Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[Justatruthseeker]

I just want to point out that in addition to dividing by wrong mass (you should divide by the test mass), your math is wrong here.

If you divide by something smaller, you get a *larger* result, not a smaller one.

Oh, now you suddenly want to forget that it is a negative force...... How convenient for you that you need not be consistent in your claims....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I know, in that picture they are showing you a fiction of an imaginary sheet pulled downward by the force of gravity underneath the sheet.

They fail to take into account this is nothing as would be the reality since the curvature must be from all directions simultaneously..... Not a false representation of a one directional curve..... You do understand that gravity works in all directions at the same time, not just one, do you not? So knowing this you give a false misrepresentation of the reality????

I noticed you didn't include one with the earth in place in that false representation....

View attachment 27983
Oh that's right, because it encloses the entire earth as it indents the fabric of spacetime, not curves to the center - making your case even weaker....

Or maybe you would prefer NASA's fabricated sorry excuse for reality????

View attachment 27985

Weak representations follow a weak case......

So why are you not arguing for the picture you attached? That the curvature is greatest at the south pole at the surface???? That's what your picture represents after all.....

But that's the problem with those not being able to perceive nothing but simple representations versus what would be the reality.... Those people think they understand, but in reality understand nothing....

Versus the reality....

View attachment 27984

Where each line of force would bend into the object from all angles, then curve inwards and outwards as the mass below lessened and the mass above increased......

You simply can't picture the reality so all you can imagine is a ball placed onto a rubber sheet bending it downwards. It not only doesn't reflect reality, but gives a false misrepresentation of what is actually happening.....

Small error compounded by another error by showing me a picture that requires a ball placed on a sheet with the curvature going underneath the ball........ Oy vey!!!!

No, that is not "a fiction" That is a mathematical representation of the gravitational potential. That is all.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

*sigh* NOT the mass of the gravitating object. The mass of the object being exposed to the force. See below.



Please go learn some basics.



Yes. As a simple case, if there are two masses, M (the mass we want to find the potential for) and m (the test mass), then the potential energy looks like

U=-GMm/r

for a singular well (the easiest case). Notice that this depends on *both* masses, M and m.

Now, divide that by the *test* mass to get

V=U/m = -GM/r

The whole point is that now the potential only depends on M and not on m. This is a common trick to get something that only depends on the gravitating mass.

In the case of a spherical mass M of constant density, see my previous post.

Here's a cute little question to test understanding: what are the dimensions for potential?

And mass M decreases as one goes beneath the surface.......

Stop calculating as if we are outside the surface with all the mass beneath us......

It is a negative force. The work being done is from away from the mass (infinity) to the mass.... The work is positive, not the force.... This is why they told you the potential energy decreases as one descends down the curvature or hill and kinetic energy increases.... because it is a negative pressure - starting from outside at infinity and decreasing as one approaches the mass.... Hence your potential energy is greater the further up the slope you are.

Once again, learn science...

A ball at the top of a hill possesses more gravitational potential energy than one at the bottom.

IT IS A NEGATIVE PRESSURE WORKING TOWARDS THE MASS,......

Stop ignoring science. Objects gain gravitational potential energy as they are moved upwards against the force of gravity.....

Gravitational Potential Energy – College Physics

"Let us calculate the work done in lifting an object of mass m through a height h, such as in [link]. If the object is lifted straight up at constant speed, then the force needed to lift it is equal to its weight mg. The work done on the mass is then W = Fd = mgh. We define this to be the gravitational potential energy (PEg) put into (or gained by) the object-Earth system."

A single object has no gravitational potential energy..... but i figured you already understood that it is the energy gained by one, working against the gravitational force of another. My bad, I gave you too much credit....

Section Summary

• Work done against gravity in lifting an object becomes potential energy of the object-Earth system.
• The change in gravitational potential energy,
  
  , is
  
  , with
  
  being the increase in height and
  
  the acceleration due to gravity.
• The gravitational potential energy of an object near Earth’s surface is due to its position in the mass-Earth system. Only differences in gravitational potential energy,
  
  , have physical significance.
• As an object descends without friction, its gravitational potential energy changes into kinetic energy corresponding to increasing speed, so that
  
  .

Your rants and raves do nothing against the facts of science....

You have been told over and over and over again (with citation after citation after citation) that gravitational potential energy increases as an object is lifted against the force of gravity and decreases as an objects descends with the force of gravity.

Now, that being said if you want you can say the earth gains gravitational potential energy as it approaches apoapsis and looses it as it approaches periapsis with the sun..... but gravitational potential energy is a meaningless term when discussing a single mass...... it requires a system.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, that is not "a fiction" That is a mathematical representation of the gravitational potential. That is all.

A mathematical representation that falls below the entire surface of the earth and which the surface of the earth rests upon... A fiction of reality......

 

[Polymath257]

Oh, now you suddenly want to forget that it is a negative force...... How convenient for you that you need not be consistent in your claims....

No, it is a *vector* force. Vectors are neither positive nor negative.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh, now you suddenly want to forget that it is a negative force...... How convenient for you that you need not be consistent in your claims....

Do I really have to say absolute value every time?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, I know, in that picture they are showing you a fiction of an imaginary sheet pulled downward by the force of gravity underneath the sheet.

There are two different standard pictures along this line: one for the potential and one for spacetime curvature. Fortunately, they are essentially the same picture.

The potential has the form shown in the picture shown and is described in my post #636 mathematically.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And mass M decreases as one goes beneath the surface.......

Stop calculating as if we are outside the surface with all the mass beneath us......

It is a negative force. The work being done is from away from the mass (infinity) to the mass.... The work is positive, not the force.... This is why they told you the potential energy decreases as one descends down the curvature or hill and kinetic energy increases.... because it is a negative pressure - starting from outside at infinity and decreasing as one approaches the mass.... Hence your potential energy is greater the further up the slope you are.

