Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

Jun 4, 2008 Full story: www.nytimes.com 3,459

Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts.

Full Story
First Prev
of 173
Next Last

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#3501 Jul 22, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Did you know that like our moon, mercury has almost no spin? Did you also know that like our moon, mercury has almost no atmosphere?
Did you also know that like our moon, Mercury doesn't have as much mass as the Earth and therefore has less gravity.
Did you know that mercury is 2/5ths the size of earth, but it's gravity is only 38% as that of the earth, while it is only 36 million miles from the sun?
It's distance from the sun is irrelevant.

Mercury's SIZE is irrelevant to it's mass. Size is a measure of distance from one side to the other, mass is a measure of density.

An object which is made of foam can be twenty times larger than an object made of lead and still have less mass.

Gravity is a measurement of mass and distance. A very small, very massive object will have higher gravity on the surface than a very large but EQUALLY massive object will have on it's surface.

That's because the DISTANCE from the center of mass to the surface will be greater.

Spin has NOTHING to do with the equation.

Did you know that the closer a planet is to the sun, the stronger the gravitational forces are?
... from the Sun - yes.

From the planet to an object on the planet, NO. The distance to the Sun has NO effect on the gravity between a planet and an object on the surface of that planet.
If mercury is approx 40% the size of earth, but it has only 38% of earths gravity, while being so very close to the sun, that makes no sense at all, if just mass accounts for gravity, unless one considers spin rate.
Again, you are throwing in variables that are irrelevant.

All you need to calculate gravity is:
Mass of the object
Distance from the center of mass.

So, get Mercury's MASS and get Mercury's radius, then you can determine the gravity on the surface of Mercury.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#3502 Jul 22, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Did you know that like our moon, mercury has almost no spin? Did you also know that like our moon, mercury has almost no atmosphere?
...
Mercury only has the gravity it does, because of its very fast rotation. That also leads me to speculate that while axis spin rate is responsible for atmosphere, rotational rate does not.
Wow, you just are all over the place, aren't you?

First, you are contradicting yourself. You said Mercury has no rotation and that Mercury has high rotation.

Second axis spin rate IS "rotational rate".
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#3503 Jul 22, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The following work is from Isaac Newton, and explains with high accuracy the expected force of gravity between any two objects:
F = G (M1xM2)/r^2
G Force = G x (mass1 x mass2 )/ radius squared.
No rotation variable necessary.
Gravity does not vary with rotation.
If anything, the only time rotation will confuse the issue is if an object sitting on the equatorial surface of a rapidly spinning body.
This is of course explained by Newton's other work on Centripetal Force, as:
F = mv^2 / r
Centripetal Force = mass x velocity x velocity / radius
This centripetal force can appear to COUNTER gravity making it look weaker, for an object on the equatorial surface of a rapidly spinning planet. Exactly the opposite of what your alternative theory predicts, Jim Ryan.
Thanks Isaac.
So chimney, you claim the following work is from Issac newton in your opening statement above.

So show us where newton said this next statement of yours,--No rotation variable necessary.
"gravity does not vary with rotation.
If anything, the only time rotation will confuse the issue is if an object sitting on the equatorial surface of a rapidly spinning body."

I say newton never spoke of spin rate or rotational rate, in conjunction with gravity and atmosphere, before I spoke of such.

Your lying and trying to deceive whomever will follow your lead blindly. Is it good to have a troop
of willing morons behind you chimney.

You could show us all where newton or any scientist has spoken of spin and rotational rates pertaining to atmosphere and gravity, right? Yea, uh huh.

Show proof chimney.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#3504 Jul 22, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>I say newton never spoke of spin rate or rotational rate, in conjunction with gravity and atmosphere, before I spoke of such.
Probably because he wasn't stupid enough to think that spin rate had anything to do with gravity or that rotation rate had anything to do with an atmosphere.
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#3505 Jul 22, 2012
I have provided what none here can refute, but then these morons always use the same tactics they do now and then they all scream and cry when are outed for what they do.

Just look at how I pointed out that chimney said,--gravity does not vary with rotation.

