Is gravity caused by rotation rate?

[DaveC426913]

river keeps posting this. Thought this would be a good place to corral all this thoughts into one.

I am not sure exactly what his assertion is, but various posts seem to indicate that he thinks the rotation rate of a celestial body, such as a planet or moon, gives rise to that body's gravity.

Literally: without rotation about its axis, a body would have no gravity.

Or somesuch. I don't want to speak for river; it is his idea, it should explained in his own words.

Here are some:

Spin , the faster the spin along with density of the medium , the stronger the gravity . Gravity has direction because of rotation .

There are many others, scattered throughout various threads.

I invite river to post his idea,in full, here. Ideally, post 2, so that it can serve as the referent for the rest of the thead.


Meanwhile, to see if there is any correlation at all, here is a chart showing rotation rate versus surface gravity of various SS bodies. If there were a correlation, this graph should show a strong trend line.

I invite river to explain this correlation he sees:



If he'd like I can flip the axes to show surface gravity as a function of rotation rate, but really it's the same graph.


Gonna be fun to explain those two data points for the sun.

If surface gravity is directly proportional to rotation rate,
then how does the sun have two different rotation rates depending on latitude, yet the same surface gravity for both?
That pretty much means gravity is not directly proporional to rotation rate.

 

[Pinball1970]

here is a chart showing rotation rate versus surface gravity of various SS bodies

That is a whole lot of effort to show his idea is nonsense.

 

[DaveC426913]

That is a whole lot of effort to show his idea is nonsense.

It's less effort to corral a bunch of nonsense into one thread in pseudoscience than it is to see it spammed across every damn thread that has the keyword "space" in it. It's like write4u all over again.

Any hey, my point is really that, technically, we can't know it's nonsense until we can actually extract a cogent thought from him.

 

[exchemist]

It's less effort to corral a bunch of nonsense into one thread in pseudoscience than it is to see it spammed across every damn thread that has the keyword "space" in it. It's like write4u all over again.

Any hey, my point is really that, technically, we can't know it's nonsense until we can actually extract a cogent thought from him.

There was also this thread, back in 2019: https://www.sciforums.com/threads/how-does-water-not-spin-off-the-earth.162679/#post-3611997 posted by a sock of someone well known, hem hem.

I don't know if that is part of some general muddle in what passes for river 's mind, or if he is just wanting to waste everybody's time on deliberately contrived nonsense. I suspect the latter.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't know if that is part of some general muddle in what passes for river 's mind, or if he is just wanting to waste everybody's time on deliberately contrived nonsense. I suspect the latter.

I suspect it has always been something that is not in his control. i.e. I suspect Father Time has stopped by his house and bonked him with a Mighty Big Mallet.

 

[river]

Is caused by rotation . Alone . The rate of rotation is what it is .

If the rotation of all bodies in our solar system were stilled , frozen still .

What would happen ? The mass is still there , and its gravity , but is weak .

What would happen our atmosphere would float away . Hence no atmospheric pressure . Because of no rotation .

Gravity is about rotation not just about mass .

 

[DaveC426913]

Is caused by rotation . Alone . The rate of rotation is what it is .

If the rotation of all bodies in our solar system were stilled , frozen still .

What would happen ? The mass is still there , and its gravity , but is weak .

What would happen our atmosphere would float away . Hence no atmospheric pressure . Because of no rotation .

Gravity is about rotation not just about mass .

You say this but you don't say why you think it is so. Can you back it up?

I opened this thread with a graph of various bodies in our solar system just for your benefit.

The x-axis plots surface gravity; the y-axis plots rotation rate.

If what you are asserting were true, there should be a correlation between the two - high rotation bodies would manifest high gravity, low rotation bodies would manifest low gravity.

The graph should look something like this:



But it doesn't. It looks like this:


Some fast-rotating bodies have high gravity and some have low gravity.
Some slow-rotaing bodies have low gravity and some have high gravity.

Look at Pluto. It rotates six times faster than Earth, yet it has only 3/5ths earth gravity.
Look at the Moon. It has 1/6th Earth gravity but only rotates 1/28th as fast.

I see no correlation, do you? Gravity and rotation rate seem to have nothing to do with each other.

Can you explain these facts with your idea?

 

[river]

Depends on their mass , density And volume . The a amount of space the mass takes up .

And how is gravity measured ? What measure do define gravity its self ? What is gravity based on ?

 

[Pinball1970]

Depends on their mass , density And volume . The a amount of space the mass takes up .

And how is gravity measured ? What measure do define gravity its self ? What is gravity based on ?

You ate making stupid crap up. Stop it. This is science website

 

[river]

it is a science website . Questions are a part of science .

I asked questions .

I don't think that should be a problem .

And gave an answer . Critique my answer .

 

[Pinball1970]

it is a science website . Questions are a part of science .

I asked questions .

I don't think that should be a problem .

And gave an answer . Critique my answer .

Things are being explained to you about gravity.You are ignoring those things. Why?

 

[river]

Things are being explained to you about gravity.You are ignoring those things. Why?

Things are being explained to you about gravity.You are ignoring those things. Why?

I'm not ignoring them . There is just more to the understanding of gravity .

 

[DaveC426913]

it is a science website

Yes it is. Show your daa, your calcualtino and your method.

Critique my answer .

You haven't given an answer. You've made a bald, unsubstantiated claim that does not match the data. Do your research.

I'm not ignoring them .

Great. Can you explain the data?

The data showing gravity versus rotation rate shows no correlation. That seems to put the lie to your claim pretty quick.

 

[river]

what is gravity based on physically ? In the data ? If not rotation ?
What is the criteria of defining gravity in the data ?

 

[(Q)]

what is gravity based on physically ? In the data ? If not rotation ?

Mass.

What is the criteria of defining gravity in the data ?

Mass.

 

[river]

Mass.

Mass.

mass alone is not enough to explain gravity .

 

[billvon]

what is gravity based on physically ?

Mass, mass that warps spacetime.

If not rotation ?

Rotation OPPOSES gravity. Here on Earth you are very slightly lighter on the equator due to centrifugal force.

What is the criteria of defining gravity in the data ?

It is defined generally by acceleration, in m/s2.

 

[river]

Mass can not warp space .

centrifugal force is because of rotation .

So what object in the data confirms this acceleration ?

 

[(Q)]

mass alone is not enough to explain gravity .

Then, why do scientists calculate the gravity of planets and moons based on mass and not rotation? Are all the scientists wrong?

 

[(Q)]

Mass can not warp space .

And yet, scientists can calculate the warping of spacetime with accuracy, none of it having to do with rotation. Are all the scientists wrong?