Civilization Among The Other Planets

[Luger187]

Is it wrong that this part stuck out to me the most? LOL haha good stuff buddy...but you REALLY put some thought into this, and who knows, you could be right, or we all could be right.

But to kind of take it in a different direction, how about this; which of the following would you think would cause the MOST variation from life on earth? If you were to only replace ONE of these, but every other aspect of the other planet remained identical to earth:

-Atmospheric pressure, and the makeup of the gasses within it
-The landscape, as well as the proportion of landmass vs water
-Orbital period around said planet's sun, and/or the photoperiod (example, one day to that planet, is equal to 4 straight earth days of light followed by 4 earth days of nighttime)
-Mass and gravitational field of said planet
-Amount of moons/suns that planet orbited, or had orbiting around it in the case of moons

i think atmospheric changes would create the most change

Not true at all. A sheet of paper does not display its own gravity, it displays characteristics that imply it is effected by Earths gravity. Again, you are making overly general claims regarding Gravity. You have absolutely no idea. A baseball only has inertia from someone throwing or hitting it. If it does contain gravity merely because it is spherical, it is beyond immeasurable.

Large masses contain gravity, its most likely due to a core-structure that we have yet to study for obvious reasons.

what makes earths mass different than the papers mass? not only does the piece of paper move towards the earth, but the earth moves VERY SLIGHTLY up towards the paper. the earth obviously wins this struggle between the two, so the paper falls down. if you let go of two objects in space they will move towards eachother

 

[Luger187]

Particle effects on one-another are not necessarily relevant to gravity. It could be a reaction that only exists in an environment with gravity. Even vacuum tested, gravity is still a factor. Until you take the test into space is it truly free of gravity's naturally effects. NASA has done extensive testing regarding this FACT.

they are not FREE of the effects of gravity in space. it is just so far away that the effect is minuscule. we are extremely slightly affected by the other planets too. its just the further away you go, the more it drops off

 

[Luger187]

I think your misunderstanding is that all particles are effected by gravity. Which there is an abundance of, on Earth.

particles are also in paper

 

[Finshaggy]

No they wouldn't move toward each other. The Earth moves towards the sun, and actually so does the paper. To prove your point we would need to empty space, and leave only the paper and the Earth. Even If you were just there to observe it, it would shatter everything.

 

[Finshaggy]

Particles are in paper, but that doesn't prove your other thing right. He said gravity effects them, not they have gravity.

 

[olylifter420]

that would gravity relative to the sun right?

No they wouldn't move toward each other. The Earth moves towards the sun, and actually so does the paper. To prove your point we would need to empty space, and leave only the paper and the Earth. Even If you were just there to observe it, it would shatter everything.

 

[Luger187]

No they wouldn't move toward each other. The Earth moves towards the sun, and actually so does the paper. To prove your point we would need to empty space, and leave only the paper and the Earth. Even If you were just there to observe it, it would shatter everything.

the earth is constantly 'falling' towards the sun. but its orbit keeps it from falling in.
the paper would be falling away from the sun if it was daytime when you dropped the paper. the effect of the suns gravity on the paper is very small, since the paper doesnt have much mass and the sun is so far away. but the earth is close, so gravity is a lot stronger between the earth and paper, even though the papers mass is small. the large mass of the sun and large mass of the earth are so big that they can still 'pull' on each other with significant force from long distances. it is because they are BOTH very massive that they have this affect on eachother. if the earth was a small mass like the paper, i think its trajectory would let it float out into space

 

[mindphuk]

It was Newton that demonstrated that all things with mass attract each other. The paper is attracted to the earth as much as the earth to the paper. This is why it is called Newton's law of universal gravitation. It was about the universality of gravity. The mass of the paper is negligible (but still measurable) when compared to the earth. Einstein told us that spacetime curves around anything with mass, including us, including a sheet of paper. That's why two sheets of paper will be attracted to each other and that force is measurable. It is done in the lab all of the time.

 

[THENUMBER1022]

I never said that paper was free from the effects of gravity. not ONCE. some of you guys read the first sentence and immediately jump to posting.

I said that all objects tested, even in these special labs, that DO IT ALL THE TIME, earth gravity effects their actions. Therefor, the gravity displayed cannot be associated with the testing object as much as considered the culprit for the effect. Obviously, your theory is flawed. We have orbital solar systems, and at no point does Jupiter leave orbit, to be one with the sun. Objects with mass are effected differently than objects that have their own gravitational pull. I don't know who the hell said you can reverse Earth's gravity with a magnet, but I would sure like to see this magic-magnet you speak of.


Everyone is jumping to conclusions, using 'laws of physics'. But laws are constantly broken, and as if I haven't said it enough, no one knows a god damn thing about gravity. NO ONE. and whatever we think we know, certainly will not apply to the next planet.

 

[olylifter420]

. and whatever we think we know, certainly will not apply to the next planet.

why would it not apply to a planet? A planet is large in mass no matter what if it is labeled a planet.

 

[THENUMBER1022]

Bottom line, if your theory held truth, a boeing 757 wouldn't need jet engines, just enough magnets to 'reverse earths gravity'. And the titanic could fly? would the titanic falling at g have the same impact as a peice of paper? if not, why?

Its possible that metals are naturally magnetic to earth core, but that would mean reversing the metal's polarity could make it weightless, or less than, or expose anti-gravity. Which we know isn't the case. So once again, we do not understand gravity.

