The GRAVITY conspiracy (Part 1)

page: 4
57
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a interesting and coherent look at a force taken for granted..

But as mentioned before, this appears to be considering only perfect orbits and not elipses. Kepler was flawed in his model, but the math (my basic monkey understanding of it) looks fair.

I need more coffee...my head exploded..will wait for part 2 to see if I can understand how you can get proper numbers off of a flawed system.




posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Why did you not reduce your formula further then K is really the constant T (time of orbit)

K = r^3 / T^2

substituting we get

F = M * 4 * pi^2 * r / T^2

Now it is obvious T (time of orbit) is an empirical part of the equation. In Newtons formula both masses are known (M1 and M2), the distance r and the constant G (also empirical). All of which are known by observation and measurement. In yours one mass is known, the distance r and the time of orbit T (also all known by observation). I see no significance here. How does this result in a conspiracy?

It is simply a matter of what is known (observed) and using that (formula or theory) to calculate what is unknown. From what is known various things such as velocity (at a moment in time) and period (T) can be calculated. Or we can work it backward as you did from what is known (T, M and r) and so on ... really there is no difference, its not significant.
edit on 8-10-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-10-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Did someone say torque ?

The Center of Our Galaxy is the Cause of the Torque Tugging on the Sun
making the Continuous flow of Force..

Milky Way in 3D


Merging Spiral Galaxies - simulating visual appearance ( June 01, 2008 )


For Every Action there is a Reaction

well i thought i might as well add this too... Seeing there's the Question of Gravity besides the Calculations
Gravity Wave at the Speed of Light , Fabric of Space Time the Warping and Curving etc..

General relativity & Gravity ( August 08, 2007 )
edit on 8-10-2010 by Wolfenz because: video



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Also why is Newton's formula significant? It's pure. It simply describes the force between two masses at a distance. It works for all masses not just masses in orbit. If you had two objects in space at a distance the force between them can be calculated if their masses and the distance between them are known.

How can your formula calculate the force between two objects in space that are not in orbit? There is no T, or K, to observe for your formula. Therefore, Newton's formula is more fundamental than yours.

Case closed .....
edit on 8-10-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-10-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-10-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
My simple words can't express the felling of relief I have experienced reading tis post.

Would you believe that all this time I thought it was simply rust and mud within the steering linkage which made my grandpa's old truck continue to run in a circle out in the field. All I had to do was pull the steering wheel all the way to one side and it would stick in place. Of course, I set the spark advance high enough to keep the motor running fast enough to keep the truck moving. After doing this I would get off and hide while I watched people passing by on the road look in amazement as the truck continued to circle with no driver.

Then there was that fatefull day when I fell getting off the truck and watched helplessly as my hat fell off my head and bounced from cloud to cloud until it was out of sight...

I often wonder just where it is orbiting to now.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus
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 ?"


This has to be one of the most perplexing threads I have read for a long time, I have had to read it several times to understand the maths, thank for that. I believe you may be on to something, we all take as gospel what we are told until we start to look for ourselves. It appears there are flaws in the original equation.

Could it be that the earth is kept in position orbiting the sun due to huge amounts of electromagnetic energy that is formed from the intensity of the sun? we are only starting to explore the sun and it seems that over the last 6 months we have been gathering more and more data that seem to be blowing alot of original theoris and laws out of the water.

Very interesting thread thankyou OP



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


You're still only dealing with the artificial case of a perfectly circular orbit. Where are your equations for an elliptical orbit? Or for the general case of the gravitational force between any two objects, orbiting or not?



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Maths is not my strongpoint but i think everyone knows its the MAGNETIC pull of our Planets which in turn produce an Orbit plus Gravity to keep the rotation going.... the same ways Asteroids are flung around from one planets orbit to the next... being pulled in that direction....

You don't need to know Einstein or Newton to figure this out.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by MegaMind
 


Hi Megamind.
Thank you for replying to my post.
I did not mean that the OP's equation literally contain the constant G in the equation, but that by using the constants of Time and Radius, that this is merely a substitute or proxy for the G and so the equations contain the constant merely expressed in time and radius. As both Time and Orbit are functions of Gravity, the OP acknowledges this by using centripetal acceleration as K in his equation yet wants to claim that the forces responsible are "fudged" in order to make Newton's calculation's correct.

