traveler

No, Edtharan did not debunk my hypothesis. 1. Edtharan does not know the correct mass and densities of the planets, stars, or moons, as they are laughable figures arrived at using incorrect formulas using outdated and long since known to be false theories, and basically just figures that could NEVER be known, let alone close to accurate. 2. The planets were not "spit out" all at once. The first formed and continuously moved away in its orbit over a great amount of time. Then the second was formed, and it continuously moved away in its orbit, and then a third and so on. You end up with the 1st planet that was formed being the oldest, the furthest away, the coolest, and the least dense, the second a little closer and a little younger, the third closer, and so on. The planets were not always what they are composed of today. They were once ALL hot sun matter. They cooled, and suffered decay. They expanded when they cooled. The furthest away is the oldest, so it had the greatest amount of time to cool and expand, and so on to the last formed still being...hot and dense. Like I said, Mars was once in our obit and looked similar to our Earth as it is now. Earth will eventually be in Mars obit and look like Mars, and Mercury and Venus will also eventually look like Earth and be in our current orbit. "The life cycle of a planet" type of deal. They all go through the cycle.

So when they find out I am correct will you take back the "fairytale" bit? LOL Gravity is caused by a structure in density order, my friend. Objects go to their proper density order. Earth (and all planets) are the most dense in the core and the least dense at the outer edges, in order! If you force an object to go to a less or greater density area, it will go back to it's proper density area. Rock towards the core, and helium away from the core (when released from sea level). All mass decays, some slower than others. Mass is energy is heat. Allow the mass to cool and it becomes less dense and must expand and become less dense. Think water to ice.

What do you mean, "against gravity?" That IS gravity. Your understanding of gravity being only attractive is not exactly accurate, which leads to BIG problems of your understanding of the entire universe. Cooling and decay. All planets started out as hot sun matter, and cooled and decayed over time, as they slowly got further from the sun do to becoming less dense (which is the reason they got further from the sun). Obviously, since the most outer planet formed first it has been cooling and decaying for the longest amount of time, while Mercury was the most recently formed, so it is the hottest, and has had less time to cool and decay. Our Earth will eventually look like Mars (desert) and be in what is now Mars' orbit, and Mercury will have an atmosphere and water as Earth does now and be in the orbit we are in now.

Does that mean I am hallucinating when I watch the leaves on the tree, in a storm, blow every which way but loose (and some loose), and because I can't calculate the motion of every leave using mathematics it isn't science?

So again, you are concerned with people learning the accepted theory that wins the popular vote (popularity contest as far as I'm concerned). That leaves absolutely no room for the truth (fact, not theory). They are not both correct, they are both incorrect. Probably? So you don't know, neither does either of the models, for sure, just speculation. So they are incorrect? That leaves plenty of room for my theory, which explains A LOT. No, mathematics could never describe a new planet being formed according to my theory of the way it actually happens, like math could never describe accurately the motion of all the leaves on the big Maple tree in my back yard with a swirling, gusting wind of between 23.5345 MPH and 51.62913 MPH, over the course of a duration of 29.852 seconds at an average temperature of 59.34 degrees.

Then why are you concerned that the other two theories "win?" More correct, or correct? How can two different theories be correct? Which one is correct, Klaynos? Is it a fact, or theory? No. I am referring to the outer planets, and how they were formed. They formed just like all of our planets, the most outer planet being formed first and the closest being the most recent to form.

What do they win, a popularity vote? Go for it. Does that mean they are correct? NO! Why is Mercury getting further away from the sun? How does current theory propose the ice giants formed? The asteroid belt is in the proper density area, so how could another planet be there?

I just said a trillion years, as that should should cover the formation of another planet, and then some. Do I know how long it will take to create the newest planet in our solar system? NO. I'm hoping another one is formed in my lifetime so I can say "I told you so!"

...and all the particles to make up a watch could never assemble to become a watch, right? A watch is a reality, regardless of how it happened, it happened. Evolution created a watch.

Just like all matter, it is only a plasma because it is hotter. Let it get cooler and see what happens. Why don't we see it spitting out more planets??? Stick around for a while (about a trillion years) and see what happens. There is a reason planets get further from the sun, because they came from the sun and continuously get further from the sun as they cool and become "ICE GIANTS."

The sun spit out a significant amount of "molten lava" that formed a sphere (Earth) of an order of density due to gravity, it cooled on the exterior surface, and continuously gets further from the sun as it gets cooler. That's how all planets are formed. I thought everyone understood this by now?

Two words, Big Bang Need I say more?

If the object is not increasing or decreasing velocity then the acceleration is zero.

Can you give an example of work getting done in zero time? How about accelerating an object in zero time? How about a measure of velocity in zero time? DO NOT NEGATE TIME. The equations are made to calculate actual measurements of mass, distance, and time (motion). Mass, distance and time IS motion. The math is to describe reality, not the other way around. Please answer my previous questions. I made my point earlier.

