Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: sorlov on 03/11/2019 14:55:02
-
In the theory of vortex gravity, cosmology and cosmogony, evidence is presented that the forces of attraction are created by etheric torsions. On the cosmic scale, the gravitational field acts in a plane-symmetric manner. This explains many physical phenomena, such as:
- elliptical orbits of celestial bodies,
- the tides,
- removing or approaching satellites, planets or stars to each other,
- deflection, deceleration or acceleration of spacecraft.
This circumstance can be used to reduce the cost of space flights.
The theory proposes physical models of the origin and evolution of Black Holes, planets, stars, galaxies and the entire Universe, as well as energy, atoms and electromagnetic fields.
On the basis of the laws of aerodynamics, the invariance of the speed of light is explained.
As a proof of the vortex, plane-symmetric nature of gravity, the calculation of the forces of solar attraction acting on Mercury and Pluto is made. The equation of vortex gravity has an error of not more than 1%. Whereas the classical equations of gravity are more than 10% wrong.
On the basis of the proposed theory, it is possible to explain many physical paradoxes that are not understood until now.
-
You're going to need to give us more than that to work with. Where is this evidence you speak of? Where is this equation you claim to be more accurate than existing equations?
-
All my calculations and justifications have been repeatedly published. I can send the address of my website. Let us know your email.
-
All my calculations and justifications have been repeatedly published. I can send the address of my website. Let us know your email.
That's not the way this site works.
You need to provide grounds for a discussion here.
-
Whereas the classical equations of gravity are more than 10% wrong.
If by "classical" you mean "the astronomy of Aristotle", I think the >10% error is justified.
However, if by "classical" you mean "Isaac Newton", I think you will find this rather harder to justify.
- In the case of Mercury (which has the biggest deviation in our solar system), the error is about 10 seconds of arc per century, ie about 1/2000 of an orbit in 400 orbits. That is considerably better than 10% error!
And if by "classical" you mean Albert Einstein, he resolves even this tiny error.
It is an extremely bold claim that you have a theory more accurate than Einstein's.
And an extremely foolish claim that the errors of Isaac Newton exceed 10%.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury
-
On the basis of the laws of aerodynamics, the invariance of the speed of light is explained.
That one was my favourite.
Using the rules for air flow to calculate the speed of something in a vacuum.
That takes a "special" kind of intellect.
-
According to the theory of vortex space rotation, the gravitation force is independent of the masses and densities of the bodies
Not according to experiments to measure the gravitational constant. There is strong experimental evidence that the strength of gravity is directly related to an object's mass. Henry Cavendish performed one of the earliest measurements of gravitational force between bodies in the laboratory and the gravitational constant derived from his measurements are pretty close to the modern measured value: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#History_of_measurement
- The faster the planet rotates, the faster the corresponding ether torsion rotates too. The faster the torsion rotates, the stronger is the force of vortex gravitation.
This is contradicted by astronomical data. Venus rotates at an equatorial speed of only 1.81 meters per second whereas Mars rotates much, much faster at 241.17 meters per second. Despite this, Venus is the planet with the stronger gravitational pull (0.9 G vs. 0.38 G for Mars). Mercury also rotates more quickly than Venus (3 meters per second), but also has weaker gravity (0.38 G, about the same as Mars).
The faster the planet rotates around the axis, the greater is its mass and more satellites it possesses.
Pluto has five satellites (Charon, Nix, Hydra, Styx and Kerberos), whereas the more massive Mercury and Venus have none. Mars and Earth, also more massive than Pluto, have only two and one satellite respectively. Then there are asteroids significantly smaller than even Pluto that have their own satellites (243 Ida, 66391 Moshup, (357439) 2004 BL86 and (136617) 1994 CC, the last of which has two satellites).
By the way, the planet is called "Uranus", not "Uranium".
-
All my evidence is presented in my articles. Look in the Google search
-
All my evidence is presented in my articles.
And I just showed that at least some of your "evidence" is wrong.
-
According to astronomical facts - faster all planets revolves around its axis-Jupiter. This planet is the largest. Obviously, the smaller the planet, the lower the rotation speed. But there are exceptions mentioned above. The fact is that it is necessary to take into account the age of the planet. The greater its age, the greater the deceleration of rotation. The number of satellites also depends on extraneous factors. The dependence of rotation speed, mass, number of satellites has exceptions, but in General it is fulfilled. My main proof is the calculation of solar gravity on mercury and Pluto. Read in my article this calculation and after this write-foolish this or not foolish.
-
The mistake of Newton and Einstein is that they think that gravity is created by bodies. Therefore, their gravitational forces are directed centrally symmetrically to one point. In fact, gravity is created by a subtle ethereal vortex. Therefore, the forces of gravity decrease inversely to the square of removal, but only ALONG the PLANE of the VORTEX. When moving away from the vortex (perpendicular), the gravitational forces decrease inversely to the CUBE of this removal. The plane of the solar, etheric vortex is very close to the Ecliptic. All calculations are mainly done in the plane of the Ecliptic. Therefore, the inaccuracies of the Newton and Einstein equations are small. But in the tops of the small semiaxis of planetary orbits, these errors are large. Look at my calculations.
-
My main proof is the calculation of solar gravity on mercury and Pluto. Read in my article this calculation and after this write-foolish this or not foolish.
Okay, so where is this calculation so that I can read it? The gravitational constant measurement experiments are still a falsification of your model.
The mistake of Newton and Einstein is that they think that gravity is created by bodies. Therefore, their gravitational forces are directed centrally symmetrically to one point. In fact, gravity is created by a subtle ethereal vortex. Therefore, the forces of gravity decrease inversely to the square of removal, but only ALONG the PLANE of the VORTEX. When moving away from the vortex (perpendicular), the gravitational forces decrease inversely to the CUBE of this removal. The plane of the solar, etheric vortex is very close to the Ecliptic. All calculations are mainly done in the plane of the Ecliptic. Therefore, the inaccuracies of the Newton and Einstein equations are small. But in the tops of the small semiaxis of planetary orbits, these errors are large. Look at my calculations.
If this was true, we would know about it. There are artificial satellites in polar orbits around the Earth and any anomalies in their motion would be detectable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_orbit
-
1. All calculations can be read in my main article. 2. Artificial satellites orbit in the center of the terrestrial, etheric, torsion. In the center of the torsion act end vortices, which create a force of attraction equal to the Equatorial. Therefore, humanity is the whole history of its existence, thinks that gravity is centrally symmetric. The radius of the earth's torsion is not less than 1 million km. Therefore, its area up to 10,000 km is a center with end vortices. If the forces of gravity acted centrally symmetrically, then all celestial systems would be spherical, not flat. 3. Just on forum not going to explain. Read my articles.
-
......Just on forum not going to explain. Read my articles.
The rules of the forum are that you need to explain and discuss here, not just advertise an external site. If you can’t do that we will remove your posts.
I also notice that you have created a number of identities on this forum, please reduce these to one within 24hrs or we will remove all your identities.
Thank you
-
......Just on forum not going to explain. Read my articles.
The rules of the forum are that you need to explain and discuss here, not just advertise an external site. If you can’t do that we will remove your posts.
I also notice that you have created a number of identities on this forum, please reduce these to one within 24hrs or we will remove all your identities.
Thank you
I am guessing this is the guy who posts the tidal gyre nonsense?
-
That's not correct Sorlov " The mistake of Newton and Einstein is that they think that gravity is created by bodies." Einstein imagined it as a result of both mass and 'energy'. The problem with 'energy' on its own is that we can't touch it. It's a lot simpler with mass, at least proper mass. But the result of f.ex a black hole is a 'energy density' around the event horizon. To us that space is as transparent as a space without mass, but it's 'folded' differently, and will treat a clock differently as defined from a far away observer..
-
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/26apr_gpbtech/
And the result is https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/
=
The argument that light speeds vary due to energy density becomes somewhat confused if you think of both the effect of a 'squid' varying its direction creating 'real photons' from this 'constant acceleration' creating a energy density as in the Swedish experiment as well as if you think of this experiment linked above. It's a lot simpler to define it to a 'propagation' through a 'distorted space' as it seems to me. The real test of it should be if we could be in communication with someone that actually exist inside such a space, finding it f.ex 'infinite' while the far observer gives it a limit.
But if you look at it from a field perspective then energy densities should be it. But from that perspective you don't need to define a 'propagation' either, at least not the way I think about it. It would just be causes and effects due to where and how you measure inside this 'infinite SpaceTime' we live in.
==
Which is why I don't fully agree to this http://physicsdetective.com/how-gravity-works/
It's one way to define it through 'propagation's' but the evidence for a 'photon' doing so is missing. What we have is a geometrical definition of 'propagation' connected to a measurement in time, always done locally it gives us a 'global definition' of a unvarying speed. That will hold locally defined.
=
A 'varying speed' can't ever be an 'absolute' btw. It will be observer dependent. What that means is that you won't ever agree on what this speed you measure is. Einstein used the postulate of a defined speed of light in a vacuum to explain it, and as a result gave us LorentzFitzgGerald contractions and time dilation's. Without that local definition that holds everywhere there will be no way to define what a 'speed' should mean. Actually this is needed for your 'proper time' to be existent too.
-
To talk about the speed of light, one must understand its nature. The origin of light I proposed in my article
-
Looked at the paper you linked Halc. Would that be yours Mr Sorlov?
Saw you referring to a center of the universe in it?
You seem to have mixed in a lot of different ideas, and then representing them as some sort of proofs?
-
To talk about the speed of light, one must understand its nature. The origin of light I proposed in my article
Why not give us the URL here? That would make it easier.
-
My articles show calculations and justifications about the force and nature of gravity, the evolution of the Earth, the movement of celestial bodies and artificial spaceships, the mass of the photon, the atomic structure, the nature of potential energy and light, etc. All my articles can be viewed on my home page
-
See Google .........
I'm attempting to understand the equation you have in that article to determine the force of gravity. It's difficult to read it. Can you write the equation here so that it is easier to read? Also, I don't understand what the different variables in it mean. When you say "volume of nucleons in the body", are you talking about the total volume of all of the protons and neutrons added together? Also, if I wanted to perform a calculation with this equation, how would I go about determining what the "velocity of ether in orbit" is?
-
This equation is derived in my theory of vortex gravity. This equation is my main discovery. All my articles and conclusions are based on it. My theory has been published hundreds of times. Of course, the volume of nucleons is the volume of protons and neutrons. Ether flows act on the volume of nucleons. Since all nucleons have the same density, we easily move to their mass, that is, to the mass of the body. So I use Archimedes ' law and I don't have to "warp space-time" or engage in other unscientific fiction.
-
You didn't answer this question:
Also, if I wanted to perform a calculation with this equation, how would I go about determining what the "velocity of ether in orbit" is?
I don't have to "warp space-time" or engage in other unscientific fiction.
Except you are engaging in "unscientific fiction" because your model violates conservation of mass.
Besides, the warping of space-time has actually been measured (in multiple different experiments). It's far from fiction.
-
You didn't answer this question:
He just seems to be interested in advertising his site rather than discussing here.
-
My answer is in my theory of vortex gravity. It takes several pages with diagrams and equations. On the forum it cannot be migrated. I'm not advertising my site, but my theory. The theory of relativity has long been discredited, since it is built on the basis that the speed of light is the maximum in our world. But researchers have repeatedly recorded speeds exceeding the speed of light. When the speed of light is exceeded, the theory of relativity becomes absurd. If it is so difficult for you to come to my site, send your email to my address ion@sampo.ru and I'll send you my theory. My "fantasy" turned into reality in the calculation of solar gravity on the planet, as the error in the calculations for my equation is an order of magnitude smaller than in the calculations for the equations of Newton or Einstein.
-
No ads, you can read my theory in a journal
-
No ads, you can read my theory in a journal
Please read our acceptable usage policy which says:
“If you start a thread with a post that is for all practical purposes the same as you have posted elsewhere, we will generally assume that you are evangelising, and will act accordingly.”
By constantly referencing other sites rather than properly discussing your ideas here, you are evangelising and attempting to give greater hit rates on google.
We will remove your links and references and unless you engage in full discussion here the thread will be locked or deleted.
Note also that, as has been pointed out a number of times, your equations are invalid as they do not match experimental results.
-
But researchers have repeatedly recorded speeds exceeding the speed of light.
When did that happen?
-
Type in Wikipedia - "Superluminal motion" and get the answer.
-
Type in Wikipedia - "Superluminal motion" and get the answer.
And if you read the article, you will see that there are ways to account for the observations without requiring matter to actually move faster than light.
-
In experiments conducted at CERN (European center for nuclear research) to superluminal speeds accelerated neutrino-subatomic elementary particle with mass. This is a well-known and not the only fact. If you direct the beam from the flashlight into the mirror, then what will be the speed of the reflected beam in relation to the directional.
-
The spot on my high performance oscilloscope moves faster than the speed of light but it does not shake my belief in SR
-
Einstein once said of the Bible that it was an interesting children's tale. I want to add, his theory of relativity is not a child's, but an adult fairy tale. I must say, my topic is my theory of vortex gravity, not relativity. Please comment on my theory.
-
In experiments conducted at CERN (European center for nuclear research) to superluminal speeds accelerated neutrino-subatomic elementary particle with mass. This is a well-known and not the only fact. If you direct the beam from the flashlight into the mirror, then what will be the speed of the reflected beam in relation to the directional.
I'm guessing you didn't keep up with the developments on that story: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk-faster-light-neutrinos
Einstein once said of the Bible that it was an interesting children's tale. I want to add, his theory of relativity is not a child's, but an adult fairy tale.
Then it's an adult's fairy tale with massive experimental evidence in support of it, such as the detection of gravitational waves, the accurate quantification of the anomalous precession of Mercury's orbit, the accurate quantification of the orbital decay of a neutron star binary, the accurate prediction of time dilation effects (both gravitational and velocity-dependent), E=mc2 being measured to extremely high accuracy. the detection of the geodetic effect, and the accurate quantification of gravitational lensing, among others.
Please comment on my theory.
I have. It violates conservation of mass and ignores the experimental evidence supporting the gravitational constant. So I'm going to have to conclude that it does not accord with the evidence.
Do you plan on answering this question any time soon?
Also, if I wanted to perform a calculation with this equation, how would I go about determining what the "velocity of ether in orbit" is?
-
In my theory, the law of conservation of mass is not violated. Where did you find this violation?
The speed of ether in each orbit is determined by the force of gravity in this orbit and by my formula, just like the gravitational constant is determined, which in reality is a reduction coefficient and has no physical meaning. I repeat again - look at my comparative calculations to determine the forces of solar gravity and maybe you will understand whose equation is true.
-
Although I am in agreement with the explanation for the superluminal speed of the Neutrinos in the quoted experiment I see no reason why Neutrinos should not travel faster than light (by a tiny amount) in inter galactic space.
inter galactic space is not completely empty and Photons interact far more with matter than Neutrinos.
-
Хотя я согласен с объяснением сверхсветовой скорости нейтрино в процитированном эксперименте, я не вижу причины, по которой нейтрино не должны путешествовать быстрее света (на крошечную величину) в межгалактическом пространстве.
межгалактическое пространство не совсем пустое, и фотоны взаимодействуют с материей гораздо больше, чем нейтрино.
Хотя я согласен с объяснением сверхсветовой скорости нейтрино в процитированном эксперименте, я не вижу причины, по которой нейтрино не должны путешествовать быстрее света (на крошечную величину) в межгалактическом пространстве.
межгалактическое пространство не совсем пустое, и фотоны взаимодействуют с материей гораздо больше, чем нейтрино.
Нейтрино могут сколько угодно путешествовать, но превышение скорости света нейтрино означает крах теории относительности.
-
Translation - Neutrinos can travel as much as they like, but exceeding the speed of light of a neutrino means the collapse of the theory of relativity.
-
Translation - Neutrinos can travel as much as they like, but exceeding the speed of light of a neutrino means the collapse of the theory of relativity.
What background do you have in science? I am just curious.
-
A most poignant point Syphrum :)
" The spot on my high performance oscilloscope moves faster than the speed of light but it does not shake my belief in SR "
And you made me think of me calling it a 'local definition', which it is as far as I know. It doesn't matter if this light you catch, to then use in a two mirror experiment, have traveled the universe, 'bending' (or if you like 'accelerating' inside a gravitational potential) around neutron stars etc. As soon as it 'bumps' into your mirrors the result must be 'c'.
=
If we want to use apparent effects it is enough with looking up at a starry sky at night, then turning your head. It now turns 'faster than the speed of light' relative the distance existing between those stars you see.
-
And yes, I still need to see a proof for something 'propagating' faster than light Mr Sorlov. As for this 'universal center' you mention, if now that paper would be yours? Can you define where it is, and give us the equations (with explanations) and coordinates, as defined from Earth?
-
Какое у вас образование в области науки? Мне просто любопытно.
I'm just an engineer. I propose that I discuss the topic - vortex gravity, and not my personality and theory of relativity.
-
And yes, I still need to see a proof for something 'propagating' faster than light Mr Sorlov. As for this 'universal center' you mention, if now that paper would be yours? Can you define where it is, and give us the equations (with explanations) and coordinates, as defined from Earth?
Something is apparently ether. With an extremely low density of ether, it must have such a huge speed to create the force of gravity known to us. Look at my calculations.
I do not understand what universal center you are writing about. If you mean the center of the vortex, then it is at the center of any celestial body or celestial system.
-
Seems there are different versions of your papers. If Halck would give us back the link he originally made then that was where I read it? Downloaded it but I seem to have misplaced it, or just opened it. Could look in my temp files I guess if it doesn't link anymore?
-
" According to the theory of vortex gravitation and the laws of mechanics, the Universe should be in the state of compression and twisting, not expansion. This is proved under the following conditions:
– The Universe ether and galaxies rotate around the center;
- all the celestial bodies increase their masses permanently.
These regularities are confirmed by astrophysicists: the galaxies rotate around the center of the Universe completing one turnover per 100 billion years [4]. The mass of Earth increases by 1.6·1015 kg a year [1]. "
-
"Согласно теории вихревой гравитации и законам механики, Вселенная должна находиться в состоянии сжатия и скручивания, а не расширения. Это доказывается при следующих условиях:
This issue cannot be resolved unambiguously. All celestial bodies whose orbits are located close to the plane of the ether vortex should approach the center. If the orbit has large inclinations to the vortex plane, then these bodies (including galaxies) can be removed. This is described in detail in my articles. For example, the Earth is approaching the Sun, and the Moon is moving away from the Earth. Here, the age of the object still matters.
You can search the Internet for my main article, Foundation of vortex gravitation, cosmology and cosmogony.
-
By the way, my name is Sergey Orlov
-
Ah, thanks for that, but it still doesn't define this center you're postulating? That's why I would like you to expand on it.
-
Какое у вас образование в области науки? Мне просто любопытно.
I'm just an engineer. I propose that I discuss the topic - vortex gravity, and not my personality and theory of relativity.
So you could be described as a have-a-go hero then. How difficult can it be, this relativity? You can skim all the surface information of popular as science and feel you know enough. Not good enough.
People study for years just to get a grasp of the sciences. Then they tend to specialise because there is simply too much for one person to know.
You cannot simply ignore relativity and refuse to discuss it. That would make you a dishonest actor. Unless the reason is you don't know anything about it at all. I await your reply with great anticipation.
-
In my theory, the law of conservation of mass is not violated. Where did you find this violation?
It seemed to be what you were implying when you said "all the celestial bodies increase their masses permanently" and "The mass of Earth increases by 1.6·1015 kg a year". Where does the extra mass come from?
The speed of ether in each orbit is determined by the force of gravity in this orbit
So in order to calculate the force of gravity in your model, you need to know the speed of the ether in the orbit. In turn, you have to know the force of gravity at that radius in order to determine the speed of the ether. That sounds like circular reasoning to me.
just like the gravitational constant is determined, which in reality is a reduction coefficient and has no physical meaning.
Its physical meaning is that the gravitational force is directly linked to the mass of the object in question, contradicting your claim that they are not linked.
I repeat again - look at my comparative calculations to determine the forces of solar gravity and maybe you will understand whose equation is true.
Given that you have more than one article, it would be nice to know exactly where these calculations you speak of are. Can you quote it?
Translation - Neutrinos can travel as much as they like, but exceeding the speed of light of a neutrino means the collapse of the theory of relativity.
And since such superluminal velocity does not actually happen, relativity has not collapsed.
-
Вы не можете просто игнорировать относительность и отказываться обсуждать ее. Это сделало бы тебя нечестным актером. Если только причина не в том, что вы вообще ничего об этом не знаете. Я жду вашего ответа с большим нетерпением.
I know my theory of vortex gravity. On the theory of relativity, I have cited only a few facts that are known to all honest scientists. I will not discuss this relative composition anymore.
-
Вы не можете просто игнорировать относительность и отказываться обсуждать ее. Это сделало бы тебя нечестным актером. Если только причина не в том, что вы вообще ничего об этом не знаете. Я жду вашего ответа с большим нетерпением.
I know my theory of vortex gravity. On the theory of relativity, I have cited only a few facts that are known to all honest scientists. I will not discuss this relative composition anymore.
So, basically then, you are a dishonest actor. You intend your 'theory' to supercede relativity without even discussing it. Doesn't that even bother you? That sounds rather delusional to be honest.
I await your reply with great anticipation.
-
Именно это вы имели в виду, когда сказали: "все небесные тела постоянно увеличивают свою массу" и "масса Земли увеличивается на 1,6·10 15 кг в год". Откуда же берется лишняя масса?
"Extra mass" is created in the center of each etheric torsion or celestial body. That is, in the center there is turbulence in the ether flows and micro torsions arise in which the ether is condensed and atoms are created from it. Thus, this excess mass and atoms appear from the ether. This is described in detail in my article - Genesis of the planet Earth
S. ORLOV. Search the Internet or request my e
mail. Unfortunately, the forum is not allowed to make links to the exact address.
-
Поэтому для того, чтобы рассчитать силу тяжести в вашей модели, вам нужно знать скорость эфира на орбите. В свою очередь, вы должны знать силу тяжести на этом радиусе, чтобы определить скорость эфира. Это звучит как круговое рассуждение для меня.
You know, Newton or his students found their gravitational constant also, by the known force of gravity. I will add that my equation is equivalent to the classical ones, but only when determining gravity in the plane of the gravitational torsion bar. The difference is that 1) in my theory, gravity does not depend on the mass of the body to which the attractive forces are directed and there are no reduction factors with ridiculous physical units. 2) when determining gravity at points having deviations from this plane, in my equation there is another factor equal to the cosine of the angle of this deviation in the cube. Read my articles. I worked on them for 16 years, their total volume is hundreds of pages and it’s hard for me to tell about all the details.
-
Учитывая, что у вас есть несколько статей, было бы неплохо точно знать, где находятся эти расчеты, о которых вы говорите. Вы можете его процитировать?
Full list of my articles
1. EQUIVALENCE OF ENERGY AND ATOMIC GRAVITATION
2. ON OPTIMAL TRAJECTORY IN SPACE FLIGHT
3. Gravitational Properties of Atom
4. ON INVARIANT SPEED OF LIGHT
5. REASONS FOR REMOVAL OF THE MOON
6. PHOTON MASS
7. Origin and physical properties of the Black Hole
8. Genesis of the planet Earth
9. Paradoxes of the theory of gravity
10. GRAVITATION - FLAT POWER FIELD
11. Masses of celestial butts
12. The Foundation of vortex gravitation, cosmology and cosmogony
-
Итак, в основном, тогда вы нечестный актер. Вы хотите, чтобы ваша "теория" вытеснила теорию относительности, даже не обсуждая ее. Неужели тебя это даже не беспокоит? Честно говоря, это звучит довольно бредово.
So, basically then, you are a dishonest actor. You intend your 'theory' to supercede relativity without even discussing it. Doesn't that even bother you? That sounds rather delusional to be honest.
But you do not know my theory, therefore you are the same dishonest actor.
-
So you are dodging the issue then. That speaks volumes about how weak your ideas are. If they could stand up to scrutiny you would show in detail how they supercede and improve on relativity. Since you won't do that I would advise everyone to ignore everything you say.
-
вы бы подробно показали, как они превосходят и улучшают относительность. Поскольку вы этого не сделаете, я бы посоветовал всем игнорировать все, что вы говорите.
In my theory, everything is proved without the hypothesis of the relativity of time, speed, mass, and other devilry. Why should I discuss it. Einstein’s network has a huge army of relativists. Let them discuss.
-
"Extra mass" is created in the center of each etheric torsion or celestial body. That is, in the center there is turbulence in the ether flows and micro torsions arise in which the ether is condensed and atoms are created from it. Thus, this excess mass and atoms appear from the ether. This is described in detail in my article - Genesis of the planet Earth
S. ORLOV. Search the Internet or request my e
mail. Unfortunately, the forum is not allowed to make links to the exact address.
If you are saying that mass is created where there was no mass before, then that is indeed a violation of conservation of mass.
You know, Newton or his students found their gravitational constant also, by the known force of gravity.
That's because they actually measured both the mass and the force of gravity produced by the mass. Have you measured the velocity of the ether?
I will add that my equation is equivalent to the classical ones
This is the very thing I am trying to determine. I cannot do that if I don't know what the velocity of the ether is. But I already know that your equations cannot be equivalent to the contemporary ones because of this one little detail right here:
in my theory, gravity does not depend on the mass of the body
In contemporary gravitational equations, doubling the mass of an object will double the gravitational strength felt by a second object at the same distance. If your equation does not make the same prediction, then it is not equivalent to existing equations.
Read my articles. I worked on them for 16 years, their total volume is hundreds of pages and it’s hard for me to tell about all the details.
I'm not going to waste my time reading "hundreds of pages" looking for some specific information. You have to be more specific than that.
Full list of my articles
1. EQUIVALENCE OF ENERGY AND ATOMIC GRAVITATION
2. ON OPTIMAL TRAJECTORY IN SPACE FLIGHT
3. Gravitational Properties of Atom
4. ON INVARIANT SPEED OF LIGHT
5. REASONS FOR REMOVAL OF THE MOON
6. PHOTON MASS
7. Origin and physical properties of the Black Hole
8. Genesis of the planet Earth
9. Paradoxes of the theory of gravity
10. GRAVITATION - FLAT POWER FIELD
11. Masses of celestial butts
12. The Foundation of vortex gravitation, cosmology and cosmogony
This is nowhere near specific enough for me to find that one specific "proof" about your calculations of solar gravity . You claim that you found the proof, so the burden is on you to show us that proof.
11. Masses of celestial butts
LOL, what?
-
вы бы подробно показали, как они превосходят и улучшают относительность. Поскольку вы этого не сделаете, я бы посоветовал всем игнорировать все, что вы говорите.
In my theory, everything is proved without the hypothesis of the relativity of time, speed, mass, and other devilry. Why should I discuss it. Einstein’s network has a huge army of relativists. Let them discuss.
You have provided zero evidence of anything. Relativity has passed many tests. What have your ideas done? Zip! NADA! Nothing! Are you simply trolling?
-
Если вы говорите, что масса создается там, где раньше ее не было, то это действительно нарушение сохранения массы.
Масса (атома) создается из эфира, путём уплотнения эфира. Эфир в неуплотненном состоянии не имеет гравитационой массы, а если его часть (нуклон) уплотнить, то появляется масса.
-
Это потому, что они на самом деле измерили как массу, так и силу тяжести, производимую массой. Вы измерили скорость движения эфира?
But they did not measure the gravitational constant. I, like them, also know the mass and gravity, and from them I determine the density and speed of the ether, and not the gravitational constant. What is incomprehensible here?
-
В современных гравитационных уравнениях удвоение массы объекта удвоит гравитационную силу, ощущаемую вторым объектом на том же расстоянии. Если ваше уравнение не дает такого же предсказания, то оно не эквивалентно существующим уравнениям.
В современных уравнениях - две массы. Одна из них ложная. Я имею в виду массу тела к которому направлено притяжение. Если, даже она увеличиться в сотни раз, гравитация не вырастет. Поэтому в моём уравнении его нет. Вторая масса - это масса тела которое находится в гравитационном вихре. От величины массы этого тела зависит сила притяжения этого тела к центру гравитационного вихря.
-
Если ваше уравнение не дает такого же предсказания, то оно не эквивалентно существующим уравнениям.
Эквивалентность выражается в одинаковых численных значениях силы гравитации, которая определяется по классическим и по моему уравнению. Я повторяю, эта эквивалентность может быть только в центральной плоскости эфирного вихря, но эта эквивалентность пропадает если мы определяем силу гравитации, действующую на тело, которое расположено с отклонениями от гравитационного вихря. То есть сила гравитации зависит не только от расстояния, но и от местоположения рассматриваемого тела.
-
Я не собираюсь тратить свое время на чтение "сотен страниц", ища какую-то конкретную информацию. Вы должны быть более конкретны, чем это.
Объяснение здесь, без формул и схем займёт гораздно больше времени.
-
Вы утверждаете, что нашли доказательство, поэтому на вас лежит бремя показать нам это доказательство.
Пожалуйста, выдержка из моей статьи (если вы что-то поймете)
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF THE VORTEX GRAVITATION EQUIATION – (26)
Any theory is considered to be proved if its conclusions and formulas correspond to experimental facts. Since the gravitation forces correspond to the centrifugal (experimental) forces, then, to determine a deviation of the gravitation forces in the torsion periphery (in the minor semiaxis apex – point b), it is necessary to determine the analogous deviation of the values of the centrifugal (experimental) forces as compared to those same forces in the perihelion.
1. Pluto
a = 5906,375 x 106 km – major semiaxis, b = 5720, 32 x 106 km – minor semiaxis
r = 5907,963 x 106 km – the distance from the Sun to the Pluto orbit minor semiaxis apex
Kc – compression coefficient of the orbit
Kc = 1 - e2 = b/a = Cos A = 0,9685
Kg – gravitation coefficient
Kg = b3 /a3 = Cos3 A = 0,9084
Rb – curvature radius in the Pluto orbit minor semiaxis apex
Rb = a2 /b = 6098,48 x 106 km
Vb = 4,581 km/c – the orbital speed in the apex of the Pluto orbit minor semiaxis
The centrifugal force in the minor semiaxis apex
Fcb = 0,00344 Mp, Mp – mass of the Pluto.
Newtonian gravitation forces in its point
Fgb = 0,00382 Mp (+11,1% concerning Fcb)
The vortex gravitation forces
Fvb = Fg x Kg = 0,00382 x 0,9084 = 0,00347 Мп (+ 0,87% concerning Fcb)
2. Mercury (analogous calculation)
а = 57,91х 106 , в = 56,67 х 106 , r = 58,395 х 106 .
e = 0,2056, Ксж = в/а = 1 - e2 = Cos A = 0,9786, Kg = 0,9372.
Rb = 59,177, Vb = 46,4775
The centrifugal force in the minor semiaxis apex
Fcb = 36,503 Mm, Mm – mass Mercury
Newtonian gravitation forces
Fgb = 39,09 Mm, (+7,1% concerning Fcb)
The vortex gravitation forces
Fvb = 36,63 Mm (+ 0,35% concerning Fcb)
Consequently, formula (9) is really correct.
-
Теория относительности прошла много испытаний.
Геоцентричная система Птолемея тоже прошла испытания - свыше тысячу лет, но вдруг появился Коперник...
-
Теория относительности прошла много испытаний.
Геоцентричная система Птолемея тоже прошла испытания - свыше тысячу лет, но вдруг появился Коперник...
Well, not being willing to converse in English speaks volumes about your confidence in your own ideas. Hiding the discussion from the general readership is not a good look for someone trying to prove they are an honest actor.
I look forward to your reply with great anticipation.
-
BTW Ptolemy and Copernicus will not help you.
-
Ну, нежелание общаться на английском языке красноречиво говорит о вашей уверенности в собственных идеях. Скрывать дискуссию от широкой читательской аудитории-это не очень хороший взгляд для того, кто пытается доказать, что он честный актер.
Я с большим нетерпением жду вашего ответа.
My answer is presented above - the calculation of the forces of solar gravity. Where is your answer?
If my text is in Russian, then this is due to a sloppy automatic translation of my computer.
-
BTW Ptolemy and Copernicus will not help you.
Copernicus, Kepler, Bernoulli, Archimedes, Navier, Stokes have already helped me. Einstein may Ptolemy help.
-
Масса (атома) создается из эфира, путём уплотнения эфира. Эфир в неуплотненном состоянии не имеет гравитационой массы, а если его часть (нуклон) уплотнить, то появляется масса.
Эквивалентность выражается в одинаковых численных значениях силы гравитации, которая определяется по классическим и по моему уравнению. Я повторяю, эта эквивалентность может быть только в центральной плоскости эфирного вихря, но эта эквивалентность пропадает если мы определяем силу гравитации, действующую на тело, которое расположено с отклонениями от гравитационного вихря. То есть сила гравитации зависит не только от расстояния, но и от местоположения рассматриваемого тела.
I can only read English. Please translate these responses.
But they did not measure the gravitational constant. I, like them, also know the mass and gravity, and from them I determine the density and speed of the ether, and not the gravitational constant. What is incomprehensible here?
The gravitational constant is just a relationship between measurable quantities. Nothing more, nothing less. Thus, it is correct insomuch as the measurements are correct. It's like the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, which is a constant (pi). The thing about your ether density and speed is that you have no way of determining whether the ether (if it exists) has the speed and density you claim it to. In principle, you can produce any kind of equation you want to and claim that it shows the ether's speed and density while having no experimental method to verify or falsify those claims.
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF THE VORTEX GRAVITATION EQUIATION – (26)
Any theory is considered to be proved if its conclusions and formulas correspond to experimental facts. Since the gravitation forces correspond to the centrifugal (experimental) forces, then, to determine a deviation of the gravitation forces in the torsion periphery (in the minor semiaxis apex – point b), it is necessary to determine the analogous deviation of the values of the centrifugal (experimental) forces as compared to those same forces in the perihelion.
1. Pluto
a = 5906,375 x 106 km – major semiaxis, b = 5720, 32 x 106 km – minor semiaxis
r = 5907,963 x 106 km – the distance from the Sun to the Pluto orbit minor semiaxis apex
Kc – compression coefficient of the orbit
Kc = 1 - e2 = b/a = Cos A = 0,9685
Kg – gravitation coefficient
Kg = b3 /a3 = Cos3 A = 0,9084
Rb – curvature radius in the Pluto orbit minor semiaxis apex
Rb = a2 /b = 6098,48 x 106 km
Vb = 4,581 km/c – the orbital speed in the apex of the Pluto orbit minor semiaxis
The centrifugal force in the minor semiaxis apex
Fcb = 0,00344 Mp, Mp – mass of the Pluto.
Newtonian gravitation forces in its point
Fgb = 0,00382 Mp (+11,1% concerning Fcb)
The vortex gravitation forces
Fvb = Fg x Kg = 0,00382 x 0,9084 = 0,00347 Мп (+ 0,87% concerning Fcb)
2. Mercury (analogous calculation)
а = 57,91х 106 , в = 56,67 х 106 , r = 58,395 х 106 .
e = 0,2056, Ксж = в/а = 1 - e2 = Cos A = 0,9786, Kg = 0,9372.
Rb = 59,177, Vb = 46,4775
The centrifugal force in the minor semiaxis apex
Fcb = 36,503 Mm, Mm – mass Mercury
Newtonian gravitation forces
Fgb = 39,09 Mm, (+7,1% concerning Fcb)
The vortex gravitation forces
Fvb = 36,63 Mm (+ 0,35% concerning Fcb)
Consequently, formula (9) is really correct.
There is a lot about this that I don't understand, so I am going to have to study this in more detail before I respond.
-
Я могу читать только по-английски. Пожалуйста, переведите эти ответы.
Please
A mass (atom) is created from ether by compaction of ether. The ether in an uncompressed state does not have a gravitational mass, and if its part (nucleon) is condensed, then mass appears.
Equivalence is expressed in the same numerical values of the force of gravity, which is determined by the classical and by my equation. I repeat, this equivalence can only be in the central plane of the ether vortex, but this equivalence disappears if we determine the force of gravity acting on the body, which is located with deviations from the gravitational vortex. That is, the force of gravity depends not only on distance, but also on the location of the body in question.
-
In principle, you can produce any kind of equation you want to and claim that it shows the ether's speed and density while having no experimental method to verify or falsify those claims.
Of course, my equation for the plane can be considered as the equivalent of the classic. But my main proof is in another equation - three dimensional. It is distinguished by the introduction of another factor - the cosine of the angle of deviation of the point in question from the central plane of the ethereal, gravitational torsion. Here it is a huge difference with the classic equation. I have already provided you with a calculation. In it, the discrepancy between the classical equations and the fact is over 10%. My equation has an accuracy of up to 1%. But this calculation of mine has been ignored by official science for 16 years. If we try to determine gravity at a point deviating from the plane of the solar gravitational torsion at significant angles, then the error, either according to Newton or Einstein, would reach enormous magnitude. You yourself can calculate, for example, the cosine of 45 degrees in a cube - this will be their mistake. In addition, the universal rotation of celestial objects, their flat configuration can be explained only on the basis of my vortex theory.
