Jump to content


Photo

Retrograde And Direct Motion


  • Please log in to reply
192 replies to this topic

#21 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 05 December 2008 - 02:56 PM

Posted Image

Man! that is a really cool picture. Those crashing galaxies make the Big Bang theory look really dumb.

What do you suppose promoted a change in direction from the movement everything had, away from everything else, when it fell off of the hot little spinning ball of nothing in beginning?

Since everything is moving away, presumably because of the Big Bang, who was behind the wheel of one of those galaxies to turn it towards a collisions course with another one?

View Post


Just out of interest, before I start explaining what the big bang theory entails; What exactly do you think the big bang theory is? Concisely, in your own words, from what we know about the initial starting conditions of the universe to say, the formation of galaxies. Then I can clear up any misconceptions you might have.

#22 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 05 December 2008 - 03:24 PM

Posted Image

Man! that is a really cool picture. Those crashing galaxies make the Big Bang theory look really dumb.

What do you suppose promoted a change in direction from the movement everything had, away from everything else, when it fell off of the hot little spinning ball of nothing in the beginning?

Since everything is moving away, presumably because of the Big Bang, who was behind the wheel of one of those galaxies to turn it towards a collisions course with another one?

View Post



eh? Gravity is your culprit. Locally we expect galaxies to be going in different directions but on large scales (comparing super clusters) everything is expanding away from everything else.

#23 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 05 December 2008 - 03:27 PM

Posted Image

This backwards galaxy looks a little to uniform to have gone through a collision with another galaxy. If you had to guess how would the impact have gone to make this thing so neat?

View Post



Galactic collisions eventually settle into stable galaxies. The pic given earlier by Jason is of a "recent" galactic collision (recent on galaxy timescales). The article said that the core of the galaxy provided evidence of an absorption event but I did not dig any further to see what that evidence was.

#24 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 December 2008 - 03:37 PM

Galactic collisions eventually settle into stable galaxies.  The pic given earlier by Jason is of a "recent" galactic collision (recent on galaxy timescales).  The article said that the core of the galaxy provided evidence of an absorption event but I did not dig any further to see what that evidence was.

View Post


I would have to say that the center of the galaxy looks unusual but the problem for me is how neatly the arms feather off at the ends as they are spinning in the wrong direction.

#25 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 December 2008 - 03:40 PM

Just out of interest, before I start explaining what the big bang theory entails;  What exactly do you think the big bang theory is?  Concisely, in your own words, from what we know about the initial starting conditions of the universe to say, the formation of galaxies.  Then I can clear up any misconceptions you might have.

View Post


Do you have some video footage? ;)

i1ZmOyng8-s

How is this for starters? I don't believe a word of it but I would say that most people would say this fits the big bang theory.

#26 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 December 2008 - 04:17 PM

Gods fireworks.Neato.

#27 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 05 December 2008 - 10:22 PM

Galactic collisions eventually settle into stable galaxies.  The pic given earlier by Jason is of a "recent" galactic collision (recent on galaxy timescales).  The article said that the core of the galaxy provided evidence of an absorption event but I did not dig any further to see what that evidence was.

View Post


Interesting, but seeing as how space has no friction, nothing would settle, and randomly make gravity. Yes, I am supposed to have faith that the big bang randomly made gravity, and the whole universe. All of these untestable hypothesis about the universe are so unbelieveable.

#28 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 05 December 2008 - 10:25 PM

eh?  Gravity is your culprit.  Locally we expect galaxies to be going in different directions but on large scales (comparing super clusters) everything is expanding away from everything else.

View Post


Yes Gravity, becuase it defies the big bang. Everything is expanding away from everything else based on scetchy redshift ideas. Yeah, really believeable.

#29 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 06 December 2008 - 12:22 AM

Interesting, but seeing as how space has no friction, nothing would settle, and randomly make gravity.  Yes, I am supposed to have faith that the big bang randomly made gravity, and the whole universe.  All of these untestable hypothesis about the universe are so unbelieveable.

View Post


Umm...the mutual gravitational attraction between the two colliding galaxies is what reforms them into a new galaxy.

#30 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 06 December 2008 - 12:23 AM

Yes Gravity, becuase it defies the big bang.  Everything is expanding away from everything else based on scetchy redshift ideas.  Yeah, really believeable.

View Post



Does this constitute a one liner? Care to add detail to this rant?

#31 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 December 2008 - 04:12 AM

Umm...the mutual gravitational attraction between the two colliding galaxies is what reforms them into a new galaxy.

