AGE OF THE EARTH...

[Saturna]

LAWD GAWD A'MIGHTY!

Shhh... don't mention the religion

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Shortstack]

Dear Shortstack;
You wrote:
Mr. lamar, you are STILL ignoring the fact that any glob of material knocked off during ANY stage of the earth's formation would have kept going out into space. It would NOT have stopped it's flight and gone into a near circular orbit around the parent object

OK, my friend, I'll play along with this for a bit. I do have one question though. If that theory were true, then why does Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus all have planetary rings which are locked into orbits about their respective bodies? Hmmmm....

Also, it's been theorized that the Earth once sustained planetary rings as well. It's actually fascinating to think that Earth's planetary rings may have been responsible for the various ice ages.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Oh, Mr. lamar, you have certainly opened up a large can of worms for you old-earthers.
Let's drop back a little bit and look at the Helium 3 situation. H3 is so rare on earth that it actually has to be manufactured in a laboratory......at great expense. NASA has opined that one shuttle load of H3 brought back from the moon would provide enough energy to supply the entire U.S. for a year or more. Now, why would they think that a viable idea if the H3 concentration on the moon is only 1 part per million? Even the NASA leaders aren't THAT ignor-ant.

I am so happy you have brought up the subject of the solar system and our family of other planets.
There are planetary scientists who theorize the the planets formed when "something" formed a spot of gravitational force that attracted dust and rock particles into clumps that eventually became planets. This happened at least 8 times (9 if you count Pluto). The problem is, they have ignored the thermal forces that would have been acting AGAINST these gravitational forces and would have been powerful enough to have PREVENTED the planets formation. After all, when matter is compressed, there is an internal warmth that can be felt and measured. That's how pressure cookers work. Increase in internal pressure of the cooker, increases the internal temps and equals faster cook times. Those "old-earther" scientists totally ignore the counter forces involved in their fantasies.

You mentioned the rings of Saturn. Question: Why do the rings exist at right angles to the lines of magnetic forces exuded by that very large planet? After all, most of us have played with iron filings on a piece of paper with a bar magnet underneath so we could see the magnet's lines of force.

Each planet has the right speed for its distance from the sun to maintain a roughly circular orbit (put Pluto swings inside Neptune's orbit).

Supposedly, the sun began as a gas giant that decided to get heartburn and came alive by nuclear fusion. Why didn't the two other gas giants? You know, the one called Jupiter and the other called Saturn? As a matter of fact, the nine planets in our solar system have widely DIFFERENT compositions. Heck, even the different MOONS in this solar system have different compositions. WHY Didn't they all condense from the same large dust cloud you old-earthers believe in?

Venus is slowly spinning in the opposite direction to its rotation around thesun, while Uranus' axis of spin is almost "horizontal" to it's orbital track.

Of the 33 major moons circling the planets, 11 of them rotate in the opposite direction to the planet's rotation around the sun. Jupiter and Saturn have moons going in both directions. All of these moons orbit their "mother" planet on the same basic plane, except for one. I can't remember it's name, but it orbits Jupiter. We are told that the great gravitational tidal forces acting on one of Saturn's moons is the reason that it is so volcanically active. And in the next sentence Saturn's frozen moon is somehow exempted from those forces.

If our solar system is truly billions of years old, why haven't those clumps of icy rocks around Saturn been sucked to the planet's surface.

Did you catch that little news burp late last year that the scientists now believe that our sun isn't as old as originally figured? Now they are saying that it is in the early phase of it's existence.

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Besides the age of the earth being so young (which, like Lamar, I heartily disagree with), there is a couple other things that come to mind.

First - the oldest human tracks - that have been verified (as much as scientists can) was in Italy. The tracks, etched in volcanic ash, date back 385,000 to 325,000 years, making them the oldest human footprints ever discovered, which, in itself, dashes the idea that the earth is so young.

Secondly, also agreeing with Lamar - gravity doesn't have a half-life. I believe you are confusing gravity with magnetic pull - magnetic pull is not a constant. It is known that it ebbs and flows. Right now, we are in a period where there is less magnetic pull, which, anyone who can use a compass could probably tell you. But, it doesn't stay that way, either. It travels to a low point, then to a strong point - in fact, it is known to change suddenly. (like if you got two magnets at opposite poles too close, it would speed up suddenly to attract). So, there is really not a half life to magnetism either - but more like a life-cycle, which repeats itself.

B

 

[Shortstack]

HEY, REBEL. Now there are at least 2 people trying to turn this thread into a RELIGIOUS debate. Wonder why? Could it be that they are scientifically challenged?

Folks, please take your Religious discussion to the Rubber Room. This thread is for SCIENCE INFORMATION ONLY.

Thank you and................................goodbye.

 

[Shortstack]

Hello, Mrs. Oroblanco. Question: How are those footprints in lava in Italy older than the human footprints found in Texas alongside the dino prints. And no, they are not prints made by other dinos as lamar tries to "sell".

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Well, Shortstack,

I wasn't referring specifically to the Texas dino tracks, however

The "supposed" human footprints in Texas have not been definitely confirmed as human - first of all. It's still a question that is up for grabs.

Secondly, they know, for certain, that some of those tracks are fake. The others have not even been authenticated - never mind dated, and haven't been dated in conjunction with the prints on the "dino trail".

I think ts a tourist attraction.

The tracks in Italy have been authenticated and dated.

B

 

[Shortstack]

Well, Shortstack,

I wasn't referring specifically to the Texas dino tracks, however

The "supposed" human footprints in Texas have not been definitely confirmed as human - first of all. It's still a question that is up for grabs.

Secondly, they know, for certain, that some of those tracks are fake. The others have not even been authenticated - never mind dated, and haven't been dated in conjunction with the prints on the "dino trail".

I think ts a tourist attraction.

The tracks in Italy have been authenticated and dated.
B

You say "they know"..... Who are "they"? What credentials do "they" have? Are "they" the same folks who authenticated the Piltdown Man and the Nebraska Man?
Who authenticated the tracks in Italy? Let me guess...........the same folks who claim the Texas prints are fakes. How were the tracks in Italy dated?

As far as the Texas site being a tourist attraction, the land is privately owned and the folks who were studying the site were asked to leave after news got out of the find and people started trespassing on the land. Someone has given you some "suspect" information.

Can Mr. O come back to play?

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Mr. O is on - he has his own computer to play with.

B

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. O is on - he has his own computer to play with.

B

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Ooops, forgot to answer your question.

One source was the University of the Pacific, in San Francisco - and here is a surprise - they took the actual tracks to NYC in the 30's.
Surprisingly, there were no human tracks back then. I guess it must be time travel.

Want a link to the article?

http://origins.swau.edu/papers/dinos/tracks/eng/index.html

In other arenas, there was a man, named Carl Baugh, who was an "archeologist/anthropologist - who saw all these human tracks, etc, back in 1996 - but, the truth of the matter is, NBC discovered that he was not what he appeared to be - he was Reverend Carl Baugh, and he completely ignored the REAL guys, Glen Kuban, Ronnie Hastings, Laurie Godfrey and others a decade ago, which showed conclusively that these trackways are made by dinosaurs, but - no humans.

B

 

[lamar]

Dear Shortstack;
You wrote:
Mr. lamar, you are STILL ignoring the fact that any glob of material knocked off during ANY stage of the earth's formation would have kept going out into space. It would NOT have stopped it's flight and gone into a near circular orbit around the parent object

OK, my friend, I'll play along with this for a bit. I do have one question though. If that theory were true, then why does Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus all have planetary rings which are locked into orbits about their respective bodies? Hmmmm....

Also, it's been theorized that the Earth once sustained planetary rings as well. It's actually fascinating to think that Earth's planetary rings may have been responsible for the various ice ages.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Oh, Mr. lamar, you have certainly opened up a large can of worms for you old-earthers.
Let's drop back a little bit and look at the Helium 3 situation. H3 is so rare on earth that it actually has to be manufactured in a laboratory......at great expense. NASA has opined that one shuttle load of H3 brought back from the moon would provide enough energy to supply the entire U.S. for a year or more. Now, why would they think that a viable idea if the H3 concentration on the moon is only 1 part per million? Even the NASA leaders aren't THAT ignor-ant.

I am so happy you have brought up the subject of the solar system and our family of other planets.
There are planetary scientists who theorize the the planets formed when "something" formed a spot of gravitational force that attracted dust and rock particles into clumps that eventually became planets. This happened at least 8 times (9 if you count Pluto). The problem is, they have ignored the thermal forces that would have been acting AGAINST these gravitational forces and would have been powerful enough to have PREVENTED the planets formation. After all, when matter is compressed, there is an internal warmth that can be felt and measured. That's how pressure cookers work. Increase in internal pressure of the cooker, increases the internal temps and equals faster cook times. Those "old-earther" scientists totally ignore the counter forces involved in their fantasies.

