Jump to content

IS IT GRAVITY THE MAIN SOURCE OF MOVEMENT? MAY BE THE ONLY?


Kramer
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

IS IT GRAVITY THE MAIN SOURCE OF MOVEMENT? MAY BE THE ONLY?
Kramer, doesn’t recall where he read once that scientists are puzzled about cause that make cosmic bodies to spin around their axis.
That’s very simple to solve it! “--- He told me.---- It is a known boaster that lay man Kramer.
But let be patient with him and throw down step by step his mode of reasoning.
Kramer say:
1 – The velocity of planets depends by gravity of sun and by the precise distance “Rsun-planet” from center of sun to the point where is the center of gravity of planet.
Vg1 = ((G*Msun) / Rsun,planet.)^0.5
Is it that true?

2 – But planet is not a point. It has a radius “R planet”.
Here must be the clue for solving that puzzle.
Let say that in the diameter of planet, directed to sun, Kramer 1 is in front and Kramer 2 is in the anti-pode.
It is evident that Kramer 2 will stay behind in the orbital movement of them.(If we suppose for simplicity that gravity of planet is un-existent)
Is it that true?

3---The difference on velocity between Kramer 1 and Kramer 2 will be:

Delta Vg = Vg1 – Vg2 =
= ((G * Msun) / (Rsun,planet – Rplanet)^0.5 – ((G*Msun) / (Rsun,planet +Rplanet)^0.5
Is it that true? I assure it’s true. For Earth Kramer 2 will stay behind 1.22m/sec.

4—Big deal , say the reader. 1.22 m/sec are zero in cosmic velocity!
But not in this case, my friend -- says Kramer.
You may calculate that Kramer 2 will stay behind after full orbital movement, in a distance equal perimeter of planet in equator:

Delta Vg * Torbit = 2*pi*Rplanet.!


5 After this rebut Kramer continue:
– Let return in point 2--. Kramer supposed (for simplicity!) that gravity of earth is inexistent. That we know was only a supposition.
It is gravity of Earth (for example), which holds Kramer 2 tied in the same distance toward Kramer 1.
But what happens with delta Vg? Will it be neglected as un-existent?
Certainly not! It was applied in the center of gravity of each halves of planet, in the form of a spinning moment.

6 – It is this spinning moment that turns around the earth. This is the cause of spinning. Solved problem!

Ha?-- asked I to Kramer. Solved problem?!
How is “the period of spinning”? This means to be called “ solved problem”!
7 --- The Kramer mum! … may be for a while.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Endy doesn't understand why Kramer is speaking about himself in the third person...

 

They are not really puzzled, it is just a result of conservation of angular momentum.

 

A top spinning on a frictionless surface is a good way to think about it. It is just going to keep spinning without some force being applied.

Edited by Endy0816
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kramer doesn't seem to realise that I can walk up stairs.

The source of that movement can't be gravity because that works the other way.

So gravity can't be the only source of movement.

I suspect that Kramer will postulate that the stairs actually move down beneath you, in response to gravity. Clearly this would not work, but neither does the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Endy doesn't understand why Kramer is speaking about himself in the third person...

 

He must have been influenced by Julius Caesar who most probably used servants ghostwriters who couldn't use the profanity of speaking in the 1st person as if they were the emperor.

(...)

 

They are not really puzzled, it is just a result of conservation of angular momentum.

 

A top spinning on a frictionless surface is a good way to think about it. It is just going to keep spinning without some force being applied.

 

 

Kramer doesn't seem to realise that I can walk up stairs.

The source of that movement can't be gravity because that works the other way.

So gravity can't be the only source of movement.

 

 

I suspect that Kramer will postulate that the stairs actually move down beneath you, in response to gravity. Clearly this would not work, but neither does the OP.

Have you deciphered Kramer's post?

 

From what i understand, he says that a point on a small radius from the Sun have faster orbital velocity than a point on a larger radius. Which is exactly what Keppler's law says.

 

And he says that it is the reason why the planets are spinning on their axis.

Because a point on Earth facing the Sun has a larger orbital velocity than a point at night.

 

 

 

IMHO it must be wrong: the difference in orbital velocities between the 2 points must cancel out and produce no rotational momentum at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Have you deciphered Kramer's post?

 

From what i understand, he says that a point on a small radius from the Sun have faster orbital velocity than a point on a larger radius. Which is exactly what Keppler's law says.

