Why Modern Physics is Wrong
Modern physics began with Newton and his theory of gravity. There were many notable scientists/philosophers before him who made significant advances but it was Newton who created physics as we know it today. Copernicus developed the heliocentric solar system and established the importance of having theory conform to observations.
Galileo established experimentation as showing the importance of experimentation to develop theory. His experiment to show all objects fall at the same rate, regardless of size, defied the accepted beliefs and established the need for proof for theories.
Newton made a major contribution creating the science of physics when he established that the solar system and falling objects were not just isolated phenomena but the result of the same force. He created a force where the momentum of the planets (MpVp) was counteracted by the force of gravity (GMpMs/d^2) causing the planets to orbit the sun. As the momentum of a planet tried to move it in a straight line away from the sun the force of gravity pulled it towards the sun causing it to orbit just as the same force pulled falling objects towards the center of the Earth.
Although this was a major advancement it turns out Newton was wrong in his creation of the force of gravity. If you do simple algebra of his equation, MpVp = GMpMs/d^2, solving for the mass of the sun, Ms, you get that the mass of the planet is irrelevant, Ms = Vp.d^2/G. It seems rather strange that a mass is equal to an area times a velocity. The velocity of an object in orbit is determined by the distance it is from the central mass regardless of its mass.
This is what Galileo proved with his experiment. If you do the calculations for the different planets you get the contradictory results that the force of gravity is decreasing with distance but the mass of the sun is increasing. It is surprising that the man who invented calculus did not do the simple math to verify his equation.
It is astounding that nobody in the last four hundred years has bothered to check the math. This has resulted in establishing the wrong mass for all the planets which has led to multiple satellites being smashed attempting to land on Mars.
The reason no one has done the calculations is because of the religionization of physics. In a religion the truth is revealed through prophets and it is to be accepted, obeyed, and not questioned. In science the truth must be discovered using the very limited information available at the time. It is necessary to question the tenets and assumptions that are the basis of a science as new information is discovered.
There is no final authority or answer in science and in the natural evolution of knowledge all experts will eventually be shown to be wrong. This is the way science is suppose to work and the establishing of renowned scientist as final authorities and being infallible contradicts the basis of physics, which is that the authority is the reality on which theory is based.
Einstein did not accept Newton’s force of gravity but for the wrong reason. Newton’s force of gravity is instantaneous which Einstein could not accept because of his belief that nothing could exceed the speed of light. He painstakingly created his incomprehensible theory of gravity, general relativity, to produce the same incorrect results that Newton’s theory gave.
Einstein’s creation of the photon, or particle nature of light, and was just as wrong as Newton’s creation of a force of gravity but instead of making an advancement for science, as Newton did, it destroyed physics as a science where reason and evidence were abandoned and the goal became finding excuses and creating imaginary things to confirm Einstein’s infallibility. Physics became about creating illusions to confirm its delusions.
There is no photon and its creation was just the giving of a name to a problem and considering it solved. The question was whether light was a wave or a particle and the photon was just an evasion saying that it was which ever property was desired at the time.
The questions about light being a wave were what was the medium in which the wave moved and the photoelectric effect. The medium in which light moves is the electric and magnetic fields that permeate the universe, not some special artificial aether. This is why it is called an electromagnetic wave and its speed is not constant but determined by the strength of these two fields.
The objection posed by the photoelectric effect is not valid. The claim was that if light were just a wave it would take time for the wave to transfer enough energy to an atom to dislodge an electron and create a current while the there was no delay observed in the production of a current by the photoelectric effect. This objection is invalid because of an implicit assertion that the only way to produce a current is to add a quantum of energy to an atom and dislodge an electron. There are few currents produced in this manner.
A changing electric or magnetic field is the primary method of generating currents. The photoelectric effect is just another version of the piezoelectric effect where a changing electromagnetic wave of the right wavelength distorts a bond in a crystal dislodging an electron.
The speed of light is not constant but varies with the strength of fields in which it travels. Light does not bend around the sun because of gravity (zero times any number is still zero) but because of the greater strength of the fields near the sun. The red shift and blue shift are not a result of a Doppler effect (how can a wave have both a red and blue shift?) and the universe is not expanding faster than the speed of light but because the light travels through fields of varying strengths.
There are experiments showing waves traveling faster than the speed of light and observations from the Hubble telescopes showing stars traveling faster than the speed of light. The denial of experimental results and observations is from a religious conviction that the prophet Einstein cannot be wrong. He is indisputable, unquestionable, and infallible.
Einstein switched physics from being a science based on reason and reality to being a belief in math. Math is a tool that can tell you if something is wrong but not what is right. The basis of Newton’s error was in using the same formula that was accepted for the force between two magnetic for his force of gravity.
When the formula was developed the size of an object was defined by its matter but an object size is really determined by its field, which were unknown at the time. The distance between two magnets is the distance from one magnet to the magnetic field of the other magnet where the two magnetic fields are equal.
The measurement is not the force between the magnets but the strength of the magnet being created as the two magnetic fields combine to form a third magnet. The formula F=M1M2/d^2 gives the right answer but it is not the correct answer. The correct answer is M3= (M1 + M2)/d (d equals the distance from one magnet to the magnetic field of the other magnet.) which yields the same results but better describes reality.
This formula also explains why when measuring the strength of a magnet the force appears to be equal to approximately the cube of the distance. As a magnet approaches a ferrous object it induces a magnet in the material which becomes stronger as the magnet moves closer. As the induced magnet grows stronger its magnetic field increases in size causing the distance between the two magnets to shrink by more than the distance the magnet moved. This creates two variables in the measurement, the strength of the induced magnet and the varying measured distance between the two magnets.
If both Newton and Einstein were wrong about gravity what causes objects to orbit other objects and why do things fall? To find the answer it is necessary to examine the assumptions and reasoning that gave rise to the theory. The assertion of Newton that an object in motion will travel in a straight path unless a force acts upon it is unsupported by observation.
Nothing in the universe travels in a straight line, not even light so how do you know what a straight line is much less that objects will follow that path? Instead we will make an assumption that an object will maintain its energy unless energy is added to it or given off by it. We will also assert that energy is a thing not a property of an object. It and matter are the two fundamental building blocks of objects and cannot be created or destroyed but only transferred to another object.
Energy and matter combine to form objects with matter giving the object substance while energy gives it structure. Energy will produce an energy field around the object (identified as a magnetic field) while matter will produce electrical fields (both positive and negative) around an object.
As support for this contention I will cite the neutron and hydrogen atom. Both are composed of the same matter (a proton and an electron) but they behave quite differently. The evidence supporting that an object has both a negative and positive electrical field is from the neutron splitting into and electron, a proton, and a gamma ray spontaneously after ten minutes of leaving the protection of a nucleus.
If a neutron was moving through a magnetic field and it had both a positive and negative charge it would represent two currents moving in opposite directions. The surrounding magnetic field, according to the right hand rule, would push the two currents in opposite directions creating a shearing force, splitting the neutron and creating a disturbance in the energy ffield in the form of a gamma ray.
Something is converting the neutron into a hydrogen atom when the neutron is no longer within the nucleus of an atom where it is stable for billions of years and that force is a force of energy that does not penetrate the nucleus. The neutron is a subatomic molecule, like the alpha particle, that is composed of an electron and a proton with both a negative and positive electrical charge.
If we look for a constant associated with the solar system the obvious one is that the velocity squared (energy) of a planet time the distance it is from the sun gives the same result for all the planets and objects in orbit around a central object. (If Vp^2d is constant Vp d^2 cannot be unless Vp=d.) This means the energy of an object decreases linearly with distance.
An object will try to equalize with the energy field in which it is by either transferring energy to the field or gaining energy from the field. Once it equalizes with the field it will continue in the circular path where it is in equilibrium with the strength of the energy field. If energy is added to the object it will move into a weaker energy field, losing energy to the field, until it again equalizes with less energy than it had originally.
If energy is removed from the object it will move into a denser energy field, absorbing energy from the field, until it again reaches equilibrium with more energy than it had before it lost energy. There is no momentum moving an object out of the field and there is no force pulling the object towards the central object.
As support for this theory I will cite binary asteroids where one asteroid orbits another. The mass of these asteroids is not big enough to produce a force of gravity that would cause this phenomenon. The further an object is from the sun the weaker the sun’s energy field is and the larger the energy field of an object becomes.
In the asteroid belt the energy of a large rock extends beyond the matter that makes up the rock allowing other objects to equalize with the energy field causing them to orbit it. In a stronger energy field, like on the surface of the Earth, the stronger energy field of the central object compresses the energy field of the rock so that it is very close to the same size as the matter that makes the rock, preventing an object from equalizing with the rock’s field.
As support of the changing sizes of objects where the size is determined by the strength of the energy field in which it occurs I will cite comets. While a comet is close to the sun it loses mass as it sheds matter. After billions of years of orbiting the sun they all should have disappeared. The fact that they are still orbiting the sun is because as they approach the sun they gain energy but shrink in size as their energy field compresses. (A field extends until it meets a field of equal strength where the two fields combine to form a larger object.)
As the comet moves away from the sun it loses energy to the field but its size increases. This allows the comet to gather material from the empty outer solar system preventing it from disappearing. The comet transfers energy from the inner solar system to the outer solar system and matter from the outer solar system to the inner solar system.
What we call gravity is the equalization of energy fields between objects forming larger objects. The Earth and the moon combine their energy fields to form one object that orbits the sun. The tides on both sides of the Earth are where water tries to equalize with the combined energy of the Earth-moon unit. If an object cannot equalize it collides with the central object adding its energy and matter to the central object.
I am sure that most of the people reading this article (if anybody does) will think I am wrong and I agree with them. Physics is not about the right answer but finding the correct answer and as we discover more the answer we have are incomplete or wrong. The challenge is to find the right path to finding answers. Newton was wrong but he made an important contribution to the advancement of science.
Einstein was wrong because his path led to the abandoning of reason and reality using math with its right wrong answers to describe reality. I am not as smart or as knowledgeable as either of them but you do not need to have a genius IQ or a doctorate in animal husbandry to recognize bull shit and that is what Einsteinian physics is.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
James McGinn
| #
Herb,
I’m trying to make sense of your claim here. You state: “The velocity of an object in orbit is determined by the distance it is from the central mass regardless of its mass. This is what Galileo proved with his experiment.”
I agree here. This is consistent with Galileo’s claim. The gravitational force of acceleration is the same regardless of the mass of the object. But then you go further: “If you do the calculations for the different planets you get the contradictory results that the force of gravity is decreasing with distance . . .”
How is this contradictory? Galileo never stated that the force of gravity would be the same regardless of distance. So, it seems you are making an apples and oranges comparison and calling it a contradiction.
Please clarify.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16601
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The contradiction isn’t with Galileo it is with the increasing mass of the sun for the more different planets. Since the force of gravity is a function of mass the increasing mass of the sun should exert a greater gravitational force on those planets than the inner planets so decreasing force of gravity does not follow Newton’s formula.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
. . . with the increasing mass of the sun for the more different planets.
JMcG:
Please demonstrate this assertion.
Regards,
Jim McGinn
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Newton equating of a planet’s momentum to the force of gravity becomes Mass of sun equals Velocity of planet time distance between sun and planet squared divided by Gravitational constant.
I will ignore the gravitational constant because it is the same for all the planets and use the velocity of the planets (in km/sec) and the distance the planet is from the sun (in million km) to determine the mass of the sun according to each planet.
Mercury V=48 km/sec d=58 million km. V time d squared =161472X 10^12
Venus. V=35km/sec. d = 106 Million km V times d squared =393260. ”
Earth. V = 30km/sec. d = 150. ” V times d squared = 675,000. ”
Mars. V = 24 km/sec. d = 228. ” V times d squared = 1247616 ”
I will not do the rest because the mass of the sun continues to grow. According to Newton’s equation the mass of the sun increases as the distance between the sun and the planet increases. I believe the mass of the sun is the same for all the planets.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Herb,
I’m not convinced you are using the right equation. Shouldn’t your equation start with two masses? One being the sun and the other being the relevant planet? Can you clarify?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The mass of the planet appears on both sides of the equation so if you divide both sides of the equation by the mass of the planets disappears from the equation. Every object at the same distance from a central may will have the same velocity regardless of the mass. I was thinking that since we know the mass, distance, and velocity of the artificial satellites in orbit around the Earth we could use that information to check Newton’s equation. I did not do this because would show the same results that the equations wrong.
I hope this clarifies my calculations.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
I think there should be two masses for two different objects M1 and M2 and they should be on the same side of the equal sign, and then maybe again on the other side. So, you have the wrong equation.
Herb Rose
| #
Hello again James,
Newton was trying to figure out why planets orbited the sun when their momentum should propel them into space. He said that a body in motion will follow a right (straight) line unless a force acted upon it. The momentum of a planet (MpVp) would make it go in a straight line away from the sun unless a force was pulling it towards the sun. He created his force of gravity, g = GMsunMplanet/d^2 as the force pulling the planet towards the sun while its momentum tried to move it away from the sun.
This same force caused objects, like apples, to fall on Earth. If an objects momentum was greater than the force of gravity pulling towards a central mass the object would escape the gravitational force of the central mass and fly off into space just as the satellites we launch to explore the solar system are given enough momentum to escape the Earth’s gravitational field where they can coast to their destination. If the momentum is less than the force pulling it towards the Earth the satellite or rocket carrying it will crash back down to Earth. When the momentum of object equals the force pulling it towards the central mass the object is pulled towards the central mass at the same rate as its momentum moves it away from the central mass causing it to orbit the central mass.
The formula for an orbiting planet (according to Newton) is Mass planet time Velocity planet (momentum) equals the force pulling the planet towards the sun, Gravitational constant times Mass of planet times Mass of sun divided by the distance between them squared.
The Mass of the planet is on both sides of the equation while the Mass of the sun only occurs on one side.
This conforms with Galileo’s finding that all object fall at the same rate regardless of their mass and is why all objects at the same distance will have the same velocity regardless of their mass.
Have a good day,
Herb
John Nicol
| #
This article is a complete nonsense and unlike James McGinn above, I am NOT trying to make sense of your silly claims Herb. I cannot understand how an article such as this could possibly accepted for publication on PSI!!
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Actually John, PSI was created (for which I am grateful) for heretics like myself who cannot get past the orthodox expert gatekeepers, like yourself, at proper publications. Doubt is at the foundation of physics but what you have is just denial. Do the math. Use the data from each planet to determine the mass of the sun using Newton’s formula. If you accept that the mass is different for each planet say amen Newton and continue with your beliefs. I do not accept a different mass of the sun for every planet and believe the prophet Newton was wrong. You are a perfect example of what I mean when I speak of the religionization of physics.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Some scientists believe that science is a intellectual activity by which we learn from observations and observations only. You focus on Newton who proposed, as an attempt to explain Tycho Brahe’s astronomical observations and Johannes Kepler’s analysis of these observations which led Kepler to discover three mathematical laws which described the motions of the planets as they orbited the sun. To my knowledge no one has made observations which contradict Brahe’s observations and Kepler’s three scientific laws.
You can have a different theory than Newton’s well accepted theory, but even if your theory can explain Kepler’s three scientific laws, which Newton’s theory did explain, and if your theory can explain the motions of the oceans, as Newton did, you have not proven Newton’s theory to be wrong. What you need to prove this is a reproducible observation which contradicts the predictions of his theory.
But I believe, and it seems many, many physicists have believed, that Newton’s theory does explain Kepler’s three scientific laws which I have never read to have been refuted by some ‘new’ better observations.
This issue of actual observation is something which John and the founders of PSI seem a little lax about as they reason and argue, but seem to ignore actual observation (https://principia-scientific.com/record-temperature-result-of-cloud-revised-updated/). Just as you seem to do..
