Mystery of gravitation

[divinum1]

"The orbital speed of the Moon being bound to the orbital force of the Earth is because Earth's gravitational field encompasses all around Moon's gravitational files, which extends to 52,000 km.

while Earth's gravitational field extends to 685,400 km"

Just plain wrong.

Gravity has an infinite range.

 

If gravity had an infinite range there would be no order in the universe, just a chaos as it was before the universe was. And how can you prove that gravity has an infinite range? please answer me that.

[mississippichem]

If gravity had an infinite range there would be no order in the universe, just a chaos as it was before the universe was. And how can you prove that gravity has an infinite range? please answer me that.

 

I believe the question is whether or not you can prove that gravity doesn't have an infinite range.

 

You are challenging about three hundred years of fundamental (perhaps the most fundamental) physics. The burden of proof is on you.

 

I suggest that you take a course on plain good ole' Newtonian mechanics before trying to re-write the laws if motion. This is not meant to be insulting but genuinely helpful.

 

Show one example of where the force of gravity coming from a mass abruptly drops off to zero. Good luck

[John Cuthber]

This

"If gravity had an infinite range there would be no order in the universe"

is a complete non-sequitur.

It has and there is.

[divinum1]

"Your first statement, that an object feeling no force will have constant velocity, and that an object feeling a force will change its velocity, now this is absolutely wrong. Because no object anywhere in the universe

can have a constant velocity without a force acting upon it"

Also wrong.

Consider the monitor in front of me.

In my frame of reference, it's not moving. It has a constant velocity of zero.

 

Do you realise that you are saying

"Newton's laws of motion are wrong, and so is the whole of physics.

 

Simply making the assertion that something is "absolutely wrong" is absurd.

It's certainly nothing to do with science.

 

And you have not replied to my previous observation.

You should do so.

 

Newton's first second and third law of motion are correct. However Newton's law of universal gravitation is incorrect and incomplete.

 

Newton's first law does relate to gravitation (in fact to both forces; Fo, and Fc, even though Newton was unaware at that time that there were two forces of gravity), which clearly states; that an object continues in a state of rest, or in a state of motion. But it does not specify as why they do so. For they do so because they are both being bound to a force. The object that is at rest is held to a mass due to Fc (g) acting on it constantly. And so is the object that is bound to a constant state of motion (orbital motion that is), which is constantly acting upon it by Fo (orbital force). Furthermore all motions in outer space are circular due to space being divided between the two forces. For this reason, all heavenly bodies are orbiting in a circular motion, and are bound to constant speed, with the exception when they move further away.

And all gravitational fields are limited in accordance of their masses and the distances separating them.

Therefore the law of universal gravitation has to be rewritten, and re-defined. (I am still working on it.)

 

What does it mean for a force to be faster than something? Force is measured in units of force, not speed.

 

Why must there be a force to keep the Earth in constant rotation? Surely Newton's First Law means that the Earth will just keep rotating, without a force.

 

Newton's very first law clearly states, that for any mass to be either at a constant rest, or at a constant state of motion, there must be a force that compels them to do so. And that apply to the rotation of the Earth as well.

[swansont]

Newton's very first law clearly states, that for any mass to be either at a constant rest, or at a constant state of motion, there must be a force that compels them to do so. And that apply to the rotation of the Earth as well.

 

Newton's first law clearly states nothing of the sort. The first law says that an object at rest will remain at rest, or an object in constant motion will remain in constant motion UNLESS acted upon by a net external force.

 

IOW, you need a net force to change the velocity.

[divinum1]

Not according to F=ma

 

By definition, an object feeling no force will have a constant velocity, and an object feeling a net force will change its velocity. If you want to construct a model that requires an impetus to move at a constant velocity — and all that that entails — go ahead. Is that what you are intending, or are you asserting that Newton's law of gravitation is wrong in the context of accepted physics? If it's the former, you need to establish the validity of the model first. Newton's gravitational law will undoubtedly have to take on a different form if you are going to rewrite Newton's laws of motion. if it's the latter, then you're just wrong and trivially so.

 

By definition, an object in motion is subject to a force already, and if you intend to make it move from that state you have to use a force. But gravitational forces are not subject to such condition. They simply perform their natural act as they suppose to. For the two gravitational forces exist in full cooperation with one another. Where one force is using the other force as a base upon which it acts, and vice versa.

But in due process of their division, one force (the Fo that is) becomes much stronger because it becomes unified, whereas the other force (Fc that is). is the one that becomes all divided. And as a result, these two forces are not equal in strength. The Fo (orbital force) is therefore hundredth and even thousandth of times more powerful than its counterpart (Fc).

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

In case anyone happens across this thread, divinum1's understanding of Newton's laws of motion is incorrect. I would refer the reader first to wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

And then to the rest of the forums to ask questions.

Do not reply to this modnote.

!

Moderator Note

divinum1, restating an incorrect statement does not make it more correct. Newton's laws of motion are well known and documented, I suggest you do some background reading before continuing.

Do not reply to this modnote.

[swansont]

By definition, an object in motion is subject to a force already

 

No, no, no, and by the way, no. Not according to Newton's laws. As I stated preciously, if you want to build a new model go ahead, but you can't make what you're saying consistent with the model we already have.

[divinum1]

Can you propose an experiment to test this hypothesis?

 

The Moon and all man made satellites are a testament to that. They all orbit around the earth in accordance of earth's orbital force (Fo), which is exactly the same in velocity as is the orbital speed of these bodies. Hence, they are moving-orbiting around the earth in accordance of orbital force (Fo) of the earth. Where their velocities are:

 

Ov = m x G/d (square rooted).

[swansont]

The Moon and all man made satellites are a testament to that. They all orbit around the earth in accordance of earth's orbital force (Fo), which is exactly the same in velocity as is the orbital speed of these bodies. Hence, they are moving-orbiting around the earth in accordance of orbital force (Fo) of the earth. Where their velocities are:

 

Ov = m x G/d (square rooted).

 

You have to demonstrate your new version of the laws of motion first, before applying it to gravity, because the form of the gravitation law will necessarily change if you rewrite the laws of motion. Which makes this a circular argument. You need an independent test of the laws of motion.

 

If an object needs a force to keep it moving, there is now a preferred reference frame: an object is at rest only when there is no net force acting on it. Because I can have an object at rest and transform that into a frame where it's moving, but moving objects require a force under your model, so we can't use that frame — it violates the axiom. So coordinate transformations are not useful unless you add in a pseudoforce like conventional physics does when dealing with rotating reference frames.

 

You also have to deal with work-energy. An object moving at constant velocity requiring a force means that work is continually being done and its energy is increasing. But constant velocity means the kinetic energy is constant, so this concept goes into the trash.

 

And I'm sure there's much more, but that's all up to you to develop before you can hope to analyze gravity.

[Dovada]

There is no condition within the universe where a body has no force acting on it. Any body in a spiral orbit around another body has to process energy from the local environment (gravitational field) to maintain a condition whereby it can continually accelerate to change direction so as to maintain its spiral path.

 

This process of energy is done at atomic level, hence the energy required is proportional to the total number of atoms involved in the construction of the body (this is generally referred to as the mass of the body). Also supported by the penny or feather experiment done in a vacuum.

 

For any force (f) to act on a body (i.e. gravitational field) always results in physical acceleration. Hence we have used f=ma for the gravitation force, but the equation itself is not complete in that it does explain the actual functioning of the gravitational field on atomic structure, it only describes the net result.

 

The term mass can apply to billiard balls or similar games like physical contact sports, but should be used with caution when being used to describe the effects resulting from a gravitational field. A gravitational field is something that every atom permanently exists within, such that it is a permanent condition imposed on all atomic matter. Newtons first law does not consider this fact, and presumes that a body moves in straight lines unless acted on by another force.

 

Newton's Law 1: (Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.)

 

Do not become over obsessed with defending f=ma when it is used in describing gravitational fields, as eventually new facts will come to light and a few red faces will show up in that light.