Once again, learn science...

A ball at the top of a hill possesses more gravitational potential energy than one at the bottom.

IT IS A NEGATIVE PRESSURE WORKING TOWARDS THE MASS,......

Stop ignoring science. Objects gain gravitational potential energy as they are moved upwards against the force of gravity.....

Gravitational Potential Energy – College Physics

"Let us calculate the work done in lifting an object of mass m through a height h, such as in [link]. If the object is lifted straight up at constant speed, then the force needed to lift it is equal to its weight mg. The work done on the mass is then W = Fd = mgh. We define this to be the gravitational potential energy (PEg) put into (or gained by) the object-Earth system."

A single object has no gravitational potential energy..... but i figured you already understood that it is the energy gained by one, working against the gravitational force of another. My bad, I gave you too much credit....

Section Summary

• Work done against gravity in lifting an object becomes potential energy of the object-Earth system.
• The change in gravitational potential energy,
  
  , is
  
  , with
  
  being the increase in height and
  
  the acceleration due to gravity.
• The gravitational potential energy of an object near Earth’s surface is due to its position in the mass-Earth system. Only differences in gravitational potential energy,
  
  , have physical significance.
• As an object descends without friction, its gravitational potential energy changes into kinetic energy corresponding to increasing speed, so that
  
  .

Your rants and raves do nothing against the facts of science....

You have been told over and over and over again (with citation after citation after citation) that gravitational potential energy increases as an object is lifted against the force of gravity and decreases as an objects descends with the force of gravity.

Now, that being said if you want you can say the earth gains gravitational potential energy as it approaches apoapsis and looses it as it approaches periapsis with the sun..... but gravitational potential energy is a meaningless term when discussing a single mass...... it requires a system.....

We understand about the potential energy. The discussion has always been about the curvature of the gravitational potential. A concept that you have been avoiding.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And lets point out your inconsistency in their claims....

"Since physicists abhor infinities in their calculations, and r is always non-zero in practice, the choice of U = 0 {\displaystyle U=0}

at infinity is by far the more preferable choice,"

So they prefer the thing they abhor????????

But dont tell them they prefer dividing by zero in some cases.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We understand about the potential energy. The discussion has always been about the curvature of the gravitational potential. A concept that you have been avoiding.

Since the gravitational potential of any object (including earth) is the gravitational potential energy / by its mass in relation to another object M (the sun), the earth possess no gravitational potential unless discussing it in relation to the sun... And then only as it moves away from the sun.... And lessens as it approaches the sun....

As already stated:

Now, that being said if you want you can say the earth gains gravitational potential energy as it approaches apoapsis and looses it as it approaches periapsis with the sun..... but gravitational potential energy is a meaningless term when discussing a single mass...... it requires a system.....

Although yes, It gains potential energy as a meteor approaches it, but meaningless to the overall calculations....

 

[Subduction Zone]

A mathematical representation that falls below the entire surface of the earth and which the surface of the earth rests upon... A fiction of reality......

No, wrong. Once again you do not understand the graph. It shows the gravitational potential of a sphere of constant density. The Earth's would be a bit more complex, but essentially the same. The curvature of it is essentially the same as that of the curvature of gravity. One simple question, where is the curvature, that is the second derivative, not the slope, which is the first derivative greatest?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since the gravitational potential of any object (including earth) is the gravitational potential energy / by its mass in relation to another object M (the sun), the earth possess no gravitational potential unless discussing it in relation to the sun... And then only as it moves away from the sun.... And lessens as it approaches the sun....

As already stated:

Now, that being said if you want you can say the earth gains gravitational potential energy as it approaches apoapsis and looses it as it approaches periapsis with the sun..... but gravitational potential energy is a meaningless term when discussing a single mass...... it requires a system.....

Rather word salady. And no, we can understand gravitational potential without a "system". Where do you get that claim from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do I really have to say absolute value every time?

Yep

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, it is a *vector* force. Vectors are neither positive nor negative.

What happened to your -GM/r?

Are we suddenly discussing different forces?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do I really have to say absolute value every time?

What absolute value? There is no such thing in relativity of an absolute anything.....

Wasn't this what you objected to earlier?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Rather word salady. And no, we can understand gravitational potential without a "system". Where do you get that claim from?

Your own science textbooks and teachings.... things you don't know about, so wouldn't understand where they were gotten from....

 

[Subduction Zone]

And lets point out your inconsistency in their claims....

"Since physicists abhor infinities in their calculations, and r is always non-zero in practice, the choice of U = 0 {\displaystyle U=0}

at infinity is by far the more preferable choice,"

So they prefer the thing they abhor????????

But dont tell them they prefer dividing by zero in some cases.....

"Infinities in one's equations" refers to results that approach infinity. But yes, sometimes one can "divide by zero" if one knows what what is doing. For example the equation y = (x^2 -1)/(x -1) is undefined at x = 1, but the limit of y is 2 as x approaches 1.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What absolute value? There is no such thing in relativity of an absolute anything.....

Wasn't this what you objected to earlier?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your own science textbooks and teachings.... things you don't know about, so wouldn't understand where they were gotten from....

Perhaps you might want to work on your English skills a bit. I too will sometimes write a hard to decipher post.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Perhaps you might want to work on your English skills a bit. I too will sometimes write a hard to decipher post.

Nothing wrong with mine.
Nothing wrong with your not understanding it takes a system to talk about gravitational potential... "And no, we can understand gravitational potential without a "system". Where do you get that claim from?"

I'll repeat my answer: maybe read it s l o w l y ......

"Your own science textbooks and teachings.... things you don't know about, so wouldn't understand where they were gotten from...."