Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The GRAVITY conspiracy (Part 1)

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+35 more 
posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 08:23 AM
Allow me to open this thread by asking you a very simple and straightforward question:

"What keeps the moon in orbit around the earth and the earth in orbit around the sun ?"

Most likely you answered, as I once did, that it's obviously gravity that keeps both the moon and the earth in their respective orbits around their primaries. It's just so obvious that you're also wondering why I'm even bothering to ask such a question !

The reason I'm asking was prompted by my attempt to help my son with his science homework regarding how the moon orbits the earth, it's distance from earth, it's velocity as it orbits earth, etc. In the process of explaining the basic concept using readily available planetary data tables, I noticed something quite unusual and unexpected ... at least to me.

However obvious gravity as an explanation may seem to be, now I'm not nearly so sure as I used to be that the answer is so simple and straightforward and in this OP, I'll try to provide evidence to back up and substantiate my belief that gravity plays NO part in causing a moon to orbit a planet or a planet to orbit a sun.

The understanding that the force of gravity was the primary mechanism responsible for restraining the moon in it's orbit around the earth (and the earth in it's orbit around the sun) has been a mainstream and unchallenged principle of physics ever since Newton published his now famous Law of Universal Gravitation way back in 1687.

This law essentially states that every particle in the universe attracts every other particle in the universe with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Mathematically, this concept is expressed by this equation:

and here's an image to help get a more visual 'feel' for what this law is saying:

Ok, so far ? Fairly straightforward as taught in virtually all high school physics classes.
Newton was simply referring to a couple of objects such as planets, moons, etc and the distance between them. The only term in the equation that may cause some confusion is the G term that represents what's known as the Gravitational constant and basically was a scaling factor that had to be introduced to make the Law of Universal Gravitation work. More will be said about this constant later.

So how did this famous law come into existence ? How did Newton arrive at a definitive mathematical statement that claimed that yes, there was indeed an 'attracting force' operating in the universe when prior to his formulation, there was only a vague suspicion that something similar to an 'attracting force' was occurring ?

Newton based his work on that of the German astronomer Kepler who preceeded him. Kepler had accumulated a large quantity of observational data relating to the movement of the planets and based on this empirical data in conjunction with data derived even earlier by the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe, eventually formulated a number of laws giving an approximate description of the motion of planets around the Sun.

Kepler's laws are:
- The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci.
- A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
- The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.

Kepler's 1st law can be visualized this way:

Kepler's 2nd law can be visualized this way:

The above served as the framework and basis for Newton's intellectual leap forward in giving the concept of a "gravitational force'" that had only been suspected and gave it now a solid and indisputable mathematical, and therefore, universally accepted legitimacy within mainstream physical science.

Newton would have been perfectly justified in assuming there was a similar mechanism and therefore principle, operating in the observation of the moon orbiting around the earth to that of a rock being swung around on the end of a rope by a person. In the case of the rock, the constraining force causing the rock to follow a circular path, or orbit, around the person was the tension in the rope connecting the person to the rock. For the moon, he would have reasoned that there must have been an analogous force to the rope, connecting the moon with the earth and constraining the moon to follow a circular path, exactly as the rope forced the rock to do.
In the case of the rope and rock, Newton was well aware of the concept of a centripetal force that makes a body follow a curved path.This force is always directed inward toward the center of curvature of the path.

So an obvious comparison would be as follows

in which case it would have been a justifiable comparison to equate the centripetal force on the rock to that of the gravitational force acting on the moon.

In essence, that's exactly what Newton did. He derived a formula for the centripetal acceleration of the orbiting body and inserted it into another of his famous Laws that states:

Second Law: A body of mass m subject to a force F undergoes an acceleration a that has the same direction as the force and a magnitude that is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass, i.e., F = ma.

Once Newton had a "centripetal acceleration" equation, he replaced the a in the F = ma equation, did some additional mathematical manipulations and eventually arrived at an equation that apparently seemed to describe a "real" force that exists between masses such as planets, moons, suns, etc.
However, Newton found that to make this equation "work" and produce "reasonable" answers, he was forced to introduce a mysterious constant into the equation. This constant eventually became known as G or the Universal Gravitational Constant ... without this G constant, Newton's equation fails to work.

Ok, what I'm about to do is use Kepler's 3 Laws to firstly, derive my own centripetal acceleration equation ... then having done that, use my centripetal acceleration equation to derive an equation that also EXACTLY produces the very same results as does Newton's famous equation with 2 very significant differences.

The 1st difference is that I completely eliminate the need to have a mysterious "gravitational constant" in my equation, and the 2nd difference being that I eliminate the need to use the sun's mass entirely. So, in summary, Newton uses the mass of the sun and a planet but I need only the mass of the planet ... Newton needs to use a mysterious constant to make his equation work but I don't.

