Stats: 3,192,222 members, 7,947,125 topics. Date: Thursday, 12 September 2024 at 12:56 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Science/Technology / Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) (17484 Views)
China’s Bus-size Space Station Is About 80 Hours Away From Crashing To Earth / Journey To The Core: How Far Down Is The Center Of The Earth? / Nigeria Astronaut Will Land In Space Before 2030 - Minister Of Science & Tech (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (Reply) (Go Down)
Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by Nobody: 8:17am On Jan 28, 2016 |
I wish to now give a non-rigorous proof of the Idea that the earth must be moving around in space. I will try as much as possible to use as little actual mathematics as possible. relying instead on logic and deductive reasoning when I can.(there will still be math though. ![]() as pertaining to this motion of the earth, there are many possiblities. 1. Earth is moving in a straight line. 2. Earth is moving in a circle. 3. Earth is moving in bizarre fashion. similar to brownian motion of small bodies. this cannot be considered. 4. Earth is not moving at all. we can find which is the case by figuring out what possible Force could guide motion of such a massive body, like the earth. If we consider that the earth is moving in a straight line, then we must realize that there is no force on the earth. as constant velocity requires no force. however, from experiment, this is quickly dismissed. because a motion of earth in a straight line will cause redshift of light from distant galaxies behind it and blueshift of light from galaxies in front of it. and our night sky would have been quite a peculiar one. also, parallax would occur over the ears as the stars would definitely shift their positions, the consistency of light from the universe points to a stationary earth. therefore, we can safely conclude the earth is not moving. another theory is to assume the stars are in fact, very far away, and that the earth is moving in a confined space. in order to account for the lack of parallax hence, we are reduced to two options. 1. the earth is in fact stationary. 2. the earth moves in a confined space. to choose, we will study the moon. studying the moon, one realizes that it moves around the earth every . . . 28 days or so. it possesses centripetal acceleration towards the earth. this can be explained by newton's equation. F = ma this shows us that earth must possess some kind of center seeking force that pulls the moon towards it. causing the moon to curve around the earth. near the earth, it is found also that objects dropped fall towards the earth with a constant acceleration, irrespective of the mass. this is very interesting. A constant acceleration, irrespective of mass means that the force itself must be based on mass. for it to cancel out inertia so perfectly. so we have a relationship for this unknown force. which the earth possesses. F α m which means, this force is directly proportional to the mass of the object that was falling. of course, we immediately realize our obnoxiousness and realize we have to account for symmetry by including the mass of the earth of the earth itself. so we revise the equation. F α Mm which means, this force is directly proportional to the mass of the object that was falling, as well as the object it was falling onto. which in this case is the earth. we must not kid ourselves. our equation is obviously not complete yet. the moon does not experience the same amount of acceleration that objects on the earth do. it is far smaller. as can be found by calculating the centripetal acceleration of the moon with v2/r . Hence, F α Mm x f(r) where f(r) is a function of the distance. as we have seen that this force relies on distance. and upon calculation of the moon's acceleration and comparing it with the acceleration of objects on earth, we can deduce that this function is 1/r2 so we revise our equation. F α Mm/r2 we can keep testing for other factors, such as heat, or brightness, but eventually, we realize that no other factor is involved. this force seems only to care about the masses of objects and the distances between them. the final Job is now to find the proportionality constant. which can only be found by experiment, so we shall not do that here. however, if you are interested in finding it yourself, you may quote me and ask for a procedure. anyway, I will tell you, it is 6.67 x 10-10 and is denoted by G hence, F = GMm/r2 and this force is called Gravity. Gravity is an inverse square force. objects which move under the influence of inverse square forces will move in an elliptical path if they try to move perpendicular to to the direction of the force. this is what happens when you tie a stone around a string and you try to spin it. the stone is trying to leave but just ends up going round in a circle due to the inverse square force that the string is exerting on it. coming back to the earth, we can generalize that any object that has mass will possess gravity. and the entirety of the rest of this post will survive on that fact. if you can succeed that there are some objects that have mass but do not possess gravity, then this proof is considered null and void. seeing as this is true, we can put earth in the center of the universe and have everything else rotate around it. the moon, the sun, the planets, the galaxy, and the superclusters, all rotating around the the earth. in this scenario, the earth is not moving. instead, it is perfectly stationary, and everything else is moving around it. then we can do two body problems for each object in space, rotating around the earth. we can find how far they are. but first, we have to derive some more equations. first, we know that gravity causes objects to fall down to the earth, near the surface. hence, it gives objects weight. mathematically, this means, GMm/r2 = mg where mg is weight.(not milligrams, guys. damn it.) with this, we can do some cancellations. bring out your books. small m cancels the other small m. GM/r2 = g and the mass of the earth, would be M = gr2/G --------- 1 where g is acceleration due to gravity, r is the radius of the earth, and G is of course, the proportionality constant. and then, for cases where the earth's gravity is causing objects in space to move in a circle, where it causes centripetal acceleration. that can be given by GMm/r2 = mv2/r cancelling what needs to be canceled. we get GM = v2r continuing, we replace v with 2πr/T what that means was that we replaced velocity by distance traveled,(which is a circumference,) over the time taken to travel that distance. in this case, the distance around the earth, over the time taken for these bodies to travel around. for the sun, it travels around the earth every twenty four hours, for the moon, this occurs every 28 days. doing the math, we get, GM = 4π2r2/T2 * r which means GM/4π2 = r3/T2 --------- 2 we are done. we have found a method to find the mass of the earth, we have also found a way to find the relationship for the objects that orbit the earth in our stationary earth scenario, which include the sun, the moon, the planets, the galaxy, and everything else. the relationship between how far they are, and how fast they travel around the earth. hence, if you give me the speed of a planet as it goes around the earth, I will tell you how far away it is. great. now, I will find the mass of the earth and use it to find out how far away the sun is because that is the next most conspicuous thing in the sky. and if the earth was not moving, the only way to account for night and day is that the sun is revolving around the earth. in the equation I labeled one, g is easily verified by experimentation, 9.8m/s squared, the radius of the earth as well can be easily deduced. 6,400,000 meters. and G, we all know to be 6.67 x 10-11. substituting these values, we get an approximate value of 6.00 x 1024kg. hence, for the second equation, big M = mass of the earth already found above, the gravitational constant, already established severally, and the amount of time it takes the sun to circle the earth, 86400 seconds, and pi, 3.14. doing the rather tedious calculation, I have arrived at a value of around 42200 kilometers away. that's far closer than the moon is. this does not agree with experimental observation. at this close proximity, the sun must be very light in order to be that big and still not rip the earth to pieces. but if the sun is that light, then how is it a circle? this violates our formulas. the sun, if light, cannot possess enough gravitaional energy to collapse into a ball. and more importantly, the the question of using fusion to power it's light is out of the question as it will be too light. also, why doesn't it come between the moon and the earth? why don't we have sun eclipses? also, using a triangular method to find this distance fails because the sun exhibits almost no parallax. all of these point to the sun being incredibly far away. when the calculation is carried out for the other planets, a similar result is acheived. their distances according to the equation disagrees with what is observed. so the equation must be wrong. right? so we must consider one other contradiction before we accept that the earth cannot be the unmoving center of the observable universe. spectral analysis of light from planets, as well as viewing them, allow us to deduce that they are infact made of matter. which contains mass. if they are rotating around the earth, then the earth must be supermassive in comparison to them, or the earth must be a pivot point, such that the center of mass of the solar system and of the galaxy must lie in the center of the earth. since the center of mass of any system of objects must remain stationary or move in a straight line upon the absence of some external force. the first option is easily debunked. several planets have been observed with dense elements. which means they are heavy. and if this is so, their total mass can be found to be more than that of the earth. so earth cannot be a supermassive body. the second option is also debunked because if earth were a pivot point, then we would observe pairs of bodies forming a centrifugal pair. so, for each planetary body we observe at a distance x, moving to the right, on the opposite side of the earth, we must observe another body, distance y from the earth, moving in the opposite direction. in essence, we would find the rotation of bodies around the earth be in pairs. and constant. this has never been observed. because of this, we must consider the scenario where the sun resides at the center. then the equations are reapplied, and this time the correspond perfectly with observations. the sun has been found to be a supermassive body with 99% mass of the enter solar system, and the time period of the earth corresponds with its Goldilocks status, and the predictions of the equation are valid for situations in which they are applied. The correlation of the theory with the observation is the proof that the theory is correct. and if the consequence of the theory is that the earth is moving around the sun, then that is also proven correct by induction. cc sukkot, reyginus, johnydon22, hahn, plaetton, robinhez and any other person who wishes to learn from this, and/or submit their questions. ![]() seriously though, I would really appreciate questions. this is in my curriculum anyway. and the more I talk about it, the more I deeply understand the subject. cheers . . . 2 Likes |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by RobinHez(m): 10:18am On Jan 28, 2016 |
Er...u gave 2 values for G, kindly cross check ![]() U mentioned logic and deductive reasoning... But all I see is math language ![]() Anyways, why do the solar bodies have to move round the sun? |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by Nobody: 10:43am On Jan 28, 2016 |
RobinHez:if you meant the small g and the big G. they are different. the small g is acceleration due to gravity. the big G is the proportionality constant of gravity as a force. I had to use math there. sorry. ![]() as pertaining to the sun having to be at the center of the solar system. the rotation isn't actually around the sun. it's around the center of mass of the solar system. which just so happens to be in the sun. ![]() ![]() ![]() the solar system is a system of discrete bodies undergoing a rotation around a common center of mass. in such a system, the laws of physics dictate that angular momentum must be conserved. and this in turn dictates that the center of mass must NOT move. so, where is the center of mass then? the center of mass can be calculated via two body diagrams for all the planets, and if this is done, we will find that the center of mass is in the sun. it doesn't have to be so, it's just one of those things that come out of the equations, i guess. ![]() interestingly, and johnydon22 will tell you, there are some star systems that don't rotate around their sun. like binary star systems, for example, two stars, and their planets, all rotating around a center of mass in space. |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by johnydon22(m): 11:34am On Jan 28, 2016 |
RobinHez:Lets put it this way.. Gravity (G) actually is not a force but the effect of Mass(M) on space/time. Space time is like a fabric and if you put an object on a fabric spread out on all directions you will notice that the object dents the fabrics it rests on? the mass of the object dents the fabrics, like if you seat on a bed it sinks inside under your weight. So any other object likely of lesser Mass that comes towards the dent of the object with bigger Mass tends to slide down towards the bottom of the dent. But since these bodies also have Mass of their own, their not only are attracted towards the body of greater Mass their own Mass makes a smaller dent or distortion on space/time and so they derive acceleration around the center of mass from the effect of the Big G and small G.. 1 Like |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by RobinHez(m): 12:06pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
Teempakguy: Er... I know that. I meant this: 6.67 x 10-10 and 6.67 x 10-11. .. Well it cn be overlooked sha. I had to use math there. sorry. So it's ll in the centre? Cool.. |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by RobinHez(m): 12:09pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
johnydon22: So if the source of gravity from the bigger mass 'trips off' or something.. Does that mean all the planets would fall or... ![]() |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by sukkot: 5:04pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
Teempakguy:hmmm looks very interesting. i will try to digest it before tonight and then offer my vituperation ![]() ![]() ![]() i have just now been released from a ban i acquired on the 24th of january so pardon me if i am just seeing it now ![]() |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by Nobody: 7:04pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
RobinHez:hahahaha ![]() ![]() ![]() I forgot how funny this guy was. |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by sukkot: 7:26pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
