Velocity as the component to understand the gravity

[Strange]

The magnitude of the sun's gravitational acceleration on Earth is 178 times bigger than the magnitude of the moon's gravitational acceleration on Earth therefor if we do not take into account the earth 's velocity acceleration, the sun will be the major influence on the Earth 's tides and not the moon.

 

Not if you work out the tidal forces correctly.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Strange

[swansont]

 

We all agree that the tides due to the gravitational acceleration of the celestial body and on earth the moon is a major influence on the Earth 's tides.

 

Because the moon orbits and the earth, the magnitude of the moon 's gravity acceleration on Earth depends only on moon 's gravitational acceleration GM/r² and not the moon’s velocity acceleration v²/r.

 

On the other hand the earth orbits the sun and the sun 's gravitational acceleration on earth besides depend on the magnitude of the sun 's gravitational acceleration GM/r² also depend on the earth’s velocity acceleration v²/r.

 

 

Data :

 

Moon Mass (Kg) : 7.3477E+22

Average Distance (meters) : 384,000,000

 

Sun Mass (Kg) : 1.9891E+30

Gravitational Constant : 6.67428E-11

Average Distance (meters) : 149,600,000,000

Average Velocity (Meters/sec) : 29,780

 

Sun’s gravity on the earth :

GM/r² = 0.0059319550656

V²/r = 0.0059281310160

 

Moon’s gravity on the earth :

GM/r² = 0.0000332577902

 

The magnitude of the sun's gravitational acceleration on Earth is 178 times bigger than the magnitude of the moon's gravitational acceleration on Earth therefor if we do not take into account the earth 's velocity acceleration, the sun will be the major influence on the Earth 's tides and not the moon.

 

 

Tides are a differential effect and thus do not vary as 1/r². They vary as 1/r³. That's why the moon has a larger tidal influence - it's a lot closer than the sun.

 

You have to understand the basic physics if you hope to replace it. Thus far your batting average is hovering near .000

 

—————

 

 

How do orbits work if we have Newtonian gravity AND this velocity effect giving us the total gravitational effect? Can you reconcile that?

[Strange]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tide.html#mstid

 

That was supposed to be in my previous post. It answers the question: Why is the moon the dominant tidal influence? (but swansont has already answered that.)

Edited May 20, 2015 by Strange

[sas]

 

 

 

How do orbits work if we have Newtonian gravity AND this velocity effect giving us the total gravitational effect? Can you reconcile that?

 

Orbit is the interaction between gravitational acceleration and velocity acceleration and their directions form the a new single direction that we call as an orbit. When this happen the magnitude of sun’s gravitational acceleration effect on earth reduced by the magnitude of earth’s velocity acceleration. In the context of tide on earth, after reducing it now the moon’s gravitational acceleration is more dominant than the sun’s gravitational acceleration.

[Mordred]

It might be helpful to look at the definition of velocity as opposed to acceleration.

 

 

 

Once you've done that then look at Newtons three laws of inertia.

 

 

 

[latex]a=\frac{dv}{dt}[/latex]

 

acceleration is defined as the derivative of velocity with respect to time.

 

Velocity is essentially speed and direction.

 

Newtons three laws of inertia.

 

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

 

 

II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector

 

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

 

now here is an important distinction

This is why your term velocity acceleration is incorrect.

 

 

If there is a change in speed, direction, or both, then the object has a changing velocity and is undergoing an acceleration.

 

now think about that last bit in terms of Newtons laws. When you've done that look at what makes a stable orbit.

 

Your close but your wording is incorrect.

 

Here is a hint Newtons cannonball

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball

Edited May 21, 2015 by Mordred

[swansont]

 

Orbit is the interaction between gravitational acceleration and velocity acceleration and their directions form the a new single direction that we call as an orbit. When this happen the magnitude of sun’s gravitational acceleration effect on earth reduced by the magnitude of earth’s velocity acceleration. In the context of tide on earth, after reducing it now the moon’s gravitational acceleration is more dominant than the sun’s gravitational acceleration.

 

Reiterating you claim doesn't answer the question. A circular orbit is consistent with F = GMm/r² = mv²/r

 

But you now have an additional force, and something's gotta give. Are all of our masses wrong? How does this jibe with the Cavendish experiment, which confirmed Newtonian gravity at rest? How do we successfully do things like launch probes that land on comets and go to the moon, if our model of gravity is wrong? Why does gravitational time dilation equation work for objects at rest on the earth's surface, AND for moving objects, if there is this correction to gravity for moving objects?

 

That's what you have to work through, for a start. All of those things conflict with your idea, and you own the burden of showing your idea works for all of those cases.

 

Moon tides are stronger than sun tides already, within the current paradigm. There was nothing that needed fixing. Can you reconcile an even weaker solar effect with the measured size of tides?

[sas]

Mainstream Theories :

1. Inertia : Newton’s first law of motion.

 

2. Inertia frame of reference :

Earth’s rotation centripetal acceleration, earth’s orbital centripetal acceleration and sun’s orbital centripetal acceleration considered as barriers to measure a point of space on the surface of planet earth to be referred as a good inertia frame of reference.

Earth’s gravitational acceleration, friction and air resistance also give another barrier to apply the newton’s first law of motion.

 

3. Weight/mass

By definition “mass is a property of a physical body which determines the strength of its mutual gravitational attraction to other bodies, its resistance to being accelerated by a force, and in the theory of relativity gives the mass–energy content of a system. The SI unit of mass is the kilogram (kg).”

“There are at least seven different aspects of mass, or seven physical notions that involve the concept of mass.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

“In a simple case such as an object resting upon a table, the normal force on the object is equal but in opposite direction to the gravitational force applied on the object (or the weight of the object), that is, N = mg, where m is mass, and g is the gravitational field strength (about 9.81 m/s2 on Earth).”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_force

In other words normal force eliminates the earth’s gravitational acceleration on every object on the surface of planet earth.

Mass can be measured using scale.

 

“In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity. Weight is a vector whose magnitude (a scalar quantity), often denoted by an italic letter W, is the product of the mass m of the object and the magnitude of the local gravitational acceleration g; thus: W = mg.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight

 

4. Free Fall and micro gravity or zero g-force

The words “free fall” used as magic words to explain everything.

“In Newtonian physics, free fall is any motion of a body where its weight is the only force acting upon it.”

Weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity.

In the statement above stated that there is gravity acting upon the body and now in the explanation below the gravity is gone.

“In a uniform gravitational field, in the absence of any other forces, gravitation acts on each part of the body equally and this is weightlessness, a condition that also occurs when the gravitational field is zero (such as when far away from any gravitating body). A body in free fall experiences "0 g".”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall

 

“Weightlessness, or an absence of 'weight', is an absence of stress and strain resulting from externally applied mechanical contact-forces, typically normal forces from floors, seats, beds, scales, and the like. Counterintuitively, a uniform gravitational field does not by itself cause stress or strain, and a body in free fall in such an environment experiences no g-force acceleration and feels weightless. This is also termed "zero-g" where the term is most correctly understood as meaning "zero g-force."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlessness

 

 

 

Me :

1. Inertia : Newton’s first law Of motion

 

2. Inertia frame of reference

Agree with the inertia frame of reference with addition as follows.

By ignoring the air resistance and friction newton’s first law can be applied inside the ISS orbiting the earth.

ISS is considered as a good inertia frame of reference because ISS’s orbital velocity acceleration eliminates the earth’s gravitational acceleration so that the earth’s gravitational acceleration on the ISS which was 8.70 m/sec² has become zero or close to zero (micro gravity).

 

There is an expression:

ISS and astronauts are moving (have orbital velocity) but are not moving (earth’s gravitational acceleration yang seharusnya 8.70 m/sec² karena adanya velocity acceleration telah menjadi zero or close to zero) on the other hand objects at rest on the surface of planet earth are not moving (do not have orbital velocity) but are moving (they experience earth’s gravitational acceleration on average is 9.79 m/sec²).

The conclusion is being at rest inside the ISS and being at rest on the surface of planet earth is completely different environment.

 

3. Weight/mass

By definition mass is the amount of matter in an object and can be measured by its resistance to being accelerated by a force.

There is one only aspect of mass that is a mass is a mass.

There is no normal force which eliminates the earth’s gravitational acceleration on every object on the surface of planet earth.

Being stationary on the surface of the earth is the same condition as falling through an atmosphere without a deployed parachute. If an object is at rest there is a solid object underneath this object. If an object is falling through an atmosphere there is fluid object underneath the object.

The formula for mass is m=w/g

 

Weight can be measured using scale.

In the absence of gravitational acceleration or in the condition of micro gravity or zero g, weight can measured using the SLAMMD (Space Linear Acceleration Mass Measurement Device)

“The SLAMMD (Space Linear Acceleration Mass Measurement Device) was installed in the HRF-1 rack during Expedition 11. SLAMMD measures the on-orbit mass of crewmembers by applying Newton's Second Law of Motion (force is equal to mass times acceleration).”

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/640.html

Though according Nasa SLAMMD used as a tool to measure the mass but actually this device to measure weight of astronauts who are in the ISS.

 

4. Free Fall and micro gravity or zero g-force.

Free fall is any motion of a body or a body at rest where its weight is the only force acting upon it.

Zero g-force or micro gravity or weightlessness is a condition experienced by the object which the object’s velocity acceleration eliminates the massive object’s gravitational acceleration.

Edited May 22, 2015 by sas

[Mordred]

Sorry but you aren't applying action reaction in objects on a surface, you also are not staying any distinction as to when GR is more accurate than Newtonian Euclidean geometry.

 

Here is a major point to realize The equivalence principle is extremely well tested, so is time dilation. Unless you can mathematically and by experiments prove either GR or Newtonian physics as being inaccurate compared to your model your not going to convince anyone

 

 

In point of detail your posts thus far indicate areas where your understanding of the current models fall short.

 

Here is a good article covering GR and free Fall. Though it may be a bit technical.

 

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

 

free fall is in the earlier chapters.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

sas,

 

If you have no model and no evidence then I am afraid that this thread will be closed. Please go back and read up on the basics and review your thoughts on the matters you are discussing before posting again.

[sas]

!

Moderator Note

sas,

 

If you have no model and no evidence then I am afraid that this thread will be closed. Please go back and read up on the basics and review your thoughts on the matters you are discussing before posting again.

 

In my essay, I did calculations to calculate the angle of deflation when the light across the surface of the sun by using my own principle that is velocity acceleration with the same results as Albert Einstein did calculations under relativity 1.75 arcseconds.

 

I also did calculations to calculate the time dilation for GPS Satellite orbiting the earth compared to clock stationary on earth using my own principle with the same results when people do calculations under relativity 38 microseconds.

 

Just me and Albert Einstein who can calculate the bending of light and time dilation using velocity acceleration principle and relativity theory and when Albert Einstein and all people around the world claim they are evidences of the general and special relativity, why my own principle do not get the same treatment ?

 

I stated that the bending of light and the time dilation are not enough to prove that my understanding of gravity is correct though I can do the calculations, therefore I need another evidence and I have already told how to defy the gravity and I hope someday somebody who can experiment to prove it.

 

Am I wrong? please provide me insight how I should fix it. Thanks

[swansont]

In my essay, I did calculations to calculate the angle of deflation when the light across the surface of the sun by using my own principle that is velocity acceleration with the same results as Albert Einstein did calculations under relativity 1.75 arcseconds.

 

I also did calculations to calculate the time dilation for GPS Satellite orbiting the earth compared to clock stationary on earth using my own principle with the same results when people do calculations under relativity 38 microseconds.

 

Just me and Albert Einstein who can calculate the bending of light and time dilation using velocity acceleration principle and relativity theory and when Albert Einstein and all people around the world claim they are evidences of the general and special relativity, why my own principle do not get the same treatment ?

 

I stated that the bending of light and the time dilation are not enough to prove that my understanding of gravity is correct though I can do the calculations, therefore I need another evidence and I have already told how to defy the gravity and I hope someday somebody who can experiment to prove it.

 

Getting the same answer as relativity does not support your theory, since you have done nothing to show that your theory should be preferred over relativity.

 

Besides, your calculation is bogus. There's no physical basis for your equations.

 

You have also made predictions that are completely unsupported by experiments

 

Am I wrong? please provide me insight how I should fix it. Thanks

Yes, you are wrong. You can't fix it.

[sas]

 

 

You have also made predictions that are completely unsupported by experiments

 

Yes, you are wrong. You can't fix it.

 

if ever there was one who spin the donut shape object at the velocity of 8.371 meters per second?

 

I'm done here, thank you.

[hypervalent_iodine]

I'm done here, thank you.

!

Moderator Note

Thread closed, then.