It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I am talking about the physical laws which govern the matter which life is thought to be entirely composed of. If you tweaked the gravity by even a minor percentage then most species could not reproduce.
Don't you dare try to bring up growing plants on the ISS to counter that as it is a total BS argument in that the ISS is in FREE FALL and is still experiencing over 90% of the Earth's gravitational pull.
Pat Robertson weighs into the debate, attacks YEC as "..a joke"
“Let’s face it, there was a bishop [Ussher] who added up the dates listed in Genesis and he came up with the world had been around for 6,000 years,” Robertson said. “There ain’t no way that’s possible. To say that it all came about in 6,000 years is just nonsense and I think it’s time we come off of that stuff and say this isn’t possible.”
HOLY Sh#t, And a whole slew of other savory spicy words!
I never thought I would see Pat Robertson saying something that I even remotely agree upon.
I am in shock! WOW.. lol
Pat Robertson, using reasonable logic to understand that our Earth is older than 6,000 years. Even he is not that brain dead to want to jump on that band wagon.
But I have to wonder, what Pats Agenda is for saying what he said. He is a snake in the grass, and there is an agenda behind every thing the man says, or does.
Thanks for sharing that!
When Pat Robertson is telling them to be more reasonable.. LOL Hell has frozen over!!! Or something like that.
Even Ole Pat realizes the facts and simple logic that is coming down from all this.
I am just shocked.. As this is the first time I have ever heard anything remotely sane coming from that mans lips.
Wow just wow..
I still am not to keen on the man, but hey. When true mortal foes can agree upon something. Then there must be some truth to it all.
edit on 3614320725 by zysin5 because: fix2
Actualy evolution is very far from bring proven,
so No he will not have any more facts that pertain to the actual theory.
They will be disguised as prudent to the theory but will not directly relate.
And finally... You know things are bad for a creationist when even Pat Robertson is calling them a joke.
The televangelist responded to a debate between creationist Ken Ham and Bill Nye "The Science Guy," and said, "Let's be real, let's not make a joke of ourselves."
While Pat obviously believes in the story of creation, he does not believe that the world is only 6,000 years old. He said, "There ain't no way that's possible. To say that is all came about in 6,000 years is just nonsense, and I think it's time we come off of that stuff and say this isn't possible." It's great to see that Pat's finally embracing science. Perhaps now he'll rethink that whole "gay marriage causes hurricanes" thing.
benrl
You know what I'd rather have?
A debate from a theologically trained biblical scholar ,
And a fundy.
You can't argue with someone when they don't understand some very basic concepts of their own professed faith.
Much akin to how scientist wouldn't want bill nye giving credence to it by debating it, I feel the same as an educated theist he is arguing with someone with flawed understanding giving credence to already fallacious views stacked on ignorance.
Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
I am talking about the physical laws which govern the matter which life is thought to be entirely composed of. If you tweaked the gravity by even a minor percentage then most species could not reproduce.
Don't you dare try to bring up growing plants on the ISS to counter that as it is a total BS argument in that the ISS is in FREE FALL and is still experiencing over 90% of the Earth's gravitational pull.
Yes the ISS is in freefall. My question to you is if a 200 pound man stood on a scale in the ISS what would he weigh? How much pressure is exerted on that mans body from gravity in the ISS? Another question is how much gravity does the earth experience from the sun or moon from the earth?
A scale only works because of the normal force exerted by scale against the man, this is an expression of pair forces. Being in free fall has nothing to do with how much you "weigh."
The man is exerting the same amount of force on the ISS as the ISS would be exerting on the man . . .
Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
A scale only works because of the normal force exerted by scale against the man, this is an expression of pair forces. Being in free fall has nothing to do with how much you "weigh."
The man is exerting the same amount of force on the ISS as the ISS would be exerting on the man . . .
This part is fine.
You say the same force is being exerted on the man yet you say a scale only works because of force being exerted on the scale.
Seperate but same question how man Gs are they experiencing on the ISS?
Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
I don't need an explanation for G's I asked how many G's they are they experiencing on the ISS.
I just want to see your answer.edit on 6-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)
Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
I just want to be clear you are saying the inhabitants of ISS are experiencing .89 Gs being exerted on them?
Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
Why does it seem like you are avoiding the question?
I am sure you understand what I am asking.
If you want me to stop asking the same question I will.
Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
I think you left out that the ISS station itself is simultaneously accelerating downward at 0.89g. So my question has been what is the G force being exerted on the inhabitants of ISS?
Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
Fine I will just answer it myself, near zero G is what the occupants experience.
It is a Micro-g environment.
The picture of the cat in my avatar is experiencing more Gs than the inhabitants of the ISS due to the resistance of the atmosphere.
Free fall
What remains is a micro-g environment moving in free fall, i.e. there are no forces other than gravity acting on the people or objects in this environment. To prevent air drag making the free fall less perfect, objects and people can free-fall in a capsule that itself, while not necessarily itself in free fall, is accelerated as in free fall[citation needed]. This can be done by applying a force to compensate for air drag. Alternatively free fall can be carried out in space, or in a vacuum tower or shaft.
In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity.[1][2] Its magnitude (a scalar quantity), often denoted by an italic letter W, is the product of the mass m of the object and the magnitude of the local gravitational acceleration g;[3] thus: W = mg. The unit of measurement for weight is that of force, which in the International System of Units (SI) is the newton. For example, an object with a mass of one kilogram has a weight of about 9.8 newtons on the surface of the Earth, and about one-sixth as much on the Moon. In this sense of weight, a body can be weightless only if it is far away from any gravitating mass.
The term weight and mass are often confused with each other in everyday discourse but they are distinct quantities.[4] There is also a rival tradition within Newtonian physics and engineering which sees weight as that which is measured when one uses scales. There the weight is a measure of the magnitude of the reaction force exerted on a body. Typically, in measuring someone's weight, the person is placed on scales at rest with respect to the earth but the definition can be extended to other states of motion. Thus in a state of free fall, the weight would be zero. In this second sense of weight, terrestrial objects can be weightless. Ignoring air resistance, the famous apple on its way to meet Newton's head is weightless.
Real-world applications
For a person standing in an elevator either stationary or moving at constant velocity, the normal force on the person's feet balances the person's weight. In an elevator that is accelerating upward, the normal force is greater than the person's ground weight and so the person's perceived weight increases (making the person feel heavier). In an elevator that is accelerating downward, the normal force is less than the person's ground weight and so a passenger's perceived weight decreases. If a passenger were to stand on a "weighing scale", such as a conventional bathroom scale, while riding the elevator, the scale will be reading the normal force it delivers to the passenger's feet, and will be different than the person's ground weight if the elevator cab is accelerating up or down. The weighing scale measures normal force (which varies as the elevator cab accelerates), not gravitational force (which does not vary as the cab accelerates). It is impossible to measure true gravitational force without knowledge of the motion of one's immediate environment.