traveler

I specifically asked DH to help me rewrite the formula to correctly reflect my idea, and he has yet to respond. Does that mean a formula can not be made for my idea if it were reality? So then what if it were reality? I've shown at least reasonable doubt, as the acceleration can not be a constant, as when the distance decreases the acceleration increases. I've also shown how I derived the correct units, I just didn't make it part of the formula, for the above reasons.

Ed, We are talking about a two body experiment, correct? I am talking about how gravity works, not what happens if another separate third object that has a different velocity, different acceleration rate, and different mass, with different inertia interacts on the second (totally different in every way) object . I understand the universe is a system, and that there are not just two massive bodies in the universe that interact with each other. NET FORCE causes acceleration. When you talk about tying objects together, you are only saying "increase the mass of the small object," as there is only 2 objects, not more than two interacting on each other. The universe as I see is nothing more than a mass, distance, and time soup of infinite dimension.

I don't mind answering questions to the best of my ability, and I have and will continue to, but it's aggravating when I do all the answering, and my questions go unanswered. My last three posts summed up my idea well. I asked for help from DH, and responded to Klaynos and Sayonara (cubed), and yet none of you three responded back. I would really appreciate some type of response to my last 3 posts. Ed, If each object was tested separately, the object with the least amount of mass would accelerate at the greatest rate, then the next more massive object would have a slightly lower acceleration rate, and the most massive object would have the lowest acceleration rate. Combining the objects makes one object of greater mass, therefore it will take a longer time than any of the three separate objects. Adding mass adds inertia, which resists the acceleration greater than a lower inertia, so a more massive object has more inertia, and a lower acceleration rate, and takes longer to travel the same distance. You tying the objects together with a strong bond means that ALL of that mass has to be accelerated as a whole, where separate objects have less mass, less inertia, and a greater acceleration rate, because the NET FORCE is greater, and that means a greater acceleration and lower elapsed time. Does that answer your question properly?

I think I'm doing well, then. Should be at the top in no time. I'm hoping by next week I'll be on the world news.

I didn't test it or measure it, 32.174 ft/sec^2 is accepted to be the acceleration of gravity (although it varies according to where on Earth you are) as is 9.8 m/s^2. If an object was dropped from 16.087 feet, and the acceleration was 32.174 ft/sec^2, it would take exactly 1 second to impact. So in my example, I was comparing impact times of a 1kg object to a 10 kg object when dropped from an exact height of 16.087 feet, so that I could show the difference between an object taking exactly 1 second, and the other object taking longer, and I could show how small the difference was, as compared to exactly one second for the 1kg object. The "A value" of the 1kg object was divided into 32.174 to arrive at a constant for a "A value" of 1. I then used that constant and multiplied it by the "A value" of the 10 kg object, and did the math to figure the impact time. That is how I arrived at the constant for that example. There is no way I would be capable of measuring such a small number, I calculated it from the "accepted" 32.174 ft/sec^2 and used the constant for both objects.

A few years ago I had this idea. I was "arguing" with a guy that had tremendous math skills. During the discussion, I concluded that an "A value" would be needed, because as the distance decreases, the acceleration increases. So basically, the "A value" is an "instantaneous" value of acceleration at any specific distance. How could I give the formula a constant, and as soon as the object is released, and travels any distance, the acceleration increases? In other words, yes, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, but as the distance decreases, not only is the velocity increasing, but so is the acceleration. The acceleration is accelerating as the object gets closer.

DH, Let's suppose for a moment that the acceleration of an object due to gravity is proportional to the difference in mass, and inversely proportional to the distance between them. If that were the case, and you knew it to be true (still supposing), how would you write the equation? Will you rewrite my formula to properly express my idea? In my original example, you will see that I multiplied the "A value" by a constant to arrive at the proper units. I understand you that the constant needs to be in the formula. As I said, my math (or lack thereof) sucks.

Well, as in my initial example, if an object is dropped from 16.087 feet, and it hits the ground in EXACTLY one second, the acceleration is 32.174 ft/sec^2. The constant for that example of the Earth would then be: .000000000000000000000086636392822469954136118658002141 ft/sec^2

I found the net mass with L-S and divided it by the distance. That gave me an A value. The A value is then multiplied by the constant derived from a known test result of an actual distance and time. That gave me an acceleration according to the A value. I then used that acceleration and found the time of impact from a known distance.

I have poor math skills. It took me a long time to just figure out how to get to where I am. I already explained that earlier, that I am putting my idea out there so that maybe someone with good math skills and a good understanding of science can help me. If you don't want to help me then that is as far as I can go. Sorry.

Can you do the math for me to find an "A value?" My calculator won't hold that many digits. I'm only using the windows calculator and it barely made it using my other example.

OK, if you find the numbers I'll plug 'em in.

Huge, because it's not the product, it's the difference divided by the small distance. A=(L-S)/R2 Lets say the proton is 1 Lets say the electron is .0000001 Lets say the distance is .000000001 (1-.0000001)/.000000001=999,999,900 Who would have ever guessed? Edit: That's just an example to show how you end up with a large number from such small masses and distances.

My theory predicts the feather hits first in reality. Peer review that. LOL Should we look at the atom using my formula? It doesn't miss a beat.

What do I lose? Klaynos already told me the other two theories win, because they are more popular. Did I lose the popular vote? Damn, I hate it when that happens. edit: Do the experiment yourself and report back with your results.

Because to say that a hammer and a feather fall at the same rate is incorrect. They don't fall at the same rate, and the only reason you THINK they do is because you can't measure to the degree of accuracy required. If you could measure to that degree of accuracy you would clearly see that the feather hits first, because the net is greater!

Because I am not concerned with the actual numbers, only the concept. I do not have the resources to measure to the degree of accuracy required, and neither do you.

Do you understand the concept of a NET force (f=ma)? The greater the net the greater the acceleration. The lower the net, the lower the acceleration. I don't need actual numbers to understand that. If I increase the net, and the acceleration increases, that proves that it's not the "product," it's the "net." 500-500=0 500-100=400 1000-50=950 1,000,000,000-1,000,000,000=0

The small rate of acceleration towards each other supports my theory, because they are so close in mass. I never mentioned "orbital periods."

Are they getting closer together?

You still haven't answered some of my questions directed towards you in this thread, and I'm still waiting. I don't claim to know everything (actually very little), but that doesn't mean I shouldn't stick to my guns and be rigorous in my claims.

I never mentioned actual numbers, nor did I measure them. I decreased the mass on the beam and the acceleration increased. That contradicts Newton's "product" theory. If it was the "product," the acceleration would have stayed the same or decreased when the mass on the beam decreased. That didn't happen. So you do have a slight sense of humor. There's not one shred of evidence that life is serious.

Oh, I forgot, they dropped a hammer and a feather on the Moon and they both hit at the same time. :rolleyes:

Really? I asked before, what time device was used to measure the time to a degree of accuracy of .0000000000000000000000000000001 seconds??? I'm still waiting for an answer. Those tests were never done accurately because there is not a timer available to measure to the degree of accuracy needed. Also, calculating the mass of planets, stars, and moons using Newton's formula, and then claiming I'm wrong because the numbers don't add up using those "Newtonian calculated masses" is absurd. Tell me the exact masses of the bodies, as accurately measured, not derived from Newton's formula.

So what is the exact mass of Jupiter and the Sun? How did you arrive at the figures without using the product of the masses?