Ready ? Ok, let's get to it

Firstly, we need to determine an equation that will give us the centripetal acceleration acting on an orbiting body such as a planet or moon ... I'll do my best to keep the maths simple, straightforward and hopefully easy to follow !

At this point we have ourselves an equation that gives us the centripetal acceleration acting on an orbiting body based solely on the distance between the orbiting body and the object being orbited; and the time taken to complete the orbit.

This equation would be even more useful (and simpler) if we could get rid of the time factor (T) entirely from the denominator. Well, thanks to Kepler we can. Using Tycho Brahe's painstakingly collected data, Kepler was able to deduce that no matter which planet you picked, the ratio of the planets orbital radius to it's total orbital time always gave the same value ... in other words a constant. Essentially Kepler found that the total time period to complete an orbit is proportional to the 3/2 power of radius for all planets.

I'll now use the above information to simplify the previously derived centripetal acceleration equation.

Now we can use the K constant just derived and use it to simplify the centripetal acceleration equation from (7).

It's taken a while (and a little bit of maths
) but we have now arrived at a point where we have an extremely simple equation that describes the centripetal acceleration force acting on ANY orbiting body ... whether that happens to be a planet orbiting the sun or the moon orbiting the earth ... and it applies to all orbits anywhere in the universe.

Take a good look look at the centripetal acceleration equation describing the result of a 'force' acting on the orbiting body and causing it to follow a circular orbital path.

Essentially it is stating that the observed orbital centripetal acceleration ENTIRELY depends upon the distance (r) of the orbiting body from the body being orbited.
There is no mention whatsoever of either the mass of the orbiting body or the mass of the body being orbited ... and definitely NO mention of a gravitational force !
In fact, mass and a gravitational force are completely superfluous !

Ok, we now have ourselves an equation describing the centripetal acceleration being experienced by an orbiting body. The final step is to take Newton's 2nd Law (F=ma) and replace the a term with my centripetal acceleration equation ... giving ...

As you can see, the equation uses ONLY distances, time (contained within the K value), and a single mass.
No need for a mysterious gravitational constant .. no need for a second mass.

Ok, lets now do some examples and compare Newtons answers with mine

Example 1: Calculate the force between the sun and mercury:

We'll do it Newton's way 1st.

Now, my way ...

Well, look at that ... virtually identical results !
And just to show that I didn't cherry pick the example or that it was a fluke, I'll calculate the remaining planets and display Newton's and my results in table form.

As can be seen from the results displayed in the above table, the force values obtained from Newton's equation when compared to the force values obtained from my alternative equation are for all intents and purposes ... IDENTICAL.
But as I have just demonstrated, the requirement for a second mass and a mysterious "gravitational constant" are COMPLETELY SUPERFLUOUS.

Both Newton's equation and my alternative equation give results in the correct dimensions of "force", namely

However, my alternative equation gives the result immediately in the correct force dimensions without the need for a constant. This is not the case with Newton's equation where it was necessary to provide a "gravitational constant" so his results could be manipulated into the correct format of "force".

If the gravitational constant (G) is removed from Newton's equation so it looks like this

the results from this equation are no longer in force dimensions.

So, it's very apparent that the primary purpose for Newton needing to invent and include this gravitational constant (G) was to "manipulate or fudge" the otherwise incorrect results his equation would have given and convert them into the correct dimensions of force.

Ok, that's enough for the time being as I'll have more to say in a forthcoming 2nd part to this thread's topic.

I've checked, double and triple checked my logic and it seems to be sound ... but that doesn't mean that I haven't made silly errors that have sneaked past me that I haven't caught and consequently invalidate this thread. So please feel free to rip into it, tear it apart and comment on any obvious (or not so obvious) errors in the logic that I've detailed above.

edit on 7/10/10 by tauristercus because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 08:44 AM
I'm impressed by the time and effort you spent on this thread. Advanced mathematics is like an alien language to me, therefore, I have no way to discern whether or not you are incorrect. However, if you are correct, then you are saying that gravity was just a unneccessary variable thrown into to an equation so to reach a desired mathematical outcome? I think that is what you are saying. So if not gravity, what force is responsible all of this?

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 09:16 AM
reply to post by tauristercus
Bumping this one, I want to see how this turns out.

Interesting, but too deep for me while at work. S&F!

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 09:19 AM
Instead of second (orbited) mass, you need time to complete orbit, which is a function of second mass and G. Whats the advantage over Newtons formula?

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 09:19 AM
edit on 7/10/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 09:22 AM
Gravity = Observation and focus.

This is my hypothesis. Great job compiling all this data. Going to finish reading after work.

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 09:29 AM
reply to post by Maslo

I'm kind of in agreement here. Isn't G just being hidden within K?