You mentioned the rings of Saturn. Question: Why do the rings exist at right angles to the lines of magnetic forces exuded by that very large planet? After all, most of us have played with iron filings on a piece of paper with a bar magnet underneath so we could see the magnet's lines of force.

Each planet has the right speed for its distance from the sun to maintain a roughly circular orbit (put Pluto swings inside Neptune's orbit).

Supposedly, the sun began as a gas giant that decided to get heartburn and came alive by nuclear fusion. Why didn't the two other gas giants? You know, the one called Jupiter and the other called Saturn? As a matter of fact, the nine planets in our solar system have widely DIFFERENT compositions. Heck, even the different MOONS in this solar system have different compositions. WHY Didn't they all condense from the same large dust cloud you old-earthers believe in?

Venus is slowly spinning in the opposite direction to its rotation around thesun, while Uranus' axis of spin is almost "horizontal" to it's orbital track.

Of the 33 major moons circling the planets, 11 of them rotate in the opposite direction to the planet's rotation around the sun. Jupiter and Saturn have moons going in both directions. All of these moons orbit their "mother" planet on the same basic plane, except for one. I can't remember it's name, but it orbits Jupiter. We are told that the great gravitational tidal forces acting on one of Saturn's moons is the reason that it is so volcanically active. And in the next sentence Saturn's frozen moon is somehow exempted from those forces.

If our solar system is truly billions of years old, why haven't those clumps of icy rocks around Saturn been sucked to the planet's surface.

Did you catch that little news burp late last year that the scientists now believe that our sun isn't as old as originally figured? Now they are saying that it is in the early phase of it's existence.

Dear Shortstack;
I would like to refute your claims one at a time if this allright with you, my friend. First, I will tackle the H-3 debate I think. A lot has been researched and studied on th esubject of H-3 existing on the Lunar surface. In fact, all major scientific journals write about it quite frequently. I suppose that I could use NASAs' website, or Cal-Techs' or any other reputable source, but I am being lazy tonight and I will use Wiki. It's all pretty much the same stuff anyway. No single group has made any Earth-shattering discoveries about H-3 on the moon in a while, so here we go:
The Moon's surface contains helium-3 at concentrations on the order of 0.01 ppm.[37][38] A number of people, starting with Gerald Kulcinski in 1986,[39] have proposed to explore the moon, mine lunar regolith and use the helium-3 for fusion. Because of the low concentrations of helium-3, any mining equipment would need to process extremely large amounts of regolith (over 100 million tons of regolith to obtain one ton of helium 3),[40] and some proposals have suggested that helium-3 extraction be piggybacked onto a larger mining and development operation.[citation needed]

The primary objective of Indian Space Research Organization's first lunar probe called Chandrayaan-I, launched on October 22, 2008, was reported in some sources to be mapping the Moon's surface for helium-3-containing minerals.[41] However, this is debatable; no such objective is mentioned in the project's official list of goals, while at the same time, many of its scientific payloads have noted helium-3-related applications.[42][43]

Cosmochemist and geochemist Ouyang Ziyuan from the Chinese Academy of Sciences who is now in charge of the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program has already stated on many occasions that one of the main goals of the program would be the mining of helium-3, from which operation "each year three space shuttle missions could bring enough fuel for all human beings across the world."[44] which is an extreme understatement however, as one payload to GTO of current spacecraft designs is less than 4 tonnes. To "bring enough fuel for all human beings across the world"[25], more than one Space Shuttle load (and the processing of 4 million tons of regolith) per week would be necessary.

In January 2006, the Russian space company RKK Energiya announced that it considers lunar helium-3 a potential economic resource to be mined by 2020,[45] if funding can be found.[46][47]

Mining gas giants for helium-3 has also been proposed.[48] The British Interplanetary Society's hypothetical Project Daedalus interstellar probe design was fueled by helium-3 mines in the atmosphere of Jupiter, for example. Jupiter's high gravity makes this a less energetically favorable operation than extracting helium-3 from the other gas giants of the solar system, however.


And there you have it, my friend. Please note that this information is very much like on other websites and scientific journals, therefore it doesn't matter much where the reference comes from. In fact, I could copy quotes directly from the World Book Encyclopedia and they would mirror what was already quoted, therefore to do so would be redundant, in my humble opinion.

