space but Newtons laws are more then sufficent at this level (and its the suns gravity that hold us and them in place in orbit, plaentary gravity isnt enough to seriously effect other planets)

I think there are some misunderstandings here. I wish I could remember the guys name right now.

Anyway, there was this beautiful, mathmatically 'correct', explination for the way in which the planets orbited the sun a few centuries ago (I mentioned it up before). The math worked, it explained the planets observable movements in relation to one another, to the earth and the sun. But in order for it to work the planets all had to move in orbit around the sun and also in other, much smaller, individual orbits around an invisible point near to each of them.

For some reason we can all look back on people from hundreds of years ago and giggle about how they could possibly believe such things. We see that from what they could observe it made sense, and hell, their math was, for what they knew at the time, correct too.

The theory was correct until it was completely wrong.

I wonder what established theory of understanding they were scoffing at two hundred years ago and I wonder what we will be scoffing at two hundred years from now.

Originally posted by noobfun
so what your basically arguing is that gravity isnt real or is some how wrong,

What? When did I say that gravity isn't real? I am arguing that we shouldn't be so 100% confident in our understanding of how this whole ride works. Just because we can explain to ourselves the how of the situation, doesn't mean that our solution is correct.

Originally posted by noobfun
your just dragging in space time etc to try and take a position of authority to argue against DJMessiah points

Why is everyone so god damn quick to think the worst on this site? I didn't know every rebutal had to be prefixed with intent and apologies. I adressed DJMessiah because he was the one I was talking to.

Anyway, I was brining up space/time because it is relevant. The nature of what 'space' is or isn't is crucial to the point I was trying to make: That we shouldn't be so sure of our understanding of how it all works. If we can't understand the nature of 'space', how can we say that we are correct in how we think things interact with and/or within this space?

I still think it is funny how sure everyone is that our current human understanding is right; must be right! The math works damnit, how could we possibly be wrong? Our collective knowing is truly the jewel of this vast universe...

I would like to end this post, but first I must give you this totally serious warning.

Warning: Directed Response Ahead! Do Not Feel Threatened!

---
---
---

Originally posted by noobfun
your play for authority fails sorry, when you walk off a building and start floating maybe then ill take your argument seriously

Cute picture.

How about we stop assuming for three seconds and not stick an entire argument into my mouth that I never made. You basically attack my position by making up something that I never said and then tell me why my thoughts are wrong because of that.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 11:12 AM

Originally posted by theflashor
but how can just 1 magnetic pull keep a planet in orbit you need the counter balance

There is a counterbalance. The combined masses and gravitational pulls of all the planets in their various degrees of rotational velocities exerts an imbalance in the sun which creates a baricenter or a new rotational axis which is not inline with the geometric axis of the sun.

Definition of Baricenter

[edit on 11-1-2009 by ben91069]

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 11:40 AM
I still think the balance has to be to perfect and there must be somthing else at play other then our own understandings hey we might work it out some day or we might prove what we think we know to be right.. But its not prooven that whats said on Wiki is right...

Its still only theory based on our knowledge and understanding...

Remember we prob only know 1% of what there is to know

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:59 PM

Originally posted by spines

I think there are some misunderstandings here. I wish I could remember the guys name right now.

Anyway, there was this beautiful, mathmatically 'correct', explination for the way in which the planets orbited the sun a few centuries ago (I mentioned it up before). The math worked, it explained the planets observable movements in relation to one another, to the earth and the sun. But in order for it to work the planets all had to move in orbit around the sun and also in other, much smaller, individual orbits around an invisible point near to each of them.
Johannes Kepler?

but his work showed how planets orbit in elipses rather then circles and thats going back to around 1605, and had nothing to do with a third point and his works still accurate and infulenced

Issac Newton who did have a third point the barycenter, which is still right its this third point that allows us to find other planets around distant stars

do you mean like these?

