Jump to content
Relative

GRAVITY EXPLANATION OF WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS!

Recommended Posts

If I look at the moon I see it cross the sky from left to right.

That's sideways by simple observation.

 

According to Newton's 1st law it should carry on in a straight line, but gravity pulls it towards us.

That competition between trying to past us and trying to go towards us is what keeps it in orbit.

 

And do you really think that people have got the planet's masses wrong for the last 400 years or so?

Seriously? Do you think we can make use of gravity in launching space probes without knowing which way it goes?

 

Are you basicly, barking mad?

That is not what I posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

Are you basicly, barking mad?

!

Moderator Note

John Cuthber, this comment was unnecessary. If you could please keep the personal jibes and rudeness out of your posts, it would be greatly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So if Jupiter is 5.2 times wider and half as slow as the earth , should Jupiter not be closer to the Sun?

 

How about going through the meager effort of calculating what Newtonian gravity predicts?

 

GMm/r^2 = mv^2/r for a circular orbit

 

v = sqrt(GM/r)

 

So orbital speed decreases as the radius increases. If the speed is smaller by a factor of 2, the orbit must be 4x further away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have a question of logic.

 

Not the word I would use.

 

 

Why can the moon not escape at 1.03 km/h?

 

There is no force acting on the moon to make it escape. If you were to attach a great big engine to it ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about going through the meager effort of calculating what Newtonian gravity predicts?

 

GMm/r^2 = mv^2/r for a circular orbit

 

v = sqrt(GM/r)

 

So orbital speed decreases as the radius increases. If the speed is smaller by a factor of 2, the orbit must be 4x further away.

 

I am trying hard to get my head around the maths, I know basic maths, percentages etc, I think I missed Calculus.

 

 

Geostationary satellites are in accordance to my thinking. They are in an equilibrium place.

 

 

I think all mass is attracted to energy, and all energy is attracted to mass, and not all mass is attracted to mass.

 

 

All energy seemingly has centripetal flow around its energy as Faraday's wire test showed.

 

 

 

The Earth's core attracting mass, like dust attracted to a television screen.

 

 

Satellites been in an equilibrium state of attraction, hence why they maintain vector accuracy in line with their transmitting co-ordinates.

 

 

 

And continue to be geostationary.

 

 

Not the word I would use.

 

 

There is no force acting on the moon to make it escape. If you were to attach a great big engine to it ...

The moon is not orbiting then? if it had no escape speed in a linear accelerated direction, how can it orbit?

 

 

Or is it just a matter of it is connected to the sea, tidally locked so follows the sea?

 

 

If it is the connected to the sea, why does it not just pull to Earth then if it has no escape velocity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the word I would use.

 

 

There is no force acting on the moon to make it escape. If you were to attach a great big engine to it ...

 

There is kind of. Escape isn't the right word, moving to a higher orbit would be though.

 

Tides -> Earth's Rotation slows -> Moon moves outwards

 

Eventually the system would balance out. Moon would never actually escape though. Besides our Sun is going to expand prior to that, so I wouldn't recommend sticking around to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not what I posted.

Yes it is.

The moon does not go sideways, the moon is trying to go straight according to gravity theory.

And I can still watch it move sideways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a rocket can escape the pull of gravity with relative little velocity but a constant propulsion.

To escape Earth surface there is needed velocity 11.2 km/s.

 

But the further object is from source of gravity, the smaller velocity is needed.

 

Why can the moon not escape at 1.03 km/h?

It's 11 times less than needed at surface of Earth.

 

Space shuttle on orbit had ~8 km/s.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To escape Earth surface there is needed velocity 11.2 km/s.

 

 

Not strictly true.

There is nothing in principle to stop you building a tall ladder and climbing it into space.

If you want to travel ballistically, you need to reach escape velocity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason why I would think this is if our government was running the space program.

Oh wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am trying hard to get my head around the maths, I know basic maths, percentages etc, I think I missed Calculus.

The math in this case is algebra. if you have difficulty with that, frankly, you are going to have difficulty with a lot of physics.

 

Geostationary satellites are in accordance to my thinking. They are in an equilibrium place.

Geostationary satellites are a specific solution to the equation above: the period of orbit it one day. Which would change if the rotation of the earth were different, and that's not related to gravity.

 

 

 

I think all mass is attracted to energy, and all energy is attracted to mass, and not all mass is attracted to mass.

 

 

All energy seemingly has centripetal flow around its energy as Faraday's wire test showed.

 

 

 

The Earth's core attracting mass, like dust attracted to a television screen.

 

 

Satellites been in an equilibrium state of attraction, hence why they maintain vector accuracy in line with their transmitting co-ordinates.

What you think doesn't matter. It's what you can show: you need a model that has corroborating evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean when you say a model, like a diagram?

 

And what sort of evidence meaning maths?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am trying hard to get my head around the maths, I know basic maths, percentages etc, I think I missed Calculus.

