Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: leibniz inverse cube law centifugal is wrong

  1. #1 leibniz inverse cube law centifugal is wrong 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    http://wapedia.mobi/en/History_of_ce...ripetal_forces

    Gottfried Leibniz as part of his "solar vortex theory" conceived of centrifugal force as a real outward force which is induced by the circulation of the body upon which the force acts. An inverse cube law centrifugal force appears in an equation representing planetary orbits, including non-circular ones, as Leibniz described in his 1689 Tentamen de motuum coelestium causis. [4] Leibniz's equation is still used today to solve planetary orbital problems, although his solar vortex theory is no longer used as its basis. [5]

    Leibniz produced an equation for planetary orbits in which the centrifugal force appeared as an outward inverse cube law force in the radial direction: [6]



    notice the inverse cube law for centrifugal force is wrong:

    imagine an ellipse of minimun raidus one and maximus radius 2 with the sun in a focus

    imagine center of arc when the planets is closest is the sun, but the center of arc when thet planet is farther is the oposite focus to the sun

    therefore if you calculate centrifugal force of a curve with a wrong center youll have a wrong centrifugal force

    therefore cubic rule for centrifugal force is wrong

    how much is this wrong rule used today to claculate orbits?

    i know he did it wrong cause i did myself the same mistake but realized later of it

    centripetal force with this method happens to divide by four as you double the radius

    so centrifugal force supposing true conservation of angular momentum in an ellipse(taking into account the right center of the curve) obbeys not an inverse cube law but an inverse square law


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    297
    The centrifugal force does not exist, so my advice is not to use it.

    If you must use it (if you're using a non-inertial reference frame for some reason), and use it right, there shouldn't be a problem.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    yes m*w*w*r

    but radius refers to the center of curvature not an arbitrarily taken center in the sun

    is like if you have an ellispse shape circuit and in both extremes of the ellipse you calculate g forces pilots will feel with respect an identical center for both when obviously both centers of curvature are different

    i dont know much physics but i obtained the inverse cube law for centrifugal force myself

    i made the mistake of using both centers of curvature in the same place with which and inverse cube law is obtained

    this is wrong, if you use the right centers of curvature you find an inverse sqaure law

    so if science today is calculating orbits balancing an inverse square and cubic law they just can get it all wrong

    and it really makes me think are they building the lhc to explain why orbits are not as expected based on a false premise even a child would understand(that to look for a centrifugal-centripetal-g force you dont take an arbitrary center but the real center of curvature of the curve) playing with the fear of everybody?

    hell no wonder im paranoid and hate authority on science
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Where do you get that the orbits aren't where we expect them to be, or that the LHC has anything to do with that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm

    so if science today is calculating orbits balancing an inverse square and cubic law they just can get it all wrong
    Orbital mechanics is derived from the inverse square law of Newtonian gravity.

    Newton developed that law and calculus, in order to explain Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

    The theory works just find, thank you very much. Nothing is all wrong. The planets are just where we expect them to be. Satellites are launched into precisely determined orbits. Nothingis falling down.

    It is you who are getting it all wrong.

    No cubic laws around here. Where did you get that one ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    janus explained me the inverse cube law of centrifugal force and the inverse square law of gravity interact explaining orbits

    i can prove centrifugal force for an ellipse assuming conservation of momentum obeys an inverse square law not a cubic one, as simple as taking into account center of curvature of an ellipse for each extremes are symetrical,they arenot a single point for both as leibniz assumed

    from this i can only suppose the ancients were right and the sky is just a wall dome clock the gods put
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,067
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    janus explained me the inverse cube law of centrifugal force and the inverse square law of gravity interact explaining orbits
    For circular orbits. This is the only case where that type of analysis works.

    i can prove centrifugal force for an ellipse assuming conservation of momentum obeys an inverse square law not a cubic one, as simple as taking into account center of curvature of an ellipse for each extremes are symetrical,they arenot a single point for both as leibniz assumed
    It makes no sense to analyze elliptical orbits in terms or centrifugal force.

    from this i can only suppose the ancients were right and the sky is just a wall dome clock the gods put
    No, once again, you can only assume that you do not fully understand the physics of the situation.

    There is nothing wrong with our understanding of orbital mechanics. It was certainly good enough to put Voyager 2 on a purely ballistic trajectory that allowed it to do flybys of 4 planets with high precision.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    so is it accepted by science that inverse cube law is not valid for centrifugal-centripetal-g forces?

    im not sure wetaher is known by science this leibniz mistake

    i caught it cause i did exact the same mistake than him but caught it later
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    is not my intend to attack you janus but to get rid off my paranoia that the world is satged

    in this thread you said:

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/i-thi...ng:-19894t.php

    If you want to think of elliptical orbits in terms of gravity and centrifugal force it can be done this way.

    Starting with the orbit at apo, its orbital velocity will be such that centrifugal force will be less than gravity. The object therefore falls inward. as it does so, its speed increases and centrifugal force goes up. Eventually it will reach a point where centrifugal force and gravity are equal. But at this point the object's momentum is still carrying it inward, it continues to fall. As it does so centrifugal force increases. Finally the braking effect of the centrifugal stops the fall inward. But by this point the centrifugal force is stronger than gravity, so the object starts climbing back out again. It passes the point where the two forces equal and overshoots it again, this time going outward. It doesn't stop its outward climb until it reaches the original apo distance again. It will have traveled a 360 circuit, will be moving at the same speed as it was when it started and ready to repeat the process all over again.


    so as i see it science says elliptical orbits are explained in the fact leibniz inverse cube law for centrifugal force and newtons inverse sqaure law for gravity interact, notice i didnt say balance, exaplaining orbits behaviour

    now tell me this thing is not as to lead you paranoid as this statement is wrong since centrifugal force for ellipses doesnt obbey a cubic law but a square one

    and see the problem both gravity and centrifugal vary exactly the same with which ellipse orbits are imposible

    again is the sky we see just a dome and real celestial bodies beahviour cant be explained as cant be explained free will

    and also janus i dont believe you made that up, it fits so well its gotta be mainstream explanation which leads me paranoid even farther
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •