The GRAVITY conspiracy (Part 1)

reply to post by tauristercus


Op at first glance without reading any of the answers. You have a different equation,
but do you not know that in your equation the radius and time to complete the orbit are
dependent on the mass of the sun?
So in other words you have not omitted the effects of the sun's mass.

But a good play with elementary math. Be encouraged and give it a go. Try some tensor calculus at
www.scribd.com...

reply to post by tauristercus


epic.

check this out dude:

fascistsoup.com...

I'd like permission to repost your thread on my blog.

If you have another name you would like me to attribute your post to, please let me know.

Mate, I wish I knew what the hell you were talking about. Unfortunately this stuff goes WAY over my head. I can see that you put a lot of thought into this though so that I can commend you on!

The OP has derived a formula for the attractive force between two masses in a special case (one orbiting another) from a set of knowns (T period, M mass and r radius). From this formula the OP declares that (G), the gravitational constant, is not necessary to calculate the attractive force (F) using his formula, indeed it is not in his special case with these knowns. Then the OP extrapolates that (G) is not needed at all.

But OP can you, as others have called for, show us how your formula or another derivation can give us the force (F) between two stationary objects without the use of (G)?

You cannot. Newton's law is fundamental. Your formula is not.

reply to post by tauristercus


You are observing that the gravitational force on a freely moving body (with no other force acting on it) is exactly balanced by the force with which its inertia resists acceleration (change in direction or magnitude of velocity.) This force is called the centrifugal force when discussing rotating objects. It is balanced by the centripetal force of gravity in the case of a freely orbiting object in a vacuum.

I am confident that your results would work fine for elliptical orbits or even for complex multi-body orbits (though we don't know how to write simple equations for the multi-body problem.)

It even works to compute the partial component of the total forces on a body due to centrifugal force of objects subject to other forces, such as the force of my chair on my backside as I sit here, or the force of a rocket engine firing.

Every force is balanced by an equal and opposite force. After netting out any other forces (the chair pressure or rocket engine firing) then the force of gravity is balanced by the equal and opposite force that is an objects inertia ... its mass times whatever acceleration it is undergoing.

BUT you still need to consider gravity. Let's say that the earth suddenly became much lighter. Say the aliens come along in an enormous starship and shoot a massive laser beam right at earth, causing HALF of the entire earth's mass to shoot out the other side in a plasma beam, creating a gigantic hole in our planet. We would still have our nice planet; it just has this little problem -- a BIG HOLE in it.

What would happen next?

Earth's gravitational pull would weaken by half. Orbiting satellites would rise to higher orbits. The atmosphere would rise higher and become less dense. I would weigh what I weighed in my youth, long ago.

Other things would occur as well, such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and a spike in posts on ATS announcing the sighting of aliens, with replies demanding evidence.

But the force of earth's gravity cannot be ignored when computing the orbit of a satellite. So long as earth's mass (hence it's gravitational pull) remains constant (no alien laser beams) then the force of gravity BALANCES the centrifugal force of a satellite constantly accelerating (moving out of a straight line) in orbit. But as soon as the earth's mass changes (that big alien laser zap) then the earth's mass changes, hence its gravitational field changes, hence that satellite's orbit changes.

Originally posted by MegaMind
The OP has derived a formula for the attractive force between two masses in a special case (one orbiting another) from a set of knowns (T period, M mass and r radius). From this formula the OP declares that (G), the gravitational constant, is not necessary to calculate the attractive force (F) using his formula, indeed it is not in his special case with these knowns. Then the OP extrapolates that (G) is not needed at all.

But OP can you, as others have called for, show us how your formula or another derivation can give us the force (F) between two stationary objects without the use of (G)?

You cannot. Newton's law is fundamental. Your formula is not.

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

The gravitational force between two stationary objects is virtually unmeasurable in the real world.

Measures of G itself change every time they have been attempted to be measured.

G has proven to be NON-CONSTANT in nature, no matter what method of measurement has been used.

I have heard an "electrical grid" keeps the Moon in place, I have no idea how it works.

Good work tauristercus.

reply to post by tauristercus

reply to post by mnemeth1


Yes and Newtonian physics breaks down in predicting the extreme. Even if there were some controversy over the consistency of G (and I'm not to certain there is) it doesn't change the fact that the OP cannot even come close to calculating the force of stationary objects without G. You would admit that Newton's formulas and the current measurement of G give very, very close approximations wouldn't you?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
G has proven to be NON-CONSTANT in nature, no matter what method of measurement has been used.

The value of G has been refined over the years as more accurate measurements have been made. That is much different than saying it's non-constant.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by mnemeth1
G has proven to be NON-CONSTANT in nature, no matter what method of measurement has been used.

The value of G has been refined over the years as more accurate measurements have been made. That is much different than saying it's non-constant.

It is not constant.

If it was constant, its measurements would not need to averaged.

Great post! Wonderfully presented. Thanks for opening another insight into gravity, or the mysterious force we have called "gravity."

I would really like to read/hear/see what you think about "Torsion Physics" or "Hyperdimensional Physics" as asserted by Hoagland and others. I'm sure a quick google will provide all of the basics.

In a nutshell, a scientist stumbled into a "new" kind of physics last century. Unfortunately, he died before he could present his work into Torsion (Hyperdimensional) Physics. Also unfortunate was that his assistant decided to change and alter the orginial work before presenting it to others. His take on it was flawed and the entire field was dismissed. Years later, the original work was found and this became Torsion Physics. Apparently it explains a LOT.

I believe your thoughts into this might be interesting, if you are open-minded enough to read up on it if you already don't know of it.

Originally posted by MegaMind
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Yes and Newtonian physics breaks down in predicting the extreme. But that doesn't change the fact that the OP cannot even come close to calculating the force of stationary objects without G. You would admit that Newton's formulas give very, very close approximations wouldn't you?

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

Logic would dictate that there is no attraction, other than of the electro-magnetic type, which still ultimately relies on movement.

Since we can't measure the attractive force between stationary objects with any accuracy other than arriving at the conclusion the attraction is zero, I don't see any reason why it should not be declared as zero given his findings.

Isnt it great how you can throw your sons homework on a thread, include a bunch of your own computations, never really come to any definitive conclusions, and yet still receive dozens of flags?

Its hilarious that (most likely) 9 out 10 people who flagged this thread admittedly did not even understand it.

People see numbers, letters, and formulas, their eyes glaze over, and they flag it because they feel like they should be able to appreciate it, despite not having the attention span to comprehend it.

BRILLIANT!!

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Logic would dictate that there is no attraction, other than of the electro-magnetic type, which still ultimately relies on movement.

Since we can't measure the attractive force between stationary objects with any accuracy other than arriving at the conclusion the attraction is zero, I don't see any reason why it should not be declared as zero given his findings.

I did a version of the Calvendish Experiment in my physics course. The attraction is clearly observable and neither mass is moving relative to another. The force is definitely not zero. In fact the force is measured and that is how G is calculated.

Accuracy of measurement is surely relative. Its accurate to a significant digit.

If G = 0, then F = 0 and Gravity does not exist. Yet clearly I observed the two lead balls being attracted to one another. How do you suppose we send satellites into orbit when our calculations are using G = 0 and F = 0? Yeah maybe we should just throw out the last 200 years of science.

I am lost with all the math, but it seems that gravity is a real magical force. If we can't see it or explain it then it must be magic! We are such babies crawling when it come to the cosmos. Hey, I have a question for everyone. Is there a left, right, up or down direction in space?

Originally posted by mnemeth1If it was constant, its measurements would not need to averaged.

Measurements are averaged so as to average out the uncertainty in the measurements. It is difficult to measure because gravity is so weak. That they have it narrowed down to a value with an uncertainty of less than 0.0014% is pretty darn good.

It is no more variable than pi is when it was first thought to be 3 and 1/7th. The measurement and mathematical techniques have simply been refined over time.

Originally posted by MegaMind

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Logic would dictate that there is no attraction, other than of the electro-magnetic type, which still ultimately relies on movement.

Since we can't measure the attractive force between stationary objects with any accuracy other than arriving at the conclusion the attraction is zero, I don't see any reason why it should not be declared as zero given his findings.

I did a version of the Calvendish Experiment in my physics course. The attraction is clearly observable and neither mass is moving relative to another. The force is definitely not zero.

Accuracy of measurement is surely relative. Its accurate to a significant digit.

If G = 0, then F = 0 and Gravity does not exist. Yet clearly I observed the two lead balls being attracted to one another. How do you suppose we send satellites into orbit when our calculations are using G = 0 and F = 0? Yeah maybe we should just throw out the last 200 years of science.

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

The question is what type of attraction did you observe.

Electromagnetic or "gravity"

reply to post by mnemeth1


Well it certainly was not electromagnetic as we know electromagnetism. So whats left is the thing we call gravity.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The question is what type of attraction did you observe.

Electromagnetic or "gravity"

Given the electromagnetic force is about 10^39 times stronger than gravity, it's pretty safe to say it wasn't electromagnetic.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The gravitational force between two stationary objects is virtually unmeasurable in the real world.

The meaning of that statement is certainly untrue. As it has been measured many times and forms the basis for calculating G.

F = G * M1 * M2 / r^2

so

G = (F * r^2) / (M1 * M2)

What your saying it that because one cannot *EXACTLY* measure the length of something it is "virtually unmeasurable", which I agree is true, however, that doesn't mean the measurement is zero or insignificant or meaningless. The measurement is meaningful or significant to a certain digit indicating the level of accuracy.

-------------------------------------------------

Again the OP cannot calculate (predict) the force between two stationary masses without the constant G.