Thread: The Sun is expanding, or are we moving closer?

It is said that the Sun is expanding, it is also said that the Universe is expanding.

Would this not look the same , if we were moving closer to the Sun.

The Sun would look bigger, and the Universe would look a further distance away?.

wat

Originally Posted by theorist

It is said that the Sun is expanding, it is also said that the Universe is expanding.

Would this not look the same , if we were moving closer to the Sun.

The Sun would look bigger, and the Universe would look a further distance away?.

The sun is not expanding. In about another 5 million years, it will expand into a red giant. We are not moving closer to the sun.

Originally Posted by theorist

if we were moving closer to the Sun.

The Sun would look bigger, and the Universe would look a further distance away?.

There you have it..... the cause of global warming found!!!!!

Originally Posted by AlexG

The sun is not expanding. In about another 5 million years, it will expand into a red giant. We are not moving closer to the sun.

I thought the length of time, for the Red Giant stage, was around 5 billion years!

Originally Posted by AlexG

Originally Posted by theorist

It is said that the Sun is expanding, it is also said that the Universe is expanding.

Would this not look the same , if we were moving closer to the Sun.

The Sun would look bigger, and the Universe would look a further distance away?.

The sun is not expanding. In about another 5 million years, it will expand into a red giant. We are not moving closer to the sun.

Thank you for your post, every where I look on the internet it says the Sun is expanding, so that is why I ask.

So if the fact is, that it is not expanding, then my thoughts are pointless.

Is the Sun producing more energy output?

Originally Posted by theorist

Thank you for your post, every where I look on the internet it says the Sun is expanding, so that is why I ask.

Could you provide a link, because I have not heard this before.

Is the Sun producing more energy output?

It varies slightly all the time (up and down), I believe. But only by a pretty small amount. It may have contributed to climate change in the past. (Although other factors are probably much greater).

None of which has any connection at all with cosmic expansion, which doesn't happen locally. Where "local" means several millions of light years.

Originally Posted by theorist

Originally Posted by AlexG

Originally Posted by theorist

It is said that the Sun is expanding, it is also said that the Universe is expanding.

Would this not look the same , if we were moving closer to the Sun.

The Sun would look bigger, and the Universe would look a further distance away?.

The sun is not expanding. In about another 5 million years, it will expand into a red giant. We are not moving closer to the sun.

Thank you for your post, every where I look on the internet it says the Sun is expanding, so that is why I ask.

Even if the Sun were expanding, it couldn't be explained away by us moving closer to the Sun. For one, if we were getting closer to the Sun, our orbit would be decreasing and thus the length of the year.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by AlexG

The sun is not expanding. In about another 5 million years, it will expand into a red giant. We are not moving closer to the sun.

I thought the length of time, for the Red Giant stage, was around 5 billion years!

Yup, typo on my part.

Even if the Sun were expanding, it couldn't be explained away by us moving closer to the Sun. For one, if we were getting closer to the Sun, our orbit would be decreasing and thus the length of the year.[/QUOTE]


A year as a length only in a relative sense. There is no time as I see it, only velocity and distance.

So if we were closer to the Sun at any given time, due to the shift in energy output and decrease output from the sun. There would be later winters, the seasons would switch surely regardless of what we perceive to be time.

Or maybe on a different thought , Unexplained weather events, as our orbit often changes maybe, more than we think it doe's.

But as someone explained, the sun is not expanding, so view perspective could not be used in this thought.

Sorry strange have looked for the link and can not find it now, however there is some videos on youtube saying this also.

Originally Posted by theorist

Even if the Sun were expanding, it couldn't be explained away by us moving closer to the Sun. For one, if we were getting closer to the Sun, our orbit would be decreasing and thus the length of the year.

A year as a length only in a relative sense. There is no time as I see it, only velocity and distance.

So if we were closer to the Sun at any given time, due to the shift in energy output and decrease output from the sun. There would be later winters, the seasons would switch surely regardless of what we perceive to be time.

[/QUOTE] But there would be fewer days between those seasonal changes. Moving in closer to the Sun would not change the rotation of the Earth. And even if you try to claim that it would, then our clocks (which run independent of the Earth's rotation, would drift out of sync with the sunrise and sunset.

It's not just a matter of "Oh, the sun isn't expanding so never mind", It's also a matter of thinking through all the consequences of an idea or suggestion before you throw it out there.

Originally Posted by Janus

There is no time as I see it, only velocity and distance.

How do you have velocity if there's no time?

Originally Posted by Janus

For one, if we were getting closer to the Sun, our orbit would be decreasing and thus the length of the year.

I'm not following that statement. The length of a year is the time it takes to complete one orbit of the sun. That orbit is based on the the suns center of gravity and not on the diameter of the sun. Yes our seasons would change a lot but not the length of a year.

The length of a year is the time it takes to complete one orbit of the sun.

And lower orbits are faster, so if the earth were closer to the sun's center of gravity, it would move faster. A faster orbit with a decreased circumference yields a shorter year.

Originally Posted by AlexG

The length of a year is the time it takes to complete one orbit of the sun.

And lower orbits are faster, so if the earth were closer to the sun's center of gravity, it would move faster. A faster orbit with a decreased circumference yields a shorter year.

But why would the orbit change at all? If the sun expands it doesn't change the center of gravity or the distance from it. The earth might be closer to the surface of the sun, but that's it. It's orbit would remain unchanged.

But why would the orbit change at all?

It wouldn't. Janus was merely giving a hypothetical.

Originally Posted by arKane

Originally Posted by Janus

For one, if we were getting closer to the Sun, our orbit would be decreasing and thus the length of the year.

I'm not following that statement. The length of a year is the time it takes to complete one orbit of the sun. That orbit is based on the the suns center of gravity and not on the diameter of the sun. Yes our seasons would change a lot but not the length of a year.

Re-Read the quote. He said, "If we were getting closer to the Sun," not "If the Sun were expanding." You mistook the suggestion that we were getting closer to mean, 'getting closer due to the Sun expanding.'
But it was the other part of Theorists question that Janus addressed- he asked if it would appear the same from our perspective if the Sun were expanding or if we were getting closer to the Sun.
It would not look the same.

It's not just a matter of "Oh, the sun isn't expanding so never mind", It's also a matter of thinking through all the consequences of an idea or suggestion before you throw it out there.[/QUOTE]

I do apologize, My thoughts often become entangled as i am trying to explain a picture of my thoughts.

If time really mattered, then our orbital of the Sun would be constant. The orbital would be the exact same path every year of orbit.

I see that we wobble along this axis, so past and the future are the same.

I am sorry I have confused my own thoughts again sorry.

A zig zag as such.......but still on a plotted axis..the orbit.

I am sorry this is hard to explain, sometimes I am not sure what I am on about, I can just picture something different than the perceived views.

I will clear my head and come back with a better explanation, I apologize.

I hopefully this time will try to explain better.

From a view perspective, as we travel towards any object, the object becomes relatively bigger. Although that object doe's not change size, distance changes visual perspective.

If we was to look behind us , as we moved ahead, mass becomes relative smaller as the distance lengthens.


So if we have a central point of view, the SUN. If we was to get closer to the sun, the sun would look bigger, and behind us the universe would look further away and smaller.

If this was to happen , only the smallest of movement towards the SUN, would make the sun look enlarged.<expanded>.

Hopefully you understand so far what I mean.

Then I considered that maybe our orbital of the SUN, we could be spiraling on a wobbly orbit even though we have our own rotation.
So sometimes we could be closer and sometimes further away from the SUN, not millions of miles, just 1ft difference could have effect on global and yearly temperatures.

I then considered what would make us move closer or move away from the SUN, and then considered the different energy outputs from the SUN, a shift in energy must surely mean a change in gravity on the size and scale of the SUN.

These are just my thought's to explain what I was trying to explain, and hopefully written better.

Originally Posted by theorist

Then I considered that maybe our orbital of the SUN, we could be spiraling on a wobbly orbit even though we have our own rotation.

The Earth's orbit is not circular - in other words sometimes we're "close" and other times we're "far away".

just 1ft difference could have effect on global and yearly temperatures.

Bull.
The existing variation is roughly 5 MILLION kilometres - that makes a ~5 degree difference.
Which is MORE than offset by the axial tilt (~30 degrees).

Please, stop speculating and try to learn something before posting.

Originally Posted by theorist

... just 1ft difference could have effect on global and yearly temperatures.

And that is why it is considerably hotter at the top of a skyscraper than at the bottom.
If they built skyscrapers any taller, the tops would literally catch fire.

You can see further evidence of this by the fact that the higher a mountain, the less snow there is.
In fact, mountains are the least likely places to find snow.
Also, climbers who attempt to reach the summit of Mount Everest have to strip down to their shorts to keep cool.



TBH: I would even be careful going upstairs - the additional 9ft could roast you alive.

Originally Posted by theorist

and behind us the universe would look further away and smaller.

And we don't see that either.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by theorist

Then I considered that maybe our orbital of the SUN, we could be spiraling on a wobbly orbit even though we have our own rotation.

The Earth's orbit is not circular - in other words sometimes we're "close" and other times we're "far away".

I know the Earths orbit is not circular, and I know the far away and close that you mean. I meant Less diameter and more diameter of orbit.
Imagine a balloons surface, imagine inside that balloon suspended in mid air,a central point of view, but slightly off center.
This view represents the sun.

The outer service of the balloon is out orbit of the Sun.

Inflate the balloon, deflate the balloon slightly at rapid intervals.

This would give a S like shape, but a continuous shape on a plotted path.

And at times, maybe the S as bigger curves .

A spiraled orbital from twisted magnetic forces that interfere with the gravity.

just 1ft difference could have effect on global and yearly temperatures.

Bull.
The existing variation is roughly 5 MILLION kilometres - that makes a ~5 degree difference.
Which is MORE than offset by the axial tilt (~30 degrees).

Please, stop speculating and try to learn something before posting.

I am learning and have stopped speculating, I just wanted to explain my thoughts, not known fact, on the sun and our orbit. It;s just a thought.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by theorist

... just 1ft difference could have effect on global and yearly temperatures.

And that is why it is considerably hotter at the top of a skyscraper than at the bottom.
If they built skyscrapers any taller, the tops would literally catch fire.

You can see further evidence of this by the fact that the higher a mountain, the less snow there is.
In fact, mountains are the least likely places to find snow.
Also, climbers who attempt to reach the summit of Mount Everest have to strip down to their shorts to keep cool.



TBH: I would even be careful going upstairs - the additional 9ft could roast you alive.

Or is this fact that there is thinner air, more nitrogen, and closer to space.....

I believe the word you're looking for is 'sarcasm'.

i told him to NOT take off his mask.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I believe the word you're looking for is 'sarcasm'.

I was been sarcastic with my reply.

So the Sun , it as a faster velocity equator?

Sun spots are just a curvature of magnetic energy creating a repelling effect of the gases?

The Sun creates solar winds?

Originally Posted by theorist

I am learning and have stopped speculating

And yet you post this in the very same message:

I know the Earths orbit is not circular, and I know the far away and close that you mean. I meant Less diameter and more diameter of orbit.

"Not circular" MEANS "less and more diameter of orbit" depending on current position along the orbit.

This would give a S like shape, but a continuous shape on a plotted path.

Sheer nonsense. We know how celestial mechanics works.

A spiraled orbital from twisted magnetic forces that interfere with the gravity.

Huh? Again, uninformed speculation.

