smooth

I found a new pond to go fishing, but didn’t know if there were any fish therein, so for the first time I only took a line and hook with me, just to test the water, ya know how it is. To drochaid unless your idea is so simple it's surprising no one has thought of it before.. at which point, they probably will have. Probably, is not definitely. I have told you, I already have a business plan, but the fool you are talking to obviously makes business plans without doing research. To ya’ll I will have a ponder as to what I am willing to reveal, and how. But if you think the idea is so poor that I have to play the game drochaid wishes me to play, you are very much mistaken.

Sorry to be a pain and all that, but better to fully understand this now so I can move on. In the scenario of an elliptical orbit, when the object descends toward the centre of attraction, it is the lack of an increase in inertia that results in the increase in both speed and direction (acceleration).

All the info my man (or woman) needs is that if they are able to right software programmes contact me as I will only discuss in person, if you need more info - you are not in the position of the person I require, whom right now sees only a worthwhile opportunity, due to the position they find themselves.

If I took a snap shot of a planet orbiting a star, then drew a line representing the straight path the planets inertia dictates it should take (taking into account its prior momentum), also drawing a line from the centre of the suns attraction to the centre of the planets attraction, the planets orbit would dissect these two lines? If a planet (or object falling to earth) were to increase in mass, its inertia would increase proportionally, and so the proportional increase in gravitational attraction cancels out any change in speed? The gravitational attraction increasing (ie in the case of an elliptical orbit), is as if the mass is proportionally increasing, and so the inertia increases proportionally? Ehhh!? In an elliptical orbit both speed and direction change?

99, 98, 97... 3, 2, 1 - Coming ready or not The problem was that when I was babbling about a 2D gravitational plane & 3D gravity, what I was really trying to communicate was what you have been trying to explain to me (and when you said that wasn‘t right, I went off somewhere else)… When an object is in the earths atmosphere and is failing toward the centre of attraction, inertia becomes irrelevant, as the objects momentum does not oppose the force of attraction (meaning that it does not accelerate if increased in mass). However when in orbit an objects momentum must oppose the force of attraction, and it is this inertia that causes the object to accelerate even though it is subject to the very same force (as an object whose momentum is taking it toward the centre of attraction).

The UK, or to be more precise - Leeds, England If there is anyone at this forum, or indeed passing through, that is able to write software programmes (or knows someone that is), and you fancy teaming up to create what could be the next big thing, then get in touch! I have a business model and a keen eye for classy design, so what you waiting for?

Thank you swansont, what you have said makes perfect sense In the context of the proportional increases there is no acceleration. However in the relative context of two objects where one object increases in mass (and the other remains constant), there is an acceleration, and the heavier object hits the ground before the lighter object - in the event that they have been dropped from the same height at the same time!?

If I may respond briefly... I do not communicate in equations, so most of what you have said means nothing to me. I do accept that if the mass increases so does the gravitational attraction, in proportion to that increase in mass, and hence the velocity of the planet. Which all translates to me at the moment as - the force known as gravity, accelerates objects in orbit when they increase their mass. I do not know how this fits in with: The heavy and light objects travel at the same rate because there are two competing factors that cancel each other out. The force of gravity is greater on the heavier object than on the lighter object, proportional to the object's mass. This means that an object with twice the mass will be pulled toward the earth with twice the force. On the other hand, the acceleration is proportional to the force divided by the mass. This means that an object that is twice the mass of another object will be accelerated twice as slowly as the lighter object given the same force. So in order for an object with twice the mass to move at the same rate as the lighter object, the heavier object must be submitted to twice the force. And this is exactly what the force of gravity does. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99110.htm

Greetings, Does anyone know if it is possible to patent the concept/structure behind a software package, before the software has been produced? Thanks

Oaky doky, I don’t mind my cobwebs been blown out. If a planet moves closer to the point of attraction it orbits around, the greater the gravitational attraction? And the greater the velocity required to prevent it from descending toward a collision with its central point of attraction? The change in a planets velocity that results in the sweeping out of equal areas during equal intervals of time as the planet travels along its elliptical orbit - is related to the varying degree of gravitational attraction. Or in other words, if the planet did not accelerate as it approached its closest point - to the center of attraction - it would descend out of a stable orbit into an eventual collision. So the fact that this acceleration enables the sweeping out of equal areas during equal intervals of time is a by product of the varying degrees of attraction felt by the planet, and is akin to the differing degrees of attraction an object remaining in a spherical orbit, but increasing in mass - and hence velocity, if it is to remain in a stable orbit. Hit me!

Thanks for the reply However your description is not detailed enough to have satisfied my curiosity. If I may try to bring a greater clarification to your statement; That doesn't relate to Kepler's law. That's more of a universal gravitation thing. If I were to make a statement such as: Objects orbiting upon the two dimensional gravitational plane are not subject to their acceleration been proportional to the force divided by their mass, as is the case for objects within the constraints of three dimensional gravitational effects. Hence within the two dimensional gravitational plane an increase in mass results in a proportional increase in acceleration, suggesting that the (gravitational) force remains constant. Am I wrong? Does this need clarifying? Is this something new?

So why does the increase in mass not result in the satellite simply falling in toward the star? I thought it was - The greater the mass, the greater the energy required to attract it, and hence objects of differing mass 'fall' at the same velocity.

If the velocity of a satellite is required to be proportional to its distance from the star (ie Kepler’s law), how would the coming together of smaller satellites, form a satellite that is stable in its orbit? Just to try and simplify this request further - take the asteroid belt - each asteroid travels at a velocity required to maintain it in a ’stable orbit’, (with the absence of Jupiter) if these asteroids were to come together, the resulting increase in mass would require the new satellite to increase its velocity in order to ’stably’ maintain its orbit… …How is this explained? By the way... Warm greetings to all and thanks in advance for your efforts