Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum light speed is fake

its simple Bill

all orbital equations include g.
and g is proportional to mass

every planet or asteroid or satellite has its own separate g

thats how I know that the mass of an object is essential
for determining orbital velocity.

you cannot determine orbits without knowing g
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation




for instance the suns surface gravity is 28 times the earths surface gravity.

Oh, huge science nerd burn right there.

you know paul, I think junior here neees to read a few Arthur C. Clarke novels to get up to speed on the simple ways of the solar system.




I am.

You don't want to get me started in on that crap though.

Cause of momentum?

Well, the moon is made of green cheese.

Coincidence?

Ok Paul, let's just try something else. You don't seem to be able to understand what a mathematical formula will tell you. Let's try a simple calculation using the formula from the link I put in my last post.



This is the formula for calculating the orbital speed of a satellite. So let's try what happens if we caclulate the speed of the Earth in its orbit around the sun.

In the formula

M is the mass of the planet (the Sun in our case) in Kg.
r is the radius of the orbit in meters.
G is the universal gravitational constant = 6.67 * 10^-11 N m^2/kg^2.

M - Mass of the sun = 1.98892 × 10^30 kilograms.
r - radius of Earths orbit = 150 * 10^9 m.
G = 6.67 * 10^-11 N m^2/kg^2.

And running those numbers through the formula I get:
Earth's orbital speed = 29747 m/s.

I did a quick search for the Earth's orbital speed on the web and came up with a more official speed of 29.783 k/s or 29783 m/s. The minor difference between the 2 numbers can be explained by the fact that the formula assumes a circular orbit, whereas the actual orbit is an ellipse.

But the one thing you might notice is that I did not use the mass of the Earth at any point in the calculation. The mass of the satellite, as long as it is small in relation to the mass of the object being orbited, is not required to calculate the orbital speed.

So the lesson that will be learned by anybody who is interested in how things really work is that the mass of the orbiting body will not affect the way it orbits. The orbit is determined by the mass of the main body in the system, not the mass of the body in orbit.

Bill Gill

Bill

I dont know how that one got messed up.
it was the way I entered the values into excell I
think.

but anyway I fixed the excell spreadsheet tonight and
using the earth / moon I get 1.012232144 km/s using the
semi major axis in the equation for the radius
and the orbital speed is 1.022 on the moon wiki page
so I suppose the equation is pretty close.

and that was using the below equation which cannot be
used for acuracy in an elliptical orbit


but it only makes sense to me that since all bodies in space have gravity if they have mass you would be better off not leaving out mass when calculating a orbit around a planet or moon or asteroid or whatever.

another spaceship perhaps.

I dont like the way you do it with the equation that only uses 1 mass.

and I believe that a equation that uses all masses involved would be the prefered equation , just because
people have settled for the equations that you use only shows that they are lazy and dont really care too much if a satellite falls back down in a few years or so or not.

anyway I dont know what those blobs are made of but if they are earth sized and orbiting the sun at such a close distance then they must be the cores of what was very large planets at one time.

I dont know what there orbital speed is but
I do know that on the average the more massive planets in our solar system are in much higher orbits , like jupiter saturn and neptune and that tells me something , and if these blobs arent very massive then they would need a high orbital velocity in order to orbit the sun in their current orbit.


because the slower moving blob would not have enough inertia in its motion to resist the pull on it from the suns gravity and it would be pulled into the sun.

earths gravity 9.8 m/s^2

suns gravity 274.4 m/s^2

have a look at jupiter saturn and neptunes mass and orbital speed.

jupiter os 13.07 km/s mass 1.8986×10^27 kg

saturn os 9.69 km/s mass 5.6846×10^26 kg

neptune os 5.43 km/s mass 1.0243×10^26 kg

the further out the orbit the slower there orbital speed.


so what it all boils down to is this , if a object does not maintain its orbital speed then the only way for that object to remain in that particular orbit is for the object to gain mass.

This graph clearly shows that orbital speed of planets depends strongly on radius, and has nothing to do with mass



Data is from Wikipedia "Orbital Period" and "Solar System"

However planets all have very small mass compared to the Sun, and they're all a long way away compared to the blobs in those photos.


Regarding the blobs. I found this "letter" from "NASA" on some site. Makes perfect sense.




Another reason at least on can't be real is it has the dark side toward the sun and the bright side away from it!!!

Even if they are real, they need not be planets. Maybe they're just balls of sun-material that got ejected.

then how does a planet capture a moon?

if you take a long string of 8 planetoids or asteroids and line them up in trajectories that will pass each of them a certain set distance from a planet that has the mass of our earth , seperate them by a distance so that the gravitational forces between them would not affect any outcome.

but say the first has a mass of 1.3477 x 10^22 kg.
the second has a mass of 2.3477 x 10^22 kg
the third has a mass of 3.3477 x 10^22 kg
the fourth has a mass of 4.3477 x 10^22 kg
the fifth has a mass of 5.3477 x 10^22 kg
the sixth has a mass of 6.3477 x 10^22 kg
the seventh has a mass of 7.3477 x 10^22 kg
the eight has a mass of 8.3477 x 10^22 kg

but they all have a speed of 1.02 km/s which is the
orbital speed of our moon.

lets say that they are all passing the exact distance from the planet that our moon orbits in.