Swansont, What does this statement mean to you? This is what we are talking about, as you replied to earlier. Are you trying to compare an apple to a orange? ...and what do you mean by this statement? Of course two of the same objects moving at the same speed have the same kinetic energy, but that doesn't say anything more than saying "an object's kinetic energy is the same as its kinetic energy." That's all you said. Now explain with two different accelerations, like CaptainPanic's quote mentioned. ??

Rest=no acceleration 10 m/s=no acceleration (no change in velocity noted) So, swansont, let's agree on the scenario first. Let the two objects have an initial velocity of 0 m/s Let the two objects accelerate for 10 seconds each, at different rates. How far did each travel in 10 seconds if they both accelerated at different rates (10 m/s^2 and 5 m/s^2)? Was the energy equal for the measured time? Now, I know you are going to say time has nothing to do with it, so, I ask, how did you calculate the velocity without time? How did you know the velocity without measuring the actual meters traveled per time interval? No measurement means no known acceleration rate, so how do you know they are accelerating at 10 m/s^2 and 5 m/s^2, then? Mass, distance, and time. More power requires more fuel. It takes more power to create the same force at a higher velocity (rotational or linear) So at a higher velocity, to maintain the same force it requires more power, which requires more fuel.

What did object 2 do for the other 5 seconds?

How old does that make me?

Swansont, How can two objects moving at the same speed have different acceleration rates? That is not what CaptainPanic said. Please make a simple scenario such as mine to explain how two of the same objects can have different acceleration rates up to a similar speed (final velocity) and be traveling at the same speed? Acceleration IS the rate of change of velocity. It doesn't occur "instantly," it takes time to accelerate!

You are negating time. If I accelerate 2 objects that are exactly the same, to a specific final velocity, the event is over when the one object accelerated at the greatest rate reaches the final velocity. The object that accelerates at the greatest rate will achieve the final velocity in less time. The other object will not even achieve the final velocity in the same time, so how can you say they both have the same energy? The race was to, say, 100 MPH. Let's say the object that had the greatest acceleration rate went from 0-100 MPH in 10 seconds. The other object was at a velocity of, say, 75 MPH at the 10 second mark, and did not travel as far in the same time. The event timer stops when the first object reaches 100 MPH. The timer doesn't keep going until the other object reaches 100 MPH! What was the faster object doing for that extended time? Did you also calculate that additional energy (per time) and consider that when you said the energy was the same? Not for the same time interval it wasn't.

Here's a primer on where the 5252 comes from: Torque is force times distance 1 HP=550 lb-ft of WORK per SECOND. 550 lb-ft of work per second for 60 seconds equals 33,000 lb-ft of WORK per MINUTE. If you have a 1 lb load on the end of a 1 foot bar (1 lb-ft of TORQUE), and you rotate it 1 RPM, the load will travel 6.2832 feet (circumference of a 2 foot diameter circle) in one minute, which is 6.2832 lb-ft of WORK per MINUTE. 33,000 divided by 6.2832 equals 5252. That means 1 lb-ft of torque at 5252 RPM is equal to 1 HP, OR HP=torque*RPM/5252. That also means 6.2832 lb-ft of WORK per minute (1 lb-ft of torque at 1 RPM) divided by 33,000 equals .00019 HP 1 lb-ft of TORQUE times 1 RPM divided by 5252 equals .00019 HP 6.2832 lb-ft of WORK per MINUTE divided by 60 (seconds) equals .10477 lb-ft of work per SECOND. Since 1 HP is 550 lb-ft of WORK per SECOND, .10477 divided by 550 equals .00019 HP

Silly units? Really? Who invented the unit of measure of power known as HP? No "s" in the acronym RPM, it stands for Revolutions Per Minute. Adding an s means Revolutions per minutes. Your above statement is completely wrong. Two exactly the same objects being accelerated at different acceleration rates to the same final velocity will take a different amount of time to get to that velocity. The object that increases velocity at the greatest rate has the most POWER.

Force is created by the relativity of two object's motion. It takes more power to create the same force at a higher speed. It's the same thing with rotational velocity. HP=torque*RPM/5252 20 lb-ft*20 RPM/5252=.076 HP 20 lb-ft*40 RPM/5252=.152 HP Can you see the relationship between velocity and force?

So the acceleration is actually zero, correct?

No, I'm just wondering how you can say an object on a scale has an acceleration towards the center of the Earth? Is the object getting closer to the center of the Earth, or further away? What are you basing the acceleration on? Is the object increasing or decreasing velocity while on a scale on the Earth, compared to the center of the Earth? If not, is not the acceleration ZERO?