Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 20:07:41 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 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
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 03:07:41 +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

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

I am still frustrated on copy paste of iphone-- sporadically responsive

What i show in the below is that when you have the full equation of the force, you no longer need the mickey mouse question of shifting frame of reference, for the equation does it all.

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