 

You also have to deal with work-energy. An object moving at constant velocity requiring a force means that work is continually being done and its energy is increasing. But constant velocity means the kinetic energy is constant, so this concept goes into the trash.

Not quite: A body undergoing constant acceleration can have a constant velocity. If not spiral orbital paths as we know them would not be possible. In this condition gravitational energy is being used to change the physical direction of the atomic mass body and the net overall energy of the atomic body does not increase, the work being done is just used to constantly change the bodies direction. Edited November 17, 2011 by Dovada

[swansont]

Not quite: A body undergoing constant acceleration can have a constant velocity. If not spiral orbital paths as we know them would not be possible. In this condition gravitational energy is being used to change the physical direction of the atomic mass body and the net overall energy of the atomic body does not increase, the work being done is just used to constantly change the bodies direction.

 

No, a body undergoing constant acceleration can have a constant speed. Velocity is a vector quantity. A change in direction is an acceleration, as you note, and that's not a constant velocity. I specified a constant velocity. My criticism holds.

[Dovada]

No, a body undergoing constant acceleration can have a constant speed. Velocity is a vector quantity. A change in direction is an acceleration, as you note, and that's not a constant velocity. I specified a constant velocity. My criticism holds.

Are we talking about gravitational forces? This is a force that causes a constant change in speed over a period of time. The force of gravity accelerates atomic mass and so changes its speed and direction continually. As a consequence the centripetal acceleration that is occurring is also called the rate of change of tangential velocity.

 

Speed is measured in the same physical units of measurement as velocity, but does not contain an element of direction which gravitation does. Speed is thus the magnitude component of velocity. Velocity contains both the magnitude and direction components.

 

swansont when will you stop picking on the words being used and start looking at the whole concepts being presented for once. I believe that the people on this forum want to discuss the validity of the concepts that are being presented, but you seem to want to block this by just arguing about terminology, which can be so unfruitful.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Dovada

[Ophiolite]

swansont when will you stop picking on the words being used and start looking at the whole concepts being presented for once. I believe that the people on this forum want to discuss the validity of the concepts that are being presented, but you seem to want to block this by just arguing about terminology, which can be so unfruitful.

Swansont's comments are welcome since they crystallise precisely what is wrong with your proposals. Personally I have no wish to discuss the validity of the concepts since they are clearly invalid. If you wish to demonstrate this is not the case then you have to offer much more specific explanations and associated mathematics.

 

I sincerely hope swansont continues to pick at your words, since you are redefining terms in such a way as to render them meaningless, useless or both.

[mississippichem]

Physics terms have very specific meanings that end up having implications for the mathematics. Swansont is not being picky, he is talking physics.

[divinum1]

I believe the question is whether or not you can prove that gravity doesn't have an infinite range.

 

You are challenging about three hundred years of fundamental (perhaps the most fundamental) physics. The burden of proof is on you.

 

I suggest that you take a course on plain good ole' Newtonian mechanics before trying to re-write the laws if motion. This is not meant to be insulting but genuinely helpful.

 

Show one example of where the force of gravity coming from a mass abruptly drops off to zero. Good luck

 

To prove that gravitational fields are limited, I would have to go 331,000 km. above the earth, and in that area the two gravitational fields of the earth and the moon are separated. And if I could place an apple at that distance, we would find out which way the apple would fall. And that I can not do. Although earth g-field extends up to 685,450 km. away from the earth. Both g-fields are spherical in form, with some exception on their polar ends. And just as the moon's g-field being surrounded by earth's g-field, so are they both surrounded by Sun's g-field. And that apply to every planet in the solar system.

Hence what we observe as planets orbiting about the Sun, they are in fact carried around the Sun by its own g-field who is not stationary. It rotates differentially ( by a square root of the distance).

To say that planets are orbiting around the sun, is just a simple explanation as the way we see it, but in reality it is completely different.

 

For example Jupiter's g-field extends to; 39,920,000 km. And all Jupiter's moons-satellites are orbiting around Jupiter in precise accordance of Jupiter's own orbital force (Fo) ; m x G/d (square rooted).

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

It has been pointed out that the subject of this recent discussion was broached before, so the two threads have been merged.

I will take this opportunity to remind divinum1 that the rules of the forum demand that you present evidence to support your claims. This is most easily done by addressing points of contention that have been made. If you ignore these objections, the thread will be closed.

[Dovada]

orbital force (Fo) ; m x G/d (square rooted).

Using the Sun's mass 1.98982 x 10+30 kg as (m) and earths distance from the sun 149,600,000,000 meters as (d) the formula predicts the mean earth orbital velocity of 29,804.41 meters/second for the earth, which is basically correct.

 

Failing to use m x G/d (square rooted) means having to calculate the velocity by dividing the time taken to orbit divided by the orbit distance.

 

The equation by divinum1 is very innovative and useful. What other proof do you really need, but just to work through some refinement details.

Edited November 20, 2011 by swansont
OT material deleted

[swansont]

For example: Where did the value for the second come from then, is must be in the definition of the gravitational constant (big G).

 

!

Moderator Note

You've already been warned not to bring this junk up; the original thread was closed, and introducing it here is also a thread hijack. Deleted

[superball]

HE HE HE

 

I do like everything i have been reading here.

 

With all the energy being released from this thread, I am sometimes surprised. It may not be so obvious.

 

First your seeking in terms of locality to find a given answer. The explanation for planetary orbits is my concern.

 

Grasping concepts like gravitation, can bring new discovery.

 

I understand you want answers, I understand the possibility.

 

You are doing a good job at trying to make determinations, and they also seem like they don't hold up.

 

When dealing with gravitation, my questions for you are as follows.

 

1.what is gravitation?

2. what does gravitation do?

3. why is orbital force used in place of centrifugal?

4. The very non intuitive questions are, how can you compare gravity, and orbital force?

5. Is suggestive: this is an ___________blank..

 

of course I would ask before determination. of course predictions are possible. Most importantly what is obvious..

 

 

Cheers, sinisterly<<< super- ball

[divinum1]

HE HE HE

 

I do like everything i have been reading here.

 

With all the energy being released from this thread, I am sometimes surprised. It may not be so obvious.

 

First your seeking in terms of locality to find a given answer. The explanation for planetary orbits is my concern.

 

Grasping concepts like gravitation, can bring new discovery.

 

I understand you want answers, I understand the possibility.

 

You are doing a good job at trying to make determinations, and they also seem like they don't hold up.

 

 

When dealing with gravitation, my questions for you are as follows.

 

1.what is gravitation?

2. what does gravitation do?

3. why is orbital force used in place of centrifugal?

4. The very non intuitive questions are, how can you compare gravity, and orbital force?

5. Is suggestive: this is an ___________blank..

 

of course I would ask before determination. of course predictions are possible. Most importantly what is obvious..

 

 

Cheers, sinisterly<<< super- ball

 

!. Gravitation is a natural two force system; one is orbital force, and the other is centripetal force.

2. Each force has its own action and direction in space: Centripetal force, or the g force is the one whose all actions are directed toward the center of the mass. Whereas orbital force is the one whose all actions and directions are circular in form and parallel to the equator of the mass, (earth orbital force for example acts from west to east).

3. Orbital force is not centrifugal in nature, its action however does display some centrifugal effects, but the force itself acts circular.

4. Actually gravity is part of orbital force, which represents one half of gravity, while the other half belongs to the centripetal force.

Since orbital force is all unified in its direction and action, it is therefore hundreds and even thousands of times more powerful than centripetal force which is divisional in character. Hence the orbital force is the prime mover of the universe, and for this reason, all heavenly bodies are moving-orbiting in accordance of the force being imposed upon them.

And it is always that one primary body (like Sun) that imposes its force on all bodies within its system,

and they all obey to it: which is;

 

Fo=Gm/d (square rooted), Fo=orbital velocity:

[Klaynos]

!. Gravitation is a natural two force system; one is orbital force, and the other is centripetal force.

2. Each force has its own action and direction in space: Centripetal force, or the g force is the one whose all actions are directed toward the center of the mass. Whereas orbital force is the one whose all actions and directions are circular in form and parallel to the equator of the mass, (earth orbital force for example acts from west to east).

3. Orbital force is not centrifugal in nature, its action however does display some centrifugal effects, but the force itself acts circular.

4. Actually gravity is part of orbital force, which represents one half of gravity, while the other half belongs to the centripetal force.

Since orbital force is all unified in its direction and action, it is therefore hundreds and even thousands of times more powerful than centripetal force which is divisional in character. Hence the orbital force is the prime mover of the universe, and for this reason, all heavenly bodies are moving-orbiting in accordance of the force being imposed upon them.

And it is always that one primary body (like Sun) that imposes its force on all bodies within its system,

and they all obey to it: which is;

 

Fo=Gm/d (square rooted), Fo=orbital velocity:

 

1 and 2, there's only one force, gravity. The centralpetal force is gravity in the case of orbits.

3. doesn't make sense. There is no force, what would be providing it?

4. You started off right and then vered into the incorrect, "gravity is half..." That makes no sense.

[divinum1]

1 and 2, there's only one force, gravity. The centralpetal force is gravity in the case of orbits.

3. doesn't make sense. There is no force, what would be providing it?

4. You started off right and then vered into the incorrect, "gravity is half..." That makes no sense.

 

No, gravity as a whole is composed of two forces, each of which acts independent of the other. Centripetal force is only one half of gravity, and this force acts centripetal-directly toward the center of the mass. And it has nothing to do with orbiting bodies for as long as an orbiting body is bound to the orbital force, which acts circular due to the division of space between the two forces.

The notion that gravity is just one force, is misleading everyone and everything from any further progress in astronomy and physics.

Centripetal force is the one that hold the mass together, and any object that does not comply to orbital force is then overtaken by centripetal force, and it thus comes falling down to earth. While orbital force is forcing the mass/object to stay synchronized with it. Hence Newton's law of universal gravitation does not apply as stated. Even the very first Newton's law; An object continues in a state of rest or in a state of motion at a constant speed along a straight line, is incorrect. Because an object that is at rest, is already subject to a force, and that is the reason for being at rest. And the same apply to an object that is in motion, for it is in motion because a force is already acting upon it.

I hope you can understand what I am trying to prove.

[Klaynos]

No, gravity as a whole is composed of two forces, each of which acts independent of the other. Centripetal force is only one half of gravity, and this force acts centripetal-directly toward the center of the mass. And it has nothing to do with orbiting bodies for as long as an orbiting body is bound to the orbital force, which acts circular due to the division of space between the two forces.

The notion that gravity is just one force, is misleading everyone and everything from any further progress in astronomy and physics.

Centripetal force is the one that hold the mass together, and any object that does not comply to orbital force is then overtaken by centripetal force, and it thus comes falling down to earth. While orbital force is forcing the mass/object to stay synchronized with it. Hence Newton's law of universal gravitation does not apply as stated. Even the very first Newton's law; An object continues in a state of rest or in a state of motion at a constant speed along a straight line, is incorrect. Because an object that is at rest, is already subject to a force, and that is the reason for being at rest. And the same apply to an object that is in motion, for it is in motion because a force is already acting upon it.

I hope you can understand what I am trying to prove.

 

 

You are opposing sever hundred years of observational evidence. What do you have to support this? I'm guessing nothing.

[swansont]

Even the very first Newton's law; An object continues in a state of rest or in a state of motion at a constant speed along a straight line, is incorrect. Because an object that is at rest, is already subject to a force, and that is the reason for being at rest. And the same apply to an object that is in motion, for it is in motion because a force is already acting upon it.

I hope you can understand what I am trying to prove.

 

!

Moderator Note

You've been invited to present evidence in support of this before. Forum rules demand that claims be supported with evidence. Failure to comply will result in thread closure, which will preclude you from bringing the subject up again.

 

It's put-up or shut-up time.