I hope you see what I mean.
I have enjoyed your posts.
Thanks.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Sonic anti gravity.
Levitation in Ancient Tibet:


* (1). 8 drums were 1 meter diameter X 1.5 meters deep X 3mm sheet iron and weighed 150 kg.
* (2). 4 drums were 0.7 meter diameter X 1 meters deep
* (3). 1 drum was 0.2 meter diameter X 0.3 meters deep
* (4). All trumpets were 3.12 meters X 0.3 meters


Pressure related electrical effects have not been that successful even though there
is noticeable force.
The electrical relation to force and gravity needs more investigation especially
if such forces can be produced.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


The "Wave Structure of Matter", a new vision of the "Standard Model" may be of interest to posters on this thread.

See www.quantummatter.com... and www.quantummatter.com...

Also try spaceandmotion.com...

And in case you're doubting the validity of the theory, you can try www.physforum.com...

Hope you find this interesting.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by MegaMind
 


Hi Megamind.
Thank you for replying to my post.
I did not mean that the OP's equation literally contain the constant G in the equation, but that by using the constants of Time and Radius, that this is merely a substitute or proxy for the G and so the equations contain the constant merely expressed in time and radius. As both Time and Orbit are functions of Gravity, the OP acknowledges this by using centripetal acceleration as K in his equation yet wants to claim that the forces responsible are "fudged" in order to make Newton's calculation's correct.

I hope you see what I mean.
I have enjoyed your posts.
Thanks.


Well said. This only works because it just so happens the gravitational force between two bodies in a perfectly circular orbit is exactly equal to the centripetal force required to maintain a perfectly circular orbit. It doesn't work for any other case, and it doesn't work in the "real world," as orbits are much more accurately described as ellipses, not circles.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by MegaMind
 


... I did not mean that the OP's equation literally contain the constant G in the equation, but that by using the constants of Time and Radius, that this is merely a substitute or proxy for the G and so the equations contain the constant merely expressed in time and radius ...


Yes I see what you mean. We are in complete agreement.
edit on 8-10-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Awesome work, I appreciate you taking time to research this a little bit and have the guts to question what's considered the norm!

On the other hand, I agree with a few others in the thread that you've just inadvertently hidden the same thing within the equation, and also, what good is knowing the force without a locus?

again though - I applaude your work and really recommend checking out some Astrophysics or mathematics journals if you really feel you have something unique!



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

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.


Without knowing the distance (radius), neither can Newton.

That's what I said, didn't I?

Please calculate the force acting on a stationary object using your formula. Please calculate it's acceleration given the mass of the two objects. Given the mass of two objects, please calculate the orbital velocity at any given distance.

See the difference? Without using G you cannot predict the acceleration. You can only calculate it when it is known by means of the orbital velocity. As I said G is implicit in the orbital velocity.
edit on 10/8/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


The farce of this OP's argument becomes obvious when you need to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall from the height of 200 feet for example. There is no circular rotational period involved for this falling motion.

The apple falls no matter what. The great achievement of Newton was in the fact that he showed the falling motion of an apple and the rotation of the planet around the sun are caused by the same force, the gravitational force.

An also empirically we know some objects are heavier than others. And regardless of the mass, it takes same time for them to fall from the same height as observed by Galileo.

Newton not only used Kepler's planetary data but also Galileo's terrestrial experiment in his final conclusion of the theory of gravity.

Good attempt but no way enough to negate Newtonian theory of gravity.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 

simple question- simple answer:
 Gen 1 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.h  17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,  18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.  19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.i  20And God said, Let the waters bring forth

and somewhere in the Book it is stated that God hangs the earth upon a thread

Newton knew that
Y



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Three words dude.

electric universe theory

Check it out.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by jonesD5
 

Even if the electric universe notion were correct (it isn't), it requires a constant to determine the attractive force. The OP claims no constant is necessary.
edit on 10/8/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
This has been a good thread, if only for forcing some of us to review our basic physics. I don't see why gravity is a "conspiracy," though.





new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join