all that you posted was not necessary. I can easily show you the earth is not moving. First off, the borders of all the constellations are delineated by fixed stars meaning they do not move at all. http://www.constellationsofwords.com/Fixedstars.htm now, if you have a telescope, there are key marker stars that can be seen so as to have a celestial orientation. you can see polaris, antares, castor, pollux, betelgeuse, rigel, capella, the pleaides, aldebaran etc etc. they can be seen in the sky. now if you look in the sky today and take a note of where all these stars are, then 5 years time you look again, then 10 years, then 20 years - all these stars will still be in the same place in the sky. point being ? at the breakneck speed that the earth is purported to be travelling at in space, you should see different stars every night in the sky. UNLESS OF COURSE YOU ARE TRYING TO TELL US THAT THE EARTH TAKES THE SKY WITH IT WHEN IT MOVES AROUND WHICH IS WHY ALL THE STARS HAVE BEEN IN THE SAME PLACE FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS IF YOU LOOK IN THE SKY FROM OUR VANTAGE POINT . CASE CLOSED ![]() ![]() 1 Like |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by johnydon22(m): 8:04pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
And you just had to make it too long Teempakguy ![]() |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by Nobody: 8:11pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
johnydon22:haha. ![]() nicolas corpernicus wrote an entire book to prove this very concept. you have to admit I'm pretty good at summary, no? Also, Mr sukkot has submitted his objection. do you want to handle that or should I? ![]() |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by johnydon22(m): 8:15pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
Teempakguy:Its your ball bro... Handle it.. and sukkot is particularly good at trolling ![]() |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by sukkot: 8:16pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
johnydon22: ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by johnydon22(m): 8:20pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
sukkot:Asin eeehn you sabi troll person to death ![]() |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by sukkot: 8:21pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by hahn(m): 8:23pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
johnydon22: See who dey complain about long post ![]() Smh Smd Lalasticlala this thread is fp worthy. There's somewhere in the post where the op mentions wizkid and davido ![]() 1 Like |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by johnydon22(m): 8:41pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
hahn:My posts are not as long as this joor ![]() Lalasticlala and other mods tire me.. Many of science topics that deserve front page to reach a wider audience are being neglected like this https://www.nairaland.com/2869435/10-most-strange-stars-known and dozens of them i have on my timeline and many others here... They are just neglecting science topics to champion topics that of no use to people or in anyway contribute to their intellectual development.. That's why when many NL's talk about science you will almost poo your pants.. Because they don't give science topics half the attention they give to Snakes or girls rocking cleavages 5 Likes 3 Shares |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by RobinHez(m): 9:47pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
johnydon22: Chai! 1 Like
|
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by Nobody: 10:12pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
sukkot: ahh, yes, yes. ironically, this observation is one of the proofs for my theory. quickly check these two pictures I made in paint to illustrate my point. 1. ![]() 2. ![]() one objection may quickly rise, how come the planets don't behave that way? why is it that planets seem to move? and stars don't? despite the fact that they are basically the same mechanism? well, they are not the same mechanism. planets do not speed around the sun at the same speed. neither do they go along the same path, or the same direction. in galaxies, however, stars possess similar average angular speed around the saggitarius A*, and they go in the same direction, also, they are very far apart and even if they moved relative to the earth, the incredible distances between them and the earth ensures that they will still appear stationary. I am awaiting another objection. 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by sukkot: 10:35pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
Teempakguy:i think your whole confusion stems from passed down wrong dogma which has being imbibed by many and they now take it as being real. its like the christian religion. its rubbish but because it is a tradition that has been imbibed in the masses for generations ? they now think it is true. what am I talking about ? the earth is not a PLANET. a planet by definition comes from the root word 'PLANETA' which means ' wandering star ' . the earth is not a star. so you have been indoctrinated. planet (n.) Look up planet at Dictionary.com late Old English planete, from Old French planete (Modern French planète), from Late Latin planeta, from Greek planetes, from (asteres) planetai "wandering (stars)," A planet (from Ancient Greek ἀστήρ πλανήτης astēr planētēs, or πλάνης ἀστήρ plánēs astēr, meaning "wandering star" ![]() ALL THIS DOGMA ABOUT THE EARTH BEING A PLANET AND IT MOVING AROUND STARTED 500 YEARS AGO WITH COPERNICUS. SO THE EARTH IS NOT A STAR AND IT IS NOT WANDERING AND IT IS NOT A PLANET. JUST ACCEPT YOUR INDOCTRINATION AND MOVE ON OR CORRECT IT. CHOICE IS YOURS LOL |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by bqlekan(m): 10:43pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
