traveler

Do the math in my example and see what you come up with.

I'm not concerned with what Henry Cavendish did in his experiment, I am talking about using his torsion balance type experiment, using different net masses, which is not what he did, as I already previously mentioned. L is the mass of the large mass. S is the mass of the small mass. R2 is the distance. Sheese, If I pulled up in a tractor trailer, got out, and told you the trailer was full of horny hot brunettes waiting for you, why would you ask me if they're naked? Do I have to do everything for you?

I was looking for the acceleration of the mass, as in my gravity race example of object A and Object B. That is what I have been talking about, the distance and time an object takes to get from point A to point B, correct?

I said I couldn't measure the difference, and neither can you, so don't pretend you can. I'm wasn't looking to measure exact accelerations, only to test my idea that putting a smaller mass on the beam would mean a greater acceleration of that mass, as compared to a more massive object on the beam.

You don't have to believe me, it doesn't affect the reality that I did make my own torsion balance, and used lead fishing weights for the masses. I never said I took precise measurements or performed precise calculations of the exact accelerations. I could clearly see that when I reduced the mass on the beam the acceleration was noticeably greater, rather than staying the same or being lower. In other words, if Newton's "product" of the masses was correct, reducing the mass on the beam should have made the beam accelerate at a lower rate. That was not the case, in fact, the exact opposite occurred.

1. I have no clue how to calculate an orbital period. Does that make you correct? NO! 2. Masses were calculated using the formula with the "product" of the masses. You can't proclaim the masses are correct, if the formula is incorrect. There is no way one could know the exact masses of planets, moons, or stars. 3. All acceleration is caused by the net force, likewise with gravity. Every test known to man accelerates according to the net force, why should gravity be different? 4. My car runs 12.84@110.68 MPH in the 1/4 mile at 3860 lbs. Is it slower if I put a grain of sand in the trunk? ABSOLUTELY, because the net force is lower. Can I prove it? NO! There's no possible way to accurately measure that small of a difference.

I'm working on it, but the difference is so small I have no means of providing accurate measurements. My math skills are poor, and my scientific knowledge is in the same boat. I was hoping to pass my idea along to the general scientific public with hopes that somebody with enough resources and knowledge would have enough interest in it to help me, rather than immediately dismiss the idea using currently "thought to be known true" formulas, and masses.

Correct, in effect ZERO gravity between objects of the EXACT SAME mass. My apparatus was too sensitive to put that much mass on the beam, and in order to have a massive amount of stationary lead, I could not put that much lead on my beam suspended by very light mono-filament line.

I have already performed a Cavendish type experiment, hence my formula. Cavendish did not test the difference in mass, he simply used two massive objects, going along with the train of thought that Newton's product of the masses was correct. It isn't. My experiment showed that as the difference in the mass increased, so did the acceleration.

How do you know the exact mass of the Earth and Moon, without using previously thought to be known correct formulas to calculate the acceleration of gravity, and ultimately the masses of the two objects?

DH, A=(L-S)/R2 is my formula that allows one to calculate the acceleration value at any given distance from another object. It's correct as it stands. Let's not forget, as the distance decreases, the acceleration rate increases. I am saying that acceleration due to gravity is caused by the DIFFERENCE between two masses (net force) inversely proportional to the distance between them, hence my formula. There's no sign mistake. Mass of object 13,740,622,863,181,450,860,944.616771213 kg A value 370,514,040,973,259,063,165,230.02320065 Accel rate 32.1 ft/sec^2 ET 1.0011519844410017265896927326835 seconds Where can I find an object with a mass of 13,740,622,863,181,450,860,944.616771213 kg, and how am I going to lift it to a height of 16.087 feet in order to compare the time of impact to object A, so that I can observe (or measure) a difference of .001 seconds between the two impact times??? Does anybody have a suggestion as to how I could test this theory?

What time device have they used in previous experiments that would be capable of detecting the difference between a 1kg object and a 10kg object dropped from 16.087 feet? I asked previously, "How massive would object B have to be in order to observe, say, a .001 second difference in impact times with the human eye, as compared to object A?????" Am I supposed to believe the difference in time for such a small difference in mass between any two objects we could test, as compared to the Earth would be detectable with the human eye? How about a Wal-Mart stop watch? How about the best time device known to man???? See my formation of a planet idea that was moved to the crackpot section.

Really?? What did they use to measure the time? What was the height they were dropped from, what were the masses of the balls, and EXACTLY how long did it take each of them to impact, Klaynos? I mean, if one object impacted .00000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds later than the other, what time device would detect that small of a difference?

I'll give an example of why an experiment that supposedly "proves something" is laughable when looked at from a different point of view. The hammer and the feather on the moon. Supposedly, the experiment is supposed to somehow quantify the notion that all objects fall at the same rate. The hammer and feather were held up above the Moon's surface and released. They appeared to fall at the same rate, supposedly supporting the idea that all objects fall at the same rate, regardless of their mass. Question: If the objects fell at different rates according to the difference in mass between the moon's mass and the object's mass, how much difference in time would there be between dropping a hammer on the moon, and dropping a feather on the moon? Do you honestly expect me to believe that two human hands releasing two different objects at the same height above the moons surface, and using the human eye as a judge would be sufficient to observe the miniscule difference in time of impact between the two objects??? I submit the following for a similar test on Earth negating air resistance: Let's just ASSUME the Earth has the mass of 5,974,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg. We are going to compare impact times of two different objects when dropped from an exact height of 16.087 feet. Object A has a mass of 1 kg Object B has a mass of 10 kg Using the formula A=(L-S)/R2 Object A has a "A value" of 371,368,185,491,390,563,809,286.93976503 Object B has a "A value" of 371,368,185,491,390,563,809,286.38030708 A previous test was done with object A. It was determined that object A took exactly 1 second to impact the ground when dropped from a height of 16.087 feet, which is an acceleration of 32.174 ft/sec^2. That means an “A value” of 1, has an acceleration of 32.174/371,368,185,491,390,563,809,286.93976503= .000000000000000000000086636392822469954136118658002141 ft/sec^2 If you multiply that by Object B’s “A value”, you find an acceleration of 32.173999999999999999999951530582 ft/sec^2 for object B. Now, let’s look at the time it takes for each object to hit the ground, when dropped from the 16.087 feet. Object A- 1.0000000000000000000000000000000 seconds Object B- 1.0000000000000000000000007532389 seconds Can I borrow your stop watch? How massive would object B have to be in order to observe, say, a .001 second difference in impact times with the human eye, as compared to object A?????

That's half the problem with modern science, they ignore everything except what they THINK they know to be true, which is then proven wrong. You end up with a house of cards built on a mud foundation. Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.

Let me know when you have some math for reality, I'd be interested.

Do you have the math for Mr. Strawman? If not, it's not science.

No, that would be you saying reality doesn't happen unless someone can calculate it and show the math. Absurd!

...and that's what I thought, volcanic eruptions aren't real because there is no math.

Where's the math to a volcanic eruption?

Gravity wouldn't overcome squat! Your understanding of gravity is highly flawed!

Nonsense. The heat from the sun would force the Earth away like a piston is forced down on the power stroke of an internal combustion engine. The Earth wouldn't have a leg to stand on. It would be forced away as the sun got closer.

1. That's like asking what would happen if a bowling ball fell into a pinhead. 2. If something caused the sun to travel towards the Earth, the Earth would be forced away due to the enormous heat.

I never said I had a theory, or was doing science, I was sharing an idea with people. It's evident that nobody cares to hear new ideas around here that could possibly explain a lot of current unknowns. Thanks for the tip, Sayonara, I'll go someplace different to share my ideas. Maybe someone will help me refine it and talk about the predictions that it does make rather than the one sided "throw it in the trashcan" attitude right off the bat that seems to be the norm around here.

Sounds like the cycle of energy conservation to me. The never ending evolution of energy that had no beginning and will have no end. Neither have you supplied the maths for the motion of the leaves on the tree in my back yard during a hurricane, but that doesn't mean the leaves don't have motion (and lots of it), it's just way to chaotic for man to deal with. That's like asking why volcanoes don't empty all the Earth's magma, since they erupt once in a while. I see you are in search of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.