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Newton’s theory gives a different mass of the sun for every planet in the solar system. (Mass of Planet times Velocity of planet equal Mass of planet times Mass of sun Time Gravitational constant divided by the distance from the sun to the planet squared. This solves to Mass of sun equals Velocity of planet times distance between sunned planet squared divided by the Gravitational constant)
I cannot believe that you believe there is a different mass of the sun for each planet which is the result Newton’s formula gives. Don’t you believe that if a formula gives the wrong answers it proves that the formula is wrong? (see the calculations in response to James McGinn’s request)
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I finally carefully looked at the equation you wrote. MpVp is a momentum and not a force. Even I a chemist knows this. And I know that as a planet orbits the sun its velocity is regularly changing because because velocity is a vector which has direction as well as magnitude. And I know the observed path of the planet about the sun is not circular but elliptical so the force between the sun and a planet is regularly changing because the distance between the planet and sun is regularly changing.
So, I must conclude that you have not accurately defined the sun-planet system that has been observed to exist after pretending that a momentum is equal to a force.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hello again Jerry,
In reference to my reply I agree that a force is not equal to momentum but that is not my theory or formula it is Newton’s theory of gravity.
In my theory I do not believe that orbits are a result of mass but a function of energy. I rephrase Kepler’s third law as V^2 times distance is the same for all the planets to show that the energy from the sun ,V^2, is decreasing with distance and the planets are equalizing with that energy field. There is no momentum moving them away from the Earth and no force pulling them towards the Earth.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Herb:
I’m afraid the confusion is all yours, not Newton’s. Newton established that the gravitational FORCE is GM1M2/R^2. That’s FORCE, not MOMENTUM. Only YOU are suggesting that anyone claimed that it is momentum in that equation. So all of your conclusions flowing from your error are simply nonsense. It is simply not true that Newton’s actual equations lead to different mass at different distances.
Any halfway competent high school physics student would recognize your error.
Let’s see if you can use other of Newton’s equations to establish the proper relationship between force and momentum. (I won’t hold my breath.)
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ed,
Newton believed that a object in motion will travel in a straight line unless a force acted upon it.The momentum of a planet would carry it into space away from the sun. He created his force of gravity to explain why the planets orbited around the sun instead of going into space. His force of gravity pulled the planet towards the sun preventing the planet from traveling into space. To form a stable orbit the force between the planet and the sun must be equal to the momentum of the planet.
What I am trying to explain is that the force of gravity does not equate to the momentum and the force Newton created is wrong.
Have a good day,
Herb
.
Ed Bo
| #
Herb, you say:
“To form a stable orbit the force between the planet and the sun must be equal to the momentum of the planet.”
This is a completely meaningless statement, and it is completely your confusion, not Newton’s. He never made any claim remotely like this. Newton NEVER equated momentum with force. Only you are trying to do this.
I knew you would not be able to explain what the relationship between force and momentum is, even when explicitly challenged. You would be laughed out of any introductory physics class.
James McGinn
| #
Humans are extremely gullible, pious (faith-seeking), and lazy. Most humans look to find a reason to believe. They will only look for a reason to be skeptical if their political opponents declare their beliefs.
PSI adherents pretend to be scientific. Mostly they are part of a religion of science that refuses to consider that much of traditional science is nonsense.
The intellectually dishonest aspects of climatology was preceded by the intellectually dishonest aspects of meteorology, specifically the phoney assumptions of what is referred to as the convection model of storm theory.
The pretentious stupidity of PSI adherents is that they want the world to be aware of the intellectual dishonest of climatology, since it tends to be associated with liberal politics, yet they turn a blind eye to the equally dishonest aspects of meteorology, since it is associated with tradition.
Tradition and/or novelty are not reasons to be skeptical or to believe anything in science. Being an non-scientist, O’Sullivan doesn’t get that. And this is the reason PSI will never be taken seriously.
Real scientists don’t need politics to cajole them into being skeptical.
Did you ever wonder why meteorologists are non-players in scientific discussion on the internet? Here’s why:
Moist Air Convection Myth
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16462
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
James McGinn
| #
John Nicol:
This article is a complete nonsense and unlike James McGinn above, I am NOT trying to make sense of your silly claims Herb. I cannot understand how an article such as this could possibly accepted for publication on PSI!!