A spiraled orbital from twisted magnetic forces that interfere with the gravity.

Huh? Again, uninformed speculation.[/QUOTE]

Doe's, or doe's not the Sun switch polarities?

Doe's or doe's not the Sun have different velocities of its gases and plasma? creating a web like effect of magnetism.

Originally Posted by theorist

Doe's, or doe's not the Sun switch polarities?

Doe's or doe's not the Sun have different velocities of its gases and plasma? creating a web like effect of magnetism.

Which has what to do with "twisted magnetic forces that interfere with the gravity"?
How does that work?

The universe is not expanding.

Originally Posted by Plautus

The universe is not expanding.

And your evidence for that is?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Plautus

The universe is not expanding.

And your evidence for that is?

We see no evidence of any expansion, so no falsification is required. It is deemed false until evidence suggests otherwise. This is how science works.

Originally Posted by Plautus

We see no evidence of any expansion, so no falsification is required. It is deemed false until evidence suggests otherwise. This is how science works.

Cosmological red shift?

Originally Posted by Strange

Cosmological red shift?

Non sequitur?

Originally Posted by Plautus

Non sequitur?

Simply using the word does not magically make it apply. If you have reasonable support for excusing cosmological redshift- Begin presenting that support instead of falsely accusing others of fallacies. After-all, lying is the biggest fallacy of all.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

If you have reasonable support for excusing cosmological redshift

You're going to have to explain what you mean by "cosmological redshift". I find when dealing with faith-based beliefs the best first step is to pin the believer down to a concrete and detailed description of their beliefs.

Originally Posted by Plautus

You're going to have to explain what you mean by "cosmological redshift". I find when dealing with faith-based beliefs the best first step is to pin the believer down to a concrete and detailed description of their beliefs.

Yeah, yeah... your tactic is simply to derail the conversation to spare yourself from providing any evidence. I won't give that opportunity- since Cosmological Redshift has an established definition... You may refute the established definition rather than nitpick at a forum posters words.

Begin with demonstrating how the Established Definition is false.

Cosmological Redshift | COSMOS
Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is a .pdf file- first page is blank: http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/p...DavisSciAm.pdf

Originally Posted by Plautus

Originally Posted by Strange

Cosmological red shift?

Non sequitur?

OK. And all the evidence disappears with a wave of your hand! Brilliant. Is this ignorance or trolling ... hard to tell.

You are obviously not interested in a discussion of science. You are just here to say, "no it isn't". That is not an argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Plautus

You're going to have to explain what you mean by "cosmological redshift". I find when dealing with faith-based beliefs the best first step is to pin the believer down to a concrete and detailed description of their beliefs.

Yeah, yeah... your tactic is simply to derail the conversation to spare yourself from providing any evidence. I won't give that opportunity- since Cosmological Redshift has an established definition... You may refute the established definition rather than nitpick at a forum posters words.

Begin with demonstrating how the Established Definition is false.

Cosmological Redshift | COSMOS
Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is a .pdf file- first page is blank: http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/p...DavisSciAm.pdf

deflection+c = distance of infa red?

reflection+c=distance of UV?

i'm not really a friend of an expanding universe, but according to observations it leads to only that conclusion for now; and probably will for a loooonngggg time.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by theorist

Doe's, or doe's not the Sun switch polarities?

Doe's or doe's not the Sun have different velocities of its gases and plasma? creating a web like effect of magnetism.

Which has what to do with "twisted magnetic forces that interfere with the gravity"?
How does that work?

Try this diagram, if there was only gravity as the red line indicates, the directional force would be equally pulling, we would not sit in orbit of the sun. We would suck into the sun.

The earth and the sun would pull each other closer.

The grey lines represent magnetism, the suns positive and the earths negative magnetism.

Twist the poles of the sun and imagine how the magnetism spirals and twists with the change of poles.

Now imagine the suns different surface velocities , different twists of force....I tried to draw this picture but was really complicated.

you ever seen a ball dancing on a magnet?

Originally Posted by curious mind

you ever seen a ball dancing on a magnet?

I have now..

Huge Electromagnetic Dancing Balls - YouTube

good, work from there.

Originally Posted by curious mind

good, work from there.

Thank you Curious, I can not see the context on why I should take it from there, any magnetic testing I would deem as inconclusive as we have Atmosphere unlike space.

Atmosphere changing the buoyancy .......

Magnetic fields pull and push depending on polarity.

Two magnets of equal mass would move together to close any adjoining space<room>.

Can you please explain the context of your post and the meaning..?

Originally Posted by theorist

Try this diagram, if there was only gravity as the red line indicates, the directional force would be equally pulling, we would not sit in orbit of the sun. We would suck into the sun.

That is utter rubbish. We are orbiting that is why we don't get "sucked into the sun".

The earth and the sun would pull each other closer.

The grey lines represent magnetism, the suns positive and the earths negative magnetism.

If you did the basic arithmetic to compare the strength of these forces, you would realise that the magnetic fields have no significant effect.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by theorist

Try this diagram, if there was only gravity as the red line indicates, the directional force would be equally pulling, we would not sit in orbit of the sun. We would suck into the sun.

That is utter rubbish. We are orbiting that is why we don't get "sucked into the sun".

the sun as gravity, true or false?
the Earth as gravity,true or force?
gravity as a pulling effect. true or force?

if all 3 answers are true, then no, by right we should be sucked into the sun.

and the sun would also suck into us.

The earth and the sun would pull each other closer.

The grey lines represent magnetism, the suns positive and the earths negative magnetism.

If you did the basic arithmetic to compare the strength of these forces, you would realise that the magnetic fields have no significant effect.

Please explain, how can arithmetic explain a force? is a force not an unseen anomoly?

Originally Posted by theorist

the sun as gravity, true or false?

True.
And the word is "has".

the Earth as gravity,true or force?

