Mystery of gravitation

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

First, final, and only warning before this gets trashed.

Read:

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=29

Rule 1 is quite clear. You have been asked for a simple prediction (post 6) that is easily testable.

[lemur]

Rule 1 is quite clear. You have been asked for a simple prediction (post 6) that is easily testable.[/modnote]

Can I give it a shot, even though it's not my theory? I can't see any "easily testable" prediction, but I would guess that his theory would predict slower acceleration into a gravity well than would be expected based on the standard formulas relating mass to radius. I don't know how he could test this easily, though, without having a very deep gravity well into which something could be dropped and timed.

[Klaynos]

Can I give it a shot, even though it's not my theory? I can't see any "easily testable" prediction, but I would guess that his theory would predict slower acceleration into a gravity well than would be expected based on the standard formulas relating mass to radius. I don't know how he could test this easily, though, without having a very deep gravity well into which something could be dropped and timed.

 

We know the radius of several planets and moons. Should be quite easy to predict some orbits. Which is what swansont asked for.

[lemur]

We know the radius of several planets and moons. Should be quite easy to predict some orbits. Which is what swansont asked for.

I didn't get the impression that the orbits of massive bodies was disputed but more that centripetal gravity was viewed as a weaker force. This made sense to me insofar as gravity supposedly cancels out other gravity within the body of matter but I don't see why this is reason to view it as a different type of gravity altogether. I'm not advocating the OP's ideas - just providing my understanding of them and my own critical assessment, for whatever that is worth.

[divinum1]

I'm not that concerned with "locking out" everything from my mind that doesn't immediately fit data. I find it interesting to think about things in different ways to compare the limits of qualitative description/theorizing. Sometimes people post things like this and I don't even bother to keep reading because the ideas just don't make sense to me. This one just happens to not be causing any allergic reaction so I am giving thought to the parameters to see where they start to blatantly fail in terms of my own knowledge/understanding, which admittedly is far from being as rich as many people's.

 

 

What, then, would cause particles to maintain or change orientation in the way you suggest?

 

 

I suppose you could say that stable molecules can lose or gain up to 7 electrons in ionization. This makes me wonder if its possible for at atom to ionize a full eight electrons to reach a different level of stability than its natural one.

 

edit: btw, I had another idea about the cause of gravity since engaging in this thread: I wondered if it is a form of residual electromagnetism, like that which causes surface-tension in water. I can't think of any deducible hypotheses to test this idea, though, unless the electrostatic residue of a massive body would cause gravitation to vary independently of mass, i.e. because of specific composition and chemical state(s) of the massive body in question.

 

In nature there are six atoms that can loose up to 7 electrons; F, Cl, Br, I, At, and 117.

However there are only two atoms that can loose up to 9 electrons, Europium and Americium.

To ionize an atom that has 8 electrons in its outermost shell, like Neon, Argon, and other noble gas, is very hard but possible, whereas other atoms do not have similar electron structure as noble gases.

 

Gravitational field does exhibit a tiny fraction of magnetism, which is why the planet Earth has a weak magnetic field that affect a compass needle. These magnetic fields of heavenly bodies like Earth and Sun are directly proportional to the difference of the masses of gravitons and electrons which is; 3.0x10>19 times. Hence the average strength of the Earth's magnetic field is; 3.0x10>19/ 5.98x10>24

=5.0x10<5 teslas.

 

The centripetal/Newtonian gravitational force results directly in the Keplerian orbits. There's essentially nothing left for the "orbital force" to account for.

 

If you replace the Newtonian force with something else that depends on the radius of the objects (which is contrary to Newtonian gravity), you should be able to use orbital data to show that this is going anywhere. You have two free parameters, so this should either work or fail miserably using our planetary orbits. So before you attempt to dazzle us with more musings, wow us with some analysis that justifies that there's anything to it. You've made a prediction. Prove that it holds up.

 

Since I still can not create mathematical formula as you would like me to. I have to described it in words;

 

The Fo (orbital force) of the Earth is directly proportional to the mass of the Earth multiplied by gravitational constant 'G'/ r (divided by radius of the earth), and then square roooted.

