http://www.members.shaw.ca/warmbeach/INDEX3.htm
" The Acceleration of earth's Gravity x earth orbit Time (exact lunar year) = the Velocity of Light.
(9.80175174 m/s2 x 30,585,600 s = 299,792,458 m/s)"
So if the Earth was a binary and falling into its companion, and hence speeding up, gravity would have to reduce to keep the product of orbit time and gravity, = speed of light?
Does this hold true for the binary stars as well! I think this is what was coming out of my macro, but sorry I'm not running it to completion today. I want to speed it up by going through the looping in 10 day lumps.
Looking into this a bit further, and it doesn't compute.
9.80665 m/s2 Times 3.15569e7 seconds = 309467473.4 m/sec => faster than light.
31556926 tropical year? Why choose 30,585,600?
OK it doesn't come out to the speed of light. But faster than the speed of light? Even though no one knows how fast gravity acts.
Weisberg and Taylor when analysing the HT binary use 31557600 seconds in a year.
When I get the computer fixed I'll use 309474338 m/sec as possible term to work with later.
" The Acceleration of earth's Gravity x earth orbit Time (exact lunar year) = the Velocity of Light.
(9.80175174 m/s2 x 30,585,600 s = 299,792,458 m/s)"
So if the Earth was a binary and falling into its companion, and hence speeding up, gravity would have to reduce to keep the product of orbit time and gravity, = speed of light?
Does this hold true for the binary stars as well! I think this is what was coming out of my macro, but sorry I'm not running it to completion today. I want to speed it up by going through the looping in 10 day lumps.
Looking into this a bit further, and it doesn't compute.
9.80665 m/s2 Times 3.15569e7 seconds = 309467473.4 m/sec => faster than light.
31556926 tropical year? Why choose 30,585,600?
OK it doesn't come out to the speed of light. But faster than the speed of light? Even though no one knows how fast gravity acts.
Weisberg and Taylor when analysing the HT binary use 31557600 seconds in a year.
When I get the computer fixed I'll use 309474338 m/sec as possible term to work with later.
Last edited: