Probality of God

[TinselKoala]

Can you please explain, then, the operation and results of the Gravity Probe B experiment, in the light of your model of planetary motion? Also, consider the recent Cassini mission to Saturn and its moooons. This robotic spacecraft was sent on a ballistic (non-powered) trajectory across interplanetary space, using nothing more than Newtonian gravitational dynamics and the standard interpretation of the solar system's motions and their causes, and managed to hit its target nearly a BILLION MILES away with such accuracy that mid-course correction "burns" were not even needed. If there were corrections made for magnetic attraction or orbits around some point far outside the sun...... it's a pretty well-kept secret.
Right now the barycenter of the Solar System is located within the volume of the Sun, but it's not always so. In 2017 the Sun will wobble away from the barycenter and the barycenter will be outside the Solar volume for a while. It will reach an extreme distance out in around 2024, when it's almost a full Solar radius outside the surface of the Sun. Then the Sun will wobble back towards the barycenter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_System_Barycenter_2000-2050.png
I think you will find that orbits of planets calculated according to the actual barycenter DO in fact work out properly... otherwise we would not have been able to hit that mark (Titan) so accurately and land a robot on its surface. Nor would my telescope know where to point to find a planet or other astronomical object.

I agree, though, that gravity is not a force like electromagnetism or physical "pushing", and that electric effects have been neglected in cosmology and astrophysics. I'm just not sure to what degree they actually shape small objects like solar systems.

[gravityblock]

Can you please explain, then, the operation and results of the Gravity Probe B experiment, in the light of your model of planetary motion? Also, consider the recent Cassini mission to Saturn and its moooons. This robotic spacecraft was sent on a ballistic (non-powered) trajectory across interplanetary space, using nothing more than Newtonian gravitational dynamics and the standard interpretation of the solar system's motions and their causes, and managed to hit its target nearly a BILLION MILES away with such accuracy that mid-course correction "burns" were not even needed. If there were corrections made for magnetic attraction or orbits around some point far outside the sun...... it's a pretty well-kept secret.
Right now the barycenter of the Solar System is located within the volume of the Sun, but it's not always so. In 2017 the Sun will wobble away from the barycenter and the barycenter will be outside the Solar volume for a while. It will reach an extreme distance out in around 2024, when it's almost a full Solar radius outside the surface of the Sun. Then the Sun will wobble back towards the barycenter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_System_Barycenter_2000-2050.png
I think you will find that orbits of planets calculated according to the actual barycenter DO in fact work out properly... otherwise we would not have been able to hit that mark (Titan) so accurately and land a robot on its surface. Nor would my telescope know where to point to find a planet or other astronomical object.

I agree, though, that gravity is not a force like electromagnetism or physical "pushing", and that electric effects have been neglected in cosmology and astrophysics. I'm just not sure to what degree they actually shape small objects like solar systems.

The magnetic attraction and the force of repulsion describes a planet's motion and provides for elliptical orbits, etc.  They know this motion very well.  If there wasn't a dynamic interaction between an attractive force and a repulsive force, then every planet would have a perfectly circular orbit around the sun according to Newtonian gravitation.  This isn't the case.  Think about it.


It wouldn't surprise me if Tesla's dynamic theory of gravity is close to what I'm saying.

Gravock

[WilbyInebriated]

In the end, you'll probably be the last one left trying to show how we're silly.  Good luck with that!

Gravock

LMFAO!!!  i don't even have to be here... you do a fine job all by yourself of demonstrating just how asinine you can be. as demonstrated by your last several posts.

[gravityblock]

LMFAO!!!  i don't even have to be here... you do a fine job all by yourself of demonstrating just how asinine you can be. as demonstrated by your last several posts.

Yes, asinine in the sense it doesn't conform to your irrational logic and with your acceptance of irrational teachings by others.


Gravock

[Gwandau]

Yes, they discarded their former assumption of one axial revolution per orbital revolution, so what makes you think their latter assumption of the 3:2 is correct and shouldn't be discarded like their former assumption?  I modified my original post to better reflect their erroneous assumptions, both the former and the latter.  We know their former assumption was erroneous, just like I stated.  Thanks for proving this for me!


Gravock

Gravock,

you just discarded what several independent major scientific institutions recently have confirmed as fully validated observations, calling these observations assumptions! Woa!

This is either beginning to reek empty self importance mixed with a fair bit of stupor since you seem to be absolutely unaware about the exactitude of todays readings documented from our fairly close neighbour Mercury, or you are not to be relied upon as mentally stable. These are the only available alternatives in this embarrasing situation for you.

Or are you believeing what you say based upon same kind of resoning as your religious belief?
Is this going to be one of these God or no God logics of you again, empty of any scientifically accepted proof?

I have learnead alot about you guys here who conditionless have succumbed to a dogmatic religious system based on a mere theory. You claim things without proper return of proof, you continously avoid anything that would disturb your own paradigm.


If you actually had some proof to back your odd claim against all those modern well founded set of observed parameters telling you the opposite, YOU WOULD HAVE PRESENTED THESE.

WHY DON'T YOU PRESENT PROOF? WERE ARE YOUR SOURCES?


Gwandau