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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390093 > unrolled thread

The laws of gravity

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

Contents

  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 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#390188

On 08/17/2016 12:16 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> 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?

YOU did mark the distances as "r", what is used for circular orbits.

For ellipses, than replace the radius r with the major semi axis a
and the relations between G.M, T and "a" will remain.

But v can be calculated only for a specific point on the orbit,
not for the orbit itself.

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

#390193

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 8:35:23 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> On 08/17/2016 12:16 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> YOU did mark the distances as "r", what is used for circular orbits.
> 
> For ellipses, than replace the radius r with the major semi axis a
> and the relations between G.M, T and "a" will remain.
> 
> But v can be calculated only for a specific point on the orbit,
> not for the orbit itself.

Thanks. Please replace my r with a. v is an average across the orbit; if the orbit is eccentric v speeds up and to compensate slows down.

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

#390200

On 08/17/2016 04:17 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 8:35:23 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:

>> YOU did mark the distances as "r", what is used for circular orbits.
>>
>> For ellipses, than replace the radius r with the major semi axis a
>> and the relations between G.M, T and "a" will remain.
>>
>> But v can be calculated only for a specific point on the orbit,
>> not for the orbit itself.
>
> Thanks. Please replace my r with a. v is an average across the orbit; if the orbit is eccentric v speeds up and to compensate slows down.
>
For average speed on elliptical orbit, the relation of v, a and T
is not so easy, as v = perimeter_of_ellipse / T,
where perimeter_of_ellipse is function of a and e.

Furthermore, there is no analytic closed formula to calculate the 
ellipse perimeter. All formulas are approximations
or infinite series.

See https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/ellipse-perimeter.html

But there is time to present math model of your theory :-)

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

#390215

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 2:22:55 AM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> On 08/17/2016 04:17 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 8:35:23 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> 
> >> YOU did mark the distances as "r", what is used for circular orbits.
> >>
> >> For ellipses, than replace the radius r with the major semi axis a
> >> and the relations between G.M, T and "a" will remain.
> >>
> >> But v can be calculated only for a specific point on the orbit,
> >> not for the orbit itself.
> >
> > Thanks. Please replace my r with a. v is an average across the orbit; if the orbit is eccentric v speeds up and to compensate slows down.
> >
> For average speed on elliptical orbit, the relation of v, a and T
> is not so easy, as v = perimeter_of_ellipse / T,
> where perimeter_of_ellipse is function of a and e.
> 
> Furthermore, there is no analytic closed formula to calculate the 
> ellipse perimeter. All formulas are approximations
> or infinite series.
> 
You are correct but we should not be concerned about the eccentricity of AC1 and AC2. Eccentricity has no effect on my determination of vtr or vta.

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

#390224

Dne 18/08/2016 v 02:27 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 2:22:55 AM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> On 08/17/2016 04:17 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 8:35:23 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>>> YOU did mark the distances as "r", what is used for circular orbits.
>>>>
>>>> For ellipses, than replace the radius r with the major semi axis a
>>>> and the relations between G.M, T and "a" will remain.
>>>>
>>>> But v can be calculated only for a specific point on the orbit,
>>>> not for the orbit itself.
>>>
>>> Thanks. Please replace my r with a. v is an average across the orbit; if the orbit is eccentric v speeds up and to compensate slows down.
>>>
>> For average speed on elliptical orbit, the relation of v, a and T
>> is not so easy, as v = perimeter_of_ellipse / T,
>> where perimeter_of_ellipse is function of a and e.
>>
>> Furthermore, there is no analytic closed formula to calculate the 
>> ellipse perimeter. All formulas are approximations
>> or infinite series.
>>
> You are correct but we should not be concerned about the eccentricity of AC1 and AC2. Eccentricity has no effect on my determination of vtr or vta.
> 
Than you do not really know, what you are talking about....

Show the formulas, or keep yourself silent.

A theory that is not published is not refutable
and therefore is not scientific.

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

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

#390185

Użytkownik "Poutnik"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:np19oi$4kl$1@dont-email.me...


|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.

And haven't you heard that your Shit is using its
ingenious metric insted these obsolete time
and distance?
In genaral case, asking it about distance
or time is like asking for the result of 0/0. 

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

#390181

On 17/08/2016 5:34 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> 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.
>
What would the situation be if Alpha Centauri A had half its actual mass?

Sylvia.

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

#390183

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 5:57:10 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 17/08/2016 5:34 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> What would the situation be if Alpha Centauri A had half its actual mass?
> 
> Sylvia.

Small g would be smaller and all actual planets (if any) would be closer to 
Alpha but AC1 and AC2 would not as I have given their respective r and t with a fixed value.

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

#390184

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 6:31:53 PM UTC+8, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 5:57:10 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 17/08/2016 5:34 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > > 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.
> > >
> > What would the situation be if Alpha Centauri A had half its actual mass?
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> Small g would be smaller and all actual planets (if any) would be closer to 
> Alpha but AC1 and AC2 would not as I have given their respective r and t with a fixed value.

I may be wrong and actual planets would be further out. Good point.

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

#390189

On 08/17/2016 12:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 5:57:10 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>> What would the situation be if Alpha Centauri A had half its actual mass?
>>
>
> Small g would be smaller and all actual planets (if any) would be closer to
> Alpha but AC1 and AC2 would not as I have given their respective r and t with a fixed value.
>

Distance to a star and star mass are not correlated.
a half mass star can have the planet a half closer
as well as twice as far.

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

#390192

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 8:37:03 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:

> 
> Distance to a star and star mass are not correlated.
> a half mass star can have the planet a half closer
> as well as twice as far.

Absolutely correct. I was wrong.

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

#390218

On 18/08/2016 12:12 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 8:37:03 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>
>>
>> Distance to a star and star mass are not correlated.
>> a half mass star can have the planet a half closer
>> as well as twice as far.
>
> Absolutely correct. I was wrong.
>

About your entire theory, then?

Sylvia.

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

#390220

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 10:14:18 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 18/08/2016 12:12 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 8:37:03 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Distance to a star and star mass are not correlated.
> >> a half mass star can have the planet a half closer
> >> as well as twice as far.
> >
> > Absolutely correct. I was wrong.
> >
> 
> About your entire theory, then?
> 
> Sylvia.

Only about your what if question of the mass of Alpha being 50%. Sorry. My theory may be right or wrong. I have provided the supporters of GR with an opportunity to prove me  mathematically wrong. So far all of you have failed to do so and that includes you, Poutnik, Bod and Roberts. The bottom line is that GR cannot predict/calculate tvr or tva but I can.

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

#390221

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 8:41:06 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> Only about your what if question of the mass of Alpha being 50%. Sorry.
> My theory may be right or wrong.

No.  It "may not" be right.  It is dead wrong, as anyone with a smattering
of knowledge of planetary motion knows.

> I have provided the supporters of GR with an opportunity to prove me
>  mathematically wrong.

You have been proven wrong by a subset of GR; i.e., Newtonian gravity
theory.  A simplified version of GR which provides a more accurate
equation may be found in "General Relativity and Gravitational Waves"
by Joseph Weber (1961), p.160, Equation 9.40c.  In the absence of
acceleration, it reduces to

(d^2x/dt^2)*c^2 = Del{[(GM/R)[1 + (v*R/c)(1/|R|)]}

where v and R are vectors and "*" is the dot product.  As you should be
able to see if you've had any vector analysis, the greatest departure
from Newtonian gravity occurs when v is aligned with R, in which case
the term is merely v/c, a very small value for normal planetary speeds.

> So far all of you have failed to do so and that includes you, Poutnik,
> Bod and Roberts.

You are dead wrong.  They pointed out that Newtonian gravity theory
predicts planetary motion quite accurately.  What I see is that YOU have
made up your mind beforehand that GR is wrong and you are GREATLY
prejudiced against it.

> The bottom line is that GR cannot predict/calculate tvr or tva but I can.

No, you can't with your delusional "theory."  All you have done is set up
a straw man situation and pretended to have "solved" it.  I believe it was
Poutnik who suggested you use your "theory" to predict values for various
objects in our own solar system to see if they agree with what is actually
measured.  Otherwise you just look stupid.

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

#390225

Dne 18/08/2016 v 04:41 Peter Riedt napsal(a):

> 
>  I have provided the supporters of GR with an opportunity to prove me  mathematically wrong.

No , you did not. You have provided just numbers.
Show the formulas of theory,
so we can show you what is wrong with them.

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

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

#390219

On 17/08/2016 8:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 5:57:10 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 17/08/2016 5:34 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>> What would the situation be if Alpha Centauri A had half its actual mass?
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Small g would be smaller and all actual planets (if any) would be closer to
> Alpha but AC1 and AC2 would not as I have given their respective r and t with a fixed value.
>

You don't have the option of specifying r and t for a planet around a 
star. Specifying one determines the value of the other (for a given 
stellar mass). If the mass of the star is halved, but r remains the 
same, then t must rise substantially.

Sylvia.

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

#390288

On 8/17/2016 2:34 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.

Peter, you are saying that if there are two stars of completely 
different mass, then two planets at the same radius away from the stars 
would have the same orbital period. You know this conflicts with actual 
data, don't you?

>
> GR can neither. Bod and Roberts also cannot.
>




-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#390290

On 08/18/2016 08:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/17/2016 2:34 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.
>
> Peter, you are saying that if there are two stars of completely
> different mass, then two planets at the same radius away from the stars
> would have the same orbital period. You know this conflicts with actual
> data, don't you?
>
>>
>> GR can neither. Bod and Roberts also cannot.
>>

Peter's statemennt is similarly foolish
like if saying he can calculate
values y and z for given x in equation

	x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = 0

and complaining the alternative theory cannot.

Of course it cannot.
If it could, it would be wrong.

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

#390314

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 3:08:50 AM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> On 08/18/2016 08:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 8/17/2016 2:34 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.
> >
> > Peter, you are saying that if there are two stars of completely
> > different mass, then two planets at the same radius away from the stars
> > would have the same orbital period. You know this conflicts with actual
> > data, don't you?
> >
> >>
> >> GR can neither. Bod and Roberts also cannot.
> >>
> 
> Peter's statemennt is similarly foolish
> like if saying he can calculate
> values y and z for given x in equation
> 
> 	x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = 0
> 
> and complaining the alternative theory cannot.
> 
> Of course it cannot.
> If it could, it would be wrong.

My calculations in the table I have given in my post 'GR challenge' prove that I can. The results are in line with the established values for a, t and v for nine planets in the solar system.

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

#390326

On 19/08/2016 10:42 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 3:08:50 AM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> On 08/18/2016 08:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2016 2:34 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.
>>>
>>> Peter, you are saying that if there are two stars of completely
>>> different mass, then two planets at the same radius away from the
>>> stars would have the same orbital period. You know this conflicts
>>> with actual data, don't you?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> GR can neither. Bod and Roberts also cannot.
>>>>
>>
>> Peter's statemennt is similarly foolish like if saying he can
>> calculate values y and z for given x in equation
>>
>> x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = 0
>>
>> and complaining the alternative theory cannot.
>>
>> Of course it cannot. If it could, it would be wrong.
>
> My calculations in the table I have given in my post 'GR challenge'
> prove that I can. The results are in line with the established values
> for a, t and v for nine planets in the solar system.
>

You haven't provided any calculations, just tables of numbers. The 
alleged calculated values could just be the measured values with some 
fudges to make them slightly different.

Until you provide the actual formulae, you haven't proved that these 
values are calculated rather than just invented.

Sylvia.

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web