Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
All the mass in the universe isn't enough, Tony
16 views
Skip to first unread message
Bill
Mar 26, 2012, 8:32:14 AM3/26/12
to
On Mar 26, 9:22 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 8:21 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:41:46 -0700, John Harshman
> > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >T Pagano wrote:
> > I find it hard to believe that Harshman doesn't think one medium sized
> > star (our Sun) can't be balanced considering the billions upon
> > billions of other masses in the ENTIRE Universe. The Milky Way Galaxy
> > alone has 100 billion stars. And Broccoli offered this wonderful
> > graphic of the Universe's super clusters:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Superclusters_atlasoftheuniverse.gif
> > Notice in the graphic that the Virgo Super Cluster is in the center
> > where the Earth happens to be. The graphic depicts clusters of
> > galaxies surrounding the Earth with each galaxy containing approx 100
> > billion stars. And Harshman thinks it stretches credulity that all
> > that can't balance out one medium sized star in the Milky Way?
> > Pleeezzze.
> Indeed, Pleeeze, Tony. The rest of the stars in the Milky Way cannot
> possibly balance out the gravitational effect of the Sun on the Earth.
> Not even close. There are perhaps 400 x 10^9 stars in the Milky Way.
> The Milky way is about 100,000 light years in diameter. So, for ease
> of calculation, assume that
> (1) the average mass of each of those stars is equal to 10 times the
> mass of the sun (biasing things in your favor)
> (2) all of the mass of all of those stars is piled up at a point
> exactly opposite the sun and 50,000 light years away.
> Note that 50,000 light years is about 3 x 10^9 times farther from
> earth than is the sun.
> Therefore the gravitational force exerted by all those 400 billion
> stars would be
> 400 x 10^9 x 10 / 9 x 10^18 or about 4 x 10^-7, about 4 ten-millionths
> of the gravitational force exerted on the earth by the sun.
> Not even remotely strong enough to balance out the gravitational force
> of the sun.
> And pay attention to all the ways in which I biased the calculation in
> your favor. I assumed all the stars in the Milky way are 10 times as
> massive as the sun. I used a linear average of the distance based on
> the diameter of the Milky Way, rather than weighting it according to
> the inverse square law. Most importantly, I assumed that all of the
> mass of all the stars was collected at a point opposite the Sun - in
> reality, many of the stars will be on the same side of earth as the
> sun. The gravitational pull of the rest of the universe cannot account
> for the alleged orbit of the Sun around a fixed Earth.
> And, Tony, you need to balance out the gravitational effect of the
> sun, if you want the earth to stand still. You can invoke the Center
> of Mass until the cows come home, but unless you think Newton's law of
> gravitation is incorrect, you'd better find some actual mass to cancel
> out the gravitational force of the sun on the earth. The stars in the
> Milky Way don't come close. The galaxies further out are too far away
> and too symmetrically distributed to help you.
Let me add one thing. Perhaps you think the total mass of the
universe
would be enough. Nope. Not even close.
The estimate of the mass of the universe, including the dark matter
on
which you like to heap scorn, is about 6 x 10^52 kg or about 3 x
10^22
solar masses.
The diameter of the universe is on the order of 40-50 billion light
years.
So, lets take ALL of that mass, and pile it up at a point a mere 10
billion light years from the earth and sun, much closer than most of
it is on average.
10 billion light years is about 6 x 10^14 times the distance between
the earth and the sun. So the gravitational force of all the mass in
the universe piled up 10 billion light years away would be -
3 x 10^22/ 3.6 x 30^29 or still less than one ten millionth of the
gravitational force exerted on the earth by the sun.
And remember, this assumes that the entire mass of the universe is
conveniently piled up right where it would be most effective in
balancing the gravitational force from the sun.
Swoooooosh.
> On Mar 26, 8:21 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:41:46 -0700, John Harshman
> > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >T Pagano wrote:
> > I find it hard to believe that Harshman doesn't think one medium sized
> > star (our Sun) can't be balanced considering the billions upon
> > billions of other masses in the ENTIRE Universe. The Milky Way Galaxy
> > alone has 100 billion stars. And Broccoli offered this wonderful
> > graphic of the Universe's super clusters:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Superclusters_atlasoftheuniverse.gif
> > Notice in the graphic that the Virgo Super Cluster is in the center
> > where the Earth happens to be. The graphic depicts clusters of
> > galaxies surrounding the Earth with each galaxy containing approx 100
> > billion stars. And Harshman thinks it stretches credulity that all
> > that can't balance out one medium sized star in the Milky Way?
> > Pleeezzze.
> Indeed, Pleeeze, Tony. The rest of the stars in the Milky Way cannot
> possibly balance out the gravitational effect of the Sun on the Earth.
> Not even close. There are perhaps 400 x 10^9 stars in the Milky Way.
> The Milky way is about 100,000 light years in diameter. So, for ease
> of calculation, assume that
> (1) the average mass of each of those stars is equal to 10 times the
> mass of the sun (biasing things in your favor)
> (2) all of the mass of all of those stars is piled up at a point
> exactly opposite the sun and 50,000 light years away.
> Note that 50,000 light years is about 3 x 10^9 times farther from
> earth than is the sun.
> Therefore the gravitational force exerted by all those 400 billion
> stars would be
> 400 x 10^9 x 10 / 9 x 10^18 or about 4 x 10^-7, about 4 ten-millionths
> of the gravitational force exerted on the earth by the sun.
> Not even remotely strong enough to balance out the gravitational force
> of the sun.
> And pay attention to all the ways in which I biased the calculation in
> your favor. I assumed all the stars in the Milky way are 10 times as
> massive as the sun. I used a linear average of the distance based on
> the diameter of the Milky Way, rather than weighting it according to
> the inverse square law. Most importantly, I assumed that all of the
> mass of all the stars was collected at a point opposite the Sun - in
> reality, many of the stars will be on the same side of earth as the
> sun. The gravitational pull of the rest of the universe cannot account
> for the alleged orbit of the Sun around a fixed Earth.
> And, Tony, you need to balance out the gravitational effect of the
> sun, if you want the earth to stand still. You can invoke the Center
> of Mass until the cows come home, but unless you think Newton's law of
> gravitation is incorrect, you'd better find some actual mass to cancel
> out the gravitational force of the sun on the earth. The stars in the
> Milky Way don't come close. The galaxies further out are too far away
> and too symmetrically distributed to help you.
Let me add one thing. Perhaps you think the total mass of the
universe
would be enough. Nope. Not even close.
The estimate of the mass of the universe, including the dark matter
on
which you like to heap scorn, is about 6 x 10^52 kg or about 3 x
10^22
solar masses.
The diameter of the universe is on the order of 40-50 billion light
years.
So, lets take ALL of that mass, and pile it up at a point a mere 10
billion light years from the earth and sun, much closer than most of
it is on average.
10 billion light years is about 6 x 10^14 times the distance between
the earth and the sun. So the gravitational force of all the mass in
the universe piled up 10 billion light years away would be -
3 x 10^22/ 3.6 x 30^29 or still less than one ten millionth of the
gravitational force exerted on the earth by the sun.
And remember, this assumes that the entire mass of the universe is
conveniently piled up right where it would be most effective in
balancing the gravitational force from the sun.
Swoooooosh.
raven1
Mar 26, 2012, 9:25:55 AM3/26/12
to
Earth?
Mike Dworetsky
Mar 26, 2012, 12:01:10 PM3/26/12
to
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Rolf
Mar 26, 2012, 6:08:59 PM3/26/12
to
galaxies. The regular mass/es interact like matter should do, but the black
matter moves on like nothing has happened. Which is the way black matter
behaves, and yet it is an important matter...
T Pagano
Apr 8, 2012, 2:31:24 PM4/8/12
to
>On Mar 26, 9:22 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 8:21 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:41:46 -0700, John Harshman
>> > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > >T Pagano wrote:
>
>
>> > I find it hard to believe that Harshman doesn't think one medium sized
>> > star (our Sun) can't be balanced considering the billions upon
>> > billions of other masses in the ENTIRE Universe. The Milky Way Galaxy
>> > alone has 100 billion stars. And Broccoli offered this wonderful
>> > graphic of the Universe's super clusters:
>
>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Superclusters_atlasoftheuniverse.gif
>
>
>> > Notice in the graphic that the Virgo Super Cluster is in the center
>> > where the Earth happens to be. The graphic depicts clusters of
>> > galaxies surrounding the Earth with each galaxy containing approx 100
>> > billion stars. And Harshman thinks it stretches credulity that all
>> > that can't balance out one medium sized star in the Milky Way?
>> > Pleeezzze.
>
>
>> Indeed, Pleeeze, Tony. The rest of the stars in the Milky Way cannot
>> possibly balance out the gravitational effect of the Sun on the Earth.
>> Not even close. There are perhaps 400 x 10^9 stars in the Milky Way.
>> The Milky way is about 100,000 light years in diameter. So, for ease
>> of calculation, assume that
Bill doesn't read very closely. I didn't discuss balancing out
>> On Mar 26, 8:21 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:41:46 -0700, John Harshman
>> > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > >T Pagano wrote:
>
>
>> > I find it hard to believe that Harshman doesn't think one medium sized
>> > star (our Sun) can't be balanced considering the billions upon
>> > billions of other masses in the ENTIRE Universe. The Milky Way Galaxy
>> > alone has 100 billion stars. And Broccoli offered this wonderful
>> > graphic of the Universe's super clusters:
>
>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Superclusters_atlasoftheuniverse.gif
>
>
>> > Notice in the graphic that the Virgo Super Cluster is in the center
>> > where the Earth happens to be. The graphic depicts clusters of
>> > galaxies surrounding the Earth with each galaxy containing approx 100
>> > billion stars. And Harshman thinks it stretches credulity that all
>> > that can't balance out one medium sized star in the Milky Way?
>> > Pleeezzze.
>
>
>> Indeed, Pleeeze, Tony. The rest of the stars in the Milky Way cannot
>> possibly balance out the gravitational effect of the Sun on the Earth.
>> Not even close. There are perhaps 400 x 10^9 stars in the Milky Way.
>> The Milky way is about 100,000 light years in diameter. So, for ease
>> of calculation, assume that
gravitational effects or balancing them out with the Milky Way. The
discussion was about the center of mass; balancing out the sun's
"mass" with other masses such that the center of mass of a rotating
universe could be colocated at the Earth's position
I pointed out the magnitude of the masses containing within the Milky
Way alone and then offered Broccoli's own graphic showing the
magnitude of the number of galaxies with their masses and the Earth
located at the center.
>
>
>> (1) the average mass of each of those stars is equal to 10 times the
>> mass of the sun (biasing things in your favor)
>> (2) all of the mass of all of those stars is piled up at a point
>> exactly opposite the sun and 50,000 light years away.
>
>
>> Note that 50,000 light years is about 3 x 10^9 times farther from
>> earth than is the sun.
>
>
>> Therefore the gravitational force exerted by all those 400 billion
>> stars would be
>
>> 400 x 10^9 x 10 / 9 x 10^18 or about 4 x 10^-7, about 4 ten-millionths
>> of the gravitational force exerted on the earth by the sun.
>
>> Not even remotely strong enough to balance out the gravitational force
>> of the sun.
balanced by any of the other bodies in a rotating system. In the
neoTychoan model the entire universe is rotating about the center of
mass colocated at the center of the Earth. In such a system the
gravitational vector of each of the bodies is pointing towards the
center of mass. And that gravitational force is balanced by its
centrifugal force generated by its motion around the center of mass
(the earth). This is exactly the situation in the heliocentric model
with regard to the planets.
As such everything below is a waste of time.
Good try Bill, but you crash and burn.
Regards,
T Pagano
Ernest Major
Apr 8, 2012, 3:04:47 PM4/8/12
to
In message <apagano-hdh3o7tdbdmdu...@4ax.com>, T
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
Would you be so kind as to clarify? You are stating that the
neoTychonian (sic) model rejects Newton's theory of gravity (in which
the gravitational force vector on bodies generally does not point
towards the center of mass - with exceptions such as two body systems
and Klemperer rosettes)?
--
alias Ernest Major
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
neoTychonian (sic) model rejects Newton's theory of gravity (in which
the gravitational force vector on bodies generally does not point
towards the center of mass - with exceptions such as two body systems
and Klemperer rosettes)?
--
alias Ernest Major
Friar Broccoli
Apr 8, 2012, 3:13:37 PM4/8/12
to
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:31:24 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:
>Way alone and then offered Broccoli's ...
Tony is already talking about me, so he must now be able to answer the
question he last evaded here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/797e7ab94abb779a
To summarize: Since the earth/moon and the earth/sun systems are each
orbiting a different center of mass at different times, what prevents
the earth from moving contradicting the fundamental requirement of your
neoTychonian model?
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
wrote:
>Way alone and then offered Broccoli's ...
Tony is already talking about me, so he must now be able to answer the
question he last evaded here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/797e7ab94abb779a
To summarize: Since the earth/moon and the earth/sun systems are each
orbiting a different center of mass at different times, what prevents
the earth from moving contradicting the fundamental requirement of your
neoTychonian model?
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
Bill
Apr 8, 2012, 8:37:22 PM4/8/12
to
On Apr 9, 1:31 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >> Indeed, Pleeeze, Tony. The rest of the stars in the Milky Way cannot
> >> possibly balance out the gravitational effect of the Sun on the Earth.
> >> Not even close. There are perhaps 400 x 10^9 stars in the Milky Way.
> >> The Milky way is about 100,000 light years in diameter. So, for ease
> >> of calculation, assume that
>
> Bill doesn't read very closely. I didn't discuss balancing out
> gravitational effects or balancing them out with the Milky Way. The
> discussion was about the center of mass; balancing out the sun's
> "mass" with other masses such that the center of mass of a rotating
> universe could be colocated at the Earth's position
Sometimes, Tony, it's hard to know what you mean. But now you seem to
>
> >> Indeed, Pleeeze, Tony. The rest of the stars in the Milky Way cannot
> >> possibly balance out the gravitational effect of the Sun on the Earth.
> >> Not even close. There are perhaps 400 x 10^9 stars in the Milky Way.
> >> The Milky way is about 100,000 light years in diameter. So, for ease
> >> of calculation, assume that
>
> Bill doesn't read very closely. I didn't discuss balancing out
> gravitational effects or balancing them out with the Milky Way. The
> discussion was about the center of mass; balancing out the sun's
> "mass" with other masses such that the center of mass of a rotating
> universe could be colocated at the Earth's position
be saying that it is simply a postulate of the neo_Tychoan model that
the earth is fixed at the COM of the universe. If it is so fixed by
divine fiat, there is, of course, no need for the gravitational forces
pulling on the earth to sum to zero. If God tacked the earth down to
the ether at that one point, then, indeed, gravitational forces
pulling on the earth are irrelevant. If that's what you mean, no
further argument is necessary.
Klaus Hellnick
Apr 8, 2012, 10:08:03 PM4/8/12
to
Tony's problem with his argument about center of mass is that he seems
to have the mistaken idea that an object at the center of mass will be
stationary. This is nonsense and all arguments about the center of
gravity go over his head.
Tony, try to understand the following two points, which you should
easily be able to verify.
1. An object at the center of mass of a system does not have to stay
there. It's position depends on the vector sum of the forces acting on
it over time.
2. The center of mass, itself, is unlikely to be in a fixed position in
a complex system.
Tony would do well to experiment with some orbit simulation software.
Klaus
to have the mistaken idea that an object at the center of mass will be
stationary. This is nonsense and all arguments about the center of
gravity go over his head.
Tony, try to understand the following two points, which you should
easily be able to verify.
1. An object at the center of mass of a system does not have to stay
there. It's position depends on the vector sum of the forces acting on
it over time.
2. The center of mass, itself, is unlikely to be in a fixed position in
a complex system.
Tony would do well to experiment with some orbit simulation software.
Klaus
Michael Siemon
Apr 8, 2012, 10:17:13 PM4/8/12
to
In article <jltga6$e6l$1...@news.albasani.net>,
You seem to assume that Tony is interested in anything but sophistic
attempts "to make the worse case appear the better." He has exactly
zero reason to actually look at the behavior of Newtonian (or any
other) systems. All that matters is whatever rhetorical "trick" he
thinks he can get away with at any given moment. Consistency is
irrelevant; indeed, relevance is irrelevant.
attempts "to make the worse case appear the better." He has exactly
zero reason to actually look at the behavior of Newtonian (or any
other) systems. All that matters is whatever rhetorical "trick" he
thinks he can get away with at any given moment. Consistency is
irrelevant; indeed, relevance is irrelevant.
Bill
Apr 9, 2012, 1:14:59 AM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 9:17 am, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <jltga6$e6...@news.albasani.net>,
> In article <jltga6$e6...@news.albasani.net>,
> Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tony's problem with his argument about center of mass is that he seems
> > to have the mistaken idea that an object at the center of mass will be
> > stationary. This is nonsense and all arguments about the center of
> > gravity go over his head.
> > Tony, try to understand the following two points, which you should
> > easily be able to verify.
>
> > 1. An object at the center of mass of a system does not have to stay
> > there. It's position depends on the vector sum of the forces acting on
> > it over time.
> > 2. The center of mass, itself, is unlikely to be in a fixed position in
> > a complex system.
>
> > Tony would do well to experiment with some orbit simulation software.
>
> > Klaus
.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tony's problem with his argument about center of mass is that he seems
> > to have the mistaken idea that an object at the center of mass will be
> > stationary. This is nonsense and all arguments about the center of
> > gravity go over his head.
> > Tony, try to understand the following two points, which you should
> > easily be able to verify.
>
> > 1. An object at the center of mass of a system does not have to stay
> > there. It's position depends on the vector sum of the forces acting on
> > it over time.
> > 2. The center of mass, itself, is unlikely to be in a fixed position in
> > a complex system.
>
> > Tony would do well to experiment with some orbit simulation software.
>
> > Klaus
>
> You seem to assume that Tony is interested in anything but sophistic
> attempts "to make the worse case appear the better."
Hemlock should fix that nicely.
> You seem to assume that Tony is interested in anything but sophistic
> attempts "to make the worse case appear the better."
jillery
Apr 9, 2012, 4:21:10 AM4/9/12
to
close to move your presumptive CoM so close to the Earth. There is
none, unless you believe the Earth itself is massive enough. Do you?
0 new messages