Moving right along, you stated:
Supposedly, the sun began as a gas giant that decided to get heartburn and came alive by nuclear fusion. Why didn't the two other gas giants? You know, the one called Jupiter and the other called Saturn? As a matter of fact, the nine planets in our solar system have widely DIFFERENT compositions. Heck, even the different MOONS in this solar system have different compositions. WHY Didn't they all condense from the same large dust cloud you old-earthers believe in?

To answer this, the reason why the Sun is different from Jupiter and Saturn is because the Sun is wholly comprised of gases, which is around 75% hydrogen with most of the rest being helium. Also, there exists trace elements (less than 2% total)of carbon, neon, oxygen and other light elements.

Jupiter and Saturn on the other hand, while they are called *gas giants* have well defined solid cores. They must have solid cores if they have a magnetic field my friend. Gases do not make good magnets. Every time you see the Sun, what you are really seeing is a highly sophisicated, all natural, FREE nuclear fusion generator. That's right, nuclear fusion is achieved from the hydrogen nuclei into helium.

None of the planets are able to do this because they all have solid cores, my friend.

Next up is your statement:
You mentioned the rings of Saturn. Question: Why do the rings exist at right angles to the lines of magnetic forces exuded by that very large planet? After all, most of us have played with iron filings on a piece of paper with a bar magnet underneath so we could see the magnet's lines of force.

Because the debris field is not attracted to the planet's magnetic field, rather the debris field is attracted to the planet's GRAVITATIONAL field, which is a very different, and much stronger, force than a magnetic field. Remembering that mass attracts mass, the debris fields are concentrated along the planet's equators, which is where the strongest gravitational attraction exists.

Continuing onwards;

The problem is, they have ignored the thermal forces that would have been acting AGAINST these gravitational forces and would have been powerful enough to have PREVENTED the planets formation. After all, when matter is compressed, there is an internal warmth that can be felt and measured. That's how pressure cookers work. Increase in internal pressure of the cooker, increases the internal temps and equals faster cook times. Those "old-earther" scientists totally ignore the counter forces involved in their fantasies.


No, to the best of my knowledge, nobdy is ignoring anything. The reason why thermal forces did not preclude the formation of the planets is because before the planets were formed, no thermal forces existed. First, cosmic dust and gases were attracted to our forming Suns' gravitational field. Remember with gravity, mass attracts mass and so the dust and gas particles started to clump together. Then the dust and gases started orbiting around the Sun. After a period of time, these fields of gas and dust started to turn into huge oblong discs of gaseous and solid particles.

As the gravity from each particle attracted it's neighbors, these discs began to slowly compress. As the planets became more defined in structure, the gravity increased and also the internal pressure increased. Eventually well defined structures appeared and because of the internal pressures, friction produced heat.

This heat is plainly evident when viewing all of the molten rocks and also when studying active volcanoes. The pressures were so intense that rock literally melted, thus helping to shape and solidify the planets. Once our planet reached a semi-spherical shape, the heat was so intense that most scientists imagine the surface to have been a dull glowing red color, however the thermal forces are not enough to overcome the pressure of the gravitational field.

To exemplify, our planet has a core comprised of solid nickel/iron. Granted, the center of the Earth is so incredibly hot that the nickel/iron core SHOULD be in a molten state, yet the pressure exerted upon the core through gravity is so intense that the core cannot attain a liquid state, therefore it remains as a white-hot solid.

The fallacy with your pressure cooker scenario is that you did not include an outside pressure, or a gravitational force, as it were. Imagine a pressure cooker slowly beaing heated, with no pressure relief valve, yet while the pressure on the inside of the cooker was increasing, so was the pressure on the OUTSIDE of the cooker. Now you have a scenario in which the cooker will never explode my friend, as it's state of equalibrium will always be zero.

The same gravitational force which formed our planets also is the same force which prevents a thermal explosion from occurring.

Next up:
If our solar system is truly billions of years old, why haven't those clumps of icy rocks around Saturn been sucked to the planet's surface.
Who said they haven't been sucked to the planet's surface, my friend. EVENTUALLY all of the debris orbiting Saturn will finally succomb to Saturns' gravitational field and be sucked into the planet's atomosphere, while at the same time, Saturns' immense gravitational field will be attracting new debris. It's a continual cycle my friend.

Next:
Did you catch that little news burp late last year that the scientists now believe that our sun isn't as old as originally figured? Now they are saying that it is in the early phase of it's existence.
No, this is not quite correct my friend. Scientists are now theorizing that the Sun has yet to reach it's peak energy producing phase. Previously it was theorized that the Sun had already reached maximum energy output and it was producing the maximum amount of life sustaining energy, yet know they feel that the Sun is still in it's early stages and has not yet reached maturity.

This does NOT state that the Sun is older than previously thought though. The Sun is still 4.57 billion years old and that is unlikely to be changed in the immediate future.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

Shortstack wrote

Can Mr. O come back to play?

I am here again amigo, following several different threads at the same time so sometimes it takes a few minutes to get back and catch up. Thanks for thinking of me!

What about the extreme distances between stars, and between galaxies - given the speed of light as a maximum speed, how could things have gotten SO far apart, in only 10,000 years? For example, if we have a galaxy that is 100,000 light years (the distance which would be covered by a beam of light traveling at 670,616,629 mph in a YEAR, times 100,000) it shouldn't be possible for that same distance to be covered in 10,000 years. Isn't that a problem? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[Oroblanco]

Good explanation of the Moon's origin due to an impact of another body with Earth;
http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html

The debris kicked UP by such a violent impact would not likely be in the form of a ball or clump, rather it would more likely be fragments of all sizes, and at varying speeds - some would be blasted away off into space, some would be pulled back to Earth, some would have been thrown far enough up to be caught in orbit; eventually this would clump into one (or more) Moons, as we have. As the moon orbits the planet, it would tend to collect any dust rings in the process and clear them away - the rings of Saturn are being "wiped" away at this moment by its moons.

What is the alternate explanation of how Earth came to have our Moon?
Oroblanco

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. lamar, you have done an excellent job of restating the theories of the old-earthers. The point concerning thermal energy is that the thermal energies generate by the supposed "clumping" would have off-set the lower energy of the slight gravitational pulls, thus cancelling the formation of any kind of large planatoid body.

The cores of Saturn and Jupiter are not exactly solid, but are thought to be liquid and since they are both still radiating energy, they are still "young" planets which brings up an enigma of how would a planet naturally occur with gravitational field so strong that it's core would be in a liquid state, but not pull the gases surrounding that core down to the core's surface? Jupiter's gravitational forces is so strong that there are "strings" of concentrated energies flowing between it and it's main moon. With so much pull; why is that moon still in orbit instead of it being pulled down into Jupiter's body if the solar system is billions of years old. In addition, just HOW are there alternating bands of clouds, rotating the planet that are not affected by such powerful forces? All indications are that Jupiter and Saturn are a lot younger that the 4.5 to 9 billion years of age (depending on who's paper you're reading.)

You're still ignoring the near perfect sphere of the moon; it's circular orbit that is NOT around the earth's equator; the fact that the moon could NOT have been a piece of the earth knocked off.

Mr. O, the speed of light has not been constant. In the early stages of the formation of the universe, the speed of light is now thought to have been virtually instantaneous. That is one possible explanation for how many cosmologists remarked that from their research, it appears that all of the stars just simply "snapped on" at the same time. If you'll remember, after the Hubble telescope got it's prescription glasses and they turned the scope to view the "supposed" 18 billion-year deep space field.......bam, no debris clouds or primitive pieces of stuff that they expected. Instead, they saw nothing but established galaxis filled with established suns. Isn't it interesting that there are galaxies out PAST the supposed edge of the universe? Shouldn't that support the theory that the speed of light was a whole lot faster "in the beginning"?

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. O, any debris knocked off and out into space would have kept going. The earth's gravitational pull would not have brought them to a stop and reversed their travel back toward itself and "clumped" it together. THEN, how would the earth's gravitational force start that clump of debris to orbiting about the planet.

You see, that's the basic problem with all of this "rotational" and "orbital" stuff if you're basing the formation of the universe on some fantasy Big Bang. An explosion in space sends debris in ALL directions in straight trajectories. That force would not induce rotational and orbital tracks. You can see a good example of this in the next large fireworks display you observe. When those big starbursts blow, that's a small scale "big bang". You'll notice that NONE of the pieces start orbiting eachother.

 

[bigwater]

But there is a gravitational pull between those firework elements... it's just that the earth's gravitational pull is stronger than the pull between the elements so they fall to the earth before they can begin to orbit each other. Put those elements in the right gravitational environment and they would start to orbit each other, and their orbits would eventually decay until they collided and became one combined object with twice the mass and twice the gravitational pull.

