The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
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
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
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.
dedaNoe
(OP)
Jr. Member
30
Activity:
0%
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...