Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #381187 > unrolled thread

Newton's gravity equation

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Newton's gravity equation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 20:12 -0700
    Re: Newton's gravity equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-09 07:22 -0700
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 16:48 +0200
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 19:42 +0200
      Re: Newton's gravity equation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-19 02:29 +0200
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 06:33 -0700
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 15:00 -0700
      Re: Newton's gravity equation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 00:07 +0200
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 16:22 -0700
      Re: Newton's gravity equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 20:34 -0700
        Re: Newton's gravity equation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 07:08 +0200
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 14:19 -0700
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 13:50 -0700
    Re: Newton's gravity equation ljustine@gmail.com - 2016-04-13 14:50 -0700
    Re: Newton's gravity equation ljustine@gmail.com - 2016-04-13 19:08 -0700
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-17 12:23 +0200
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 10:48 -0700
      Re: Newton's gravity equation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-18 14:58 -0700
        Re: Newton's gravity equation pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-18 15:38 -0700
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 16:04 -0700
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 16:56 -0700
      Re: Newton's gravity equation David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-08 09:31 -0700
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 11:40 -0700
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 15:47 -0700
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 13:15 -0700
      Re: Newton's gravity equation David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-09 12:00 -0700
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 19:57 -0700
      Re: Newton's gravity equation David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-09 12:02 -0700
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 12:28 -0700
      Re: Newton's gravity equation David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-09 12:42 -0700
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 12:43 -0700
      Re: Newton's gravity equation David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-09 12:45 -0700
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 16:02 -0700
      Re: Newton's gravity equation David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-09 23:16 -0700
      Re: Newton's gravity equation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 08:20 +0200
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 17:09 -0700
      Re: Newton's gravity equation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 08:21 +0200
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-12 11:16 -0700
      Re: Newton's gravity equation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-05-12 21:46 +0200
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-12 16:52 -0700
      Re: Newton's gravity equation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-05-13 07:07 +0200
        Re: Newton's gravity equation David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-13 10:46 -0700
          Re: Newton's gravity equation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 00:05 +0200
            Re: Newton's gravity equation David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-13 15:31 -0700
    Re: Newton's gravity equation Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-13 11:06 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#381187 — Newton's gravity equation

Newton's gravity equation F = (G m1 m2)/r2 is verified by Cavendish's experiment using lead spheres that gravitational force is measured using a torsion mechanism which is an extremely crude and inaccurate experiment since Cavendish is measuring a force of one µg.  Using m1 =  .73 kg , m2  = 158 kg,  r = .5 m and G = 6.67384×10−11 , the force between Cavendish lead spheres is calculated  F = (6.67384×10−11) x (.73)(158) / (.5)2  ≃  3 x 10−8 N ≃ 1μ gram which is equivalent to the weight of a single grain of pollen or a single dust particle which proves Newton equation has not been verified by Cavendish's experiment. In an alternative experiment, a lead sphere (2 kg) is suspended using a thin titanium wire (1.5 m), and placed at the center, of the outer surface, of a moveable 2000 kg lead block (fig 12). The angle of the wire is monitored, using two lasers beams. The lead sphere is initially situated .001 mm from the outer surface, near the center, of the lead block, then the lead block is moved away from the suspended lead sphere. After the lead block is moved 1 cm from the suspended lead sphere, there is no measurable change in the angle of the wire, that is suspending the lead sphere, which contradicts Cavendish's experiment and Newton's gravity equation.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#381218

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 8:12:20 PM UTC-7, Carl Susumu wrote:
> After the lead block is moved 1 cm from the suspended lead sphere, there is no measurable change in the angle of the wire, that is suspending the lead sphere, which contradicts Cavendish's experiment and Newton's gravity equation.

Cretin. Utter. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381220

Dne 09/04/2016 v 05:12 Carl Susumu napsal(a):
> 
> 
> 
> Newton's gravity equation F = (G m1 m2)/r2 is verified by Cavendish's experiment using lead spheres that gravitational force is measured using a torsion mechanism which is an extremely crude and inaccurate experiment since Cavendish is measuring a force of one µg.  Using m1 =  .73 kg , m2  = 158 kg,  r = .5 m and G = 6.67384×10−11 , the force between Cavendish lead spheres is calculated  F = (6.67384×10−11) x (.73)(158) / (.5)2  ≃  3 x 10−8 N ≃ 1μ gram which is equivalent to the weight of a single grain of pollen or a single dust particle which proves Newton equation has not been verified by Cavendish's experiment. In an alternative experiment, a lead sphere (2 kg) is suspended using a thin titanium wire (1.5 m), and placed at the center, of the outer surface, of a moveable 2000 kg lead block (fig 12). The angle of the wire is monitored, using two lasers beams. The lead sphere is initially situated .001 mm from the outer surface, near the center, of the lead block, t
hen the lead block is moved away from the suspended lead sphere. After the lead block is moved 1 cm from the suspended lead sphere, there is no measurable change in the angle of the wire, that is suspending the lead sphere, which contradicts Cavendish's experiment and Newton's gravity equation.
> 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_experiment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lor%C3%A1nd_E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s#Torsion_balance

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381230

Dne 09/04/2016 v 05:12 Carl Susumu napsal(a):
> 
> 
> 
> Newton's gravity equation F = (G m1 m2)/r2 is verified by Cavendish's experiment ....

Newton's gravity equation was verified even before that
by motion of celestial bodies.

The Sun gravitational factor  G . Msun
was determined from it as well.

Cavendish experiment was designed to determine G constant,
as both masses were known.


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381925

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 09/04/2016 v 05:12 Carl Susumu napsal(a):
>> Newton's gravity equation F = (G m1 m2)/r2 is verified by Cavendish's
>> experiment ....
> 
> Newton's gravity equation

The proper term is “Newton’s _law_ of universal _gravitation_”.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation>	

> was verified even before that by motion of celestial bodies.

And the corresponding equation is

  F = G m₁ m₂∕r²

or

  F = G m_1 m_2∕r^2

instead (parentheses are optional).  While it is not necessary to use the 
proper Unicode characters, it *is* necessary to write subscripts 
*differently* than superscripts, especially if the latter are *exponents*; 
here, it is necessary to make the force F that the two bodies, with masses 
m₁ and m₂ respectively, exert on each other inversely proportional to the 
*square* of the distance r between their centers.

Such obvious imprecision is the mark of the wannabe and the crackpot.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?  
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381255

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 10:12:20 PM UTC-5, Carl Susumu wrote:
> Newton's gravity equation F = (G m1 m2)/r2 is verified by Cavendish's experiment using lead spheres that gravitational force is measured using a torsion mechanism which is an extremely crude and inaccurate experiment since Cavendish is measuring a force of one µg.  Using m1 =  .73 kg , m2  = 158 kg,  r = .5 m and G = 6.67384×10−11 , the force between Cavendish lead spheres is calculated  F = (6.67384×10−11) x (.73)(158) / (.5)2  ≃  3 x 10−8 N ≃ 1μ gram which is equivalent to the weight of a single grain of pollen or a single dust particle which proves Newton equation has not been verified by Cavendish's experiment. 

You think that the weight of a pollen grain is not measurable? 

Tell that to generations of high school students and other amateur scientists
who have replicated some form or other of the Cavendish experiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyLYbvZIYoU
https://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381288

You think that the weight of a pollen grain is not measurable? 

____________________________________________________


Nope, not by Cavendish's torsion rod, in 1793.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381290

Dne 11/04/2016 v 00:00 Carl Susumu napsal(a):
> You think that the weight of a pollen grain is not measurable? 
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Nope, not by Cavendish's torsion rod, in 1793.
> 

Yet he determined G value pretty well, 6.754×10−11.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381301

"History shows us examples of scientists who were able to make a great leap forward specifically because they were not limited by the data. One of the most dramatic examples occurs at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when we may find a scientist willing to ignore the limitations of numerical facts for the sake of correct idea or theory, even to the extent of saying that certain numbers probably should be made a little bit bigger, others a little smaller, and so on. It was precisely in this way that Dalton proceeded in developing his atomic theory. Some scientists do not like examples of this sort, because they imply a special virtue "fudging" the evidence or "cooking" the data, and they warn us that we must not ever tell our science students that discoveries have been made in this way." (Suppe, 300-301).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381323

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 6:22:08 PM UTC-5, Carl Susumu wrote:
> "History shows us examples of scientists who were able to make a great leap
> forward specifically because they were not limited by the data. One of the
> most dramatic examples occurs at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when
> we may find a scientist willing to ignore the limitations of numerical facts
> for the sake of correct idea or theory, even to the extent of saying that 
> certain numbers probably should be made a little bit bigger, others a little
> smaller, and so on. It was precisely in this way that Dalton proceeded in
> developing his atomic theory. Some scientists do not like examples of this
> sort, because they imply a special virtue "fudging" the evidence or "cooking"
> the data, and they warn us that we must not ever tell our science students 
> that discoveries have been made in this way." (Suppe, 300-301).

So you are claiming that Cavendish "fudged" his data to get a value for G that
is within about one percent of the currently accepted value?