By using the radius of the Earth, you obtain the maximum magnitude of the Earth's orbital force.

By using the distance from the Earth, you obtain the magnitude of the orbital force at that particular distance.

And to verify that this holds true, try this with the distance of the Moon for example, and you will find that orbital velocity of the Moon is precisely equal to what it is.

And the same equation apply to all planets, satellites, stars, and even galaxies.

The Fc (centripetal force) is a divisional force, and this is the force that only holds the masses together, and because it is all equally divided throughout 360 degrees of the space, hence its magnitude is all equal from all directions, and as a result, all heavenly bodies are squeezed by it, into a perfect spheres. Hence each force acts independent of the other, and yet neither one can exist

without the other. I hope that this will clarify some of the misunderstanding of my writing.

[Klaynos]

Since I still can not create mathematical formula as you would like me to. I have to described it in words;

 

Let me give you the link again that shows you how...

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/3751-quick-latex-tutorial/

[insane_alien]

In nature there are six atoms that can loose up to 7 electrons; F, Cl, Br, I, At, and 117.]

However there are only two atoms that can loose up to 9 electrons, Europium and Americium.

To ionize an atom that has 8 electrons in its outermost shell, like Neon, Argon, and other noble gas, is very hard but possible, whereas other atoms do not have similar electron structure as noble gases.

 

 

bull. i can make any atom from nitrogen and up lose seven electrons. for 9 it needs to be fluorine and up.

 

Gravitational field does exhibit a tiny fraction of magnetism, which is why the planet Earth has a weak magnetic field that affect a compass needle. These magnetic fields of heavenly bodies like Earth and Sun are directly proportional to the difference of the masses of gravitons and electrons which is; 3.0x10>19 times. Hence the average strength of the Earth's magnetic field is; 3.0x10>19/ 5.98x10>24

=5.0x10<5 teslas.

 

please explain the lack of a magnetic field on venus which has a very similar mass to that of earth.

 

Really, until you stop these factual errors, not many people are going to take you very seriously.

[swansont]

Since I still can not create mathematical formula as you would like me to. I have to described it in words;

 

Except you can. Klaynos linked to the Latex tutorial back in post 13. But what I want is a simple analysis — a graph. Predicted orbits vs actual.

 

The Fo (orbital force) of the Earth is directly proportional to the mass of the Earth multiplied by gravitational constant 'G'/ r (divided by radius of the earth), and then square roooted.

By using the radius of the Earth, you obtain the maximum magnitude of the Earth's orbital force.

By using the distance from the Earth, you obtain the magnitude of the orbital force at that particular distance.

And to verify that this holds true, try this with the distance of the Moon for example, and you will find that orbital velocity of the Moon is precisely equal to what it is.

And the same equation apply to all planets, satellites, stars, and even galaxies.

The Fc (centripetal force) is a divisional force, and this is the force that only holds the masses together, and because it is all equally divided throughout 360 degrees of the space, hence its magnitude is all equal from all directions, and as a result, all heavenly bodies are squeezed by it, into a perfect spheres. Hence each force acts independent of the other, and yet neither one can exist

without the other. I hope that this will clarify some of the misunderstanding of my writing.

 

But since it can be shown mathematically that you need a 1/r^2 force in order to get a closed planetary orbit, you cannot have this form for your equation. If you did the analysis and plotted the results, you would see that the orbits of the planets do not follow this prediction. That's not even getting to the fact that your units are wrong for the equation, and that having the orbital force of two bodies with different radii not equaling each other violates Newton's third law (action must equal reaction)

 

So, myth busted.

[divinum1]

In order to understand why the earth is bound to a constant rotation, one has to understand how gravitation works;

 

First of all, gravitation as a whole is composed of two forces;

 

1. Orbital force (Fo)

2. Centripetal force (Fc)

 

The orbital force is an all unified force, which means that all of its action is uni-directional.

The centripetal force on the other hand is all equally divided throughout the 360 degrees of the space that it occupies. Consequently all of its actions are pointed toward the center of the mass, and as a result, all masses are held together as one conglomerate.

