Is gravity caused by rotation rate?

So, how long you suppose it will take river to figure out that all we have to do is spin a moon in the opposite direction (or find one that's already spinning in the opposite direction) and gravity will be reversed? *POOF* all the anti-gravity we could ever need!
 
Most planets , except the far planets ( 23° off the plane of the equatorial Suns rotation ) , are in the plane of rotation by the Sun ? Think of rings , of why do they exist ? Because of rotation .
For Newton all mass attracts each other true . In a straight line . And gains momentum .
But rotation can and does interact with mass . The plane of the solarsystem , plane of planets , based on the equatorial plane of the Sun . And again the existence of rings .
Newton did not take rotation of the Sun nor Planets . I'm not sure if he would have had the knowledge to do so .
But know we know .

But Rotation not by just the Sun and the solar system . But also by planets themselves ( and other objects ) . Earth is moving away from the Sun . Minutely .
 
Last edited:
river said:
Most planets , except the far planets ( 23° off the plane of the equatorial Suns rotation ) , are in the plane of rotation by the Sun ?
Click to expand...
True. Mostly all the planets and the Sun were formed from the coalescing cloud of rotating dust and gas.

river said:
Think of rings , of why do they exist ? Because of rotation .
Click to expand...
Well, they exist because some moon got too close to its parent and got torn apart. They remain because the particles are in orbit.
But: "rotation", sure.

river said:
For Newton all mass attracts each other true . In a straight line . But rotation can and does interact with mass .
Click to expand...
Sure.

river said:
But Rotation not by just the Sun and the solar system . But also by planets themselves ( and other objects ) . Earth is moving away from the Sun . Minutely .
Click to expand...
Sure.


What is your point? No one suggested that mass is not affected by inertia and angular velocity.

Is this your way of walking back your outrageous and unsubstantiated assertion that gravity is caused by rotation? Should likewise mark this day in my calendar?
 
DaveC426913 said:
True. Mostly all the planets and the Sun were formed from the coalescing cloud of rotating dust and gas.


Well, they exist because some moon got too close to its parent and got torn apart. They remain because the particles are in orbit.
But: "rotation", sure.


Sure.


Sure.


What is your point? No one suggested that mass is not affected by inertia and angular velocity.

Is this your way of walking back your outrageous and unsubstantiated assertion that gravity is caused by rotation? Should likewise mark this day in my calendar?
Click to expand...
To your last statement rotation is a part of gravity . That's my point
Orbit . Rotation . Which shows that mass just doesn't fall to another mass , Earth . In a straight line .
Angular velocity is because of rotation .
 
river said:
To your last statement rotation is a part of gravity . That's my point
Click to expand...
You keep claiming this yet you never show why it might be so.

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


river said:
Orbit . Rotation . Which shows that mass just doesn't fall to another mass , Earth . In a straight line .
Angular velocity is because of rotation .
Click to expand...
Ballistic trajectories are a factor of gravitational pull and initial velocity, forming a curved infall, yes. So what?

You claim is that rotation rates cause gravity, and that, without the Earth rotating, there would be no gravity. Yet you never show why that might be so.

You are talking out of your butt. Stop that.
 
DaveC426913 said:
You keep claiming this yet you never show why it might be so.

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.



Ballistic trajectories are a factor of gravitational pull and initial velocity, forming a curved infall, yes. So what?

You claim is that rotation rates cause gravity, and that, without the Earth rotating, there would be no gravity. Yet you never show why that might be so.

You are talking out of your butt. Stop that.
Click to expand...
Would stop saying that I said rotation is the cause of gravity . Its not true and you know it . Have integrity .
I said that rotation is a part of gravity .
 
river said:
Would stop saying that I said rotation is the cause of gravity . Its not true and you know it . Have integrity .
I said that rotation is a part of gravity .
Click to expand...
Hence planets rings . Otherwise the mass would go out and come straight back down . Its doesn't .
In a pure mass attraction theory , mass would never form rings .
 
river said:
Hence planets rings . Otherwise the mass would go out and come straight back down . Its doesn't .
Click to expand...
That is due to orbital velocity.


Actually, much of a disintegrating moon will fall straight back to the planet. Have a look at this animation:
https://www.davesbrain.ca/miscpix/moon-animation.gif
Pick any rock, or several, and follow them. You will see that, while some of them achieve orbital velocity and form a ring, most of them just fall straight back down.



Note that your statement above directly contradicts your initial assertion.
If the mass you describe were not rotating, then yes - it would go up and come straight back down under the effect of gravity.

So you acknowledge that objects that are not rotating still have gravity. Good. Enough of that nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Gravity is from both mass and rotation ( or spin ) . By the Sun and its rotation . Hence the solar system .
But also by planets . All planets rotate . Some with rings . Rings of mass .
So rotation by planets . Matters ( Not just the Suns equatorial rotation ) . And interacts with mass .
Rotation can either hold back mass or draw the mass to it . Rings . Either way rotation matters . Rotation creates rings .
Rotation by planets interacts with mass .
 
Last edited:
river said:
Would stop saying that I said rotation is the cause of gravity . Its not true and you know it . Have integrity .
Click to expand...
Right here, you say gravity is "from" ... rotation:
river said:
Gravity is from both mass and rotation ( or spin ) .
Click to expand...
This is false. Stop saying it.

Gravity is not "from" rotation.

Rotation and gravity are completely independent phenomena. Yes, bodies can have both rotation and gravity, but that does not mean one is "from" the other.

What you are asserting is logically equivalent to this:

I am wearing a red shirt and blue pants.
I have both red and blue properties.
Therefore, red is "from" blue.

This is false. Red is a property of you and blue is a property of you - but they have nothing to do with each other. One colour does not cause the other or affect the other.
 
Last edited:
river said:
Really Dave ?
Click to expand...
Those are your words. I'm quoting you.

So what you mean is ... "Really river?"


river said:
Rotation is A Part of gravity . Not all of gravity .
Click to expand...
No it isn't.

You are confusing the various forces that are involved in orbital mechanics. Gravity is one force. Inertial motion/angular velocity is another. They are independent of each other, but together they operate on masses to shape their paths.

But gravity is a force that has only a single cause: mass.
The effects of gravity on a body are the result of two causes: amount of mass and distance from that mass.
 
Last edited:
river said:
Yes it is .
Click to expand...
This is false. And you have never managed to defend the assertion.

I'm going to start reporting this repeated falsehood as trolling.

river said:
river said:
Rotation is A Part of gravity . Not all of gravity .
Click to expand...
This is false.

You could help yourself by elaborating what you think you mean by "a part of". eg. :see if you can find a case where, without rotation there is no gravity, or less gravity. Support your belief with anything.

But I don't think you have the words to do so. You are having trouble just finishing complete sentences, let alone conveying your thoughts.

I'm going to start reporting posts in which you make assertions without bothering to back them up with any kind of fact, example or even coherent rationalization.

river said:
The rings would not form without rotation . Rings are in rotational form .
Click to expand...
That may be true but it is not what we have been arguing. It does not support your silly assertion that "gravity is 'from' rotation" whatever that means.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top