Capiert

(..instead of #19's).

I think Janus did a marvelous job (that's a plus point for women('s intuition), if so, (over men's details, although both are needed as a team)). I would have tipped ~48 W/kg to levitate, (#7), but as Janus has shown us a helicopter needs double that to hover, (because 2 masses are moved: helicopter & air (also)) so there is at least -50% loss with a helicopter. Janus('s method or track) has solved the question (so far) the way I intended (simply, (& exactly) with com vs coe, conservation of momentum vs energy) as a physics feat (overview), (instead of (guessing, back) engineering ((unavailable) details), yet; which would be the next step). Thanks Janus. Your 2nd example (0.1 kg) disturbingly indicates to me a(n inferiority) problem of energy which Swansont denies (in my Mechanical Symmetry thread #1 (theme), #12 (denial), #77 (request)) as non_existent.

Can we agree that KE3~(m1*KE1+m2*KE2+mom1*mom2)/(m1+m2) ?

The 2nd link seems to be in the direction I want (it to go).But as John seems to indicate, it looks like (some degree of) guesswork. I thought physics was (suppose to be) an exact science. I can't believe this is an impossible task. To keep things clear I'm looking for an electrical equivalent (equation) but not done with light. I thought it would have been easy for you all to predict helicopter fuel costs (& I still have faith in you can). Yes, that's doing it backwards though.I'm interested in hovering a helicopter. Fuel costs. I suppose things get more interesting when we bring the hovering height h (e.g. 1 m) into the picture. E.g. It takes more power to hover higher (e.g. 2, 10, or even 100 or 1000 m); even thought that is further away from the earth's center (of mass). Your gravity laws say the force should decrease instead (at higher heights).

I don't have an electric drone, but an electric fan. I'm still lost as to how you all would calculate the P vs F relation. Would someone please continue & do the calculations?

Nope, it doesn't burn rope. (Old ropes were made of hemp (=grass), but burning them to smoke won't make you high. ) Please continue though.

I'm sorry, I can't quite follow yet, M=Mass? Do you mean 1 kg of air is moving, per second?

I'm assuming no frictional losses, so I guess 100% for the ideal case. Gasp! That's too expensive, for my fuel bill.Is there another way to do it? That's the problem: when hovering the helicopter does not move: e.g. speed (velocity) is zero. ?

1 kg has a weight force ~9.8 Newton. What is the power relation (to balance force)? E.g. a helicopter doesn't stay up in the air for nothing, but (instead) burns chemical energy at a specific rate. I'm NOT thinking (=talking) about Zeppelins (e.g. buoyancy: force vs force balance).

What do you need?How should it (the evidence) look like? e.g. a small example.

I think you've missed the math connection between proclaimed ellipses from cones. Did you? There is none. What does not examinable mean? & for curiousity only?It sounds like a good joke (for proof, a bit weak?). But "the answer (my friend) is blowing in the wind." I didn't derive the egg shape from Newton's laws.Did anyone say I must? I derived it (the egg shape) from a cone cut. I don't think I can (derive the egg shape from Newton's laws), either. Can you?

No Fuzzwood. The ellipse_info can be converted to an egg (shape) & visa versa. The Egg's_length (Apsis) l = periside + apside, e.g. l = perihelion + aphelion l = c + d l = closest + distant (distance from the focus). (If we let (the cone's base radius) r=1, then (the cone's height) h ~ Epsilon is the eccentric (of an ellipse). But only if.) The "closest" side (Periside, e.g. Perihelion) c = ((r^2 + h^2)^0.5) * (r-h)/(r+h) c = ((r^2 + h^2)^0.5) * e Let (the cone's_base_radius) r=1, & the height h=0..1 defines the (egg_)plane's slope_"height", wrt the cone's center_axis Y, h=0 produces a circle (symmetric: half & half, peri & ap); h=1 produces minimum periside=zero, & maximum apside=all; then, simplifies to c = ((1^2 + h^2)^0.5) * (1-h)/(1+h) c = ((1 + h^2)^0.5) * (1-h)/(1+h) c = ((1-h)/(1+h)) * root (1 + h^2). The "distant" side (Apside, e.g Aphelion) d = ((r^2 + h^2)^0.5) Again, let the cone's_base_radius r=1, simplifies to d = ((1^2 + h^2)^0.5) d = ((1 + h^2)^0.5) d = root (1 + h^2). The closest © & distant (d) distances wrt the focus are the apsis. Radius r = h * (d + c)/(d - c) height (wrt the cone's height) h = r * (d - c)/(d + c) h = r * e Numeric Eccentric e = (d - c)/(d + c) r = h / e.