James McGinn:
I just see one problem with that, John. What if Herb is right? Or, what if our understanding of gravity is not perfect and Herb’s thinking reveals an anomalous observation. Wouldn’t that be a good thing?
Reply
EnergynEntropy
| #
Energy always and only comes from the past into the future.
If one to capture solar energy, for instance, a device that captures that solar re-outputting it a useful energy – is needed.
To construct the device, energy stored in the past is required to be expended. The total energy expended will far exceed, in several orders of magnitude, the sum useful energy ever produced by the device – before wear and tear forces it to cease.
Rutherford has paid attention to this phenomenon. Einstein has not – an ignorance that has started with Sadi Carnot 1824 seeding for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Carnot didn’t extend his observation to identify how his reference ‘heat engine’ will cease regardless of the availability of external heat source, due to wear and tear (see junkyards all over the world where obsolete energy devices still retain their original mass and parts-count but they are laying dead).
This short-sighting has assisted the false belief, since Einstein, that humans can manufacture Energy (in nuclear, fusion and now solar, wind, hydro and others). They can not. Energy always and only comes from the past into the future. Humans sensed this by instinct and adapted to it through war and slavery, since the antiquity.
In 2017, The Tragedy of the Common has, at last, been quantified and now given its own new Law of Thermodynamics.
Science, though, is yet to understand and acknowledge the newly-discovered constraint.
Reply
lifeisthermal
| #
Very. Nice. Article.
I have come to similar conclusions through another route. I think anyone interested should look into the relationship between heat and gravity. Where ever we look in the universe we see light/heat and the effect if gravity on light/heat. Always together. The first law tells us that work/force and heat are intimately connected. I guess some people here already has seen this from me, but:
∆U(TSI)=W+Q=4g²+4σ256⁴
TSI=1360.8W/m²
And this:
TSI/8g²=(4/3)/(4/3)
This equation is found at bottom of page:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elesph.html
I advise everyone too look closer at electric field theory and use it for heat and gravity. It works. Hydrodynamics also seems to work for light. I’m convinced light/heat/electricity is a fluid, and all three is the same thing. Gravity seems to be a charge. Lorentz wrote a not well known letter with the idea that light and electricity is the same thing. I agree with him.
I’m not saying I’m right, just that the results from connecting gravity and heat are exact. And equations for electric fields and charge works for gravity and heat.
Reply
Norman
| #
Herb Rose
Your article comes close to the worst attempt at physics I have seen. If someone wanted to make a horror movie to scare physics students, you could write the script.
First you come up with this bogus made up formula.
YOU: “If you do simple algebra of his equation, MpVp = GMpMs/d^2, solving for the mass of the sun, Ms, you get that the mass of the planet is irrelevant, Ms = Vp.d^2/G.”
The actual equation is here:
https://brilliant.org/wiki/characteristics-of-circular-orbits/
The units of your phony equation do not even balance. What physics did you study? You have kg m/sec = Newtons (kg m/sec^2).
Of course if you use an invalid equation and then use it to calculate the mass of the Sun you will come up with goofy results. You should have done more study before posting your nonsense, now you just look like an ignorant person.
Use the correct equation and you will not have a Solar mass that changes with distance.
https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.p9c8K0IOQJctJ2kvsDr7ZwHaF7&pid=15.1&P=0&w=187&h=151
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Norman,
Glad you got Herb straighten out.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Norman,
I went to the sites you mentioned and am still having math problems. In order for a stable orbit to form the distance momentum moves a planet away from the orbital distance must be equal to the distance that gravity pulls the planet back to the orbital distance. Is that correct? When I calculate the acceleration of gravity for the sun (g-sun = G X Mass of sun/d^2) I don’t get this. The velocity of the Earth in orbit is 30km/sec. In one second the Earth will move 30km around the sun but in the same second the acceleration of gravity (g-sun) will pull the Earth towards the sun a distance of 3000 km (d=1/2g-sun X t^2). I get similar results when I do other planets. Mercury has velocity of 48km/sec but in that same second the sun will pull the planet19,660 km towards the sun. I don’t see how a vector 30 km/sec going perpendicular to a vector of 3000 km/sec can cause a stable orbit.
Where has my math or reasoning gone wrong this time?