However it is the orbital force of the Earth (Fo) that causes the Earth to rotate on its axis, although the rotation of the earth is by far slower than the orbital force is. For the orbital force is approximately 17 times faster than the rotational speed of the earth. Since the direction of the orbital force here on earth is from west to east, hence the earth and its atmosphere are moving in the same direction. Although the atmosphere is moving faster since it is lighter.

The orbital force here on earth is virtually unnoticeable, with the exception of some cases, such as orbiting satellites, and the orbit of the Moon.

However there is one specific example where this orbital force is displayed here on earth, and that is in every household whenever a toilette is flushed. For the water always rotates counter clockwise in the northern hemi-sphere, while clockwise in the southern hemi-sphere. And this is the result, of Earth's orbital force. And the same is true about the satellite orbiting the earth. For most satellite have to orbit from west to east in order to remain at a constant distance. Hence all satellites including the Geo-stationary ones must be fully synchronized with the orbital force in order to remain at a constant distance, or else they fall back to earth.

For when they say that a satellite is in zero gravity, that is when the satellite is 100% synchronized with the orbital force of the earth. Even when an object is falling down to earth that is the same case, the only difference is the object is bound to the centripetal force, instead of orbital.

The orbit of the Moon is directly bound to the orbital force of the Earth, whose magnitude is directly proportional to the mass of the earth x G (6.67x10^-11 )/ divided by distance, and square rooted.

And the same apply to every planet in the solar system. For this reason, all the planets are orbiting in the same direction, not because they wanted to, but because they are forced to by the orbital force of the Sun. And the same force cause the Sun to rotate in the same direction as well.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

For the orbital force is approximately 17 times faster than the rotational speed of the earth.

What does it mean for a force to be faster than something? Force is measured in units of force, not speed.

 

Why must there be a force to keep the Earth in constant rotation? Surely Newton's First Law means that the Earth will just keep rotating, without a force.

[John Cuthber]

"First of all, gravitation as a whole is composed of two forces;

 

1. Orbital force (Fo)

2. Centripetal force (Fc)"

News to me.

Unless there's some evidence I have missed, this should be in "speculations".

Edited November 13, 2011 by John Cuthber

[divinum1]

What does it mean for a force to be faster than something? Force is measured in units of force, not speed.

 

Why must there be a force to keep the Earth in constant rotation? Surely Newton's First Law means that the Earth will just keep rotating, without a force.

 

For any object that is moving in any direction there must be a force that causes it to do so, or else it would stop rotating. And the rotation of the earth as well as all other heavenly bodies that are rotating on their axis, is due to the orbital force that is established around them. And since the orbital force is constant per second, hence all stars and planets are rotating on their axis at a constant velocity.

Therefore Newton's first law of gravitation is only half correct, which apply to the stationary masses only.

 

Earth's orbital force at the surface of the earth is equivalent to; 7910 m/s. Whereas the earth's centripetal force (g) is equivalent to; 9.8 m/s² . And both forces are directly proportional to one another and the radius of the mass from which they derive. Hence they can be mathematically formulated and verified. As for example;

 

Orbital force; Fo = Fc x r (square rooted). Centripetal force; Fc = (Fo)²/ r . Radius; R = (Fo)²/ Fc .

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

For any object that is moving in any direction there must be a force that causes it to do so, or else it would stop rotating. And the rotation of the earth as well as all other heavenly bodies that are rotating on their axis, is due to the orbital force that is established around them. And since the orbital force is constant per second, hence all stars and planets are rotating on their axis at a constant velocity.

Therefore Newton's first law of gravitation is only half correct, which apply to the stationary masses only.

I was referring to Newton's first law of motion, not gravitation. Can you present evidence for the claim that objects in motion require a constant force to stay in motion?

