| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Education Forum » PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| GRAVITYMECHANIC2 |
 Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 1:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY
THE FORCE OF GRAVITY IS AN ILLUSION
Copyright 1984-2003 Allen C. Goodrich
Gravitational effect is the result of an acceleration
of mass. Galileo demonstrated this. Newton assumed
that this was caused by a force of gravity between
all masses. Was this a correct assumption? Einstein
and many other scientists felt that there must be
more to gravitation than an attraction at a distance.
Action at a distance was considered to be impossible
in the absence of a transfer of energy at the speed
of light.
Hubble then showed that the distant Galaxies were
moving away from the earth and that the universe
was expanding in all directions. If this is true ,
What else must be true?
1. The potential energy of the rest of the universe
must be decreasing relative to the mass of the earth.
It has long been assumed that the first law of
thermodynamics, which says that the total energy of
the universe is a constant, was a fact of nature.
If this is true what then.
2. The kinetic energy of the universe must be
increasing at the same rate that the potential
energy is decreasing as the universe expands.
How is this possible? Masses must be accelerating,
because, kinetic energy change is the result of an
acceleration. But all orbital masses are
accelerating toward the center of the earth or
some other mass. Why would this occur otherwise?
3. Orbital motion could then be the result of the
expansion of the universe. The Gravitational
illusion could be the result.
Based on the first law of thermodynamics
The total mass energy of the universe is a constant.
(total kinetic (mass) energy plus total potential
energy is a constant).
m(2 pi L)^2 / t^2 + G (M-m)m / L = A constant.
m is any mass say that of the earth.
From this equation the equation
Delta m (2 pi L)^2 / t^2 = - Delta G (M-m)m/L
follows mathematically.
From this equation the equation
Delta m 4 pi^2 L /t^2 = Delta - G (M-m)m / L^2
or the modified Newton equation for gravity can
be derived,but only when L is the orbital distance.
The earth orbit is a result of an energy equilibrium,
( the absence of a change of total energy )
and not the result of a force of gravity between masses.
Force of gravity is the resulting illusion
assumed by Newton to be a force.
If a planet (say earth) moved away from the sun
its potential energy would decrease as L increased.
Its kinetic energy would decrease because it is
no longer accelerating toward the sun in orbital
motion. Total energy would have to decrease. A very
great change of total energy would have to take place.
POTENTIAL ENERGY = G(M-m)m/L
KINETIC ENERGY = m(2 pi L)^2/t^2
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + G(M-m)m/L = A constant = M
G= Gravitational constant; M = total energy
of the universe (or effective universe) ;
m = mass in question.
t = time ; L = radial distance.
No mechanism exists for this to occur rapidly.
So it could not happen. The magnitudes of kinetic
and potential energies of planets and moons
travelling in orbital motion are equal and any
increase or decrease of orbital distance L results
in an equal change in magnitude of both.This is
the only value of L where no change of total energy
will occur if the value of L changes. At any other
distance L, an increase of kinetic energy will be at a
different rate than potential energy desreases.
Orbital motion conserves total energy.
Force of gravity isn't needed to explain orbital
motion or any other motion at a distance.
GRAVITY MECHANICS AND
RESEARCH ON ASTRONOMICAL OCEAN TIDES
Copyright 1984 to 2002 Allen C. Goodrich
An examination of United States Coast and Geodetic
Survey Tidal Data, which was gathered by extensive
measurements over long periods of time,was compared
with astronomical data showing the phases of the
moon at corresponding times for many years. This
correlation of the two sets of data revealed a
very interesting fact, in a manner that had never
before been mentioned in the literature.
It is invariably and exactly
the lowest tide that exists directly under the
full and new moons at deep ocean ports.
This was a very interesting discovery because
current physics,based on the gravitational theory,
discussed in the following U.S.Gov. documents:
PREDICT THE OCEAN TIDES
http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/restles1.html
SEE PHASES OF THE MOON FROM EARTH
http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/
,would lead one to believe that,except for many
possible reasons, the highest tides tend to be
under the full and new moons. The dictionary and
encyclopedia as well as physics texts predict this
with pictures of the earth and oceans bulging on
the side facing the full moon. Of course it never
happens as the gravitational theory predicts,
and many reasons are given for the discrepancies.
CONCLUSION:
No discrepancies were found in the occurence of
exactly the lowest tide directly under the full
and new moons, at deep ocean ports.
SIGNIFICANCE:
One must admit that this is beyond
question one of the most important discoveries
of modern physics research. It indicates that a
change must be made in the theory of gravitation.
One can no longer assume that a force between
the moon and the water of the earth's oceans,
is causing the ocean tides. The force of
gravity must be an illusion caused by some other,
more basic, reason. What would this be?
If the total energy ( kinetic and potential ) of
the universe is assumed to be a constant,from this
fundamental equation, many interesting things follow.
If the rest of the universe is expanding ( potential
energy decreasing) relative to masses, the masses
must be shrinking ( increasing in kinetic energy )
(gravitation) relative to the rest of the universe.
THE FIRST LAW OF MOTION-(GOODRICH)
Copyright 1984 to 2002 ALLEN C. GOODRICH
A body (m) continues in a state of rest (equilibrium)
or motion in a straight or curved line (equilibrium)
as long as no change occurs in its total (kinetic and
potential) energy, relative to the rest of the
effective universe (M-m),
Delta mL^2/t^2 = - Delta K(M-m)m/L
equilibrium = no change in the total energy
relative to the rest of the effective universe (M-m).
^ = to the power of.
Orbital motion complies with this equation.
This equation is derived from the fundamental
equation of the universe which states that
the total energy of the universe is a constant.
The sum of kinetic and potential energies is a
constant.
mL^2/t^2 + K(M-m)m/L = A constant.
SEE
THE UNIVERSE- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY OF MASS ENERGY
SPACE TIME FRAME MECHANICS-APPEARING IN NEWSLETTER
"SPECTRUM" OF THE BUFFALO ASTRONOMICAL ASSOCIATION
INC. NOV.1996 TO FEB.1997
See http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechanic2/myhomepage/business.html
FUNDAMENTAL EQUATION OF THE UNIVERSE
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechanic2/myhomepage/profile.html
TIDES AND GRAVITY MECHANICS
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechanic2/myhomepage/resume.html
A new theory of gravitation is given, which
predicted, stimulated the above research,and is
consistent with, the new findings.
Choosing a hobby that is in line with ones past
experience can be a satisfying and rewarding
undertaking. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Stan Brown |
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 1:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <MiKSa.3010$3J6.2712@news02.roc.ny> in sci.edu, Herman
Family <celcaps@frontiernet.net/without_an_s/> wrote:
Quote: On the other hand, these setbacks and the facts have never really had
any effect on the gravity mechanic or his theories. We'll see yet another
version pretty soon, with another (or even the same) major fact
conveniently forgotten.
I still reel at the title every time I see it -- as though the
planets get together and think, "What shall I do to conserve total
energy? Got it! I'll orbit the sun!"
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"You find yourself amusing, Blackadder."
"I try not to fly in the face of public opinion." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Barb Knox |
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 4:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <20030805154043.07569.00000054@mb-m18.news.cs.com>,
gravitymechanic2@cs.com (GRAVITYMECHANIC2) wrote:
Quote: PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY
THE FORCE OF GRAVITY IS AN ILLUSION
Copyright 1984-2003 Allen C. Goodrich
When you posted this opus 2 weeks ago I raised what seems to be a fatal
objection (repeated below). If you've been working on this since 1984
then I would hope you have at least *thought* about that particular
issue. If you want anyone to take you seriously then maybe you could try
replying this time; or maybe you are happy being thought of as yet another
net.crackpot.
Quote: Gravitational effect is the result of an acceleration
of mass. Galileo demonstrated this. Newton assumed
that this was caused by a force of gravity between
all masses. Was this a correct assumption? Einstein
and many other scientists felt that there must be
more to gravitation than an attraction at a distance.
Action at a distance was considered to be impossible
in the absence of a transfer of energy at the speed
of light.
Hubble then showed that the distant Galaxies were
moving away from the earth and that the universe
was expanding in all directions. If this is true ,
What else must be true?
1. The potential energy of the rest of the universe
must be decreasing relative to the mass of the earth.
It has long been assumed that the first law of
thermodynamics, which says that the total energy of
the universe is a constant, was a fact of nature.
If this is true what then.
2. The kinetic energy of the universe must be
increasing at the same rate that the potential
energy is decreasing as the universe expands.
You have this exactly backwards As the universe expands, the total
gravitational potential energy *increases* (as the various masses have
further to fall towards each other), and the total kinetic energy
*decreases* (as the expansion steadily slows down).
[SNIP]
--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ barbara minus knox at iname stop com
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb |
| B B a a r b b |
| BBB aa a r bbb |
----------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Darrell |
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 7:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Barb Knox" <see@sig.below> wrote in message
news:see-0608031039030001@192.168.1.2...
Quote: In article <20030805154043.07569.00000054@mb-m18.news.cs.com>,
gravitymechanic2@cs.com (GRAVITYMECHANIC2) wrote:
PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY
THE FORCE OF GRAVITY IS AN ILLUSION
Copyright 1984-2003 Allen C. Goodrich
When you posted this opus 2 weeks ago I raised what seems to be a fatal
objection (repeated below). If you've been working on this since 1984
then I would hope you have at least *thought* about that particular
issue. If you want anyone to take you seriously then maybe you could try
replying this time; or maybe you are happy being thought of as yet another
net.crackpot.