I think you might have misunderstood me.The major point is a single focus (not an ambiguous double focii). The traditional math does NOT fit either: how can you derive an ellipse from a cone, when a cylinder's cut gives the ellipse? Your professors claim a cone('s cut) will give you that (ellipse) but I get otherwise. i.e. an egg shape. Kepler assumed an ellipse, & nobody has questioned that because it's not far from the truth, but I assumed otherwise because I wanted a(n exclusive) single focus (for the modelling). 2 different assumptions, which is right? The facts will tell. I think you're mixing up Newton with Kepler.(?)Where did Newton's F=G*M*m/(R^2) state an ellipse, exclusively. His formula can use either an ellipse or a (perfect) circle. You seem to be jumping to conclusions. Are you? Seems to pertend to you, sorry.Which theory do you mean? (Please be specific.) Seems to be (at least partially) on your side.

Hi Strange.I can present evidence that the orbits are not symmetric as stated above. You've interpretted (modelled) that to an ellipse; & I haven't (giving you that alternative). We know the earth's free_fall acceleration is ge=G*Me/(Re^2) where Newton's G & the earth's mass Me are constants for the radial distance Re from the earth's center to the earth's surface. This is an aside to Swansont's task to fit in the pull theme (thread) that I cannot yet complete in 1 step so I must attempt the 1st of 2 steps here. E.g. I have an answer for a LEO low earth orbit (e.g. skylab) which makes "some" sense but I do not have a complete solution for the 2 body problem, yet. Swansont placed a very tall order (to the moon). Very ruffly, I get ~16.6 orbits per day for skylab, considering the earth is also rotating each day the synchronization means we loose 1 giving 15.6 compared to Wiki's 15.4 orbits per day.

Kepler's proposal of ellipse is an approximation & a suggestion you've accepted. If your teams will observe more closely you might find egg shapes. Dealing with the large distances & small apparent sizes (of planets & stars) I'm quite sure there is room for improvement in the accuracy & tolerances. I must admit I've seen a few eggs that were very difficult to distinguish between the narrow & wide ends, because they both (widthes, ends) looked rather similar. Maximum width is usually found at half the length.

Please wait! (Under construction) The egg orbit: (assumes) 1. The planets move around the sun in an egg orbit, not an ellipse. (Implying Kepler's 1st law needs fine tuning, being unacceptable (without), but viewing his anti-thesis (as acceptable): the planets do not move around in perfect circles, but instead a distortion of that (circle) we can see (=recognize) what he means (even though he didn't say it right) & so (his thesis) needs fine tuning, to an egg.) Nature is not so simple, but instead lob_sided. (Ellipses rarely occur, but instead water drop(let)s & egg shapes are most common.) 2. The period of a circular orbit is Huygen's pendulum period T=2*Pi*((R/ac)^0.5) of radius R, deriveable from Newton's centrifugal_acceleration ac=(vc^2)/r, where the (circular) tangential_speed vc=2*Pi*r/T is the circumference cir=2*Pi*r per period T. An egg has only 1 focus (near the smaller end); unlike an ellipse which has 2 focii). The egg formula is derived from a (slanted) cone cut (intersection); because an ellipse is drived from a slanted cylindrical cut.

