Subscribe to eLliDKraM's Rantings        RSS Feed

Creationists Denounce Gravity

Icon 3 Comments
I was recently reading an article (with many seemingly legitimate sources) that claim to "disprove gravity" with the physical evidence that the moon is traveling futher away from the Earth. This rate of change is rather constant at least as far as we are concerned; according to NASA (I'm going to round here because I'm not sure about the precision this one site quoting NASA gave me) about 1.2nm/s.


"Some have criticized gravity, reminding us that it is only a theory, and that no scientist has ever seen a graviton or a space curve. Furthermore, experiments done by NASA prove that the Moon is receding (moving further away) from the Earth at a rate of 3.8cm per year, directly contradicting the theory that masses attract one another[1]."
I lost the URL but I don't care, you can find many pages like this on the web, claiming some serious bullshit.

Well, many scientists will agree that there are no other KNOWN alternate planes or universes due to the fact of the 1/r^2 connection between electromagnetic force and gravitational force.

As far as I'm concerned here, there are three known spacial dimensions, this is obvious, the reason that there is a 1/r^2 relationship in the physical known universe is because we can consider everything to be respectively setup as a spherical visual, you still may ask yourself, "Why isn't it r^-3 rather than r^-2?". Well, when you look at the distance traveled, the surface area INCREASES relative to r^2 therefore the deviation from that would prove that all relations are directly proportional (with the constant of 4pi since we're dealing with a sphere) to it, and since the surface area increases, the force decreases by the inverse square. I'll just restate the reason: Consider little particles called gravitons escaping your body in every direction at a constant rate. After they leave your immediate presense, the image they will make at a certain radius R will create a sphere. Consider a person standing at R1, they will be hit with X amount of gravitons. Now let's say they move out double the distance to 2R1, the surface area of the sphere increased by a factor of 4piR^2 therefore the person will be hit by that many LESS gravitons (precisely four times fewer gravitons since the square root of Double the distance is Four).

Wonderful, but how does this prove that there are no alternate universes? Well, we have this lovely constant called G, the universal gravitational constant about 6.7x10^-12 m^3/kg-s^2; it's pretty small. Scientists don't really understand the nature from which this magnitude is derived, it is just a calculated constant based on all other known variables by the simple equation F=Gm1m2/r^2. If you have some known force, two masses, and a measured distance, this is the calculated G to a certain precision; any deviation of this would potentially bring forth the idea of an alternate universe (more probably many other things including faulty equipment) which seem to be the current claims of religious fanatics who enjoy denouncing calculus.

So they're claiming two deals here, they disproved gravity BECAUSE the moon is going further away; gravity doesn't exist, at least in the way current science views it because it's traveling away. Well since these two actions (their movements may be analogous due to obvious fundamental forces) can be seen as rather independent of one another (I'm going to reiterate that I do understand that tidal forces and gravity are analogous in this case but can be seen as independent components in my example). This is going to help make me feel better about my loser self. Now back to the fact that the moon is receding.

First we need to understand the two main forces here, there are tidal forces (a non constant force derived from a general gravitational force caused by angular acceleration), and a linear force of gravity between the two masses, a factor of G all over R^2. Because of the way the Earth rotates and the formation of the rocks, obviously seas aren't uniform in depth and in surface shape. So when the Earth spins (and the Earth is also being accelerated to do the linear gravitational pull of the moon), basically the shaking of the water in the Earth causes for a lot of rotational friction (since it's caused entirely by the tides it's called tidal friction). Due to this friction, and other internal inefficiencies, the Earth is obviously slowing at a relatively constant rate. Since the tides are directly linked between the moon's orbital system and the Earth's rotational system, angular momentum obviously says, if momentum is being lost due to tidal friction and is causing the Earth to slow, the moon must be speeding up. Also due to the tides, the moon has a fixed position meaning the same face always points to us so the majority of that angular momentum from the Earth is being trasnferred as orbital momentum to the moon. Remember that angular momentum in this scale can be viewed as a multilinear function of the product of the Moment of Inertia and Angular Velocity. This causes the moon's orbit to increase and since every other quantity can be viewed as relatively fixed, the radius must increase linearly as a function of its increased orbital velocity.

All in all, gravity IS acting on the Earth and the Moon and it's presence is quite apparent; it's just that the tidal transferrences of energy (tidal friction/loss of energy) are greater than that whimpy tiny little G therefore causing a (respective) linear decrease in the angular momentum (since energy isn't conserved) of the Earth which as a result increases that of the Moon. The Moon compensates to keep this equilibrium of direct forces with the Earth by traveling further away (respective to the 1/r^2 law) and eventually R will be so huge the function will be so tiny that gravitational forces are negligible and we lose the moon forever.

No, sorry, God didn't have anything to do with it. Now I know I skipped many calculations which you can do yourselves since everything is proportional with the equations I gave and I skipped a lot of probably vital information because everything I said here is directly relevant. If you're interested, I would suggest getting a mechanics textbook since that is where some of my information is from, and checking out the portion on angular momentum and a chapter on gravity, it would patch a lot of questions you have up. I hope my abstract overview was sufficient enough.

3 Comments On This Entry

Page 1 of 1


25 February 2007 - 02:57 PM
Wow, I don't think I've ever seen this side of you! Very nice blog, very informative.


23 April 2007 - 12:16 PM
Your HOT !


22 May 2008 - 08:48 AM
1maiZs <a href="">foogkbfshqdy</a>, xgnwqesudkeo, [link=]qpgrbegktims[/link],
Page 1 of 1

December 2019

8910111213 14

Search My Blog

0 user(s) viewing

0 Guests
0 member(s)
0 anonymous member(s)


    Recent Entries

    Recent Comments