 

[THENUMBER1022]

because a planet of even slightly different characteristics than that of Earth could potentially have 1000x the gravity on Earth. Why? I don't know, you tell me. Large masses in space seem to contain gravity, but not all the time. Take our asteroid belt for instance. Some objects are not even spherical nor a true planet, but contain gravity. In this case, their may be area's of the object that amplify gravity. In earth, there is a specific gravity field that is established as our own, and our Moon's is being studied as we speak.

 

[Finshaggy]

@mindphuk:But we don't know what gravity is, or what it's cuased by. We theorize.

 

[Luger187]

I never said that paper was free from the effects of gravity. not ONCE. some of you guys read the first sentence and immediately jump to posting.

I said that all objects tested, even in these special labs, that DO IT ALL THE TIME, earth gravity effects their actions. Therefor, the gravity displayed cannot be associated with the testing object as much as considered the culprit for the effect.

what are you talking about? how does that mean the gravity is only coming from the earth?

Obviously, your theory is flawed. We have orbital solar systems, and at no point does Jupiter leave orbit, to be one with the sun.

its not my theory, its newtons and einsteins.

jupiter does not leave orbit because its outward trajectory is balanced with the inward pull of gravity between jupiter and the sun. and also other planets slightly

Objects with mass are effected differently than objects that have their own gravitational pull.

where did you learn such a thing? mass is directly related to gravitation. if an object has mass, it also has gravity.

I don't know who the hell said you can reverse Earth's gravity with a magnet, but I would sure like to see this magic-magnet you speak of.

any magnet can pick up a paperclip. heres one i found for an example. the magnetism is the only force acting on these paperclips besides gravity. the magnetism is overcoming gravity. BUT if you had a big piece of steel, the magnet would not pick it up because the steel has a higher gravitational 'field' and is more attracted to the earth. what is the difference between the paperclip and the steel? mass...

[video=youtube;EzQCOGlsZ6Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzQCOGlsZ6Q[/video]

Everyone is jumping to conclusions, using 'laws of physics'.

no we are trying to show you what those laws really are

But laws are constantly broken, and as if I haven't said it enough, no one knows a god damn thing about gravity. NO ONE. and whatever we think we know, certainly will not apply to the next planet.

many people know about gravity, with varying degrees of knowledge. einstein sure knew a lot. and yes gravity does apply to other planets. also stars and galaxies.

 

[mindphuk]

I never said that paper was free from the effects of gravity. not ONCE. some of you guys read the first sentence and immediately jump to posting.

I never claimed that's what you said. I was explaining that all things with mass produce the effects of gravity, even paper. The effect is tiny but it's there.

I said that all objects tested, even in these special labs, that DO IT ALL THE TIME, earth gravity effects their actions. Therefor, the gravity displayed cannot be associated with the testing object as much as considered the culprit for the effect. Obviously, your theory is flawed. We have orbital solar systems, and at no point does Jupiter leave orbit, to be one with the sun. Objects with mass are effected differently than objects that have their own gravitational pull. I don't know who the hell said you can reverse Earth's gravity with a magnet, but I would sure like to see this magic-magnet you speak of.

What the hell does that mean? Who said anything about Jupiter leaving orbit? All Luger said was that the sun is attracted to Jupiter in proportion to it's mass. As for the magnet, I think he said that it was demonstrating the weakness of gravity, not that it is reversed. IOW, a tiny magnet is strong enough to counteract the force of gravity on a paper clip even though the entirety of the earth is pulling against it. This demonstrates how much weaker the force of gravity is than the electromagnetic force.

Everyone is jumping to conclusions, using 'laws of physics'. But laws are constantly broken, and as if I haven't said it enough, no one knows a god damn thing about gravity. NO ONE. and whatever we think we know, certainly will not apply to the next planet.

No one knows anything about gravity? You think the laws of physics are routinely broken?

This threads should be renamed, "the many ways people misunderstand basic science"

 

[Finshaggy]

It means that because the test can't be true while the Earth is present.

 

[Finshaggy]

Or more accurately and specifically. "The way mindphuk changes history, without backing it up and expects people to listen"

 

[Finshaggy]

No, that only proves that gravity is weak exactly where the paper clip is. Gravity is MUCH MUCH stronger than a magnet. Put something in the core and try to magnet it out.

 

[THENUMBER1022]

Now, in history, we have learned A LOT about gravity. In fact, the aerofoil is the most complex, yet simple concept man has ever discovered. In nature, a falling drop of water takes on the shape of a teardrop, so this must be the natural way of slipping through space....


A lot of talking and theorizing is fun once in a while, but whatever the equation is, we must try and try and fail many times until we find the right formula. Many saucer designers from the '60's claimed to have discovered the true "earth shape" which appears as a perfect square from the side, but a circle from over top. When spinning, this supposedly recreates the natural phenomenon that we titled gravity. This earth shape rotating in the opposite direction of the wheel itself, in theory, deflects earths gravity. Simply by tuning the radio frequency powering the (possibly mercury filled) earth shape could potential stimulate particals to not only deflect the saucer or grounded out object, but allow the saucer/object to turn up its power and leave our atmosphere, traveling on the gravity fields and radiation of distant suns and planets.

Is it a dream? or a lifetimes work away?

 

[mindphuk]

@mindphuk:But we don't know what gravity is, or what it's cuased by. We theorize.

That's true for just about anything in science. Theories are considered knowledge. How do we know the earth is orbiting the sun? Heliocentric theory. How do we know microorganisms cause disease. Germ theory. How do we know an atom is made up of protons, neutrons, electrons but are mostly empty space? Atomic theory. We know what gravity is because Einstein figured out that objects with mass curve spacetime. Objects, including us, are merely taking the path of least resistance through spacetime. We can explain gravity by saying we are not being pulled toward earth as much as spacetime is pushing down on us.