insane_alien

according to general relativity, yes, but at an immeasurably small rate. so small infact that disturbances from other stars overwhelm the effect. but that is not the failure in itself, the failure is in the orbital period, where your equation is off by millenia.

M.Chauvin, you have obviously never been laid. appart from being an obvious troll. i hope for the sake of every woman you meet that they never have anything like initmate contact with you.

exactly, we do not need to know the masses exactly we just have to look where they predict insanely different results, such as 61 cygni, according to your equation the stars should not orbit as fast as they do as they have nearly equal masses. but newtonian gravity says they should orbit around the speed they have been measured to.

traveller, they have done it using robotic mechanisms and atomicc clocks with much more accuracy than you're experiments. also, the mass of earth can be computed from its density and volume, both relatively easily calculated from seismological data and laser mapping. this agrees with the mass found by newtonian gravity to within the uncertainty due to errors. you're calculations however, fall well outside the error range so do not agree with observed data. So, far you have used logical fallacies and misconceptions to claim science is wrong, just because we can't measure down to a trillion decimal places does not mean that we are off by a couple of thousand trillion units.

by using their interactions with other planetary bodies. now, i know you are going to claim that the formulae are inaccurate, so, i will preemptively say that newtonian gravity has been tested using known masses(measure using scales and/or inertia devices) to a very high accuracy and precision much higher than your primitive torsion balance could possibly have achieved. now will you please drop this, your formula has been disproved SEVERAL times in this thread already. particularly with 61 Cygni, that system should not even exist according to your equation as the masses are so similar.

not to mention that even if you get a functional one, you still need to be able to get out from under it before it crushes you.

are you sure R2 isn't the distance squared? or are you debating the inverse power law as well? and what the hell has a tractor load of horny brunettes got to do with anything?

so, you don't actually understand the mechanics behind the cavendish experiment then? well then. i don't see how we can take your results as accurate. oh and you still haven't defined the terms in your equation you posted earlier, still waiting for those.

you do realise that on a torsional beam your looking for the angle its displaced and not how fast it gets there right? also, was it protected from drafts? its entirely feasible that it was just deflected more by a draft otherwise. and a torsional balance isn't the only thing we can do to measure gravitational attraction you know.

doubt your torsional balance was anywhere near as sensitive as you claimed earlier then. proper sensitive ones have an evacuated chamber, finely calibrated weights and use something a little better(read 'a lot') better than fishing line. so much for you screaming about accuracy in results earlier when you can't be arsed in your own experiments then eh?

1/ so we are now supposed to trust some formula you just made up without doing a mathematical analaysis of the data? really now. well, just calculate the acceleration then, you seemed to be able to do that fine before. 2/ there are many different ways to calculate mass. the formula we used has also proven itself to accurately reflect reality many many times. it is not just assumed to be true. 3/yep, motion due to gravity depends on net force. 4/ cars do not behave the same as stars for a variety of reasons. in this scenario it is due to the rolling friction on the bearings that a heavier car will not be able to reach the same speed as a lighter car. last time i checked, stars don't scoot about space on wheels. this is way way offtopic.

John, it isn't factored in when people do basic 'back of the envelope' calculations. but if you were to look at the global models used to predict what will happen in the future then you will see it factored in.

traveler, the thing is, the formula we have today has been the result of centuries of observations and tests and they are still tested today by looking at other star systems and you know what? they still keep coming out right. you can't just swap over a sign and suddenly proclaim it is better when it doesn't match up to reality at all. now, if you please, calculate the orbital period for 61 cygni using your method like i asked. you will come out with a period likely in the millenia and we know the orbital period of that system down to a few decades.

in laymans terms, most of the light from the sun is not absorbed while most of the IR emitted from earth IS absorbed.

who said it had to be a large chunk of lead, any mass would do as long as it was equal. oh and have you looked at orbital periods of binary star systems. especially those with very similarly massed stars. there would be a big difference in predictions from newtonian mechanics and your hypothesis. although seeing as the orbital period of the moon was not enough to convince you then i doubt anything would. [edit] spefically, i want you to analyse the orbits of this star system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/61_Cygni all the data you'll need is in there. and can you define the variables in your equation so we can check your maths?

yep, the balloon is under the upside down mug but most importantly the mouth is sticking out so you can still inflate it. [edit] ahh you got it before i posted.

so, according to your equation, objects of equal mass should not attract each other in the slightest? try the cavendish type experiment with equal masses. if they attract then you are wrong.

would it help if we said the mug should be upside down before you inflate the balloon?

well, its quantum in the case that the hardware relies on quantum mechanical interactions to function(chemistry is dependant on quantum mechanical interactions of the electrons of the atoms). BUT that is not what 99.99% of the people talking about 'quantum conciousness' are talking about. they generally have some crap about atoms being aware and often resort to the alchemical elements, typically those of either early europe or early chinese cultures.

yep, just tell them you want to add this that and the other and change something else and so on.

its 6 hours and it is their for a reason. the last time we dropped them we had a number of people going back and editing their previous posts so extensively it made most of the replies look like jiberish as the origional context was lost. what you do if you need to edit a post after is send the final draft to a mod and ask them to put it into the post. if it will not disrupt the thread then it will be put in, if it will, then it will be made as a seperate post. although i think this is likely to be something to do with your guide, in which case it will be fine. i have asked a mod to edit my irc guide before as well(that was also the reason the editing restrictions were dropped funnily enough)

how about a massive pair of golden stilts so you can just step out of the plane if we can abandon the parachute idea?

we could take it as the variation from the average planetary radius. seeing as we're taking records from places without an ocean.

go to youtube, search 'time-lapse glacier' they're solid, they move.

well, the water will partially evapourate to form its own thin atmosphere which, depending on how far from the sun it is, could be sufficient to keep it in liquid form. not to say that the earth was entirely water at one point though, that would just be silly.