For some reason we can all look back on people from hundreds of years ago and giggle about how they could possibly believe such things.
why it was the best understanding they had back then

stand on a mountain and turn around and the world appears as a disk, its absurd to believe once its been disproven but for simply believing the best explenation they had isnt such a big deal

Why is everyone so god damn quick to think the worst on this site? I didn't know every rebutal had to be prefixed with intent and apologies. I adressed DJMessiah because he was the one I was talking to.
and disparaging his understanding by pulling in space time and his understanding of physcis formula then asserting your more correct, you may not have ment it that way but it read that way and all we can go is your wording

Anyway, I was brining up space/time because it is relevant. The nature of what 'space' is or isn't is crucial to the point I was trying to make: That we shouldn't be so sure of our understanding of how it all works. If we can't understand the nature of 'space', how can we say that we are correct in how we think things interact with and/or within this space?
becasue we can still use newtonian physics to accuratley calculate the poistion of bodies in orbit quite accuratley and over large periods of given time

no understanding of what space time is required to understand simple orbits

I still think it is funny how sure everyone is that our current human understanding is right; must be right! The math works damnit, how could we possibly be wrong? Our collective knowing is truly the jewel of this vast universe...
its the best understanding we presently have and it works extremley well

its rigerously tested for accuracy, and found to be correct, as we find out new things our understanding may improve but when somthing is accurate it gets to stay which is why we stil use keplers/newtons and einstiens work on planetary orbits

we have a range of accurate tools to fit varied situations, they work so unless the universe fundamentally changes they are right and were keeping them

Cute picture.
thanks i was looking for the jumping lamb with 'gravity its only a theory' underneath but couldnt find it

How about we stop assuming for three seconds and not stick an entire argument into my mouth that I never made. You basically attack my position by making up something that I never said and then tell me why my thoughts are wrong because of that.
your words implied it and we only have your words to go on

[edit on Sun Jan 11 2009 by Jbird]

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 02:30 PM

Originally posted by theflashor
I still think the balance has to be to perfect and there must be somthing else at play other then our own understandings

no the ballance can be off, it will move towards the sun until its momentum and the suns gravity equal out and falls into an orbit, or if its velocity cant match the gravity becasue its to close it just gets sucked in, the planets started out a bit further away from the sun and now is where we got to

Its still only theory based on our knowledge and understanding...
remember scientific theory and general language theory are different

in general american slang its basically the same as i have an idea or a rough guess

in science it means its been tested and proven itsself accurate and able to make testable predictions of future events or things we should find

Remember we prob only know 1% of what there is to know
thats exactly what makes science so much fun theres always more

www.documentary-log.com... this site hosts free documentaries the one this page links to is about gravity both small scale (surfing skiing falling down) up to planets and stars

[edit on 11/1/09 by noobfun]

posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 11:55 AM

Earth may be in the same section of 'space' as it was the previous year, but mars isn't. And not just mars, but all the major bodies in our solar system. So why is it that when earth reaches x and the rest of the equation is fudged...the answer comes out to be the same?

Actually our sun is also going around our galaxy and our galaxy is moving through space all the time with unknown speeds, so its pretty safe to say we are _never_ in the same section of 'space' more than once _ever_...

This is one of the reason why all the orbits are slightly eliptical cause everything in the universe is in constant motion and it would be impossible to have a completely radial movement around another object "falling" through space at speeds that are pretty much unknown to us.

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:56 PM
Everyday our moon gets farther away from earth. I forgot the explanation but it is true!

I do not think that whatever theory out there that explains this is flawed, I just think you (along with many of us) just lack the knowledge to understand it.

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 01:16 PM
no need to insult me, i do understand the theory i just feel that to still be in the same orbit now after millions and millions of years! i just strongly beleive that theres more to it than gravity. Why does gravity behave the way it does?! Can the force gravity be broken down into a more simple series of different forces?!

I personally beleive that far to many people beleive what scientists say and take it as gospal. Scientists are finding things in space all the time which tests their beleives and understandings.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:39 AM

Originally posted by theflashor
no need to insult me, i do understand the theory i just feel that to still be in the same orbit now after millions and millions of years! i just strongly beleive that theres more to it than gravity.

there is theres alway more to find now were looking for gravitons the particle of gravity

and it not the same orbit after millions of years, the earth slowed down enough in 65 million years to add an hour to the length of a day, which means the amount it has slowed has effected the orbit it now closer to the sun even if by nanometers (dont know the real measurment)

Why does gravity behave the way it does?!
becasue it gravity, and becasue it screws around with space distorting it and becasue its the weakest of the 4 fundamental forces

Can the force gravity be broken down into a more simple series of different forces?!
ummm no, its not a collection of forces it is only one force

it one of the 4 major forces of the universe, you cant brek it down anymore its a low a it goes