The thing is that the world power in science was seized by relativists. For them, the recognition of another theory of gravity means political death. Recall Copernicus again - his theory has not been recognized by the authorities for 100 years. The mathematics of Lobachevsky was not recognized for 25 years. And there are many such cases in the history of science.
I hope that I will find sensible critics of my theory for the triumph of truth.
-
Есть много об этом, что я не понимаю, поэтому мне придется изучить это более подробно, прежде чем я отвечу.
There are big distortions. That's why I recommend reading in the original - Foundation of vortex gravitation, cosmology and cosmogony
-
The ether in an uncompressed state does not have a gravitational mass, and if its part (nucleon) is condensed, then mass appears.
Then, just like I said, that violates conservation of mass. Conservation of mass says that mass cannot be created.
Equivalence is expressed in the same numerical values of the force of gravity, which is determined by the classical and by my equation. I repeat, this equivalence can only be in the central plane of the ether vortex, but this equivalence disappears if we determine the force of gravity acting on the body, which is located with deviations from the gravitational vortex. That is, the force of gravity depends not only on distance, but also on the location of the body in question.
Have there been any measurements which show that gravitational forces change depending on the angle of the orbit?
Back to your calculations. I’ll see what we get when we use the standard Newtonian equation:
FPluto = G(Mm/r2)
FPluto = (6.674 x 10-11)(((1.9885 x 1030)(1.303 x 1022))/(5.906 x 1012)2)
FPluto = (6.674 x 10-11)((2.591 x 1052)/(3.48808 x 1025))
FPluto = (6.674 x 10-11)(7.428155 x 1026)
FPluto = 4.95755 x 1016 newtons (4.95755 x 1010 meganewtons)
If I am looking at your equations correctly, it seems that you calculated the gravitational force on Pluto as being 0.00347 meganewtons. This is far, far different from what the Newtonian equation predicts. Unless you didn’t mean “meganewtons” when you wrote “Mn”. If not meganewtons, then what does “Mn” stand for? What units of force are you using?
There are big distortions. That's why I recommend reading in the original - Foundation of vortex gravitation, cosmology and cosmogony
I don't know which of my quotes this is in response to, as you quoted me in Russian for some reason.
-
Если не meganewtons, то что означает “Mn”? Какие единицы силы вы используете?
Mp means the mass of Pluto
Mm - mass of Mercury
Everything is distorted here, you have to look at the published article
-
Были ли какие-либо измерения, которые показывают, что гравитационные силы изменяются в зависимости от угла орбиты?
I made a calculation using the example of Mercury and Pluto - this is the proof, since centrifugal forces are always equal to gravitational and it is possible to determine the accuracy of attractive forces from them.
-
Тогда, как я уже сказал, это нарушает закон сохранения массы. Сохранение массы говорит о том, что масса не может быть создана.
Nothing is broken. The mass of ether turns into the mass of the nucleon.
-
Mp means the mass of Pluto
Mm - mass of Mercury
What unit are you measuring those in?
I made a calculation using the example of Mercury and Pluto - this is the proof, since centrifugal forces are always equal to gravitational and it is possible to determine the accuracy of attractive forces from them.
So when your calculations say that the force on Pluto is 0.00347 Mn, what unit is that?
Everything is distorted here, you have to look at the published article
I found a downloadable PDF file called "foundation of vortex gravitation, cosmology and cosmogony". That's what I've been looking at.
Nothing is broken. The mass of ether turns into the mass of the nucleon.
Oh, so the total mass of the ether decreases as the mass of the planet increases? I guess that would work out.
-
Итак, когда ваши расчеты говорят, что сила на Плутоне равна 0,00347 МН, что это за единица?
Absolute physical units are not required here. That is, the value of 0.00347 Mp means that the force of solar gravity acting on Pluto is equal to 0.00347 of the mass of Pluto. In the same arbitrary units, I determined centrifugal force and compare them with gravitational ones. Centrifugal forces are a standard of actual force and they are always equal to gravitational forces. In other words, 0.00347 is the acceleration of gravity in Pluto's orbit caused by solar gravity. What matters here is not the absolute values of the forces of gravity, but their differences with centrifugal forces. As you can see, the equation of vortex gravity is an order of magnitude more accurate than the classical ones.
-
О, значит, общая масса эфира уменьшается по мере увеличения массы планеты? Я думаю, что это сработает.
Of course, the mass of ether "decreases", but it is infinite. If we subtract any finite quantity from infinity, then in the end we will still get the same infinity.
-
That is, the value of 0.00347 Mp means that the force of solar gravity acting on Pluto is equal to 0.00347 of the mass of Pluto.
Okay, if the mass of Pluto is 1.303 x 1022 kilograms, then 0.00347 multiplied by that would be 4.521 x 1019 kilograms of force (4.434 x 1020 newtons). However, I calculated that the gravitational force on Pluto is 4.95755 x 1016 newtons using the Newtonian equation. So the two values still do not match up.
-
Хорошо, если масса Плутона составляет 1.303 х 10 22 килограмма, то 0.00347 умноженное на это будет 4.521 х 10 19 килограммов силы (4.434 х 10 20 ньютонов). Однако я рассчитал, что гравитационная сила на Плутоне составляет 4,95755 х 10 16 ньютонов, используя уравнение Ньютона. Таким образом, эти два значения по-прежнему не совпадают.
You're right. I did not convert kilometers to meters, because I did not need it, since I compared the force of gravity with centrifugal force. But it does not change anything. I did not need to find absolute values. If you translate my results into meters, then you need to take 3 zeros from them and this will be your value. Take a closer look at the units in the calculation in my article.
-
If you translate my results into meters, then you need to take 3 zeros from them and this will be your value.
4.434 x 1020 newtons divided by 103 equals 4.434 x 1017 newtons, which is still 8.9 times larger than the Newtonian value.
EDIT: Actually, I made an error with my first calculation. I assumed the semi-major axis was being used, not perihelion:
FPluto = G(Mm/r2)
FPluto = (6.674 x 10-11)(((1.9885 x 1030)(1.303 x 1022))/(4.43682 x 1012)2)
FPluto = (6.674 x 10-11)((2.591 x 1052)/(1.9685 x 1025))
FPluto = (6.674 x 10-11)(1.31623 x 1027)
FPluto = 8.7845 x 1016 newtons
Your calculation is still too large by a factor of 5.
-
Ваш расчет все еще слишком велик в 5 раз.
Your mistake is that in the calculation you took the distance to Pluto 4.44 x 10 to the 12th degree.
I define gravity at the top of the minor axis. The distance to this point is 5.9 x 10 to the 12th degree. The force of gravity (at this distance) is - 5 x 10 to the 16th degree.
Read carefully the calculations in my article again.
-
The distance to this point is 5.9 x 10 to the 12th degree.
Oh, so that means that my original calculation was correct all along:
FPluto = (6.674 x 10-11)(((1.9885 x 1030)(1.303 x 1022))/(5.906 x 1012)2)
So your calculations are still off by about 8.9-fold.
The force of gravity (at this distance) is - 5 x 10 to the 16th degree.
Actually, your calculated force is 4.434 x 1017 newtons:
4.434 x 1020 newtons divided by 103 equals 4.434 x 1017 newtons, which is still 8.9 times larger than the Newtonian value.
