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

Groups > sci.physics > #630379 > unrolled thread

Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation// also dock Cassini in the Rings

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation// also dock Cassini in the Rings Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 01:35 -0700
    Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation// also dock Cassini in the Rings HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 06:07 -0700
      Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation// also dock Cassini in the Rings Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 06:16 -0700
      Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation// also dock Cassini in the Rings benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-24 16:21 -0400
    Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation// also dock Cassini in the Rings Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 06:38 -0700
      Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation// also dock Cassini in the Rings Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 06:54 -0700
        Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation// also dock Cassini in the Rings Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 07:43 -0700
          Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation// also dock Cassini in the Rings Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 08:03 -0700
            Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation// also dock Cassini in the Rings Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 19:22 -0700
              Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation// also dock Cassini in the Rings Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 13:46 -0700
            Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation// also dock Cassini in the Rings Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 14:44 -0700
              Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation// also dock Cassini in the Rings Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 15:17 -0700
                important knowledge Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 15:39 -0700
                  Re: important knowledge Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 10:22 -0700
                    Re: important knowledge Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 15:10 -0700
                      Re: important knowledge Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 11:09 -0700
                        Univ Dayton physics too dumb to know Newton's gravity works only with F= m(a1+a2) not F=ma Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 20:07 -0700
                          Re: Archimedes Plutonium too dumb to know Newton's gravity works only with F= m(a1+a2) not F=ma Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-29 06:37 +0000
                          Univ Dayton physics too dumb to know Newton's gravity works only with F= m(a1+a2) not F=ma Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 00:32 -0700
                            Univ Dayton physics too dumb to know Newton's gravity works only with F= m(a1+a2) not F=ma Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 14:03 -0700
                              Dayton can always feel proud in science-- Wright Bros. first flight Re: Univ Dayton physics too dumb to know Newton's gravity works only with F= m(a1+a2) not F=ma Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 14:31 -0700
                                Gravity, in order to work, has two accelerations involved, not one but two//Newton's gravity works only with F= m(a1+a2) not F=ma Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 21:52 -0700
                              Univ Dayton physics too dumb to know Newton's gravity works only with F= m(a1+a2) not F=ma Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 01:26 -0700
                                Univ Dayton physics too dumb to know Newton's gravity works only with F= m(a1+a2) not F=ma Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 16:35 -0700
                  Cassini's death, my dear Stumper's death Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 17:50 -0700
                    Cassini's death, my dear Stumper's death Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 20:38 -0700
                      Re: Cassini's death, my dear Stumper's death Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation Howler Monkey <alouatta.coibensis@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 21:13 -0700
                      Re: Cassini's death, my dear Stumper's death Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-29 18:55 +0000
                    Cassini's death, my dear Stumper's death Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 23:33 -0700
                    Re: Cassini's death, my dear Stumper's death Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 11:11 -0700
                      Re: Cassini's death, my dear Stumper's death Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 03:20 -0700
              Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation// also dock Cassini in the Rings moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-26 14:19 +0000
                Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation// also dock Cassini in the Rings Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 10:19 -0700
        Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation// also dock Cassini in the Rings moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-26 14:01 +0000
    Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation// also dock Cassini in the Rings "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 12:27 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#630379 — Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation// also dock Cassini in the Rings

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 01:23:12 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Have Cassini prove the Rings of Saturn are Solid Body Rotation, by
 diving into the rings scarring them
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:23:12 +0000


Have Cassini prove the Rings of Saturn are Solid Body Rotation, by diving into the rings scarring them

Now Serg, help me out here, 

How can we get Cassini, instead of plunging to death into Saturn, how can we get Cassini to prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation. 

I do not know if the craft still has cameras 

Is there a way for the craft to sort of dive into the rings face on, so as to pollute the Rings as much as possible, while here on Earth we have our best and every telescope watching Cassini pollute and scar and mar the rings. 

So that see this vandal like destruction of the rings by the spacecraft and able to calculate or observe whether the Rings are Solid Body from the track left behind of the scarring of the Rings. 

In other words, can Cassini definitely prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation. 

I hate to see it where we have to wait another 50 years to prove Rings are Solid Body, when we have a vessel there, right now. 

AP 

I am trying to figure out the best sure fire way of proving the Rings are Solid Body, or not.

One idea is the above scarring and then Earth bound telescopes proving the track pattern.

Another idea is whether we can actually dock Cassini inside a Ringlet and then be able to use it visually from Earth to confirm Solid Body Rotation.

Of course, that means we lose out on whatever science we wanted of Saturn's atmosphere. But I wager that the most important data we need is not Saturn's atmosphere, but the confirmed knowledge that the Rings are Solid Body Rotation, and hence Newton gravity and General Relativity Gravity are hogwash. And that gravity is Magnetism, where magnetism is forcing solid body rotation of the rings.

It is more important to confirm Solid Body Rotation than it is to pick up tidbits of Saturn's atmosphere.

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#630405

Great idea. Right up there with soldiers shooting the nose off the Sphinx.

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

#630406

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 8:08:01 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote:
> Great idea. Right up there with soldiers shooting the nose off the Sphinx.

Your apology accepted. 

Now go play with bending spoons with Benj, or esp with James Mcginn tornadoes, or ghosts with Porat.

You should invite them over for chocolate chip cookies and milk.

What, you think Saturn Rings are some USA National Park, that cannot be scarred

Fly the Cassini right smack directly through, etching out a line into the rings to observe on Earth telescopes.

Prove that the Rings are Solid Rigid Body Rotation.

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

#630458

On 4/24/2017 9:07 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Great idea. Right up there with soldiers shooting the nose off the Sphinx.
>
Proof that HVAC is pathological Liar:

https://www.smithsonianjourneys.org/blog/photo-what-happened-to-the-sphinxs-nose-180950757/

He can' say ANYTHING without lying.

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

#630409

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 4:36:00 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
[]
> 
> How can we get Cassini, instead of plunging to death into Saturn,
> how can we get Cassini to prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation. 
> 
> I do not know if the craft still has cameras 

Pictures already taken. Voyager data shows the rings are complex,
but they are NOT solid.

http://www.sciencechannel.com/video-topics/space-videos/the-planets-giants-saturns-rings/

Check out the comments at 1:20 about proposing that Voyager
pass inside the rings, and then from 2:39 to the end
of the video gives some information that may interest you AP.


> 
> Is there a way for the craft to sort of dive into the rings
> face on, so as to pollute the Rings as much as possible,
> while here on Earth we have our best and every telescope
> watching Cassini pollute and scar and mar the rings.

What you are proposing is unnecessary. the rings are gas
and dust, not a solid body. The Voyager data shows that.
 
> 
> I hate to see it where we have to wait another 50 years
> to prove Rings are Solid Body, when we have a vessel
> there, right now. 

You will have to wait a lot longer, since we already
know the rings are NOT a solid body.

[]
> 
> It is more important to confirm Solid Body Rotation
> than it is to pick up tidbits of Saturn's atmosphere.

Since we already know the rings are NOT solid,
your suggestion is outdated and unnecessary.

But you might enjoy that last part of the video.
ed

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

#630410

Why be so dense as if you cannot understand something as Solid Body versus Solid Body Rotation. You do not know the difference.

You are sounding like the physics failures Moroney, Odd. Not quite there yet, but near the edge. The only thing saving you is Univ Dayton. You know i am a UCincy graduate

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

#630417

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:54:47 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Why be so dense as if you cannot understand something as Solid Body
> versus Solid Body Rotation. You do not know the difference.

Then explain how a "Solid Body" rotating differs
from you "Solid Body Rotation".
Cannot test if we don't know the rules.

> 
> You are sounding like the physics failures Moroney, Odd.
> Not quite there yet, but near the edge. The only thing
> saving you is Univ Dayton. You know i am a UCincy graduate

A decent school. Don't they have a good basketball program?
ed

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

#630419

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:43:09 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:54:47 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Why be so dense as if you cannot understand something as Solid Body
> > versus Solid Body Rotation. You do not know the difference.
> 
> Then explain how a "Solid Body" rotating differs
> from you "Solid Body Rotation".
> Cannot test if we don't know the rules.
> 

Well, I think what you are saying is that the Rings are just one solid object, one solid and rigid object.