I personally beleive that far to many people beleive what scientists say and take it as gospal.
science is ever changing alway growing always improving, when your talking a theory its proven so its always gonna be motly right even if some of the details change becasue of new observances

it not gospel, becasue its updated and trying to be accurate unlike the gospels

Scientists are finding things in space all the time which tests their beleives and understandings.
and thats the whole point

find the anwers, the truth no matter if it goes against what you believe. thats why when people talk about science wide conspiracies to hide the truth its laughable, why hide the truth hell for bieng the first one to discover it they would get a nobel prize a hundred thouand pounds sterling and probabily never have to worry about funding grants again

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:28 AM
its hard to explain but from what i understand, he earth and all other planets are slowly getting closer and closer to the sun, hence our ever growing day lengths. this is because of the way the orbit works.

picture the sun as a big metal ball in the centre of a trampoline, and the earth as a tennis ball. the big metal ball is pulling the trampoline matt down and creating a 'dip' in the centre. as you go to roll the tennis ball it directs itself around the metal ball due to the pull of the gravity and the angle of the trampoline matt. the tennis ball will eventually come into contact with the metal ball.

However i believe this process has slowed down so much with earth and the sun because when you send something into space, logically it should just continue in one direction unless it is altered by something, so the earth is trying to go forward, this 'trampoline effect' is slowly altering its path, forcing the earth to form a pattern of moving around our sun.

this is just me brainstorming so believe what you want, its just another idea.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:45 AM

Days are slowly getting longer because of the moons gravitational force, it is tidally locking the Earth slowly. Think of it this way, the tide creates a bulge on the Earth, that is always moving with the Moons orbit around the Earth. This creates resistance which slowly slows our rotational speed; which is why the day gets longer. Getting closer to the sun, however, would infact, decrease the year.

In an orbit, if you loose energy - the time to complete an orbit gets shorter. You gain energy - the time to complete an orbit gets longer. If we were getting closer to the sun, years would infact be getting shorter. I think it's because the closer you are from the body you're orbiting, the more gravity. Also, geometry; the closer away you are, the smaller the circumference, thus distance, you have to travel to complete an orbit.

It's funny with satellites, to catch up to an object in the same orbit, say, to dock with it, you actually have to slow down, or do a retrograde burn. This is a burn on the opposite direction of your velocity vector. This will create an elliptical orbit where the lowest point is lower than the target orbit, and the the highest point is at the target orbit, thus the orbital circumference will be lower than the target orbit, so you'll be catching up to it. Eventually the highest point will touch the target orbit, and the objects will meet. Obviously this process can be done in reverse if needed to slow down.

This can only be done so fast, because the Earth is so massive that the difference in circumference is actually relatively small. You cannot have your orbit too much different to the target orbit, because then you may be entering the atmosphere, or, once at the target, you may require too much energy, fuel, to regain its orbit. That's why it can take days for the Shuttle to dock with the ISS; don't listen to people like John Lear, they know nothing about orbital mechanics, there is no secret space station, as there is a perfectly good reason for it taking three days to dock.

May I add, all satellites use the exact same principles as Planets. Planets ARE satellites, only around the sun. The mathematics about gravity have consistently been proven to be correct - otherwise, we would have satellites falling out of the sky. They might be slighrly inaccurate, such as Newton vs Einstein concepts, however, these differences are completely neglible. The theory we have now is correct; it works, in practise, very, very, very, well. It's as simple as that. For further proof, look at the physics involved with unmanned probes NASA launches, it's truely amazing.

Sorry for going off topic.

[edit on 6/2/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:49 AM
Its called a G-sphere. "a sphere of gravity where the gravity of center mass is greater then the out side forces of pull" it keeps moons in orbit as well as planets.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:04 AM

kinda funny really days are getting longer, years are getting shorter and both are working on a time scale they will never be noticable for the human race, I dought we will make it the 70 million years required for us to need a 25 hour clock but we can hope ^_^ (or more likley hope were outta the solar system and really having fun WAY out there by this time scale)

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:32 PM
There is an electrical theory of the universe and I suppose one
could work out the electrical forces needed based on the exact
same equations as mass attraction, which Einstein rejected in
lieu of his curved space.
He had no where else to go.

One would have to set the coulomb charges for the Sun and Earth and
everything would work the same.

There may be a dynamic or electrostatic sort of DC pulsing that
might work as the Earth is a conducting sphere full of electrons
that might even be sending out microwaves into space as
Tesla has been reported to have discovered, he mentioned short
wave lengths.

top topics

1