stupidnewton

It was a rhetorical question. How hopeless are you on this planet. You can probably handle money I suppose. Some say the centre of the milky way galaxy is moving at 600 km/sec. The concentration on the motion of an inverse square law means knowledge for us that descents are a curve around the motion of an inverse square. If you can get that you are getting in the picture. All descents are a motion relative to their cause. A curve. Most mathematical physicist are probably trying to see it. But are held back by the insecurity of contemplating Einstein was out of kilter with reality. It was a rhetorical question. How hopeless are you on this planet. You can probably handle money I suppose. Some say the centre of the milky way galaxy is moving at 600 km/sec. The concentration on the motion of an inverse square law means knowledge for us that descents are a curve around the motion of an inverse square. If you can get that you are getting in the picture. All descents are a motion relative to their cause. A curve. Most mathematical physicist are probably trying to see it. But are held back by the insecurity of contemplating Einstein was out of kilter with reality. The location of the earth's inverse square law is the earth and the earth is moving. Wish to get into silliness is zero.

And who said it did?

So the earth is moving and the earth's inverse square law is somewhere else? Is that the standard of your education? If you are going to say something doesn't make sense, aim for explaining why not. Intellectually you'll get further in life. Are you genuinely struggling to understand the earth's inverse square law is moving around a galaxy? If the arithmetic isn't moving, obviously the arithmetic isn't reality if everything is in motion. Your problem is the adage of the mathematical physicist that is suppose to make lies the truth. "Depends what reference frame you use". If you were serious and like truth orientated about the universe, which no-one on this forum seems to be, you have enough diagrams here to see that mathematical physics is set upon false foundation. Do you honestly think Einstein would want his theories worshiped if they were based on the false foundation of fixed in space inverse square laws. Einstein had his human faults but I would suggest he would be above wanting your false worship. In principle you now have the tides. Really you have waking up to do about the universe before you grow old and die.

If the earth is moving, it's inverse square law is moving strange. Common sense, etc. You are pretty much living back in the world of Aristotle and Ptolemy the way you are ignoring the motion of the earth. That's not the inverse square law you have provided. It's Sir Isaac Newton's stupid law of mutual of gravitation. This is way he probably came up with it. Probably the biggest mistake Newton made was presuming the moon pulls an ocean of the earth. It doesn't. The arithmetic of opposite directions of inverse square laws says the opposing directions of earth and moon inverse square laws causes an ocean on earth to weigh less. If you do your analysis properly, you can see the moon isn't attracting an ocean at all.

Will address your questions, swansont, but would say you are making the same mistake about descent that all of Aristotle, Galileo, Newton and Einstein have made. In the earth's case, you think it is along an axis towards the centre of the earth. If that's what you think descent is you are categorically wrong. It is a curve around the galaxy. Pick up anything, a pen, whatever. Drop it. It's descent path was not the metre or so between your hand and the floor. That's the mistake of a mathematical physicist. Its descent path is a curve around the galaxy. To understand this you have to stop using arbitrary or fixed reference frames. What you have to do is see the motion of an inverse square law and descent in the one frame. I know this is completely new to you and your mind will balk at going there. But if you can get your self there you may well see the key to solar system. And that key is descent is a motion relative to its cause. Einstein doesn't seem to have know this. But he should have if he was Einstein. All descents are a curve through space. The 9.8 m/s/s acceleration you observe when you drop something does not happen along a straight line pointed at the centre of the earth. 9.8 m/s/s you observe happens along a path as appears here. Which is a curve around a moving earth. While the direction of motion is constantly changing, the magnitude is roughly constant. If we were gaining and losing momentum as you describe, we could measure it. What experimental evidence do you have to show this? The magnitude is not roughly constant. Have a look at the the two dimensional diagram of the earth year again. It rises fy a factor 60 km/sec over a six month period. Then falls by a factor of 60 km/sec over the next six month period. There is no experimental evidence that proves the heliocentric model of the solar system. Only observations. The way you pose the question is like those who rejected the motion of the earth in Galileo's time because the trees weren't bending back as the earth moved forward. There is no "lift". I can't fathom the confusion involved that yields such nonsense. Totally agree that there in no lift. But the Newton first law of motion direction takes a planet away from the sun if it's followed. If it's not followed in the fixed inverse square law theories of planetary motion, the planet's plummet into the sun. The Newton first law of motion as applied to fixed inverse square law physics, is an ascent. Thus, to be followed, would require a lifting force. Are you saying the Galilean perseverance vector I put on the first diagram isn't real? Galileo is not the final word on orbital mechanics. The concept he got right is that we orbit the sun. Convenient as it might be to say that Galileo got the fact that we orbit the sun right, he didn't. We orbit the motion of the sun. As already mentioned, the difference is subtle but also of significant consequence. You are entitled to you convenience. But it's not a truth. And the motion of the sun can be ignored, and the system analyzed in the frame of reference of the sun. Also according to modern astronomy. You aren't making sense here. Are you saying astronomy per se should ignore discovery? Astronomy discovered that a fixed sun was a Copernican mistake. ​'Finally we shall place the sun at the centre of the Universe. All this is suggested by the systematic procession of events and the harmony of the whole universe, if only we face the facts, as they say, ‘with both eyes open.’ Nicholas Copernicus, 1473 - 1543. What you are saying is more or less like saying the discovery of the motion of the earth could have been ignored. Also, with your attitude that the discovery of the motion is sun irrelevant to mankind, you want to remember that Tycho Brahe was drawn to astronomy by an accurate prediction of a total lunar eclipse. The prediction was made from the belief that the sun orbits the earth. So everything could be worked out and predicted from ignoring the motion of the earth if you follow through what you are saying. How can an inverse square law be a speed? If I confused you Strange sorry. Inverse square laws are moving and at speeds much faster than the descents they cause. That much faster speed has to be taken into account to understand a fundamental of descent due to gravity, that fundamental being all descents within the solar system are elongated curves around a galaxy. Some of these curves carry a loss of momentum. Some a gain of momentum. You add up the curves and the gains and losses of momentum and you can start to understand planetary motion properly.

You can't seriously be asking why you should be taught the truth at school. Do you wish for lies to be taught in schools? In your analogy, why would you need to rethink fuel consumption. The earth's inverse square law is in between the 50 km/h and the well, a little more than 30 km/sec. Fuel consumption is related to the car's weight. On the moon it would use less etc. Unless the speed change of the inverse square law is significant, irrelevant.

The fulcrum is the sun and its moving. Leave it in two dimensions to get the basics. A pendulum is something that gains momentum. And then loses momentum. Then gains momentum. And the loses momentum. And so on. You can see that the earth is doing that in two dimensions. . The thing to address if you want to get on the right level is the fact that Galileo's original idea had the planets ascending. Any straight line motion at a right angle to an axis towards the centre of the sun is an ascent. Where does the force come from to lift the planets while they fall to the sun is the question you need to answer if you believe Galileo's inertial idea makes sense. That's an obvious error to me and it should be obvious to any sixteen year old. If you can credibly deal with that mistake of Galileo's, take it from there. Sun speed 220 km/sec. Earth speed relative to the sun 30 km/sec. The sun is moving faster than what the earth is relative to the sun. worry about whether or not the earth's galactic motion is pendulous or not. . In two dimensions that diagram should give you an exact picture of what is being said. Please address Galileo's inertial ascent if you can but am saying the earth doesn't orbit the sun. The difference is subtle but the earth orbits the motion of the sun. And that's not speculation. According to modern astronomy, it's fact. That's exactly right and exactly what you should have learnt as teenager. Is that diagram not appearing or something. You should have a diagram in front of you that shows it changes the nature of the relative motion. Instead of being a closed circuit of the sun, the relative motion is a series of elongated inverting curves. Just so obvious that axis towards the centre of the sun i.e the sun's gravity, orbits the earth's galactic motion as often as the earth "orbits" the sun. We all should be learning that at junior school. It is the understanding of Kepler's laws. For instance where do you say the momentum of a planet originates?

It's understanding of the physics of the 'orbits' that is the problem. We are a pendulum, not some sort of inertial centripetal object. The trouble with the physics of current schoolbooks is the reliance on where a planet would go if the sun's gravity was absence. It is never absent so the whole idea is a furfhy. Since Galileo we have lived a confusion. It's the sun's inverse square law that is persevering. Not the planets at some sort of tangent to a fictitious closed orbit. Without doubt now that we know the sun is moving, all of Kepler's three laws of planetary motion have to be revisited. This diagram ignores the angle of the solar system to the path of the sun. Which is supposed to be about 60 degrees. That doesn't alter the fact that the planet's are pendulums. Just means the 250 on this diagram will be less. And the 190 more. Should add I suppose the fact that mathematical physicists are unapproachable about Galileo's error makes them the pope of Galileo's day. Should also add that the reason of a planet's rhythm with the sun is the fact that the direction of fall of a planet towards the sun orbits a planet's galactic path once a cycle. That's the growing circle you see on the diagram. The mistake of the Copernican revolution and the right answer as well are as plain as day. Anybody can see them. Even the moderator of this forum at a rough guess.

Once upon time the earth was considered to be fixed in the centre of the universe. Then the Copernican revolution came along and fixed the sun in the centre of the universe. Now the sun is known to be moving faster than the planets relative to the sun. In deference to their own evidence, physicists, mathematical or not, won't countenance anything that says a fixed sun is the answer to planetary motion and the universe beyond So are mathematical physicists the pope of Galileo's day? A thread on this forum got locked. When all it was there for was to say the discovery of a moving sun means Kepler's three laws have to be done again. And the tides to. Does this forum provide evidence of today's mathematical physicists being the equivalent of the pope of Galileo's day? Sometimes all I need is the air that I breathe and to love you

Galileo has a problem. Planets can't ascend. <removed by moderator>

http://www.whyvenusturnsbackwards.com/ Was in good faith back a month or two ago. Planetary motion has always been taught in a way that doesn't make sense at the junior level. If you didn't see this at secondary school, you must have been having an off day. Time to move on. If someone else wants to take up the running about Galileo's silly mistake go for it. We have to get the motions of inverse square laws into school curricula. Otherwise we are stuck in the garbage of mathematical physics. If it comes, accept the ban.

Well what is time? Not the cause of motion, What.

Rubbish. Is the gravity of the earth found by adding every mass of the earth. Or multiplying every pair of masses of the earth.

Since the gravitational force is directly proportional to the mass of both interacting objects, more massive objects will attract each other with a greater gravitational force. So as the mass of either object increases, the force of gravitational attraction between them also increases. If the mass of one of the objects is doubled, then the force of gravity between them is doubled. If the mass of one of the objects is tripled, then the force of gravity between them is tripled. If the mass of both of the objects is doubled, then the force of gravity between them is quadrupled; and so on. More massive objects attracting each other with greater gravitational force says the total amount of mass present is the determiner of the gravitational force. Sorry. There is no other way of looking at it. Saying there is no legitimate reason to think the attraction would be constant if the distribution is altered does not answer why the attraction does alter with distribution. What is the physics of the "that's way maths works"? If you don't know, you don't understand the law.

Can only see one question there, is polite, no worries. http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Law-of-Universal-Gravitation Seems to say if one mass is doubled the force of mutual attraction is doubled. Meaning the mass present determines the force of attraction. If the mass present is distributed in another way, the mass present is throwing a different force of attraction.. See the contradiction? Sir Isaac's law of mutual attraction says nothing about a maximum force when the masses are equal. The law says for any two masses. Your argument is a mass of 9 and 1 have lesser attraction than masses of 8 and 2. Why?

Just beg to differ. If an electrons emit radiation, they are particles made of other particles. To my way of reckoning the passage of an electron through space is converting space into matter, etc.

Not secret. What I am saying is just obvious and needs an answer. . How did Neil Armstrong increase the mutual attraction between the earth and the moon when he was there? If you can explain, please do. If you want to continue the obfuscation, doesn't bother me. But doesn't answer this sincere question either.

This is getting silly. What basic physics have has not been learnt. Newton's laws of motion, his law of mutual gravitation, kinetic energy, pressure, weight, kinematics, what? The moon's mass has increased and the earth's mass decreased. This is real. There are flags from earth on the moon right now. According to Sir Isaac's law of mutual gravitation, the mutual attraction of the two bodies is greater with flags having switched from the earth to the moon. The larger body has less mass. The smaller body has that mass. The product of the masses of the two bodies is now greater. Saying someone is uneducated because they ask the question doesn't real answer the question. It is a very genuine issue for anyone with intellectual integrity. The graph simply did not explain how 19 x 1 = 18 x 2.

That's speculation on your part. Are you attributing decay to a non mechanical process?

You haven't addressed the issue. 19 kilo x 1 kilo does not equal 18 kilo x 2 kilo etc. As was stated originally, when man stood on the moon, according to Newton, the mutual attraction of the earth and moon increased. The earth was of less mass. The moon was of more mass. Meaning the product of the masses of the bodies had increased when a moonshot reached the moon. If you accept Sir Isaac's law, you need to be able to explain how a moon shot increases the mutual attraction between the two bodies, etc. You haven't as yet, nor has anyone else. The law is obviously open to question until someone can so explain. After all, this is just a simple intriguing question of science.

Motion within the object of decay, not motion of a object of decay. If something has changed about an object, something pertaining to the object has moved.

Your graph has failed to support Sir Isaac's law of gravity. Requires m to be non existent to be plotted. The law is specifically about mutual attraction of two masses. Graph requires the elimination of one of the masses of a two mass system to have its Y axis beginning point. Your normal force would be tending to infinity as m tended zero if your graph was based on realism. So you just as easily say a push is a pull. Interesting. Accurate predictions are never proof of theory, let alone absolute proof. That notion is a false science in its self. Not much different to predicting the sun goes around the earth because we see it half the time. Sputnik 1 didn't go into its predicted orbit did it. Prediction is over rated as the owner of human beings knowing truth.

Go on. edit didn't mean to give a smart answer but decay in its self is motion.

Not sure that I had been asked. A push is the exertion of matter upon matter. The answer to your first question hasn't to do with whether or not the trailer is moving. It's to do with whether the rigid nature of the trailer is supplied by a system of pushes. I can't give you a categoric answer on that. But without anyone being able to explain the mechanics of a 'pull' you have to at least have an open mind on whether it all comes down to an exertion of matter upon matter at the most basic level. Where I come from is a large mass M of say 12 kilo. A small mass m of 6 kilo. A total of 18 kilos. A mutual attraction factor of 72 according to Sir Isaac's law of mutual gravitation. 2 kilos are taken off the large mass. And put on the small mass. Now M is 10 kilo. And m is 8 kilo. According to Sir Isaac the same 18 kilos is now causing a mutual attraction factor of 80. To put it another way, according to Sir Isaac, when man stands on the moon, the mutual attraction factor of the earth moon system has increased. You don't have to be "Einstein" to see that Sir Isaac has made a mistake, the world have been believing a lie for three centuries etc.

That's silly. Regarding post 10 what changes occur without motion?