Been waiting for this thread teempak.. I knew when sukkot challenged you ![]() |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by sukkot: 10:44pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
bqlekan:hehe sup bros bqlekan ![]() |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by Nobody: 10:53pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
sukkot: seriously . . . ? from that same dictionary.com Also called major planet. any of the eight large heavenly bodies revolving about the sun and shining by reflected light: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune, in the order of their proximity to the sun. so, you are saying I should believe what dictionary.com says. and dictionary.com says that earth, along with the other planets, are revolving around the sun. so what is your point here? what you are talking about is etymology. etymology is different from definition. the etymology of grave means to dig. the definition means a place where you bury the dead. can you see the stark difference? 3 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by Nobody: 10:54pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
bqlekan:sorry for the long wait jare. laptop issues. anyway, what's your stance here? |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by Nobody: 10:58pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
sukkot:okay okay. this is becoming interesting. so, according to you, the earth is not a star, the earth is not a planet, the earth is not moving. so it means my equations are incorrect. it also means gravity doesn't exist. it also means that the sun is close to the earth it also means that the sun is not powered by fusion it also means that the galaxy does not exist it also means that the pictures of earth, satellites, pluto, mars, jupiter, and betelgeuse that we have are false and faked it also means that google earth is faked it also means that there is no manmade object in space it also means that man has never passed 40 miles from sea level. do you agree with all of this? 2 Likes |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by sukkot: 11:03pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
Teempakguy:WhAT i am telling you is that for thousands of years all generations of cultures have seen the stars fixed in the sky. heck in ancient egypt they built the pyramids window so that they can observe the star sirius and the draco constellation. so the pyramid was built thousands of years ago to observe certain stars in the sky and from the pyramids today - the stars observed are still being observed from the upper room of the pyramid of giza. point being ? is the sky moving with the earth if the earth is moving ? 10,000 plus years of the pyramid of gizas existence and the same stars are in the same spot ?? has the earth not moved away from that stars location in 10,000 plus years seeing as the earth supposedly moves in space at 70,000 miles per hour ? BRAH ACCEPT YOUR INDOCTRINATION AND CORRECT IT, OR IGNORE IT. CHOICE IS YOURS http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/SED11/P9Pyramids.pdf |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by sukkot: 11:10pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
Teempakguy:Gravity is nonsense, the sun is closer than you think, the sun is powered by alpha beta gamma sunspots that kick off and recycle solar flares and coronal mass ejections, galaxies do exist, and yes all those pictures are CGI computer generated - everyone knows this search the net, even nasa will tell you all the pictures are fake, there are manmade objects in the ISS space station but it is not as far up as you think it is, 40 miles from sea level ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8tIm-fxE_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQt9vq3sdtQ |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by bqlekan(m): 11:11pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
Teempakguy:you know sometimes I wish I can put things like this together.. really self explanatory.. I'm convinced.. I will ask my question(s) later.. lemme digest it well... |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by bqlekan(m): 11:13pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
sukkot:Brother, I've got one or two things to learn from you here.. can't contribute, I'm still a learner o ![]() |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by sukkot: 11:15pm On Jan 28, 2016 |
bqlekan:no problems my bros. we full ground ![]() ![]() |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by johnydon22(m): 12:22am On Jan 29, 2016 |
Teempakguy:I told you sukkot is just a troll ![]() 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: Proof Of The Motion Of The Earth In The Vacuum.(as In, Space) by Nobody: 6:54am On Jan 29, 2016 |
sukkot: Well thats a rather bold claim, just because we don't fully understand something doesn't make it 'non-sense', do you have any mathematical proof to back this up? Or are you just going to refer me to your white bros at nasa or youtube. |
Scientist Invent Death Test That Tell Us How Long We Will Live / E50-32 Dstv Error Solved ! / Nigeria Set To Join US, Others To Explore The Moon
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 137 |