To put it in simple terms, an orbit is caused because one object is gravitating towards another object at a rate similar to the object it is gravitating towards is moving away from the trajectory of the gravitating object. The moon is "falling" towards the earth at amazing speed, however the earth keeps moving out of the direction the moon is traveling and the moon keeps adjusting it's trajectory to fall towards the earth. That creates an orbital pattern, but the moon never stops falling towards the earth. If the earth were to suddenly stop dead in it's tracks, the moon would crash down on it in no time. This is the same with the earth around the sun, the sun around the galaxay, the galaxy around the universe. It's all a matter of gravitational pull that keeps everything in rotation.

And of course this begs the question, what does the universe rotate around? Probably the next universe which is nothing more than the next atom over in the toenail of some creature much bigger than we are. Of course, every atom in your toenail could be a universe too

 

[lamar]

Mr. O, any debris knocked off and out into space would have kept going. The earth's gravitational pull would not have brought them to a stop and reversed their travel back toward itself and "clumped" it together. THEN, how would the earth's gravitational force start that clump of debris to orbiting about the planet.

You see, that's the basic problem with all of this "rotational" and "orbital" stuff if you're basing the formation of the universe on some fantasy Big Bang. An explosion in space sends debris in ALL directions in straight trajectories. That force would not induce rotational and orbital tracks. You can see a good example of this in the next large fireworks display you observe. When those big starbursts blow, that's a small scale "big bang". You'll notice that NONE of the pieces start orbiting eachother.

Dear Shortstack;
You are basing your assumptions on a "here & now" point of view, but in truth, things do not happen in space nearly as quickly. Remembering that mass attracts mass, our sun was formed when a giant cloud of molecular hydorgen and helium collapsed upon itself. This, of course, did not happen overnight. It took a very long time for this collapse to occur.

Now, after the gas cloud collapsed, the resulting sun started giving off a form of nuclear energy. Please note that even when our sun was still a giant gas cloud, it had relatively the same mass as it does today. The mass itself did not change, merely the DENSITY of the mass was altered.

And that is all that gravitational effects do in space/time. It alters and compresses mass. After the Big Bang, our young galaxy was filled with meandering debris. After a period, the larger chunks of debris started attracting smaller ones, over and over. As the mass of the body grew, so also grew it's gravitational pull, thus increasing it's mass by attracting ever more particle matter.

In fact, we can observe the remnants of this simply by studying the asteroid belts within our own system. The Main Belt is spread out between the orbital paths of Mars and Jupiter and two smaller clusters, named the Greeks and the Trojans, are in orbital paths roughly equi-distances from one another, but on opposite sides of the system and their orbital paths lie roughly on the same path as Jupiter. They are named the Greeks and the Trojans because their gravities seem to be locked in battle with one another, as were the Greeks and Trojans of history.

Moving outwards, the Kuiper Belt is situated roughly in the same orbital plane as Pluto. It is here that many periodic comets are thought to be spawned. People tend to visualize our system as a space largely void of celestial bodies, with only the Sun in the center and the 9 planets revolving in orbit around it (and yes, dear friends, Pluto is STILL considered by myself to be a planet!) The fact is that our system is very densely populated with cosmic dust, gases, and other cosmic flotsam left over from the Big Bang.

We can study visual photographs of this event which were taken by the Hubble and Spitzer telescopes and also from the various unmanned Solar System vehicles, such as the Voyager probes.

Once an object enters space, ANY object, it IS subjected to the gravitational effects of it's closest neighbor. Also, please note that velocity increases the gravitational effect of all objects in motion as well. We can verify this fact by strapping ourselves onto a rocket, then attempting to raise one of our hands during the launch sequence. We soon find that we are not able to lift as much as a finger, this is how intense the gravitational forces become during launch sequence.

In order for a body to be able to overcome the gravitational effects of any larger celestial body, it needs either a mass which is greater than the other body, or it needs to have a higher velocity than that body, or any combination of both equations. This is known as the escape velocity, in that a body, be it natural or man-made, has suffiecent mass/speed in order to be able to escape the gravitational effects of the larger mass and thereby be able to continue travelling outwards.

