It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DJW001
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.
Originally posted by iismtivu
so, if the moon is falling towards earth, how is it all the experts are saying the moon is moving away from earth, and that's what is causing the earths magnetic field to weaken ?
Time dilation that varies with distance from massive objects has been proven. That gravity derives from space-time curvature as described in General Relativity or as the effect of messenger particles, like the other fundamental forces, as postulated by the Standard Model is still very much up for debate.
Originally posted by masterp
The warping of space-time by mass (i.e. gravity) has been proven by atomic clocks flying over the Earth.
I guess it all depends on how you define "falling." I know it's often said that something in orbit around the earth is "falling" towards it. And it is being acted upon by the same force that, say, a rock is under when you drop it from your hand and it falls to the ground. However, an object in orbit has a velocity vector perpendicular tot he force of gravity. So while it's falling to the ground, it's moving sideways at exactly the right speed such that it "misses" the ground and continues to "fall." If you define "falling" as gravitational acceleration towards an object that will eventually result in impact, then no, the moon isn't "falling" to earth.
Originally posted by iismtivu
so, if the moon is falling towards earth, how is it all the experts are saying the moon is moving away from earth, and that's what is causing the earths magnetic field to weaken ?
Originally posted by theAymen
wow..im so impressed...i see evolution taking place...im so proud.
OP...CONCENTRATE ON ELECTROMAGNETICS....you will find your answer
im so happy...for two weeks now i have been saying this here..GRAVITY ONLY EXPLAINS A COLLISION PLUS OUR EXPLANATION OF GRAVITY IS A COLLECTION OF RESULTS, WITH A LABEL.
E&M is the reason for orbit...the sun has +- poles and the planets rotate inbetween these poles.
The Geometric Orbit Equation The Geometric Orbit Equation is a previously unrecognized, purely geometric equation embodying a relationship in the standard astronomical data showing that the orbital radius of any planet in 33 Introduction our solar system (i.e. its distance from the sun) multiplied by the square of its velocity always gives the same constant value. This would be written as: v2R = K, where K is a constant with the unchanging value of 1.325 x 1020 [m3/s2] R is the orbital radius of the planet (distance from the sun) v is the velocity of the planet This relationship can be readily deduced from any standard table of planetary data that can be found in most introductory physics textbooks. The constant, K, is the same for all planets orbiting the sun, but differs for other orbital systems. For instance, the value of K for objects orbiting the Earth rather than the sun can be readily calculated as 3.7 x 1014 by referring to these same tables of planetary data. This value of K for our Earth-based orbital system would apply to the orbit of the moon, for instance, as well as the orbits of the various satellites and spacecraft about our planet. This geometric orbit equation allows the distance of orbiting objects to be calculated if their speed is known. Perhaps more importantly, it allows for the planning or alteration of satellite and spacecraft orbits by indicating the speed required to achieve a given orbit, and the required speed change to transfer from one orbital trajectory to another. This type of calculation would underlie everything from fuel requirement planning for space shuttle missions to orbital insertion of satellites around Mars.
Notably, the Geometric Orbit Equation pre-dates Newton and achieves these results in a purely geometric fashion, as its name implies, without any reference to masses or gravitational forces. The Geometric Orbit Equation is the type of important astronomical observation that we might expect to be noticed and identified in the time of Kepler and Newton. Although there is no clear record of this occurring, the existence of this earlier geometric relationship provides an intriguing alternate derivation for Newton’s gravitational force and the final form of his Law of Universal Gravitation. To see this, we turn to the common analogy for planetary orbits taught in all elementary physics courses – the presumably equivalent scenario of a rock swung in a circle at the end of a string, as assumed by Newton. The Rock-And-String Assumption The idea of the moon being forcefully constrained by gravity to circle the Earth seems very reasonable at first, since we are all familiar with the seemingly similar concept of swinging a rock on the end of a 34 Introduction string, causing it to “orbit” about us. Of course, this is not truly an orbit since it involves a physical length of string with clear physical tension throughout it as our muscles strain to keep the rock from flying off. This leads to the mysterious concept that the orbit of our moon involves a mysterious attracting force acting across space in a manner that is still unexplained by science, apparently forcefully keeping the moon from flying off without drawing on any power source. However, since this is the equivalence made by Newton and widely accepted today, we will follow this same assumed rock-andstring equivalence in this alternate derivation of Newton’s gravitational force. Once this assumption is made, it may then seem reasonable to equate the force required to constrain the rock in a circular path about us with the gravitational force said to constrain the moon in its orbit about the Earth. The Centripetal Force Equation for calculating the force, F, required to constrain a rock swung by a string is well known, as it was in Newton’s day:
“Explaining why the expansion of the Universe is currently accelerating is certainly the most fascinating question in modern cosmology,” says Luigi Guzzo, lead author of a paper in this week’s issue of Nature, in which the new results are presented. “We have been able to show that large surveys that measure the positions and velocities of distant galaxies provide us with a new powerful way to solve this mystery.” “This implies that one of two very different possibilities must hold true,” explains Enzo Branchini, member of the team. “Either the Universe is filled with a mysterious dark energy which produces a repulsive force that fights the gravitational brake from all the matter present in the Universe, or, our current theory of gravitation is not correct and needs to be modified, for example by adding extra dimensions to space.”