Gravity by I-try

[I-try]

Hoola.

Thanks for providing your idea of what you speculate to be a possible gravity mechanism. The fact that you are prepared to attempt to imagine fundamental reasons for the physical realities of gravity or gravitation is indicative of an inquiring mind.

I have carefully read your information provide by post number 24, and will make the following physic based comments that I hope in future will be provided regarding my work referred to by the use of ?.

To avoid attempting to explain a mysterious subject by invoking other mysteries, you should provide a physical definition of what you mean by entanglement. Entanglement appears to imply that there is a close and similar association between matter particles separated by distance, but does not supply the physics pertaining to that close association supposedly extant despite the distance of separation.

 

The definition of the word Spin requires explaining: do you refer to angular momentum about a central point of an entity, or does your use of the word Spin resemble the lack of definition resorted to by mainstream science when unable to explain a phenomenon.

So like ? must eventually attempt to provide basic definitions meant by the interaction between the idea of potential intrinsic energy resulting from the speed of light motion of primeval energy; also with regards to explanations of virtual matter, gravity and gravitation etceteras when referring to their essential physical connection that provides reality to matter, any attempt to provide an understanding of the mechanics of gravity must be logically comprehensive with all other associated physical phenomena pertaining to matter.

[hoola]

I try....within entanglement breaking between remote particles, there seems to be the spooky action communication mechanism....gravity seems to require a similar "apparent" instant communication at a distance between orbiting bodies. I see the similarities of both phenomena requiring an "illusory" faster than light process. How many other processes have some evidence for this feature ? Only one that I know of, and that is the "admittedly" faster than light inflationary period after the BB...I have read some of the gravitational thermal idea and admit I need to go back and re-read it as I skimmed through it. I will do so and perhaps some more relevant questions will come to mind..from what I did see, you say that a body, the comet, has a temperature change when accelerating towards the sun that is not only due to solar heating but from the gravitational potential energy between the two bodies, being converted to kinetic energy within the comet (and and equal amount within the sun also?) ....could this be because the sun is slightly "squeezing" the comet as it approaches, with gravitation stresses, and the internal friction of the moving parts is the cause of additional heat? The sun would be squeezed by the same amount, but of course the temperature change would be too small to ever measure, but in the small comet it might be. There also some reference to voyager being of a slightly different velocity than predicted and that this is attributed by you to unknown gravitational artifacts...is there an inverse cooling effect going on? I had heard that voyager was going slightly slower than expected, and was determined to be heat from it's power supply radiation altering the sattelite's trajectory. I am going to have to re-read all of that and your thermal gravity model too...

[hoola]

upon re-reading some of the first posts you made, it seems I had the voyager speed anomaly wrong. You are saying it is going faster than expected. That makes some sense to me, in that as the object has less heat energy from the sun, it has less overall energy, and accordingly, less physical mass. This would seem to allow the acceleration to be higher than expected. The power supply within the craft is keeping overall heat higher than a simple mass, and that should add craft mass slightly, causing the over speed to be slightly slower than if would be if it gave off no heat of it's own......The gravitational thermal thing seems to be slightly different than I thought. You say that the ? effect determines that gravitational heat is actually manifest in an energy form as a precursor to heat....is this anywhere near correct?..

Edited September 14, 2014 by hoola

[I-try]

Hoola regarding your post 27.

Your use of the word illusionary to describe the idea of the gravitational effect imagined to be acting faster than the speed of light is correct according to ?. The faster than light illusion results because the gravitation effect acting on the mass of a body such as the Earth, is dictated by the magnitude of parameters that are always instantly extant in the Earth’s immediate location. To further explain relative to ?, the complications involved with gravity and the gravitational effect, will require posting of the fundamental dynamic nature of that which I believe constitutes a logical foundation for physics at our level of reality. In that regard, postings to the thread The way I-try views energy, will be more relevant on that thread, and continued later on this thread.

