gravity effects

More
21 years 10 months ago #4273 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Then it does require energy to maintain itself if it runs on starlight or whatever. And I was unaware that the model has been switched from the standard Newtonian model to your model. When did this happen- I must have been looking out the back door.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 10 months ago #4622 by tvanflandern
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Then it does require energy to maintain itself if it runs on starlight or whatever.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No, there is no connection. I just gave examples of other things that fill the universe and are usually considered "perpetual".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>And I was unaware that the model has been switched from the standard Newtonian model to your model. When did this happen- I must have been looking out the back door.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is not "my model". Newtonian gravity is a purely mathematical model with no physical mechanism. "Pushing gravity" is the 18th century Le Sage model, which provides a physical mechanism for Newtonian gravity. They are not competing models. They complement one another. Newton provided the math and Le Sage the physics of gravity.

When you started asking questions about the causal mechanism of gravity, those can only be answered by physical models such as Le Sage's because Newtonian gravity is just the acceleration formula without addressing why the universe should behave that way. -|Tom|-


Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 10 months ago #4429 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
The Newton laws of gravity do not deny force do they? The force is put in a "black box" that is called the Universal Gravity Constant. The force then becomes a given and no other adjustment is required( at least that is my understanding-I don't want to appear dogmatic here). Since the LeSage model uses the gravity constant it would seem the force is also a given. I think F=ma should be discovered somewhere in the black box but as you say I may be wrong about that too.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 10 months ago #4615 by tvanflandern
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The Newton laws of gravity do not deny force do they? The force is put in a "black box" that is called the Universal Gravity Constant. The force then becomes a given and no other adjustment is required (at least that is my understanding-I don't want to appear dogmatic here). Since the LeSage model uses the gravity constant it would seem the force is also a given.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The Newton laws do not deny force. In fact, they were originally formulated in terms of force. That has led to such misunderstanding, grief, and paradoxes over the years. Today in celestial mechanics, we simply use Newton's acceleration formula. That clears up all the problems.

Note that the acceleration formula, a = GM/r^2, also depends on the universal gravitational constant G, yet does not involve any forces. So obviously the presence of G cannot be equated with the presence of forces.

But then, if you just looked at the units, you would know that at a glance. <img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle> -|Tom|-


Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 10 months ago #3982 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
For me it takes more than a moment to absorb all the info in a statement like Gm=rVV or the other a=Gm/rr. I am going to get that. I force may be hiding or something or would you say this is perpetual motion that only tidal friction can halt. And does it take force to stop any of the bodies being accelerated?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 10 months ago #3680 by tvanflandern
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jim]: does it take force to stop any of the bodies being accelerated?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The force applied by the surface of the Earth does an effective job of preventing us from being accelerated by Earth's gravity, fortunately for us. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.329 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum