Probality of God

[Gwandau]

Gravock,

Before I leave this thread definitely I want to say I'm sorry for being rude. I am just a little dissapointed with those of you that continously refuse to back up your claims.

We have to back upp our claims with substantial data. There is no alternative to that rule.

Even when it comes to our personal belief systems.

If I was a deep believer in your god, and felt the presence all around me, making me certain beyond doubts that god is, I would still not know anything in the scientific sense.
It would be a strictly personal conviction based upon my own subjective experience.

Remember to keep a humble approach to any other belief system. The road you walk may not be the only true one. What makes you believe there is only one true road?

And remember to differ between facts and theory.

Gwandau

[TinselKoala]

Is it possible that Gravok has forgotten that we have a robot spacecraft orbiting Mercury right now?

Traveling to Mercury requires an extremely large velocity change (see delta-v) because Mercury's orbit is deep in the Sun's gravity well. If on a direct course from Earth to Mercury, a spacecraft is constantly accelerated as it falls toward the Sun, and arrives at Mercury with a velocity too high to achieve orbit without excessive use of fuel. For planets with an atmosphere, such as Venus and Mars, spacecraft can minimize their fuel consumption upon arrival by using friction with the atmosphere to enter orbit (aerocapture), or can briefly fire their rocket engines to enter into orbit followed by a reduction of the orbit by aerobraking. However, the tenuous atmosphere of Mercury is far too thin for these maneuvers. Instead, MESSENGER extensively used gravity assist maneuvers at Earth, Venus, and Mercury to reduce the speed relative to Mercury, then used its large rocket engine to enter into an elliptical orbit around the planet. The multi-flyby process greatly reduced the amount of propellant necessary to slow the spacecraft, but at the cost of prolonging the trip by many years and to a total distance of 4.9 billion miles. To further minimize the amount of necessary propellant, the spacecraft orbital insertion targeted a highly elliptical orbit around Mercury.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MESSENGER

Funny... .Newton's Law of Gravity, and the ordinary interpretation of how planets (including Mercury) orbit the Sun... sufficed to get Messenger into orbit at Mercury.

We know a lot about Mercury now, much more than before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_%28planet%29

[gravityblock]

Is it possible that Gravok has forgotten that we have a robot spacecraft orbiting Mercury right now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MESSENGER

Funny... .Newton's Law of Gravity, and the ordinary interpretation of how planets (including Mercury) orbit the Sun... sufficed to get Messenger into orbit at Mercury.

We know a lot about Mercury now, much more than before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_%28planet%29

I already said in a previous post I am fully aware of messenger.  Why is it a big deal that NASA can hit their target?  How is this any more miraculous than a person who shoots a clay pigeon out of the air without any instrumentations to aid them with only a split second to make the judgment of where to aim?  Mercury's current orbit is nearly the same as it's previous orbit.  This is all they need in order to hit their target.

Gravock

[TinselKoala]

And Earth's orbit, and Venus's orbit, and the Sun's orbit, and perturbations from Jupiter, and relative motions in space.....and magnetic fields and electric fields and a lot more that I can't even begin to imagine. To try to substitute the interesting speculations of spiritually motivated philosophers for centuries of real scientific exploration, which has taken us to the point where we can build a mission like Messenger and have it so spectacurlarly succeed, is imho profoundly disrespectful of the efforts of those real scholars and scientists who have achieved these kinds of goals. When an alternate model such as those you describe produces experimental results as spectacular as Messenger or Gravity Probe B, or makes predictions that turn out to be true that the standard model does not.... then perhaps people will pay more attention.

[gravityblock]

And Earth's orbit, and Venus's orbit, and the Sun's orbit, and perturbations from Jupiter, and relative motions in space.....and magnetic fields and electric fields and a lot more that I can't even begin to imagine. To try to substitute the interesting speculations of spiritually motivated philosophers for centuries of real scientific exploration, which has taken us to the point where we can build a mission like Messenger and have it so spectacurlarly succeed, is imho profoundly disrespectful of the efforts of those real scholars and scientists who have achieved these kinds of goals. When an alternate model such as those you describe produces experimental results as spectacular as Messenger or Gravity Probe B, or makes predictions that turn out to be true that the standard model does not.... then perhaps people will pay more attention.

According to you, all that was needed was Newton's law of gravity.  Now all of the sudden we must take into account perturbations from Jupiter, magnetic and electric fields, etc.  I do not disagree with that, but you must admit you downplayed it by implying only Newton's law of gravity is needed for NASA to hit its target.  Another thing, we don't have the funding in which they do, so this isn't a level playing field.  We should expect more from them, than somebody who has no funding.  Also, this has nothing to do with religious or spiritually motivated philosophies.  Please, show me where it does.

Scientists have got their terminology mixed. It appeared to them that the only thing that could conceivably maintain the Earth in orbit and account for its revolution was solar attraction, so they based all their calculations on this. In reality the opposite is the case. The Sun exerts a repulsive force on the Earth. Further, as it was obvious to them that a body could not maintain itself in an orbit when acted upon by a single force, they impute miraculous qualities to centrifugal force, believing that it was the second force that held the planets in their orbits. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Even if centrifugal force did give the necessary balance to a planet, which it does not, there is one glaring omission in this theory, namely the force that impels a planet in a certain direction.  They see that a planet is attracted, they also see that centrifugal force counterbalances this attraction, but they do not see that they have overlooked a third force which gives a planet movement. When one whirls a stone on the end of a string, the string represents the force of attraction and centrifugal force plays the part of repulsion, but the individual represents the third force which gives direction to the stone.

If y = F or f= y x M, then the element of propulsion F is necessary to make the Earth move, since it is this that imparts an acceleration to the mass M. It is logical that a body to which acceleration has been imparted should begin to move, but it is absurd to state that this acceleration could be initiated without a force and then maintained without one, especially as there is a loss of energy as the result of the movement of the body against the action of gravity.

Jupiter, with a mass 317 times greater than that of the Earth, should be subject to a far greater attraction than the Earth, yet the velocity in orbit is not high enough to counterbalance this and maintain it in orbit. This planet has a large mass and a low velocity. This being the case, either the orbital velocity of the Earth is too great for its mass, and it should be flung out of its orbit, or Jupiter's is too low, and it should be drawn into the Sun.  Note that I give Jupiter's mass as 317 times that of the Earth, which is based on the force of attraction of the Sun against centrifugal force. This figure, however, is incorrect and is actually 331.  Having explained this, we can understand why planets of large volume are situated at a considerable distance from the Sun. By taking note of their distance from the Sun and their volume, we can discover their true density, and this will also give us the magnetic force of its poles. Thus the planet Jupiter is of low density and, having a large diameter, it is more subject to the force of repulsion than that of attraction. If it were true that matter attracted matter in direct proportion to the mass of the bodies, Jupiter, with a volume 1,330 times greater than Earth and 331 times as much mass, should be much closer to the Sun than Earth is.

You might raise the objection that Jupiter, with its large mass, revolves in an outer orbit according to the theory that spheres of greater mass are said to be more subject to the action of centrifugal force. Against this we have the case of Mars which is smaller than the Earth, yet is farther from the Sun, or again, the planets beyond Jupiter which are smaller than it, and yet revolve at a tremendous distance from the Sun. Moreover their velocity in orbit is very low. So that does not make sense either.

Scientists forgot, when dealing with the movement of planets, that energy must have been used up as a result of solar attraction working against the two centrifugal forces mentioned. If no explanation was given as to the source of power necessary to sustain the movement, then it is because the problem was based on false premises.

In the theory which I contend is the correct one, this force is derived from difference of energy potential which sunlight sets up by illuminating one face of the planet while leaving the other in darkness. A body which is balanced between two opposing forces (attraction and repulsion) has no weight and moves like a stone whirled round on the end of a string, the radius of its orbit being represented by the string.

Gravock