Notices
Results 1 to 40 of 40

Thread: Radii of gravitational fields

  1. #1 Radii of gravitational fields 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    36
    Gravitational fields of all masses are divided and subdivided between themselves in accordance of their orbital forces. Hence gravitational fields do not extend into infinity as is presently being perceived. Instead they are all limited and divided; as for example;

    Gr=(d/Fo1)xFo2)/2 . Where d= distance between the two bodies, Fo1 and Fo2 are their respective orbital forces.

    Earth gravitational (field) radius is directly proportional to Sun's orbital force denoted as Fo1. while Earth orbital force denoted as Fo2 .
    Sun's Fo=436,203m/s, Earth's Fo=7,910m/s, and distance = 1.50x1011 m. approx. Hence
    Earth Gr= (1.50x1011m./436,203m.)x7,910m.)/2 = 1.36x109 m.
    Hence earth gravitational field is like a tiny bubble within a huge Sun's gravitational bubble.
    Gravitational field of the Moon is: Gr=(3.84x108m./7,910m.)x1677m.)/2 =4,07x107 m.
    Thus gravitational field of the Moon is also like a small bubble within a bigger bubble. And so are all the heavenly bodies throughout the universe divided between themselves.
    Therefore the further the masses are separated from one another, the greater their gravitational fields are:
    as for example all the planets in the solar system;
    Mercury = 200,960 km.
    Venus....= 909,000 km.
    Earth.... = 1.360,000 km.
    Mars..... = 928,940 km.
    Jupiter.. = 37,567,600 km.
    Saturn.. = 41,189,000 km.
    Uranus.. = 49,034,000 km.
    Neptune = 85,620,000 km.
    Pluto...... = 6,324,000 km.
    For this reason when the outer planets approach one another, their gravitational fields affect their orbital path, and as a result, they are not perfect circles. And the same apply to the inner planets, for this reason, the orbit of the earth moves in and out whenever approached by Venus.
    And when deep space probes are sent into their orbits, many of them are last or unsuccessful due to miscalculation (not knowing that this gravitational fields do exist) which are directly responsible for any deviation in their projected orbits. And all this is happening even at the present time.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    No, you are only defining (poorly) where the gravitational forces are equal. But the actual force (if you look at the actual formula, not your "force" version) never reaches zero. Other objects may have stronger attraction at places, but all objects in the Universe affect every other one with gravitation.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    No, you are only defining (poorly) where the gravitational forces are equal. But the actual force (if you look at the actual formula, not your "force" version) never reaches zero. Other objects may have stronger attraction at places, but all objects in the Universe affect every other one with gravitation.
    The notion that all objects in the universe affect every other object in the universe, and that their gravitational fields extend to an infinity is completely wrong. For no mass in the universe would stay together if it had no gravitational field of its own. And the force that holds the mass together does not come from the inside, but rather from the outside.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Just plain wrong. Look at the real physics, not what you made up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    Gravitational fields of all masses are divided and subdivided between themselves in accordance of their orbital forces. Hence gravitational fields do not extend into infinity as is presently being perceived. Instead they are all limited and divided; as for example;

    Gr=(d/Fo1)xFo2)/2 . Where d= distance between the two bodies, Fo1 and Fo2 are their respective orbital forces.

