Mathematician destroy Evolution in 5 Min

[konradv]

If evolution was absolutely true, there would be fossils of animals and plant life changing, and totally new species appearing at the same time, while many of the old stopped living (not by a meteor strike to the earth, not by a world flood), because the food source (plants) would have evolved at the same time. It wouldn't take long scientific words to explain it, there would be a 'clear' fossil record to demonstrate the event over a range of species. This 'record' is being refuted with most fossil finds.
----------------------------------

How about a cite for this? The fossil record HAS NOT been refuted in the slightest. As a matter of fact, it confirms evolution or you'd find fossils of modern fish along side of those of trilobites.

 

[antagon]

Meaning that more massive objects fall more quickly. Consider if the moon and the hammer were the only bodies in existence [then only the moon and the feather].

Then imagine the same scenario with Earth instead of Luna.

When we say that the objects 'fall' towards Luna or Earth, we are observing their attraction to eachother, yes? [Real world, Earth and Luna have much more inertia, due o their mass, in their orbits, making it require more energy to have any meaningful effect on their travel than the hammer or feather yes?]

So that objects 'fall' more slowly on Luna means that the objects and Luna 'fall' (are attracted to eachother) more slowly (experience less acceleration) as a result, ultimately of the lesser mass of one of the objects in play (Luna, our moon).

Is that not an object (Earth, which actually stays still due to its inertia in orbit) 'falling' more quickly towards another object (the hammer, which has much less inertia and is seen to overcome its inertia and move towards Earth) because of its greater mass and the resulting increase in gravitational attraction?

Does this not mean that the statement 'heavier [more massive] objects fall faster', while said, is true as we understand the statement and the claim that more massive objects do not not fall faster is false?

If more massive bodies didn't experience/cause greater acceleration when attracting other bodies, then wouldn't the objects fall as quickly on Luna as on Earth?

Then again, I'm still trying to figure out how 50+50 = 100 with head-on collisions (relative speed = 100?!) on the last mythbusters.

that is a negative, ghostrider.

the difference in mass is conserved (because nothing comes from nothing, nor becomes nothing from something). it is conserved in inertia. the inertia, in proportion to the force of attraction expressed between them, is what constitutes the resistance of the moon and brick from attracting. thus the mass of the moon exerts overwhelming influence(inertia) on the attraction relative to the brick (although that is still exerted (insert your negligible here)) and the brick exhibits that same effect vs the moon, but in the time before it hits the surface, has done most (all but a negligible amount) of the moving.

because of the conservation at work, a feather exerts less force between the moon and the brick, but its inertial resistance is less by the same factor...

ouala... it falls at the same rate entirely, with no negligible factor involved whatsoever.

That almost makes sense to me except for one nagging thing: if we repeat the tests in different sequence, shouldn't Earth and the feather fall towards eachother at the same rate as the moon and the feather fall towards eachother, per the forces you mentioned above?

no. looking at the gravitation equation, the masses of the feathers and the planets are on the same side of the equal sign. this means that they cooperate to determine the value of the other side of the equation: F - the force between them. for that reason, the force between massive objects is higher than between lesser massive ones. this is what makes things weigh more when they have more mass. the additional mass of the earth is what makes the same object weigh more here than on the moon.

if youre thinking that this additional force should result in faster acceleration, you've got to consider the role of inertia. despite the greater force between the brick and the earth compared to the feather, the brick exerts more inertia than the feather because of its mass. this inertia is what makes the brick stay put in outer space when you release it. on earth, that force is still there. it stops the brick from falling faster than the feather.

I just don't see how they can fall faster on the moon than on earth unless the increase in mass causes the increased acceleration or how if this is the case how this does no translate to 'more massive objects accelerate towards eachother more quickly' or 'more massive objects fall faster'.

its important to remember that judging falling on planets assumes the same planet and distance from the ground for each test. granted that, one of the masses in the equation is constant. objects will fall to the earth at the same rate. objects will fall to the moon at the same rate. the rates that these objects fell on the different planets will be different.