Also how are you working out the mass of the planet? I might have missed that.
Are you still using

which uses the gravitational constant?
edit on 7-10-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 09:33 AM
You have treated a special case: a perfectly circular orbit. What happens if v is continuously variable, as it is in the real world? (Ah, the "real world." Full of messy constants.)

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 09:58 AM
reply to post by tauristercus

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think you are mistaken about Newton "fudging or creating a force", Keplers observations concerning the Time of orbit proportional to radius constant is an example of Newtons laws and the G constant.
By using time of orbit proportional to radius you are actually inserting the gravitational constant into the equation, which is why you get the same results, at least, that is how I see it.
What you are doing is effectively using the time and distance of a mass to orbit the sun and finding a number that indicates the overall force involved, this would be inclusive of the gravitational constant, in conjunction with the gravitational force of each mass which is what is creating that time and distance in any orbit for that mass you are using in your examples.

I think Newton wanted to discover the physical constant at play in general in order to make better predictions about how masses interact( gravity and the G constant).
Were as the constant that Kepler noted, is a result of the overall interactions, this is why think you get the same results. Your results are inclusive of the G constant but it is just mathematically contained within different physical constants in your equation.

Kepler was able to deduce that no matter which planet you picked, the ratio of the planets orbital radius to it's total orbital time always gave the same value ... in other words a constant. Essentially Kepler found that the total time period to complete an orbit is proportional to the 3/2 power of radius for all planets.

If Newton "fudged" it to create a force, how does Kepler account for his constant?

The solar system and the orbital paths are not driven independently by the time of orbit in proportion to the radius of that orbit, but by a gravitational force, which creates that orbital/radial proportional constant.

I hope you see what I mean.

S and F.

Apologizing in advance if I have misunderstood your post, because I make mistakes in a highly proportional manner and at a constant rate.

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 11:35 AM
Gravity is still and will be for some time the Mystery nobody can explain, nobody understands how it works or what it is, and nobody can claim different IMO.

You are right that the force called Gravity was thrown into the equation, but like others have said you went right over my head with your equations.

I have heard theories from "Dark Matter" being a fluid with pathways that have built over eons creating you might say a river which the bodies that orbit any object travel through, but that was just one theory I have heard, there are Scientist who have spent their entire working life on this puzzle and nobody has yet to come up with a definitive answer, just when they believe they are onto a cause, they are thrown a doozy which knocks their experiments off track.

Here is a PDF file on the Pioneer Probes which has still yet to be explained


There are as I said attempts to explain anomalies seen in both Manmad and Natural Objects that are travelling through our Solar System, the real truth is no one knows, not yet, I also believe when they do it will blow the whole Physics World and what we thought we knew out of the water.

Physics is a comparatively new Science that is taken as fact, when it firmly does belong in the theory box, and once again I hold the old school Scientists completely responsible.

They have for a long time tried to preserve their ideals and logic by pushing new ideas back as far as they can, so as not to look foolish, protecting their stature and positions in the Scientific community, that will only change either once they have passed on, or if funding is directed at newer ideas that actually fit, and there are some incredible minds out there just waiting for a chance to prove themselves with incredible ideas.

Ideas which sadly come under the label, keep to the known world of Physics or lose your credibility and funding, this is coming to light more and more, and people are fighting back with funding beginning to come from different sources who want to encourage new ideas.

Its only with those new ideas can Science then move forward, which it has tried to do as newer and more advanced technologies have been developed, new technologies which are already blowing the lid of some of the deceit that has been passed off as fact for so long, this is a wonderful age to be alive in, our kids are going to see so much we have only ever dreamt of.

Please don't take this the wrong way, if this is for a School project, then it may be wise to use the theories we have, and insert the questions or similar questions like you have asked, there are some teachers out there who are a little disgruntled, who have questioned this themselves, only to hit a brick wall, and although they might encourage new ideas, what they are really looking for is what they themselves understand.

By presenting old and new together, I found with my own Daughter that it received a lot more merit, which has encouraged her to follow what I did and become a Geologist, in fact she is insistent she wishes to study Astrogeology as her final career choice.

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 02:08 PM
Gravity is an observation.
And not a very good one.
The government has the Dynamic Theory of Gravity which is
perhaps based on credible observations and experiments.
And is locked away top secret.

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 02:26 PM
reply to post by TeslaandLyne

You are right, the big secret about gravity is that it is simply observation and focus. Really simple. The hypnosis we are caught into is some sort of trap.

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 02:31 PM

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by TeslaandLyne

You are right, the big secret about gravity is that it is simply observation and focus. Really simple. The hypnosis we are caught into is some sort of trap.

