Capiert

Because we’ve done experiments. A medium has to have properties, and have a measurable effect on light. I think the most significant (=notice_able) affect on light is the medium slows down light (e.g. due to the medium's mass (density). The reverse (logic) would be: light would travel at infinite_speed in NO time(_delay) if there were NO medium. Does light go so fast e.g. at infinite_speed taking NO_time? NO it does NOT. So what is slowing light down? Perhaps a medium? The devil is in the detail(s). That'( i)s what bugs me. Michelson threw a distraction into the project at the very 1st to distract sidetrack & confuse (us), with an uncleared topic=theme, just to divert us. E.g. (To) Waste & exhaust our brainpower. Einstein used a similar method too (early in his career with other themes). Tired we wouldN'T bother further to search. That'( i)s NOT true. Michelson's 1st attempt in 1881 failed as NOT suitable for the search. In that paper he clearly stated Maxwell's recommendation to abandon terrestrial forth & back light experiments on Earth (in favor of astronomical observations of Jupiter's moons). Maxwell stated (=predicted) ONLY a (useless*) tiny wee observation* would be observable with such forth_&_back light experiments (that Michelson intended) on Earth (because he (Maxwell) had done a similar (although NOT identical) experiment, years before (his death). (*E.g. much less than 1% observed, when more than 50% would be needed to decide). But (Maxwell was) talked out of publishing it (by Stokes) because it would have insulted Fizeau. Maxwell mailed the (bidirectional, forth & back) experiment_calculations to Higgens (who eventually published it as a letter). Stokes found a 3 page letter (note) (for the 1_way Jupiter astronomy observation proposal) after Maxwell died & rated it as "important"! Michelson read that 3 page note & rejected it stating any observation could be made no matter how small (& tiny). But he (=Michelson) was NOT prepared for the thermal (noise) motion. His (=Michelson’s) original 1881 experiment flopped. Later in 1887 he (=Michelson) teamed up with the chemist Morley to perform the (Earth's speed v) experiment in (Alexander Graham) Bell's lab(s). The telephone inventor because of his (=Bell’s) sick wife. Granite slab floating on Mercury hindered (=reduced) vibration in the cellar. Michelson managed to synchronize the 2 90° multi_reflected light_beams between 5 cm metal mirrors each about 8 times for the extra_distance needed for increased accuracy. According to the calculations the beams a NOT suppose to meet because of too much (time) delay, but they did. & there is 1 (asymmetric 90°) path with enough tolerance in which both beams are equally delayed, fig 2 (1887) if the bean goes straight up hitting the mirror at 90° (instead of slanted up at an angle) & then diagonally down. The sketch Fig. 2 also demonstrates inconsistency in the input incident (45° mirror) angle, compared to the further reflection (at 90°, above). E.g. More carelessness. 1 footnote 1887 mentions a (confusing) correction to 1881. Michelson was astounded that the results were so small & (thus) questioned whether the medium existed at all. Physicists did NOT want to hear about Michelson’s results expecting an answer (explaination) would be found later. A decade past & Michelson’s WRONG experiment was an eye_sore, even for Lenard. Michelson did NOT get a Nobel prize for his Earth speed experiment 1887 because he proved NOTHING, there. (You do NOT get a Nobel prize for disproving something; you get a prize for finding (=discovering) something.) Einstein also did NOT get a Nobel prize for Relativity. Instead, Michelson received the 1907 Nobel Prize privately for his diffraction_grating Echelon spectroscope experiment(al accuracy) 1898 because the Swedish King died 3 days before. So there was NO party, instead mourning. Michelson continued (WRONGLY) experimenting for the Earth’s speed til his death because he also could NOT believe light had NO medium. But hey, tuff luck if he CAN’T take Maxwell’s advice. Maxwell said abandon that kind of (2_way) experiment; use something more effective (a 1_way experiment). Who was right? Maxwell or Michelson? Maxwell was right. Something very tiny was observed (by Michelson 1887). But so small! (<<1%) Michelson was also right he could measure something very small; but (unfortunately) it was useless scientifically; because it was the WRONG kind of experiment. He wanted to challenge the famous Maxwell to disprove him. Absolute egoism. It was NOWHERE near what was needed. (>50%); & verged on randomness! Was Michelson successful? Did he accomplish what he had set out to do? Partly. Qualitatively we would like better results. I mean, Michelson should have found (absolutely NOTHING=) ZERO results (if the medium did NOT exist) but he did NOT. Instead, he (=Michelson) found what Maxwell predicted. E.g. A slight disturbace which could be attributed to the glass_thickness (medium’s speed change) of the 45° half silvered mirror. That leaves us with the speculation, 1. would a large chunk of glass in 1 of the paths help improve that (M&M) experiment’s results, to increase the notice_able delay for a greater time_delay between the 2 light_beams? 2. A simpler 1_way experiment is needed. E.g. A (simple) laser aimed at a wall many meters away & the tiny light spot’s position(al motion) observed (either (far_away) with a telescope or (near) with a microscope). Light falls, but sound does NOT (fall). The difference being their medium.

Diameter has a unit of meters, area has a unit of meters ^ 2. Volume has a unit of meters ^ 3. What is the unit of intensity? Maybe, we could give it (=Intensity) the units for the (average_)momentum squared per area, or per volume so it would be some kind of density, as kilograms_squared meters_squared per second_squared per meters_(squared or else )cubed.? Power's unit is Joule per second. Energy's unit is Joule or kilogram meters_squared per second_squared.

I "guess", statistically, wrt to an average. E.g. The forest; NOT the tree(s). Noise? None a single particle has the shape.. I guess what confuses me there is 2 answers (in 1 sentence). Are you saying: a photon does NOT have a shape. (But) Only a (single) particle has a shape. ? E.g. (It has) None (=NO shape), a single particle has (a) shape ((but) NOT a photon). That'( i)s a good explaination. Good.

Thank you. It meant you(r scientists) were WRONG! Why should things be different now? Mistakes will happen. Nobody is perfect. When experiment and theory disagree, & you modify it (=the theory) then please DON'T expect me to believe it. (You'( ha)ve lost credibility.) You are still learning. (Meaning you DON'T know everything yet (& NEVER will, because NOBODY can know everything, right?)). NOBODY expects my claims to know everything or anything. But everybody expects yours are correct (now) even when they get thrown out 20 years later (in the future). I'm just trying to figure things out; & buffer myself (preventatively) (against) when you change your minds(' opinions). E.g. (Your) Old idea out, new idea in (takes over). I mean that it's impossible to define your speed with respect to a vacuum. Yes perhaps in the infinitive sense. But I still can NOT see a connection. Speed needs to be with respect to a(n other) speed. That means, you need an(other) object, body, mass (momentum). A vacuum is NOTHING=NO mass, object, NOR body. You bet! If the vacuum is filled with quantum foam (a big "if", as I don't understand what that means) You are NOT the ONLY 1 A rose (re)named anything else, smells just a sweet.

That is a mighty tall (=big, =demanding) sentence(=statement). That means an infinite number of points! E.g. Although you (generally) specify specific (limited) numbers of flux lines (per area or per volume). OK. I find that interesting. From NOTHING e.g. a field's virtual (math) point; the mass "grows" around that point to e.g. an atom (or molecule); & thus due to electrostatic (& magnetic) repulsion, excludes further mass in that mass's volume. The atoms are born (in conception); & a (math) continuum is established. Bravo! From virtual((it)ly =NOTHING), to real (matter). When I see that "dimensionless" I think of, NO x,y,z lengths (e.g. differences). Bizzare! I think I will need an example there, why that (photon) wavelength will become infinite (with an "exact" energy value). Yes. Einstein, Schroedinger, & Feynmann NEVER liked QM. Simply because nature does NOT make exceptions but people do. & your (photons') "lambda" wavelengths are (ruffly=approx.) "squared" values. Disclaimer: I'( a)m only answering your question. We live in an electromechanical universe. It (=matter) functions elastically with charge (repulsion). Charge always has mass (e.g. e/m ratio); but the opposite is NOT true. It seems we can have mass without charge. But that is probably NOT true e.g. tiny amount (negative) in the neutron. Moving Charge deals with electromagnetism. Quantum calculations have failed in the past for the proton's gyromagnetic ratio although scientist's thought their predictions were (absolutely) dead sure. They were NOT correct. Measurements gave different results.

Then you need some work to do don't you. I guess so, because my question "What is a field?" was NOT answered. Nope not saying that at all. Most anti-science trolls Do you also believe in trolls? I DON'T. Ever consider (then) that I am NOT a Troll? Scientists (as well as any person) do make false assumptions. To error is human. Yes, that is because you have not spent any time to learn anything. Photons can have a wave length of a kilometer, so you must think those photons are 1 km in size? Maybe this will help the wavelength has nothing to do with the 'size' of a photon. On the contrary. I'm fascinated. I NEVER thought of a 1 km concept before. Nature is systematic (=NO exceptions). Well if you can't understand it then we must immediately change all of our theories! Joker! I think I already said that a photon doesn't look like anything. It makes no sense to think a photon looks like something. Sorry, but I will NEVER understand that. I'm too old fashioned. Physical means for me some sort of form when dealing with particles. (Yes) Optically we can NOT see a (single) photon's shape; but I would like to (at least) conceive of 1. -400 years ago, atoms were NOT imagined. Now we have 3D models of them & their nuclei. Because that is nonsense. 100's of years ago, light's_speed was instant; til someone began trying to measure it. Was that "instant" an amount of time; or NO time? (Descartes). What is a water wave without the water? That'( i)s a good question (analogy). An electromagnetic wave is NOTHING without electromagnetism! Thus electromagnetism must be its medium. That includes the electromagnetism's functionality. E.g. The way it behaves. I can NOT see air & I (can) barely sense it (as though it does NOT exist although it does (exist); but it (=air) propagates sound waves.

Not so much. Fundamental particles are point-like. That sounds like you are taking center of mass into account. E.g. Going virtual, math conversion. QM? Mechanics is the study of mass's motion. (y/n)? It'( i)s doubtful anyone would understand that (those interactions). I'( a)m (truly) amazed chemist can make 3D views of (the) atoms. That'( statement) i)s what makes me wonder. How do you know? The rest is ok.

So really your data is about interactions; & NOT particles. But you have the nerve to say "particles", instead; so that people might understand (at least the substitute (name)).(?) That sure sounds like hit & mis(sed). It does leave me doubting a bit. E.g. You assume hitting the atom(s) dead on 0° at their center when measuring their reflected angle? & with thermal motion. How do you know? That is surely bound to fail! It's NO wonder your data does NOT (always) corelate with real sizes. It's a MESS! What is Lepton number? Good! I guess you mean, we can NOT measure a photon's dimensions (yet). We ONLY have theory, e.g. assumptions.

How do you KNOW if they (EM_waves) are NOT a disturbance in a medium? Science can only measure, but its technical ability is limited; & often needs to be invented (in the future). E.g. More accurate measurements. Nature does NOT make exceptions; but people do. What'( i)s that? What is a field? I ONLY use that word intuitively (NON_specifically, generally) the way I am accustomed (traditionally). E.g. For an acre (where the crops grow, also has the Earth's magnetic field in &/or around it; or a playing_field where the magnetism dances around. E.g. A spray (~fog) of magnetism (produced, perhaps from (high_)speed collision (or) distortion against (our) stationary matter (wrt the Earth). In other words, NOT the whole picture, i.e. ONLY part of the picture, e.g. the changes (=differences) that happen (when colliding with (or against) disturbances). Some abstract thing, usually area; (but) it could be volume; or a topic=theme field of knowledge. None a single particle has the shape.. I DON'T understand that sentence. Could you please restate it, differently?

I suspect I need a comparison of a field & a medium. Yes! (So) We (now) have something that looks like NOTHING. But I suspect you are implying that photons are (particles) too small to see. We would need a particle much smaller than a photon; & the vision apparatus for that smaller particle. Basically, (then) I'm asking for (what is) the "shape" of a photon because (you claim) it is (suppose to be) a (real=physical) particle. Otherwise "your" physics is (still) NOT making sense to me. Well if the photon (particle) is NOT round; then what is its shape. I'm NOT satisfied with pseudoscience. Real particles have real dimensions. They are NOT just imagination dreamt up by pseudo scientists. Science is measurement; NOT (always) its theory (ideas). I.e. Opinions from scientists. I have a big gulf (gorge) between talking about a wave_"length" e.g. 21 cm versus something as small as an optical photon. I have difficulty conceiving a real particle with the (conflicting) info (clues, hints given). It does NOT make sense. Thus I am requesting a (more) reasonable example. If that is because it is NOT round then please describe this real particle's shape. I.e. Photon. Naturally I have NOT co_related the photon's intensity to its size. But why NOT?

That looks (a bit) like you are avoiding my question Sensei. We KNOW we are dealing with a wave, thus it has a (pretty obvious) wave_"length". But I did NOT ask that. I asked what was the wave "on".

Hi Sensei This (thread's) question is a real question expecting real answers. I'm trying to figure it out. "Your" questions DON'T answer "my" question. But they can help. You say they hit but Bohr showed us from the very 1st in his younger year that contact is a virtual thing. The atoms do NOT touch each other. They (atoms) interact elastically at a distance with fields. OK. That's a good place to start. If you have a (single) photon with a wavelength of 21 cm, what does it look like? Is it round like a ball? How big is it really? E.g. what is its diameter? How do I co_relate its intensity to its (physical) size? How much momentum does it have? Yes, water waves travel, they are travelling on or in a medium (called water); & the (traveling=propagation) speed of that medium is typically (the symbol) c (in the formula), which in that case (=example) is 2 m/s. Although sound waves travel 1500 m/s in water (compared to 340 m/s in air). So depending on what kind of wave, then c has different values. I'm sorry, but water waves (do) travel at c, & "that" value for c is 2 m/s. Yes, I think so. What is a field?

Hi John That's a good example! What do you mean there, John? I DON'T think a vacuum can tell us anything. We would need a(nother) speed (as) reference which could be either in or out of the vacuum (to compare speeds). DON'T you think?

Thank you, both of you. Why do water_waves need a medium? (elastic, mechanically like a flexible_spring). Why do you exclude with electromagentism? Didn't Maxwell (also) calculate the (mechanical) Young's Modulus (~Flexibility) for electromagnetism (too)? Why only might? Can you please explain that to me? A wave of(=on) what? Good. I thought a slower frequency might be a bit helpful (simpler) to comprehend & understand. At least for me. I assume by mechanical you mean a sort of elasticity.(?) If an ion fluid is vibrated then electromagnetic disturbances (such as waves) are also produced! Or at least expected (by me). E.g. Sea_water. (But that effect does NOT have to be with salt.) E.g. (The) Water (molecule) is polar & has a dipole moment. E.g. The photo_acoustic effect producing soundwaves (ultrasound) from light's interaction. I suspect a similar process in reverse is also possible. Perhaps in a crystal.

As far as I know water_waves travel e.g. at c. How do you deal with low frequency RF? Radio_particles? (Radions?)

You Physicists claim gravitational waves (exist), 1. so what kind of wavelength (& range) do you expect? 2. & what (kind of) medium (properties) are you talking about?

(apparently) dead?; or stressy & still alive. Why would the Babylonians use 60 divisions, e.g. for minutes & seconds; & (=but) then (suddenly, break that pattern, &) divide the day into (only) 24 hours? That does NOT make sense (to me), unless there was something important about (also) 60 hours. 1. E.g. Anthro(a)pology? Rising (ruffly) on the 3rd day, apparent death. Recommendations exist nowadays to delay burials 1..2 days to prevent being buried alive. https://www.amboss.com/us/knowledge/death/) (PS: But accidents still happen.) 2. (Psychologically) astrologically (=Psychologically, historical repeating social tendency, (1880s?) statistics: Moods & attitudes. Behavioral clock & calendar. E.g. Peoples’ emotions can be influenced (disturbed) by electromagnetic disturbances, from solar storms, (solar) wind & (their) turbulences, e.g. The Earth’s location orientation wrt angle to a (sidereal) source. E.g. (Radiation) illnesses). Most scientists prefer to ignore the statistics’s tendencies (trends, arrow_scope=direction [H]oro[w]scope). Kepler was an astrologer. Estimating past & future behaviour. I've noticed stressy (psychological) levels (here, on Earth). ~2 days good, & (followed by) ~2 days bad. (They are irregular.) The extra 1/2 (day) would be part of the 3rd day. Maybe (it'( i)s) a (stressy) solar_wind (electromagnetic) shielding, deflection; caused by the moon? Who knows? (The numbers DON'T add up otherwise.) Why 24 (divisions, for a day)? --- (Something else must have been more important (valuable) (to people back then) for the factor 60 [hours]. --- Appendix: Apparent death (Scheintod) is still alive. (It'( i)s NOT Fake(d) death.) https://www.amboss.com/us/knowledge/death/ Death is the cessation of life, but where life ends and death begins is not always clear. Death is an ambiguous term referring to the cessation of life. Death "can" be diagnosed if a patient meets the criteria for brain death or cardiopulmonary death. (PS: That "can" ((also) means) Even if NOT completely dead!) Apparent death o Reduction of vital function to a minimum, creating the appearance of death without signs of certain death o Misdiagnosing apparent death as clinical death can have grave consequences such as postponing vital care, false alarms for organ donation, and unnecessary emotional stress for family members. · Uniform determination of death act o In the US, legal provisions regarding death and the clinical examinations or legal investigations it may entail vary from state to state. o However, all states have adopted the “Uniform determination of death act” (1981), which specifies that the determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards and depends on either cardiopulmonary death or brain death. --- · Clinical death (somatic/systemic death): a term for the cessation of respiration and circulation o May be reversible o Some descriptions may also consider the loss of brain activity as a component of clinical death. · Cardiopulmonary death: irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions · Brain death: irreversible, complete loss of function of the entire brain (including the brainstem), even if cardiopulmonary functions can be upheld by artificial life support o 2 physicians are required to make the legal diagnosis of brain death. o See “Requirements for the diagnosis of brain death” for more information. · Intermediary life: the period of time between irreversible cardiopulmonary death and biological death · Biological death (molecular/cellular death) o Permanent and irreversible cellular damage with complete cessation of metabolic cell function o Tissue that has undergone biological death is unsuitable for transplantation. · Legal death o Recognition of a person's death under the law o Legal death comprises medically determined death (e.g., via a doctor's declaration of death) as well as the presumption under the law that a person is dead after a prolonged and unexplained absence with no signs of life (declaration of death in absentia). --- Signs of death is important for correctly declaring death. · Prematurely pronouncing death can have grave consequences, including neglecting potentially vital care, giving false alarms for organ donation, and unnecessary emotional stress for family members. · Uncertain signs of death must be considered in relation to certain and irreversible signs of death, such as cardiopulmonary and brain death. · If there is a delay before death has been pronounced or the events leading up to death are unclear, irreversible postmortem changes can help also in determining both the manner and time of death. Uncertain signs of death include: · Cardiac and respiratory arrest · Unconsciousness · Pale, dry, tight skin · Areflexia · These signs must be considered in the context of determining cardiopulmonary death or brain death. E.g.1 I met a witness (Helmut Ziegler) of an apparent death, declared brain death. The doctors were packing (up) their cables & equipment for ~1/2 hour. He (HZ) put his hands on the woman & she opened her eyes & so he talked to her & welcomed her back. The doctors were ((just) stunned) speechless, (just) looking at each other. PS: So (I assume) mistakes happen (& or other things, (not known) e.g. in which timing (e.g. rythems) is vital). The body has amazing remarkable healing (=repair) abilities, NOT all are (well) known. Healing takes time. E.g.2 I have also seen a video documentary about an african car crash victim (Friday morning), driven to 2 hospitals (successively), (but) both pronounced him dead so he was (finally) delivered to a morgue, lay in a coffin (2 days) til early Sunday morning with cotton batten stuffed in his nose. Life signs were noticed so they brought him to a basement. He was stiff as a smoked fish so (he) was massaged, & eventually gained consciousness, & full recovery later. E.g.3 Relatives reported an eyewitness's account of coffin knocking & opening in the middle of a church funeral. The deceased was NOT deceased & was helped out. So these (apparent) errors (are rare, but) still happen. Disclaimer: Other than those 3 (examples) I know no other modern 1's, nowadays. I did NOT expect to get into such a creepy theme (later), because I was only interested in the (inconsistent) math, clue (60 & unit); but it (=apparent theme) is (really) about life, instead. Those 2 ideas (apparent, & stress) are the only possible explanations I have found, yet: for 60 "hours".

That (also) means a compass will always point to a north_pole, even a magnet's (north_pole, whichever is stronger). If I bring my compass near a magnet, then its needle('s blue_part, arrow_tip) will point at the magnet's north_pole (instead). So that magnet's north_pole is the same ((kind of) magnetism pole) as the (Earth's, Canadian) "North"_Pole. =It'( i)s NOT a south_pole (magnetism). (=Only the compass_needle tip is a south_pole (there), & the magnet's opposite end, (is) also (a south_pole). The same (kind of) south_pole (magnetism) found in antarctica (where the Penguins live).) ((The compass_needle's tail=(opposite_)end is (also) a north_pole (magnetism).))

Thank you!

I'm also happy for your happiness. Merry Christmas.

because opposite poles attract. That (interpretation) has been the (obvious) definition for centuries, i.e. based on the Earth('s poles' names), standard. So my compass_needle's blue_part which points North, must be a south_pole magnet.

Orientation: (Oversimplified) It’( i)s (perhaps) easiest to say (ruffly=approximately), although the Earth rotates Eastwards, (but) it (=the Earth) travels: ((in a) net) west(ward direction) around the sun, e.g. (at) noon (slightly_)slower (e.g. slowest) & (at) midnight (slightly_)faster (e.g. fastest); & (=but) ruffly at the (same) net_speed at (both) 06:00 (sunrise_equinox, south) & 18:00 (sundown_equinox, north). Earth’s matter (mass) moves at many different speeds (& directions) wrt to its center. It'( i)s very dynamic. =Disclaimer: NOT all of Earth's matter moves at the same speed, NOR in the same direction. Newton made the best 3 motion laws=observations; but he did NOT always use them. (..when he should (have ((also) used them, too))). Complaint: The (Earth’s rotational) water’s inertia is missing in (most) Physics explanations! You can NOT stop the (automatic) laws of inertia from happening; they are expected. Something (inertial) must be happening to the oceans(‘s waters) because of the Earth’s rotation(al) inertia (=average_momentum) direction_(angle)_change. The direction of motion changes into the opposite direction, (=180°) (ruffly) every ~12 hours, e.g. ½ a sidereal day (is) 11 h 28 m 2 s; which works out to slowing & speeding (up) of the (net west) speed, around the sun. E.g. Parts of the Earth are moving faster around the sun, while other( part)s are moving slower. E.g. It (rotational inertia) is happening (to water), (& so) it exists (as the tides); but (it is ridiculous, that) NOBODY mentions it as though it does NOT exist. Is it possible that instead, they (people) (ignore Newton’s laws, & their (laws) affects & implications; & (those people)) prefer to 1st discuss their hocus pocus (NONSENSE, about the) “pull of the moon” (& (imaginary)) “action at a distance” hypothesis (for what reason I do NOT really know)? The Earth’s rotational_inertia also affects the (Earth’s) tectonic plates. The(ir) friction which causes heat & thus volcanic activity (melted stone, lava) & Earthquakes (irregular movement, caused by its (=stone's, =mother Earth's) irregular braking (deceleration)).

That'( i)s new to me. What then is your definition of motion? Mine is, a change of position with time. Please explain. I can NOT imagine acceleration without a change of position (wrt time). Please fill me in, there. (=That (statement) does NOT make sense to me. E.g. I can NOT have a chicken without the (prerequisite=)egg, 1st. I can NOT build(=continue) upon NO foundation.) As I said (=implied), I need help there. So it (=g) is wrt radius r. (y/n?) g is only an acceleration (it's called free_fall acceleration), & it is vertical. (That means:) It has magnitude, & direction. (So it must (also) be a vector, too. ?) That sentence is a head_twister for me. Would you mind explaining a bit better. I assume your 1st "g" is a symbol, but your 2nd "g" makes NO sense to me. My examples stated how (my) g varied, e.g. wrt height, because they were wrt to a reference. At least I knew (exactly) what & where I was dealing with. But with your definitions I go off into nirvana (because they seem not_founded e.g. NOT specified enough, or arbitrarily ambiguous). I DON'T mind an extra complication if it helps me understand clearly, instead of get lost. Unnecessary? complicated? maybe for you; but NOT for me. I DON'T want to make it stupid; I want to make it thorough. It'( i)s too easy to get lost if a definition is lost (=missing). I DON'T like the complexity either; but your (physics) definitions (e.g. calculus) which dominate the scene, force me into a more (extensive) complex syntax just to make the (algebraic) distinction. Considering it (=my syntax) is only algebra I should NOT (even) need to state "average_" every time; NOR delta, etc. for simple differences. But I do (have to) (just to make the (algebraic) distinction.) It'( i)s that simple! but has become that complicated. Yes! 2..3 lines. Tkepler=k*ra1.5 Rooted gives k=T/(r^1.5). T=(2*Pi/((G*M)^(1/2)))*(r^(3/2)). Wt=Fg m*g=G*M*m/(R^2), /m g=G*M/(R^2). NO big deal. Right? Naturally, NOT falling. Standing, was (ONLY) an analogy (to an orbit equivalent). Take it or leave it. I find it useful. Yes. Ellipse, etc. That'( i)s why I kept it simple KIS to start with ONLY circular_motion. Once the basics have been established correctly, the (complexity) details may be (included later &) improved upon. That'( i)s an interesting point. I DON'T deny it. (I mean I will have to consider & deal with it, later, of course.) There you go preferring a (particular, alternative) coordinate system; when I simply convert (if needed) as option. Why is that (suppose to be) better? I assume you mean simpler.? Thus it can NOT fall.? What does that mean (more exactly, please)? Yes. Faster (orbit_speed) is a larger radius. So if things like a sattelite go faster, then they automatically (ascend) & go up to a higher radius. By the same token if they slow (down) their orbit_speed vc=cir/T then they will (automatically) decrease their (orbit_)radius. accelerating(?)(y/n?) ? I assume you mean to say: Freefall just means you are accelerating at the local gravitational acceleration. But I am still NOT clear on what you mean by local & how you measure that acceleration, e.g. what reference do "you" use (to measure, with). How is such a measurement done=performed? Well done! But its units are so. Energy too. (Kilogram) Meters_squared per second_squared. Should that mean otherwise. Orthogonality is NOT stated mathematically for a rectangle. Yes, that is (also) my intended meaning for this thread. (But I also tolerate a NON_zero decrease as well, NOT that its usage is wrong, because it is NOT, but because I am (lazy &) accustomed to using inappropriate usage. E.g. I have bad habits. Please fill me in as to the necessity!, if any? I'm still trying to picture that. E.g. From what perspective. You talk about the (circle's) center.(?) But that tends to erase (some) things (perhaps definitions?) in my head. (center seeking) Yes, most likely (I think, perhaps?). NO. I DON'T think so. I suspect they are accurate (observations=laws). (Sidetrack: My only beef (=complaint), is he (=Newton) did NOT always use them (3 laws), although they were the best ((universal) observations). E.g. for the (~12 h) tides.) Newton's 1st law of inertia is, objects in motion (tend to) stay in motion (thus (they) stay moving in a straight line); & objects at rest (tend to) stay at rest (in other words they do NOT change (what they were doing or NOT doing); til (Newton's 2nd law) they are accelerated or decelerated; by a (repelling) collision recoil-Newton's 3rd law. There is a particular detail concerning the in_line (NO_angle) affect which I have forgotten. Newton's 1st law says (indirectly) that there must be a reason for any (speed_)change that happens; a speed_change does NOT happen automatically on its own for NO reason. The 1st law is basically conservation of (average_)momentum. Or the law of constant(=consistent)_speed. The 2nd law is the law of acceleration. Particularly linear_acceleration. I interpret it (=The 2nd law) as the average_momentum squared. I CAN'T communicate to Physicists because they will be the last to understand, otherwise. (They seem to me, to be on their own (isolated) island, NOT always good.) A normal (NON_physicist) person usually gets my drift (faster, easier). Yes, but a ("local") location is usually typically wrt to some reference that is meaning 2 (different) points, NOT just 1; otherwise why a distinction. Then I must conclude (=interpret, centripetal_acceleration) zero_seeking is (instead) deceleration. Disclaimer: I can NOT explain it (=that (radial), vertical orbit position, constant height) any other way. How otherwise can you get more from less? How (else) can you get a (linear, vertical) "acceleration" from a constant (circular_)"speed" vc=cir/T, cir=2*Pi*r. Normally (=Typically) it is the other way around. An acceleration will produce a speed (on a resting object). Newton's 2nd law. Yes. Yes, but NOT always. Sometimes it works in ONLY 1 direction. But yes 3D automatically includes all 3 dimensions (for any "thing", in the universe). =angle. Let us say wrt the x_axis, e.g. (x,y,z)=(1,0,0). But that still (also) needs y, too. ? Yes. (Good example (last phrase).) Yes. . Yes.

wrt Motion is always relative to some reference. In that (acceleration motion) case (which is the (experimental) observable) it sure looks to me like wrt the Earth's surface. The rest (=explanation) is theory. As the formula says. Why NOT? They are variables that can be mannipulated for other examples. Their values are specific e.g. to Earth; but (as) the variables they do NOT need to be specific to (ONLY) the Earth. Nature does NOT prefer for her (natural) laws. Her laws are universal. Thus other (different) examples (must) exist. I'm NOT telling you anything new. You know that already. Other celestial bodies have their own values for the parameters. The same variables can be used more or less universally. You just have NOT seen the connection yet. Or am I wrong? You will naturally say yes if I am NOT mistaken. If you are on the Earth, then you are (also) moving with it ((as) circular motion), without a (visible) change in height. An orbit can be equated (at least by me) to circular motion (which is) without height change. At least I can attempt to (try &) do that (if you can NOT). If there is NO_fall vertically then I see NO acceleration (vertically, either). But a GSO has NO vertical_fall. It (vertical_"fall") is NOT observable. I think you are confusing that objects are "free" (NOT bound) to fall if they could; but they do NOT fall ("down", vertically) (perhaps because they are moving?). Each orbit radius (value) r=(vc^2)/ac has its own circumferential_speed vc=cir/T=2*Pi*r/T; but that centrifugal_acceleration ac=(vc^2)/r is only a math_construct, anyway. It stems from squaring the circumferential_speed vc^2=ac*r & then splitting that into an acceleration ac & (r radius_)distance product. It'( i)s otherwise total NONSENSE to express an orbit in "area" (units) per time_squared; when (circumferential_)speed vc=cir/T will do (already). The ac*r product was only created for convenience. Weightless per word definition is "less" weight; NOT NO weight. But here I use it as otherwise intended, meaning: Weightless (as like floating) indicates zero (vertical_)acceleration. E.g. Einstein's Equivalence. I DON'T care what you "believe" (to explain), I am interested in the (experimental) observables (in order to formulate). If the weight Wt=m*g but the mass m is NOT falling (e.g. NOT changing its vertical_position) then its weight is (also) zero. Its (=The mass's) g=0 wrt the Earth's surface. It (=The mass) does NOT change vertical_height h=constant. Its (=The mass's) vertical motion is zero wrt the Earth's surface. That means (both): NO speed, & NO acceleration wrt the Earth's surface. (I can NOT understand why you think so rigidly. I suspect you forget that you are using only (math_)constructs.) What do you mean by local (there)? Up in the sky at the mass? (y?); or down on the Earth's surface (n?). The reference is the Earth's surface; but it'( i)s observing the mass (from there=Earth's_surface). Why NOT? Orbit is ZERO vertical_acceleration (observed). You can still have (1D) "linear" acceleration (or deceleration, completely) without (circular) orbits. (Thus) That is NOT an exclusive decisive example to rely on. It (=Your(=That (particular)) argument) does NOT decide ANYTHING. (It'( i)s NOT a double blind proof.) I would need a (much) better example than that to convince me otherwise. Sorry.

