spunnery

if earth stays in one oplace in the sky ,doesn't it means moon is not rotating in its own axis.if moon rotate a degree,earth will move accordingly on the sky. So why we are taught as moon is rotating on its own axis?????

yes,you come to the point.So moon is like sitting on a merry go round with earth as almost center.now my question is wheather you will see earth rising & setting as viewed from moon??

I agree with you swansont,But really i want you to come to this point. Now if i give a new formula to force,F1 = mass x velocity (vector quantity).and the defenition of force in original equation(F2= m x a) as the additional force per second required to change the velocity ,can't we change our understanding of inertia(it is not a new theory-it is only a different view). i will explain it further A body of mass 'm' is travelling at a constant velocity 'v'. now as per our new formula ,force on the body is F1 = m x v; We want to stop this body in 't' seconds(to bring the body at rest with respect to inertial frame), For this,we have to bring 'v' to zero in 't' seconds.so the acceleration required is a= (0 - v)/t = -v/t. so the force per second required to stop the body is F2= m x a. this is true for any change in velocity(in magnitude & direction). what is different in this angle of view? force is a vector quantity (unit is kg*m/sec). Now we can say ,A force acting on the body will remain same until and unless another force is acted on the body.(can be used to explain the cause of inertia?????)

I have given you reply about what you have mentioned as contemporary science.newton is not the final word nor Einsterin

sorry I used the term reflection instead of refraction.why not? visible and non visible part of the spectrum should behave same to gravity or refraction or reflection . Can you please let me know how many equations based on GR is being used for orbital calculation of satelites.Do you know still newton's gravitational equations are being used in these sort of calculations? Newtons law of gravitation cannot explain gravitational lensing because ,may be as i said this phenomenon is occured due to atmosphere.

reflection of light when it changes the medium,is a phenomenon which we are experiensing in our daily life. for example ,A stick dip inside a pool seems to be bend at the junction of the mediums.could you please explain more clearly how this is not coming into account for a the lensing and why we are going for a more complicated explanation, without proper reasoning? Sorry to say everybody wants to proove Einstein was right! Of course he was a geneious ,but Galeilio & sir Issac newton too was?

No displacement means no work!.doesn't it means if displacement is there ,work is done there? here bodyin the question is displaced from one place to another and you are telling me no work is done.Could you please explain it little more? take the body to outer space where there is no gravitational field.so no other forces will be acting on the body(to eliminate all other forces and stick to the point)

what is the defenition of work done.Is it the distance travelled by a body due to the influence of a force(may not be correct grammer or correct defenition).So if the body move from one place to another means there is a work done,which you are denying

reflection is also a property of light when it passes from one medium to another,bending all wave lengths at same angle.I am not only talking abot the earths atmosphere but also all the atmospheres(whatever gas at whatever temperature) crossed by the heavenly lights to reach earth. For example the bending of light during solar eclipse,which is aproof of Einstein's relativity, could it be happened due to the reflection of light when it passes from vaccum to sun's atmosphere and back to vaccum?.the reflection caused by eartth's atmosphere will not be noticable to us because we are inside the same medium

rather, i will say moon is not rotating on its own axis but rotating around an axis which pass through the centre of earth.

if we can say that the car is rotating in its own axis ,then do you admit that youll say ,a hammer throw ball is rotating on its own axis instead of saying that it is rotating with thrower as axis ?

swansont, Of course,there is a force in collision.My concern is ,if the net force on a body moving with uniform velocity is zero,then howcomes a work is done (moving from one place to another) without a force acting on it?

is there anybody to explain me why am i wrong,if i argue that gravitational lensing is not caused by gravity,but because of the change in medium(from vaccum to the atmosphere and back to vaccum).?

I appologise for using shorthand text message. Agree this is a confusing topic. Now let us come back to the discussion.like what i said in the earlier example,Nobody knows the path of ball,but every body is coming to a conclusion with respect to their own inertial frame. Put this in the case of the famous "twin paradox'.(i hope it is not necessary to explain the full story)The twin who travelled around is making a conclusion of what he observed from his inertial frame.So when he was somewhere in the solar system ,away from earth,he concludes that the velocity of the ball (in previous example)as "V1" which will be more than the velocity 'V2",which was calculated by his brother at earth(both actually are viewing one and same incident and coming to a conclusion from their perspective).Similarly the travelling twin come to a conclusion that his clock is correct,but moving slow compared to that of the earth.When he come back after his long journey and meet his twin back at earth,he is back in the earths inertial frame.Now everything will be same (his age will be same of that of his twin brother),exept his clock is showing a time in past.But the real time elapsed while he was travelling is one and same (but measured and recorded with different perspectives)

if i say moon is not rotating in its own axis,is there any body to oppose me??? with explanation of synchronous rotation. if a car is moving along a circular path,and you are standing at the centere of this circle. Do you say the car is rotating on its own axis?? of course everybody will agree that it is making a revolution around u.but no body will say it is rotating in its own axis. during this revolution u can see only one side of the car,is it true in the case of moon also ? or am i wrong????

I have said in my previous post and say again. I am NOT trying to dispute that time dilation does not occur. What I am trying to do is to explain HOW and WHY time dilation occurs. HAI KALESH if i say there is no time dilation ,which u r trying to explain in ur upcoming theory. Time Dilation -my perspective As far as I am concerned I believe laws as simple as of Sir Isaac Newton’s should govern the universe. So is there anything wrong in reviewing the immediate output of special relativity’- time dilation’, which requires a complex mathematics to establish a fourth dimension. So let us begin with the popular moving clocks. Let us consider first about a standing(not moving)clock, which use light rays to measure the time. The rays will start from a source and in a time ‘t’ it hits a mirror just opposite and then in another ‘t’seconds it hits back the source. Let the mirrors are placed at a distance ‘h’ apart. Let the light travel at a constant speed of 299793 km/sec. Here the distance traveled by light between two mirrors is ‘h’ meter. Now consider the clock is moving at a small velocity. Between mirrors, the light has to travel the hypotenuse of the triangle with velocity of clock multiplied by time taken for light to travel a distance ‘h’ (distance clock moved in that time ‘t’) as base and ‘h’ as altitude. Since the velocity of clock is negligible compared to that of light, the base of triangle will be negligible. In other words, we can say the time taken by the light to travel ‘h’ meters is a very very small fraction. This small fraction if multiplied with the small velocity of clock will give a small fraction, which can be considered as negligible. This indirectly means that altitude and hypotenuse are same which is equal to ‘h’, and the clock will show same time. What if clock is moving @ a speed nearer to that of light. The small fraction of time mentioned above, multiplied with the high velocity of clock will give a considerable amount, which means the base of triangle becomes bigger. Hence the hypotenuse also will be considerably bigger than the altitude ‘h’. So in the given time ‘t’, with its constant velocity, the light ray will not reach the opposite mirror. This doesn’t mean that the clock is running slower, but it has to be calibrated to tick at correct time. i.e. The ‘h’ of faster moving clocks(velocity nearer to that of light) has to be set to ‘h1’,which in turn will give a hypotenuse distance ‘h’, and will give right time compared to that of a standing clock. Any confusion? Draw a sketch and see! If time dilation is flawed, is there anything to backup the so-called space warps and geodesic deviations? Do you think we have to discuss anything about special relativity? Now with all the respect given to a genius of the century (in imagination-not in mathematics), Shall I call him ‘the man who stopped the clock of science for a century.

hai M4rc does the body moves from one place to another? does it done a work in moving so ? how can a work done without a force.???

dont confuse things.every units of measurement in earth have been callibrated with our existing inertial frame based with the movement of earth. but this frame changes if u are moving with respect to earth. So if u r in a movinfg frame either u have to caliberate measurement or add additional terms to the formulas which are meant to measure the unit at an inertial frame with no movement with respect to earth. For example ; A car is moving at a velocity "v". "A" and "B" are sitting on both side of the car and passing a ball .An observer "C" is watching the whole sequence from outside the car. A and B in their frame will observe that ball is travelling the width of car ,each time they pass the ball.But C in his inertial frame is seeing the ball is travelling through the hypotenuse of a triangle,drawn with velocity of car as altittude and width of car as base. But what is actual path of ball? it is neither what A&B or C have observed. it is travelling through the hypotenuse of a triangle drawn with velocity of earth as altitude & width of car as base, for an observer D who is isolated from earth.Is it the actual path? No. Again an observer outside solar system will observe, the ball is travelling through the hypotenuse of a triangle with velocity of sun as altitude and width of car as base. What about an observer outside milkyway and so on ? Nobody knows the actual path or velocity of the ball. So we are setting a standard with respect to the inertial frame of earth. if u want to measure it from any other frame, U have to add ,minus or caliberate ur instruments as required.

Hai swansont how if such a body with zero net force,hits ur body? if vector sum was Zero,from where the force which is pushing u comes from?

Time Dilation As far as I am concerned I believe laws as simple as of Sir Isaac Newton’s should govern the universe. So is there anything wrong in reviewing the immediate output of special relativity’- time dilation’, which requires a complex mathematics to establish a fourth dimension. So let us begin with the popular moving clocks. Let us consider first about a standing(not moving)clock, which use light rays to measure the time. The rays will start from a source and in a time ‘t’ it hits a mirror just opposite and then in another ‘t’seconds it hits back the source. Let the mirrors are placed at a distance ‘h’ apart. Let the light travel at a constant speed of 299793 km/sec. Here the distance traveled by light between two mirrors is ‘h’ meter. Now consider the clock is moving at a small velocity. Between mirrors, the light has to travel the hypotenuse of the triangle with velocity of clock multiplied by time taken for light to travel a distance ‘h’ (distance clock moved in that time ‘t’) as base and ‘h’ as altitude. Since the velocity of clock is negligible compared to that of light, the base of triangle will be negligible. In other words, we can say the time taken by the light to travel ‘h’ meters is a very very small fraction. This small fraction if multiplied with the small velocity of clock will give a small fraction, which can be considered as negligible. This indirectly means that altitude and hypotenuse are same which is equal to ‘h’, and the clock will show same time. What if clock is moving @ a speed nearer to that of light. The small fraction of time mentioned above, multiplied with the high velocity of clock will give a considerable amount, which means the base of triangle becomes bigger. Hence the hypotenuse also will be considerably bigger than the altitude ‘h’. So in the given time ‘t’, with its constant velocity, the light ray will not reach the opposite mirror. This doesn’t mean that the clock is running slower, but it has to be calibrated to tick at correct time. i.e. The ‘h’ of faster moving clocks(velocity nearer to that of light) has to be set to ‘h1’,which in turn will give a hypotenuse distance ‘h’, and will give right time compared to that of a standing clock. Any confusion? Draw a sketch and see! If time dilation is flawed, is there anything to backup the so-called space warps and geodesic deviations? Do you think we have to discuss anything about special relativity? Now with all the respect given to a genius of the century (in imagination-not in mathematics), Shall I call him ‘the man who stopped the clock of science for a century.

if force = mass x acceleration could any body explain the force on a body moving @ constant speed? since acceleration = 0 ; force = 0 ???????

hai astroman First & obvious thing ,in this problem is it is not in equillibrium. b'cause a pull of 147 N is not enough to carry a load of 245 N .So if we want to make such a system into existence,either u have to increrase the pull or change the direction of pull ,so that it will have a vertical component to resist the weight. Anyhow ,the tension on string at the instance will be 147/2 N

thanks both of u .by mistake 't' came in the equation(this is b'cause i have mixed up something-i am trying to calculate the distance travelled to fix the orbital paths of planets).

hai, ur understanding of gravity & gravitational pull has to be changed. As per sir Issac newton ,Gravitational pull exerted by earth to a body of mass m is F= GMm *t 2/ l 2,. where G = gravitational constant M= mass of earth. t= time & l = distance from earth. so if we substitute this to equation F = m x a = GMm t 2/ l 2,. Here U can see m on both sides will cancell to give an acceleration(g=9.8m/s2) which is not depended on the mass of the object. Any doubts?