Thanks for your help.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
While I have studied geometry, algebra, calculus, and differential equations, I must admit that I have never understood calculus and differential equations like I could understand algebra. But I read that Newton used geometry in an especially unique way which required the solution of many pages of geometry problems in his unique way. I also read that we know that he had the mathematics of calculus in his back pocket which could much more simply and briefly solve the problem you are trying to solve with algebra.
No, I can not help you, maybe Norman understands this mathematics much better than I. So Norman, can you help Herb beyond telling him he is attacking the problem with the wrong mathematics.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Hello Herb:
You’re getting close now, but still not paying close enough attention to your units.
I’m pretty sure you forgot to convert the planetary orbital radii from the values in kilometers that you usually see them in to values in meters you need in these equations. This results in your R^2 numerical value in the denominator being 1 million times to small, so your centripetal acceleration being a million times too big.
I learned in high school science always to write out my units explicitly in evaluating equations like this. It has saved me from a lot of silly mistakes.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
You are right I was wrong to equate the momentum of a planet to the force of gravity. I should have compared the change in distance that results from the planet’s velocity over a period of time to the distance the acceleration of gravity from the sun for the same time would move the planet towards the sun.
Thanks for helping me.
Have a good day.
Herb
Reply
Robert
| #
His claims don’t hold up to examination by even a non math person as myself. If we are still using wrong math when it comes to gravity, how are we launching rockets and putting satellites in orbit. While there have been a few crashes with attempted landings, how have we EVERr been successful if our math is wrong. The author does not back up the “many crashes” claim. Remember that early probes were designed to crash land on the planets. If our math on gravity is wrong how do we use, with incredible accuracy, trajectories to slingshot sattelites on their journeys. Certainly most would have crashed or be flung off course. So his claims don’t hold up to observation or logic.
Reply
Sabin Colton
| #
Take two rockets, 10 kg each, with 100 N thrust for 100 seconds. One starts at rest and the other at 1000 m/s. Change in momentum is force times time so the change in momentum is equal between the two rockets, both 10k .
However, if you calculate ∆KE or Work done by the rockets using the Big Five equations to calculate the velocities distance covered after 100 s, the rest rocket is 5M joules and the second rocket 15M joules either way it is calculated, for KE or W. How can identical engines used for the same length of time do vastly different amounts of work. It makes no sense. What am I missing?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Sabin,
One of thee early problems I had with the force of gravity is that the continual pulling on a planet represents work and the expenditure of energy which was unexplained.
Newton made a huge contribution to science by recognizing that an object falling on Earth and a planet orbiting the sun were caused by the same force but the information available to him was limited. The concepts of energy and fields were not known and the size of an object was determined by its matter. He created a force to explain the phenomena and needed a source for that force. The only available entity was mass. It is interesting that the data he used to establish his force contains no mass. The data is the velocity and distances of the planets and the mass units only come from the massive gravitational constant he created. His assertion of an object traveling in a straight line is unsupported by observation.
Orbiting is a function of energy (V^2) where a planet will equalize with energy fields around it, just as a object will equalize with the heat surrounding it. There is no energy used to maintain an object in orbit and orbits are not a function of mass (which explains asteroids orbiting asteroid shows.).
Have a good dat,
Herb
Reply
Sabin Colton
| #
1) Electromagnetisn (EM) is 10^34 time stronger than gravity.
2) All matter has charge, electrons and quarks, all charged. [Note that in any mass the negative electrons can move.]
3) Both EM and gravity decrease by the inverse square of the distance.
So, is it the mass that is interacting as gravity?
Or is gravity a weak leftover EM interactions, a coordination of all those small electrical fields (sort of like the transient van der Waals interactions)?
Or is gravity just large amounts of van der Waals?
With EM being so much stronger, it is hard to see gravity, being so weak, driving the solar system. Instead, we might have EM interactions, which would be directly proportional to mass, as all matter has charge. A small shift of Earth’s electrons and the Moon’s electrons would be sufficient to gravity effects.
The above “energy field” leans in this direction, which might explain why we are having such a problem nailing down gravity as the fourth force.
Reply