View Post


You need galaxies before they start crashing into each other. What scientific demonstration allows gravity (hear me now, gravity ALONE) to overcome Boyle's Gas Law? If a solid chunk of matter like the earth doesn't have the proper force to collapse gasses into liquids on its surface without taking special measures, then what happens in a giant gas cloud to convince it to collapse? You can have a cloud as big as the Milky Way Galaxy and it would just sit there. In fact, if anything, it would spread apart. You have to convince people of fairytales, like they convinced you, to paint this awkward picture for us.

Boyle's Gas law is the strong force. We can demonstrate it right here on earth. You can take the atmosphere, compress it into a canister and because of the difference between Boyle’s Gas Law and Gravity, compressed air is what it is because it resists compression even with a gravitational body like the earth and the artificial forcing of it into a canister.

#32 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 06 December 2008 - 08:52 PM

You need galaxies before they start crashing into each other. What scientific demonstration allows gravity (hear me now, gravity ALONE) to overcome Boyle's Gas Law? If a solid chunk of matter like the earth doesn't have the proper force to collapse gasses into liquids on its surface without taking special measures, then what happens in a giant gas cloud to convince it to collapse? You can have a cloud as big as the Milky Way Galaxy and it would just sit there. In fact, if anything, it would spread apart. You have to convince people of fairytales, like they convinced you, to paint this awkward picture for us.


A giant gas cloud does not remain in equilibrium. Because its density is not uniform some parts of the gas cloud will clump. If these clumps are massive enough the clumps will get denser and denser because of gravity. If there is so much mass that gas pressure cannot resist the clump getting denser gas pressure will lose against gravitational pressure. At some point the gravitational pressure will create so much energy that fusion can take place. Now nuclear pressure fights off the gravitational pressure until all of the elements in the gas have been used for fusion and only non-fusion elements remain (like iron or something). The next barrier is Pauli pressure, then baryonic pressure. If the clump is large enough to pass the baryonic pressure barrier there is no known pressure that will stop the clump from growing denser forever (at this point you have a black hole). If you want to verify this go drop an apple off your porch? Did it fall? Verified.

Boyle's Gas law is the strong force. We can demonstrate it right here on earth. You can take the atmosphere, compress it into a canister and because of the difference between Boyle’s Gas Law and Gravity, compressed air is what it is because it resists compression even with a gravitational body like the earth and the artificial forcing of it into a canister.


If you have enough mass in a small volume gravitational forces can and do overcome all gas pressure forces. Of course we can demonstrate it with the Earth because it is very very tiny compared to the volumes we are talking about. Pressure is just a force per unit area. Consider a gas with two particles: So if gravitational pressure P~M^2/r^3 is greater than gas pressure p~k/r^3 then gravitational pressure wins. We can see that this can be accomplished for M>>k. Considering that the masses we are talking about are 300,000 times or more massive than the Earth this is easily achieved many times over.

#33 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 December 2008 - 03:13 AM

A giant gas cloud does not remain in equilibrium.  Because its density is not uniform some parts of the gas cloud will clump.

This can be tested easily enough. Just blow. When you exhale rapidly, you create a volume of high pressure gas. The gas will not clump together. It will do what everything always does: it will seek equilibrium. The pressure will disperse.

Worse yet, things that obtain equilibrium always stay right there until something happens. Your second sentence is actually incompatible with your first, because if the cloud is at equilibrium, by definition there are no uneven densities. But even if they were there, they wouldn't violate physical laws.

If these clumps are massive enough the clumps will get denser and denser because of gravity.

This is backwards. The more gas is compressed, the stronger it fights compression. Gravity gets weaker with distance, exponentially weaker. So a bigger cloud just makes it more absurdly impossible for gravity to be able to overcome pressure.

If there is so much mass that gas pressure cannot resist the clump getting denser gas pressure will lose against gravitational pressure.  At some point the gravitational pressure will create so much energy that fusion can take place.

Gravity is not energy. Neither can gravity be converted to energy, let alone create energy. Rather than review basic physics, I'll just point out that if gravity were energy it would be a trivial matter to create perpetual motion machines. Surely we'd have no need to burn oil or coal with such a handy, abundant supply of gravity at hand.

Now nuclear pressure fights off the gravitational pressure until all of the elements in the gas have been used for fusion and only non-fusion elements remain (like iron or something).

The next barrier is Pauli pressure, then baryonic pressure.  If the clump is large enough to pass the baryonic pressure barrier there is no known pressure that will stop the clump from growing denser forever (at this point you have a black hole).

Advances in science are happening every day. Who's to say nobody will be able to make up a way to overcome the black hole pressure?

If you want to verify this go drop an apple off your porch?  Did it fall?  Verified.

Ah! With such logic, it's easy to see how folks consider big bangs & evolutionism in general to be fact. Just posit an experiment that says nothing whatsoever about the question, and viola!

(A yes-no test of gravity does not measure its relative strength, for those who didn't catch the trick.)

If you have enough mass in a small volume gravitational forces can and do overcome all gas pressure forces.  Of course we can demonstrate it with the Earth because it is very very tiny compared to the volumes we are talking about. Pressure is just a force per unit area.  Consider a gas with two particles:  So if gravitational pressure P~M^2/r^3 is greater than gas pressure p~k/r^3 then gravitational pressure wins.  We can see that this can be accomplished for M>>k.  Considering that the masses we are talking about are 300,000 times or more massive than the Earth this is easily achieved many times over.

View Post

What we can demonstrate on Earth is that gas pressure is stronger than gravity pressure within the spectrum of terran limits. We can also demonstrate that gravity becomes weaker with distance, so it has no hope of ever "catching up" with gas pressure. Fantasizing about bigger and bigger clouds of gas is not helpful. It's like saying "I can't jump to the Moon, and I can't jump to Mars. These distances are too small. We need to posit a nearly infinite distance; then I'll be able to jump that far." Venturing into imaginationland does not help gravity overcome gas pressure - it only makes it more absurd.

Y'all really need to come up with a better story. I think you could get better returns from a surface tension hypothesis - not enough to work, but certainly closer than these gravity stories. Maybe a quantum resonance gimmick? You know, spontaneous cooling in one (vast, vast) region, coupled with spontaneous heating in another (equally vast, vast) region - something that might plausibly condense the gas significantly?

Now I know folks believe what they want to believe, but there's one part that makes no sense at all. If, as they say, right after the big bang there was just one big hydrogen cloud, why didn't all the hydrogen get pulled into one single body? If gravity can overcome gas pressure, given enough gas, then surely all the matter in the universe would be able to pull it off. But if even that isn't enough, how can anyone believe lesser clouds are able to do the job?

#34 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 07 December 2008 - 03:41 AM

Worse yet, things that obtain equilibrium always stay right there until something happens.


Yeah and there is nothing happening in our dynamical universe. No shokwaves from supernova, no gravitational radiation from black hole mergers...nothing. :o

Your second sentence is actually incompatible with your first, because if the cloud is at equilibrium, by definition there are no uneven densities. But even if they were there, they wouldn't violate physical laws.


Actually if you read carefully I said that the gas cloud does not remain in equilibrium. The universe is dynamic.

This is backwards. The more gas is compressed, the stronger it fights compression. Gravity gets weaker with distance, exponentially weaker. So a bigger cloud just makes it more absurdly impossible for gravity to be able to overcome pressure.


You need to work on algebra. Both gravitational pressure and gas pressure are inversely realted to the cube of the radius - given enough mass in the volume considered Gravitational pressure can overcome gas pressure.

Gravity is not energy.


Never said it was. Read carefully.

Neither can gravity be converted to energy, let alone create energy.


You just flunked a high school physics test :o . Gravity is a force, forces do work, work is energy.

Rather than review basic physics, I'll just point out that if gravity were energy it would be a trivial matter to create perpetual motion machines.


? err what ? I think you really do need to review basic physics.

Advances in science are happening every day. Who's to say nobody will be able to make up a way to overcome the black hole pressure?


Black holes have no pressure. They are forever collapsing cores of stars.

Ah! With such logic, it's easy to see how folks consider big bangs & evolutionism in general to be fact. Just posit an experiment that says nothing whatsoever about the question, and viola!


Ah with such lack of logic its no wonder you don't understand physics enough to understand why dropping an apple provides us with our answers. Gas pressure is created by the fact that in a shrinking volume gas molecules increase their velocities bumping into each other and into the boundary in turn. Why is it illogical to assume that gravitational pressure could overcome gas pressure?

(A yes-no test of gravity does not measure its relative strength, for those who didn't catch the trick.)

What trick? Gravitational forces sum. Two apples exert more of a gravitational pull on the Earth than one apple. 100 apples exert even more of a gravitational force on the Earth than one apple. The mass of the Earth worth of Apples would perturb the Earth's orbit.

We can also demonstrate that gravity becomes weaker with distance, so it has no hope of ever "catching up" with gas pressure.


Gas pressure is inversely related to the radius of the volume cubed as is gravitational pressure.