 

And he says that it is the reason why the planets are spinning on their axis.

Because a point on Earth facing the Sun has a larger orbital velocity than a point at night.

 

 

 

IMHO it must be wrong: the difference in orbital velocities between the 2 points must cancel out and produce no rotational momentum at all.

 

We have an example of this: the moon's orbit about the earth. It rotates once on its axis per revolution about the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We have an example of this: the moon's orbit about the earth. It rotates once on its axis per revolution about the planet.

This is a good example. Some people have the wrong idea that the Moon doesn't rotate. This idea obviously comes from the fact, that when we look at the Moon, we always see the same side of the disc. So we see lunar features such as the Mare Crisium, always staying in the same place on the disc (allowing for libration affects caused by the Moon's elliptical orbit ).

 

This unchanging view gives us on Earth the impression that the Moon isn't rotating on its axis. But of course it actually is - att the rate of one axial rotation per lunar orbit, as Swansont points out.

 

And one might suppose that this axial rotation, or spin, is forced on the Moon, by its close proximity to the Earth, and the Earth's gravitational field. I mean, suppose the Moon wasn't near the Earth. Suppose it was floating in the furthest depths of space. Far away from the Earth - far away from the Solar System - outside the Galaxy - outside even the Local Cluster of galaxies. In a very a remote region. Where there wasn't a sun or planet within a million light-years. It would then receive virtually zero gravitional force from other bodies.

 

And as long as that remained the case - the Moon completely isolated from outside influence - wouldn't it be free to be static around its axis - ie not to spin. But if it eventually drifted into the gravitional field of some other body, would the gravitational force of that body induce some lunar spinning? Or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The moon's rotation was slowed owing to tidal friction and it became locked over time. But this is not the cause of the rotation, nor do we see this with all rotations, such as the earth. The OP makes a vague assertion about scientists being puzzled about the source of rotation; without a citation or reference we are left to wonder what specifically was claimed (no doubt there are some puzzles about rotation not yet worked out), and how much of this is simply the normal misinterpretation one sees with "'scientists are puzzled' but it's really a lack of context" posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Endy0816
Endy doesn't understand why Kramer is speaking about himself in the third person...

---- Haven’t you spiking with “second yourself “ some times? Kramer used to debate with second Kramer most of the time. And most of the time he slams the second.

 

They are not really puzzled, it is just a result of conservation of angular momentum.
------I see some postulates as a “handle stuck on the pot” for convenience, as an observation of the fact. But not “why?’ I think they were “puzzled” by why?

 

A top spinning on a frictionless surface is a good way to think about it. It is just going to keep spinning without some force being applied.
------That’s true fact. What if force continue to be applied but is neutralised by the inner counterforce?

John Cuthber

Kramer doesn't seem to realise that I can walk up stairs.

The source of that movement can't be gravity because that works the other way.
------ Sure I realise that you my go against the gravity. Isn’t rocket a better example?
But can you tell me,---- how this happens?
Oh I know. The photons created by the burns of chemicals, which are able to “produce” photons, which they have harvested by the photons “coming by the sun”, are the real protagonists of the fact.
Now tell me how photons are created in the sun? What is the role of gravity in this creation?.

So gravity can't be the only source of movement.
----- That’s right. In the short hand, is electricity too a source of movement.
But I say “the main source” because the gravity movement is most massive movement.
There can be a dispute about priority.
In Plank area I think they are equal.
Out of Plank area began the differences. But this is another topic.

Ophiolite

I suspect that Kramer will postulate that the stairs actually move down beneath you, in response to gravity. Clearly this would not work, but neither does the OP.
------ Please elaborate further.


Michel 123456

He must have been influenced by Julius Caesar who most probably used servants ghostwriters who couldn't use the profanity of speaking in the 1st person as if they were the emperor.

No. A better example is the poor cabdriver of Chekhov. He being ignored by people make conversation with his old horse.

From what i understand, he says that a point on a small radius from the Sun have faster orbital velocity than a point on a larger radius. Which is exactly what Keppler's law says.
And he says that it is the reason why the planets are spinning on their axis.

----- Yes and no. I want to know the validity of formula about “gravity velocity”. Your opinion?

 

IMHO it must be wrong: the difference in orbital velocities between the 2 points must cancel out and produce no rotational momentum at all.
----- A question. What happens if the left tire of your car, for whatever cause, stay behind, when you are driving?

Swanson
We have an example of this: the moon's orbit about the earth. It rotates once on its axis per revolution about the planet.

------ Swanson --- your example is in favor or against my assertion? I have not scrutinized the hierarchy of gravity movement.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We have an example of this: the moon's orbit about the earth. It rotates once on its axis per revolution about the planet.

------ Swanson --- your example is in favor or against my assertion? I have not scrutinized the hierarchy of gravity movement.

 

You tell me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Now tell me how photons are created in the sun? What is the role of gravity in this creation?."

Nuclear fusion and essentially none respectively.

Gravity just provides the bucket in which the reaction takes place.

We can do the same thing without it

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/12/275896094/scientists-say-their-giant-laser-has-produced-nuclear-fusion

 

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor

 

Your argument reminds me of the economic "theory" that the whole of society exists for the benefit of the people who empty the bins.

We work so we can buy stuff that we (sooner or later) but in the bins, so the bin-men have work.

We also pay taxes that pay the bin-men.

We send our kids to school so they too can grow up to be part of the society which provides employment for the bin-men and so on.

You can link practically anything back to these guys, but I doubt they really think they run the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(...)

 

IMHO it must be wrong: the difference in orbital velocities between the 2 points must cancel out and produce no rotational momentum at all.

----- A question. What happens if the left tire of your car, for whatever cause, stay behind, when you are driving?

(...)

Well, if the analogy is correct, the car will turn in direction if the tire that stays behind.

That means:

observing the solar system from above, the Earth orbits counter-clockwise. The part at night should then go slower, and thus I understand that the Earth should spin on its axis clockwise. Isn't it the correct way to see things following your idea? See sketch below

 

post-19758-0-52993000-1392584813_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kramer is not stupid.

 

I don't see where anyone has claimed otherwise.

Yes.

Maybe Kramer found why Venus is rotating that way and why Earth's rotation is slowing down. Who knows?

Note:

I don't know.

 

Why would a law apply to one planet only?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I don't see where anyone has claimed otherwise.

 

 

I begin to lose what little sanity I have left when I read a thread like this. I should take up hammering my head with metal objects. It would be less painful.

 

Maybe I misinterpreted Ophiolite's post

 

Why would a law apply to one planet only?

Sure. If the law applies to Venus, then it must apply to all planets, Earth included.

But I am not interested to support Kramer's idea any further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. If the law applies to Venus, then it must apply to all planets, Earth included.

But I am not interested to support Kramer's idea any further.

That's fine; it's for Kramer to support it. That he doesn't do such analysis is one of the things that makes hammering one's head with metal objects an inviting alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just seeing any explanation as to the direction of rotation nor accounting for wildly different rates even for otherwise similar planets.

 

Earth and Venus both orbit the sun counterclockwise, yet Earth spins counterclockwise about its axis and Venus clockwise.

 

To reuse the tire analogy, we have two similar cars with a different front tire busted.

 

At the very least would need to consider something else in addition to Gravity as having an impact(no pun intended).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sorry if I am not able to respond on each poster. This is not an issue of preference, as it is the policy of our speculation forum, policy that divides people in friends and foes. For me is not either of any relevance the valuation of individs. For myself I know the price of my skin.
So I respond only on the posts that rebut the idea of thread with concrete remarks.
On my thread nobody has criticized it step by step. Just about that, I was eager to listen. Because I am not sure myself about the main idea, which I see is very extravagance and scary.
1-- About the orbital velocity I wanted to know the opinion of posters. I have calculated for all planets, and I have found that equation is a hyperbola, and the velocity depends from the distance toward the main “source of gravity”, in this case -- the sun. Nobody approved or refuted it.
2 – From the first question depends the second. I for some time have asked myself, why the earth is not rotate (spin) with the law of orbital velocity? After this law, the Kramer in equator must have a velocity 7910 m/sec. instead of 465 m/sec. which is in the fact.
3 – Here came the idea that some counter spinning moment will reduce the own spin velocity of planet. Calculations for sun and the planets for discrepancies between orbital formula and the fact, gave the idea that problem depends on the rate between diameter of planet and the distance from the “source of movement”.
4—There came the calculations of delta Vg. for each planet, considered as a hidden culprit of named counter moment, and the link of this tiny velocity with the period of orbits and the radius of planets.
5—And here is the time to tell that grasshopper Kramer has stuck in clay. Some planets refuse to know and approve those childish calculations of some Kramer.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.