 

In this case, what reason do you have for thinking that the current models of gravity (either Newtonian or General Relativity) are incorrect?

 

p.s. Are you "theorist"?

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean when you say a model, like a diagram?

 

And what sort of evidence meaning maths?

In science, a model is a mathematical representation of your hypothesis that can be used to make predictions. These predictions can then be compared to experimental evidence to determine how closely your idea follows reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In this case, what reason do you have for thinking that the current models of gravity (either Newtonian or General Relativity) are incorrect?

 

p.s. Are you "theorist"?

My reason would be that Geostationary satellites, do not follow the principle rules of gravity.

 

 

 

1st rule - mass is attracted to mass.

 

 

2nd rule - An orbiting planet/body, must be trying to travel straight.

 

 

I do not believe Satellites follow the second rule and should be following the first rule.

 

And yes your assumption of another alias on other forums is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My reason would be that Geostationary satellites, do not follow the principle rules of gravity.

 

 

 

1st rule - mass is attracted to mass.

 

 

2nd rule - An orbiting planet/body, must be trying to travel straight.

 

 

I do not believe Satellites follow the second rule and should be following the first rule.

 

And yes your assumption of another alias on other forums is correct.

This was explained to you time and again. Satellites travel along a trajectory consisting of a tangent and attraction. They follow both rules. Geostationary satellites occupy a position in space where their orbital period matches the revolution of the earth. That's why they stay in the same relative positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My reason would be that Geostationary satellites, do not follow the principle rules of gravity.

 

1st rule - mass is attracted to mass.

 

2nd rule - An orbiting planet/body, must be trying to travel straight.

 

I do not believe Satellites follow the second rule and should be following the first rule.

 

I'm not sure why you think they do not obey these rules.

 

1. They are attracted, that is why they don't travel in a straight line.

 

2. Inertia makes them want to carry on in a straight line, which is why they don't fall straight down.

 

(Note that geostationary satellites are not stationary, they are just orbiting at the same speed the Earth rotates.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you saying about the straight line, and the tangent mentioned.

 

 

''Inertia makes them want to carry on in a straight line''

 

What inertia, where does the inertia come from?

 

Do Satellites accelerate linear, straight at the Tangent position, then stop and rotate with the Earth keeping position?

 

 

or does the Satellite slow and use thrusters to get into position?


And too add, I do not know what the relevance is yet, but the Satellites orbital distance is roughly the same as the Earth's circumference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What inertia, where does the inertia come from?

 

That's an unanswered question. Nobody knows where it comes from, but it's observed to be true. Like most fundamental physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read the first part of the article, I have bookmarked it to read it further, later on when the kids have gone bed.

 

 

I always considered mass to be formed by compression.

 

 

 

F=ma x A=4πr2

 

and E=<f=mac> x A=4πr2

Edited by Relative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I always considered mass to be formed by compression."

why?

(and you might want to tidy up the formatting of that last post)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I always considered mass to be formed by compression."

why?

(and you might want to tidy up the formatting of that last post)

Compression is the strongest force in the universe.

 

 

That last post would not let me paste the calculation in proper.

 

And I do not know how do the symbolic symbols using my keyboard.

 

 

Basically Einstein's box should of been a sphere. And E=mc2 should of considered every vector of a sphere travelling to a central point.

 

 

That is the ultimate energy and no other force or energy is has strong as that formula I just give.

 

I have read the first part of the article, I have bookmarked it to read it further, later on when the kids have gone bed.

 

 

I always considered mass to be formed by compression.

 

 

 

F=ma x A=4πr2

 

and E=<f=mac> x A=4πr2

 

 

Compression is the strongest force in the universe.

 

 

That last post would not let me paste the calculation in proper.

 

And I do not know how do the symbolic symbols using my keyboard.

 

 

Basically Einstein's box should of been a sphere. And E=mc2 should of considered every vector of a sphere travelling to a central point.

 

 

That is the ultimate energy and no other force or energy is has strong as that formula I just give.

Ha tidy up done.

Edited by Relative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compression is the strongest force in the universe.

 

Compression isn't a force. It is a consequence of applying a force. What do you think is causing the compression?

 

Also, even if it is the strongest force in the universe, why would it create mass?

 

 

That last post would not let me paste the calculation in proper.

 

Maybe you need to explain what they are meant to mean. It isn't clear. Are you multiplying force by area? Are you trying to equate "a" (acceleration) to "A" (area)?

 

 

Basically Einstein's box should of been a sphere.

 

What box?

 

 

And E=mc2 should of considered every vector of a sphere travelling to a central point.

 

E=mc2 has nothing to do with vectors or spheres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What box?

I think he is referring to the idea of having two boxes and, in relativity, there would be no way to experiment in Einstein's "box"(I think it was actually an elevator) to determine the difference between the forces of gravity and the box moving at a speed that would imitate the same gravitational force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.