nicolai Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 please consider my new theory of gravitation... according to the law of the conservation momentum for rotational object (gyroscope,earth,...),if you apply a force towards them,they will counteract with an equal reverse force,perpendicular to the plane of you force... every inertial body applies a force against the earth rotation and revolution,according to their inertial massa (this force is friction) counter orientated to the rotation of the earth and nevertheless they are carry away with it,because it has a bigger massa... so,this counter reaction of earth to frictional objects is directed towards his center and is generated because of his rotational movement (one of his composed rotational movements)... gravity with friction are generated together like the centripetic and centrifuge forces during rotation... please help me how to use this theory from now on with your discutions ... thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidMentality Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Im not sure the normalisation of Force vectors would be mathematically sufficient to account for gravity... Also, we are not 'counteracting' the rotation of Earth, as we are bound by the ground to the Earth's own frame of reference. Similar to as if you were inside a car travelling along a highway with a distinct velocity (but zero acceleration). You would be in a static frame of reference, whereas the car itself is providing the ability for displacement via the traction and friction between the tyres and the ground. You would only 'experience' the effect of Earth rotation if the frame of reference were to suddenly accelerate. Also, your proposition doesn't account for static cosmological bodies (such as blackholes) which exhibit gravity regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicolai Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 so,if gravitation can be counter act in the space men training with a machine moving aprox. against the rotation of the earth,that is it is generated mainly by the reverse movement... i am aware only by the earth gravity... i don`t know how came all this movement historically and why... yes,we are bound by the ground of the earth with friction and all our movements are accelerated looking in space... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Are you suggesting that it is rotation of a body and not its mass that is responsible for gravity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicolai Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 so it appears,but maybe not entirely...i don`t know... the momentum conservation law of objects in rotational movement (ex. the gyroscope,the wheels of bike,earth,etc.) stats that this objects will counter react to a force apply to them with a reverse force,perpendicular on the plane of the force applied... i experienced this with my bike,an interesting science toy and so it explains how the gyroscope can show altitude... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidMentality Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 "the momentum conservation law of objects in rotational movement (ex. the gyroscope,the wheels of bike,earth,etc.) stats that this objects will counter react to a force apply to them with a reverse force,perpendicular on the plane of the force applied..." Newtonian physics states that an object in a circular trajectory will experience a resulting force perpendicular to the plane of the force , as you correctly stated..but this should not be confused with Gravity itself. It is simply a consequence of Newtonian motion laws, that states that every force has an equal and opposite force...in this case, an object in a circular trajectory is experiencing constant acceleration (since velcoity is a vector of 'speed' and direction; a circular path is a constant change in direction, and hence velocity). The resulting 'opposite' force is the planar, perpendicular force you have mentioned.. I think it is well established that mass is the cause of gravity (explained by Einstein as the warping of space-time). Finally, any two objects placed some arbitrary distance from one another will exert a force of gravitational attraction towards each other (skewed more toward the object with greater mass), whether or not they are static, in motion, or otherwise...so, even if we were to disregard the Einsteinian hypothesis for gravity, circular motion would not account for the force of gravity per se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicolai Posted May 27, 2011 Author Share Posted May 27, 2011 yes,but this laws are not only words,when they are functioning... ok,the objects may attract themselfs,if you insist,but in our case is about other things... i am not impresioned by big names like einstein or eisenstein or eisenhauer or reiffeisen and i don`take anything for granted because keeps busy children in school... with all respect,we can build any theory,give any explanations where we don`t know exactly and speculate for ever about things we cannot prove... i like SF too,when i see movies,but only if they come with new ideas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 with all respect,we can build any theory,give any explanations where we don`t know exactly and speculate for ever about things we cannot prove... Is that a good synopsis of theoretical physics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicolai Posted May 27, 2011 Author Share Posted May 27, 2011 no,no,sir,sorry,if too ofensive... i try only to stick to my humble little bike-theory,if this be good for anything whatsoever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidMentality Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 i am not impresioned by big names like einstein or eisenstein or eisenhauer or reiffeisen and i don`take anything for granted because keeps busy children in school... with all respect,we can build any theory,give any explanations where we don`t know exactly and speculate for ever about things we cannot prove... A simple name should nopt be sufficient to sway your personal beliefs, however i was not referring to Einstein as a person; merely his ideas and theories. Which, by the way, have recently been experimentally proven to be over 98.7% accurate (this was an experiment to do with the red-shift a distant galaxy, the name of which escapes me at the moment, and it was found that by using Hubbles law and incorporating the deviations of velocity and distortion due to the Theory of General Relativity, Einsteins "Iimpressioned theories" were shown to be at least 98% accurate. Not bad for a theory produced over a century ago). I guess what im saying is, there is nothing wrong in referencing a scientific genius, if his theories are still holding true, even with todays collosal technological, mathematical and intellectual advancements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now