I say chimney is lying and that not newton and not anyone in science have spoken of what I have.

The other morons here are just doing the same as chimney, only in different ways.

They twist word and meaning and use deceit in so many ways, while they make a whole bunch of gibberish, hoping to distract as many as possible.

Notice how none of them can stand on their own two feet, they have to act like children in school.

It's ok, my hypothesis is rock solid.
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#3506 Jul 22, 2012
This is my hypothesis, where axis planetary spin rate, coupled by orbital spin rate, are a necessity for gravity and atmosphere. 

There can be no gravity and no atmosphere without axis and orbital spin.

Look to earths moon for confirmation of spin rate creating gravity and atmosphere, as the moon has such a small amount of spin, gravity and atmosphere, versus my research on Venus .

In my latest research, scientists claim that Venus has 90% of earths gravity, but Venus spin rate was waaay down from that of earth, so I did more research and found that in keplers 2nd law, it says,---

Copy and paste follows!

Since the distance between the Sun's center and the planet's center (d) changes, the gravitational force between them does too. Comparing the expressions for gravitational force with the general force law (Newton's 2nd Law of Motion), one can see that acceleration of M1(let's say the Sun) is G M2 / d2, and that of M2(the planet) is G M1 / d2. That is, the acceleration of a planet in its orbit around the Sun depends upon the mass of the Sun and the inverse square of the planet's distance from the Sun. As the planet moves further away in its orbit around the Sun, the gravitational force exerted by the Sun on the planet decreases. If the force exerted on the planet decreases, the planet's acceleration, proportional to Msun/d2, must also decrease, resulting in a lower orbital speed. We won't worry about how orbital acceleration is converted into orbital speed in this class. Just think of accelerating a bowling ball down the bowling alley - a ball undergoing a greater acceleration from rest (in your hands) attains a higher speed moving down the lane. That's all you need to understand, and you already knew that. 

Now since I have claimed that spin rate is not only on axis, but orbital as well,-as I showed with the moon,--- spin rate still applies to my claims.

When I was reading venus's bio, it stated the spin rate was very slow, but science claimed that since Venus was 90% the size and mass of earth, without mentioning keplers law, sciences claim that size equals gravity.
So that's how Venus with a very slow axis spin, but a very fast orbital rate, keep gravity high and my hypothesis on spin rate as still correct.

Here is what this site claims about Venus's versus earths gravity,---while it says nothing of keplers law.

Venus is the virtual twin of Earth in many ways. Similar size, mass and density. But what is the gravity on Venus? According to our friends over at NASA, the answer is 8.87 m/s2. To translate that a little more, it is about 90% of the gravity here on Earth. A person who measures 100 kg when they leave home would tip the scales on the Venusian surface at 90 kg.

The surface gravity of Venus is not the only characteristic of the planet that nearly mirrors Earth. Venus has 86% of the volume that Earth has along with 82% of the mass. The planet’s density is nearly identical at 5.243 g/cm3.

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14245/what-is-th...

I think since science has never considered spin rate, meaning axis spin and rotational spin in dealing with gravity and atmosphere, as science has always claimed that mass was all that accounted for gravity, they may have measured the gravity as correct, but science could not then add in keplers law or they would have had to explain what they could not.

Jim Ryan 
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#3507 Jul 22, 2012
2nd part spin rate

This is my work, no one will find it anywhere else in science before this date. 

Did you know that like our moon, mercury has almost no spin? Did you also know that like our moon, mercury has almost no atmosphere?

Did you know that mercury is 2/5ths the size of earth, but it's gravity is only 38% as that of the earth, while it is only 36 million miles from the sun and earth is almost 3 times that distance from the sun?

Did you know that the closer a planet is to the sun, the stronger the gravitational forces are? If mercury is approx 40% the size of earth, but it has only 38% of earths gravity, while being so very close to the sun, that makes no sense at all, if just mass accounts for gravity, unless one considers spin rate. 