    Earth gravitational (field) radius is directly proportional to Sun's orbital force denoted as Fo1. while Earth orbital force denoted as Fo2 .
    Sun's Fo=436,203m/s, Earth's Fo=7,910m/s, and distance = 1.50x1011 m. approx. Hence
    Earth Gr= (1.50x1011m./436,203m.)x7,910m.)/2 = 1.36x109 m.
    Hence earth gravitational field is like a tiny bubble within a huge Sun's gravitational bubble.
    Gravitational field of the Moon is: Gr=(3.84x108m./7,910m.)x1677m.)/2 =4,07x107 m.
    Thus gravitational field of the Moon is also like a small bubble within a bigger bubble. And so are all the heavenly bodies throughout the universe divided between themselves.
    Therefore the further the masses are separated from one another, the greater their gravitational fields are:
    as for example all the planets in the solar system;
    Mercury = 200,960 km.
    Venus....= 909,000 km.
    Earth.... = 1.360,000 km.
    Mars..... = 928,940 km.
    Jupiter.. = 37,567,600 km.
    Saturn.. = 41,189,000 km.
    Uranus.. = 49,034,000 km.
    Neptune = 85,620,000 km.
    Pluto...... = 6,324,000 km.
    For this reason when the outer planets approach one another, their gravitational fields affect their orbital path, and as a result, they are not perfect circles. And the same apply to the inner planets, for this reason, the orbit of the earth moves in and out whenever approached by Venus.
    And when deep space probes are sent into their orbits, many of them are last or unsuccessful due to miscalculation (not knowing that this gravitational fields do exist) which are directly responsible for any deviation in their projected orbits. And all this is happening even at the present time.

    the gravitational fields simply add together.

    this is called linear superposition.

    earths gravity does hold the earth together but the sun and moon still produce tides on earth.

    Superposition principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by granpa; November 27th, 2011 at 06:17 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    granpa, mathematically speaking the gravitational force in your earth-moon example is not a scalar, but a vector. It has a absolute value ( its "strength" if you want to call it that ), but also a direction. If you superimpose two vectors, their absolute values do not just add, it's a bit more complicated than that. In fact, there is a point between the earth and the moon ( the Lagrange point )where their gravitational forces precisely cancel each other out because the vectors point in opposite directions. Any object located at that point would be in perfect equilibrium and not move at all, despite the fact the both earth and moon "pull" on it with their respective gravitation fields. Always remember that the systems we are talking about here are in space, and not points on a flat surface...at the least vector analysis is needed to mathematically treat these systems correctly.
    I would recommend you study a good text book of Newtonian physics, that will give you all the info needed :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    267
    the vectors simply add together.

    its simple vector mathematics

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vect.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Yes, exactly...and you get a new vector with a different direction and a different absolute value. That is why two gravitational forces don't just simply add up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    267
    the gravitational field is a vector field.

    the vectors add.

    its that simple
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Yes exactly, they add...therefore your inital assertion is false, because the result of two vectors added together is a vector pointing in a different direction ( as compared to the two original vectors ) UNLESS both vectors are equal in direction, or one of the two vectors is null ( zero value ). That's why two gravitational fields from distinct sources don't just simply add up in strength. It depends how they are oriented in relation to the two sources and your point of reference. They can strengthen each other or cancel each other if your reference point is along an imaginery line connecting the two centres of gravity ( in which case the force vectors point in the same direction, or exactly opposite to one another, as above ), but that's not the same. Do you know what I mean ?
    As for your other assertion, if you say "they are all limited", can you please show us using your equation where this limit is, because I don't see it. Also you need to clarify ( with the appropriate maths ) how exactly "orbital force" is defined.
    Lastly, you are proposing amendments to a basic law of classical mechanics, which has been very well established in the low energy regime, both theoratically and experimentally, for over 200 years - please explain ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    267
    I think you are confusing me with the op.

    I never said anything about being limited.

    the op said that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    My sincere apologies, I did indeed confuse you with the original poster divinum1...my mistake !!!!!
    The comments regarding the vector maths were meant to show that the concepts of distance and orbital forces as mentioned in the original post don't work, since the force vector values don't add up that way.
    Sorry again about this granpa !! Should have looked more carefully at the postings !!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Just plain wrong. Look at the real physics, not what you made up.
    Is not what you are able to see, but rather what are you able to perceive. For there is gravitational field (the two forces of it) which are invisible and undetectable, although their effects are clearly seen, but not understood as yet. And it is this misconception that keeps everybody misleading from the truth. To say that the earth keeps attracting all objects to itself is a complete misconception, although it appears to us as if being attracted. But in fact everything is being contracted toward the center of the earth by the g force from above. For an object to be exposed to a force it will always move in the direction of the force, which always act as a push in the direction of its action.
    I understand your filling because I was thinking the same way for over 35 years. And then I began to question as why electrons who are supposedly being attracted by proton, and yet they never fall onto them like objects do fall onto the earth. And from this notion, in 1985 I wrote a concept as why is there a difference between the falling objects, and not falling electrons. And in my description I happen to describe the difference, and in the description I actually described the True Principles of Nature, which I became aware of only a few days after. And from their perspective the world and everything in it, is by far different than what is presently known about it. And now I am standing all alone against the entire scientific world, to prove my point. I know that any new discovery is first ridiculed, and then accepted. But to prove it physically is virtually impossible, although my aim is to bring to the attention that truth of the reality of the world is different than what is presently being perceived about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by granpa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    Gravitational fields of all masses are divided and subdivided between themselves in accordance of their orbital forces. Hence gravitational fields do not extend into infinity as is presently being perceived. Instead they are all limited and divided; as for example;