As space travellers, we can use this free type of acceleration to our advantage. First, our spacecraft, enters into an orbit with a large body, such as Jupiter and it gets *locked in* Jupiters' gravitational field. At this point we start whizzing around jupiter, faster and faster until, right before we reach a decaying orbit (one which will pull our craft to the surface of Jupiter) we hit the gas and break free from Jupiters' orbit.

Once we've broken free from Jupiters' gravitational pull, we find ourselves REALLY cooking along! This is because we've managed our fuel resources nicely and used Jupiters' gravity in order to propel our craft MUCH faster than we would have been able to do by using only our onboard engines.

This is known as *gravity assist* although some scientists liken it to the *slingshot effect*, that being that the same principles apply to spacecraft as the ones which propel a rock from an old-style sling, such as the one David used to slay Goliath. Also, one after-effect of this assisted acceleration is that the vehicular body *steals* a tiny portion of the larger mass' gravitational energy, thus reducing the larger bodys' gravitational force by an ever-so tiny amount.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

But there is a gravitational pull between those firework elements... it's just that the earth's gravitational pull is stronger than the pull between the elements so they fall to the earth before they can begin to orbit each other. Put those elements in the right gravitational environment and they would start to orbit each other, and their orbits would eventually decay until they collided and became one combined object with twice the mass and twice the gravitational pull.

To put it in simple terms, an orbit is caused because one object is gravitating towards another object at a rate similar to the object it is gravitating towards is moving away from the trajectory of the gravitating object. The moon is "falling" towards the earth at amazing speed, however the earth keeps moving out of the direction the moon is traveling and the moon keeps adjusting it's trajectory to fall towards the earth. That creates an orbital pattern, but the moon never stops falling towards the earth. If the earth were to suddenly stop dead in it's tracks, the moon would crash down on it in no time. This is the same with the earth around the sun, the sun around the galaxay, the galaxy around the universe. It's all a matter of gravitational pull that keeps everything in rotation.

And of course this begs the question, what does the universe rotate around? Probably the next universe which is nothing more than the next atom over in the toenail of some creature much bigger than we are. Of course, every atom in your toenail could be a universe too

Dear Bigwater;
Yes, this is a valid concept, my friend. We know that objects falling away from the Sun travel slower and objects travelling towards the Sun travel faster as they grow closer to the Sun. Everything in the universe has a velocity and as such, in order to overtake any object, the object in question needs to have more velocity than the body which it's trying to overtake.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Rebel - KGC]

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. lamar and Mr. bigwater. Both of you are jumping around, pulling bits and pieces of information together to support your weak theory. Your own theory of the Big Bang says that there was NOT mass, just energy that supposedly formed the basic Hydrogen atom. Again, there was NO MASS in the aftermath of the big boom. Remember, "nothing" exploded and created "everything", but the first things were just the basic hydrogen atoms that have no mass and therefore no gravitational effect on one another.

Mr. bigwater, your statement that those firework particles would eventually begin orbital motions around eachother if they didn't fall to earth, is absurd. THINK about you said. Those particles, just as the Big Bang atoms, would travel outward from the centerpoint of the explosion in STRAIGHT lines; getting further and further apart from eachother. They would never collide with eachother and; since nothing else was "out there" when the primordial energy particle exploded, they would NOT come in contact with anything else to have their trajectories CHANGED. They would simply keep going in their own, individual courses. They would keep travelling in their own straight lines, outward to more and more "aloneness". After a while, they would not even be in sight of eachother.

If you're having trouble visualizing the concept, then take a pencil, a ruler, and a piece of clean paper and put a "point" on the paper. Then, draw 2 straight lines coming off of that point to form an angle (any angle) at the apex. Keep extending those lines straight out. Do the outer ends of the lines get closer together as they go out? Or do they get further apart? That will give you a 2 dimensional picture of a 4 dimensional idea concerning the expanding particles. The Big Bang is just a theory; a theory that frankly makes no sense whatsoever.

If the Three Laws of Thermodynamics are true; the Big Bang is false. Heck, if just the SECOND Law of Thermodynamics is true, the Big Bang is false.

Mr. lamar, you stated that a cloud of hydrogen and helium molecules "colasped" and formed our sun. HOW? What conceivable reason would cause a cloud of gas to "suck" itself into a smaller and smaller size to the point to where it would ignite itself. Clouds of gas just expands until it dissipates. What magical method caused that old cloud of gas to do the impossible? And please don't say gravity. Gravity requires some type of mass to exist. Gas clouds do not have the concentrated mass to initiate a gravitational force.