What I am saying is that the Rings are particles, each individually in motion. and that motion collectively is Rigid Body Motion, not that the particles are one disc. But that the Ring is millions of particles separated but in such a motion that their Velocity is proportional to the radius from Saturn's center.

Now maybe that is what you are thinking also, and I just misunderstood you.

Maxwell back in the 1860s was proving that the Rings were individual particles , not one solid sheet. 

Now the Spiral Galaxies, most of them have this Solid Body Rotation, of its stars close in and out to the edge. Not that it is a one disc, but rather millions of stars moving with Velocity proportional to radius.

So maybe to cut confusion I should just say 

Stars motion V proportional to R

Saturn Ring motion V proportional R for particles.

Maxwell proved the Rings were not a solid disc. But he did not nor could not prove the particles move with V proportional to R.

So here is the greatest opportunity to prove that the Rings are solid body rotation, by slamming Cassini into the Rings and then tracking that gaping hole and if anything survives of Cassini. So we can visually monitor the gaping hole track. 

So bright physicists would have the equations to decide that the motion of the particles around the gap are solid body or not solid body.

Sort of like atomic physics were you monitor the tracks to find out the internals of atoms.

AP

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

#630517

I do not think it is too late for NASA scientists to change the Cassini dive death. Change it so the spacecraft dives into the Ring structure in parallel with the densest portions as to etch out a huge mark in the rings.

Tell all Earth telescopes to be focused and record and photograph the track.

Hopefully the craft survives and can be watched.

The AIM:: prove the rings are Solid Body Rotation.

I do not think it is too late, and if anyone says so, is probably just giving an excuse.

AP

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

#630609

Yes, prove once and for all that the rings are solid body rotation proving Newton gravity is false

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

#630634

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 11:03:41 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:43:09 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:54:47 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Why be so dense as if you cannot understand something as Solid Body
> > > versus Solid Body Rotation. You do not know the difference.
> > 
> > Then explain how a "Solid Body" rotating differs
> > from you "Solid Body Rotation".
> > Cannot test if we don't know the rules.
> > 
> 
> Well, I think what you are saying is that
> the Rings are just one solid object,
> one solid and rigid object.

That is another description of solid body,
but I did not say the rings are a solid body.
That is what I thought your claim was.

> 
> What I am saying is that the Rings are particles,
> each individually in motion.

So far so good, that is what has been observed.

> and that motion collectively is Rigid Body Motion,
> not that the particles are one disc. But that the
> Ring is millions of particles separated but in
> such a motion that their Velocity is proportional
> to the radius from Saturn's center.

In a real solid body, say quarter, indeed the outer
edge rotates with the same angular speed as points
on the inside.
> 
> Now maybe that is what you are thinking also,
> and I just misunderstood you.

yes we agree the rings are collections of particles.
> 
> Maxwell back in the 1860s was proving that the
> Rings were individual particles , not one solid sheet. 

yes. Now as to your conjecture that they rotate in a manner
similar to a solid body: That conjecture is wrong. The
outer rings rotate at a slower rate than do the inner rings.

This is similar to the solar system where the inner planets
orbit at faster speeds than the outer planets, Mercury going
the fastest and each planet successively slower than the ones
closer than it to the sun.
 
> 
> Now the Spiral Galaxies, most of them have this
> Solid Body Rotation, of its stars close in and
> out to the edge. Not that it is a one disc,
> but rather millions of stars moving with Velocity
> proportional to radius.

Approximately, yes. This is one of the first pieces
of evidence of dark matter.
> 
> So maybe to cut confusion I should just say 
> 
> Stars motion V proportional to R

In some galaxies, true.
> 
> Saturn Ring motion V proportional R for particles.

For Saturn's rings, false.
There are many videos of the motions of the rings where
it is clear this is not the case.
> 
> Maxwell proved the Rings were not a solid disc.
> But he did not nor could not prove the particles
> move with V proportional to R.

