Is gravity caused by rotation rate?
- Thread starter DaveC426913
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Mass alone perfectly explains gravity. You are ignorant of the facts.
Take the mass of any body - from a proton to an asteroid to the sun to a black hole.
The gravity you experience at a given distance will be exactly proportional to the mass of the object and inversely proportional to your distance squared from it. Thats it. Mass and distance are the only two factors.
This will tell you the gravity on the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and every other body - in the solar system and outside it.
Always. Every time.
This is fact.
You could prove your idea wrong and prove the facts right. All you would have to do is Google the surface gravity of any of these bodies and their mass and compare them.
This is what it looks like:
That's what you call a direct correlation.
For someone who keeps shouting 'do your research', you sure don't do any research. Why don't you put your money where you mouth is for once?
But you won't, will you?
Last edited:
Both are warped by gravity - at least, here in reality.
GPS satellites prove this every single day.
?? Anything that falls. You could do the experiment yourself with a ball bearing and a stopwatch.
TheVat
Registered Senior Member
Or one of the marbles that you seem to have lost. Let's try this question, river, since you believe science is all about the questions:
If the Earth's rotation at the equator is roughly 1000 mi/hour, and at the poles is zero, do we lose weight as we travel north or south from the equator and become weightless on reaching a pole? If not, why not?
You deny fact and defile evidence with the wave of a hand.
Yet, what scientists observe of spacetime is predicted accurately.
Orbital mechanics and Newtons second law will get you there. Speed is a difficult animal. Getting up to high speeds means having to slow down from those high speeds, requiring huge amounts of energy to do both. Slower speeds, much less energy.
Explain to me how an anti-gravity propulsion system would get up to high speeds from earth to the moon?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Here we go again. Just as before. This is an idiot troll that does not learn, and has a striking similarity to Theorist in modus operandi.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
He is in pseudoscience so i suspect James is letting it ride for now. I will report him if he continues to repeat the same stupid nonsense claims.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Wrong- stop repeating the same stupid nonsense or I will report you. Below is a lensed Supernova from viewed through "bent" "warped" actually lensed Space
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Wrong. Time can "bent" depending on how much mass is around and velocity
The "special" case
and the general case - there is a little image too of warped spacetime.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
He’s banned from the hard science areas already.
Пин, относительно чего изгибается пространство-время по вашему мнению?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
To another frame of reference. So, say I am on earth and you whizz past me in a rocket travelling at 0.8% C. I use my telescope to look at the clock on your ship and noticed it is ticking slower than mine.
С чего бы им тикать медленнее? Ваши часы лучше или хуже моих?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Because of time dilation and this is described by the first equation (ignoring gravity)
Plug in the numbers, C represents the speed of light in vacuum.
You will see that the larger V is (your velocity in the ship) the closer to one that term becomes.
By larger I mean closer to C.
The whole term gets smaller ergo the time dilation is greater.
The faster you go the slower your clock ticks relative to a stationary observer.
GPS uses this.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
How the tables turn...
Now, you are talking to Olga and I am not.
Point-of-order: Relativistic time dilation is off-topic. For the sake of thread, I ask that you take that up in another thread.
River is already having enough trouble grasping the basic correlation between mass and gravity, let's not boil his brain with talk about bending of space-time. This thread can be carried out with mere Newtonian gravity just fine.
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Yes I know. If nothing else the thread reads as a question asked and answered.How the tables turn...
Now, you are talking to Olga and I am not.
Point-of-order: Relativistic time dilation is off-topic. For the sake of thread, I ask that you take that up in another thread.
River is already having enough trouble grasping the basic correlation between mass and gravity, let's not boil his brain with talk about bending of space-time. This thread can be carried out with mere Newtonian gravity just fine.
River was stampeding towards, "Einstein was wrong," so I wanted to nip that in the bud.
Пин, если у вас время разное у каждого объекта, значит, время у вас неоднородно. Верно ли поняла вас?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Sorry about that. Going back through the thread, I see Einsteinian gravity was first referenced in post 17 by billvon, and it continued from there.
This is confusing river. Can we move forward (if we need to) using the simple Newtonian "gravity is a force" model, please. (for masses where m2 << m1)
F = m/r^2.
We are still waiting for River to produce any rationale at all that supports his fanciful idea that rotation rate has anything to do with gravity - and idea that is easily falsified by any quick glance at the data.
I expect he will not have any defense, and - if he replies at all - will simply continue to repeat his assertion without any rationale - at which point we can consider this thread 'asked and answered'.
Last edited: