The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. GRAVITY vs. THE LEVERLAW
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

GRAVITY vs. THE LEVERLAW

  • 1 Replies
  • 4002 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dedaNoe (OP)

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 30
  • Activity:
    0%
    • Dedanoe -- Unileversal TAODotology
GRAVITY vs. THE LEVERLAW
« on: 14/04/2007 18:05:30 »
dedanoe to NASA/ESA: GRAVITY vs. THE LEVERLAW
(in attepmt to move the world with a single coin)

you know newton's gravity law right: F = GM[1]M[2]/R^2 now consider the system earth-moon. if you take any test weight and slide it along the line that connects the centers of earth and moon you'll come to a point where the pull of the two over the test weight cancel. that's the barycenter point i.e. point of equlibrium. condition for balance in the system will be F[1] = -F[2] which expands into GM[1]M[3]/R[1]^2 = -GM[2]M[3]/R[2]^2 <=> M[1]/M[2] = R[1]^2/R[2]^2. thereby, newton's condition for balance reads: MAGNITUDES ARE IN BALANCE ON SQUARE DISTANCES FROM THE CENTER PROPORTIONAL WITH THEIR MASSES.

now consider the system earth-moon as a lever with the rigid bar and the fulcrum absent. the leverlaw mentions NO RIGID BAR, NO FULCRUM & HAS NO EXCEPTIONAL CASE. then newton's barycenter would be analogy for equlibrium point in a lever i.e. the center of the lever while barycenter-to-earth will be the distance of earth (R[1]) and barycenter-to-moon will be the distance of moon (R[2]). thier forces come tangentially to their trajectories and the condition for balance is simply: F[1]/F[2] = M[1]/M[2] = R[2]/R[1]. it reads: MAGNITUDES ARE IN BALANCE ON DISTANCES RECIPROCAL TO THEIR WEIGHTS. just compare the leverian condition (M[1]/M[2] = R[2]/R[1]) with newton's condition (M[1]/M[2] = R[1]^2/R[2]^2) - obviously this two cannot be both right at the same time.

judging only by the contents of the leverlaw - MAGNITUDES ARE IN EQUILIBRIUM ON DISTANCES RECIPROCAL TO THEIR WEIGHTS - what exactly will be archimedes' definition for lever & to what exactly do we apply the leverlaw then? in my oppinion LEVER IS SYSTEM OF WEIGHTS (as bodies not as magnitudes) WHERE EVERY WEIGHT IS GLOBAL REPRESENTOR OF ITS OWN LEVER. i have a nukebook dealing with this matters. to read it, go to http://dedanoe.googlepages.com/knigata.pdf [nofollow] it is in armageddonian. you can ask for translation at www.pmf.ukim.edu.mk [nofollow]

that's all for now! dedanoe over & out...
Logged
Unleash death and TAO chaos,
Excellency Dedanoe Unlishnidaos.
 



lyner

  • Guest
GRAVITY vs. THE LEVERLAW
« Reply #1 on: 14/04/2007 19:19:12 »
We've been into this before. A lever is a rigid body - old fashioned  mechanics.
The Earth - Moon system is not rigid . You are talking about two separate things gravitational potential and the principle of moments. Why would you expect them to behave the same way?
Can you ask a sensible question next time please?
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 1.481 seconds with 28 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.