But we can and we have observed the rings of Saturn
close enough to know that this is not true for the
rings of Saturn.
> 
> So here is the greatest opportunity to prove that
> the Rings are solid body rotation, by slamming
> Cassini into the Rings and then tracking that
> gaping hole and if anything survives of Cassini.
> So we can visually monitor the gaping hole track. 

So first, this test would not prove what you want to prove.
The hole would not help in measuring the rotation
rates of inner versus outer rings. At most it might
make a hole in ONE ring.

Second, it would not be observable as you hope.
You do realize how tiny Cassini is relative
to the area of the rings? The reason Voyager,
Cassini and other probes are sent to the outer
planets is because ground based telescopes and
satellite based telescopes do not have the
resolution at that distance needed to observe
these details.

Third, it has been done by mother nature already:
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/video/details.php?id=1075
(Shows a small moon cutting across a ring
and leaving a trail.) Even with this video
I do not see clear evidence either supporting
or disproving your conjecture.

I think there is other video that could disprove
your conjecture, but I cannot find it. Since this
is your proposal, and you apparently have lots of
time, maybe you should research the available data.

> 
> So bright physicists would have the equations
> to decide that the motion of the particles
> around the gap are solid body or not solid body.

I am pretty sure the answer is not solid body.
But I cannot prove it right now.

> 
> Sort of like atomic physics were you monitor
> the tracks to find out the internals of atoms.
> 
> AP

I've toyed with the idea of building my own
cloud chamber. Not likely while I continue to work.

  ed

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

#630649

In each Ringlet each ringlet is solid body rotation

And for that reason the ringlets are having a gap between as one ringlet of solid body motion moves faster than next ringlet

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

#630797 — important knowledge Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 5:17:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> In each Ringlet each ringlet is solid body rotation
> 
> And for that reason the ringlets are having a gap between as one ringlet of solid body motion moves faster than next ringlet

Yes, so, we steer the death of Cassini into one of the Ringlets, hitting it smack on as to achieve a maximum track through the ringlet, not a hole, a gaping hole but a track, and hopefully part of Cassini survives so that we can watch it, focus on it by our Earth based telescopes.

What we can learn is how much that Ringlet is Solid Body or Rigid Body Rotation.

Will the track quickly close up, by neighboring particles. Will the track remain open for a long time to come?

The alternative is NASA's dive death into Saturn, with little new knowledge to be gleaned, and what knowledge is gleaned is relatively unimportant.

But a death dive into the Ring structure, that knowledge will go a long ways in our understanding of Gravity, gravity as magnetism, not as Newton or General Relativity. Important knowledge, knowledge we need now, up front and center knowledge.

AP

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

#630905 — Re: important knowledge Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation

On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 6:39:31 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 5:17:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
[]
> AP

Talking to yourself is okay, replying to yourself is not okay.
You'd better take a break. 

ed

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

#630970 — Re: important knowledge Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 12:22:56 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 6:39:31 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 5:17:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> []
> > AP
> 
> Talking to yourself is okay, replying to yourself is not okay.
> You'd better take a break. 
> 
> ed

Your such a kook of physics Ed, for you recently said the Earth has the equation for gravity, and then it has a separate different equation for motion. Yet you do not realize how kookish that is

And I have not the time to press your mistakes and errors harder, that is why I end up replying to myself, because so few if any is able to do physics-- you are part of the "i hate AP and stalk him"

So, not much new here, and too bad for Univ Dayton, Ed, for you drag them down with you

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

#631101 — Re: important knowledge Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 6:10:56 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 12:22:56 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 6:39:31 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 5:17:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > []
> > > AP
> > 
> > Talking to yourself is okay, replying to yourself is not okay.
> > You'd better take a break. 
> > 
> > ed
> 
> Your such a kook of physics Ed, for you recently said
> the Earth has the equation for gravity, and then

F=GmM/r^2 as Newton formulated it (a good first approximation)

> it has a separate different equation for motion.

When the calculations are done the orbital equation
results in a ellipse.

