Proof of the apple 'pulling' the earth?

[Reiku]

Here's my two second psuedofilled section.

I think gravity is grosely misunderstood, and even worse, it's seen to be quantuized.

 

[Vkothii]

To answer your questions. If there was just one mass, there would be just one mass.

Re-stating the question doesn't furnish an answer, Mr "I'm a clever scholar".

If you split them, inverse square law vector analysis says the smaller one will fall towards the larger one.

So, before you split them, what about this inverse square, and acceleration?

how can the earth exert as much force on the sun as what the sun does upon the earth.

This question has been answered many times, here in this thread, and in lots of others. And in a lot of books; a lot of people understand how.

But you don't; perhaps you don't have the brains?
How many times does someone have to tell you it's a SINGLE FORCE.
Yes, that's right. There is only ONE force between two bodies.
I can write that out again for you, if you didn't understand it the first 27 times...?

 

[Montec]

Hello plane, et al.

The pseudo force we call "gravity" is the result of "time gradients". All mass, no matter how small or large, generates/causes a reduction in the rate of time at its location in space. Time gradients appear to fall of at 1/r^2. Time gradients, from mass, are additive. All particles will experience a continuous force towards an area/point of "slowest time rate".

The "time gradients" of the Earth and Moon, as a system, are added together and form points of "slowest time rate". One point is within the Earth and another point is within the Moon. The point within the Earth is offset towards the Moon so there is a net force affecting the Earth towards the Moon. The offset within the Moon is towards the Earth so there is a net force affecting the Moon towards the Earth.

The other part of the orbital equation is another pseudo force we call "centrifugal force" which has its own affect on "time rates".

 

[Vkothii]

Perhaps plane can overturn Newton's laws and gravity simultaneously?
We will all thank him for pointing out that for over 300 years, the moon has not been gravitationally bound to our planet by gravity. Gravity is an illusion, obviously: if there are two bodies, there are two forces to explain, so Newton's single force is wrong - the moon shouldn't be where it is.

We all eagerly await plane's next publication, in which he explains how the moon is where it should be after all. We can't explain why because Newton was wrong - this guy is so utterly brilliant, no-one can even look at his working or understand it.

 

[James R]

The question is how can F1 = F2 if the masses are different.

Well, Newton's law says they are equal, for one.

The question, this forum being genuine or otherwise, still is how can the earth exert as much force on the sun as what the sun does upon the earth.

The force is due to an interaction between the Sun and the Earth. The Earth doesn't generate the force on its own. Also, see Newton's third law, which I so patiently explained to you earlier.

 

[plane]

Well, Newton's law says they are equal, for one.

The question is how not who. You do get some junk posters on this forum.

You assume, for reasons that are unclear, that "gravity strength is proportional to quantity", by which I assume you mean that the force between two objects is proportional to the total mass of the two objects combined.

Gravity strength is proportional to mass. If you are on the sun you fall faster than what you do on Mercury. Your assumption is hard to follow.

The formula F=GMm/r^2 gives the magnitude of the force on one object (either M or m), and not some kind of "shared" force that applies to both objects.

The force is due to an interaction between the Sun and the Earth. The Earth doesn't generate the force on its own. Also, see Newton's third law, which I so patiently explained to you earlier.

James R is a living part of Newton's contradiction. Many are.

For James R, not shared one day, due to an interaction a few months later. This is not physics on James R's part. It's language.

Appreciate those saying that a binary star system proves an apple attracting the earth. Why I stated look more deeply a few posts back. If you were on a said binary star, the earth moon system would look like a binary system. Don't forget that Tyco Brahe was drawn to astronomy by an accurate prediction of a lunar eclipse. Yet Tyco and the predictors believed the earth is in the centre of all things. The way things appear may not be the way they are. Good bye, good luck and good living.

 

[Vkothii]

The way things appear may not be the way they are. Good bye

You mean, we aren't going to see any more of your incomprehension, stubborn refusal to accept that you're just wrong, and continual re-posting of the same boring questions, over and over, the same tired answers, that you then ignore altogether, and ask the same tired questions again...?

You're blind to logic, I would say. You have some sort of logical dyslexia. I'd go and seek help.

P.S. You see, if this has all got this far, and you still have the same question as when you started all those posts ago, do you think your stubborn attitude and wilful blindness to reality have helped you along at all? Now that you so obviously understand as little as you did when you started, I mean?

 

[plane]

P.S. You see, if this has all got this far, and you still have the same question as when you started all those posts ago

The question is the same area as asking for the proof of an apple attracting the earth but it isn't that question, old son.

I don't think you even know what Newton's gravity guess. It is "Every particle in the universe attracts every other particle in the universe with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distance apart"

I stated the first part of it and you said I was committing an error in going from particles to masses. All I did was state Newton's guess as it appears in school books. From that I have trouble taking you seriously.