True.
And the word is "has".

gravity as a pulling effect. true or force?

True.
And the word is "has".

if all 3 answers are true, then no, by right we should be sucked into the sun.

Wrong.

and the sun would also suck into us.

Also wrong.
If you have a stone on the end of a piece of string and whirl it round your head why doesn't the stone fly away?

is a force not an unseen anomoly?

No.
There's nothing "anomalous" about force.

Thank you Dyw, for your answers.

Why does a stone on a string not fly away when rotating, because the string is attached I presume. Cut the string and it would fly off. So what string holds us to the sun and stops us flying off?.

The old views was magnetism in a flat universe, Newton proposed calculations, that were proved later to be flawed and the moon was off position by about 10 ft to his calculations and explanation of gravity.

Then came along Einstein, a great, confused mind, who had to have is teacher write and calculate his first maths on relativity according to what I have read.
Einstein created a better explanation of gravity to more accuracy, and seen our orbit , and that the sun , sunk in space, curving space creating an indentation in space,like a pebble thrown into a pond.
And our planet and other planets simply rotated around this indentation at a constant velocity. However, Einstein and many other great scientists of our time, could nether answer the one question, why and how gravity truly existed and why sub atomic particles were not effected.
So to this day , we are and still have the uncertainty of what gravity actually is.

grav.jpg

So with a little thougth, I have drawn this diagram, forgive the rushed drawing, it was hard to consider and visualize.

Looking at the yellow circle and the surrounding grey circles, imagine this as our planets orbiting the sun. Imagine them sitting in sunken space as Einstein explains gravity, like water going down the plug hole, but the plug always is there.......

Now all the red dots on the outer diameter represent the rest of the universe.

Now look at the white rings, this represents my view prospective looking through a black hole, imaging us and our orbits inside the black hole.

Is this possible, could we be inside a black hole and this causes the rotation of planets, centrifugal forces from an exterior rotating force. A 4th dimension to time and space. Would this explain why we are at the centre of the Universe rotating, and the rest of our Universe is expanding as we see the dopler red effect, as the hole starts to collapse and our outer universe becomes more repelled by centrifugal force?.

I've thought from the beginning that theorist is a troll, and nothing in the past 50 posts has changed my mind.

Such refusal to learn must be willful.

Originally Posted by theorist

Why does a stone on a string not fly away when rotating, because the string is attached I presume. Cut the string and it would fly off. So what string holds us to the sun and stops us flying off?.

Gravity. You are trying to understand things like quarks when you don't even understand the simple concept of "orbit". We will come back to that in a while because I want to address a couple of other points first.

The old views was magnetism in a flat universe,

I don't believe there has ever been a view that magnetism was involved.

Newton proposed calculations, that were proved later to be flawed and the moon was off position by about 10 ft to his calculations and explanation of gravity.

Newton's calculations were not flawed. And the moon has nothing to do with it. You may be thinking of Mercury, but I don't where you get "10 ft" from.

Then came along Einstein, a great, confused mind, who had to have is teacher write and calculate his first maths on relativity according to what I have read.

Einstein was not "confused"; he was a very clear thinker. And he certainly did not have to have his teacher do his maths for him. To develop general relativity he head to learn a whole new form of mathematics. He got his colleagues to help him and got on and mastered it.

And our planet and other planets simply rotated around this indentation at a constant velocity.

Not at a constant velocity; they are constantly accelerating. Not even a constant speed in most cases.

However, Einstein and many other great scientists of our time, could nether answer the one question, why and how gravity truly existed and why sub atomic particles were not effected.

Einstein explained how gravity works. As to "why" gravity or the universe or chocolate exists; that has nothing to do with physics. (And "why and how" are two questions )

And subatomic particles are affected by gravity in exactly the same way as everything else.

So to this day , we are and still have the uncertainty of what gravity actually is.

You might not but I think "we" do.

So with a little thought, I have drawn this diagram ...

Remaining ignorant rubbish ignored for the moment.

Originally Posted by theorist

Why does a stone on a string not fly away when rotating, because the string is attached I presume. Cut the string and it would fly off. So what string holds us to the sun and stops us flying off?.

OK. Let's try and explain the idea of orbits.

If you hold a stone in you hand and let go, it drops towards the centre of the Earth (gets sucked in, as you put it).

Now if you throw that stone horizontally, it still falls to the ground at the same rate but it also move sideways. (It sill hits the ground after the same time, because it is falling at the same rate.)

Now throw the stone faster and it will go further. If you throw it hard enough then it will travel far enough that the ground starts to fall away from it because of the curvature of the Earth. So it will take a bit longer to reach the ground.

Throw it even faster (or fire it from a cannon) and it will go even further because the Earth will fall away more. But it is still being pulled towards the centre of the Earth and so will still hit the ground, but further round the earth.

Now fire it at "orbital velocity" and it will fall towards the ground as fast as the Earth falls away from the stone due to its curvature. Therefore the rock will not hit the ground. It is in orbit.

It's velocity tries to make it fly away from Earth. This is exactly balanced by the force of gravity.

Originally Posted by theorist

Please explain, how can arithmetic explain a force? is a force not an unseen anomoly?

Arithmetic allows you to calculate the strength of a force. If you did this, you would find that the electrical and magnetic forces between the sun and the Earth are absolutely tiny compared to gravity and have no effect on the orbits.

And no, forces, are no anomalous; they are perfectly predictable.

Originally Posted by theorist

Why does a stone on a string not fly away when rotating, because the string is attached I presume. Cut the string and it would fly off. So what string holds us to the sun and stops us flying off?

Gravity.

Newton proposed calculations, that were proved later to be flawed and the moon was off position by about 10 ft to his calculations and explanation of gravity.

I have no idea where you got this.

Then came along Einstein, a great, confused mind, who had to have is teacher write and calculate his first maths on relativity according to what I have read.