 

Earth's orbital force at the surface of the earth is equivalent to; 7910 m/s. Whereas the earth's centripetal force (g) is equivalent to; 9.8 m/s² . And both forces are directly proportional to one another and the radius of the mass from which they derive. Hence they can be mathematically formulated and verified. As for example;

 

Orbital force; Fo = Fc x r (square rooted). Centripetal force; Fc = (Fo)²/ r . Radius; R = (Fo)²/ Fc .

Your equations do not even have the units of force. How can you call them forces when they are, mathematically, velocities or accelerations or other things?

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

This is counter to classical mechanics and is moving to speculations.

Please do not reply to this modnote.

[swansont]

For any object that is moving in any direction there must be a force that causes it to do so

 

No, that is contrary to Newton's laws of motion, so this is not in keeping with the definition of force. Call it something else.

 

This also means there is a preferred rest frame, and all that that implies.

[Moontanman]

 

However there is one specific example where this orbital force is displayed here on earth, and that is in every household whenever a toilette is flushed. For the water always rotates counter clockwise in the northern hemi-sphere, while clockwise in the southern hemi-sphere. And this is the result, of Earth's orbital force.

 

 

Um no....

 

http://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.asp

[divinum1]

I was referring to Newton's first law of motion, not gravitation. Can you present evidence for the claim that objects in motion require a constant force to stay in motion?

 

 

Your equations do not even have the units of force. How can you call them forces when they are, mathematically, velocities or accelerations or other things?

 

Any object that has a velocity and a direction is subject to a force, and if the force is constant so is its velocity, and so is the force that causes this velocity. And if an object is present anywhere in space, it is subject to two internal forces of its own, Fo and Fc. And every such mass exists in cooperation with another mass which predominates over the smaller mass. None of this would take place if these masses had no gravitational field around them. Hence gravitational force is only directly proportional to the mass around which it is established. And it is this force (two of them Fo and Fc) that have the dominance over the mass, and it is the mass that has to obey to the force imposed upon it, not the other way around.

Therefore Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is also incorrect, because masses do not attract, it is the force of gravity that contracts the masses toward one another. And they only become contracted up to the point where the equilibrium of the three quantities become fully established, so that none of the quantities overlaps or under-laps. For if they do so, that becomes expressed as an attraction or as a repulsion.

Hence gravitation is completely misunderstood. Scientific theories hypotheses and definitions are more abstractive than constructive, for they do not explain any reality as it actually is. If the science-scientists knew everything about the universe, then the science would no longer be science, it would become religion. Maybe this is the reason why religion became a religion, so that we do not have to wast our time about it for the second time.

[swansont]

Any object that has a velocity and a direction is subject to a force, and if the force is constant so is its velocity, and so is the force that causes this velocity.

 

Not according to F=ma

 

By definition, an object feeling no force will have a constant velocity, and an object feeling a net force will change its velocity. If you want to construct a model that requires an impetus to move at a constant velocity — and all that that entails — go ahead. Is that what you are intending, or are you asserting that Newton's law of gravitation is wrong in the context of accepted physics? If it's the former, you need to establish the validity of the model first. Newton's gravitational law will undoubtedly have to take on a different form if you are going to rewrite Newton's laws of motion. if it's the latter, then you're just wrong and trivially so.

[md65536]

And the same apply to every planet in the solar system. For this reason, all the planets are orbiting in the same direction, not because they wanted to, but because they are forced to by the orbital force of the Sun. And the same force cause the Sun to rotate in the same direction as well.

Sorry, I don't fully understand your post or the replies, but I agree that there is a "natural" direction of rotation.

 

Things nearer to a gravitational mass orbit at faster speeds than things that are farther.

So if you imagine the sun surrounded by a homogeneous cloud of dust orbiting it in circles, the inner circles are spinning faster than the outer ones.

 

Imagine connecting two rocks at different orbits by a string, as a primitive model of the Earth. The rock closer to the sun travels faster than the other; tension on the string pulls the rock to a farther orbit while pulling the second rock to a closer orbit; the second rock ends up with an "inner track" and overcomes the first rock, and so on: These two rocks rotate in their orbit in the opposite direction that the Earth and other masses rotate.