-
Фактически, ваша расчетная сила составляет 4.434 x 10 17 ньютонов:
What are you confusing. My equation in a flat system produces the same result as Newton.
In this case = 5 x 10 to the 16th degree of Newtons.
But in the spatial system, this value in my equation is multiplied by my gravitational coefficient, equal to the cosine of the deflection angle in the cube. Pluto at this point it is 0.908.
That is, 5x10 to the 16th degree is multiplied by 0.908. We get 4.54x10 in the 16th degree.
The centrifugal forces at this point are 4.47 x 10 to the 16th degree - and this is the actual force.
I hope that you can determine by which equation of gravity its value is closer to the value of centrifugal forces, and therefore to the truth.
-
What are you confusing. My equation in a flat system produces the same result as Newton.
In this case = 5 x 10 to the 16th degree of Newtons.
But in the spatial system, this value in my equation is multiplied by my gravitational coefficient, equal to the cosine of the deflection angle in the cube. Pluto at this point it is 0.908.
That is, 5x10 to the 16th degree is multiplied by 0.908. We get 4.54x10 in the 16th degree.
The centrifugal forces at this point are 4.47 x 10 to the 16th degree - and this is the actual force.
I hope that you can determine by which equation of gravity its value is closer to the value of centrifugal forces, and therefore to the truth.
Okay, I see now that I misinterpreted what you posted before. I see what you are trying to do with your math now. I may need to do some more math of my own, so I'll get back to you later.
EDIT: I did some calculations for Venus and Pluto using their semi-major axes. The standard Newtonian equation seems to be highly accurate (measurement or rounding errors alone could potentially account for the differences).
Venus:
Fcentrifugal = (mv2)/r
Fcentrifugal = ((4.8675 x 1024)(3.502 x 104)2)/(1.08208 x 1011)
Fcentrifugal = ((4.8675 x 1024)(1.2264004 x 109)/(1.08208 x 1011)
Fcentrifugal = (5.969503947 x 1033)/(1.08208 x 1011)
Fcentrifugal = 5.51669 x 1022 newtons
Fgravitational = G((Mm)/r2)
Fgravitational = (6.674 x 10-11)((1.9885 x 1030)(4.8675 x 1024))/(1.08208 x 1011)2
Fgravitational = (6.674 x 10-11)((1.9885 x 1030)(4.8675 x 1024))/(1.1708971264 x 1022)
Fgravitational = (6.674 x 10-11)(9.67902375 x 1054)/(1.1708971264 x 1022)
Fgravitational = (6.45978045075 x 1044)/(1.1708971264 x 1022)
Fgravitational = 5.51695 x 1022 newtons
Those two values are very, very close (the calculated centrifugal force is 99.995% that of the gravitational force).
Pluto:
Fcentrifugal = (mv2)/r
Fcentrifugal = ((1.303 x 1022)(4,743)2)/(5.90638 x 1012)
Fcentrifugal = ((1.303 x 1022)(2.2496049 x 107))/(5.90638 x 1012)
Fcentrifugal = (2.9312351847 x 1029)/(5.90638 x 1012)
Fcentrifugal = 4.962828644 x 1016 newtons
Fgravitational = G((Mm)/r2)
Fgravitational = (6.674 x 10-11)((1.9885 x 1030)(1.303 x 1022))/(5.90638 x 1012)2
Fgravitational = (6.674 x 10-11)((1.9885 x 1030)(1.303 x 1022))/(3.48853247044 x 1025)
Fgravitational = (6.674 x 10-11)((2.5910155 x 1052))/(3.48853247044 x 1025)
Fgravitational = (1.7292437447 x 1042)/(3.48853247044 x 1025)
Fgravitational = 4.9569375 x 1016
Those two values are also very close (99.88%).
-
F centrifugal = (mv 2 ) / r
f centrifugal = ((1.303 x 10 22)(4,743)2)/(5.90638 х 1012)
Фцентробежного = ((1.303 х 1022)(2.2496049 х 107))/(5.90638 х 1012)
Фцентробежного = (2.9312351847 х 1029)/(5.90638 х 1012)
Фцентробежного = 4.962828644 х 1016 ньютонов
Incorrect raw data
The speed at the top of a small strip at Pluto is 4581 m/s.
The radius of curvature at the top of the minor axis should be determined taking into account that the orbit of Pluto is not a circle, but an ellipse and it is determined by the formula Rb = a2 / b = 6098.48 x 10 in 9 m. Where a is the semimajor axis, in is the semimajor axis. Then the centrifugal forces are 4.47 x 10 in 22. Therefore, the discrepancy according to your data is even greater - 23%.
The discrepancies along Venus are small, since its orbit hardly deviates from the gravitational plane. Therefore, the classical force of gravity is almost no different from vortex gravity and it makes no sense to look for discrepancies here. In my article I chose Pluto and Mercury, since their orbits have maximum deviations from the gravitational etheric plane.
-
Incorrect raw data
The speed at the top of a small strip at Pluto is 4581 m/s.
I'm using the average orbital speed because I'm using the average distance from the Sun (the semi-major axis).
The radius of curvature at the top of the minor axis should be determined taking into account that the orbit of Pluto is not a circle, but an ellipse and it is determined by the formula Rb = a2 / b = 6098.48 x 10 in 9 m. Where a is the semimajor axis, in is the semimajor axis.
Where do you get that equation for centrifugal force from?
-
Откуда вы взяли это уравнение для центробежной силы?
My centrifugal force equation is classic. In the orbit of each planet, the speed and radius of curvature change. Therefore, the magnitude of the classical force changes.
Read Kepler's laws and ellipse geometry.
-
My centrifugal force equation is classic. In the orbit of each planet, the speed and radius of curvature change. Therefore, the magnitude of the classical force changes.
Read Kepler's laws and ellipse geometry.
Can you provide a reference? The reason I ask is because I've looked for such equations and have had trouble finding them.
Also, you seem to be under the impression that the centrifugal force and gravitational force will always be equal in all parts of a planet's orbit. That would be true if the orbit was circular. This would not be true in the case of an elliptical orbit. The fact that the planet changes its distance from the Sun over time shows that one of the forces acting on it is stronger than the other at certain points and weaker at different points.
When the planet passes the semi-major axis on its way out to aphelion, the gravitational force becomes weaker but the centrifugal force becomes weaker at a faster rate. So the gravitational force exceeds the centrifugal force and starts to decelerate the planet (deceleration in the sense of its rate of moving away from the Sun, I mean), until the ratio of gravitational force to centrifugal force reaches its maximum at aphelion. So we should expect a calculation of centrifugal force at aphelion to be lower than gravitational force there.
The planet stops receding from the Sun and the gravitational force takes over, accelerating it back towards the Sun. Once it passes the semi-major axis again, the centrifugal force exceeds the gravitational force and the acceleration turns back into a deceleration, with the planet no longer approaching the Sun when it reaches perihelion. Perihelion should therefore be the point where the centrifugal force to gravitational force reaches its maximum and begins to accelerate the planet away from the Sun once more. The only places in the orbit where centrifugal force and gravitational force should be equal would be at the semi-major axis (a point crossed four time in the orbit).
-
Можете ли вы предоставить ссылку? Причина, по которой я спрашиваю, заключается в том, что я искал такие уравнения и у меня были проблемы с их поиском.
Кроме того, вы, по-видимому, находитесь под впечатлением, что центробежная сила и гравитационная сила всегда будут равны во всех частях орбиты планеты. Это было бы верно, если бы орбита была круговой. Это было бы неверно в случае эллиптической орбиты. Тот факт, что планета со временем меняет свое расстояние от Солнца, показывает, что одна из сил, действующих на нее, сильнее другой в определенных точках и слабее в разных точках.
