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 Anthony1138
...i read half of your post (more then half) but you draged it on too long...
Originally posted by RedBird
reply to OP:
Very nice work, but as some posters have already mentioned, you are still using the gravitational constant in your own equations - or at the very least, you are using values that were themselves derived from equations that use the gravitational constant.
I'm not a mathematician, but I get the impression that you are simply restating in a different way the equation that you are trying to replace.
Very well laid out though. Thanks for the post.
Originally posted by Axial Leader
The value of "K" has to be selected for each solar system. You have essentially made an equation that won't work for arbitrary orbits, but only for orbits around our own sun. The value of K actually replaces the mass of the sun and the gravitational constant. You have removed the mass of the sun by keeping it constant in the equation, and factoring that into your value of K.
I liked the post, but as several people have pointed out, it suffers from a pretty big flaw.
The value of "K" has to be selected for each solar system. You have essentially made an equation that won't work for arbitrary orbits, but only for orbits around our own sun.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tauristercus
Your method cannot do so. Without knowing the period and distance you cannot calculate the force.
Originally posted by Maslo
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?
I can understand that it's hard to come to terms with the fact that just perhaps, the gravitational constant may NOT be an actual constant created by nature but one that was artificially introduced to make a particular equation work and produce the "right" sort of answers.
Originally posted by tauristercus
However, looking at my alternative equation of
there is no hidden or disguised gravitational constant there at all ... and in fact there's no need for it whatsoever as the equation (when multiplied by the mass of the orbiting body) automatically produces results that are already in units of force and therefore doesn't need to be "massaged" as does Newton's.
My equation ONLY uses an integer (4), pi, a distance (r) and the value of K uses only a distance and a time. There is no way to derive a gravitational constant or even to hide one using only distance and time.