 

However, the solar system isn't a homogeneous mass. If you have 2 rocks on opposite sides of the earth, the rock farthest from the sun experiences the most gravitational acceleration relative to the sun, because the gravitational pull of the sun and the earth are in the same direction. The rock on the side nearest the sun is actually being pulled away from the sun by the earth's stronger (at this distance) gravitational pull. The result is that the natural circular orbit speed around the sun of a rock on the farther dark side of the earth is faster than the circular orbit speed around the sun of a rock on the bright side of the earth. Mass on the dark side is constantly overcoming the average speed of the earth, being pulled to a sunnier orbit, and slowing down relative to the sun, and being pulled to the dark side again, as if the sides of the earth are constantly leap-frogging each other around the sun.

 

A tidally locked body is also rotating in this "natural" direction; it is just doing it slowly enough that its revolution time matches its orbit time.

 

 

 

BTW, I have a feeling that I got the idea right but screwed up the physics somewhere in this explanation.

 

 

 

 

A large object with small enough mass, such as a huge but thin spherical shell, might naturally rotate in the opposite direction. If so, then I think this contradicts your idea. It would be the mass of the orbiting object, and not just that of the mass it's orbiting, that determines its natural rotation rate???

Edited November 14, 2011 by md65536

[divinum1]

Sorry, I don't fully understand your post or the replies, but I agree that there is a "natural" direction of rotation.

 

Things nearer to a gravitational mass orbit at faster speeds than things that are farther.

So if you imagine the sun surrounded by a homogeneous cloud of dust orbiting it in circles, the inner circles are spinning faster than the outer ones.

 

Imagine connecting two rocks at different orbits by a string, as a primitive model of the Earth. The rock closer to the sun travels faster than the other; tension on the string pulls the rock to a farther orbit while pulling the second rock to a closer orbit; the second rock ends up with an "inner track" and overcomes the first rock, and so on: These two rocks rotate in their orbit in the opposite direction that the Earth and other masses rotate.

 

However, the solar system isn't a homogeneous mass. If you have 2 rocks on opposite sides of the earth, the rock farthest from the sun experiences the most gravitational acceleration relative to the sun, because the gravitational pull of the sun and the earth are in the same direction. The rock on the side nearest the sun is actually being pulled away from the sun by the earth's stronger (at this distance) gravitational pull. The result is that the natural circular orbit speed around the sun of a rock on the farther dark side of the earth is faster than the circular orbit speed around the sun of a rock on the bright side of the earth. Mass on the dark side is constantly overcoming the average speed of the earth, being pulled to a sunnier orbit, and slowing down relative to the sun, and being pulled to the dark side again, as if the sides of the earth are constantly leap-frogging each other around the sun.

 

A tidally locked body is also rotating in this "natural" direction; it is just doing it slowly enough that its revolution time matches its orbit time.

 

 

 

BTW, I have a feeling that I got the idea right but screwed up the physics somewhere in this explanation.

 

 

 

 

A large object with small enough mass, such as a huge but thin spherical shell, might naturally rotate in the opposite direction. If so, then I think this contradicts your idea. It would be the mass of the orbiting object, and not just that of the mass it's orbiting, that determines its natural rotation rate???

 

To answer to your question about orbiting bodies, yes they do orbit faster when closer to the gravitational mass, and slower when further away.

The reason for this is; because the Fo (orbital force) decreases by a square root of its distance. Whereas the Fc (centripetal force) decreases by an inverse square of its distance, which is a big difference.

For example Moon's orbital velocity is directly bound to the Earth's orbital force; as follow;

 

Ov= mxG/d (square rooted). which = 1019 m/s. Whereas Earth's Fc, at a distance of the Moon is;

 

Fc (g) = mxG/d² which = 2.7x10^-3 m/s²

 

The orbital speed of the Moon being bound to the orbital force of the Earth is because Eaerth's gravitational field encompasses all around Moon's gravitational files, which extends to 52,000 km.

while Earth's gravitational field extends to 685,400 km. Therefore the Moon along with its gravitaional field is like a small bobble within a bigger bobble, although they are not exactly baloon like.