Когда планета проходит полу-большую ось на своем пути к афелию, гравитационная сила становится слабее, но центробежная сила становится слабее с более быстрой скоростью. Таким образом, гравитационная сила превышает центробежную силу и начинает замедлять планету (замедление в смысле скорости ее удаления от солнца, я имею в виду), пока соотношение гравитационной силы к центробежной силе не достигнет своего максимума на афелии. Поэтому мы должны ожидать, что расчет центробежной силы в афелии будет ниже, чем сила гравитации там.
Планета перестает удаляться от Солнца, и гравитационная сила берет верх, ускоряя ее обратно к Солнцу. Как только он снова проходит через полу-большую ось, центробежная сила превышает гравитационную силу, и ускорение превращается обратно в замедление, причем планета больше не приближается к Солнцу, когда она достигает перигелия. Таким образом, перигелий должен быть точкой, где центробежная сила достигает своего максимума и гравитационная сила начинает ускорять планету от солнца еще раз. Единственные места на орбите, где центробежная сила и гравитационная сила должны быть равны, были бы на полу-главной оси (точка, пересекаемая четыре раза на орбите).
You have a gross error. Centrifugal force is a reactive force and it is always equal to the active force, in our case, the force of gravity. Centrifugal force is like a shadow, according to Newton's third law. It arises only under the condition that a moving point is rejected by an external force (in our case, gravitational). If gravitational forces were directed equally in all directions, according to Newton, then this point would move in a circle. But if it moves along an ellipse, then the forces of gravity change their values. This is the first proof of my theory. Gravity is created by a flat vortex disk. The orbital planes of the planets have small deviations from this disk. Moving by inertia, they cross it in two places (perihelion and aphelion). The force of gravity reaches its maximum value here, and the orbits - the maximum curvature. When moving away from the aphelion or perihelion, the planets move away from the gravitational disk, which means the forces of gravity decrease and the orbits straighten. All these explanations are detailed in my article.
-
Centrifugal force is a reactive force and it is always equal to the active force, in our case, the force of gravity.
If I have a ball on a string and I start to hurl it around in a circle with an unfaltering grip, then we can say that the centrifugal force and centripetal forces are equal. However, if I have a loose grip on the string, then the centrifugal force will slowly pull the string out of my hand. In that case, this must mean that the centripetal force was weaker than the centrifugal force.
-
Centrifugal force is a reactive force and it is always equal to the active force, in our case, the force of gravity.
If I have a ball on a string and I start to hurl it around in a circle with an unfaltering grip, then we can say that the centrifugal force and centripetal forces are equal. However, if I have a loose grip on the string, then the centrifugal force will slowly pull the string out of my hand. In that case, this must mean that the centripetal force was weaker than the centrifugal force.
There was an inaccurate translation.
If your string is pulled, it means that your centripetal force has weakened due to outside interference. In your case, due to a communication failure. In this case, the centrifugal force decreases to the same extent. You understand, centrifugal force is a conditional, reactive force that does not exist on its own. Only gravity can create centrifugal force. The centrifugal force itself cannot change unless the centripetal force changes. These explanations can be found on the Internet.
-
When the planet passes the semi-major axis on its way out to aphelion, the gravitational force becomes weaker but the centrifugal force becomes weaker at a faster rate. So the gravitational force exceeds the centrifugal force and starts to decelerate the planet (deceleration in the sense of its rate of moving away from the Sun, I mean), until the ratio of gravitational force to centrifugal force reaches its maximum at aphelion. So we should expect a calculation of centrifugal force at aphelion to be lower than gravitational force there.
Sorry Kryptid, but I'm actually with sorlov on this one. The two forces are equal and opposite, one acting on the planet (thus slowing it down on its way out to aphelion), and the other acting on the primary (star presumably), slowing it down as well. The planet slows down not because the forces are not equal, but because the force is not acting tangentially to its motion.
-
Sorry Kryptid, but I'm actually with sorlov on this one. The two forces are equal and opposite, one acting on the planet (thus slowing it down on its way out to aphelion), and the other acting on the primary (star presumably), slowing it down as well. The planet slows down not because the forces are not equal, but because the force is not acting tangentially to its motion.
I realize (due to Newton's third law), that the gravitational force on the planet must be equal and opposite to the gravitational force on the Sun. Likewise, the centrifugal force on the planet and the Sun must also be equal and opposite. But must this mean that the gravitational force between the Sun and planet are always equal to the centrifugal force between the Sun and planet? How can the planet and Sun accelerate away from each other if there is no net force present between them? F=ma seems to demand a net force in order for an acceleration to be present.
-
I realize (due to Newton's third law), that the gravitational force on the planet must be equal and opposite to the gravitational force on the Sun. Likewise, the centrifugal force on the planet and the Sun must also be equal and opposite. But must this mean that the gravitational force between the Sun and planet are always equal to the centrifugal force between the Sun and planet?
There is an equal and opposite force, per Newtons 3rd law. You can call it a centrifugal force if you like, but I never thought that made sense in any but a rotating frame. It's just a force of gravity, one mass acting on another, each accelerating the other.
How can the planet and Sun accelerate away from each other if there is no net force present between them?
They never accelerate away from each other. Acceleration vector is always straight towards the other in a 2 body system. They move away from each other (by inertia), but since they're slowing down while doing that, they're not accelerating that way.
F=ma seems to demand a net force in order for an acceleration to be present.
There is a net force on each mass, hence each of them accelerates. If there is a string, tension on that string represents the one force accelerating each object. The system as a whole has balanced forces and the center of gravity of that system is thus entirely inertial (non accelerating).
-
Ravenstvo tsentrobezhnykh i tsentrostremitel'nykh (gravitatsionnykh) sil bylo tem "yablokom, kotoroye upalo na golovu N'yutona". Krome etogo ravenstva, on znal rezul'taty issledovaniya Keplera - zakon obratnogo kvadrata. Poetomu on legko iz etikh dvukh zakonov uznal zakonomernost' ubyvaniya sily gravitatsii - obratno proportsional'no kvadratu udaleniya - 1/r v kvadrate. Eto byl i yest' yedinstvennyy obosnovanyy chlen v yego uravnenii vsemirnoy gravitatsii. Vse ostal'nyye - lozhnyye ili empiricheskiye. Oni uvodyat uchonykh v lozhnuyu storonu.
Развернуть
517/5000
The equality of centrifugal and centripetal (gravitational) forces was the "apple that fell on Newton's head." In addition to this equality, he knew the results of Kepler's study - the law of the inverse square. Therefore, he easily learned from these two laws the pattern of decrease in the force of gravity - inversely proportional to the square of removal - 1 / r squared. This was and is the only valid term in his equation of universal gravity. All others are false or empirical. They lead scientists in a false direction.
-
Это просто сила тяжести, одна масса действует на другую, каждая ускоряет другую.
Unfortunately, you did not understand my theory. No body attracts to itself. The ethereal vortex performs the force of attraction, more precisely, the pressure gradient in it, which increases towards the center of this vortex. No need to repeat the unproven fantasies of Newton or Einstein. I proved my theory, as mentioned above.
-
It's just a force of gravity, one mass acting on another, each accelerating the other.
Unfortunately, you did not understand my theory. I wasn't commenting on your theory. I was replying to Kryptid.
I pretty much dropped out of the conversation after pointing out a substantial list of claims contradicting empirical evidence, such as Pluto not having moons for instance.