Should evolution be taught in high school?

[Mugwump]

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, I am refuting your claims by showing that mass and radius, with G = 6.67E-11, are all that is required.
Mass radius squared gravity on 1kg
Earth 5.97 x 10^24 4.06789E+13 9.78 100% of earth
Moon 7.35 x 10ˆ22 3,0206E +12 1.62 16.5% of earth
Mars 6.42 x 10ˆ23 1.15396E+13 3.71 37.9% of earth
All done purely with mass and radius, no SPIN required, using the formula I gave you. You can do the whole solar system if you like.

Seriously awesome work there - tell me are you some kind of uber-genius to work all that out - or please tell me there is some kind of electronic encyclopedia available that has all this information freely available - maybe if so Jim could use it to research his claims - then not bother posting them.

[Chimney1]

Psychology wrote:

<quoted text>
Then compare this with the other 2.bmercurys mass and volume are tiny, so why the huge gravity?
How about volume? The volume of Mercury is 6.1 x 1010 km3. That sounds like a big number, but it’s really only 5.4% the volume of Earth. In other words, you could fit 18 objects the size of Mercury inside Earth.
Mass? The mass of Mercury is 3.3 x 1023 kg. Again it sounds like a big number, but it’s really only 5.5% the mass of Earth.
Finally, let’s look at the gravity on its surface. If you could stand on the surface of Mercury (with a nice spacesuit), you would experience 38% the force of gravity that you experience on Earth. In other words, if you weighed 100 kg on Earth, you would weigh 38 kg on Mercury.
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/22150/mercury-co...

OK, lets do Mercury:

mass = 3.3 X 10^23 kg
radius = 2,444,000 metres

G Mm / r^2 = 3.684 Newtons of G force on the surface.

Since on earth, its 9.79 newtons, according to this calculation Mercury's surface gravity should be 37.65% of Earth's.

Is that close?

See, this method works, Jim, and all you have to do is learn it. Its standard Newtonian physics.

[TedHOhio]

Psychology wrote:

Seems I made a mistake in mars mass, it is only 10%of earths mass, but it is half of earths size. So, which is it, if gravity is not due to mass as you claim? 1/10th earths mass and yet, 38%of its gravity.
Science fiction has built up Mars to be another twin planet of Earth, sure it’s colder and red, but it probably seems similar to Earth, right? Well, Mars is actually a tiny little world. The diameter of Mars is 6,800 km across. This is 53% the diameter of Earth. And then consider the mass of Mars. It has only 10% the mass of Earth. Because of the small diameter and low mass, the surface gravity on Mars is only 38% the gravity on Earth. If you weighed 100 kg on Earth, you would weigh 38 kg on Mars.
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/22603/mars-compa...

You really are screwed up in the head. The mass measurement is called 'intrinsic mass', if I remember my 5th grade science. Your measurement of gravity involves more than just the intrinsic mass. Several folks have already pointed out several of the particulars -- which you seem to have dismissed without bothering to read.

Again, go back to why Mercury and Mars, two planets of even greater mass difference have the same surface gravity, why? And it doesn't seem to have anything to do with spin.

[Chimney1]

Mugwump wrote:

<quoted text>
Seriously awesome work there - tell me are you some kind of uber-genius to work all that out - or please tell me there is some kind of electronic encyclopedia available that has all this information freely available - maybe if so Jim could use it to research his claims - then not bother posting them.

No way man. The masses and radii came from a site I posted along with the figures, and the gravity calculation is easily found too, and very easy to apply with a calculator or spreadsheet. Its basic newtonian physics.

Sorry to burst your bubble!

[TedHOhio]

Mugwump wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know if this is worth it - but let me try re:- you above statement.
You seem to think there is a direct link (I.e. half one , half the other) between mass and gravity - it isn't as simple as that - you have to take into account the circumference of the planet as well (it's size if you like), the use a constant of proportionality.- ok reasonably simple.
I believe someone has already posted the formula - but Jimbo, if you and only you understand the science - how come you couldn't just look this up yourself ?

He's apparently pretty lazy.

[Drew Smith]

Psychology wrote:

Seems I made a mistake in mars mass

Imagine that.