The 1/(r^2) rule is (electrostatic), Gauss's (surface_charge_density) law sigma=Q/A, with the modification of using protons (positive charges) instead of electrons. The protons(' charge Q) are easily (ac)counted (by) using mass m (instead of charge, directly) (e.g. AtWt also includes the neutrons' protons; & electrons' mass is insignificant in comparison). The substitution then looks like sigma~mass/area sigma~m/A, sphere's_Area A=4*Pi*(r^2) sigma~m/(4*Pi*(r^2)). It has nothing to do with (matter's) expansion, per se (as I know it (til) yet). So Caution: Newton's G formula is a summary, or mixture, of 2 formula F=m*a & sigma~m/A.

The scaling equation for a (e.g. planet's) free_fall acceleration (caused by matter expanding, wrt absolute space) is (simply) g=(ge/Re)*R the earth's_free_fall aceleration ge=9.8 m/(s^2) (I use Pi^2 instead) per the earth's_radius Re (ruffly 6.378 million meters) ratio, then multiplied by the (desired planet's) radius R. That's only matter's expansion's results, no rotational, nor electromagnetic effects. I don't know how you can observe what you don't see. ? I'm not sure about that. They are too perfect wrt Newton's formula.I once heard a professor say, the 1st manned Apollo moon (landing) orbit had to be fine tuned (recalculated on the fly) because they didn't know it exactly. Theory didn't match, the numbers. No, because that statement doesn't sound logical.I'm saying, if simply e.g. dropping a ball experiments, give results different from Newton's then here is an alternative (model, for comparison). I can't trace the values in the books, because they are interdependent. & you guys (& gals) must have better resources to checkup on experiments, than (little ol) me. I'm sorry, I don't know him.But nice to here you have fun. I don't believe this (theory) is (originally) my own I'm just helping you all model it because (I suspect) I understand it (a bit). I can at least try to discribe it the way I see it. It's not difficult.

I've seen them (=the data in a CRC handbook) & they are not the same, & can not be the same because they are calculated from 2 different formulas Newtons & mine. So I confirm my conjecture that the the 2 theories produce different data. An(other) advantage of the push theory is that it does NOT need black holes, so does not use them. Some distant galaxies (only) appear to be shrinking, instead.

The push theory has some interesting consequences (conclusions): (1 is) the free fall aceleration g depends on the (e.g. earth's) radius; not the mass. (That's assuming no rotation.) E.g. 2 bodies positioned at rest (=same speed), apart (a small distance) in space, deals with 2 radii (not their masses). They (=their surfaces) will accelerate together. Such a theory can be used to calculate the various planets' g, & they are different from what is accepted, so when you get a chance to measure (free_fall acceleration on other planets & moons, etc) you will have evidence to evaluate the theories.

Hubble didn't make that conclusion if that is what you mean (=want to hear). Only what I can tell you.You did give an invitation to develop a push model. Good. Descartes said to doubt is the greatest thing you can do.

Hi Royston It's a side effect (further conclusion) of Hubbles expanding universe. It's the duration time, needed for matter to double its size wrt an absolute (space), (in our solar_system). Pick a point above the earth's surface, 1 earth radius away. Calculate the falling time, (a mass needs, from that height) till it reaches the earth's surface. That's the same amount of time needed (if the frames were reversed) for the earth's surface to expand up till it reaches that point. And you do too (please). I do not have maths to exclude either. Perhaps you do?

Yes, but I (still) have to interpret some (quite a bit) so I can understand it in my (perspective) terms. Marvelous description, though. I like how you are highlighting, the controversial themes (=differences), in comparison to natural thinking (expectations). Thank you.

Thanks.

Hi John The acceleration (theory) does not bother me, because of the expansion of matter (theory) is its cause. Whatever distance (that will be) measured will also increase in size. Doubling rate (period) ~19.6 min. Thus, speed of light stays significantly the same. You wouldn't notice your own growth unless looking at (some) distant galaxies which would appear to shrink (a bit). But my underlieing question on all is, is there a(n experimental) method to determine (the direction) whether (gravity is either) push or pull? I don't know of 1 (yet?).