-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What's wrong with physics?
- Thread starter Native
- Start date
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Come on! Once again you conflict drag resistance pressure for your occult agency.
What is the density of matter close to the Earth? How much drag does that produce? Give details.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Of course . . .
Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment - Wikipedia
since the atmospheric pressure is the same on all objects and it is only the sizes and air friction which affects a falling bowling ball and a feather.
Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment - Wikipedia
since the atmospheric pressure is the same on all objects and it is only the sizes and air friction which affects a falling bowling ball and a feather.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Do your own homework.
I have. It doesn't support your views.
You like to show the shock wave from the solar wind on the Earth magnetic field and the connection (valid) between that and aurora borealis displays.
But how much material is actually involved? Have *you* done the research into that? How much actual pressure does it produce? Do you have any idea? How would such pressure affect the dynamics of our atmosphere? Do you have any idea?
If you actually do the research, you will find space is mostly empty, has very, very little pressure, and so have almost no effect on the motion of the Earth nor of the weather systems.
In other words, if you had done your research, you would find your claims are not supported by the evidence.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Why should I believe in your homework as you probably have failed to do your philosophical work of pattern recognition as usual?
You forget to include the orbital velocities.
Gas trail on Venus. This trail wouldn´t occur if there was no orbital pressure and the motions goes from a pressure in the orbital direction and behind the planet, causing a pressure lee side behind the planet. (The spacecraft slingshot effect)
Quote from - The tail of Venus
"Nevertheless, one can observe an ionosphere on Venus' night side. "Measurements performed by older space probes have shown electrons and ions flowing from the day side to the night side", says Fränz. This flow is driven by the high plasma pressure on the day side. Like a compressed gas escaping from a pressure cylinder, the plasma travels from a region with high pressure to one with lower pressure".
Now I´ve done some of your relevant homework again, and it´s funny that I almost alwas have to find the relevant alternate and complementary informations for you.
Find the patterns before you assume from your fragmented and disconnected examples in your science. And before you do your matemathical number acrobatics.
No, this is NOT orbital pressure! This is pressure from solar wind. The tail is NOT behind the motion of Venus, but on its *dark side*, the side away from the *sun*. You are 90 degrees off in your interpretation.
Furthermore, how *much* gas and how much pressure is involved here? If you took a barometer to that front shock wave, what would the pressure be?
Do you care to guess? What would you bet it should be?
My bet is that the pressure here is still far, far less than any vacuum we can produce on Earth. If there are 100 molecules per cubic centimeter, I would be surprised.
Oh, wait. The link *you* provided gives the answer! The particle density from the solar wind at Venus during this event was .2 particles per cubic centimeter. This was a low point, with the usual amount being 50 times higher, which would put it at 10 particles per cubic centimeter.
Let's compare that to ordinary atmospheric pressure. On Earth, the number of molecules in one cubic centimeter of air is about 300 quintillion. So we are comparing the pressure of 300 quintillion molecules and *at most* 10 molecules per cubic centimeter.
Once again, that is an almost perfect vacuum and would have NO effect on the actual air pressure at the surface, nor in the motion of the planet.
You seem to think the solar wind is strong enough to blow your hair back. In reality, even the strongest solar wind is an incredibly good vacuum.
In other words, you both misunderstood the picture you gave AND way, way ove-estimated the size of the effect. If you were to go through that 'shock wave', you would not notice ANY difference at all.
Maybe you should actually *read* the articles you link to. They tend NOT to support your viewpoints.
Other quotes from The tail of Venus that seem relevant for this discussion:
""Venus not only lacks a magnetic field of its own. She also rotates much slower", he adds. For one rotation Venus takes a little more than 224 Earth days."
Hmmm...no magnetic field of its own. Doesn't that sort of disprove the magnetic field/atmosphere link proposed by EU?
"With the help of the magnetometer MAG and the instrument ASPERA-4 (Analyser of Space Plasmas and Energetic Atoms) on board Venus Express, the researchers were able to take a closer look. They found that in events of weak solar wind Venus' ionosphere is not magnetized. Under normal conditions, these induced magnetic fields bind the charged particles of the ionosphere close to the planet. When the solar wind breaks off, however, the ionosphere in the region between the day and night side can expand. "The charged particles can therefore reach the night side more easily and in greater number", says Fränz. There, a sort of plasma balloon is created that extends into space like a tail. The whole ionosphere thus takes on a tear-shaped form."
So, it is actually when there is LESS solar wind that the ionosphere of Venus can expand and we see this tail. So it isn't a drag effect at all, but rather an expansion because there is LESS drag.
""Measurements performed by older space probes have shown electrons and ions flowing from the day side to the night side", says Fränz. This flow is driven by the high plasma pressure on the day side. Like a compressed gas escaping from a pressure cylinder, the plasma travels from a region with high pressure to one with lower pressure."
This was quoted before, but we should look at it closer. The electrons are flowing from the day side to the night side. That means from the side facing the *sun* to the side away from the sun. The direction of the orbit is NOT in the direction of the sun, but is 90 degrees from that direction.
That shows this has NOTHING to do with any type of *orbital* drag force.
So, once again, can you show *any* evidence of an *orbital drag force*?
""Venus not only lacks a magnetic field of its own. She also rotates much slower", he adds. For one rotation Venus takes a little more than 224 Earth days."
Hmmm...no magnetic field of its own. Doesn't that sort of disprove the magnetic field/atmosphere link proposed by EU?
"With the help of the magnetometer MAG and the instrument ASPERA-4 (Analyser of Space Plasmas and Energetic Atoms) on board Venus Express, the researchers were able to take a closer look. They found that in events of weak solar wind Venus' ionosphere is not magnetized. Under normal conditions, these induced magnetic fields bind the charged particles of the ionosphere close to the planet. When the solar wind breaks off, however, the ionosphere in the region between the day and night side can expand. "The charged particles can therefore reach the night side more easily and in greater number", says Fränz. There, a sort of plasma balloon is created that extends into space like a tail. The whole ionosphere thus takes on a tear-shaped form."
So, it is actually when there is LESS solar wind that the ionosphere of Venus can expand and we see this tail. So it isn't a drag effect at all, but rather an expansion because there is LESS drag.
""Measurements performed by older space probes have shown electrons and ions flowing from the day side to the night side", says Fränz. This flow is driven by the high plasma pressure on the day side. Like a compressed gas escaping from a pressure cylinder, the plasma travels from a region with high pressure to one with lower pressure."
This was quoted before, but we should look at it closer. The electrons are flowing from the day side to the night side. That means from the side facing the *sun* to the side away from the sun. The direction of the orbit is NOT in the direction of the sun, but is 90 degrees from that direction.
That shows this has NOTHING to do with any type of *orbital* drag force.
So, once again, can you show *any* evidence of an *orbital drag force*?
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
As usual you´re confusing a "local planetary particle density" as a "gravitational force" whithout including the overall orbital velocity pressure force on a planet.
The historic aether and drag theory exclusion.
History of gravitational theory - Wikipedia
"Newton (1717) and Leonhard Euler (1760) proposed a model in which the aether loses density near mass, leading to a net force acting on bodies. Further mechanical explanations of gravitation (including Le Sage's theory) were created between 1650 and 1900 to explain Newton's theory, but mechanistic models eventually fell out of favor because most of them lead to an unacceptable amount of drag (air resistance), which was not observed. Others violate the energy conservation law and are incompatible with modern thermodynamics".
Even your guru Newton once accepted this orbital drag motion!
This aether-drag on planets was not observed in Newtons time - and the dogmatic consensus believers are still stuck in Newtons own time and have failed to by updated to modern times.
No, I am not. The local particle density relates to the *pressure*, not the gravity.
THERE IS NO ORBITAL PRESSURE.
And there has never been an observation of aether drag. As this article points out, it was abandoned because it made predictions that did not agree with observation.
Once again, you focus on what has been discarded because it has been shown to be wrong as opposed to the theories that actually work.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
The historic aether and drag theory exclusion.
History of gravitational theory - Wikipedia
Newton (1717) and Leonhard Euler (1760) proposed a model in which the aether loses density near mass, leading to a net force acting on bodies. Further mechanical explanations of gravitation (including Le Sage's theory) were created between 1650 and 1900 to explain Newton's theory, but mechanistic models eventually fell out of favor because most of them lead to an unacceptable amount of drag (air resistance), which was not observed. Others violate the energy conservation law and are incompatible with modern thermodynamics.
I would reccomend you to use analythic logics when reading sentenses in a quotation.
They LEFT the idea because it led lead to an unacceptable amount of drag (air resistance) - If they had followed their initial idea, the air resistance/drag would show up to be real.
Rubbish! It was because the factual drag/air restistance would have confused and contradicted their gravitational assumptions and measurements.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
Your time is wasted, is because you cannot prove EU is a valid scientific model, and you have no evidence to support and verify EU.
Instead you have spent all your time doing philosophical posturing - pondering & musing - which have nothing to do with scientific investigation.
This type of philosophy has nothing to do with Natural Philosophy and nothing to do with analytical reasoning; no this is just you, doing sophistry.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
BRAVO MR. GNOSTIC!
For once you´ve expressed independent sentenses of your own.
You´re one I have wasted the main part on of my time here as you don´t grasp anything at all, not even the huge amount of your own copy-pasting parottings.
You don´t even understand a written message:
NOTE:
I´m throttling down my time here for the moment and I´m prioritizing my participation according having time to waste - as most of it is wasted anyway.
gnostic
The Lost One
The funny thing is that you don’t even understand the source you quoted from The Tail of Venus and note what I had highlighted in red -
In red, your source (Fränz) clearly indicated that the tail is caused by the solar winds (coming from the Sun), leaving electrons and ion behind the dark sides of Venus...
...you claimed that the tail is caused by the orbital pressures of Venus’ orbital motion, which would mean as Venus move forward “perpendicular to the sun“, THEN this tail should also be perpendicular to the Sun but “behind Venus’ forward motion”, the observation should not tail on the dark side of Venus, if what you said was true about the orbital pressures.
What you are saying that the solar winds from the sun on the day side, but then the trail of electrons and ion has turn 90 degree from the Sun, all due to orbital pressures, you are not thinking logical at all.
But your claims about tail being caused by orbital pressures, is not only “not true”, you simply didn’t understand the image from your source...
(A) ...you had either totally ignore what your source was saying that I had highlighted in red...
(B) ...or you didn’t understand from your source (highlighted in red)...
(C) ...or it was both.
(B) ...or you didn’t understand from your source (highlighted in red)...
(C) ...or it was both.
And no where in all that you have quoted from your source, did Franz ever mention anything about “orbital pressures”. So not only you didn’t understand Franz, you are trying to put words in Franz’s mouth that he didn’t say. Your comments on Franz’s explanations, don’t match with Franz’s explanation, nor match with the observations of “Venus’ tail”. What you are saying and doing are not at all logical.
You keep telling other members that they haven’t been thinking analytically, nor independently, but when you don’t understand the source that you had quoted yourself, then you are the who failed to reason analytically.
And this isn’t the only time you have quoted source that you didn’t clearly understand. You do often, not just in this thread, but other threads you have created.
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
I don't know about those but I believe in Newton's theory of gravity which if you think is unsubstantiated then you are simply and demonstrably incorrect.
So again, this this theory has been tested and found correct at the atomic scale, sub-millimeter scale, several laboratory tests, geophysical tests, movable field masses tests, satellite tests, inner and outer solar system tests and that doesn't even get into the even far more exact tests of general relativity and space travel which isn't just movement in space but escape velocity and landing.
Are those all a big coincidence?
It sounds like speculation because you refuse to accept the actual science done to demonstrate the reality of these things. I mean, you just did it right there ^ completely ignoring all the positive tests done on gravity?
The assumption of dark things has provided some evidence. Why would science propose something, test it, get positive feedback then just quit there?
That's just dark matter. Black holes have been not only imaged exactly as predicted by relativity but we have seen large enough masses drawing stellar matter into it, completely confirmed neutron stars as well as other types of degenerate matter stars and even measured gravity waves produced by black holes.
So which part of this sounds like superstition?