Psychology wrote:

it is only 10%of earths mass, but it is half of earths size. So, which is it, if gravity is not due to mass as you claim? 1/10th earths mass and yet, 38%of its gravity.

Because gravity is not due to *only* mass, but due *also* to *distance* to the center of the mass. And as someone else had already pointed out to you, when you're on the surface of Mars, you're closer to the center of the planet's mass then when you're on the surface of Earth.

[Mugwump]

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
No way man. The masses and radii came from a site I posted along with the figures, and the gravity calculation is easily found too, and very easy to apply with a calculator or spreadsheet. Its basic newtonian physics.
Sorry to burst your bubble!

Seriously ? You don't get humour (must be a Brit thing)

Joking apart was trying to point out to Jimbo that all of this is available if only he would look.

Bet you don't even get Fawtly Towers :-)

[Psychology]

Let's see if you can understand the following.

Oh my gosh, all that you children claim is total BS.

   Understanding gravity is something that has been sought after for a very long time. Some of the most prestigious scientists of the world have spent their lives trying to understand its true nature. Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of theories have been put forth to explain the phenomena but only wind up explaining its function. The only theory that even comes close to understanding gravity is the Superstring Theory in which gravity appears as the lowest energy vibration of a fundamental particle. Gravity is generated from each and every fundamental particle that has inertial mass.

   All energies we can detect are forms of vibrating entities in the fabric, for if these energies are not vibrating they are unobservable in our existence. Energy itself cannot be defined other than by its results which we can observe in the form of electromagnetic radiation or mass. Gravity does not exist without the presence of a mass, therefore mass and gravity are completely linked to each other's existence. I use the term fabric, but in the old days it was referred to as the ether (Aether). The ether was generally believed to be some form of a solid of infinite density, and waves of energy used that solid as a means to propagate. I do not refer to the fabric in this way, but I do hold to the idea that the fabric does support an energy wave, and not only support it, but is part of the existence of vibrating energy.

http://www.gravityms.com/

[Psychology]

Did you children get that," vibrating entities"? Vibrating, spinning. Drop off morons.

[Dogen]

Psychology wrote:

Let's see if you can understand the following.
Oh my gosh, all that you children claim is total BS.
   Understanding gravity is something that has been sought after for a very long time. Some of the most prestigious scientists of the world have spent their lives trying to understand its true nature. Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of theories have been put forth to explain the phenomena but only wind up explaining its function. The only theory that even comes close to understanding gravity is the Superstring Theory in which gravity appears as the lowest energy vibration of a fundamental particle. Gravity is generated from each and every fundamental particle that has inertial mass.
   All energies we can detect are forms of vibrating entities in the fabric, for if these energies are not vibrating they are unobservable in our existence. Energy itself cannot be defined other than by its results which we can observe in the form of electromagnetic radiation or mass. Gravity does not exist without the presence of a mass, therefore mass and gravity are completely linked to each other's existence. I use the term fabric, but in the old days it was referred to as the ether (Aether). The ether was generally believed to be some form of a solid of infinite density, and waves of energy used that solid as a means to propagate. I do not refer to the fabric in this way, but I do hold to the idea that the fabric does support an energy wave, and not only support it, but is part of the existence of vibrating energy.
http://www.gravityms.com/

Don't quote things you don't understand. You don't get the basics.

[Dogen]

Psychology wrote:

Did you children get that," vibrating entities"? Vibrating, spinning. Drop off morons.

This post is completely nonsensical. Please try rewording it till it makes sense.

[LowellGuy]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Most people just do what they're told I guess and don't question authority.

I'm going to type this slowly. THE AUTHORITIES IN THE SCIENCES WERE CREATIONISTS. Why did THEY, the CREATIONIST SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITIES, abandon creationism and accept evolutionary theory? Darwin was NOT the authority. In fact, he endured ridicule at their hands. He had to submit his work to them. Why did THEY, of all people, accept evolutionary theory and abandon creationism?

I cut the rest, as it's all based on you ignoring this fundamental premise. As I explained, if you confronted this question, you'd be forced to admit that the evidence supports evolutionary theory and does not support creationism. But, you go ahead and keep telling yourself whatever lies you need to comfort yourself in your time of need. Who cares if it's true as long as it makes you happy, right?

