laws of nature...

abuyusufalshafii said:
Thank you for all your replies, I have one last question for now, after which I will review all the responses and this one always confused me:
The things we call planets, from the ground look just like stars and how is it that they appear as light from the ground, yet the closer you get to them the darker and colder they get when sources of light. as we know get lighter and hotter from up close? (referring to Saturn, Venus, Jupiter etc.).
Click to expand...
Temperature of planets depends on their distance from sun, and what kind of atmosphere they have. Venus has a surface of supercritical carbon Dioxide in fluid form (96%), you can consider that as an ocean of Carbon Dioxide. That is why Venus is hotter than Mercury.

The mean temperatures of planets in our solar system are:
  • Mercury: 333°F (167°C)
  • Venus: 867°F (464°C)
  • Earth: 59°F (15°C)
  • Mars: Minus 85°F (-65°C)
  • Jupiter: Minus 166°F (-110°C)
  • Saturn: Minus 220°F (-140°C)
  • Uranus: Minus 320°F (-195°C)
  • Neptune: Minus 330°F (-200°C)
 
Last edited:
Aupmanyav said:
IMHO, it is essential for @abuyusufalshafii's question. To compensate gravity, the ailerons give the upthrust.

View attachment 4301
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But flat earthers don’t deny gravity, although they believe it is caused by the Earth accelerating upward through space, I think?
abuyusufalshafii said:
Thank you for all your replies, I have one last question for now, after which I will review all the responses and this one always confused me:
The things we call planets, from the ground look just like stars and how is it that they appear as light from the ground, yet the closer you get to them the darker and colder they get when sources of light. as we know get lighter and hotter from up close? (referring to Saturn, Venus, Jupiter etc.).
Click to expand...
As @Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine explains, it's reflected light
However this question has already been addressed in this thread
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/20714/page-10#post-383902

In response to your question:
abuyusufalshafii said:
The closer you get to a source of heat and light, the lighter and hotter it gets, not the darker and colder.
Click to expand...
I said:
RJM said:
The planets do not give off light or heat. The light by which we on earth are able to see the moon or planets is because they reflect sunlight, like mirrors, back at us. Have you ever seen sunlight reflected off water or ice, or sand? Planets do not emit heat, whether from near or from far.

Suns or stars emit light and heat by nuclear fusion, and get brighter and hotter the closer we get. It's the second time you've asked and received the answer.

It's all available on Google and You Tube and Wikipedia for science laymen even if they don't read books or understand science papers -- but no doubt they are all part of the conspiracy?
Click to expand...
Also here
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/20714/page-14#post-384563
Post #275

abuyusufalshafii said:
question: how come the wandering stars (the planetoi, or as you call the 8 planets) when looked at from the ground look no different from any other star,
Click to expand...
Have you looked at them through a telescope?
abuyusufalshafii said:
allegedly they are no longer emitting light the closer you get to them? Don't objects emitting light tend to get brighter as you get closer to them?
Click to expand...
Stars emit light. Other bodies reflect light. Why do you keep repeating the same question?
 
Last edited:
Nicholas Weeks said:
Geometry as basis of electric Universe:
Click to expand...
This Electric Universe hypothesis has been out there for the last 20 years or so, and is regarded as debunked and certainly not regarded as useful by the scientists who actually design and build the space telescopes and probes

 
Nicholas Weeks said:
Perhaps the electric Solar wind & the magnetic-electric field of Earth are woo-woo also?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

More about Birkeland currents:

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Birkeland-current/
Click to expand...
Nicholas Weeks said:
The heliosphere surrounding & protecting Earth:

https://www.nasa.gov/missions/ibex/studying-the-edge-of-the-suns-magnetic-bubble/
Click to expand...
No problem with this stuff. The sun's atomic hydrogen fusion generates electro-magnetic radiation, along with alpha radiation and charged plasma. The Earth generates a magnetic field by the rotation around it's solid metallic core. The heliosphere is a fact also. Scientists accept these phenomena and use them in their calculations.

