General Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora More Refutement Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Jon Voisey on December 12, 2004 20:48:12 UTC

Law of losses. When we throw a stone, due to the applied force, it keeps floating in the air.
Wrong. There is no applied force. There is only a force when it is still in your hand. Once you let it go, gravity is the only force acting on it which causes an acceleration. There's no outside forces that cause loss of energy. Thus, while it seems to make logical sense that somehow energy is being lost, it's not (conservation of energy). Thus, there's no such thing as a "Law of Losses".

It covers a distance and when the applied force becomes week it has to drop on ground.
This makes no sense.

I think this all is due to the losses, causing any process to slow down or stop, and so it is same with the moon, it should leave the orbit.
Newton's first law: An object tends to stay in motion UNLESS AN OUTSIDE FORCE ACTS UPON IT. The moon is being acted upon by Earth's gravity and indeed does feel its effects. It's falling but has just the right amount of lateral motion to permanently miss the Earth. This is called an orbit. For your theory of space pressure to work, the force would have to be constantly changing direction to account for this. Either that or have the Earth be the center of the pressure field, in which case any other orbit should be impossible.

My statement in this respect is based on the facts, what is real cause of the sudden failure of this entire system of the universe.
You have NOT expressed ANY FACTS. Only half baked ideas without an understanding of physics. It's very difficult to try to explain these things to you when you can't seem to comprehend the words I use. You make claims yet offer NO evidence that makes any sense. You claim that the sun will go on shining forever, but never explain where all the energy comes from. Conservation of energy buddy: It's gotta come from somewhere.

As for your paragraph on my statements contradicting each other, to understand them, you'll need a basic understanding of how gravity works. But you don't seem to understand it correctly. So let me try to explain it VERY quickly.
Let's start with a though experiment. Imagine a completely empty universe. Now have to spheres in it. According to physics, the two spheres would attract each other with a force proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distances (Gm1m2/r^2). You'll notice that the denominator is squared. This means that as distance increases, the force drops off VERY quickly which has been proven experimentally several times (Yet another flaw in your theory which cannot account for this). This is the basic concept Newton came up with. However, it isn't the theory that's still in use. After Einstein, we now view this force as the product of a distortion of space time. This is what I meant by saying that "Gravity isn't the final theory". It's still being updated and explained. As far as the Grand Unified Theory comment, this seems to be too far over your head, but there are four known forces in the universe: The two nuclear forces, electromagnetic, and gravitational. It's believed that they're al somehow related, but as of yet, no one's quite explained how.

There is no logic to believe that centre of the earth is meant to produce such force, which can attract an object, thousand and thousand mile away from the earth, while not knowing the real cause of forcing the lava out from inside the earth’s core. There is a tremendous crushing force working in the centre of the earth, instead of attracting force.
MEANT to produce a force? That implies an intelligence making everything work. As far as gravity attracting something thousands of miles away, it's been well proven that it does. Otherwise, the moon would not stay in orbit, we would not orbit the sun, the sun would not orbit the centre of the universe, our neighboring galaxy being attracted to us... etc. Concerning lava, the crushing force is caused by the material inside the Earth exerting a powerful gravitational force on the crust, which is pulled downwards. However, the downwards movement is counteracted by the upwards pressure of the underlying materials. End of all that: The ATTRACTIVE FORCE is what CAUSES the CRUSHING.

While you say that planets are not of the round shape. Is there any planet with triangular shape, or having multi sided figure?
No known planets are of those shapes. Does it matter? Nothing says they should be.

I am not talking about the asteroids.
I wasn't either, but since you mentioned them, why not bring them into this conversation too. According to your theory, they should be round as well, because your space pressure would be distributed evenly on all sides and push them into a round shape. However, gravity can explain why they're not round. They're simply not massive enough. Your theory doesn't make a distinction on why we observe that the more massive an object is, the more spherical it becomes.

The scientists tell us how the sun is working, while the power source is not known as yet
No. The source of energy is well known. It's thermonuclear fusion. This concept PERFECTLY explains the sun, even down to the exotic particles (such as the amount of quarks) coming from it.

what do you mean by saying” the sun does vary.”
I mean the sun varies in brightness. While it's not enough for the human eye to notice, it can be detected with sensitive enough equipment.

“Push on a rock all day long” and that “ You will not heat a rock at all.” These remarks are only to push my theory altogether in the darkness. These words have no relation with my theory at all.
Again, it seems you do not understand enough physics to comprehend my statements. What this means is that unless you change the shape and size of something, you cannot impart energy onto it, and thus it will not get any hotter. Since you cannot change the size or shape of a rock, you will not heat it. Since you claim that the sun will remain as it is forever, it will not be changing size or shape and thus, your method of generation of heat makes no sense.

I have made a solemn effort to give this world a theory based on the real facts, I am not a writer may be failed to describe in proper words. Main point of the theory is very clear and unshakable.
Again, you do not present ANY original facts. The ones you do present are misinterpreted and you don’t seem to understand them. As far as an unshakeable theory, that’s an outright lie. While you may not be able to see the flaws in it, I’ve already pointed out several. Gravitational theory has NO holes in it when you completely understand it. While you may have made a “solemn effort” to come up with a new theory, it is not one that’s feasible, and your time should be better spent taking the math and physics courses required to understand what you’re talking about. Until then, you’re remaining willfully ignorant and that’s just disgusting.

Tides of the ocean will definitely swell up when there is sun or moon on the sky, in any part of the ocean.
Again, as I think I pointed out in my last post, the tides aren’t directly behind the moon. Thus, the moon can’t be shadowing the ocean from your “space pressure”. And if it were, then when the moon passed over land, we’d all suddenly find ourselves floating off the Earth since there’s nothing pushing us down anymore.