Funny how Barb wants this reasonging to apply to everyone _except_ herself.
She also made an allegation in another recent thread that I was
"demonstrably wrong" and has yet to respond to a clear demonstration that
she was the one that was wrong. she claimed that on ANY multiple choice
test, a grading scheme can be implemented such that net gain from random
guessing will net 0 points (and this is possible *without* knowing which
were, and which were not, the random guesses.) she speaks of statisticical
averages as if every single case making up the average, has the same value
as the average.
Of course, responding to claims such as "the force of gravity is an
illusion" is itself an act of net.crackpottery. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Stan Brown |
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 9:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <bgpndr$rcp20$1@ID-117088.news.uni-berlin.de> in sci.edu,
Darrell <dr6583@msn.com> wrote:
Quote: Funny how Barb wants this reasonging to apply to everyone _except_ herself.
She also made an allegation in another recent thread that I was
"demonstrably wrong" and has yet to respond to a clear demonstration that
she was the one that was wrong.
Your "demonstration" wasn't.
Quote: she claimed that on ANY multiple choice
test, a grading scheme can be implemented such that net gain from random
guessing will net 0 points
No, she didn't.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Fortunately, I live in the United States of America, where we are
gradually coming to understand that nothing we do is ever our
fault, especially if it is really stupid. --Dave Barry |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Darrell |
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 12:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Stan you once again, apparently for the sole sake of disagreeing with ME,
have chosen, at all costs, to disagree with me on a mater that is documented
fact:
DR:
"I would be interested in seeing your attempt to explain to me how
you (or anyone else) can distiguish between a correct random guess, and an
actual correct understanding of the mathematics that is being addressed
[snip]
Again, any sensible MC grading scheme compensates for random guessing."
And again, you canot identify the random guesses, so compensating for
random
guessing is impossible. Or should I say, impossible by way of only MC
tests!
BK:
"You are demonstrably wrong here, and maybe you'll see it. For ANY MC test
there are various ways to structure the marking so that random guessing
nets zero."
Me again. That's uh, nets 0. Not averages 0, not close to 0. Not for a
statistical average, but for (her words) ANY MC test! She just said that on
ANY MC test, the marking can be structured such that random guessing nets
zero! Stan, she just said, and you can't deny it, or if you do you're just
being completely silly, that I was "demonstrably wrong" in my assertion that
this is impossible without knowing which questions answered at random. Any
one with more than one neuron firing knows that is impossible without prior
knowledge of which questions were randomly answered, for ANY MC test.
Let me put it in terms you can understand (hopefully). Pick a MC test.
"Any" MC test. Just pick one. Unless you want to get really ridiculous and
rig it such that all answers are worth exactly 0 marks each, then why do you
think you can assure me that I will net 0 marks for random guessing, on ANY
particular test? You may make a avid argument that says something very
useful for some type of statistical AVERAGE, but that is a very different
thing.
Get out while you still can, Stan. At least Barb has reacted in the only
way she can while not contradicting herself (any further, that is). She has
elected to remain silent, for she knows the issue CAN'T be resolved without
contradicting herself and apparently she has an issue with that, as do you,
per your history of such behavior. You have been corresponding with me for
what, two days now as of late, and you are already doing what you did some
time ago: Being in complete denial, for the sole sake of disagreement, as
if anyone actually reading this stuff actually thinks you're discrediting me
instead of yourself. Get over it, or please accept the invitation you did
last time: Get OUT. Go where trolls go, wherever that is (amongst other
trolls, I presume).
You really should read more of the thread to assure your assertions before
you just claim it isn't like that, without any justification. It's like
that, Stan. that's what the record indicates, no matter how much you want
to ignore it.
--
Darrell
"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.199a439b4fe5258198b0bf@news.odyssey.net...
Quote: In article <bgpndr$rcp20$1@ID-117088.news.uni-berlin.de> in sci.edu,
Darrell <dr6583@msn.com> wrote:
Funny how Barb wants this reasonging to apply to everyone _except_
herself.
She also made an allegation in another recent thread that I was
"demonstrably wrong" and has yet to respond to a clear demonstration that
she was the one that was wrong.
Your "demonstration" wasn't.
she claimed that on ANY multiple choice
test, a grading scheme can be implemented such that net gain from random
guessing will net 0 points
No, she didn't.
But yes, Stan, she did. I just presented the quotations. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Darrell |
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 2:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Barb Knox" <see@sig.below> wrote in message
news:see-0608031039030001@192.168.1.2...
Quote: 2. The kinetic energy of the universe must be
increasing at the same rate that the potential
energy is decreasing as the universe expands.