Science makes predictions that are useful. The Electric Universe does not. The Newton and Einstein laws, as well as quantum laws, are in constant use in scientific design of spacecraft and cell phones and computers and so on. They work in practice.

The Electric Universe guys want to dismiss Newton and Einstein, along with mathematics and science in general, in favour of a non-gravitational electric universe, with comets as giant sparks of electricity and so on -- which has been shown to be false. At any rate it does not make predictions -- which is the nature of science woo, imo

 
Last edited:
RJM said:
No problem with this stuff. The sun's atomic hydrogen fusion generates electro-magnetic radiation, along with alpha radiation and charged plasma. The Earth generates a magnetic field by the rotation around it's solid metallic core. The heliosphere is a fact also. Scientists accept these phenomena and use them in their calculations.
Click to expand...
My focus was (and is) on "this stuff", not the Thunderbolts site, nor EU theories. The universe of space, planets, stars etc. is electro-magnetic, as space scientists know. Here is NASA series on the EM spectrum beyond our five senses:

https://science.nasa.gov/ems/01_intro
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Nicholas Weeks said:
My focus was (and is) on "this stuff", not the Thunderbolts site, nor EU theories. The universe of space, planets, stars etc. is electro-magnetic, as space scientists know. Here is NASA series on the EM spectrum beyond our five senses:

https://science.nasa.gov/ems/01_intro
Click to expand...
Yes. And all electromagnetic energy is called 'light' although our eyes only register as visible light a small part of the full spectrum

@Nicholas Weeks
You may be interested in the 'Fine Tuning' of the universe for life:
en.wikipedia.org

Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
"The premise of the fine-tuned universe assertion is that a small change in several of the physical constants would make the universe radically different. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

List of Fine Tuning Parameters
 
Last edited:
Also not denying the possibility of strange electrical occurrences. I find the 'Mars scar' interesting

Valles Marineris | Universe of Particles

Mars has a scar. It’s called Valles Marineris. This scar is either a rift due to planetary expansion or the result of a prolonged electrical discharge between itself and another planet. Which one it is can be determined by taking note of certain tell tale features. The edges of the scar have the...
www.universeofparticles.com www.universeofparticles.com
 
Last edited:
A rain of large meteorites which grazed the Martian surface? And then, water changed the topography. Large scars defaced by water flow.
 
abuyusufalshafii said:
I would like to start with a question.

How is it, in the case of fossils, that the dead animal completely disintegrates (bones etc.) but the dirt it left the impression in keeps the shape and becomes completely solid. Wouldn't it make more sense since the dirt I assume is wet when it takes the imprint that since the carcass is more solid initially, the the dirt would lose the shape and the carcass remains intact then the other way around?

Please get back to me and let me know how this is explained.
Click to expand...
Almost all fossils show A) shells (of coquilles and mussels etc.), followed by B) semi-hard skeletons of sea-urchins and similar, followed by C) bones (of vertebrates). Already D) egg shells are rare.
Fossils of soft things essentially come from replacement. The most frequent is that the part is first covered by sediment, then decays, and then the room is filled with matter E).
Sometimes, F) this process of replacement is very slow, so that the structure of the original can still be seen (often wood to firestone, but it may happened to any organic material which is placed somewhere where bacteria cannot survive and quartz is present; this can be reproduced artificially).

I have found myself fossils of kinds A) until E)
 
thanks for all of the replies, i will be reading this stuff for a while.

RJM, i will not ask the same question again i think i was just being forgetful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
i have another important science question that I've struggled to figure out. How are artificial flavours made and also how are pills and vitamins made (two chemistry questions)?
 
abuyusufalshafii said:
i have another important science question that I've struggled to figure out. How are artificial flavours made and also how are pills and vitamins made (two chemistry questions)?
Click to expand...
Have you tried Google?
 
still looking, just found how things work site. also the main thing i want to know is what exactly causes a substance to be sweet or bitter, salty or spicy and everything else like it.
 
i found some stuff on it now (sweet sour, bitter salty umami but it mostly addresses how things work on our end rather than the foods themselves and how they cause the taste buds to react but i'll keep searching on google for now (is it the texture of the foods or something else that causes them to tast a certain way?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top