[LowellGuy]

Psychology wrote:

On the net mars is said to be half of earths mass. So according to science and you, mars gravity should be half of earths.
Oh my doodness, today on the Diane rheems show, one of the scientists now claims that mars gravity is one sixth that of earth.
Science lies its azz off.

The internets has wrong information? GET OUT!

[Mugwump]

Psychology wrote:

Did you children get that," vibrating entities"? Vibrating, spinning. Drop off morons.

Ok, forgetting the fact that vibrations not equal to spinning - its time to stop this nonsense

Can you produce some equations relating 'spin' and gravity that are more accurate than those relating mass and gravity ( oh, and circumference of body )

This will promote your hypothesis and earn you worldwide recognition.

Over to you Jim Ryan

[Psychology]

Just like all of sciences other hypothesis, mostly BS.

[LowellGuy]

Psychology wrote:

Seems I made a mistake in mars mass, it is only 10%of earths mass, but it is half of earths size. So, which is it, if gravity is not due to mass as you claim? 1/10th earths mass and yet, 38%of its gravity.

Mars is 70% as dense as Earth, which accounts for its greater size per unit mass. Being closer to the center of the mass of Mars accounts for its gravity being more than 1/10th that of Earth. I don't suppose you could have googled "mars earth" and clicked this link: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factshee...

It's right on the first page of results. It would have taken you all of 5 seconds, and it would have explained why what you're saying is so stupid. You're asking questions that have already been answered decades ago.

By the way, if Mars didn't spin, its gravitational pull would stay the same. In fact, if you have a non-spinning asteroid in space, it has gravity, but YOUR hypothesis (and I use that term EXTREMELY loosely) says it should have no gravity, as it is not mass but SPIN that creates gravity.

I ask again: does the tip of a Dremel tool have a greater gravitational pull when it's spinning than when it's not? If so, what is the amount of gravitational fluctuation it experiences, and can you please demonstrate this for us? Thanks.

You do realize that for $40, you could prove your hypothesis conclusively, right?$40 at the hardware store is all you need to prove your physics correct. Are you willing to win a Nobel prize by spending a mere $40.

[LowellGuy]

Psychology wrote:

Just like all of sciences other hypothesis, mostly BS.

So, you admit that YOUR "hypothesis" is not science. Great! Finally, something we can all agree on.

[Psychology]

Too bad morons, my hypothesis is grounded in science and comparison. All you have is someone declaring such, with no proof and no comparisons.

Drop off morons.

[Kong_]

Psychology wrote:

Let's see if you can understand the following.
Oh my gosh, all that you children claim is total BS.
   Understanding gravity is something that has been sought after for a very long time. Some of the most prestigious scientists of the world have spent their lives trying to understand its true nature. Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of theories have been put forth to explain the phenomena but only wind up explaining its function. The only theory that even comes close to understanding gravity is the Superstring Theory in which gravity appears as the lowest energy vibration of a fundamental particle. Gravity is generated from each and every fundamental particle that has inertial mass.
   All energies we can detect are forms of vibrating entities in the fabric, for if these energies are not vibrating they are unobservable in our existence. Energy itself cannot be defined other than by its results which we can observe in the form of electromagnetic radiation or mass. Gravity does not exist without the presence of a mass, therefore mass and gravity are completely linked to each other's existence. I use the term fabric, but in the old days it was referred to as the ether (Aether). The ether was generally believed to be some form of a solid of infinite density, and waves of energy used that solid as a means to propagate. I do not refer to the fabric in this way, but I do hold to the idea that the fabric does support an energy wave, and not only support it, but is part of the existence of vibrating energy.
http://www.gravityms.com/

Dumbass.

Even your own link has the following sentance (providing you read & comprehended the meaning of it):

"Gravity is the product of the distortion density differences in the fabric caused by the presence of a inertial mass."

Gravity = mass (more or less).

Get it?

[Psychology]

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Dumbass.
Even your own link has the following sentance (providing you read & comprehended the meaning of it):
"Gravity is the product of the distortion density differences in the fabric caused by the presence of a inertial mass."
Gravity = mass (more or less).
Get it?

Their hypothesis offers no comparison. Mine offers comparison. Drop off moron.