    Gr=(d/Fo1)xFo2)/2 . Where d= distance between the two bodies, Fo1 and Fo2 are their respective orbital forces.

    Earth gravitational (field) radius is directly proportional to Sun's orbital force denoted as Fo1. while Earth orbital force denoted as Fo2 .
    Sun's Fo=436,203m/s, Earth's Fo=7,910m/s, and distance = 1.50x1011 m. approx. Hence
    Earth Gr= (1.50x1011m./436,203m.)x7,910m.)/2 = 1.36x109 m.
    Hence earth gravitational field is like a tiny bubble within a huge Sun's gravitational bubble.
    Gravitational field of the Moon is: Gr=(3.84x108m./7,910m.)x1677m.)/2 =4,07x107 m.
    Thus gravitational field of the Moon is also like a small bubble within a bigger bubble. And so are all the heavenly bodies throughout the universe divided between themselves.
    Therefore the further the masses are separated from one another, the greater their gravitational fields are:
    as for example all the planets in the solar system;
    Mercury = 200,960 km.
    Venus....= 909,000 km.
    Earth.... = 1.360,000 km.
    Mars..... = 928,940 km.
    Jupiter.. = 37,567,600 km.
    Saturn.. = 41,189,000 km.
    Uranus.. = 49,034,000 km.
    Neptune = 85,620,000 km.
    Pluto...... = 6,324,000 km.
    For this reason when the outer planets approach one another, their gravitational fields affect their orbital path, and as a result, they are not perfect circles. And the same apply to the inner planets, for this reason, the orbit of the earth moves in and out whenever approached by Venus.
    And when deep space probes are sent into their orbits, many of them are last or unsuccessful due to miscalculation (not knowing that this gravitational fields do exist) which are directly responsible for any deviation in their projected orbits. And all this is happening even at the present time.

    the gravitational fields simply add together.

    this is called linear superposition.

    earths gravity does hold the earth together but the sun and moon still produce tides on earth.

    Superposition principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    No gravitational fields do not add, because if they did then the masses in question would be drown together into one.
    They are all divided to themselves, and for this reason, each mass acts as a system of its own.
    Concerning the tides here on earth, this is yet another misconception of the actual realty that takes place between the Earth, the Moon and the Sun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Yes exactly, they add...therefore your inital assertion is false, because the result of two vectors added together is a vector pointing in a different direction ( as compared to the two original vectors ) UNLESS both vectors are equal in direction, or one of the two vectors is null ( zero value ). That's why two gravitational fields from distinct sources don't just simply add up in strength. It depends how they are oriented in relation to the two sources and your point of reference. They can strengthen each other or cancel each other if your reference point is along an imaginery line connecting the two centres of gravity ( in which case the force vectors point in the same direction, or exactly opposite to one another, as above ), but that's not the same. Do you know what I mean ?
    As for your other assertion, if you say "they are all limited", can you please show us using your equation where this limit is, because I don't see it. Also you need to clarify ( with the appropriate maths ) how exactly "orbital force" is defined.
    Lastly, you are proposing amendments to a basic law of classical mechanics, which has been very well established in the low energy regime, both theoratically and experimentally, for over 200 years - please explain ?
    Bear in mind that the two gravitational forces are not man made forces, hence they do not behave the same way as the forces we may impose upon some object. These two gravitational forces act directly perpendicular to one another, and in this manner they do not affect one another, just like charges do not affect when they act perpendicular to one another. And the same is true about the two gravitational forces, hence they coexist in cooperation with one another, and yet each one acting independent of the other. Orbital force is additional in character, while centripetal force is divisional in character. For this reason, orbital force increases or decreases by a square root of its distance. Whereas centripetal force increases or decreases by an inverse square of its distance, and since it is divisional throughout the 360 degrees of the space that it occupies, and as a result, all of its actions are directed toward the center point of their division. And for this reason, all heavenly masses are virtually perfect spheres. For all natural forces have their own way of doing things in space. They act as if they possess intelligence of their own, and they comply to this principles of nature at all the times.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    No gravitational fields do not add, because if they did then the masses in question would be drown together into one.
    They are all divided to themselves, and for this reason, each mass acts as a system of its own.
    Concerning the tides here on earth, this is yet another misconception of the actual realty that takes place between the Earth, the Moon and the Sun.
    More that is simply wrong. Two objects WILL be be inexorably drwan together, unless their momentum and motion exceed the strength of the gravitational attraction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Unfortunately you have not attempted to answer my questions; it appears you aren't really willing to engage in any objective discussion of your ideas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Or doesn't understand them...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    Is not what you are able to see, but rather what are you able to perceive. For there is gravitational field (the two forces of it) which are invisible and undetectable
    In science, if they are undetectable then they might as well not exist. In which case, I will assume they don't exist.

    , although their effects are clearly seen, but not understood as yet.
    So they are detectable (by their effects)?

    Which effects are you talking about and how are they explained by your new version of gravity?

    I understand your filling because I was thinking the same way for over 35 years. And then I began to question as why electrons who are supposedly being attracted by proton, and yet they never fall onto them like objects do fall onto the earth.
    As that is a well understood result of quantum mechanics (you knew that, right?) does that mean you are proposing a quantum theory of gravity?

    And now I am standing all alone against the entire scientific world, to prove my point.
    And why do you think that is?

    I know that any new discovery is first ridiculed, and then accepted.
    And some are just ridiculed.

    You seem to think that because some ideas are ridiculed when first presented (this is a minuscule fraction of new ideas, by the way) that all ridiculous ideas must be true. That is seriously flawed logic.

    But to prove it physically is virtually impossible
    In which case it is not science.

    although my aim is to bring to the attention that truth of the reality of the world is different than what is presently being perceived about it.
    Some evidence for this "true reality" would be nice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    Is not what you are able to see, but rather what are you able to perceive. For there is gravitational field (the two forces of it) which are invisible and undetectable
    In science, if they are undetectable then they might as well not exist. In which case, I will assume they don't exist.

    , although their effects are clearly seen, but not understood as yet.
    So they are detectable (by their effects)?

    Which effects are you talking about and how are they explained by your new version of gravity?

    I understand your filling because I was thinking the same way for over 35 years. And then I began to question as why electrons who are supposedly being attracted by proton, and yet they never fall onto them like objects do fall onto the earth.
    As that is a well understood result of quantum mechanics (you knew that, right?) does that mean you are proposing a quantum theory of gravity?

    And now I am standing all alone against the entire scientific world, to prove my point.
    And why do you think that is?

    I know that any new discovery is first ridiculed, and then accepted.
    And some are just ridiculed.

    You seem to think that because some ideas are ridiculed when first presented (this is a minuscule fraction of new ideas, by the way) that all ridiculous ideas must be true. That is seriously flawed logic.

    But to prove it physically is virtually impossible
    In which case it is not science.

    although my aim is to bring to the attention that truth of the reality of the world is different than what is presently being perceived about it.
    Some evidence for this "true reality" would be nice.
    The effects of gravity are clearly seen, but the source of it is invisible, and no evidence of this source has been discovered as yet.
    Do you know why?
    Gravitation or gravity is a two force system, each of which acts independent of the other. One force is presently known as centripetal force or g force, While the other should be called orbital force since it is this force that causes all heavenly bodies to orbit around one another.
    The centripetal force, or the g force is an all divisional force, and as a result, all its actions are directed toward the center of the mass. Whereas the orbital force is an all unified force, which means that all its components are acting uniformly in the same direction. And any mass being exposed to it is forced to orbit around in accordance of its velocity. Centripetal force on the other hand forces all objects to move in the direction of its action which is toward the center.
    The orbital force is in fact circular in character due to the division of space between the two forces. And this division of space results in the so called warped space. Although this warped space takes place only at both polar ends.
    Since the orbital force is circular in nature, consequently all orbits are circular in character as well. this force increases or decreases by a square root of its distance. Whereas centripetal force increases or decreases by inverse square of its distance.
    Furthermore, this two forces are directly proportional to one another and radius (or distance) of the mass from which they derive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    The effects of gravity are clearly seen, but the source of it is invisible, and no evidence of this source has been discovered as yet.
    Gravity is caused by mass. Is that a difficult concept?

    Gravitation or gravity is a two force system, each of which acts independent of the other. One force is presently known as centripetal force or g force, While the other should be called orbital force since it is this force that causes all heavenly bodies to orbit around one another.
    At the risk of being boring: evidence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    The effects of gravity are clearly seen, but the source of it is invisible, and no evidence of this source has been discovered as yet.
    Gravity is caused by mass. Is that a difficult concept?

    Gravitation or gravity is a two force system, each of which acts independent of the other. One force is presently known as centripetal force or g force, While the other should be called orbital force since it is this force that causes all heavenly bodies to orbit around one another.
    At the risk of being boring: evidence?
    Gravity is a two force system. In nature one force alone can not even exist, and for as long as gravity is perceived as one force system there will be misconceptions about the universe. Such as Big bang, Black Holes, Dark matter, and many others. Most of which can be mathematically disproved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    Gravity is a two force system. In nature one force alone can not even exist, .
    Why? Because you say so?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    Gravity is a two force system. In nature one force alone can not even exist, .
    Why? Because you say so?
    Not because I say so, but because a mathematical equation says so: Try them out and then ask a question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Yes exactly, they add...therefore your inital assertion is false, because the result of two vectors added together is a vector pointing in a different direction ( as compared to the two original vectors ) UNLESS both vectors are equal in direction, or one of the two vectors is null ( zero value ). That's why two gravitational fields from distinct sources don't just simply add up in strength. It depends how they are oriented in relation to the two sources and your point of reference. They can strengthen each other or cancel each other if your reference point is along an imaginery line connecting the two centres of gravity ( in which case the force vectors point in the same direction, or exactly opposite to one another, as above ), but that's not the same. Do you know what I mean ?
    As for your other assertion, if you say "they are all limited", can you please show us using your equation where this limit is, because I don't see it. Also you need to clarify ( with the appropriate maths ) how exactly "orbital force" is defined.
    Lastly, you are proposing amendments to a basic law of classical mechanics, which has been very well established in the low energy regime, both theoratically and experimentally, for over 200 years - please explain ?
    Orbital force is always equal to; Fo = mG/r (square rooted).
    I am not proposing anything, although the orbital force may impose changes sooner or later, but it will not take 200 years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    267
    his 'orbital force' is actually the velocity of an object in orbit just above the surface of the body
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    divinum1, the formula you are giving, under Newtonian mechanics, is just simply the gravitational force a body of mass m exhibits at a distance of r from its centre of gravity. You are merely re-stating a law that has been known since 1687. What "changes" do you propose will be imposed by this "sooner or later" ?

    Source : Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    To be honest with you I do not even know what the original point in this thread was supposed to be. Can you please once and for all state precisely where you think our currently accepted laws of gravitation ( i.e. General Relativity, of which Newton's law is a low-mass approximation ) are wrong, and how you propose to eliminate that error.
    Please remember that general statements and assertions aren't enough - you need to back up your assertions with the appropriate maths; I see a lot of statements and assertions from you, but no rigorous mathematical proof whatsoever.
    Also, you need to understand that Newton's laws is only a small subset of gravitation as we theorize it. If you feel our laws of gravitation are wrong you need to refer to Einstein's field equations rather than Newtons mechanics, and show us where they are wrong. You seem to so far have avoided any reference to General Relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Can you please also clarify why you think our laws of gravity are wrong ? Do you have observational evidence that fields do not extend into infinity, and that the orbital paths of the planets do not conform to our laws as we understand them ? Please provide references to the appropriate observational data so that we can better understand your point. Thank you.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; December 3rd, 2011 at 06:33 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    The effects of gravity are clearly seen, but the source of it is invisible, and no evidence of this source has been discovered as yet.
    Gravity is caused by mass. Is that a difficult concept?

    Gravitation or gravity is a two force system, each of which acts independent of the other. One force is presently known as centripetal force or g force, While the other should be called orbital force since it is this force that causes all heavenly bodies to orbit around one another.
    At the risk of being boring: evidence?
    Gravity is a two force system. In nature one force alone can not even exist, and for as long as gravity is perceived as one force system there will be misconceptions about the universe. Such as Big bang, Black Holes, Dark matter, and many others. Most of which can be mathematically disproved.
    divinum1, please provide references for your above assertion that these phenomena can be mathematically disproved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    Gravity is a two force system. In nature one force alone can not even exist, .
    Why? Because you say so?
    Not because I say so, but because a mathematical equation says so: Try them out and then ask a question.
    divinum1, which equation is it you are referring to, and how does it show that gravitation is a two-force system - references please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    No gravitational fields do not add, because if they did then the masses in question would be drown together into one.
    They are all divided to themselves, and for this reason, each mass acts as a system of its own.
    Concerning the tides here on earth, this is yet another misconception of the actual realty that takes place between the Earth, the Moon and the Sun.
    More that is simply wrong. Two objects WILL be be inexorably drwan together, unless their momentum and motion exceed the strength of the gravitational attraction.
    Any two objects that are kept apart, is due to the division of their gravitational fields. Which at the same time provide the conditions of their orbital motions. And it is always the greater mass that dictates orbital motion to the smaller mass by its orbital force. And since the orbital force is constant at a specific distance, consequently the orbital motion of the smaller mass is also constant, and thus it momentum is provided by the same force.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by granpa View Post
    his 'orbital force' is actually the velocity of an object in orbit just above the surface of the body
    The Moon for example is not just above the surface, and yet it comply to the orbital force of the Earth, by the same equations that all other bodies comply. which is; Fo = mG/d (square rooted). Fo and the velocity of the Moon are the same, which apply to Newton's first law, but it does not comply to a straight line motion because gravitational field is spherical in shape due to the division of space. And for this reason, most orbits are circular in form.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    divinum1, the formula you are giving, under Newtonian mechanics, is just simply the gravitational force a body of mass m exhibits at a distance of r from its centre of gravity. You are merely re-stating a law that has been known since 1687. What "changes" do you propose will be imposed by this "sooner or later" ?

    Source : Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    To be honest with you I do not even know what the original point in this thread was supposed to be. Can you please once and for all state precisely where you think our currently accepted laws of gravitation ( i.e. General Relativity, of which Newton's law is a low-mass approximation ) are wrong, and how you propose to eliminate that error.
    Please remember that general statements and assertions aren't enough - you need to back up your assertions with the appropriate maths; I see a lot of statements and assertions from you, but no rigorous mathematical proof whatsoever.
    Also, you need to understand that Newton's laws is only a small subset of gravitation as we theorize it. If you feel our laws of gravitation are wrong you need to refer to Einstein's field equations rather than Newtons mechanics, and show us where they are wrong. You seem to so far have avoided any reference to General Relativity.
    It seems to me that nobody is paying any attention to what I am trying to portray, specifically to the equations. For those equations are the testament that Big Bang and singularity are an impossibility. And that gravitation is not what you have been thought that it is. Hence you are not open to new and different ideas, but rather to old ones that explain none of this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Divinum1, I am sorry to say that once again you have failed to answer any of the question raised about your ideas. You have offered no evidence or support for any of your thoughts, which at this stage makes them nothing but conjecture. All you have done is misinterpret an already existing equation from Newtonian mechanics. You are entitled to your own beliefs, however, this is a forum about science, and as such your conjectures are misplaced here. You either need to be prepared to discuss your ideas in earnest, and offer support and evidence for them, or abandon this thread. Furthermore it is clear you do not understand the original Newtonian physics, and as such you are not at all in a position to question its validity.Until you are prepared to provide the support I asked you for and answer our questions I consider any further discussion on this thread fairly pointless. There just isn't any basis in observational data to support your ideas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    divinum1, the formula you are giving, under Newtonian mechanics, is just simply the gravitational force a body of mass m exhibits at a distance of r from its centre of gravity. You are merely re-stating a law that has been known since 1687. What "changes" do you propose will be imposed by this "sooner or later" ?Source : Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaTo be honest with you I do not even know what the original point in this thread was supposed to be. Can you please once and for all state precisely where you think our currently accepted laws of gravitation ( i.e. General Relativity, of which Newton's law is a low-mass approximation ) are wrong, and how you propose to eliminate that error. Please remember that general statements and assertions aren't enough - you need to back up your assertions with the appropriate maths; I see a lot of statements and assertions from you, but no rigorous mathematical proof whatsoever. Also, you need to understand that Newton's laws is only a small subset of gravitation as we theorize it. If you feel our laws of gravitation are wrong you need to refer to Einstein's field equations rather than Newtons mechanics, and show us where they are wrong. You seem to so far have avoided any reference to General Relativity.
    It seems to me that nobody is paying any attention to what I am trying to portray, specifically to the equations. For those equations are the testament that Big Bang and singularity are an impossibility. And that gravitation is not what you have been thought that it is. Hence you are not open to new and different ideas, but rather to old ones that explain none of this.
    Your equation has nothing whatsoever to do with either Big Bang theory or singularities ???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    36
    [QUOTE=Markus Hanke;294962]
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    Gravity is a two force system. In nature one force alone can not even exist, .
    Why? Because you say so?
    Not because I say so, but because a mathematical equation says so: Try them out and then ask a question.

    divinum1, which equation is it you are referring to, and how does it show that gravitation is a two-force system - references please.[/QUOTE

    Orbital force is more than obvious, because a body in motion, is in such a state due to a net force acting upon it. And a body always moves in the direction of the force. Therefore there must be a force that causes that body to orbit in accordance of that force. And all bodies that are held together, are at rest because there is a force that is acting upon them constantly, and for this reason, they are at rest. Thus each forces acts independent of the other force, and since the orbital force is all unified, this means that all its components of action are directed in the same direction, and as a result, this force is always stronger, and it strength increases or decreases by a square root of its distance. And is therefore equal to; Fo = mG/d (square rooted).
    Whereas centripetal force is an all divisional, and as a result, its strength is conversely weaker, is; Fc = mG/d squared.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    O[QUOTE=divinum1;295003]
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    Gravity is a two force system. In nature one force alone can not even exist, .
    Why? Because you say so?
    Not because I say so, but because a mathematical equation says so: Try them out and then ask a question.
    divinum1, which equation is it you are referring to, and how does it show that gravitation is a two-force system - references please.[/QUOTEOrbital force is more than obvious, because a body in motion, is in such a state due to a net force acting upon it. And a body always moves in the direction of the force. Therefore there must be a force that causes that body to orbit in accordance of that force. And all bodies that are held together, are at rest because there is a force that is acting upon them constantly, and for this reason, they are at rest. Thus each forces acts independent of the other force, and since the orbital force is all unified, this means that all its components of action are directed in the same direction, and as a result, this force is always stronger, and it strength increases or decreases by a square root of its distance. And is therefore equal to; Fo = mG/d (square rooted).Whereas centripetal force is an all divisional, and as a result, its strength is conversely weaker, is; Fc = mG/d squared.
    Both of your equations are the exact same ?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by divinum1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    divinum1, the formula you are giving, under Newtonian mechanics, is just simply the gravitational force a body of mass m exhibits at a distance of r from its centre of gravity. You are merely re-stating a law that has been known since 1687. What "changes" do you propose will be imposed by this "sooner or later" ?Source : Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaTo be honest with you I do not even know what the original point in this thread was supposed to be. Can you please once and for all state precisely where you think our currently accepted laws of gravitation ( i.e. General Relativity, of which Newton's law is a low-mass approximation ) are wrong, and how you propose to eliminate that error. Please remember that general statements and assertions aren't enough - you need to back up your assertions with the appropriate maths; I see a lot of statements and assertions from you, but no rigorous mathematical proof whatsoever. Also, you need to understand that Newton's laws is only a small subset of gravitation as we theorize it. If you feel our laws of gravitation are wrong you need to refer to Einstein's field equations rather than Newtons mechanics, and show us where they are wrong. You seem to so far have avoided any reference to General Relativity.
    It seems to me that nobody is paying any attention to what I am trying to portray, specifically to the equations. For those equations are the testament that Big Bang and singularity are an impossibility. And that gravitation is not what you have been thought that it is. Hence you are not open to new and different ideas, but rather to old ones that explain none of this.
    Your equation has nothing whatsoever to do with either Big Bang theory or singularities ???
    Here for example; The entire mass of the universe = 1.818x10^54 kg. You can give any radius to it (1m. or 3x10^15 m.)
    The Fc would be equal to; Fc = mG/d squared, gives Fc = 1.2x10^44 m/s/s, which is impossible since nothing can surpass the speed of light. While Fo = 1.1x10^22 m/s. also impossible since it exceed the speed of light.

    The same mass with the radius of 3x10 ^15 m. Fc would be equal to; 1.346x10^13 m/s/s, exceeding the light speed, another impossibility. While Fo would be equal to; 2x10^14 m/s, again exceeding the speed of light.
    Therefore Big Bang and Singularity are impossible.

    Precisely for this reason, the entire gravitational field of the universe became divided into 3.67x10^13 equal groups.
    Each of which became an independent system in itself, which is called a "galaxy". Although, before a galaxy became to what it is, it was all in one single star. Whose radius was; 3.67x10^13 m. and the mass of this one single star was; 4.955x10^40 kg.
    The orbital force was equal to; c/s. While centripetal force g was; 2,449 m/s/s. And it was the orbital force that provided the rotation of the star, whose rotational kinetic energy surpassed the g force, and as a result, the mass of the star broke apart, it disintegrated into a multitude of smaller masses, some of which are now stars, while smaller ones are planets, and a lot of smaller debris. And this is how a galaxy came into being.

    If the speed of light "c", and the "G" were not constant, then the universe would not be such as it is.
    But since c and G are constant, so are all the quantities of the universe as well, such as mass, radius, Fo, and Fc. They are all directly proportional to one another, both within and without the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    267
    all that amounts to saying is that the singularity would have been a black hole.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I am actually dumbfounded by your total lack of understanding of even the most basic physics and algebra ! Is it actually possible that you genuinely not know that the formula for Fc you are giving yields a force and not a speed ? divinum1, these are all middle school level concepts, and it appears you have no understanding of them whatsoever. I actually do not even know what to say to this.
    I have tried to be diplomatic in the previous posts, but now I want to make this perfectly clear : your ideas are utter nonsense. They stem from wrongly applying an equation that you do not understand to physical scenarios that you understand even less. You have no concept of classical mechanics, and much less still of the universe as a whole, or relativity, or quantum physics.

    This forum has some very good threads with interesting and valid discussion points which are worthwhile spending some time and research on. I am sorry to say that your thread is not one of them.

    Best of luck,
    Markus
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Are all gravitational fields electro-magnetic?
    By jsaldea12 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: January 18th, 2011, 07:22 PM
  2. Rings and fields
    By JaneBennet in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: February 26th, 2009, 10:28 AM
  3. Electric Fields - what are they?
    By Infinitism in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 25th, 2008, 01:50 AM
  4. Atomic radii
    By scientist-to-be in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 6th, 2007, 10:27 AM
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
  •