Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
570 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, Tangle (3 members, 567 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,289 Year: 4,935/14,102 Month: 533/707 Week: 88/176 Day: 17/34 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 8 of 77 (695634)
04-08-2013 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Alter2Ego
04-08-2013 2:23 AM


It's not clear what your point is about the periodic table. Yes, every atom has either one proton, or two, or three, or four. There are no atoms with 9.67313 protons. This is because there's no such thing as .67313 of a proton, they're discrete entities. So it doesn't take some sort of intelligent guiding force to make this so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-08-2013 2:23 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 04-08-2013 12:05 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 22 of 77 (695885)
04-10-2013 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Alter2Ego
04-09-2013 3:48 AM


Notice above that each of the planets in our solar system have varying fields of gravity. It is that variation in gravitational pull, combined with the mass and size of each planet, that keeps each planet within its individual elliptical orbit.

No it isn't. If you don't know any physics, then this forum is a bad place to try making it up and bluffing, as many people round here are quite knowledgeable in this field.

---

Let's explain what does actually happen. I'll use Newtonian dynamics, since that's quite sufficient.

The attractive force between two bodies of masses m1 and m2 is given by F = Gm1m2/r2, where r is the distance between them and G is a constant.

Now, according to Newton's second law, F = ma, or, rearranging, a = F/m: the acceleration of a body is the force acting on it divided by its mass.

So putting these two formulas together, the acceleration of the body with mass m1 will be given by a = Gm1m2/r2m1. The m1s on the top and the bottom of the right-hand side of this equation cancel, giving us:

a = Gm2/r2

So the mass m1 is irrelevant to the motion of the body with mass m1.

This is, or course, why Galileo was right: if the force of air friction is negligible, a light and a heavy body dropped at the same time from the same place will undergo the same acceleration.

It also means that the motion of a body in orbit will be determined by its position, its velocity, and the mass of the body it's orbiting. Its own mass doesn't come into it.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-09-2013 3:48 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 27 of 77 (696008)
04-11-2013 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Alter2Ego
04-11-2013 1:50 AM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
Try reading post #22. It has math and everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 1:50 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 44 of 77 (696052)
04-11-2013 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Alter2Ego
04-11-2013 12:32 PM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
QUESTION #4 to NO NUKES: Did you notice that the source specifically says the smaller planet "must move faster" and that it did not say the larger planet makes the smaller planet move faster?

It appears that you are unable to understand the things you read. It does not specifically say that at all, and if it did then that would be false for reasons that I have already explained to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 12:32 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 53 of 77 (696068)
04-11-2013 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Alter2Ego
04-11-2013 4:25 PM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
Notice the portion within the above quotation that I bolded in light green. The source also says that the satellite "must move faster in its orbit," indicating that the satellite's own gravitational forces are a contributing factor ...

That is not what it indicates. Stop making stuff up. Either read your own sources until you understand them or read post #22 until you understand that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 4:25 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 54 of 77 (696070)
04-11-2013 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Alter2Ego
04-11-2013 12:30 PM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
You are the only person between us two who thinks that to be the case. If the other planets did not have their own field of gravity, the sun would have been able to suck them in. That's what you will never admit because you have a difficult time admitting you are in error.

Well, let me provide a third vote. You are talking ridiculous nonsense about a subject which you have obviously never even tried to understand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-11-2013 12:30 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 66 of 77 (697078)
04-21-2013 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Alter2Ego
04-20-2013 9:52 PM


Your arguments seem to rely crucially on stuff you've made up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-20-2013 9:52 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 70 of 77 (697115)
04-21-2013 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Alter2Ego
04-21-2013 2:08 PM


We'll add quantum mechanics and the meaning of the word "theory" to the list of things you don't understand, then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Alter2Ego, posted 04-21-2013 2:08 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2013 8:05 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021