All gravitational fields of all masses are limited, they do not extend to infinity. Even Sun's gravitational field extend to approx. 6.5x10¹⁴ m. away from the Sun, where Sun's own field is encompassed by galactic gravitational field. And the same apply to galaxies themselves, for they are divided and surrounded by universe's gravitational field which extend far beyond the edge of the galaxies that are observable.

I hope this will give you a broader insight of how gravitation works, although there are many more mysteries about gravitation, which I might explain in some other topic.

[John Cuthber]

"The orbital speed of the Moon being bound to the orbital force of the Earth is because Eaerth's gravitational field encompasses all around Moon's gravitational files, which extends to 52,000 km.

while Earth's gravitational field extends to 685,400 km"

Just plain wrong.

Gravity has an infinite range.

[divinum1]

Not according to F=ma

 

By definition, an object feeling no force will have a constant velocity, and an object feeling a net force will change its velocity. If you want to construct a model that requires an impetus to move at a constant velocity — and all that that entails — go ahead. Is that what you are intending, or are you asserting that Newton's law of gravitation is wrong in the context of accepted physics? If it's the former, you need to establish the validity of the model first. Newton's gravitational law will undoubtedly have to take on a different form if you are going to rewrite Newton's laws of motion. if it's the latter, then you're just wrong and trivially so.

 

Your first statement, that an object feeling no force will have constant velocity, and that an object feeling a force will change its velocity, now this is absolutely wrong. Because no object anywhere in the universe

can have a constant velocity without a force acting upon it. And an object being bound to a force does not have to change its velocity. The only time such object will chance its velocity if the force is faster than its velocity. For there are objects in space whose velocities are exactly the same, as the velocity of the force at that particular point. Geostationary satellites are a perfect example of that, for they are not bound to earth's centripetal force, but rather to the orbital force of the earth.

Since both earth's gravitational forces are directly proportional to the earth's mass and its radius.

However the orbital force (Fo) attenuates by a square root of its distance. Whereas the centripetal force (g) Fc attenuates by an inverse square of its distance. Hence they are not equal in strength.

 

Earth's: Fo = mxG/d (square rooted) , While earth's: Fc = mG/d²

 

Therefore Geostationary satellites are 100% synchronized with earth Fo, for this reason they stay in a constant place. And the same is true about the orbital speed of the Moon. In other words they are all getting a free ride, but they have to be synchronized with the force. And when an object is bound to one force regardless of which one it is, that is the force that the object stay with. And here on the surface of the earth, everything is bound to the Fc (g), and for this reason, every object is stack to it because it is held by a force of 9.8 m/s² constantly. While the Fo is taking care of earth spin-rotation, and the orbiting objects.

[John Cuthber]

"Your first statement, that an object feeling no force will have constant velocity, and that an object feeling a force will change its velocity, now this is absolutely wrong. Because no object anywhere in the universe

can have a constant velocity without a force acting upon it"

Also wrong.

Consider the monitor in front of me.

In my frame of reference, it's not moving. It has a constant velocity of zero.

 

Do you realise that you are saying

"Newton's laws of motion are wrong, and so is the whole of physics.

 

Simply making the assertion that something is "absolutely wrong" is absurd.

It's certainly nothing to do with science.

 

And you have not replied to my previous observation.

You should do so.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Your first statement, that an object feeling no force will have constant velocity, and that an object feeling a force will change its velocity, now this is absolutely wrong. Because no object anywhere in the universe

can have a constant velocity without a force acting upon it.

Can you propose an experiment to test this hypothesis?

[swansont]

Your first statement, that an object feeling no force will have constant velocity, and that an object feeling a force will change its velocity, now this is absolutely wrong. Because no object anywhere in the universe

can have a constant velocity without a force acting upon it.

 

The second sentence of your statement has no bearing on the first sentence. That we cannot actually achieve a state where there is constant velocity and no force does not affect the validity of the idealized case. If F=ma is true, then you cannot have a net force if you have a constant velocity. At this point the burden of proof is on you to show that F=ma is wrong.