Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Gravitation envelopes?

In another discussion I suggested that the reason the planets revolve around the sun as they do is because the suns gravitation dragged them along as the sun itself rotated. I have been seeking an example of this in an earth related occurrence. It may be found in the simple activity of people throwing balls or shooting a rocket vertically and having the rocket come straight down to the place from which it was launched. I am interested in your comments.

We know that the earth rotates at .2882 miles per second at the surface of the equator. In 5 seconds it rotates almost 1.5 miles counter clock wise. If I was to throw a football for 50 yards in the direction of rotation and if it took about 5 seconds for that ball to get where I intended it to go, the ball has actually traveled about 1.5 miles relative to the rest of the solar system instead of the 50 yards. The ball does not hang in the air but rotates with the earth as objects do that are fastened to the earth. Can we accept this as confirmation of the idea that gravitation of massive bodies works like an inclusive envelope?
jjw

There is no rotation rate for the sun. Each latitude and depth has its own angular velocity - plus convective mixing. You are an empirical idiot.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/inside_sun_000330.html
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/dynamo.htm

If stellar gravitation depended on stellar rotation, then Kepler's laws would not work for extreme cases such as solar systems vs. ordinary binary stars vs. binary pulsars.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601337

In globular cluster Terzan 5 there wiggles PSR J1748-2446ad, a 716 Hz eclipsing binary pulsar with 14.4 km radius max given a 1.4 solar mass neutron star.

14.4 km radius = 90.478 km circumference
Equatorial speed = 64,800 km/sec or 21.6% of lightspeed

The sun has an equatorial synodic rotation rate of 2.84 (+/-) 0.01 microradians/second. Now then, idiot, look up the sun's equatorial radius and convert that to km/sec.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/jou...0281249428Guest
Astrophys. J. Lett. 465 L65 (1996)

Idiot. Coriolus acceleration. Given vacuum not atomsphere and referencing the fixed stars, you are tossing mass in a non-inertial frame of reference, git. Shut up and calculate. Cf.: Foucault pendulum,

Google
"Foucault pendulum" 181,000 hits

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

No, stooopid. Newton's First Law - and it won't land in exactly the same spot from which it was launched given the horizontal component of Coriolus acceleration except... where said horizontal component of acceleration is zero, at zero degrees latitude. Idiot.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b32

We could do with a little less name-calling and put-downs, if you please.

The ball was already travelling at .2882+ miles per second before you threw it. After and ignoring the effect of air movement, it then curves towards the earth to orbit it's centre. If one could throw it fast enough it would miss the ground on this curve and orbit the earth. But it would be moving like this because of its own velocity and curving because of the "attraction" to the earth. So there is no envelope needed to explain it.

Rose ... please reference how Rusty handled what I presume was a similar situation.

Use a scalpel. Al's post contains a lot of aptitude but, quite a bit of attitude. You could easily make appropriate alterations and leave the P while removing the T.

Thank you Uncle Al:

It may be possible to learn enough to be convinced that there are no mysteries left. Possibly you are that far ahead of the rest of us and have closed shop or you are in the process of closing shop. I do not mind being called an idiot but you should note that I do not find it as stimulating as you seem to.

Now, the smart set says that the sun rotates once relative to earth in about 25 earth days. No one has ever provided an adequate explanation for why the planets revolve around the sun. That includes your announced idols like Kepler, Newton and or Einstein. They worked out formulas intended to explain what we see but nothing adequate to explain why. NASA, in their discussion of the revolutions of the planet make a point of explaining that while Newton worked out the mechanics he did not answer the WHY of planetary revolution. I cited that publication quote in a previous posting.

You advise me of the suns lack of rotation citing ?each latitude and depth has its own angular velocity? which I suppose in part relates to the alleged differential rotation that astronomers talk about and the center of gravity between the various planets and the sun which usually falls inside the suns sphere because the sun is so much larger. None of those things provide proof that the sun does not rotate in respect to the other objects in this system.

As to Kepler and ?stellar gravitation being dependent on stellar rotation? that you speak of, I never said anything of the kind. I said that large massive bodies may produce gravity similar to an enclosing envelope. The result could be that the rotating gravitational field could drag the planets along explaining why they get the momentum to revolve around the sun. Kepler provides his 3 laws as formulas to explain what he saw. He did not prove anything about the cause for the energy that made the planets move in the first place.

Possibly he was one of your idiots that as smart as he was, along with Newton and Einstein, that never provided an acceptable explanation or proof on this point. I have, as idiots sometimes do, shown mathematically that EVERY planet revolves around the sun at a velocity solely consistent with the planets distance from the sun without any factor of the objects Mass taking part.

All said and done I appreciate your taking the effort to make a response. I printed out all the links so I can someday be as smart as you think you are.
Cheers, jjw.

jjw004 wrote:
"Now, the smart set says that the sun rotates once relative to earth in about 25 earth days."

Smart? Sounds to me like the ignorant set.

"No one has ever provided an adequate explanation for why the planets revolve around the sun."

Not in pre-school but generally speaking by elementary school one gets some level of answer to this question. If you made it through college without understanding this perhaps you were taking art appreciation.

If you have links from sites that have some decent level of credibility post them. What we have hear looks like nonsense, quacks like nonsense ... its nonsense.

Ok DA why not:

On the issue of AL?s re the rotation of the sun:
http://en.wikpedia.org/wiki/sun

Sun?s rotation period 25.38 days (Earth days).
Rotation velocity at equator 7174 Km/h

You all like to quote this source so it should be acceptable.

Regarding the reason the planets revolve around the sun. I did not want to type this long winded statement of nothing.

?Curious about Astronomy? Ask an astronomer."

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question

?Why do planets rotate (sic) around the sun?? They used rotate in error.

This educational information source goes on about the revolution of the planets offering Newton?s comment that the planets were falling into the sun due to attraction of the suns gravitation but because they were revolving they continued to perform the orbital tricks we see. There is no point to this offering and it adds nothing at all explaining where the energy for the revolution of the planets comes from. I have seen this so many times I have stopped looking. They want to try to convert a vertical falling energy into a lateral energy. Newton had NO explanation for the revolutions of the planets and NASA has confirmed this. His formulas have nothing to do with the planetary revolution except that objects once in motion will stay in motion in a vacuum if uninterrupted.

I have searched a long time for a REASON and a wherefore to explain the continuous energy fed into the system. I am satisfied it is from the sun dragging it all along with it as it rotates. It was started as the system formed and the sun has maintained it.

If you see this as a challenge to your education and beliefs then just chalk it up to just one more Astroidiot.
jjw

DA this is part of a page from my book. It explains that Newton did not decipher the cause for the planets revolutions abot the sun or for that matter for satellites around planets.

I was of the view that Newton's law accounted for the revolutions of the planets. In an effort to get a little education, and not to over do it, 1 went back to the Internet, (Copied by be about March 10, 2005)
lltlG-//\YWw:.sgof.gsfc.na, s _a -goy/sta rgazc/Sgr ay it v. ht m (2/11/2005)
They provide, for me, the best and most understandable
outline on Newton's Laws and how to do the calculations.
I printed out 4 of the 5 pages.
On page two about 2/3rds of the way down the page they
recite:

"(Please note: gravity is not what gives the moon
its velocity. Whatever velocity the moon has was probably acquired when it was created. But gravity prevents the Moon from running away, and confines it to some orbit.)"

I should have found this source sooner. It seems that neither the basis for the planets revolutions or for their rotations was fully discovered before. I should have devoted more space to the issue, and would have, except that something I read implied that Newton's work explained the orbits and the forces working on the objects. When it comes to the sun and the planets I think we can conclude that it is the sun's source of gravity that provides for the orbits of the planets even though the mass of the planet does not appear to play any part whatever in the result. The velocities of the planets are related entirely to orbit distance.

jjw

jjw004. Newton is not a source ... try Einstein.

Al provided the requisite links. If you can't understand what you read at them ask questions.

I feel like giving up now that I think I understand it. Gravity explains the deflection of the moon towards the earth but not it's straight line velocity past the earth. That velosity is explained by how the solar system was formed from a swirling cloud and objects once set in motion keep moving forever. Gravity that can deflect planets, speed them up and slow them and turn them, but not cause any drag on the overall velocity of an orbit seems strange. However Einstein warped space-time might make it more acceptable, but we can't see or imagine, I persume, a physical expression of it. Could time and gravity be a linked mystery then?

Time and gravity are linked: This is no mystery. Get into a strong-enough gravitational well, for example the event-horizon of a black hole, and time stands still.

This is getting humorous. Uncle AL calls me names and denies the sun rotates as I said. He provides a lot of links which are offered to educate me and show how wrong I am. DA calls my sun rotation statement nonsense and asks for supporting links so I provide them.

DA now, with no comment on the links I offered, tells me to review the links that AL listed. OK I wasted my time as DA suggested. These appear to be a collection of links that have some general discussion on the sun or its electro magnetic field. In spite of what AL said just about all of his links confirm that the sun rotates so I doubt that he ever read the links. None of the links offered prove me wrong about anything that I said.

Now DA says I should check out Einstein apparently to prove myself wrong!
If someone wants to prove me wrong by way of Einstein?s theories then that is for them to do so. I contend that Einstein?s theories do not provide provable results that deny my simple basic contention relating to gravitation behaving like an envelope causing the objects within the envelope to be effected by the rotation of the ?envelope?.

I think I know how this works now. AL and DA call people names in the expectation they will get angry and fail to put their contentions to the test. I suggest that AL and DA read all of those offered links.
jjw

Hi Dogrock:

I think your last post sums up the current majority view very well.

One might think that Jupiter which is 317 times as massive as the Earth would "fall" towards the sun faster than the Earth but some how it revolves around the sun at only 8.11 miles per second while the Earth "falls", revolves, at 18.1 miles per second. The beleivers will argue that Jupiter is farther from the sun and there for revolves slower, and when they argue that point they unintentionally prove my contention.\
jjw

jjw004 wrote:
"calls my sun rotation statement nonsense and asks for supporting links so I provide them.

DA now, with no comment on the links I offered, tells me to review the links that AL listed."

I reviewed them. They are amateurish and intended for the ill-informed laypublic as compared to those Al presented. Al's are correct and thus I recommended you read them.

Error correction:

Dog rock: In my last post to you I discuss the "falling" of the planets per Newton but made an oversight that I felt should be cleared up lest I get punished.

All things are known to fall at the saem speed towards the same object in a vacuum. If all massive bodies exert an attraction for other bodies as Science states then the attraction to the sun should be a lot more for Jupiter than it is for the Earth. That mutual attraction is what I meant by the "fall" in the earlier reply.
jjw

DA:

The links to which I referred were not intended to be any link that I provided. I meant you should read the links that AL provided, as I did.

I repeat that I found nothing in AL's links that proves me wrong. I did find confirmation of a rotating sun.

No one is debating whether the sun rotates. The question is whether it rotates with a single rate of rotation ... and the answer is NO!

Unfortunately gravity says the extra attraction of Jupiter is exactly balanced by it's extra difficulty to pull. So all things fall at the same speed, distance is the only factor. Hope I didn't miss your point. Maybe someone could enlighten me as to the path "for example of the moon" through space relevant to some very distant star. Do planets go round each other or just pass each other out in this frame of reference. Additon later: I realise my question can't provide the answers I want, frame of reference is everything.

Hi Dogrock: I think I missed your point.

Thank you DA:
So at least we can agree on one thing. I went to the trouble of noting some more links bearing on the rotation of the sun discussion but I will not trouble any of you with them. I suspect that Al was talking about the observed Differential rotation of the sun that astronomers first ?discovered? by watching the sun spots go by. They calculated that the Equator rotated as I said, in about 25 Earth days, and that the area near the poles took about 28 or maybe 36 days. Some feel this is mainly a surface feature and others think it goes quite deeply into the sun- they all seem to agree that the suns core does not have this differential feature.

My point here is that I am well aware of this astronomical conception of the suns rotation. I am not trying to upset you or Uncle Al, when I suggest that this is an illusion created by the time it takes light to reach us here at earth with the polar light traveling about 432,000 miles before it gets to the suns equator and joins up with the light emitted from the equator. This is very bad science in view of the current majority view so I will sign off admitting in advance my astroidiocy. Both you and AL did jump me on suns rotation!
Cheers? jjw