Layman's attempt at gravity

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Xelasnave.1947, Apr 22, 2017.

  1. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,072
    No need. Celestial mechanics works remarkably well using Newtonian gravity. Including for orbiting Earth satellites residing in an r/R regime where your idea of how to add elemental contributions, predicts strong departure from strictly 1/r^2 gravity. Overwhelming evidence is 1/r^2 Newtonian gravity accounts very well for all such orbital motions. For all values of r/R > 1. In agreement with shell theorem.
    Can you cite a single article where some appreciable discrepancy has ever been reported? Don't you think NASA or ESA etc. would have discovered any such many decades ago?
    This has started to go in circles. Either you are prepared to accept the basic maths leading inevitably to the shell theorem and it's corroboration in every space program and more, or you will continue holding to a pov that never gains any traction.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. TIMO MOILANEN Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    https://1drv.ms/x/s!ArSE2R4ReZrzbWTRGN2ztqP4zLY Here is one bulb on the circle . It was never my meaning to even critisze shell theory just ignore it , but seems I have to do one more paper to bury it for good . What comes to space programmes they have had nothing but problems with orbits and gravitation from day one . All satellites are launshed on experience (empiric data) . The Eagle orbiting moon never found a calculable orbit and since they have bounced around on Mars . So no surprise near planets flights are left to trial orbits before closer flight , there are always surprises eventhou they know the planets mass to the kg .
    I am the only person (at least a year ago) calculating mathematically the integral F(x,y,z,1/r^2) and got F=MG/r^2 . But one must get out from the math. what is put in , and it turned out that for R=r only 2/3 of mass is accounted for and for r =infinit non of the mass is decreased but G do't apply .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,072
    Not that it would probably matter, but your link in #142 gives this message:
    PS: You seriously believe every space launch has been based on hit-or-miss cludges?! And not once did any scientist or technician involved in such embarrassing episodes ever decide to publish the observation of such amazing discrepancies in any of many available journals?!
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,386
    string theory... spings to mind
    "being pushed together"
    would require equal force on all sides ?
    .. if we assume we are expanding/moving through space from a push...
    what is holding us to one central point adhering to a spherical/globe point of matter ?

    is the "push" subject to entropy ?
     

Share This Page