Thanks, that'( i)s exactly what I needed. Tkepler~ra1.5 Tkepler=k*ra1.5 Ok. Rooted gives k=T/(r^1.5). But, I do NOT see why (NOT). Surely you mean ONLY the end result; NOT the starting basis. ? From Janus's post Independent of this thread's presentation syntax: (as side_track) I quickly (also) see** (in her 1st line) (that) Newton's gravitational_force Fg=G*(M/R)*(m/r) is 2 mass_per_distance (linear_)ratios (M/R)*(m/r) multiplied together, & then multiplied by a proportionality constant G, where their (common) center_to_center distances R=r are (intended as) identical(ly the same). (I.e. Caution (poor) syntax, (clash): Distance, NOT just a radius. It's a ruff approximation. NOT to be confused with each (masses') radius separately (with their own (different) radius size); but instead the sum of both radii (distances + 1 height), (all) together. E.g. r=rm+rM+h=R, h=separation_height, surface to surface. Disclaimer: That'( i)s how I intuitively interpreted Fg, in a flash. That example of (symbol) r has NOTHING to do with my orbit radius r, later.) ** The Key (move=mano[e]uver): is shift (=move) the rooted_G*M (denominator) 1/((G*M)^0.5) (to) under the 2*π (numerator) (to obtain the proportionality constant k). T=(2*Pi/((G*M)^(1/2)))*(r^(3/2)). GM/(2pi)^2 = R^3 / T^2 (is (surely) enough info to follow thru correctly, & ignore the typo) ((2pi)^2)/GM = T^2 / R^3 Great inspiration. Thanks. --- So giving it another go, again. A circular orbit_Period, is Tcircle=2*Pi*((R/g)^0.5). Equating, the Weight (Force) Wt=m*g of a mass m, with Newton's gravity_Force Fg=G*M*m/(R^2) for the Earth's_mass M, separated by their total (radial) distance R (center to center), (& due to Newton's 3rd law of opposite & equal reaction) we have (equal & opposite forces, balancing (out)) Wt=Fg m*g=G*M*m/(R^2), /m & dividing both sides by the (small(er)) mass m we get the free_fall (gravitational) acceleration g=G*M/(R^2). (Please Not(ic)e: that g is typically measured near the Earth's surface; but (g) gets smaller as the separation ((e.g. orbit_)radius R) gets large(r), e.g. to a GSO (geo_stationary orbit's) radius RGSO~g*(T^2)/(2*(Pi^2)) where the weightless(ness) gGSO=0 is zero.) Inserting that (g, as inverse factor 1/g=(R^2)/(G*M)) into the circular orbit_Period Tcircle=2*Pi*((R*(1/g))^0.5), gives Tcircle=2*Pi*((R*(R^2)/(G*M))^0.5) & we get R^3 under the root(_sign) Tcircle=2*Pi*((R^3)/(G*M))^0.5). The Key (move=mano[e]uver): is shift (=move) the rooted_G*M (denominator) 1/((G*M)^0.5) (to) under the 2*π (numerator) (to obtain the proportionality constant k). Tcircle=((2*Pi/(G*M))^0.5)*((R^3)^0.5), rooting the (R^3) to (R^3)^0.5=R^(3/2)=R^1.5 we get Tcircle=(2*Pi/((G*M)^0.5)*(R^3/2), 3/2=1.5 Tcircle=(2*Pi/((G*M)^0.5)*(R^1.5) or ingesting(=incorporating) the 2*π into under the root_sign, as rooted 4*(Pi^2); we have Tcircle=((4*(Pi^2)/(G*M))^0.5)*(R^1.5). Janus's (wonderful method) tells me: Newtonian Physics says the period of an orbiting object is T=2*Pi*(R^(3/2))/((G*M)^0.5), *1/(T*2*Pi) Thus 1/(2*Pi)=(R^(3/2))/(T*((G*M)^0.5)), ^2=Square both sides 1/((2*Pi)^2)=(R^3)/((T^2)*G*M), *G*M Move G*M to the left side of the equation (by multiplying both sides by G*M, gives): (G*M)/((2*Pi)^2)=(R^3)/(T^2), invert both sides ((2*Pi)^2)/(G*M)=(T^2)/(R^3), swap sides (T^2)/(R^3)=((2*Pi)^2)/(G*M), multiply by R^3 T^2=(((2*Pi)^2)/(G*M))*(R^3), ^0.5=root both sides T=(2*Pi/((G*M)^0.5)*(R^1.5) So Swansont's (searched (for (proportionality))) constant, is k=2*Pi/((G*M)^0.5) for the circular orbit_period T=k*(R^1.5) with orbit_radius R.