Every time you get into to it, it sounds like that's exactly what you're saying and that you merely try to treat the negligible difference as the same as zero difference.

to clarify: there is no negligible difference at all. the rates of acceleration between all objects and earth are 100% identical, granted a vacuum.

I think it's going to take more than a thread on this forum...

because the conservation defers 100% to mass, what think you of the bizarro-world conservation in a 100% velocity alternative?

you lost me

you get the idea of conservation? that nothing comes from nothing or can vanish from existence?

back to the brick and feather, because of conservation, the velocity of an object contributes to its effective mass (through inertia), not to its velocity (through acceleration). thats why shit falls at the same rate, no matter the mass, but the impact of a brick is considerably more massive than a feather.

it should further be noted that inertial mass does not gravitate. because something is going fast, it does not weigh more.

'Falls' = 'gravitates towards', no?

 

[JBeukema]

if youre thinking that this additional force should result in faster acceleration, you've got to consider the role of inertia. despite the greater force between the brick and the earth compared to the feather, the brick exerts more inertia than the feather because of its mass

It seems like you're saying both that increased mass -> increased acceleration [things fall faster on Earth than on Luna] and that increased mass !-> increased acceleration because inertia increases at the same rate [trying to claim the feather and hammer fall at the same rate if dropped at the same time, whether on Earth or luna- yet also saying that the hammer does fall faster and it's just such a small difference we don't usually bother with it)

objects will fall to the earth at the same rate. objects will fall to the moon at the same rate. the rates that these objects fell on the different planets will be different.

That makes no sense.

Let
A=Earth
B=Luna
C=Hammerr
D=Feather

A attracts to C at the same rate that A attracts to D

B Attracts to C at the same rate that C Attracts to D

C and D attract to A at a different rate than B

The only difference is the mass, A being most massive, followed by B, then C, and D is the least massive

If the increased mass between two bodies (hammer/earth vs hammer/moon) increases the rate of acceleration, the this should apply universally and be seen (to a much lesser extent) with any difference in mass (hammer/earth vs feather/earth)

You claim that increased mass = greater gravitational attraction = greater acceleration when you look at the large scale, yet you don't seem to apply the same laws of physics at a slightly smaller scale, even though the scale is not nearly so small as to enter the world of quantum physics.

The only logical conclusion from your assertions is that the hammer mustfall faster than the feather for the same reason that Earth attracts the hammer more quickly than Luna does. You seem, however, to equate an incredibly small difference with zero difference

to clarify: there is no negligible difference at all. the rates of acceleration between all objects and earth are 100% identical, granted a vacuum.

Then the mass of the two objects does not effect the rate of acceleration during gravitational attraction? Then making one of the items in play a different mass (making Earth into Luna or the hammer into the feather while the other object remains unchanged) will not change the rate of acceleration? This necessarily means, throught the simple logic of your assertion than object falling on Earth would accelerate towards Earth at the same rate as it would accelerate towards luna dropped from the same height [all being in a vacuum]. Yet you yourself have stated repeatedly that this is not the case, that things attract towards Luna more slowly when dropped, compared to performing the same experiment on Earth.

You continue making two mutually exclusive assertions. Logically, your claims cannot both be true.

thats why shit falls at the same rate, no matter the mass

So the brick falls at the same rate on the moon as it does on earth?

Shouldn't then the increase ineffective mass be the same, given equal acceleration of equal mass?

You seem to contradict yourself.

 

[antagon]

if youre thinking that this additional force should result in faster acceleration, you've got to consider the role of inertia. despite the greater force between the brick and the earth compared to the feather, the brick exerts more inertia than the feather because of its mass

It seems like you're saying both that increased mass -> increased acceleration [things fall faster on Earth than on Luna] and that increased mass !-> increased acceleration because inertia increases at the same rate [trying to claim the feather and hammer fall at the same rate if dropped at the same time, whether on Earth or luna- yet also saying that the hammer does fall faster and it's just such a small difference we don't usually bother with it)

objects will fall to the earth at the same rate. objects will fall to the moon at the same rate. the rates that these objects fell on the different planets will be different.

That makes no sense.

Let
A=Earth
B=Luna
C=Hammerr
D=Feather

A attracts to C at the same rate that A attracts to D

B Attracts to C at the same rate that C Attracts to D

C and D attract to A at a different rate than B

The only difference is the mass, A being most massive, followed by B, then C, and D is the least massive

If the increased mass between two bodies (hammer/earth vs hammer/moon) increases the rate of acceleration, the this should apply universally and be seen (to a much lesser extent) with any difference in mass (hammer/earth vs feather/earth)

You claim that increased mass = greater gravitational attraction = greater acceleration when you look at the large scale, yet you don't seem to apply the same laws of physics at a slightly smaller scale, even though the scale is not nearly so small as to enter the world of quantum physics.

The only logical conclusion from your assertions is that the hammer mustfall faster than the feather for the same reason that Earth attracts the hammer more quickly than Luna does. You seem, however, to equate an incredibly small difference with zero difference

to clarify: there is no negligible difference at all. the rates of acceleration between all objects and earth are 100% identical, granted a vacuum.

Then the mass of the two objects does not effect the rate of acceleration during gravitational attraction? Then making one of the items in play a different mass (making Earth into Luna or the hammer into the feather while the other object remains unchanged) will not change the rate of acceleration? This necessarily means, throught the simple logic of your assertion than object falling on Earth would accelerate towards Earth at the same rate as it would accelerate towards luna dropped from the same height [all being in a vacuum]. Yet you yourself have stated repeatedly that this is not the case, that things attract towards Luna more slowly when dropped, compared to performing the same experiment on Earth.

You continue making two mutually exclusive assertions. Logically, your claims cannot both be true.

thats why shit falls at the same rate, no matter the mass

So the brick falls at the same rate on the moon as it does on earth?

Shouldn't then the increase ineffective mass be the same, given equal acceleration of equal mass?

You seem to contradict yourself.

the seeming contradiction is funny. it is not contradictory in the math equation. there is no minute differential either. this holistic explanation of otherwise magic shit like magnetism and gravitation is a challenge.

the key is in recognizing the role of inertia as prescribed by newtons law of motion... without using newton's law of motion - an equation.

it might help to point out that there are two forces at play: gravitation, which we know to be some product of the masses of the gravitors and inertia, which works against gravitation.

because inertia resists gravitation in equal proportion to the object expressing it, inertia cancels out to gravitation contributed by that object relative to the other. that is a mathematical observation. you multiply the mass of the earth by the mass of the hammer as part of figuring the grav between them. then, when you figure for acceleration, you divide the grav by the mass of the hammer. the division directly and completely counterbalances the multiplication earlier.

more holistically, the propensity for the hammer to stay put when released counter-balances the added force which is exerted between it and the earth. with a less massive co-gravitor like the moon, this resistance results in slower gravitation.

because of laws of conservation, objects dont accumulate both velocity and inertial mass in proportion to their mass, they only accumulate one as they fall: inertial mass. the hammer will fall at the same rate as the feather for that reason, but only one will make a thud.

 

[JBeukema]

the seeming contradiction is funny.

it is not contradictory in the math equation

You claim two different effects

7.347 7 × 1022 [Accounting for the estimation and the fact that the mass of the feather is too small as to not really merit a calculation of the difference between the mass of the two objects] isn't that much mass when you're dealing with a scale the size of a universe.

How much mass must there be before the effect disappears?

. there is no minute differential either.

So then objects do fall at the same speeds on Earth as on the Moon? I swear I read you say the opposite earlier in this thread.

The only difference between hammer and feather is mass.

The only difference between earth and moon is mass.

The only difference between Earth and feather is mass.

The only difference between Moon and feather is mass.

The only difference between Earth and hammer is mass.

The only difference between Moon and Hammer is mass.

If any of the objects gravitate towards Earth with greater acceleration on they do the moon, then the same effect should be seen with any combination of the aforementioned objects, with the extent of the effect correlating with total mass.

Yet you seem to imply that Earth exerts more force [gravitational attraction] than Moon, but hammer does not excert more force than feather.

it might help to point out that there are two forces at play: gravitation, which we know to be some product of the masses of the gravitors and inertia, which works against gravitation.

This applies to all the objects in question, yes?

because inertia resists gravitation in equal proportion to the object expressing it, inertia cancels out to gravitation contributed by that object relative to the other. that is a mathematical observation. you multiply the mass of the earth by the mass of the hammer as part of figuring the grav between them. then, when you figure for acceleration, you divide the grav by the mass of the hammer. the division directly and completely counterbalances the multiplication earlier.

more holistically, the propensity for the hammer to stay put when released counter-balances the added force which is exerted between it and the earth. with a less massive co-gravitor like the moon, this resistance results in slower gravitation

Hold on. I asked earlier whether inertia increases at the same rate as gravitational attraction when mass is increased, causing any two objects [within the reach of eachother's gravitational effect*] to accelerate at a constant rate when effected by eachother's gravitation [accounting for for distance and the related strength of the effect], regardless of their total mass. You seemed to answer in the negative, stating that greater mass led, through greater attraction, to greater acceleration.

Now you seem to once again be saying the opposite.

because of laws of conservation, objects dont accumulate both velocity and inertial mass in proportion to their mass

I don't understand the relationship between mass, velocity, inertia and inertial mass. Mass + velocity = Inertia, yes? How does inertial mass fit into the picture?

Inertial mass is an effect, right? The effective 'mass' of the material caused by the increased energy present as velocity increases, as derived from Einstein's theories and the fact that mass and energy are effectively interchangeable [matter being, in a sense, concentrated energy]?


*what if they smaller is close enough to be effected by the larger but not close enough for its gravity well to effect the larger yet? Do they accelerate ever quicker as they near, with a sudden increase when the larger is within reach of the effect of the smaller?]

the hammer will fall at the same rate as the feather for that reason, but only one will make a thud.

By that same reasoning:

A = rate at which the hammer falls to earth
B = rate at which the hammer falls to moon
C = rate at which feather falls to earth
D = rate at which feather falls to moon

A = B = C = D ?

 

[antagon]

the hammer will fall at the same rate as the feather for that reason, but only one will make a thud.

By that same reasoning:

A = rate at which the hammer falls to earth
B = rate at which the hammer falls to moon
C = rate at which feather falls to earth
D = rate at which feather falls to moon

A = B = C = D ?

rather, A=C !== B=D the thud comes from the mass accumulated in the hammer by way of inertia.

 

[antagon]

because of laws of conservation, objects dont accumulate both velocity and inertial mass in proportion to their mass

I don't understand the relationship between mass, velocity, inertia and inertial mass. Mass + velocity = Inertia, yes? How does inertial mass fit into the picture?

Inertial mass is an effect, right? The effective 'mass' of the material caused by the increased energy present as velocity increases, as derived from Einstein's theories and the fact that mass and energy are effectively interchangeable [matter being, in a sense, concentrated energy]?

rather, mass = acceleration divided by force.
. that's because force = mass times acceleration. <--- thats newton's second law. the law of motion.

there's passive gravitational mass, active gravitational mass, inertial mass, mass-energy, force, gravitation, momentum, velocity and acceleration.

then try quantum mass, space-time curvature, gravitational flux... its an ass whippin with respect to these relationships. we'll try a few:

the relationship between gravitational mass and velocity is momentum. momentum is equal to gravitational mass times velocity.

because of this, the relationship between inertial mass and gravitational mass is that without any velocity, they are equal.

rather than contributing to velocity, mass contributes to momentum, which delivers the inertial mass of an object. if it contributed to velocity instead, there will be additional acceleration. because it contributes to inertial mass, there is additional effect: impact, a car swerving off the road, a thud.

 

[antagon]

Hold on. I asked earlier whether inertia increases at the same rate as gravitational attraction when mass is increased, causing any two objects [within the reach of eachother's gravitational effect*] to accelerate at a constant rate when effected by eachother's gravitation [accounting for for distance and the related strength of the effect], regardless of their total mass. You seemed to answer in the negative, stating that greater mass led, through greater attraction, to greater acceleration.

