Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390093 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-15 20:45 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-22 06:36 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 65 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-15 20:45 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 07:44 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-15 22:54 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 08:43 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 08:46 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-15 23:52 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-16 00:10 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 11:01 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-16 19:26 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 07:06 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 07:07 -0500
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 08:54 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-16 20:20 +1000
Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-16 19:29 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-17 12:44 +1000
Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-16 20:51 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-17 14:49 +1000
Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 00:34 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 11:11 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 03:16 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 14:35 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 07:17 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 20:22 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 17:27 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 07:30 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-17 13:04 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-17 19:57 +1000
Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 03:31 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 03:38 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 14:37 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 07:12 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-18 12:14 +1000
Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 19:41 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-17 20:50 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 07:32 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-18 12:17 +1000
Re: The laws of gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:52 -0500
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 21:08 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-18 17:42 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-19 12:30 +1000
Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-18 20:05 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-18 20:20 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-19 13:47 +1000
Re: The laws of gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:41 -0500
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 06:16 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 06:23 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:37 -0500
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 06:15 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-18 17:37 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-19 14:02 +1000
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 06:11 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 06:10 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:22 -0500
Re: The laws of gravity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-19 05:36 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 11:06 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 07:06 -0500
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 14:40 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 07:20 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 20:24 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 17:47 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-08-17 19:09 -0600
Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 07:27 +0200
Re: The laws of gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 08:37 -0500
Re: The laws of gravity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-18 06:51 -0700
Re: The laws of gravity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-22 06:36 -0700
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 20:45 -0700 |
| Subject | The laws of gravity |
| Message-ID | <f4f5f340-9bc7-4eed-85b5-563897635c3e@googlegroups.com> |
The laws of gravity The laws of gravity apply equally in the solar system as well in every other star system. Alpha Centauri is a star with a radius of 853992km. Let us imagine it is orbited by two planets AC1 and AC2. AC1 is 75,000,000km distant from its primary and AC2 has an orbit period of 2500 days around its primary. What are the parameters t and v for AC1 and what are the parameters of r and v for AC2? These parameters cannot predicted/calculated by the mathematics of General Relativity but they can be by my theory of gravity. The orbital time t of AC1 around Alpha Centauri is 129.66 days and the velocity v is 42066m/sec. The distance r of AC2 from Alpha Centauri is 539,285,376,827km and the velocity v is 15687msec.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 07:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nou98a$72o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390093 |
Dne 16/08/2016 v 05:45 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > The laws of gravity > > The laws of gravity apply equally in the solar system as well > in every other star system. Alpha Centauri is a star with a radius > of 853992km. Let us imagine it is orbited by two planets AC1 > and AC2. AC1 is 75,000,000km distant from its primary and AC2 > has an orbit period of 2500 days around its primary. What are > the parameters t and v for AC1 and what are the parameters of > r and v for AC2? These parameters cannot predicted/calculated > by the mathematics of General Relativity but they > can be by my theory of gravity. > > The orbital time t of AC1 around Alpha Centauri is 129.66 days and the velocity v is 42066m/sec. > The distance r of AC2 from Alpha Centauri is 539,285,376,827km and the velocity v is 15687msec. > "Ignorance in physics is seldom so evident as in untamed precission of of calculations." I see the star mass is irrelevant in you "theory", so it is rather funny. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 22:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fcda6d72-a1ad-4e9e-80f6-3406a2141804@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390094 |
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 1:44:44 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 16/08/2016 v 05:45 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > The laws of gravity > > > > The laws of gravity apply equally in the solar system as well > > in every other star system. Alpha Centauri is a star with a radius > > of 853992km. Let us imagine it is orbited by two planets AC1 > > and AC2. AC1 is 75,000,000km distant from its primary and AC2 > > has an orbit period of 2500 days around its primary. What are > > the parameters t and v for AC1 and what are the parameters of > > r and v for AC2? These parameters cannot predicted/calculated > > by the mathematics of General Relativity but they > > can be by my theory of gravity. > > > > The orbital time t of AC1 around Alpha Centauri is 129.66 days and the velocity v is 42066m/sec. > > The distance r of AC2 from Alpha Centauri is 539,285,376,827km and the velocity v is 15687msec. > > > > "Ignorance in physics is seldom so evident > as in untamed precission of of calculations." > > I see the star mass is irrelevant in you "theory", > so it is rather funny. > > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer) > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. The mass of Alpha Centauri (Mac) is irrelevant as my t, v and r are produced without recourse to G and/or Mac.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 08:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <noucms$ff1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390095 |
Dne 16/08/2016 v 07:54 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > The mass of Alpha Centauri (Mac) is irrelevant as my t, v and r are produced without recourse to G and/or Mac. > As T=f(M,r) and r=f(M,T). your "theory" is nonsense. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 08:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <noucsg$ff1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390098 |
Dne 16/08/2016 v 08:43 Poutnik napsal(a): > Dne 16/08/2016 v 07:54 Peter Riedt napsal(a): >> >> The mass of Alpha Centauri (Mac) is irrelevant as my t, v and r are produced without recourse to G and/or Mac. >> > > As T=f(M,r) and r=f(M,T). your "theory" is nonsense. > P.S.: Sure, v = 2.pi.r / T for circular orbits, but it is simple kinematics, not related to gravity. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 23:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d3cffb3-fcb9-4df4-96b4-cc143351ab21@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390099 |
W dniu wtorek, 16 sierpnia 2016 08:46:42 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > Dne 16/08/2016 v 08:43 Poutnik napsal(a): > > Dne 16/08/2016 v 07:54 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > >> > >> The mass of Alpha Centauri (Mac) is irrelevant as my t, v and r are produced without recourse to G and/or Mac. > >> > > > > As T=f(M,r) and r=f(M,T). your "theory" is nonsense. > > > P.S.: > Sure, v = 2.pi.r / T for circular orbits, Well, wrong. It's just one of these "common sense prejudices" refuted by your idiot guru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 00:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <46105ca0-f172-44d8-b8b7-0e4f22d1f9a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390099 |
All free fall motions are caused by gravity and are subject to kinematics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 11:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <noukp5$5ch$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390102 |
On 08/16/2016 09:10 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > All free fall motions are caused by gravity and are subject to kinematics. > Sure, but you ignore their rules. Your theory by other words says, that effect of a star upon planet is independent on the star mass, what is contradicted by observation. If it was true, astronomers would not be possible to determine binary star masses from their orbit periods and speeds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 19:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c307d261-fb04-4fd4-8a2c-a034842bc38e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390103 |
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 5:01:27 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > On 08/16/2016 09:10 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > All free fall motions are caused by gravity and are subject to kinematics. > > > Sure, but you ignore their rules. > > Your theory by other words says, that effect of a star upon planet > is independent on the star mass, what is contradicted by observation. > > If it was true, astronomers would not be possible > to determine binary star masses > from their orbit periods and speeds. I do not say this but that my prediction/calculation of v, t and r of AC1 and AC2 by my gravity theory did not involve Mac.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 07:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <np0rcb$v97$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390160 |
Dne 17/08/2016 v 04:26 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 5:01:27 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> On 08/16/2016 09:10 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> All free fall motions are caused by gravity and are subject to kinematics. >>> >> Sure, but you ignore their rules. >> >> Your theory by other words says, that effect of a star upon planet >> is independent on the star mass, what is contradicted by observation. >> >> If it was true, astronomers would not be possible >> to determine binary star masses >> from their orbit periods and speeds. > > I do not say this but that my prediction/calculation of v, t and r of AC1 and AC2 by my gravity theory did not involve Mac. > IF you say A, and B is implication of A, you say B as well, even if implicitly. For a circular object orbit, if m << M, the period is function of R and mass of the central object. If m is not << M, its period is function of R and both masses. Any theory saying otherwise is wrong. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 07:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <np1k11$112m$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #390095 |
On 8/16/2016 12:54 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 1:44:44 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > > The mass of Alpha Centauri (Mac) is irrelevant as my t, v and r are produced without recourse to G and/or Mac. > Hence we know that this theory cannot possibly be right. One might be interested in confronting your theory for the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, which have different masses, since we have data for those moons. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 08:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <noudbt$hau$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390093 |
Dne 16/08/2016 v 05:45 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > The laws of gravity > > The laws of gravity apply equally in the solar system as well in every other star system. Alpha Centauri is a star with a radius of 853992km. Let us imagine it is orbited by two planets AC1 and AC2. AC1 is 75,000,000km distant from its primary and AC2 has an orbit period of 2500 days around its primary. What are the parameters t and v for AC1 and what are the parameters of r and v for AC2? These parameters cannot predicted/calculated by the mathematics of General Relativity but they can be by my theory of gravity. > > The orbital time t of AC1 around Alpha Centauri is 129.66 days and the velocity v is 42066m/sec. > The distance r of AC2 from Alpha Centauri is 539,285,376,827km and the velocity v is 15687msec. > By very other words you say that a = x where a is constant and x is whatever real number. As a is needed centripetal force for a circular movement with given r and v or T As x is gravitation force or equivalent GR ST effect proportional to the star mass. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 20:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e1g7mmFkucdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390093 |
On 16/08/2016 1:45 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > The laws of gravity > > The laws of gravity apply equally in the solar system as well in every other star system. Alpha Centauri is a star with a radius of 853992km. Let us imagine it is orbited by two planets AC1 and AC2. AC1 is 75,000,000km distant from its primary and AC2 has an orbit period of 2500 days around its primary. What are the parameters t and v for AC1 and what are the parameters of r and v for AC2? These parameters cannot predicted/calculated by the mathematics of General Relativity but they can be by my theory of gravity. > > The orbital time t of AC1 around Alpha Centauri is 129.66 days and the velocity v is 42066m/sec. > The distance r of AC2 from Alpha Centauri is 539,285,376,827km and the velocity v is 15687msec. > Seems odd that you mention the radius of the star. Are you, perhaps, under the impression that orbital period is a function of the star's radius? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 19:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <617a0d0a-1910-4a72-9a2e-2faf85c87817@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390105 |
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 6:20:09 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 16/08/2016 1:45 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > The laws of gravity > > > > The laws of gravity apply equally in the solar system as well in every other star system. Alpha Centauri is a star with a radius of 853992km. Let us imagine it is orbited by two planets AC1 and AC2. AC1 is 75,000,000km distant from its primary and AC2 has an orbit period of 2500 days around its primary. What are the parameters t and v for AC1 and what are the parameters of r and v for AC2? These parameters cannot predicted/calculated by the mathematics of General Relativity but they can be by my theory of gravity. > > > > The orbital time t of AC1 around Alpha Centauri is 129.66 days and the velocity v is 42066m/sec. > > The distance r of AC2 from Alpha Centauri is 539,285,376,827km and the velocity v is 15687msec. > > > > Seems odd that you mention the radius of the star. Are you, perhaps, > under the impression that orbital period is a function of the star's radius? > > Sylvia. I mentioned it to make sure the example planets are not inside their primary as you pointed out previously. Thank you for that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 12:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e1i1cgF3oopU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390161 |
On 17/08/2016 12:29 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 6:20:09 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 16/08/2016 1:45 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> The laws of gravity >>> >>> The laws of gravity apply equally in the solar system as well in every other star system. Alpha Centauri is a star with a radius of 853992km. Let us imagine it is orbited by two planets AC1 and AC2. AC1 is 75,000,000km distant from its primary and AC2 has an orbit period of 2500 days around its primary. What are the parameters t and v for AC1 and what are the parameters of r and v for AC2? These parameters cannot predicted/calculated by the mathematics of General Relativity but they can be by my theory of gravity. >>> >>> The orbital time t of AC1 around Alpha Centauri is 129.66 days and the velocity v is 42066m/sec. >>> The distance r of AC2 from Alpha Centauri is 539,285,376,827km and the velocity v is 15687msec. >>> >> >> Seems odd that you mention the radius of the star. Are you, perhaps, >> under the impression that orbital period is a function of the star's radius? >> >> Sylvia. > > I mentioned it to make sure the example planets are not inside their primary as you pointed out previously. Thank you for that. > Yet you didn't give the mass of the star. As Poutnik observed this suggests that your theory doesn't require the mass. Since we know that orbital speeds and times depend on the star's mass, your theory must be wrong. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 20:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c6ad20ec-8f44-4cbe-8298-26d60b2dc46b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390162 |
On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 10:44:35 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 17/08/2016 12:29 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 6:20:09 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 16/08/2016 1:45 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> The laws of gravity > >>> > >>> The laws of gravity apply equally in the solar system as well in every other star system. Alpha Centauri is a star with a radius of 853992km. Let us imagine it is orbited by two planets AC1 and AC2. AC1 is 75,000,000km distant from its primary and AC2 has an orbit period of 2500 days around its primary. What are the parameters t and v for AC1 and what are the parameters of r and v for AC2? These parameters cannot predicted/calculated by the mathematics of General Relativity but they can be by my theory of gravity. > >>> > >>> The orbital time t of AC1 around Alpha Centauri is 129.66 days and the velocity v is 42066m/sec. > >>> The distance r of AC2 from Alpha Centauri is 539,285,376,827km and the velocity v is 15687msec. > >>> > >> > >> Seems odd that you mention the radius of the star. Are you, perhaps, > >> under the impression that orbital period is a function of the star's radius? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > I mentioned it to make sure the example planets are not inside their primary as you pointed out previously. Thank you for that. > > > > Yet you didn't give the mass of the star. As Poutnik observed this > suggests that your theory doesn't require the mass. Since we know that > orbital speeds and times depend on the star's mass, your theory must be > wrong. > > Sylvia. Gravity is subject to the mass of a primary (star, planet or any other body a smaller body is attracted to). My theory is based on this fact but does not need G, M or GM to predict/calcualete vtr.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 14:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e1i8m8F58s3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390165 |
On 17/08/2016 1:51 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 10:44:35 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 17/08/2016 12:29 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 6:20:09 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 16/08/2016 1:45 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>> The laws of gravity >>>>> >>>>> The laws of gravity apply equally in the solar system as well in every other star system. Alpha Centauri is a star with a radius of 853992km. Let us imagine it is orbited by two planets AC1 and AC2. AC1 is 75,000,000km distant from its primary and AC2 has an orbit period of 2500 days around its primary. What are the parameters t and v for AC1 and what are the parameters of r and v for AC2? These parameters cannot predicted/calculated by the mathematics of General Relativity but they can be by my theory of gravity. >>>>> >>>>> The orbital time t of AC1 around Alpha Centauri is 129.66 days and the velocity v is 42066m/sec. >>>>> The distance r of AC2 from Alpha Centauri is 539,285,376,827km and the velocity v is 15687msec. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Seems odd that you mention the radius of the star. Are you, perhaps, >>>> under the impression that orbital period is a function of the star's radius? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> I mentioned it to make sure the example planets are not inside their primary as you pointed out previously. Thank you for that. >>> >> >> Yet you didn't give the mass of the star. As Poutnik observed this >> suggests that your theory doesn't require the mass. Since we know that >> orbital speeds and times depend on the star's mass, your theory must be >> wrong. >> >> Sylvia. > > Gravity is subject to the mass of a primary (star, planet or any other body a smaller body is attracted to). My theory is based on this fact but does not need G, M or GM to predict/calcualete vtr. > How does your theory give different orbital times and velocities for two stars of different masses is it doesn't take the masses into account? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 00:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <92fb9bbb-09ef-434d-ab79-1e2c93e18b63@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390168 |
On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 12:49:15 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 17/08/2016 1:51 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 10:44:35 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 17/08/2016 12:29 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 6:20:09 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 16/08/2016 1:45 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>>>> The laws of gravity > >>>>> > >>>>> The laws of gravity apply equally in the solar system as well in every other star system. Alpha Centauri is a star with a radius of 853992km. Let us imagine it is orbited by two planets AC1 and AC2. AC1 is 75,000,000km distant from its primary and AC2 has an orbit period of 2500 days around its primary. What are the parameters t and v for AC1 and what are the parameters of r and v for AC2? These parameters cannot predicted/calculated by the mathematics of General Relativity but they can be by my theory of gravity. > >>>>> > >>>>> The orbital time t of AC1 around Alpha Centauri is 129.66 days and the velocity v is 42066m/sec. > >>>>> The distance r of AC2 from Alpha Centauri is 539,285,376,827km and the velocity v is 15687msec. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Seems odd that you mention the radius of the star. Are you, perhaps, > >>>> under the impression that orbital period is a function of the star's radius? > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> I mentioned it to make sure the example planets are not inside their primary as you pointed out previously. Thank you for that. > >>> > >> > >> Yet you didn't give the mass of the star. As Poutnik observed this > >> suggests that your theory doesn't require the mass. Since we know that > >> orbital speeds and times depend on the star's mass, your theory must be > >> wrong. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Gravity is subject to the mass of a primary (star, planet or any other body a smaller body is attracted to). My theory is based on this fact but does not need G, M or GM to predict/calcualete vtr. > > > > How does your theory give different orbital times and velocities for two > stars of different masses is it doesn't take the masses into account? > > Sylvia. I am talking about one star (Alpha Centauri A) and two assumed planets AC1 and AC2). My theory can predict/calculate t and v of AC1 knowing r and r and v of AC2 knowing t. Knowing M is not necessary. GR can neither. Bod and Roberts also cannot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 11:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <np19oi$4kl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390178 |
On 08/17/2016 09:34 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > I am talking about one star (Alpha Centauri A) and two assumed planets AC1 and AC2). My theory can predict/calculate t and v of AC1 knowing r and r and v of AC2 knowing t. Knowing M is not necessary. > > GR can neither. Bod and Roberts also cannot. If there are known 2 of 3 parameters r,v,T of supposedly circular orbit of small object, then both Newton gravity and GR can calculate r,v and T of any other object orbiting the same primary on circular orbit. BTW, in such a case the G.M IS known implicitly. you have tried to rediscover America.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 03:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bda62260-f512-4795-9d74-de5ff747a03e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390180 |
On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 5:11:48 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > On 08/17/2016 09:34 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > I am talking about one star (Alpha Centauri A) and two assumed planets AC1 and AC2). My theory can predict/calculate t and v of AC1 knowing r and r and v of AC2 knowing t. Knowing M is not necessary. > > > > GR can neither. Bod and Roberts also cannot. > > If there are known 2 of 3 parameters r,v,T > of supposedly circular orbit of small object, > > then both Newton gravity and GR can calculate > r,v and T of any other object > orbiting the same primary on circular orbit. > > BTW, in such a case the G.M IS known implicitly. > > you have tried to rediscover America. In my example, AC1 and AC2 have a possible eccentricity of e = 0 to .99. What makes you think they must be in a circular orbit?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web