Anyway the question is not seeking the considered proof. It is seeking how anyone can reconcile unlike particles exerting a like force on each other.

No-one has offered any semblance of a mechanical explanation as to how this can be so.

James R said earlier in the thread that the F in F = G.M.m/d x d is to be treated as the magnitude of force on one object.

More recently he has said the F in F = G.M.m/d x d comes about from an interaction of M and m.

James R is unlikely to be able to clarify his contradiction and that is where we are at.

So you can see I am pretty much showing that Newton's gravity has contradiction within it's structure in these more recent postings. Earlier I was seeking the considered proof of an apple attracting the earth. If it can be seen to structurally unsound, apple proof seeking becomes redundant. I did start a new thread about this but a not so wise moderator closed it.

Hope that helps you but I really have trouble taking you seriously.

 

[Vkothii]

I am pretty much showing that Newton's gravity has contradiction within it's structure

Well, old son, I'd say you're totally alone there. But you don't actually want any explanations or help, do you?

You're here to try, and try again (and if there is no response, or not the one you expect, you try again, don't you?), to tell everyone that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation has a big gaping hole in it, right?

The thing with that theory is: you are the only person here who can see this problem, unfortunately I can't see it (I must be suffering from some strange blindness).

So, youre all on your own. You have your entire brain to yourself.
Who knows, you may work out the problem as you see it, one day. But as I say, you are the only one who can see this problem you appear to be complaining over and over again about. No-one else seems to be able to see it either.

Maybe you have some kind of super-vision, or your genes are different. But because no-one can help you with this problem (because none of us can see what you keep saying you can see), you will have to figure it out all by yourself, I'm afraid.

P.S. This means I personally will not respond to any more of your posts from this point - I'll just assume you are talking out loud, or trying to declare something so you can examine your own ideas more closely. You're obviously better off without all us ignoramuses anyway.

 

[James R]

plane:

The formula F=GMm/r^2 gives the magnitude of the force on one object (either M or m), and not some kind of "shared" force that applies to both objects.

...

The force is due to an interaction between the Sun and the Earth. The Earth doesn't generate the force on its own.

For James R, not shared one day, due to an interaction a few months later.

...

James R said earlier in the thread that the F in F = G.M.m/d x d is to be treated as the magnitude of force on one object.

More recently he has said the F in F = G.M.m/d x d comes about from an interaction of M and m.

James R is unlikely to be able to clarify his contradiction and that is where we are at.

There is no contradiction between my two statements:

1. The force of gravity involves an interaction between at least two objects.
2. Newton's law of gravity gives the magnitude of the force on either one of the two objects involved (since each experiences a force of equal magnitude).

Why do you think there is a contradiction?

A force (any force) only acts on one object at a time, by definition of what we mean by "force". In a gravitational interaction, a Newton's third law action-reaction pair of forces is involved. For example, when the sun and earth interact gravitationally, the earth experiences an attractive force towards the sun, and the sun experiences an attractive force of equal magnitude towards the earth. To repeat myself again: one force acts on the Sun; the other acts on the Earth. Two objects - two forces. One interaction.

What is it about this that confuses you so much?

 

[Vkothii]

James R: There are not two forces, there's one force and one lot of inertia to react to it.
The force (any inertial force, as in Newtonian) appears because of another equivalent inertial mass or reaction (as a force or opposition to the applied force).

One force, two things.

Newtons formula for gravitational "charge" is expressed as A mass and a derived mass. You need one to see the other. You get two results by running the algorithm twice; you iterate the formula for EACH body in the interaction - gets really tricky after [more than] two of them are around.

 

[Stryder]

It's definitely two forces I'm afraid. A simple reason is that Force diagrams will always apply at least two directional arrows. One for Weight the other for Normal Reaction

I'm sure this is probably what James R was referring to.

 

[Vkothii]

You aren't seeing this are you?
There are only two forces because that's how we draw them - one at at time is how we do that.
They do it one at a time too, but together (at the same time).
Do you want that put another way...?

 

[Stryder]

You aren't seeing this are you?
There are only two forces because that's how we draw them - one at at time is how we do that.
They do it one at a time too, but together (at the same time).
Do you want that put another way...?

Are you trying to refer to Lagrangian Mechanics?

 

[Vkothii]

"you want that put another way..."

The computer here is two masses that are "gravitationally bound" right?

The two forces in James R's post and your weight and reaction, are the things our computer maps back onto the real one.

Layman's version: if you stretch an elastic band or string, then both ends will pull on your hands - each hand sees a "pull" toward the centre of the length of elastic: is it two forces from one interaction, or a single force (pull) from one rubber band? As long as you're clear about the parallel side of it, then each hand simultaneously experiences what we call a force, and we can describe each separately which of course is just a convention.