I would be willing to bet that the first of the planetoids or asteroids that gets captured by the planet would be of a mass close to the mass of our moon.

as in the seventh above that has the same mass as our moon.

and I also say that all of the planetoids before the first that is captured would end up colliding with the planet because of the gravitational attraction between the two masses.

and that the one following the captured one
just tuggs at the earth a little bit as it passes.

the only difference between them is their mass.

the distance from the planet is the same.
the velocity is the same.

but only 1 of the 8 will be captured by the planet.

every year our moons orbital velocity slows because of the gravitational interaction with the earth.
and every year our moons orbit increases due to this.

so the mass of an orbiting body is extremely important
and it is the speed of the orbiting body and its mass that keeps it in orbit.


do you think that our moon could remain in orbit if
its mass were slowly reduced to 1.3477 x 10^22 kg?


because that is what you and bill are trying to say.
you seem to think that the mass of a orbiting body has nothing to do with its orbital distance.


and do you think that the earth would orbit the sun if it were in jupiters orbit , or saturns , or neptunes if the earths orbital velocity that it currently has was not changed?

I dont.


jupiters current orbital velocity is 13.07 km/s

earths current orbital velocity is 29.78 km/

all planets are trying to move in a straight line
and they would were they not being pulled towards the sun by the suns gravity.

it is the pull away from the suns gravity that a planet can produce which is its mass times its velocity that causes a planet to move in a circular path or orbit.

if the earth could orbit the sun at jupiters orbit
with the orbital velocity it has today then that is where it would be now , not where it is today.

and that is true for all planets in our solar system.

its becoming clearer and clearer why we pretty much stopped our space exploration programs , we need people who haven't been poisoned by the idiots.

and I guess there aren't enough left.

Paul, your analysis would be much more convincing if you had something to back it up. It shouldn't be too hard. All you have to do is to apply Newton's laws of motion and gravity, using calculus to determine all of the vector motions and forces, and you will be able to track the motions of all the bodies. With modern computational techniques you should be able to do it relatively easily. But if you don't want to do that you need to accept the fact that a lot of people have spent a lot of time figuring these things out and what they have figured out works to a very high degree of accuracy. So brace up and accept that it is real.

Bill Gill

you accept what you perceive to be real and I will accept what I perceive to be real.

hows that?

but go ahead bill and put the earth in jupiters orbit but dont change its speed , and see if it stays there.

it should because mass has nothing to do with orbits and
even though the earth is less massive than jupiter your
perception should be real enough for you.

but let me do it for you using your equation even.

I did this so that you can easily cut-n-paste the values
into your calculator.

earth in jupiters orbit...LOL

G = 0.0000000000667 N(m/kg)^2

M = mass of earth = 5973600000000000000000000.00 kg

radius = 778,547,200,000 m


v=sqr(GM)/r

0.0000000000667 * 5973600000000000000000000.00 = 398439120000000.00

398439120000000.00 / 778,547,200,000 = 511.77

sqrt of 511.77 = 22.62 meters/s

511.77 / 1000 = 0.022622391 km/s

so theres your proof bill.

using your math.

the only thing I did was change the mass of jupiter
with the mass of the earth and low and behold what a
difference.

jupiter has a orbital speed of 13.07 km/s today.

but in order for the earth to orbit in jupiters orbit its orbital velocity would need to be reduced from
29.78 km/s to 0.022622391 km/s otherwise the earth in jupiters orbit would simply leave the solar system.

what a tragic occurance that would be and all because mass
has nothing whatsoever to do with orbits.



I would have to say that my perception of reality is much closer to reality than your perception of reality.

sorry to hear that March , but I suppose everybody has
his faults. LOL

hey start a new thread and we could share reasons why we
vote the way we do.

like , what has a republican ever done that was actually good for the country.

or why did the republicans sell out the people of america by removing trade restrictions that caused the loss of millions upon millions of jobs in america.

or any subject you can think of that might cause me or others that are not mulit millionares to vote republican

Well, if I did that it would obviously not work very well, since that is completely out of agreement with the formula which correctly calculated the Earth's orbital speed. Obviously Jupiter's orbital speed is different, but the calculation using the same formula, and Jupiter's distance from the sun would give the correct speed, not matter what sized planet was at that distance.

A note to other readers. I don't really enjoy explaining paul's mistakes. I just feel that I should try to get the word out that most of the time he doesn't know what he is talking about and so I am trying to let others know that what he says should not be taken at all seriously.

Bill Gill

Bill , I used the same formula to calculate jupiters orbital speed before I used it to calculate the speed of
the earth in jupiters orbit.

this one that you used to correctly calculate the earths
orbital speed earlier.





and the result was 13.05356394 km/s

and the only thing I changed was the mass in the formula that you used to calculate the earths orbital speed.

so how could it be completely out of agreement with the formula which correctly calculated the Earth's orbital speed if I used the same exact formula.

I think your in denial or you think that you can convince others to stick their head in the sand as you have.




I haven't noticed where you have done that bill, could you point me and the others you are communicating that to
so that we may observe what you are referring to.




but I did use jupiters distance from the sun in the formula , bill.

G = 0.0000000000667 N(m/kg)^2

M = mass of earth = 5973600000000000000000000.00 kg

radius = 778,547,200,000 m

you can find the radius here if you like , bill
the semi major axis is what I used in my calculation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-major_axis

It requires energy loss. Either by crashing into each other (already on a collision course), or deformation by tidal forces, etc. Otherwise they can't be captured regardless of their mass. That's classic physics anyway.


You're just guessing from common sense. Sounds a lot like those ancient people who guessed a heavier object would fall faster than a light one, all else being equal.

It's actually almost the same idea. More mass means stronger force of gravity, but it also means more momentum, so more force is required to change it's course. Turns out it needs just the same amount of extra force that the stronger gravity provides.



That make no sense at all. You didn't even claim that the moon is losing mass. Why should mass be "extremely important"? You can see that it is extremely unimportant by the fact that moon's period and distance are changing while the mass isn't.




Exactly. You can look it up. However this may only apply for small orbiting bodies, or those at large distances. I havn't checked what happpens when two earths are orbiting each other at close range.


Now you're confusing yourself. My answer is the same as yours, "no". I already told you that was my idea when I posted the graph.

well kallog

I did the math using the formula that bill used.

this one



I plugged in the distance from the center of the sun to jupiters center.

I plugged in earths mass.

and I did not get the 13.07 km/s speed that jupiter orbits the sun at today.

in fact I only got 0.022 km/s

since you really do know how to use a formula
why dont you prove yourself by posting a worked formula as I did.

but use the same formula above that bill and I did.

unless you and bill both know your wrong and just don't want to admit it , as usual.

Paul, why did you change the mass of the Sun when you made the calculation for an orbit at Jupiter's distance. That is the only mass in the formula, and I can't believe that the mass of the Sun changes just because you are at a different distance.

Please at least try to keep your calculations somewhere in the neighborhood.

Bill Gill

I'm not sure why I did that bill.
but I corrected the value of the mass to reflect the mass of the sun in the formula that I first used.



and I got 13.05773176 km/s

then I changed the value of the suns mass in the formula you use



and I got 13.05356394 km/s

so I guess that there is still a small difference in the results.

but the formula that I use is most likely more precise.



I wonder if that is why there are two different results?

because all of the required data in the two formulas are exactly the same.

My way doesn't require a formula. It's based on actual astronomical observations.

You can look up the data points of my graph on the two Wikipedia pages I mentioned. I just copied the numbers in directly. No math at all.

This really isn't something you can possibly argue. We know how far the planets are from the Sun, we know how fast they move (we can just look at them, and look at our watch!).

What you can argue is what happens at when the masses are similar for Sun and planet, and/or when they're very close. But even that may go nowhere.

I went and made an even better graph.



This compares the simple formula to the actual data. They match pretty well but not perfectly. Probably because of elliptical orbits, and the missing planet mass term.

It seems clear that this simple formula won't work when both masses are similar. But that isn't the case for the sun and anything else in the solar system at all. Which is what we're talking about.

Maybe it also doesn't work for a small (Earth sized) object orbiting really close to the surface of the sun? That's the original issue.

that graph is much better kallog.

I think we could pretty much say that the earth sized objects are not naturally occurring , that is if the objects are actually there.

according to what we have just went through the mass of an object that orbits the sun has absolutely nothing to do with the radius between the sun and the object.

because we have determined that a earth sized mass could occupy the same orbit that jupiter occupies and have the same orbital velocity.

so if these objects are real and not some type of photographic glitch then they must be artificial.

I haven't calculated the necessary orbital speed of these objects but all the other planets in the solar system have increasing orbital speeds as you get closer to the sun and that is reflected in you graph above.

so we can estimate their distance from the sun and then we can get their estimated orbital speed by using G and the radius from the sun and the mass of the sun.

this is getting interesting.

according to what we have just covered we already know that the needed orbital velocity is locked into the radius.

so if the objects do not move at or around that speed then they would need to have some type of propulsion.



http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/37919/UFO_DISCLOSURE_HUGE_UFO_s_ORBITING_THE_SUN/


http://www.thebigwobble.com/2010/01/nasa-images-earth-sized-spherical.html
[img]http://www.2.bp.blogspot.com/_OhaHEeWqYU0/S13pCF6CEqI/AAAAAAAAHec/SRq2bQihtkw/s1600-h/ttttt.bmp[/img]