"Coasting along the planet Mars, which is well known to be five times smaller than our little earth, they [Sirians] described two moons subservient to that orb which have escaped the observation of all our astronomers." -- Voltaire, philosopher, 1752
"As I have shown in Worlds in Collision ('The Steeds of Mars') the poets Homer and Virgil knew of the trabants of Mars, visualized as his steeds, named Deimos (Terror) and Phobos (Rout). Kepler referred to the satellites of Mars as being 'burning' or 'flaming', the same way the ancients had referred to the steeds of Mars." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, ~1960-70
"Jonathan Swift, in his Gulliver’s Travels (1726) tells of the astronomers of the imaginary land of the Laputans who asserted they had discovered that the planet Mars has 'two lesser stars, or satellites, which revolve about Mars...." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, ~1960-1970
Deimos and Phobos. Dread and Fear.
Both moons have approximately the same so-called "mass".
Therefore, according to the now falsified 17th century creationist hypothesis of gravitation (F = G x(m1m2)/r^2), Deimos should fall to Mars as fast as Phobos.
But that's not happening.
Deimos has secular acceleration away from Mars which violates both gravitation and the mythological Hill Sphere.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
25 comments:
The Potential and Kinetic Energy of Deimos is greater than Phobos, that is why it has a larger orbital radius. By the way, that animation isn't to scale in terms of orbitsl period or spacial dimensions, nor are the orbital eccentricities representative.
QF,
"The Potential and Kinetic Energy of Deimos is greater than Phobos, that is why it has a larger orbital radius."
How do you know that and what difference does it make?
"By the way, that animation isn't to scale in terms of orbitsl period or spacial dimensions, nor are the orbital eccentricities representative."
It's from Wikipedia so what do you expect?
Why did you bring Kepler and the your usual cast of Ancient boy-touchers into this discussion. Neither they, Swift or Velikovsky have anything to add to any discussion of the Solar System as a real place with real orbital mechanics.
Oh... that's right... you're a troll.
Oh... and since I'm still playing your game, when, pray, was Gravity falsified and by whom?
"when, pray, was Gravity falsified and by whom?"
Jeffery,
During and since Newton's time, gravitation has been refuted by Kepler, Galileo, Leibniz, Maupertuis, Poincaré, Kilmer, Lodge, Tesla, Asimov, and Velikovsky (among other geniuses).
"The example of the magnet I have hit upon is a very pretty one, and entirely suited to the subject; indeed, it is little short of being the very truth." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609
"It is therefore plausible, since the Earth moves the moon through its species and magnetic body, while the sun moves the planets similarly through an emitted species, that the sun is likewise a magnetic body." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609
"But come: let us follow more closely the tracks of this similarity of the planetary reciprocation [libration] to the motion of a magnet, and that by a most beautiful geometric demonstration, so that it might appear that a magnet has such a motion as that which we perceive in the planet." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609
"The present does not seem to be the proper time to investigate the cause of the acceleration of natural motion [i.e., gravity], concering which various opinions have been expressed by various philosophers, some explaining it by attraction to the center, others to repulsion between the very small parts of the body, while still others attribute it to a certain stress in the surrounding medium which closes in behind the falling body and drives it from one of its positions to another." -- Galileo Galilei, physicist, 1638
"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710
"Thus, thinking as Newton did (i.e., that all celestial bodies are attracted to the sun and move through empty space), it is extremely improbable that the six planets would move as they do." -- Pierre L. Maupertuis, polymath, 1746
"...inertia is exclusively of electromagnetic origin...." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908
"Since Newton announced his universal law of gravitation, scientists have accepted and educators taught it, and rarely has it been questioned. Occasionally one has the temerity to say that gravitation is a myth, an invented word to cover scientific ignorance." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915
"...what is really wanted for a truly Natural Philosophy is a supplement to Newtonian mechanics, expressed in terms of the medium which he suspected and sought after but could not attain, and introducing the additional facts, chiefly electrical—especially the fact of variable inertia—discovered since his time…" -- Oliver J. Lodge, physicst, February 1921
"The theory [General Relativity] is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists..." -- Nikola Tesla, physicist, July 1935
"But what do you know about gravitation? Nothing, except that it is a very recent development, not too well established, and that the math is so hard that only twelve men in Lagash are supposed to understand it." -- Isaac Asimov, writer, 1941
"The mathematical proofs of Newton are completely erroneous." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1942
I think it's pretty obvious the Wright Brothers falsified gravitation on December 17th 1903 with their "heavier than air flying machine."
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, gravitational physicist, 1895
60 years later, Joseph A. Walker again falsified gravitation on July 19th 1963 when he experienced weightlessness in the cockpit of his X-15 at the 100 kilometer mark. This is what scientists now call zero gravity. Zero gravity means gravitation is not universal. He repeated the experiment on August 22nd 1963.
If quotes somehow constitute a proof or disproof of physical equations, then let's prove that electromagnetism is caused by Zeus when he's angry while we're at it:
Isaiah 30:30 - And the LORD shall cause his glorious voice to be heard, and shall shew the lighting down of his arm, with the indignation of his anger, and with the flame of a devouring fire, with scattering, and tempest, and hailstones.
QF,
The empirical experience you are deliberately ignoring is the proof, not quotes.
What empirical experience? I drop a heavy object and it falls roughly at 9.81m/s^2 at sea level, give or take air resistance, but it never falls upward due to Earth's electric field, and charging the object doesn't speed up or slow down its descent either (for the reason it would require a high charge density for the electric field to even have an impact on the trajectory).
Gravitation acting on mass explains it, the part you misunderstand is that more mass means more inertia and thus the force exactly cancels out the mass to yield a constant acceleration each time, meaning a bowling ball should fall roughly at the same rate as a golph ball (save for friction due to air resistance and terminal velocities).
Numbers 23:22 - God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
QF,
"What empirical experience?"
I'll repeat some of what you deliberately ignored:
I think it's pretty obvious the Wright Brothers falsified gravitation on December 17th 1903 with their "heavier than air flying machine."
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, gravitational physicist, 1895
60 years later, Joseph A. Walker again falsified gravitation on July 19th 1963 when he experienced weightlessness in the cockpit of his X-15 at the 100 kilometer mark. This is what scientists now call zero gravity. Zero gravity means gravitation is not universal. He repeated the experiment on August 22nd 1963.
"I drop a heavy object and it falls roughly at 9.81m/s^2 at sea level, give or take air resistance"
Yes. But gravitation says more than that.
"it never falls upward due to Earth's electric field"
It never falls upwards due to lack of mass either. The least massive objects are still held to the Earth.
"and charging the object doesn't speed up or slow down its descent either (for the reason it would require a high charge density for the electric field to even have an impact on the trajectory)."
What causes lightning to strike?
"Gravitation acting on mass explains it"
Explains what? Why massive objects aren't attracted to one another? How come massive objects like the moon and the Earth aren't attracted to one another? How come massive objects like Deimos and Mars aren't attracted to one another? What is mass and how do you determine it?
Every few days for the past few decades, mankind has sent aloft rockets, probes, satellites and such. Of these, all but 2 are exactly where they should be according to our understanding of gravity.
The 2 that aren't where they belong suggests something is acting on them that we can't see. Perhaps uneven cooling of the probes, or that an impact has altered their trajectory. Perhaps intersteller medium is pulling on them in unexpected ways.
The planets are right where we expect them to be when our spacecraft arrive. The math works at this scale.
Your quoting of people long dead in their graves won't change that fact. Reality has a strong anti-Oils bias.
OIM and Anaconda,
I am happy to report that after a good local game, a couple of beers, pizza etc. my morning routine to bodily functions behaved in a normal gravitational environment without no undue lightening from bowl water to my behind, or any unusual glows from EM field abnormality. Oh, Lady gravity, whatever your source of power, you service us well, even those who do not believe in you, you forgive them! I hope nothing hit the fan for you guys.
Centripetal force explains gravitational orbits:
F= (M2)(V^2)/R = G(M1)(M2)/R^2
ergo, V = sqrt(G*M1 / R)....you know, where R=orbital radius and V=orbital velocity....notice that M2 cancels out leaving M1 as the only variable determining orbital velocity.
At sea level, roughly, G(M1)/R^2=9.81 m/s^2. Consequently, if you throw a rock then it always goes into orbit. The viewing of the rock hitting the ground, however, just means that the orbit is in a trajectory where the ground gets in the way.
If you don't understand this then you're either willfully ignorant or incompetent.
Jeffery,
"Every few days for the past few decades, mankind has sent aloft rockets, probes, satellites and such."
Each time it happens, gravitation is falsified. Gravitation said that heavier than air flying machines are impossible because objects are attracted to eachother proportional to their mass.
"The planets are right where we expect them to be when our spacecraft arrive."
Amazing what observation and experience can do.
"The math works at this scale."
Why was Neptune 1 billion miles away from where gravitation predicted it would be?
"Your quoting of people long dead in their graves won't change that fact."
How long have Newton and Einstein been in their graves?
QF,
"Centripetal force explains gravitational orbits"
So gravitation is caused by centripetal force?
How do planets and moons which are so-called "tidally locked" have gravity?
How is there gravity on Uranus?
OIM,
You wrote: It's from Wikipedia so what do you expect?
Previously, you had expressed that Wiki is not reliable, yet, you had no problem using it! And, without link, acknowledgement etc.
Look at the list of people on your blog and see how many are linked to Wiki!
Gravitation exerts a centripetal force on a mass that is moving at an orthorgonal velocity to it.
A magnetic field exerts a centripetal force on a charge that is moving at a an orthogonal velocity to it.
Actually, both of those phenomina are represented by a cross product and a resulting psuedovector in 3 dimensions.
QF,
"Gravitation exerts a centripetal force on a mass that is moving at an orthorgonal velocity to it."
What if the masses aren't moving at an orthogonal velocity. Then what happens?
How come when I walk I don't feel any more gravitation then when I am at rest?
Why doesn't gravitation exert centripetal force on the moons with secular acceleration away from their planets?
Who says that the planets don't exert a centripetal gravitation force on the moons that orbit them? I think that tidal forces from the Earth's spin are responsible for changing the orbital eccentricity of the moon.
Velocity of any orbiting body contains an orthogonal and a radial vector component with respect to the center of mass of the two or multi-body system. The velocity component that is radial for an orbiting body is that component which speeds up or slows down depending on the position in the elliptical orbit.
OIM, as far as feeling gravitation, well, feelings are very subjective. However, when you walk your body's center of mass oscillates up and down with each step. You indeed do work against gravitation half the time you're walking (on the upstroke), and gravitation does work back on you the other half the time (on the downstroke). lol.
QF,
"I think that tidal forces from the Earth's spin are responsible for changing the orbital eccentricity of the moon."
I think that tidal forces are an occult myth.
"Among the great men who have philosophized about [the action of the tides], the one who surprised me most is Kepler. He was a person of independent genius, [but he] became interested in the action of the moon on the water, and in other occult phenomena, and similar childishness." — Galileo Galilei, physicist, 1632
"…it does not seem likely that it will ever be possible to evaluate the effective rigidity of the earth's mass by means of tidal observations." — George H. Darwin, physicist, 1907
"Newton’s gravitational theory is regarded as proved by the action of the tides. But studying the tides, Newton came to the conclusion that the moon has a mass equal to one fortieth of the earth. Modern calculations, based on the theory of gravitation (but not on the action of the tides), ascribe to the moon a mass equal to 1/81 of the earth’s mass." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946
"The implications of employing the present rate of tidal energy dissipation on a geological timescale are catastrophic. Around 1500 Ma the Moon would have been close to the Earth, with the consequence that the much larger tidal forces would have disrupted the Moon or caused the total melting of Earth's mantle and of the moon." -- George E. Williams, geologist/geophysicist, 2000
"Currently, the moon is moving away from the Earth at such a great rate, that if you extrapolate back in time — the moon would have been so close to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago that it would have been torn apart by tidal forces (Slichter, 1963)." — Dennis J. McCarthy, geoscientist, 2003
If tidal forces are acting as antigravity to Deimos why aren't they acting as antigravity to Phobos?
There are no tides on Mars, OIM, you are making up a fib.
QF,
If Mars has no tidal forces, then why does Deimos have secular acceleration away from Mars?
I don't know, perhaps it's getting lighter?
I think I know, perhaps gravitation is a 17th century creationist myth?
"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687
"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710
Nope, the Bible is mythology, gravitation is a scientific theory, one that hasn't been disproven by empirical evidence. Theoretically, if the icy moons of mars are evaporating then they are losing mass, and that causes them to fling outwards.
Numbers 14:5 - Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before all the assembly of the congregation of the children of Israel.
It is gravitation that causes people to fall on their faces OIM, not God or electromagnetism, LOL.
QF,
It's impossible to believe in gravitation without believing in the Bible.
As Newton's so-called "theory" specifically states:
"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687
And since you ignore that fact of gravitational so-called "theory" let me tell you something else about your beloved gravitational so-called "theory."
"This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God ..., Or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God* usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, coexistent parts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and everywhere. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him** are all things contained and moved..."
That's some "theory" you've got there QF.
Post a Comment