 

[plane]

plane:





There is no contradiction between my two statements:

1. The force of gravity involves an interaction between at least two objects.
2. Newton's law of gravity gives the magnitude of the force on either one of the two objects involved (since each experiences a force of equal magnitude).

Why do you think there is a contradiction?

A force (any force) only acts on one object at a time, by definition of what we mean by "force". In a gravitational interaction, a Newton's third law action-reaction pair of forces is involved. For example, when the sun and earth interact gravitationally, the earth experiences an attractive force towards the sun, and the sun experiences an attractive force of equal magnitude towards the earth. To repeat myself again: one force acts on the Sun; the other acts on the Earth. Two objects - two forces. One interaction.

What is it about this that confuses you so much?

Hardly worth you replying JR. I am satisified an apple does not attract the earth. And satisfied that I know how Newton made his mistake.

You are saying without hesitation in this post that the sun and earth apply equal force to each other.

If Newton's guess at gravity is ever to exposed as the guess that it is, physicists are going to have to be put in a position where a multitude of everyday people doubt what they are saying. That may never happen but if what you are saying is couched in terms of a 500 horse power bulldozer and a 200 horse power bulldozer pushing on each other, you never know, the penny might drop.

You/Newton are saying that each bulldozer applies the same force to each other. Somehow they link up so as each applies 1000 horspower to the other.

In effect Newton's law of gravity is espousing a principle that goes down this line.

If it is pointed out to everyday people that this is the principle that Newton's law of gravity espouses, then everyday people would look to physicists for an explanation as to how unlike opposed forces sources link up to generate equal and opposite like forces that is the product of the two force sources.

I don't think you can explain mechanically how M and m join together to produce one force that is the product of the two masses. We have been through it already and you haven't been able to.

This is a diagram of where I think Newton's guess has sprung from.

He has said each of unlike forces is subject to the new world of Galileo. (F = k.m.a)

Next he has placed in m/D x D and M/D x D for A and a respectively.

And have presto he has believed that he has had a universal law of gravity.

His base problem was the presumption that the small m could subject the large M to Newton's second law.

As I said I am satisfied that is how it has come to be. Just a bit sad that it hides a far more rationale explanation of the high tide on the side of the earth away from the moon.

That as it maybe, I know I am not going to get sense out of anyone who believes in a rote like way that earth applies the same force to the sun as what the sun does to the earth.

Sure you have better things to do than reply. Goodbye and good luck.

 

[Vkothii]

Is there an echo in here?

Just, for a sec there...

P.S. Scientists gave up trying to explain things mechanically some time ago. Mechanistic theories keep bumping into the sort of difficulties that a certain iterative poster seems to have (right here).
The problem with it is you cannot just consider forces, you have to look at the whole thing; the whole thing does it simultaneously - we can't do that when we analyse it, except at the end of a series of determinations; someone here seems to be unable to see past this.

 

[Stryder]

Could you name these scientists? perhaps state an exact number with a reference to collaborate your findings?

The reason I ask this Vkothii is because there are certain people that choose to either misinterpret things for fun, or perhaps have their own agenda for mis-interpretation and when they do so in regards to science they are creating what is known as "Junk Science". This is where they blatantly lie, manipulate results and otherwise attempt to undermine Science in general.

Now I'm not saying you are doing this, but there are similarities to it that I thought should be pointed out.

 

[Vkothii]

Might have to go back a century or so, first.

 

[James R]

plane:

Hardly worth you replying JR. I am satisified an apple does not attract the earth.

Good luck to you, then. You're out of touch with 99.999% of the scientific community, but maybe you'll convince somebody, somewhere.

You are saying without hesitation in this post that the sun and earth apply equal force to each other.

It's implicit in what we mean by the term "force". It's a definitional fact. Arguing it is, frankly, quite silly. To do so effectively, you really need to rework the whole notion of "force" - something you have so far made no attempt to do.

You/Newton are saying that each bulldozer applies the same force to each other. Somehow they link up so as each applies 1000 horspower to the other.

Bear in mind that power is not the same as force. In fact, if a large truck pushes on a small car, or vice versa, the force that each exerts on the other are always equal and opposite, in accordance with Newton's third law of motion. Your failure to properly understand that law is the source of all your problems with Newtonian gravity, as well. I advised you when you first brought the subject up to go away and learn Newton's laws from scratch. I can only repeat my advice.

As I said I am satisfied that is how it has come to be. Just a bit sad that it hides a far more rationale explanation of the high tide on the side of the earth away from the moon.

What far more rational explanation? Didn't we cover the faults in your explanation earlier?