0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So, how do we know for sure if we measure the shadow of Phobos while it is 27Km, 22Km or 18Km?
How do we know if we set the measurements at the Periapsis, Semi-major axis or exactly at the Semi-major axis.At each location the velocity is different.
I assume that there might be some other issues as the accuracy of the probe velocity and location.
Therefore, in order to get a clear indication we need to set one probe on Mars and the other on Phobos.There is no short cut.
Therefore, I totally reject this unrealistic measurement.
Please remember - All objects at long rang MUST drift outwards due to gravity.Moons and planets are considered as located at long rang.Therefore, all the Moons and planets in the solar system must drift outwards without any exception!
How our scientists couldn't consider this possibility?
Sorry, I totally reject this unrealistic measurement.
To further clarify why your argument is stupid, take into consideration that MOLA measured the travel time for the shadow 15 separate times. What's more important, is that some of these measurements were taken many years apart. The first measurement was done on September 20, 1977, while the most recent one was taken on June 28, 2004. That's almost 27 years. 27 years multiplied by an average rate of 0.8 seconds per year means that Phobos' shadow was seen to be ahead of schedule by about 21 seconds in 2004 when compared to 1977. It would have risen 21 seconds earlier than expected and set 21 seconds earlier than expected. To claim that a laser system with millisecond precision could somehow be off by a whopping 21 seconds is unbelievable.
Basically what you are telling me is that you will be critical of data that disagrees with you, but will not be critical of that exact same data when you later understand that it never disagreed with you in the first place.
All objects at long rang MUST drift outwards due to gravity.
I have stated clearly that:
If you think that this statement is incorrect, than find other moon at a long rang that drifts inwards
And at what distance does something become "long range"?
Since you accept that the Moon is moving away from the Earth, can I assume that you will say that any orbiting objects separated by a distance greater than that from the Earth to the Moon will move away from each other over time?
We know that distant objects obey Newtonian gravity.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly(The so-called anomaly is now resolved and the data for the movement of the objects tallies with expectations.)
In any case, that range must be based on the ratio between the radius of the main object to the distance to the orbital
So, my answer to this anomaly is gravity and only gravity.
t NONE of them would be trapped by the gravity force of the earth and start orbit the earth instead of the Sun.Yes, Never and ever!
the idea that collision could create new planet or moon is a pure fiction.
Why would the radius matter when gravity isn't based on the radius? If you look at Newton's equation, only distance and mass matter. If you squeezed the Earth down to half its current diameter while keeping its mass the same, the orbit of satellites or the Moon would not be affected at all.
But even if you use radius as the metric, then the Hulse-Taylor binary would count. It's a pair of neutron stars in orbit around each other and they are slowly getting closer. Neutron stars are very, very small (about 10 kilometers in radius) and the distance between these two neutron stars varies between 1.1 solar radii (about 765,000 kilometers) and 4.8 solar radii (about 3,340,000 kilometers). The distance between them therefore varies from about 76,500 times to 334,000 times their radii, thus qualifying as "long ranged" by you. So their orbit is decaying despite them being at long range: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary
the distance between these two neutron stars varies between 1.1 solar radii (about 765,000 kilometers) and 4.8 solar radii (about 3,340,000 kilometers).
As the mass is the key element in our understanding, we need to verify what should be the equivalent radius of this Neutron star if its mass wasn't so compressed.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:20:32As the mass is the key element in our understanding, we need to verify what should be the equivalent radius of this Neutron star if its mass wasn't so compressed.Uh huh, yeah, you moved the goalposts. Typical.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:20:32As the mass is the key element in our understanding, we need to verify what should be the equivalent radius of this Neutron star if its mass wasn't so compressed.
I have clearly set the relationship between
Quote from: Dave Lev on 21/08/2020 21:56:03t NONE of them would be trapped by the gravity force of the earth and start orbit the earth instead of the Sun.Yes, Never and ever!Quote from: Dave Lev on 19/08/2020 21:35:43the idea that collision could create new planet or moon is a pure fiction.You seem to have stated that the Moon does not exist.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/08/2020 15:48:26As I have stated, there are two possibilities for falling in objects:Fall in and collide with the main object or be pushed away.Why don't you consider the third possibility?Don't you understand it?Most people would get to grips with it quite easily.They thing falls towards something, and then misses it.Since you don't seem to understand basic physics, you are not in a position to criticise it, but let's see how you did.Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/08/2020 15:48:26(1) Gravity does not push - Yes It doesIt plainly does not.But you don't understand how something can get close to something and then miss.This says a lot about you...Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/08/2020 15:48:262) Black holes don't break the conservation laws - Black hole does not break the conservation laws and also does not evaporate as Hawking had claimed. There is no negative particles. BH has the ability to create new positive particle pair and give them extra kinetic energy by its high gravity energy.Unless it evaporates in the process of creating new particles, what you have described is a breach of the conservation laws.It's just that you don't seem to be bright enough to recognise this.Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/08/2020 15:48:26(3) Even if they did, it wouldn't help because they wouldn't build a universe that looks like this one - Yes it does. The Rocket over rocket system can do it easily.That wouldn't work anyway,, but it doesn't matter.The "rocket over rocket "idea is a breach of GR.Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/08/2020 15:48:26(4) Even if they could, you still need to explain where the first one comes from - The Universe and its infinite space was always thereNo.Because Olber.Also because the conservation laws.Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/08/2020 15:48:26(5) This simply isn't true "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size." - Yes it is. I have already explained this issue. You would never ever get a black body radiation outside the cavity (in the open space). Only if you are located at the cavity itself (or monitor the radiation in the cavity by a tiny hole) you could find the Black body radiation. That's not a sensible explanation.Inside of a finite, large, universe that was once very hot, you expect a CMB.As I have pointed out, what if we are in a big (but finite) box with black walls at 2.7K?That would be finite, and we would see BBR .Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/08/2020 15:48:26(6) Even if it was true, this wouldn't be a valid deduction "Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age." - Yes it is. In order to set an infinite Universe from a single BH you must use infinite time.Other mechanisms (those which are not a pile of junk) do not start from a singe BH and make it grow by magic.Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/08/2020 15:48:26(7) We know that it's finite, thanks to Olber - This is a fiction. Our Universe is infinite. Olber theory could work only if in the all the galaxies in the infinite universe are moving at a velocity which is lower than the speed of light relative to our location.No, because some of them would be moving towards us (very fast).Now, since it's clear that you are wrong about all that, why not just accept that you are wrong?
As I have stated, there are two possibilities for falling in objects:Fall in and collide with the main object or be pushed away.
(1) Gravity does not push - Yes It does
2) Black holes don't break the conservation laws - Black hole does not break the conservation laws and also does not evaporate as Hawking had claimed. There is no negative particles. BH has the ability to create new positive particle pair and give them extra kinetic energy by its high gravity energy.
(3) Even if they did, it wouldn't help because they wouldn't build a universe that looks like this one - Yes it does. The Rocket over rocket system can do it easily.
(4) Even if they could, you still need to explain where the first one comes from - The Universe and its infinite space was always there
(5) This simply isn't true "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size." - Yes it is. I have already explained this issue. You would never ever get a black body radiation outside the cavity (in the open space). Only if you are located at the cavity itself (or monitor the radiation in the cavity by a tiny hole) you could find the Black body radiation.
(6) Even if it was true, this wouldn't be a valid deduction "Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age." - Yes it is. In order to set an infinite Universe from a single BH you must use infinite time.
(7) We know that it's finite, thanks to Olber - This is a fiction. Our Universe is infinite. Olber theory could work only if in the all the galaxies in the infinite universe are moving at a velocity which is lower than the speed of light relative to our location.
In order to make your idea work, you had to "decompress" the neutron star.
QuoteQuote from: Kryptid on Yesterday at 06:12:19And at what distance does something become "long range"?Well, I will claim that it is a good question as I don't know the exact answer.If I really knew the answer, I would claim for excellent question.In any case, that range must be based on the ratio between the radius of the main object to the distance to the orbital object. The ratio in the mass also must have an impact and some other variants.However, it is quite clear that the ratio between radiuses to distance is the most important issue.Therefore, in order to make it easy, I would assume that if the distance to the orbital object is below five times the radius of the main object, it should be considered as short rang.If the distance is more than 20 Times the radius, it should be considered as long rang.I'm not sure about the range between 5 times to 20 times.However, just for the discussion, let's assume that the boarder is about 10 Times the radius.
Quote from: Kryptid on Yesterday at 06:12:19And at what distance does something become "long range"?
You had never said anything before about needing to do that.
You introduced that idea solely so you could avoid having to admit that you were wrong. That's called "moving the goalposts", and it's a logical fallacy.
why can't we "decompress" it in order to find its equivalent radius.
Yes, that is very normal and expected approach.
I would like to remind you that we have started our discussion on the drifting direction of orbital objects around a planets or moons.
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.
I have stated that for a long range the drifting would be outwards, while for short range wound be inwards.
Why do you claim that it is forbidden to find the equivalent radius that is needed to reflect the real mass of that objects?.
It is very logical to "decompress" the mass/radius of a neutron star or a BH in order to understand its real equivalent radius.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 22/08/2020 07:17:39I have clearly set the relationship betweenYou have not done anything "clearly" except cheat by moving the goal posts.Don't forget to address this as well as theseQuote from: Bored chemist on 21/08/2020 23:16:56Quote from: Dave Lev on 21/08/2020 21:56:03t NONE of them would be trapped by the gravity force of the earth and start orbit the earth instead of the Sun.Yes, Never and ever!Quote from: Dave Lev on 19/08/2020 21:35:43the idea that collision could create new planet or moon is a pure fiction.You seem to have stated that the Moon does not exist.And, of course, theseQuote from: Bored chemist on 17/08/2020 17:31:37Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/08/2020 15:48:26As I have stated, there are two possibilities for falling in objects:Fall in and collide with the main object or be pushed away.Why don't you consider the third possibility?Don't you understand it?Most people would get to grips with it quite easily.They thing falls towards something, and then misses it.Since you don't seem to understand basic physics, you are not in a position to criticise it, but let's see how you did.Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/08/2020 15:48:26(1) Gravity does not push - Yes It doesIt plainly does not.But you don't understand how something can get close to something and then miss.This says a lot about you...Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/08/2020 15:48:262) Black holes don't break the conservation laws - Black hole does not break the conservation laws and also does not evaporate as Hawking had claimed. There is no negative particles. BH has the ability to create new positive particle pair and give them extra kinetic energy by its high gravity energy.Unless it evaporates in the process of creating new particles, what you have described is a breach of the conservation laws.It's just that you don't seem to be bright enough to recognise this.Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/08/2020 15:48:26(3) Even if they did, it wouldn't help because they wouldn't build a universe that looks like this one - Yes it does. The Rocket over rocket system can do it easily.That wouldn't work anyway,, but it doesn't matter.The "rocket over rocket "idea is a breach of GR.Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/08/2020 15:48:26(4) Even if they could, you still need to explain where the first one comes from - The Universe and its infinite space was always thereNo.Because Olber.Also because the conservation laws.Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/08/2020 15:48:26(5) This simply isn't true "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size." - Yes it is. I have already explained this issue. You would never ever get a black body radiation outside the cavity (in the open space). Only if you are located at the cavity itself (or monitor the radiation in the cavity by a tiny hole) you could find the Black body radiation. That's not a sensible explanation.Inside of a finite, large, universe that was once very hot, you expect a CMB.As I have pointed out, what if we are in a big (but finite) box with black walls at 2.7K?That would be finite, and we would see BBR .Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/08/2020 15:48:26(6) Even if it was true, this wouldn't be a valid deduction "Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age." - Yes it is. In order to set an infinite Universe from a single BH you must use infinite time.Other mechanisms (those which are not a pile of junk) do not start from a singe BH and make it grow by magic.Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/08/2020 15:48:26(7) We know that it's finite, thanks to Olber - This is a fiction. Our Universe is infinite. Olber theory could work only if in the all the galaxies in the infinite universe are moving at a velocity which is lower than the speed of light relative to our location.No, because some of them would be moving towards us (very fast).Now, since it's clear that you are wrong about all that, why not just accept that you are wrong?