I thought the gravitational constant might have been found to contain some atomic constituents by
now like some the quantum theory did for empirical equations of atomic structure.

gravitational constant (G) was to "manipulate or fudge" the otherwise incorrect results his equation would have given and convert them into the correct dimensions of force.

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 02:52 PM
I really like your idea here even though i totally skipped the maths part, i believe in you not making any mistakes there. What intrigues me is what this alternative way of looking at this means, and hope this is what your second part will be about

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 03:26 PM
like others the maths are lost on me, I know that gravity has never been explained though.
If you want to look at another theory check out edward leedskalnin hes the guy who built coral castle then disapeared, his theory was that there was no such things as gravity or elictricity it was all forms of magnetism. i cant expain it the way others will but its interesting none the less.

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 03:38 PM
your work is valuable as it brings out the question what is the force g reprentive of?
in your work you prove that g is not required when orbits are circular
the laws you are refining are looking into a system that is two dimentional in nature and does not take into account other forces that are not defined in the equations or our models which is why g is not needed
the system is acually in 3 dimentions and has a similarity to the mass bending space time in a dent in the fabric of space that explains the gravatational attraction but does not adress the yet to be named forces
what is the electrical effect of having a sun forcing solar wind through our solar medium?

figure a shows the solar wind radiating out from the sun in all directions
figure b shows the movement of the solar wind in a space time distortion created by the mass effect
as the medium is moved away from the sun normally without attraction the planet would be pushed away from the centre of the solar system

place a ball one a sheet and pull slowly and evenly on the sheet
the movement of the medium (sheet ) imparts angular momentuim into the ball
but the ball rotates on the sheet in the same spot unless you alter the rate at which the sheet travels under the ball
but this causes the ball to rotate towards the sun but get no closer because more medium is being feed towards the ball from the sun

now the sheet represents the medium that makes up the solar emitions from the sun
but in figure a it shows an expansion in all directions so the rolling ball would not rotate directly towards the sun (direction of movement of the sheet) it would also get angular momentium imparted into it in a sideways direction proportional to the expansion laterally
ie streach the sheet sideways while moveing it under the ball

this causes the ball to rotate towards the sun slightly off center as the sun is rotating and imparting this rotational force onto the medium this causes an orbit around the sun while the ball rolls at a fixed distance orbit around the sun

this is an electrical medium imparting angular momentium into a body

this vid is interesting but i cant embed vid

link to vid

he talks about forces of nature not recognised by physics

what im trying to get at is there may be an electrical component to the equation that has been over looked for far to long

star and flag for your work keep it up very interesting
i hope my ramblings are aceptable


posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 03:56 PM
Newton's equation is for the gravitational attraction between any two bodies. Your equation is for the force required to keep a body in a circular orbit around another body. They are, in essence, calculating two different things. But by the very definition of circular orbit, the two forces must be identical. I think that's all you've stumbled upon.

The gravitational constant is nothing but a scaling factor. It's a shame, but when it formed, the universe didn't take into account the units of measurement we humans would could come with.

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 04:09 PM
we can generally agree that mass warps space time
what does super sonic solar wind do at the helio boundry?
what causes the helio sheath to part the local fluff (plasma gas) outside the helio sphere?
is the medium changing from one state to another and in doing so imparting an electrical effect similar to a force feild to the outter boundry parting the gas around our solar system?
this effect only parts the gas cloud but allows mass to pass without slowing down
is this a new force of nature or just electrical repultion of charged particals?

i propose there is an electrical force that dimples space time up in the 2d model below

this electrical feild is represented as A in the diagram

to look at gravity and forget the supersonic energy release at the helio boundry
and the amount of energy transitioning from one form to another at this point
makes me think the effect of solar wind on mass is causing induced current in the mass which exibits this current as attraction
its not the mass that determines gravity
its the mass interaction with the solar wind that creates attraction to all bodies proportional to the mass but not directly because of it

The solar wind is a stream of energized, charged particles, primarily electrons and protons, flowing outward from the Sun, through the solar system at speeds as high as 900 km/s and at a temperature of 1 million degrees (Celsius). It is made of plasma.

edit on 7-10-2010 by XPLodER because: add pic

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by TeslaandLyne

Gravity is an observation.
And not a very good one.

I'll try to remember that one next time I accidentally step off a cliff.

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 05:17 PM
Mass has weight, weight distorts the "fabric" of space/time, this distortion kinda acts like a whirlpool, all you were doing is using a very scienftic way of explaining gravity, it techincally doesnt exist, its just distortion in space, i read half of your post (more then half) but you draged it on too long.

Almost as if you were just trying to impress people with your knowledge, its a good idea you have, but isnt that differnt from the primitive idea of "gravity" if you read some of stephen hawkings work, then you would have already known what you were trying to reach everyone.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in