 

With regards to gravitational squeezing of the comet orbited by the spacecraft Rosetta, and as was also invoked to explain the volcanic activity on Jupiter’s moon Io, the relative close proximity of the mass of the referred to rotating comet to the center of its gravity and changing proximity to the Sun, would render a gravitational squeezing effect practically non-existent. Presently, the comet is being compelled to constantly accelerate because the gravitation effect of the Sun's gravity field increases in strength proportional to the inverse of the square of the comet's rapidly decreasing distance from the sun. The rapid change in parameters acting on the comet strictly conform to the conservation of energy and momentum laws, and consequently because of its increasing velocity, there is a need for a precursor to ensure a conservation of momentum. According to ?, that precursor compels a constant proportional reduction of the comet's mass that undergoes a phase transition to heat energy, in conformity to the inverse of the square of the distance law. ? refers to that precursor as a Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect that is responsible for physical phenomena that are presently referred to as anomalies.

 

Thanks for your intention to reread my work and indicating that you may provide criticism.

[hoola]

The faster than light idea comes from isaac newton, who's calculations require a near instantaneous action between orbiting bodies, or the orbits will not be stable. The is the straight-line gravitation, not gravity waves, which do find a limit at C. The bending of space supposedly causes this straight-line action to "appear" instantaneous...in the mechanics of orbits this "bending" has already been accomplished and therefore the action between bodies only "appears" to be near instant. This is what I presume is accepted thinking on the subject. Do you agree? And do you think the heating of Io is not caused by the accepted explanation of gravitational interactions of jupiter and it's moon?

Edited September 15, 2014 by hoola

[I-try]

Hoola.

With regards to your posts numbers 28 and 30.

My posts that refers to acceleration in excess of that expected to have occurred due to Newtonian gravitation as Pioneer spacecraft bypassed Jupiter; also the unexpected slowing observed as its distance from the Sun increased, both were explained in detail and required by ? before the launching of Pioneer. Unfortunately for the acceptance of the information regarding physics contained in ?, I was not aware of that ability until it became Pioneer's two anomalies.

Also on post 17 I stated: On other posts, the reason why the Pioneer spacecraft received acceleration in excess of that expected from the Newtonian version of gravitation resulted because the gravity field of Jupiter is varied in proportion to its orbital velocity. The gravitational effect adjusts accordingly. I propose in ? that there is an unrecognised force referred to as Particle Force, requiring that irrespective of whether a star, a planet, a moon or an electron is the subject of investigation, macro or micro, all are subjected to particle force. In that regard, the Michael-Morley experiment had no hope of registering a positive result beside the presently accepted reason provided by the shortening of matter required by the Lorentz equation. A reason why matter undergoes a distortion in lateral and longitudinal dimensions in proportion to the magnitude of its velocity, is provided by ?.

The above do not conform to the requirements or can be explained by applying concepts derived from GR.

Presently, most information pertaining to ? have been provided in defence of ?, and to answer questions. With regards to an overall understanding of ?, I would refer all interested persons to my intention as outlined in the first paragraph of post number 29.

[I-try]

Because the gravitational interaction of two electrons is believed to be approximately in the order of 10³⁷ weaker than the electromagnetic, I therefore expected the vast difference to be stated as opposing my statement in post 21 regarding the physics involving the gravity and electric nature pertaining to a proposed cycle of an electron. Because there was no comment and to remove any lingering doubt, the following is provided. Before doing so, I would appreciate advice as to why there has been no replies to my more resent posts. Whilst I appreciate the opportunity to present an outline of ?, the lack of replies is reminiscent of my 40 + years of no comment.

 

Mainstream science appears to treat gravity and gravitation as different aspects of the same phenomena. In that regard, it is a correct belief according to ?, except for there is a total lack of knowledge of the how and the why of the relationship, and that relationship can become complicated due to changing circumstances. ? attempts an explanation by providing what appears to be a logical physical relationship as follows.

Gravity instant by instant (time relative to an electron) provides the ongoing reality of an electron as stated in post 21, and the gravitational effect indirectly results because of interference to the magnitude of gravity acting on inter-competing bodies. There are more complicated reasons why gravitation between bodies can change due to a change to velocity. Also, there is a large amount of physical phenomena required to be explained by the postulated nature of gravity being referred to.

For instance, the magnitude of the complicated parameters acting on and between an electron and a positron are critically dependent on distance of separation. At the distance of electron-proton (implying an in-bedded positron supplying the proton charge) separation in an atom, the gravitational interaction would be extremely weak. Even so, at electron-positron approach prior to physical contact, ? both explains and requires that relative to the amassed energy involving the mass of both particles, the gravitational effect would exceed the strong nuclear force operating between nucleons.

To attempt further clarification of the first statements of this post concerning the difference between two electron's gravitational effect on each-other verses their electrical effect, we can examine two electrons temporally compelled to remain at a ten centimeter proximity to each-other, and during the period involved with only one cycle of an electron. ? requires that a portion of the outgoing electric field expelled at speed C from each electron, impacts on the other whilst it is in the act of expelling electric energy, thereby resulting in a repulsion magnitude that would diminish according to the square of any increasing distance. In that regard, there is quite a lot of resulting physical phenomena such as radiation propagated perpendicular to acceleration direction; also there is the increase to kinetic energy and momentum that result and must be explainable by postulated local parameters acting on an electron.

With regards to the difference between the gravitational to electrical effect, the electrical effect travels outwards from the electron at speed C, whereas, it would take in excess of a million orbits of the Earth around the Sun for the gravitational effect of an electron during one cycle, to cause a unit of that which ? calls primary energy and located at a distance of ten centimeters, to move a distance of one millimeter towards the electron. Thereby rendering the referred to gravitational effect between two electrons separated by ten centimeter to be practically non-existent. The calculation referred to is derived by allowing the explosive ingress of half primary energy acting on an electron from one direction to be at speed C, and then the incoming speed of primary energy acting from that direction and due to increasing distance, diminishing by the square of the distance.

Relative to the statements made in this post, the ten centimeter separation of the lead spheres in the Cavendish experiment was a measurement of their gravitational effect . To the best of my knowledge, the magnitude of the total spherical gravity acting on an electron has never been attempted or measured. Despite the previous statement, the description of the gravitational effect provided above is an indication of the magnitude of gravity acting on an electron from one direction; thereby implying that an idea of the total gravity can perhaps be found by a multiplication of the speed C magnitude gravity acting on an electron from one direction, by the number of all other relevant spherical directions. The above description implies a stationary state for the electron and does not include the impact occurring at the electron's center of mass.

Those who attempt to provide a description of the fundamental dynamic nature of gravity, should be aware that to be credible, then ultimately, their idea must be physically involved with the description of all physical phenomena. The fundamental dynamic nature of gravity cannot be described in isolation from the remainder of physics.

Edited September 24, 2014 by I-try

[I-try]

I have today temporally rescued the thread Gravity by I-try from the oblivion of finally being buried under pages of posts, which because and due to a astonishing lack of interest, will be its fate. Therefore, before abandoning further attempts to gain a genuine interest, I will provide an idea of what must be achieved by any valid attempt to provide information regarding the fundamental dynamic nature of the realities proposed as a foundation for physics.

 

Phenomena to be explained.

The following list of phenomena must all be explainable without addition or change to any basic postulation that we may propose as a foundation for physics. The same restriction and requirements applies to my work on that subject.. The partial list is as follows:

 

There is the question of the nature of Energy and Mass. What constitutes the potentially sensible energy or mass of an electron and all other particles?

 

A fundamental postulation must be capable of explaining the nature of the Poincaré stresses that mathematically are deemed to be essential and thereby explain their effect on the electron.

 

There is a requirement to provide a conceptual description of and conform in minute detail with all the laws of motion. The mathematical concept is well known. By minute detail, I am referring to the answer to a question such as follows. If an unbalanced single quantum of force acted to displace the center of mass of an electron by a minimum possible distance during one instant, and thereafter no other displacing force acted; what change to the electron’s state has occurred that will ensure that the electron center of mass will every instant thereafter, be displaced twice the original distance displaced and in the direction of original displacement? All movement both uniform and accelerated must be logically explainable.

 

Because of the reality of motion, an electron in motion moves a distance relative to Time, then a definition of Time relative to an electron must be provided to give meaning to the distance and so the rate of displacement. What is the nature of Time relative to an electron and to humanity?

 

Whenever acceleration of mass is involved, and a conceptual explanation of the rate of acceleration is required; a fundamental conceptual explanation of time is absolutely required.

 

When an electron is being accelerated, there is a requirement to explain the reaction force, the inertia. Also, to provide a reason why the electron will emit intensified electrical radiation directed towards the perpendicular of its motion, and in proportion to the instant by instant imposed rate of acceleration.

 

Why is there a magnetic field associated with an electron in motion; how is it formed?

 

There are changes to the kinetic energy and presently believed total mass (total energy) resulting from acceleration to be accounted for and explained.

 

If the magnitude of an electron’s electrical charge and therefore its electrical ability depends on the quantity of its rest mass, (I believe that it does) and the total mass were to increase with acceleration, explain conservation of charge.

 

Approaching the speed of light, the distortion of a particle and the increase in relativistic mass (total energy) must be accounted for, because throughout the acceleration, the electron has also radiated intensified electrical energy towards the perpendicular to its direction of motion, and in proportion to the rate of its acceleration. Because rates of an electron’s acceleration are quantified, being due to the fact that energy is quantified, it would be impossible to accelerate an electron slowly enough to avoid directional intensified electrical radiation.

To be continued.

[swansont]

I will reiterate my previous question: How can you test your work to see if it properly explains and predicts what we observe?

 

You hinted that your ideas can't be tested. Is that the case?

 

 

I find by utilising the nominal electron radius provided by the Feynman lectures on Physics, that the maximum possible rate at which an electron could oscillate would be 5.319 x 10²² (53,191,489,361,702,127,659,374) cycles per second. The speed of light divided by the nominal electron radius, and further divided by two because there are two “time” related parts to the electron’s cycle. A reason as to why the actual frequency would be below the stated maximum is provided by the referred to work.

 

 

The classical electron radius is just a value of convenience, and has nothing to do with any physical property of an electron.

 

With regards to the curvature of light and the gravitational ability of a photon; a photon travelling past an electron will undergo a curvature of its path in conformity to a inverse of square of the distance law; which in regards to the gravitational effect of an electron on a photon, is of much greater magnitude than the Newtonian law pertaining to the gravitational interaction between bulk bodies. I find that a photon has no ability to create a gravitational effect.

 

 

This means your idea is NOT consistent with GR, as you had indicated. In GR, energy is included as something that causes curvature.

 

Why is there a magnetic field associated with an electron in motion; how is it formed?

 

A magnetic field is what you get when you look at an electric field in a moving frame. It's a property of those fields.

[I-try]

Continued from post 33.

 

The equal energy but opposite nature of the negatron and positron (as evidenced by equal rest mass and by equal but opposite magnetic response) must be included in and conform to all other explanations.

 

The reason as to why opposites attract and like repel has to be indicated. It would be highly unlikely that Positrons would have any differences among themselves, then and because they repel each other, they would each be surrounded by a similar, equally repulsive force field, thereby indicating mutual repulsion. Naturally occurring negatrons would also be surrounded by their own type of force field for the same reason and result. Force acts on force and force (resulting from impacting energy) reacts against force.

 

When an electron is undergoing rectilinear acceleration, there is a need to provide a conceptual reason for the change from the allover equal magnitude of the spherically radial, for a relatively stationary electron’s electrical ability, to a proportional intensification of that ability towards all directions perpendicular to an electron’s direction of motion. Does an electron radiate when undergoing orbital acceleration? The idea of P E provides information indicating that an electron would not radiate when in an unchanging orbital situation.