Yeah. Sure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381332

Dne 11/04/2016 v 05:34 Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napsal(a):
> 
> So you are claiming that Cavendish "fudged" his data to get a value for G that
> is within about one percent of the currently accepted value?
> 
> Yeah. Sure.
> 

Yeah, he owned the time machine, travelled to future
and he then knew what he was supposed to find.

He involved some error not to create any suspicion.

Later more precise measurements just confirmed his fudged measurement,
tricked to honour his achivement
in context of his technical limitations.

;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381375

"The German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was among Newton's sharpest critics in this respect. He objected that the conclusion that every body is attracted to every other body by a gravitational force was not 'deduced from the phenomena' as Newton had claimed." (Gower, p. 72).


Prove that Newton's gravity equation is true using small objects (less than 200 kg)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381459

So you are claiming that Cavendish "fudged" his data to get a value for G that 
is within about one percent of the currently accepted value? 


_______________________________________________



The current value is also based on a experimental Hoax.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381558

Newton's gravity equation F = (G m1 m2)/r2 is verified by Cavendish using lead spheres that gravitational force is measured using a torsion mechanism which is an extremely crude and inaccurate experiment since Cavendish is measuring a force of F = (6.67384×10−11) x (.73)(158) / (.5)2  ≃  3 x 10−8 N ≃ 1μ gram which equivalent to a single dust particle. In an experiment, a lead sphere (73 kg) is suspended using a thin titanium wire (1 mm), and a single strain, of a down feather, is brush against the suspended sphere which is approximately equivalent to a 1μ gram force. No motion of the suspended sphere is experimentally observed, during and after the interaction which is monitored using a small mirror place on the sphere and a laser beam reflected from the mirror, at right angles, onto a screen, which is experimental proof Cavendish's experiment is an experimental ruse. Cavendish's force is within the range of the measurement error of the experiment. This method of deception is also used in Roemer's measurement of the velocity of light.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381577

Newton was extremely insecure.  He would have been famous with his F = ma equation and subsequently equations of motion but his equations of motions were based on L derivative and that hurt his feeling which it should not have if he were a man but unfortunately Newton was not. Henceforth, he stole the gravity equation from some one and stuck his name to it  but that what lesser physicits do such as Kirchhoff and his formulation of Huygens' principle to dispel the retrogressive wave by mathematically proving a spherical wave is not a spherical wave to eliminate the unwanted structure of the retrogressive wave.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381820

Carl Susumu wrote:

> Newton's gravity equation F = (G m1 m2)/r2 is verified by Cavendish's
> experiment using lead spheres that gravitational force is measured using a
> torsion mechanism which is an extremely crude and inaccurate experiment
> since Cavendish is measuring a force of one µg. […]

Such a gibberish, it is not even wrong.


PointedEars
-- 
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381896

"The Cavendish experiment is repeated in physics classrooms 
around the world:" Gary Harnagel 4/17/2016 4:46 AM




To record the force of 1μ gram requires the motion of the .73 kg lead sphere that is suspended from an iron rod but the motion of the .73 suspended lead sphere cannot be produce when applying a 1μ gram force which is equivalent to a single dust particle. Try this, suspend a .73 kg lead sphere using a thin wire and brush a feather against the lead sphere and tell me if you detect a motion of the suspended sphere.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381918

On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 11:48:12 AM UTC-6, Carl Susumu wrote:
>
> "The Cavendish experiment is repeated in physics classrooms 
> around the world:" Gary Harnagel 4/17/2016 4:46 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To record the force of 1μ gram requires the motion of the .73 kg lead
> sphere that is suspended from an iron rod but the motion of the .73
> suspended lead sphere cannot be produce when applying a 1μ gram force
> which is equivalent to a single dust particle. Try this, suspend a .73
> kg lead sphere using a thin wire and brush a feather against the lead
> sphere and tell me if you detect a motion of the suspended sphere.

So you claim that physics students around the world cannot possibly detect
even smaller masses than Cavendish used?

"The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it." --Chinese proverb

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381922

On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 2:58:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> So you claim that physics students around the world cannot possibly detect
> even smaller masses than Cavendish used?
> 
> "The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it." --Chinese proverb

At the 1964 World's Fair in New York, the German's had a display of "The world's smallest drill bits". The Japanese borrowed one, drilled a hole in it, and gave it back...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382560

instead (parentheses are optional).  While it is not necessary to use the 
proper Unicode characters, it *is* necessary to write subscripts 
*differently* than superscripts, especially if the latter are *exponents*; 
here, it is necessary to make the force F that the two bodies, with masses 
m₁ and m₂ respectively, exert on each other inversely proportional to the 
*square* of the distance r between their centers. 

-----------------------------------------------------

Great argument! I couldn't do better. Here something better. You should have used f instead of F for the force since f come before g in the alphabet. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web