Then you should read better books. Einstein was (very) good at maths.

Is this possible, could we be inside a black hole and this causes the rotation of planets, centrifugal forces from an exterior rotating force. A 4th dimension to time and space. Would this explain why we are at the centre of the Universe rotating, and the rest of our Universe is expanding as we see the dopler red effect, as the hole starts to collapse and our outer universe becomes more repelled by centrifugal force?.

I have no idea what you're saying here. There are too many flaws and suppositions for me to parse it and form a rational reply.

Originally Posted by AlexG

I've thought from the beginning that theorist is a troll, and nothing in the past 50 posts has changed my mind.

Such refusal to learn must be willful.

Firstly I will address this post as again it as been wrote without foundation for support.

2 weeks ago , I did not even know what the universe and quantum physics was. I now know what they are about. So I argue the case, have I not learnt nothing?.

Please do not mistake miss worded posts for ignorance, There is a lot of new words I need to remember and remember to put them into the right context.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by theorist

Why does a stone on a string not fly away when rotating, because the string is attached I presume. Cut the string and it would fly off. So what string holds us to the sun and stops us flying off?

Gravity.

Newton proposed calculations, that were proved later to be flawed and the moon was off position by about 10 ft to his calculations and explanation of gravity.

I have no idea where you got this.

Then came along Einstein, a great, confused mind, who had to have is teacher write and calculate his first maths on relativity according to what I have read.

Then you should read better books. Einstein was (very) good at maths.

Is this possible, could we be inside a black hole and this causes the rotation of planets, centrifugal forces from an exterior rotating force. A 4th dimension to time and space. Would this explain why we are at the centre of the Universe rotating, and the rest of our Universe is expanding as we see the dopler red effect, as the hole starts to collapse and our outer universe becomes more repelled by centrifugal force?.

I have no idea what you're saying here. There are too many flaws and suppositions for me to parse it and form a rational reply.

I watched some history of Einstein, and it says that at a young age and as a student , when he wrote his general relativiy paper, his mentor helped him by writing the maths at this time, Einstein did not know the maths himself.
And then he went on to create new maths and learning and then became great...

I am only saying what I have seen......if this is not true, I can see another problem with science.....but that is another topic, another time.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by theorist

Why does a stone on a string not fly away when rotating, because the string is attached I presume. Cut the string and it would fly off. So what string holds us to the sun and stops us flying off?.

OK. Let's try and explain the idea of orbits.

If you hold a stone in you hand and let go, it drops towards the centre of the Earth (gets sucked in, as you put it).


.
Now if you throw that stone horizontally, it still falls to the ground at the same rate but it also move sideways. (It sill hits the ground after the same time, because it is falling at the same rate.)

Now throw the stone faster and it will go further. If you throw it hard enough then it will travel far enough that the ground starts to fall away from it because of the curvature of the Earth. So it will take a bit longer to reach the ground.

Throw it even faster (or fire it from a cannon) and it will go even further because the Earth will fall away more. But it is still being pulled towards the centre of the Earth and so will still hit the ground, but further round the earth.

Now fire it at "orbital velocity" and it will fall towards the ground as fast as the Earth falls away from the stone due to its curvature. Therefore the rock will not hit the ground. It is in orbit.

It's velocity tries to make it fly away from Earth. This is exactly balanced by the force of gravity.

That does sound rather like centrigfugal and centripedal force. So please explain what the difference is, If i was to have a flat wheel like a childs round about, and I was to put heavy mass in the centre and the surrounding area was full of lighter mass, as we rotated and gained velocity, all the less mass objects would flirt off our platform, the heavier mass would not move as it was centralized.




The projectory of the expelled mass would be no different than your stone example....

So please explain the difference to me please....as I am struggling to see any difference

Originally Posted by theorist

That does sound rather like centrigfugal and centripedal force.

Well, I suppose you can think of it that way. Gravity provides the centripetal (inward) force. The orbit of the object provides the centrifugal (outward) force. These two balance and the object stays in a stable orbit. No magnetism required.

This diagram shows what I was trying to explain:
rid_mtn.jpg
[From: http://my.execpc.com/~culp/space/orbit.html]

Originally Posted by theorist

I watched some history of Einstein, and it says that at a young age and as a student , when he wrote his general relativiy paper, his mentor helped him by writing the maths at this time, Einstein did not know the maths himself.

When Einstein wrote his relativity paper he was 25 years old, already had his degree and was working - not a student.

I am only saying what I have seen......if this is not true, I can see another problem with science.....but that is another topic, another time.

No. What you actually mean is: you can fabricate a problem (that doesn't actually exist) due to your own ignorance.

Originally Posted by theorist

Firstly I will address this post as again it as been wrote without foundation for support.

2 weeks ago , I did not even know what the universe and quantum physics was. I now know what they are about. So I argue the case, have I not learnt nothing?.

Please do not mistake miss worded posts for ignorance, There is a lot of new words I need to remember and remember to put them into the right context.

I think you'll find that AlexG has a great deal of support for his contention.
You STILL don't know what the universe is, OR what quantum physics is.
You have, indeed, learned nothing.
What you MAY¹ have done is accumulate various pieces of information that may or may not relate to those topics. You have no idea how, or where, or when, they apply, or even WHY they apply. Rote accumulation of facts is not learning.

1 I say "may" because, given the monotonous regularity with which you post wild speculation and nonsense, it could be argued (with more than a good deal of justification) that you haven't even managed that much.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by theorist

That does sound rather like centrigfugal and centripedal force.

Well, I suppose you can think of it that way. Gravity provides the centripetal (inward) force. The orbit of the object provides the centrifugal (outward) force. These two balance and the object stays in a stable orbit. No magnetism required.

This diagram shows what I was trying to explain:
rid_mtn.jpg
[From: http://my.execpc.com/~culp/space/orbit.html]

Thank you Strange, for the diagram, and yes that is how I view it. The link failed to work .....maybe server error.

So the Sun spins, clockwise?

Earth spins clockwise?

the suns core spins?

Earths core spins?


Do all the orbiting planets of the sun spin, and is this a clockwise spin?

So the sun by its spin and mass, create water going down the plug hole, but instead of water space?

The Earth, as it increases velocity, hold it's orbit by centripetal force, as it travels around the wall of death on a magnetic made wall?

The sun is the start of a black hole?

Originally Posted by theorist

So the Sun spins, clockwise?

Viewed from where?

Earth spins clockwise?

Viewed from where?

the suns core spins?

Yes.

Earths core spins?

Yes.

Do all the orbiting planets of the sun spin

Yes.

and is this a clockwise spin?

Viewed from where?

So the sun by its spin and mass, create water going down the plug hole, but instead of water space?

No.

The Earth, as it increases velocity

No. (With qualification).

hold it's orbit by centripetal force

No.

as it travels around the wall of death on a magnetic made wall?

No.

The sun is the start of a black hole?

And... no.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by theorist

So the Sun spins, clockwise?

Viewed from where?

Earth spins clockwise?

Viewed from where?

the suns core spins?

Yes.

Earths core spins?

Yes.

Do all the orbiting planets of the sun spin

Yes.

and is this a clockwise spin?

Viewed from where?

So the sun by its spin and mass, create water going down the plug hole, but instead of water space?

No.

The Earth, as it increases velocity

No. (With qualification).

hold it's orbit by centripetal force

No.

as it travels around the wall of death on a magnetic made wall?

No.

The sun is the start of a black hole?

And... no.

Thank you for your answers, you say that the suns spin does not create an effect like water going down a plug hole, if the suns mass can put a dent in space, surely it is acceptable to say, that the spin, also twists space?.

Einstein's gravity - YouTube

So is this link, Einsteins gravity , not how it is?

If it is like this, space would have to spin as well, this would explain your cosmology and the swirling effect of matter in space.

Is this not so?

Originally Posted by theorist

if the suns mass can put a dent in space, surely it is acceptable to say, that the spin, also twists space?

Sort of. But it doesn't "go down the plughole".
And note that the "twisting of space" only happens with massive objects - it's negligible from the Sun.

If it is like this, space would have to spin as well, this would explain your cosmology and the swirling effect of matter in space.

What do you mean "my cosmology" and what do you mean by "swirling effect of matter in space"?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by theorist

if the suns mass can put a dent in space, surely it is acceptable to say, that the spin, also twists space?

Sort of. But it doesn't "go down the plughole".
And note that the "twisting of space" only happens with massive objects - it's negligible from the Sun.

Yes thats how I pictured it, the sun obviously I see as the plug blocking the hole. And yes only large matter, are we large enough to have effect like this also, or a small effect like this?

If it is like this, space would have to spin as well, this would explain your cosmology and the swirling effect of matter in space.

What do you mean "my cosmology" and what do you mean by "swirling effect of matter in space"?

I am not sure what they are called,

Hubblecast 11: A grand design in a galactic festoon - YouTube

these...I think maybe like in water and you see eddies, little swirls....an effect of different current.

Originally Posted by theorist

Yes thats how I pictured it, the sun obviously I see as the plug blocking the hole.

Again you're missing the point. With water and a plug hole there's a drag toward the plughole. Any twisting of space doesn't have that.

And yes only large matter, are we large enough to have effect like this also, or a small effect like this?

Um, if it's negligible from the Sun what makes you think "we" (presumably you mean the Earth?) have any noticeable effect?
Please don't tell me you believe the Earth is larger/ more massive than the Sun.

these...I think maybe like in water and you see eddies, little swirls....an effect of different current.

No. Those are due to rotation of the material from which the stars and systems are formed, not space dragging.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by theorist

Yes thats how I pictured it, the sun obviously I see as the plug blocking the hole.

Again you're missing the point. With water and a plug hole there's a drag toward the plughole. Any twisting of space doesn't have that.

Yes I know, because space itself as no mass unlike water going down the plug hole. I do not picture it that way. Why is it not centripedal or centrifugal pressure? I am sorry this is hard to imagine and picture for me.

And yes only large matter, are we large enough to have effect like this also, or a small effect like this?

Um, if it's negligible from the Sun what makes you think "we" (presumably you mean the Earth?) have any noticeable effect?
Please don't tell me you believe the Earth is larger/ more massive than the Sun.

No I do not think the earth is bigger than the sun, but i think the earth is more dense than the sun?

these...I think maybe like in water and you see eddies, little swirls....an effect of different current.

No. Those are due to rotation of the material from which the stars and systems are formed, not space dragging.

I was just considering how eddies bump into each other and sort of roll around each other

Originally Posted by theorist

Thank you Strange, for the diagram, and yes that is how I view it.

No it isn't. You are still going on about magnetic fields.

The link failed to work .....maybe server error.

OK. Fixed now.

So the Sun spins, clockwise?

Earth spins clockwise?

the suns core spins?

Earths core spins?


Do all the orbiting planets of the sun spin, and is this a clockwise spin?

So the sun by its spin and mass, create water going down the plug hole, but instead of water space?

The Earth, as it increases velocity, hold it's orbit by centripetal force, as it travels around the wall of death on a magnetic made wall?

The sun is the start of a black hole?

No.

Originally Posted by theorist

Why is it not centripedal or centrifugal pressure?

Pressure in what?

No I do not think the earth is bigger than the sun, but i think the earth is more dense than the sun?

Earth is about 4 times denser than the Sun. But the Sun has about 1.3 MILLION times more volume. You work it out.
Frame dragging depends on actual mass.

I was just considering how eddies bump into each other and sort of roll around each other

Except that what is in that video are not exactly eddies.

Originally Posted by theorist

Thank you for your answers, you say that the suns spin does not create an effect like water going down a plug hole, if the suns mass can put a dent in space, surely it is acceptable to say, that the spin, also twists space?.

Einstein's gravity - YouTube

So is this link, Einsteins gravity , not how it is?

If it is like this, space would have to spin as well, this would explain your cosmology and the swirling effect of matter in space.

Is this not so?

I didn't watch all of that video but I didn't see anything about spinning or swirling.

Note that the rotation of a massive object like the sun does have a tiny effect on space. But it will have no effect on Earth. It will have even less effect on Earth than the sun's magnetic field. (And the magnetic field has no effect.)

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by theorist

Why is it not centripedal or centrifugal pressure?

Pressure in what?

pressure in the dip, i see that the planets all sit in ,like eddies inside an eddie. the sun having the greater diameter eddie, the earth having a deeper eddie.

No I do not think the earth is bigger than the sun, but i think the earth is more dense than the sun?

Earth is about 4 times denser than the Sun. But the Sun has about 1.3 MILLION times more volume. You work it out.
Frame dragging depends on actual mass.

Consider how an heavy object in water would have a deeper splash, than a more wider object.

I was just considering how eddies bump into each other and sort of roll around each other

Except that what is in that video are not exactly eddies.

Yes but shape is comparison.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by theorist

Thank you for your answers, you say that the suns spin does not create an effect like water going down a plug hole, if the suns mass can put a dent in space, surely it is acceptable to say, that the spin, also twists space?.

Einstein's gravity - YouTube

So is this link, Einsteins gravity , not how it is?

If it is like this, space would have to spin as well, this would explain your cosmology and the swirling effect of matter in space.

Is this not so?

I didn't watch all of that video but I didn't see anything about spinning or swirling.

Note that the rotation of a massive object like the sun does have a tiny effect on space. But it will have no effect on Earth. It will have even less effect on Earth than the sun's magnetic field. (And the magnetic field has no effect.)

No, i do not think magnetism or gravity is the cause of our orbit, there is no swirling in that video, but imagine it swirling

No, i do not think magnetism or gravity is the cause of our orbit

Uber ignorant.

This thread belongs in the trash. It's nothing more than theorists disjointed nonsense.

Originally Posted by theorist

No, i do not think magnetism or gravity is the cause of our orbit, there is no swirling in that video, but imagine it swirling

Gravity IS the cause of our orbiting the Sun.

Gravity is the ONLY cause of our orbiting the Sun.

Gravity is the only CAUSE of our orbiting the Sun.

No magnetism. No swirling. No eddies. No electric fields.

Just gravity.




And inertia.

Originally Posted by AlexG

No, i do not think magnetism or gravity is the cause of our orbit

Uber ignorant.

This thread belongs in the trash. It's nothing more than theorists disjointed nonsense.

And then you may as well forget Einsteins gravity theory. If a planets mass can put a dent in the fabric of space, then so can all mass, buoyancy at you put it.

The curvature of the fabric would be different for all mass unless of equal proportion.

Spinning, direction, centrifugal force has to create spin if we presume space can be dented.

Originally Posted by theorist

And then you may as well forget Einsteins gravity theory. If a planets mass can put a dent in the fabric of space, then so can all mass, buoyancy at you put it.

The curvature of the fabric would be different for all mass unless of equal proportion.

You have to realise that this "dent in the fabric" idea is just an analogy. And not a very good one. It doesn't tell you anything useful about what happens and you certainly cannot use it to derive new results.

Spinning, direction, centrifugal force has to create spin if we presume space can be dented.

This is all nonsense because it is based on a highly innaccurate analogy.

Originally Posted by theorist

pressure in the dip

There is no pressure.,

like eddies inside an eddie. the sun having the greater diameter eddie, the earth having a deeper eddie.

There are no eddies.

Consider how an heavy object in water would have a deeper splash, than a more wider object.

Maybe I made a fundamental mistake when I left you to work it out. The Earth is NOT heavier than the Sun.

Yes but shape is comparison.

Exactly the same way a banana is a comparison to a stealth fighter.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by theorist

And then you may as well forget Einsteins gravity theory. If a planets mass can put a dent in the fabric of space, then so can all mass, buoyancy at you put it.

The curvature of the fabric would be different for all mass unless of equal proportion.

You have to realise that this "dent in the fabric" idea is just an analogy. And not a very good one. It doesn't tell you anything useful about what happens and you certainly cannot use it to derive new results.

Spinning, direction, centrifugal force has to create spin if we presume space can be dented.

This is all nonsense because it is based on a highly innaccurate analogy.

I thought it was an accurate analogy, I apologize, of cause my thoughts are completely wrong if Einstein had it wrong.

I see something similar to this analogy, but slightly different that seems perfect sense to me.

OK, if i was to spin a football under water at an accelerated rate, what effect would the water have?

[QUOTE=Dywyddyr;398697]

Originally Posted by theorist

pressure in the dip

There is no pressure.,

like eddies inside an eddie. the sun having the greater diameter eddie, the earth having a deeper eddie.

There are no eddies.

Consider how an heavy object in water would have a deeper splash, than a more wider object.

Maybe I made a fundamental mistake when I left you to work it out. The Earth is NOT heavier than the Sun.

size is relative to weight, compare gold to feathers.

Originally Posted by theorist

I thought it was an accurate analogy, I apologize, of cause my thoughts are completely wrong if Einstein had it wrong.

Einstein did not have it wrong. Einstein was right. He produced a detailed and accurate mathematical theory.

Unfortunately, someone translated it into a meaningless picture.

teaching_physics.jpg

I see something similar to this analogy, but slightly different that seems perfect sense to me.

But, because it is based on an analogy, your conclusion is wrong.