You have this exactly backwards
Since you posted the same challenge multiple times to this guy, I'll guess
I'll respond on his behalf multiple times as well. You appear to be reading
too much into the phrase "as the universe expands." The universe is well
known to be expanding. That doesn't change the fact that as kinetic energy
increases, potential energy decreases.
Quote: As the universe expands, the total
gravitational potential energy *increases* (as the various masses have
further to fall towards each other), and the total kinetic energy
*decreases* (as the expansion steadily slows down).
Why do you think he's talking about *just* gravitational energy in #2? He
doesn't say that. He said kinetic energy *of the universe*, that is, ALL
kinetic energy in the universe, increases at the same time potential energy
decreases, as the universe is expanding. If you're one that holds the idea
that total energy is comprised of kinetic and potential, and also holds the
idea that the universe is expanding, then I don't see where you should have
any problem with this.
The expansion is accelerating. Even if you don't immediately agree with
that, if you assume it is accelerating just for the sake of argument,
wouldn't you agree this is attributed towards some type of increase in
kinetic energy (thus a corresponding decrease in potential energy)? Modern
prevailing theory says, yeah, that's exactly what happens. The expansion
*is* accellerating. That much has been known for about 5 years now.
I'm not talking about dark matter, BTW. I'm talking about dark energy,
which at face value may sound interchangeable with dark matter in the same
sense that ordinatery matter and energy are interchangeable, but they really
are different things.
Apparently, a perfect vacuum has a nonzero energy. It's a property of space
itself. Now is where you need to be fair, take a dose of your own medicine,
and tell us what you think about this "hole" that was just dug in YOUR
theory!
Somehow (wonder why?) I wouldn't be surprised if you just remained silent,
as you have done in other recent threads, when similar holes have been
revealed in your theories. To give you credit, it seems to be an effective
way to negotiate holes---just run as far away from them as humanly possible!
--
Darrell |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Stan Brown |
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 4:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <bgq7qi$rd15k$1@ID-117088.news.uni-berlin.de> in sci.edu,
Darrell <dr6583@msn.com> wrote:
Quote: Get out while you still can, Stan. At least Barb has reacted in the only
way she can while not contradicting herself (any further, that is). She has
elected to remain silent, for she knows the issue CAN'T be resolved without
contradicting herself and apparently she has an issue with that, as do you,
per your history of such behavior.
No, Barb has done what I shall do: given up on educating you or even
having a civilized discussion since you insist on shouting past us
rather than actually engaging our points.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Fortunately, I live in the United States of America, where we are
gradually coming to understand that nothing we do is ever our
fault, especially if it is really stupid. --Dave Barry |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Darrell |
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 9:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.199b4b69ff85b11498b0d3@news.odyssey.net...
Quote: No, Barb has done what I shall do: given up on educating you or even
having a civilized discussion since you insist on shouting past us
rather than actually engaging our points.
How about this: Since you have given up on "educating" me, how about
educating everyone else here how it is possible to assure 0 net mark on any
and all questions answered at random from the available choices for any
particular multiple choice test----without knowing ahead of time which were,
and which were not, the questions answered by such random process.
You, and Barb, are effectively claiming it is impossible at any given time
to correctly guess the answer of any particular question on any such exam.
No, Stan, I didn't *think* you would want to do that (educate others to
that effect). Let me guess, you don't feel anyone else needs to be taught
how to do that, since its so obvious to everyone except me. Surely, the
fact that it is impossible (ie you really *can't* assure that on any
particular test) can't have anything to do with it......
It never ceases to amaze me how some people will resort to anything (even
utter foolishness, as has been demonstrated) in lieu of agreeing with a
certain statement, for the sole purpose of disagreement. What's next?
Would you claim all triangles are obtuse, if I claimed otherwise?
Again, you have successfully demonstrated your complete denial of the truth.
You will do anything, at any cost, to keep from acknowledging the fact that
you are simply incorrect on this issue. In your mind, you are necessarily
correct by definition (common sense completely aside). You are either a
troll or just plain incompetent, or both, if you believe on any MC test a
grading scheme can be in place such that net marks from all random guessing
are 0. Anyone with any sense at all knows that although it may certainly be
true that a grading formula can be in place such that the statistical
expected value is effectively 0, this is quite a different thing from the
claim that Barb made, and that you support, of ANY MC test resulting in net
0 marks for random guessing. for that to be true, quite obviously you would
need to know which questions were randomly answered, before grading the
test, in order to know how to formulate the grading scheme to assure 0 net
marks from these questions.
Simply put, you and Barb are implying that it is impossible for even a
single student to correctly "guess" the answer to even a single question, on
any MC test. Utterly ridiculous. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| GRAVITYMECHANIC2 |
| Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 3:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| GRAVITYMECHANIC2 |
| Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 3:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:54 am
|
|