Fantasizing about bigger and bigger clouds of gas is not helpful.


It most certainly is. The key is bigger and bigger clouds of gas with a constant volume.

It's like saying "I can't jump to the Moon, and I can't jump to Mars. These distances are too small. We need to posit a nearly infinite distance; then I'll be able to jump that far."


err what?


Venturing into imaginationland does not help gravity overcome gas pressure - it only makes it more absurd.


:lol:



Now I know folks believe what they want to believe, but there's one part that makes no sense at all. If, as they say, right after the big bang there was just one big hydrogen cloud, why didn't all the hydrogen get pulled into one single body?


Because that is not what happen at all :lol:

#35 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 December 2008 - 04:00 AM

Worse yet, things that obtain equilibrium always stay right there until something happens. Your second sentence is actually incompatible with your first, because if the cloud is at equilibrium, by definition there are no uneven densities. But even if they were there, they wouldn't violate physical laws.

View Post


Never said it was. Read carefully.

View Post

What do you take me for?

You said

A giant gas cloud does not remain in equilibrium.  Because its density is not uniform some parts of the gas cloud will clump.

View Post

You did not say "because things are dynamic" or "because things change". You said "Because its density is not uniform".

But the density of a cloud at equilibrium is uniform. Now you want to change your story? Change it. But don't accuse me of careless reading.

#36 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 December 2008 - 05:19 AM


Gravity is not energy. Neither can gravity be converted to energy, let alone create energy. Rather than review basic physics, I'll just point out that if gravity were energy it would be a trivial matter to create perpetual motion machines. Surely we'd have no need to burn oil or coal with such a handy, abundant supply of gravity at hand.

View Post

Never said it was. Read carefully.

View Post

I do read carefully. That's your problem.

At some point the gravitational pressure will create so much energy that fusion can take place. 

View Post

Gravity is not energy. Gravity does not create energy. Gravity cannot be converted to energy. I covered all three, although your assertion was... well there it is: "gravitational pressure will create so much energy".

You just flunked a high school physics test  :o .  Gravity is a force, forces do work, work is energy.

I have never flunked a physics test. My grades were always very high. And by 6th grade I knew that gravity wasn't energy, although I suppose one can easily graduate high school these days without much risk of learning that fact.

But since you're privy to this secret, why not invent a gravity-powered car and become wealthy?

? err what ?  I think you really do need to review basic physics.

Well, since we're sharing thoughts, I'll tell you what I think.

I think you know better than you let on, and you're just spewing antiscience in an effort to confuse uneducated readers. I've seen my share of this evotactic. This gravity = energy nonsense is a fine issue for the less educated readers to investigate, too. The information's easily found, so they need not be fooled unless they desire to be fooled.

Angular momentum is easily researched as well. If the whole solar system "evolved" from a cloud that was rotating in one direction, how can any object come to have a retrograde orbit? Oh! It was hit by an asteroid! That makes no sense. How did the asteroid get going the wrong way? It too is part of the solar system. And asteroids ain't all that big, so it'd have to bee traveling at a speed well in excess of escape velocity (relative to the sun). Such an imagined asteroid would only get one shot because it could never return. The issue of what would be left of the planet after the impact... well, that's just piling on the common sense; we really don't need to bring that up just yet.

Black holes have no pressure.  They are forever collapsing cores of stars.

Like that makes sense... That's just more antiscientific nonsense. If black holes exist, there is a whole lot of pressure inside them, and everyone know it.

Why is it illogical to assume that gravitational pressure could overcome gas pressure?

Because the strengths of gravity and gas pressures have been measured. How is it reasonable to throw out scientific data in order to maintain a fantasy? Worse yet, by what twisted linguistics can anyone claim it's "science" when one does so?

What trick?

The trick I just got done exposing. Demonstrating that an apple will fall is not the same as demonstrating that gravity can overcome gas pressure.

Gravitational forces sum.  Two apples exert more of a gravitational pull on the Earth than one apple.  100 apples exert even more of a gravitational force on the Earth than one apple.  The mass of the Earth worth of Apples would perturb the Earth's orbit.
Gas pressure is inversely related to the radius of the volume cubed as is gravitational pressure.

So what if an imaginary apple planet could perturb the Earth's obit? An imaginary kindergartener planet could eat your imaginary apple planet, and thereby save the Earth from your imaginary disaster.

The "trick" is to say something that superficially appears to mean something, so that folks who are predisposed to believe in evolutionism can fool themselves into thinking a sound argument's been made. But a falling apple does not imply that stars form from gas clouds. If it did, I could counter the demonstration by blowing up a ballon, thereby demonstrating that gas pressure exists. Furthermore, if I place the balloon on a table, I can demonstrate that gas pressure is capable of lifting the surface of the balloon; at least this would prove that gas pressure can overcome gravity. That'd make more sense than dropping a perfectly good apple.

#37 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 07 December 2008 - 05:41 AM

Do you have some video footage?  :o

i1ZmOyng8-s

How is this for starters? I don't believe a word of it but I would say that most people would say this fits the big bang theory.

View Post


That video contained nothing about what scientists think about the big bang theory, it contained none of the evidence that scientists have been working on for the past hundred years.

Also, it wasn't your own words.

You have to have at least a basic understanding of the physical processes that are being explored here to understand the theory.

#38 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 07 December 2008 - 02:38 PM

What do you take me for?

You said

You did not say "because things are dynamic" or "because things change". You said "Because its density is not uniform".


Right. A gas cloud does not remain in equilibrium. That implies that if one is in equilibrium it doesn't stay in equilibrium. I just didn't say specifically why. In reality however nebulae are not uniform in density because they always exist in external gravitational fields or electric fields. This is verified with spectroscopy.

But the density of a cloud at equilibrium is uniform. Now you want to your story? Change it. But don't accuse me of careless reading.


No I still stick by accusing you of careless reading. :)

#39 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 07 December 2008 - 03:01 PM

I do read carefully. That's your problem.
Gravity is not energy. Gravity does not create energy. Gravity cannot be converted to energy. I covered all three, although your assertion was... well there it is: "gravitational pressure will create so much energy".


again. Gravity = force. forces do work. work is energy. Therefore gravity does work creating energy by converting it from gravitational potential energy. Do you argue with that?

I have never flunked a physics test. My grades were always very high. And by 6th grade I knew that gravity wasn't energy, although I suppose one can easily graduate high school these days without much risk of learning that fact.


Great gravity is not energy. However a particle in an external gravitational field will be given kinetic energy by that field - classical mechanics 101. So gravity can create energy. Of course if I redefine my system and make it large enough we see that gravity really converts energy.

And good for you for passing 6th grade physics tests.

But since you're privy to this secret, why not invent a gravity-powered car and become wealthy?


There are designs for gravity as a source of power. The problem is that they aren't efficient. In fact if we could get to a black hole it would provide us with a very efficient source of energy (efficient in that we wouldn't have to put mass in it because it does that itself).


This gravity = energy nonsense is a fine issue for the less educated readers to investigate, too. The information's easily found, so they need not be fooled unless they desire to be fooled.


I never said that gravity = energy. You said that I said that. I said that gravity creates energy (should have said converts). What I meant is that gravity does work on the gas molecules therefore taking all of that stored PE and converting to KE. You claim that gravity cannot convert energy or create it. When I said create however I was considering particles in an external field so in the system I defined it does appear to be created. Of course we know that the bigger I make my system the field is no longer external and we find it isn't created but converted.

Like that makes sense... That's just more antiscientific nonsense. If black holes exist, there is a whole lot of pressure inside them, and everyone know it.


Yes but from inward gravitational pressure. There is no outward pressure counterbalancing the grav pressure anymore (that we know of).

#40 Guest_ItinerantLurker_*

Guest_ItinerantLurker_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2008 - 03:24 PM

Gravity is not energy. Neither can gravity be converted to energy, let alone create energy. Rather than review basic physics, I'll just point out that if gravity were energy it would be a trivial matter to create perpetual motion machines. Surely we'd have no need to burn oil or coal with such a handy, abundant supply of gravity at hand.


Um. . .no. Gravity can "create" energy by converting an object's potential energy to kinetic energy. This is pretty similar to what A. Sphere is describing, because dust clouds aren't going to be perfectly even some parts will be denser than others and because gravity is a function of mass those denser areas will exert more and more "pull" on the surrounding particles as they become denser and denser and thus exert more gravity which converts the potential energy of surrounding particles to kinetic energy inducing them to fall towards the area of highest density.

To further illustrate my point, I built a gravity to energy converter is 4th grade. . .it was called a go-kart. A wood car with wheels at the top of a big hill with a dubious steering and brake system. How did the potential energy of my go kart get converted into enough kinetic energy to send me hurtling downward into the path of a very stubborn tree? Answer = gravity. If we view the bottom of the hill as the source of gravity and me & my go kart as dust particles we can pretty easily see how gravity can convert potential energy to kinetic energy. Perhaps you are correct in a kind of pedantic semantics kind of way, but the general idea is sound.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users