Post by: illusion on 26/12/2012 15:14:03
Post by: David Cooper on 26/12/2012 21:59:51
Post by: Ethos_ on 27/12/2012 01:36:41
you really ought to have addressed this point in the post above and explained how your theory handles this obvious case.I agree Dave, and there is another very critical issue which is being left out. To what is this rotation relative? To the nearest planet, to our galaxy, or to the universe itself? I submit that if rotation is the cause, it must be relative to empty space itself and that raises a lot of problems. In the case of the moon, it doesn't rotate relative to the earth. It may rotate around the earth but that's not the same thing. Being that the earth is the nearest body to the moon, I would presume that would eliminate this possibility.
No, I don't see any connection. I think we just better accept that mass is the cause for the phenomenon we call gravity.
Post by: CliffordK on 27/12/2012 02:40:47
where v is the velocity of the object, or in the case of rotation, the rotational velocity at the surface of the object.
which you can subtract from the standard gravity calculation,
and
So, you would get:
and
Of course, the higher the rotational velocity, the lower the overall pull of gravity for objects at the surface.
As far as rotational velocity affecting the pull between two celestial bodies, I'm not sure. Does an object spinning in a vacuum experience less weight?
If you are doing rotational frequency, are seconds appropriate? The earth rotates once every 24 hours. The sun poles and equator (and core?) spin at different rates, but say once every 3 weeks or so. Of course, one can always convert units.
Post by: Ethos_ on 27/12/2012 03:42:49
Of course, the higher the rotational velocity, the lower the overall pull of gravity for objects at the surface.I quite agree, but to suggest that the rotation of a body is responsible for it's gravity pull is beyond reason. Even though the centrifugal force of rotation will counter a portion of the gravitational pull for bodies on it's surface, the total gravitational influence this body exercises over distant bodies is not changed by this rotation. Gravity is the result of a bodies total mass.
Post by: illusion on 27/12/2012 07:00:43
Post by: illusion on 27/12/2012 07:34:01
Post by: illusion on 27/12/2012 07:47:35
Post by: David Cooper on 27/12/2012 23:31:08
Venus and the Earth are roughly the same size and mass and have roughly the same amount of gravity. The Earth rotates 365 times per orbit, while Venus rotates once, though its orbit is shorter, so the difference in rotation speed of the Earth will only be a bit more than 200 times that of Venus. I haven't clicked on your link yet because you really ought to have addressed this point in the post above and explained how your theory handles this obvious case.
You can't say that Venus has roughly the same mass than Earth does.
Why not? I'd say 82% is roughly the same, particularly when comparing them with the rotation speeds which are so much more different. Of course, if rotation is a crucial aspect of generating gravity, there's still plenty of that going on in every particle of Venus, so maybe the difference from the rotation speed of the planet as a whole isn't going to make much difference to that figure, in which case your theory could still fit the facts and I've misjudged it. How big a difference are you talking about? How much extra gravity would Venus have if it was rotating as fast as the Earth?
Post by: illusion on 28/12/2012 06:47:48
Post by: illusion on 01/01/2013 07:07:13
Post by: illusion on 04/01/2013 13:16:26
Post by: illusion on 14/01/2013 12:50:35
Post by: illusion on 07/02/2013 17:55:23