Now you seem to once again be saying the opposite.

not saying the opposite; just saying you have to consider inertia.

heres the math:

G = grav constant
a = accelleration
E = earth's mass
H = the hammer's mass
d = the distance between the two

a = H / (G x (E x H / d x d))

because 5 / 5 = 1, when you divide the first H by the second H they cancel out. so a sledge hammer 10 / 10 = 1 and a feather .25 / .25 = 1 makes the mass of the object moot.

the explanation is that the inertia of the object which makes it want to stay still when you release or drop it cancels out the contribution of the object relative to the earth, when it comes to figuring acceleration.

the above formula plugs gravity in as the force(F) in newtons second: F=ma, but to figure acceleration, we use it thusly: a = m/F

capiche?

 

[JBeukema]

the hammer will fall at the same rate as the feather for that reason, but only one will make a thud.

By that same reasoning:

A = rate at which the hammer falls to earth
B = rate at which the hammer falls to moon
C = rate at which feather falls to earth
D = rate at which feather falls to moon

A = B = C = D ?

rather, A=C !== B=D the thud comes from the mass accumulated in the hammer by way of inertia.

If the hammer and feather fall towards either Earth or Luna at the same rate, then the same must hold true with any combination of two objects. It's the only logical conclusion, if the scales are such that the same forces apply. We're not talking about galactic versus quantum scales here. At the scales we're dealing with, Earth and feather aren't that different in total mass.

What does the thud have to do with anything? I never said anything about inertia or inertial mass, only the rate at which the attract- their velocity and rate of acceleration.

 

[JBeukema]

rather, mass = acceleration divided by force.

Wait. That doesn't work. If an object were totally still within the universe, its acceleration would equal zero. Hence,

Mass = 0/force

No matter what you mean by 'force' or what it equals, the object can't exist since you can't divide any value into zero. That's mathematical impossible.

there's passive gravitational mass, active gravitational mass, inertial mass, mass-energy, force, gravitation, momentum, velocity and acceleration.

I think I need a link to more in-depth explanation.

 

[JBeukema]

the explanation is that the inertia of the object which makes it want to stay still when you release or drop it cancels out the contribution of the object relative to the earth, when it comes to figuring acceleration.

This should apply to all the objects, yes?

So if you change your frame of reference and look at how things play between hammer/moon and hammer/earth etc, then any two would experience equal acceleration when attracted towards eachother, yes? They feather would fall at the same rate whether it were falling towards a hammer [although it'd have to get quite close before this would be seen?], the moon, Earth, Sol, or a black hole?

capiche?

Not quite. Call me slow, but numbers just don't process very well for me

 

[antagon]

By that same reasoning:

A = rate at which the hammer falls to earth
B = rate at which the hammer falls to moon
C = rate at which feather falls to earth
D = rate at which feather falls to moon

A = B = C = D ?

rather, A=C !== B=D the thud comes from the mass accumulated in the hammer by way of inertia.

If the hammer and feather fall towards either Earth or Luna at the same rate, then the same must hold true with any combination of two objects. It's the only logical conclusion, if the scales are such that the same forces apply. We're not talking about galactic versus quantum scales here. At the scales we're dealing with, Earth and feather aren't that different in total mass.

What does the thud have to do with anything? I never said anything about inertia or inertial mass, only the rate at which the attract- their velocity and rate of acceleration.

the thud is where the mass is conserved, rather than in velocity.

 

[JBeukema]

Isn't the thud inertia- the total energy or inertia of the moving object and the transference of that energy into another body?

 

[antagon]

the explanation is that the inertia of the object which makes it want to stay still when you release or drop it cancels out the contribution of the object relative to the earth, when it comes to figuring acceleration.

This should apply to all the objects, yes?

So if you change your frame of reference and look at how things play between hammer/moon and hammer/earth etc, then any two would experience equal acceleration when attracted towards eachother, yes? They feather would fall at the same rate whether it were falling towards a hammer [although it'd have to get quite close before this would be seen?], the moon, Earth, Sol, or a black hole?

capiche?