Mercury only has the gravity it does, because of its very fast rotation. That also leads me to speculate that while axis spin rate is responsible for atmosphere, rotational rate is not.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#3508 Jul 22, 2012
Psychology wrote:
It's ok, my hypothesis is rock solid.
Only in your deluded and unstable mind.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#3509 Jul 22, 2012
Psychology wrote:
There can be no gravity and no atmosphere without axis and orbital spin.
Definitely one for the FSTDT.

Almost as crazy as malarkeyman11's "birds and airplanes manipulate gravity in order to fly".

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#3510 Jul 22, 2012
Psychology wrote:
I have provided what none here can refute
Actually, you've provided nothing.

You point out that Mercury has a very low rate of spin, THEN you conclude that Mercury's gravity would be lower if it wasn't spinning so fast.

You give us NO numbers, NO equations, NO experimental evidence
-AND-
The ENTIRE rest of the scientific community is against you.

You are a loon.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#3511 Jul 22, 2012
Psychology wrote:
This is my hypothesis, where axis planetary spin rate, coupled by orbital spin rate, are a necessity for gravity and atmosphere. 
There is no such thing as "orbital spin rate".

Your hypothesis fails because you don't even have the proper vocabulary to describe what you are trying to claim.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#3513 Jul 23, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
So chimney, you claim the following work is from Issac newton in your opening statement above.

So show us where newton said this next statement of yours,--No rotation variable necessary.
This is the source:

F = G Mm/r^2

Its one of his equations, basically. There is no spin variable as its simply not a necessary part of the calculation of the g-force.

Leaving OUT spin is the same thing as saying it is not an essential part of the equation for determining gravity. Gravity was determined very successfully using this formula, meaning adding "spin" was unnecessary.

Source? Everywhere. Newton's laws are hardly a secret. You can start with wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_co...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#3514 Jul 23, 2012
Psychology wrote:
I say newton never spoke of spin rate or rotational rate, in conjunction with gravity and atmosphere, before I spoke of such.
Your lying and trying to deceive whomever will follow your lead blindly. Is it good to have a troop
of willing morons behind you chimney.
You could show us all where newton or any scientist has spoken of spin and rotational rates pertaining to atmosphere and gravity, right? Yea, uh huh.
Show proof chimney.
Newton did speak of centripetal force, which includes the "flying out" effect of something on the surface of a spinning sphere - but which has if anything the OPPOSITE effect on apparent gravitational attraction on that surface:

F = mv^2 / r

This was hundreds of years ago Jim.
Gravity is NOT a function of spin.
Simple.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#3515 Jul 23, 2012
Psychology wrote:
My name is Jim Ryan and the above work is mine, dealing with spin and rotation rates, dealing with gravity and atmosphere.
{head/desk}

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#3516 Jul 23, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Show your source
Jimbo's back on the sauce again.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#3517 Jul 23, 2012
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Definitely one for the FSTDT.
Almost as crazy as malarkeyman11's "birds and airplanes manipulate gravity in order to fly".
Indeed, Jimbo's currently scoring very high on the crackpot index. First it was his special carpet-tacks contributing to the psychological wellbeing of all animals so they won't pish on the carpet, now he's about to completely revolutionize physics.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#3518 Jul 23, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, Jimbo's currently scoring very high on the crackpot index. First it was his special carpet-tacks contributing to the psychological wellbeing of all animals so they won't pish on the carpet, now he's about to completely revolutionize physics.
HAHA! "revolutionized" physics.

Get it?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#3519 Jul 23, 2012
GAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#3520 Jul 24, 2012
Psychology wrote:
2nd part spin rate
This is my work, no one will find it anywhere else in science before this date. 
Nor after this date, I would bet.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 173
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 min xxxooxxx 134,687
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 3 hr The Dude 13,639
Intelligent Design: Still Dead [EvolutionBlog] 3 hr geezerjock 1
How would creationists explain... 3 hr The Dude 446
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 3 hr The Dude 514
Evolutionists staes that white people are more ... (Jun '06) 7 hr spiderlover 77
Science News (Sep '13) 23 hr Hatti_Hollerand 2,948
More from around the web