OK, if i was to spin a football under water at an accelerated rate, what effect would the water have?

It would confuse the piranhas.

Originally Posted by theorist

of cause my thoughts are completely wrong if Einstein had it wrong.

Your thoughts are completely wrong. Full stop.
Your thoughts have no relation whatsoever to what Einstein "thought".

I see something similar to this analogy, but slightly different that seems perfect sense to me.

How many times do you need to be told?
What YOU see is generally wrong. What makes "perfect sense" to you is generally wrong.

OK, if i was to spin a football under water at an accelerated rate, what effect would the water have?

Water is not space. A football is not a celestial body.
There is, and read this slowly, NO COMPARISON.
A simple explanation is that water is a medium. Space is not.

Originally Posted by theorist

size is relative to weight, compare gold to feathers.[/COLOR]

Which only goes to show that size is NOT relative to weight. A kilo of gold will be smaller than a kilo of feathers. (But they will both have the same gravitational effect.)

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by theorist

of cause my thoughts are completely wrong if Einstein had it wrong.

Your thoughts are completely wrong. Full stop.
Your thoughts have no relation whatsoever to what Einstein "thought".

I see something similar to this analogy, but slightly different that seems perfect sense to me.

How many times do you need to be told?
What YOU see is generally wrong. What makes "perfect sense" to you is generally wrong.

OK, if i was to spin a football under water at an accelerated rate, what effect would the water have?

Water is not space. A football is not a celestial body.
There is, and read this slowly, NO COMPARISON.
A simple explanation is that water is a medium. Space is not.

Off cause water is not space it is a medium. However the effect of a sphere spin under water would show current, flow.....centrifugal force and the effect of flow,direction.

Originally Posted by theorist

size is relative to weight, compare gold to feathers.

And a hot air balloon weighs more than a car? Got it.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by theorist

size is relative to weight, compare gold to feathers.[/COLOR]

Which only goes to show that size is NOT relative to weight. A kilo of gold will be smaller than a kilo of feathers. (But they will both have the same gravitational effect.)

Yes, but that is looking only at gravity through an atmosphere and not in space.

Originally Posted by theorist

Off cause water is not space it is a medium.

Learn to read.
Water is a medium.
Space is not a medium.

However the effect of a sphere spin under water would show current, flow.....centrifugal force and the effect of flow,direction.

And so what?
What happens in water DOES NOT happen in space.

and i think you would get waves if you spun a ball under water

Originally Posted by theorist

Yes, but that is looking only at gravity through an atmosphere and not in space.

Weight does not exist without gravity.
Atmosphere has nothing to do with gravity OR weight.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by theorist

Off cause water is not space it is a medium.

Learn to read.
Water is a medium.
Space is not a medium.

that is what i put

However the effect of a sphere spin under water would show current, flow.....centrifugal force and the effect of flow,direction.

And so what?
What happens in water DOES NOT happen in space.

I know but for comparison, water is the closest we have for natural buoyance.

Originally Posted by theorist

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by theorist

size is relative to weight, compare gold to feathers.[/COLOR]

Which only goes to show that size is NOT relative to weight. A kilo of gold will be smaller than a kilo of feathers. (But they will both have the same gravitational effect.)

Yes, but that is looking only at gravity through an atmosphere and not in space.

Any still think this isn't a troll?

Originally Posted by theorist

that is what i put

Yet you ignored what it meant.

I know but for comparison, water is the closest we have for natural buoyance.

Without a medium there is no buoyancy.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by theorist

Yes, but that is looking only at gravity through an atmosphere and not in space.

Weight does not exist without gravity.
Atmosphere has nothing to do with gravity OR weight.

If weight does not exist without gravity, then how does the sun make the dent in space fabric. and id o not mean weight as more to density.

Originally Posted by theorist

Yes, but that is looking only at gravity through an atmosphere and not in space.

What does atmosphere have to do with it?

Originally Posted by theorist

If weight does not exist without gravity, then how does the sun make the dent in space fabric.

Because it has mass.

and id o not mean weight as more to density.

In which case you'd still be wrong.

Originally Posted by theorist

and i think you would get waves if you spun a ball under water

What does that have to do with gravity? Or anything else in this thread? Why are you talking nonsense?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by theorist

Yes, but that is looking only at gravity through an atmosphere and not in space.

What does atmosphere have to do with it?

In space there is less denseness or no denseness of molecules<gases>, a piece of gold for example falls quicker than a feather, as the density of molecules in the atmosphere helps to hold the feather up. In space the gold and the feather would both have equal weight.
So if a feather and gold as equal weight in space, what is to say that the planets have not also got equal weight in space, they maintain the same bouyency....

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by theorist

and i think you would get waves if you spun a ball under water

What does that have to do with gravity? Or anything else in this thread? Why are you talking nonsense?

This would hopefully show you the direction of force, if you could spin the ball fast enough, at the right angle of spin, I would expect to see an eddie appear.

Originally Posted by theorist

In space the gold and the feather would both have equal weight.
So if a feather and gold as equal weight in space

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
Got it yet?
And, one more time, atmosphere has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with weight.
Have you got that yet?

they maintain the same bouyency....

There is no buoyancy without a medium. Space is not a medium. Therefore there is no buoyancy in space.

Originally Posted by theorist

This would hopefully show you the direction of force, if you could spin the ball fast enough, at the right angle of spin, I would expect to see an eddie appear.

Unmitigated crap.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by theorist

In space the gold and the feather would both have equal weight.
So if a feather and gold as equal weight in space

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
Got it yet?
And, one more time, atmosphere has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with weight.
Have you got that yet?

they maintain the same bouyency....

There is no buoyancy without a medium. Space is not a medium. Therefore there is no buoyancy in space.

There is no buoyancy in space, so that would mean the entire universe is falling? we are certainly buoyant on something.