Not quite. Call me slow, but numbers just don't process very well for me

but that's quite different from what i'm saying. the gravitational force is greater when more mass is added by either gravitor. the inertia from any one of the gravitors is what makes the rates of acceleration from the resultant attraction the same for that gravitor and any other relative to a mutual object.

the inertia balance from the acceleration equation is the key observation.

 

[antagon]

rather, mass = acceleration divided by force.

Wait. That doesn't work. If an object were totally still within the universe, its acceleration would equal zero. Hence,

Mass = 0/force

No matter what you mean by 'force' or what it equals, the object can't exist since you can't divide any value into zero. That's mathematical impossible.

there's passive gravitational mass, active gravitational mass, inertial mass, mass-energy, force, gravitation, momentum, velocity and acceleration.

I think I need a link to more in-depth explanation.

inertial mass.

Mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
... if you're ready for all that. skimming that article, i've left off newtonian mass keplerian mass and amount of matter.

 

[antagon]

Isn't the thud inertia- the total energy or inertia of the moving object and the transference of that energy into another body?

indeed.
none of the total gives rise to velocity through acceleration. it is all realized in inertial mass.

 

[JBeukema]

but that's quite different from what i'm saying. the gravitational force is greater when more mass is added by either gravitor. the inertia from any one of the gravitors is what makes the rates of acceleration from the resultant attraction the same for that gravitor and any other relative to a mutual object.

the inertia balance from the acceleration equation is the key observation.

So, since Earth and Luna both have sufficient inertia for to remain more or less unaffected by the hammer or feather, it's only the inertia, mass, etc of the hammer and feather that we need be concerned about, yes?

So what you're saying is that as mass increases, the increase in inertia is equal to the increase in gravitational attraction the object possesses? That's why the hammer and the feather fall at the same rate when under the influence of the same third object (gravitator)?

However, while both Luna and Earth both possess sufficient gravitational attraction to overcome the inertia of the hammer and the feather, Earth's stronger pull, being stronger, causes greater acceleration in both the hammer and the feather as they are attracted to it, compared to Luna. Hence any two objects that are small enough so as to not over come the inertia of a third-party gravitator will, in a vacuum and under the influence of no other forces, gravitate towards that third-party gravitator with equal acceleration to eachother, and that rate is determined by the strength of the gravitator's attraction, the gravitational effects of the lesser bodies being nullified as they continuously overcome their own inertia during acceleration towards the gravitator?

(remind me to rep you for all this when the board will let me rep again)

 

[Biggles]

Evolutionists are able to do science only because they are inconsistent. Evolutionists accept biblical principles such as uniformity, at the same time deny the Bible where those principles are found. This inconsistency is common secular thinking; secular scientists claim the universe is not designed, but they see science as if the universe is designed and upheld by God in a uniform way. Evolutionists can do science only if they rely on biblical creation assumptions (such as uniformity) that contradicts their professed belief in evolution.

 

[JBeukema]

rather, mass = acceleration divided by force.

Wait. That doesn't work. If an object were totally still within the universe, its acceleration would equal zero. Hence,

Mass = 0/force

No matter what you mean by 'force' or what it equals, the object can't exist since you can't divide any value into zero. That's mathematical impossible.

there's passive gravitational mass, active gravitational mass, inertial mass, mass-energy, force, gravitation, momentum, velocity and acceleration.

I think I need a link to more in-depth explanation.

inertial mass.

Mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
... if you're ready for all that. skimming that article, i've left off newtonian mass keplerian mass and amount of matter.

WTF?! I thought 'amount of matter' was MASS?!?!?!?!

 

[JBeukema]

Isn't the thud inertia- the total energy or inertia of the moving object and the transference of that energy into another body?

indeed.
none of the total gives rise to velocity through acceleration. it is all realized in inertial mass.

now if I just knew what the hell the 'inertial mass' is and how, exactly, it relates to inertia. I know that objects gain mass (Lord if I know how) as they gain velocity, but I thought that only became significant as you neared c?