First of all, orbits are not a result of gravity. [...]
you ppl dont think.
25 comments
Later in the thread:
"i think the reason i thought that because something is infinitely small it must = 0 is because in my limited calculus training we found that the limit of 1 divided by infinity is 0. jus trying to think abstractly"
I wish I had a Myspace account just so I could tell this guy he should have paid more attention in his calculus class, because what he wrote right there is flat-out wrong.
Funny, because the Universal Law of Gravitation correctly predicts the shape of the orbits (elliptic, parabolic, or hyperbolic) we observe. And it also seems to predict the sort of effect we saw with Hale-Bopp as it passed by Jupiter - the comet passed close enough that Jupiter's gravity severely altered its trajectory.
Are you suggesting that some other force is having *exactly* the effect we would expect gravity to have and gravity isn't doing diddly?
For anyone who wants a really good lesson in quantum models of the universe, the original posts from whence these comments came is awesome. Unfortunately, Mr. |-Jaguar-| never really seemed to get it; not even on his last posts.
I proudly proclaim myself a gravitationist !
String cant work because it would get tangled as the plantets revolve around the Sun. Sorry but I am not a geocenterist.
Perhaps if the planets were on wires you could get that to work. Like an orrery.
image
Thank you for admitting that Celestia and Luna are real , then.
Akhenaten/the Japanese, and the ancient Romans/Greeks were right after all.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.