0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Halc on 15/12/2018 05:47:04QuoteWhat do you mean by: "2nd rule about only the matter"?Is it Newton's second law?The first rule you quoted was Newton's Shell Theorem concerning only uniform spherical objects.The 2nd rule you quoted was the one from the ohio-state site concerning the mass that has net effect on an orbit and the mass that doesn't.I don't know the name of that rule or who came up with it, but you quoted it, and then you misrepresented what it means.The "second rule" is just a direct outcome from the "first rule" which is the Newton's Shell Theorem.With all the respect to ohio-state (and I have a respect...), they can't just invent new rules for gravity.So, the second statement is not a second rule, it is just a logical outcome from Newton's Shell Theorem.
QuoteWhat do you mean by: "2nd rule about only the matter"?Is it Newton's second law?The first rule you quoted was Newton's Shell Theorem concerning only uniform spherical objects.The 2nd rule you quoted was the one from the ohio-state site concerning the mass that has net effect on an orbit and the mass that doesn't.I don't know the name of that rule or who came up with it, but you quoted it, and then you misrepresented what it means.
What do you mean by: "2nd rule about only the matter"?Is it Newton's second law?
Hence, by Kepler law we can calculate the total mass which is requested to meet the orbital velocity of the sun around the galaxy, while Newton’s First Theorem tell us that: "M is the total mass in a sphere of radius a, centered on the galactic center.
Newton’s First Theorem - If the density distribution of a ball of mass M is spherically symmetric, then the size of the force between the ball and a point mass m, that lies outside the interior of the ball, is given by the left-hand side of (1), where r is the distance between the point and the center of the ball."
This law is very relevantIt actually confirms that the shape of the object is none relevant for its central point of mass.
As long as all the masses in the object are fully connected the center of mass of this object is none relevant with its shape. (Spanner, dog, cat or even elephant).
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/n2ext.html"A set of masses connected by springs will follow a path such that its center of mass moves along the same path that a point mass of the same total mass would follow under the influence of the same net force."
So, even if that spanner has an offset, it won't set any extra thrust.
In our calculation we just need to focus on its center of mass.
Conclusion -Based on the following laws (each one by itself):1. Newton's Shell Theorem 2. Newton's second law
The rules don't say that at all. They talk about net force and those net forces acting on the center of gravity of each object in question. So if the spanner puts a net force on an object that is anything but perpendicular to its motion, it will be exerting thrust to it.
You can't take laws by themselves. Let's take these two laws. Consider me on Earth with the sun directly overhead, and Mercury and Venus don't exist. In a sphere of radius R where R is the distance from the sun to me, only the mass in that radius determines my orbit. It is the Sun which is spherically symmetric. So the first law applies.Now let's apply the 2nd law. I am going too slow to maintain my orbit at that radius (because Earth's spin velocity cancels some of its orbital velocity at noon), and the mass outside the radius R has no effect on my orbit, therefore I should drop in towards the sun, getting sucked into the sky. The Earth cannot hold me down because it is outside R when the sun is directly overhead, and thus does not contribute to my orbit, per the 2nd law.
Wrong!! Center of mass has no angular momentum, and this tidal thrust effect is all about net forces resulting from transfer of angular momentum. None of the laws above describe angular effects on the tumbling spanner and such.I throw a rapidly spinning pool noodle, and it is spinning far slower before it hits the ground. The net forces on the noodle do indeed determine the path of its center of gravity, but do not in any way describe the loss of spin. That rules is inadequate for the situation being described.The orbit about the galaxy is less about angular momentum and forces since there is no significant transference going on. You can treat a lot of things as point masses on that scale, but not the galaxy as a whole since it is not spherically symmetrical
Can you please prove that a spanner can put a net force on an object just by pointing to some offset?
Quote from: HalcYou can't take laws by themselves. Let's take these two laws. Consider me on Earth with the sun directly overhead, and Mercury and Venus don't exist. In a sphere of radius R where R is the distance from the sun to me, only the mass in that radius determines my orbit. It is the Sun which is spherically symmetric. So the first law applies.Now let's apply the 2nd law. I am going too slow to maintain my orbit at that radius (because Earth's spin velocity cancels some of its orbital velocity at noon), and the mass outside the radius R has no effect on my orbit, therefore I should drop in towards the sun, getting sucked into the sky. The Earth cannot hold me down because it is outside R when the sun is directly overhead, and thus does not contribute to my orbit, per the 2nd law.That example is not clear to me.If the sun is just above me while I am waking on Earth, than based on Newton second law, I'm an integrated mass of Earth.
Therefore, the Sun has no impact at all about my location. If there is no Earth or moon, and it is all about me and the Sun, than my orbital velocity must be a direct outcome of gravity force based on R. In this case, the Earth and the Moon are not there to have any impact on my orbital cycle around the Sun.
With regards to the following message:"I am going too slow to maintain my orbit at that radius (because Earth's spin velocity cancels some of its orbital velocity at noon)"This is a severe mistake.If I have to orbit around the Sun, there is no way to slow down due to that Earth spin velocity cancelation.
So, you don't have to maintain your orbital velocity. The Sun gravity force works for you. This is a key element.Newton didn't specify even one word about the impact of spinning velocity.This is a new idea which had not been confirmed.
If you believe that there is a possibility to slow down the earth orbital velocity
We do not discuss about rapidly spinning pool of noodle.
If the angular momentum or the revolving speed of the Moon or the Earth can slow down the orbital velocity of the Erath or the Moon - than please prove it.
I still can't understand how any sort of offset in bulges can set any sort of thrust.
Please use the spanner as an example. you are more than welcome to force the spanner in any sort of offset as you wish. Try to prove why by doing so we shall get extra trust on the orbital object.Please try to prove this idea by mathematics.
I give it a permanent stationary offset of 45°. The spanner is 40 cm long, 20 on each side of the axis. The lower side is 6372000 meters from the center of earth and has a force of GmM/40602384000000 acting on it. The upper end is a tiny bit further away from earth and has a force of around GmM/40602384382320 resulting in a 1e-6 % difference in force.
However, I really don't understand why there is a difference in forces.
Let's set the whole Earth at the shape of spanner.So, the Earth will look like an extended object with all of its mass while the length of each side is 10,000 Km. Based on Newton's Second Law for an Extended Objecthttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/n2ext.html"The motion of any real object may involve rotations as well as linear motion, but the motion of the center of mass of the object can be described by an application of Newton's second law in the following form:F = M a
In order to understand the calculation, we need to look at the Following "Newton's Second Law for a System of Particles"
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/n2ext.html#c2"Newton's Second Law for a System of Particles:The form of Newton's second law for a system of particles will be developed with the understanding that the result will apply to any extended object where the particles are in face connected to each other.The center of mass of a system of particles can be determined from their masses and locations."
So, Our dear Newton set a complicated calculation in order to get the outcome of:M a = FNewton actually tells us that the shape of the object and its offset can't contribute any extra force as long as all the particles of the object are connected.
So, if you still think that there is an error in Newton calculation, please offer the updated calculation to prove why each side can contribute different force (while all the particles are fully connected).
Particles are never connected. Two things cannot touch. None of Newtons laws about sets of objects require connectivity for this reason.
QuoteLet's set the whole Earth at the shape of spanner.So, the Earth will look like an extended object with all of its mass while the length of each side is 10,000 Km. Based on Newton's Second Law for an Extended Objecthttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/n2ext.html"The motion of any real object may involve rotations as well as linear motion, but the motion of the center of mass of the object can be described by an application of Newton's second law in the following form:F = M aYes, the motion of the center of mass will follow that law, just like it says. I never said otherwise.
If I put force on the spanner, or net force on the system of completely disconnected objects, that will move the center of gravity, which is thrust.
With regards to the SunWhy are we so sure that during all of his life time the Sun had to keep the same orbital radius?
How could it be that all the moons and Planets are drifting outwards, (or inwards based on the tidal idea) while the sun is fixed at the same radius?
How could it be that in one hand our scientists claim that the SMBH increases its mass by eating stars and gas clouds, while on the other hand they don't consider an option that stars must migrate/drift inwards in order to supply the requested food for the SMBH monster?
If the SMBH has 4 x 10^6 sun mass, (while our scientists believe that this mass had been taken from the stars in the galaxy) than somehow 4 x 10^6 stars had to drift inwards.
So why our scientists are so sure that the Sun was always at the same distance from the center of the galaxy???
What makes our star so unique that it had to stay so far away from the monster at the galaxy center?
There is no history we can consult. We seem to be on the road (a clean orbit) still, so that's evidence that we've not left it, because it is hard to get back if you fall off the road, or at least it takes a lot more than 20 orbits. That's pretty strong evidence, but not proof.
The solar system has positive angular momentum (inclination +63°),
Well not at the exact same radius since it is under the effect of all the local stars
Quote from: HalcThe solar system has positive angular momentum (inclination +63°),The Sun has currently positive angular momentum (inclination +63°). In other words, it is moving upwards from the Galactic Disc lane while it orbits around the center of the galaxy.