> Yet you do not realize how kookish that is

One is derived from the other. yet you do not understand that?
> 
> And I have not the time to press your mistakes and
> errors harder, that is why I end up replying to myself,
> because so few if any is able to do physics-- you are
> part of the "i hate AP and stalk him"

I do not hate you. I only tried to correct you.
Your claim that because planets move in elliptical orbits
that the equation for gravity must have the form
((A^2+B^2))/r^2 is just wrong. You claim to know how
to do the math. Try it.

> 
> So, not much new here, and too bad for Univ Dayton,
> Ed, for you drag them down with you


Has Cincy honored you yet for your discoveries? 8^)

ed

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

#631203 — Univ Dayton physics too dumb to know Newton's gravity works only with F= m(a1+a2) not F=ma Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 1:09:42 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 6:10:56 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snip)
> > 
> > Your such a kook of physics Ed, for you recently said
> > the Earth has the equation for gravity, and then
> 
> F=GmM/r^2 as Newton formulated it (a good first approximation)
> 
> > it has a separate different equation for motion.
> 
> When the calculations are done the orbital equation
> results in a ellipse.

Not really, for you have a misconception of force laws and their mathematics. You seem to think there are different maths for a law of physics.

Everything about gravity comes out of Newton's kAA/d^2

And, no circle, no ellipse comes of that. Only a parabola comes of that.




> 
> > Yet you do not realize how kookish that is
> 
> One is derived from the other. yet you do not understand that?

You can derive a circle or ellipse from

(kAA + jBB)/ d^2

You cannot derive circle and ellipse from kAA/d^2

Now I am not going to tear into you for being dumb about this, for your professors at Dayton Univ were dumb about this, in fact, all of physicists since Newton were too dumb to realize that kAA/d^2 only at best gets a planet halfway around the Sun in orbit. You need the other half, the jBB in the numerator to get the planet a full circuit, a full loop.


> > 
> > And I have not the time to press your mistakes and
> > errors harder, that is why I end up replying to myself,
> > because so few if any is able to do physics-- you are
> > part of the "i hate AP and stalk him"
> 
> I do not hate you. I only tried to correct you.
> Your claim that because planets move in elliptical orbits
> that the equation for gravity must have the form
> ((A^2+B^2))/r^2 is just wrong. You claim to know how
> to do the math. Try it.
> 

But you do hate me, for you opined early on that AP does not know what he is doing, therefor, attack everything he says. Signs, Ed, that you are not good in either physics or math or science in that regard.

You cannot even quote correctly what I post. I posted (kAA + jBB) in numerator, for the k and j are very important terms.

> > 
> > So, not much new here, and too bad for Univ Dayton,
> > Ed, for you drag them down with you
> 
> 
> Has Cincy honored you yet for your discoveries? 8^)
> 
> ed

Alright, Ed, let us put you to the test with your ignorance and that of Physics dept at Univ Dayton.

You say Newton was correct::

Well the speeds of orbits of planets::

So Ed, with your silly thoughts that there is Newton's force law and then there is side-show equation of motion.

The Sun is moving 220km/s in Free Space

The Earth is moving 30km/s in its orbit around the Sun

Let us say the Sun is moving in this direction      SUN  ---> at 220km/s

Now Ed, with a Dayton U, physics, how does Earth in orbit when it reaches Sun


         Sun O

       Earth o

And Ed, Sun is going 220km/s --->
And Earth is going 30km/s  ---->

Ed, Ed Ed, with that Dayton wisdom, how is Earth going to cut in front of the Sun and go by it when Earth is only 30km/s while Sun is 220km/s

You see, Ed, in your birdbrain understanding, your math of Newton assumes, presumes, assumes and assumes again and again that Sun is sitting still while all the planets are moving.

That assumption works for F = ma

But does not work for a Sun that is moving.

To work for the Sun you need F = m(a1 + a2)

The a1 is the orbital acceleration, and the a2 is the Space acceleration, the 220 number.

So, Newton failed in math of the force of gravity. And of course little pipsqueacks of physics like Ed from Univ Dayton.


Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.electromag, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Mar 28 2012 12:52 am
Subject: is it the Faraday Law that replaces gravity? Chapt13.3 Maxwell Equations deriving Strong Nuclear and gravity forces #335 New Physics #455 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Sun 220 km/s orbital speed around Milky Way 
Mercury, 0.24 yr orbital period, 47.87 km/s orbital speed 
Venus, 0.61 yr orbital period, 35.02 km/s orbital speed 
Earth, 1 yr orbital period, 29.78 km/s orbital speed 
Mars, 1.8 yrs orbital period, 24.07 km/s orbital speed 
Jupiter, 11.86 yrs orbital period, 13.07 km/s orbital speed 
Saturn, 29.45 yrs orbital period, 9.69 km/s orbital speed 
Uranus, 84.32 yrs orbital period, 6.81 km/s orbital speed 
Neptune, 164.79 yrs orbital period, 5.43 km/s orbital speed 
Alright in my previous post I was trying to reconcile why Saturn Rings 
can be rigid body rotation as a form of gravity whilst the planets 
orbits 
are not rigid body rotation. I said that only EM force can provide 
rigid 
body rotation whether Saturn Rings or whether stars in a galaxy. 
So how does the Faraday law give us rigid body rotation for Saturn's 
Rings but not the planets in orbit around the Sun. So offered the idea 
that in Faraday's law, when the bar magnet (Sun) thrusts through the 
middle of the closed wire loop that you have rigid body rotation but 
when the bar magnet is then thrust through an offset of the center 
that the offset disturbs the symmetry and causes a quantitative change 
in the amount of 
current flow in the wire loop. 
So that Saturn with its 9.69 km/s offset of its Rings is not much of 
an offset to disturb the Rings and thus they remain solid-body- 
rotation. 
But now consider the offset of the Sun in its velocity through space 
of 220 
km/s which is a speed that is 22 X greater than Saturn, would have a 
huge affect on the orbits of the planets. If the Sun were moving in 
Space at say 
10 km/s rather than 220 km/s, then we can expect the planets to have 
say a 50% rigid body rotation. 
My guess as to why we see some galaxies have their stars at 70% rigid 
body rotation is because the speed of the centers of those galaxies 
are pretty much the same speed in space of the stars in orbit in those 
galaxies. 
I am not sure of any of this, for it is brand new to astronomy and 
physics alike. 
No-one before me has ever tried saying that gravity is Faraday's law, 
and so a lot of these questions are new and very complicated. 
But what is certain is that the logic tells us that since Saturn Rings 
are rigid body rotation that both Newtonian gravity and General 
Relativity are fake theories and that dark matter and dark energy are 
fake also. 
So I may flounder here for some time on finding the correct Maxwell 
theory to cover the EM-gravity, and mistakes will be made, but the aim 
and target is the same, that gravity comes out of the Maxwell 
Equations. 
Archimedes Plutonium 
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron dot cloud are galaxies 

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

#631217 — Re: Archimedes Plutonium too dumb to know Newton's gravity works only with F= m(a1+a2) not F=ma Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>Alright, Ed, let us put you to the test with your ignorance and that of Physics dept at Univ Dayton.

>You say Newton was correct::

>Well the speeds of orbits of planets::

>So Ed, with your silly thoughts that there is Newton's force law and then there is side-show equation of motion.

>The Sun is moving 220km/s in Free Space

>The Earth is moving 30km/s in its orbit around the Sun

>Let us say the Sun is moving in this direction      SUN  ---> at 220km/s

>Now Ed, with a Dayton U, physics, how does Earth in orbit when it reaches Sun


>         Sun O

>       Earth o

>And Ed, Sun is going 220km/s --->
>And Earth is going 30km/s  ---->

>Ed, Ed Ed, with that Dayton wisdom, how is Earth going to cut in front of
>the Sun and go by it when Earth is only 30km/s while Sun is 220km/s

>You see, Ed, in your birdbrain understanding, your math of Newton assumes,
>presumes, assumes and assumes again and again that Sun is sitting still
>while all the planets are moving.

What? You don't even understand relative motion?  Archimedes Plutonium
just keeps failing and failing.  Galileo had this figured out hundreds
of years ago!

The Earth moves at 30 km/s RELATIVE TO THE SUN.  The speed of the sun you
gave is relative to something else (I assume the center of the galaxy). So
if you treat the sun as 220 km/s inertial motion (close enough) you can
refer to a reference frame in which the sun is stationary.  The Earth is
moving at 30 km/s in this frame.  Remember, motion is relative!

Now, if you use the reference frame of the galaxy center, you see the sun
moving at 220 km/s.  But the earth is not moving at 30 km/s in this frame
as the 30 km/s is relative to the sun, not to the galactic center.  An
observer at the galaxy center measuring the Earth's speed will measure the
earth going at 220+30 km/s for part of the year (passing the sun), and 6
months later it will be measured as moving at 220-30 km/s (lagging the
sun).

This lack of physics knowledge from someone who awarded himself the title
"King of Physics"????

Now, go ahead, and project your failure at physics onto me and Ed again.
It's all you can do.

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

#631221 — Univ Dayton physics too dumb to know Newton's gravity works only with F= m(a1+a2) not F=ma Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation

The Sun is moving 220km/s in Free Space 

The Earth is moving 30km/s in its orbit around the Sun 

Let us say the Sun is moving in this direction      SUN  ---> at 220km/s 

Now Ed, with a Dayton U, physics, how does Earth in orbit when it reaches Sun 


         Sun O 

       Earth o 

And Ed, Sun is going 220km/s ---> 
And Earth is going 30km/s  ---->

You see in Old Physics with bonehead relative motion you would have to have 220 + 30 and 220 - 30 and all points in between

Not in your math since your math is deplete in kAA/d^2

So the boneheads yakkity yak about where you measure and throw in crap of General Relativity

When all they needed to do is make the Law be a ellipse function-equation of two variables

(kAA + jBB)/d^2

That is an ellipse Ed

which is Force = mass (a1 + a2)

Where the a1 and a2 vary throughout the range of 

220 + 30 and 220 - 30

You on the other hand with your ignorant parabola formula

F = kAA/ d^2 can not get in front of the Sun's forward motion but careen off into Space in a parabola path like a comet

Ed, Ed Ed, with that Dayton wisdom, how is Earth going to cut in front of the Sun and go by it when Earth is only 30km/s while Sun is 220km/s 

You see, Ed, in your birdbrain understanding, your math of Newton assumes, presumes, assumes and assumes again and again that Sun is sitting still while all the planets are moving. 

That assumption works for F = ma 

But does not work for a Sun that is moving. 

To work for the Sun you need F = m(a1 + a2) 

The only way to get the gravity force to make planets go in a full loop is that the force of gravity has the MATH of a full loop, not a parabola

But but i never see you do math in sci.physics, or did you study physics that has no math

I rather think Dayton Univ has math

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

#631287 — Univ Dayton physics too dumb to know Newton's gravity works only with F= m(a1+a2) not F=ma Re: Have Cassini scar the Rings of Saturn and with Earth telescopes, prove the Rings are Solid Body Rotation

Can Ed of Univ Dayton live up to a tiny fraction of the science engineering fame of the Wright Brothers of Dayton or will Ed end up with the physics-Failures in sci.physics. as HVAC recently threaded-- let's not jump to our guns so fast fast. For even HVAC realizes at the end of the day some physics must be done.

So, Ed, Ed, do you understand yet, however difficult for you that the Newton gravity and the Coulomb force of EM are parabola math and not what they should be, not what they truly are-- Circle and Ellipse math of ADDITION NUMERATOR inverse square so that Earth can get in front of the Sun going 220km/s while Earth only 30km/s and be run over by the Sun

In fact i made a mistake last night in that Earth needs to be going faster than 250km/s when it steps into Sun"s oncoming path. How much faster? Is it close to 500km/s not to be run over? I do not know yet.  

And this precession crap of Mercury with the fake General Relativity-- all fake huge fake. The strange orbit of Mercury is all due to the fact it has to really speedup-- accelerate as it gets in front of the Sun"s forward motion. And maybe it is Mercury needing to go 500km/s just to survive stepping in front of Sun"s forward motion.

AP

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web