 

There is a need to explain why an electron will and must radiate other than electrically, and in proportion to its rate of alternating near approach and retreat to and from other matter.

 

Provide a fundamental and logical reason why photons are compelled to obey the dictates of gravitation?

 

The inverse of the square of the distance law must be included in any explanation of fields.

 

When the electromagnetic and gravitational nature is added to the above, then some legitimacy is due to any idea if thereby, all of the above and more such as reasons for phase changing of state appear to be inclusively and conceptually explainable.

Edited October 26, 2014 by I-try

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

ICYMI: How can you test your work to see if it properly explains and predicts what we observe?

 

Speculations forum rules dictate that you must address this. Do so, or the thread will be closed.

 

[I-try]

Swansont.

 

!

 

In answer to your request and subsequent statement in smaller print: I have previously come to the conclusion that it would be futile to continue attempting to generate interest in ?, and therefore no hope on this forum of an evaluation regarding the possibility of the physical reality of that I refer to as The Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect. That conclusion resulted from the tone of responses (I am referred to as arrogant etcetera) to my posts, and total lack of responses to posts 12, 14,15,16, 17, 19, 21 and 24. Statements made in those posts included an outline of the mechanism of gravity and gravitation without the inclusion of some vital information that would have been provided if requested by questions indicating a genuine interest. The total lack of questions on the information contained in those posts eloquently indicated the futility of continuing further. Since then, I have been engaged in defensively answering questions and statements designed to indicate my stupidity.

 

 

With regards to the lack of interested response and charges of arrogance etceteras; I did not come to this forum intending to pit my knowledge of physics against that of any other member of this forum. With regards to the practical application of physics in a commercial manner, I have no ability in that regard. Even so, my work has concentrated on the how and the why of the realities on which our physics is based, and in that regard, mainstream science concepts appear to be leading to expensive activity and brain power loss attempting to detect the non-existent such as constantly reoccurring gravitational induced waves. It was my hope that a better understanding of gravity would prevent such loss, and the human effort and scarce finances be perhaps directed in other directions such as health and welfare.

 

With regards to your request to provide an example of how I could test my work, then if ? had been accepted, there would have been no need for the expensive and the large amount of brain power that went into detecting whether the mass of the Earth did actually warp the space around it.

 

I have provided in recent posts, a much abbreviated list of what ? indicates is required of any concept attempting to explain the fundamental dynamic nature underlying physics. .

 

To better comply with your request, I would suggest the following answer in the form of a question. Can mainstream science supply the detailed physical reason (including a description of the apparent rapidly changing of parameters) as to why a rotating Earth whilst orbiting the Sun, does not cause uninhabitable conditions on Earth. In other words, why is the rotating Earth able to maintain such stability whilst undergoing constant gravitational induced changes of velocity and angular momentum resulting from its orbit of the Sun. In that regard, ? supplies what I believe to be an automatic and logical answer.

 

Rotation of the Earth implies 12 hour changes in angular momentum of large landmass and oceans relative to its velocity and that of the Sun. So like gravity and gravitation are physical phenomena, the posed question has a physical explanation.

 

With regards to worth or otherwise; the gravitational thermodynamic effect suggested by ?, has to be capable of explaining all physical phenomena known and unknown, that pertains to the generation of heat energy.

 

.

 

 

!

[swansont]

 

To better comply with your request, I would suggest the following answer in the form of a question. Can mainstream science supply the detailed physical reason (including a description of the apparent rapidly changing of parameters) as to why a rotating Earth whilst orbiting the Sun, does not cause uninhabitable conditions on Earth. In other words, why is the rotating Earth able to maintain such stability whilst undergoing constant gravitational induced changes of velocity and angular momentum resulting from its orbit of the Sun. In that regard, ? supplies what I believe to be an automatic and logical answer.

 

Rotation of the Earth implies 12 hour changes in angular momentum of large landmass and oceans relative to its velocity and that of the Sun. So like gravity and gravitation are physical phenomena, the posed question has a physical explanation.

 

With regards to worth or otherwise; the gravitational thermodynamic effect suggested by ?, has to be capable of explaining all physical phenomena known and unknown, that pertains to the generation of heat energy.

 

 

Um, no. The angular momentum of the earth is basically constant; while there are small torques which transfer angular momentum these are relatively small and can be ignored in a first-order analysis of what's going on. Changes in velocity are fully consistent with gravity, constant angular momentum, and other first-semester physics. You appear to be chasing an answer to a problem that does not actually exist.

 

If you do not have a model that makes predictions or can otherwise be compared with existing evidence, then the discussion has no place here.

[I-try]

Swansont.

Your answer to the question posed in post number 37 is only a description of reality, of that which we so obviously observe.

The orbital speed of the Earth is approximately 30 km/s and relative to the Earth direction of orbital motion, two given points at the equator and 180 degrees apart on the surface of the Earth, exchange positions every 12 hours. The question asked is under those conditions, what physical phenomena enables the Earth to maintain such stability(question mark)

 

The answer to that question explains why SR is so accurate, and why space vehicles receive slight extra acceleration than that expected from Newtonian gravitation, whilst bypassing close behind the direction of motion of a planet or the Sun.

 

If NASA or the European Space Agency were to send a probe to pass close in front of the direction of motion of a planet, it would experience less acceleration than that expected to result from Newtonian gravitation, after deductions are made to account for the approach of the planet to the space-vehicle.

[Strange]

 

The question asked is under those conditions, what physical phenomena enables the Earth to maintain such stability

 

What sort of instability do you think this would cause?

[swansont]

Swansont.

Your answer to the question posed in post number 37 is only a description of reality, of that which we so obviously observe.

The orbital speed of the Earth is approximately 30 km/s and relative to the Earth direction of orbital motion, two given points at the equator and 180 degrees apart on the surface of the Earth, exchange positions every 12 hours. The question asked is under those conditions, what physical phenomena enables the Earth to maintain such stability(question mark)

I guess I don't understand the question, because it's all consistent with mainstream physics of rotating bodies and Newtonian gravity. To echo Strange — why wouldn't it be stable? Angular momentum is conserved.

 

 

 

The answer to that question explains why SR is so accurate, and why space vehicles receive slight extra acceleration than that expected from Newtonian gravitation, whilst bypassing close behind the direction of motion of a planet or the Sun.

 

If NASA or the European Space Agency were to send a probe to pass close in front of the direction of motion of a planet, it would experience less acceleration than that expected to result from Newtonian gravitation, after deductions are made to account for the approach of the planet to the space-vehicle.

[I-try]

Swansont.

 

I am in complete agreement with you regarding the conservation of momentum, and with the obvious stability of the rotating Earth whilst describing its orbit of the Sun. However, and unlike the centuries of interest generated by an attempt to understand gravitation, conservation of momentum has mainly been applied and demanded when particles or bodies of matter collide. Apart from the last statement, mainstream science appears to have little interest in that phenomenon being strictly applied during the Earth's orbit of the Sun etcetera.

 

The question regarding the conservation of momentum, so like gravitation, is in the how and the why.

 

On previous posts, the mechanics of gravity and gravitation were posted without even an expression of a yawn from any member of this forum; as was the reason for the excess acceleration of Pioneer whilst bypassing Jupiter. The reason provided for the Pioneer anomaly, supplies a part of the answer for the posed question presently referred to.

 

To enable the obvious stability of the Earth, the conservation of energy and of momentum must be conserved instant by instant, despite any acceleration of the Earth that is induced by gravitation.

[Strange]

However, and unlike the centuries of interest generated by an attempt to understand gravitation, conservation of momentum has mainly been applied and demanded when particles or bodies of matter collide.

 

Conservation of momentum is also very relevant to a single body.

 

Apart from the last statement, mainstream science appears to have little interest in that phenomenon being strictly applied during the Earth's orbit of the Sun etcetera.

 

When you say "that phenomenon", do you mean conservation of momentum? If so, then that is applied during the Earth's orbit of the Sun. Can you explain why you think it is not?

 

The question regarding the conservation of momentum, so like gravitation, is in the how and the why.

 

All conservation laws are the results of symmetries. In the case of angular momentum, it is a consequence of space being isotropic; i.e. the laws of physics are the same in all directions. The maths of this is over my head, so don't ask me to explain it!

 

To enable the obvious stability of the Earth

 

You have not explained why, or in what way, you think the Earth would not be stable.

 

the conservation of energy and of momentum must be conserved instant by instant

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "conserved instant by instant". Conservation laws are always true, so of course they are true at every instant. So I assume you mean something else. Could you try to explain it more clearly?

[swansont]

Swansont.

 

I am in complete agreement with you regarding the conservation of momentum, and with the obvious stability of the rotating Earth whilst describing its orbit of the Sun. However, and unlike the centuries of interest generated by an attempt to understand gravitation, conservation of momentum has mainly been applied and demanded when particles or bodies of matter collide. Apart from the last statement, mainstream science appears to have little interest in that phenomenon being strictly applied during the Earth's orbit of the Sun etcetera.

Wait, what? People haven't been interested in the orbits of planets (especially the earth)around the sun? Perhaps you need a history refresher.

 

The question regarding the conservation of momentum, so like gravitation, is in the how and the why.

Those are questions of metaphysics. If you want to make them into science questions, you need something that is testable and falsifiable. Which is the motivation for my previous questions about this.

 

On previous posts, the mechanics of gravity and gravitation were posted without even an expression of a yawn from any member of this forum; as was the reason for the excess acceleration of Pioneer whilst bypassing Jupiter. The reason provided for the Pioneer anomaly, supplies a part of the answer for the posed question presently referred to.

 

To enable the obvious stability of the Earth, the conservation of energy and of momentum must be conserved instant by instant, despite any acceleration of the Earth that is induced by gravitation.

I, too, fail to understand what you mean by "instant by instant". The gravitational interaction of the sun and earth violates neither conservation of energy nor conservation of angular momentum.

[I-try]

Strange.

 

Your statement: When you say "that phenomenon", do you mean conservation of momentum? If so, then that is applied during the Earth's orbit of the Sun. Can you explain why you think it is not?

 

Answer.

You would be an incompetent reader if you did not know that the conservation of momentum was being referred to.

I will adopt one of your tactics by giving the following answer to your question: Yes it is. But not being you, I will supply the correct and more full answer and that is; Mainstream science only states that conservation of momentum is conceived when the Earth returns to any particular point in its orbit.

 

Your statement: I'm not sure what you mean by "conserved instant by instant". Conservation laws are always true, so of course they are true at every instant. So I assume you mean something else. Could you try to explain it more clearly?

 

Answer.

If you had bothered to have read my posts so contemptuously ignored and not responded to, you would not have need to ask that question. ? requires that the magnitude of a particle or a body of matter's momentum remains unchanged, and in strict conformity to the changes enforced by changing local parameters occurring during Earth's orbit. And why you wont understand the reasons is because when gravitation is not involved, momentum is found by the equation mass times velocity. (We have been there before haven't we and I have not received an answer to my challenge to you.) Gravitation is most certainly involved every instant during the Earth's orbit, and there are constant slight changes to its velocity.

 

Strange. You haven't answered any of my question to you, and you certainly are not interested in promoting an understanding of ?. Your questions are only probes in an attempt to find reason to ridicule. Therefore, I will no longer answer your questions not related to an understanding of ?.

My question to Swansont was required by his moderators notice with regards of supplying an answer and indication of possible proof. ? answer to that question is only an indication of its ability to point to and supply an answer to such phenomena as the reason, the how and the why of inertia, momentum, uniform and accelerated motion, and assorted kindred subjects. The gravitational thermodynamic effect is one of the most important.

[Strange]

You would be an incompetent reader if you did not know that the conservation of momentum was being referred to.

 

Because of the contextual deixis, I simply wanted to check that I had properly understood the reference of the anaphor. Just to avoid any possible confusion.

 

Mainstream science only states that conservation of momentum is conceived when the Earth returns to any particular point in its orbit.

 

Where did you get that idea from? Conservation of momentum (or angular momentum) is always conserved. So no one is going to disagree with your "instant by instant" statement.

 

Strange. You haven't answered any of my question to you

 

Well, strictly speaking, this is a venue for you to present and explain your theory. However, the reason we are having this discussion now is because you asked what physics said about the stability of the Earth's orbit. As there is no reason to think it should be unstable, I am just trying to understand what the question really means in order to attempt an answer.

 

Your questions are only probes in an attempt to find reason to ridicule.

 

I have no idea why you should think that. My questions are only intended to clarify and understand what you are saying.

[I-try]

Swansont.

 

Posted Today, 08:26 PM

I-try, on 29 Oct 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

Swansont.

I am in complete agreement with you regarding the conservation of momentum, and with the obvious stability of the rotating Earth whilst describing its orbit of the Sun. However, and unlike the centuries of interest generated by an attempt to understand gravitation, conservation of momentum has mainly been applied and demanded when particles or bodies of matter collide. Apart from the last statement, mainstream science appears to have little interest in that phenomenon being strictly applied during the Earth's orbit of the Sun etcetera.

 

Wait, what? People haven't been interested in the orbits of planets (especially the earth)around the sun? Perhaps you need a history refresher.

 

My answer.

Perhaps I do , every body can benefit from a refresher. Even so, mainstream science should supply the reason for an increase in momentum when the Earth's velocity increases (momentum = mass times velocity) when the Earth approaches the Sun. It is not logical to state that the required energy that results in an increase in momentum is derived from gravitation, because according to ?, and Einstein's correct statement, gravitation is not a force. The conservation of momentum is required to conform to the strict requirements of the conservation of energy. ? requires that the magnitude of the Earth's momentum does not change with an increase in velocity, thereby requiring a change to the mass of the Earth. With regards to proof, it is not possible to perform an experiment in any frame of reference, because all parameters remain I strict compliance to each other and to local physical conditions. That is the reason why SR is so accurate. In that regard, I will be intensely interested in the findings hopefully to result from the spacecraft Rosetta orbiting of the comet now approaching the vicinity of the Sun.

 

 

I-try, on 29 Oct 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

On previous posts, the mechanics of gravity and gravitation were posted without even an expression of a yawn from any member of this forum; as was the reason for the excess acceleration of Pioneer whilst bypassing Jupiter. The reason provided for the Pioneer anomaly, supplies a part of the answer for the posed question presently referred to.

To enable the obvious stability of the Earth, the conservation of energy and of momentum must be conserved instant by instant, despite any acceleration of the Earth that is induced by gravitation.

 

I, too, fail to understand what you mean by "instant by instant". The gravitational interaction of the sun and earth violates neither conservation of energy nor conservation of angular momentum.

 

My answer.

By instant by instant I mean that the instant one parameter changes, all other parameters instantaneously change proportionally. And yes, I agree that; The gravitational interaction of the sun and earth violates neither conservation of energy nor conservation of angular momentum

[swansont]

In Newtonian physics, gravity is a force. There's nothing going on here that I have seen that suggest relativity needs to be invoked, especially in a manner so trivial as saying since gravity is not a force, therefore momentum is not conserved.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

i-try,

Your refusal to post models and give some sort of evidence means that this thread is closed. You are not permitted to reintroduce the topic.

When you are quoting other members, please try and use the quote function. It's clunky, but it is much preferred over to the way you are posting. Please also remove the condescending tone from your posts.