It is expected that once it gets to the pick it should get down and cross the galactic lane downwards.
Hence, the Sun is Bobbing up and down while it orbits the center of the galaxy.This is not unique for the Sun. Actually all the stars in the galaxy bobbing up/down, in/out or in between.So, how can you call it "clean orbit"?
Do you think that Newton or keler would accept that orbit as a "clean orbit"?
If I understand it correctly, it should move up and down at least four times before it set one complete cycle.Can you please find one planet or moon that is bobbing up and down while it orbits around its host (four times per cycle)?
How can you ignore that incredible positive angular momentum???
Actually you have already offered the answer for that bobbing activity"Quote from: Halc on 17/12/2018 21:18:16Well not at the exact same radius since it is under the effect of all the local starsSo, you even claim that "it is under the effect of all the local stars".
The Earth works under the gravity of the Sun (While it ignore the gravity of the center of the galaxy, and so on.)
So, why the Sun doesn't orbit under the effect of all the local stars???
In other words, what is the real host of the Sun?
If the Sun goes up and down, could it be that it actually orbits around some sort of a center of mass which is the equivalent center due to all the stars/SMBH in the galaxy?
So, could it be that it is not directly orbits around the galaxy, but it orbits around a local center of mass while this local center of mass orbits around the galaxy.
It is the same phenomenon as the Moon orbits around the Sun (12 times per cycle).If we shut down the light at the Earth, we might see that the moon orbits around the Sun while it's bobbing inwards and outwards. (As the Moon orbits almost horizontally to the earth/sun disc).
So, why do we reject the idea that the bobbing activity shows clearly that the Sun doesn't orbit directly around the center of the galaxy, but around some local center of mass which is under direct "effect of all the local stars"?
If you don't agree:Would you kindly show the formula of gravity which can support that strange bobbing activity or "clean orbit" of the Sun?
Prove your hypothetical idea for that bobbing activity by real mathematics based only on Newton and kepler.
In my opinion, this bobbing activity is the smoking gun which we are looking for.
Once we agree that the Sun orbits around a local center of mass (Which is "under the effect of all the local stars" - as the Moon/sun orbit), we have got the answer for the Spiral galaxy enigma.
QuoteSo, could it be that it is not directly orbits around the galaxy, but it orbits around a local center of mass while this local center of mass orbits around the galaxy.Exactly.
Orbital speed is a function of 'reduced mass', which for any relationship except a binary star, is approximated by the mass of the primary.V = √(Gμ/R) where G is the gravitationl constant, μ is the reduced mass of the pair of objects, and R is the radius.Reduced mass μ for two objects is: μ = (m1-1 + m2-1)-1 which is pretty much the mass of the sun for Earth's orbit, and SGr-A (plus a couple hundred dark objects) for S2. That means that the moon would orbit at about the same speed as Earth if it was by itself, and S2 would orbit at the same speed even if it was the only visible part of some larger object that it orbited. None of these objects have enough mass to affect their respective reduced masses.
There is a lot of research going into dark matter, and these sorts of things help them estimate the MACHO component of dark matter (things that don't show light like Mars).
Newton didn't need to. His formulas do not apply only to matter that emits light. Jupiter will orbit the future white dwarf that the sun will become at the same radius as the black dwarf it will be even later on. The latter is dark matter.
So is there a model supplied by such open-minded thinking? Trust me, such a thing would be warmly greeted if it worked.
Quote from: Halc on 22/12/2018 14:27:52So is there a model supplied by such open-minded thinking? Trust me, such a thing would be warmly greeted if it worked.Trust me.There is a model that works by 100%.However, I need your cooperation and good willing.
For just one moment try to forget all the wrong understanding/hypothetical ideas that we have about the galaxy (Including: Age of the Star/galaxy/Universe, dark matter/dark energy and so on).
In the same token:Every star in the galaxy must orbit around some host Point. It might be something that we see or something that we can't see. However, any star (at any size) must set a clean orbital cycle (in ellipse shape or a perfect cycle). If we can't see that host point, let's call it virtual host point.
Summery -The orbital cycle around a virtual host point is a key element in my explanation.Please try to accept this idea as is.
If you totally can't agree with that, you are more than welcome to prove it by mathematics.
However, please don't tell a story why this idea isn't logical based on your our current understanding about the GalaxyAgree?
If you have no objection - we will set the next element.