Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #365680
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Newton not entirely right |
| Date | 2015-09-29 16:32 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d6upkfF3pqhU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <a3e5b94c-79e7-40e3-bae5-014a28b35f30@googlegroups.com> <mubooe$44b$2@speranza.aioe.org> <e25300df-e1fd-4a14-ba76-693f5cc64557@googlegroups.com> |
On 29/09/2015 11:32 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 12:09:54 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin > wrote: >> On 9/28/2015 1:26 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> >>> Newton's law of universal gravitation is incomplete. It considers >>> gravity a force of attraction but it does not account for >>> celestial bodies that cannot complete the descent to their >>> primary. >> >> Orbiting bodies would not follow ellipses if they weren't >> attracted. They would travel in straight lines. Attraction doesn't >> require that the two bodies end up in contact. What makes you think >> they would? >> >> >> -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > It would be nice if there was a precise explanation and formula at > what point a descent changes into an ellipse instead of an impact and > how bodies of different mass acquire the different velocities > required to keep them at different distances from the sun. > There is no such point. The motion is always an ellipse. If the ellipse intercepts the surface of the primary, then there is an impact. Otherwise there isn't. As for acquiring velocities, if you take a object, position it at some random place relative to a primary and give it an initial random velocity in some random direction, it immediately starts following an elliptical orbit[*]. Sylvia. [*] Or a hyperbolic non-orbit if you happen to have given it escape velocity.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Newton not entirely right Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-09-27 23:26 -0700
Re: Newton not entirely right Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2015-09-28 16:00 +0200
Re: Newton not entirely right kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-28 11:49 -0400
Re: Newton not entirely right mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-29 01:13 -0700
Re: Newton not entirely right kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-29 14:48 -0400
Re: Newton not entirely right pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-29 13:19 -0700
Re: Newton not entirely right kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-29 16:56 -0400
Re: Newton not entirely right pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-29 14:06 -0700
Re: Newton not entirely right kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-29 17:43 -0400
Re: Newton not entirely right Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-09-29 21:59 +0000
Re: Newton not entirely right pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-29 15:39 -0700
Re: Newton not entirely right kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-29 19:44 -0400
Re: Newton not entirely right pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-29 19:37 -0700
Re: Newton not entirely right kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-30 00:27 -0400
Re: Newton not entirely right pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-29 21:42 -0700
Re: Newton not entirely right kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-30 02:57 -0400
Re: Newton not entirely right pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-29 21:44 -0700
Re: Newton not entirely right kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-30 02:58 -0400
Re: Newton not entirely right Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 07:56 -0500
Re: Newton not entirely right Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 07:32 -0500
Re: Newton not entirely right mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-29 22:45 -0700
Re: Newton not entirely right Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 11:09 -0500
Re: Newton not entirely right Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-09-28 18:32 -0700
Re: Newton not entirely right kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-28 21:57 -0400
Re: Newton not entirely right Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-09-28 19:39 -0700
Re: Newton not entirely right Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-28 20:10 -0700
Re: Newton not entirely right Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 07:07 +0200
Re: Newton not entirely right Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-09-28 22:51 -0700
Re: Newton not entirely right Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 08:20 +0200
Re: Newton not entirely right Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-09-29 16:32 +1000
Re: Newton not entirely right Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2015-09-29 09:51 +0200
Re: Newton not entirely right Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 07:38 -0500
csiph-web