Re: Falling Objects, How They Fall

On 29 Dec 2005 "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Joe Fischer wrote:
>> Does F / m mean a for acceleration?
>
>Yes.
>
>> Force(on small mass) / small mass = acceleration?
>
>Yes.
>
>> >The acceleration of the heavy object is F/M = G(ME)/r^2 toward the
>> >center of mass.
>>
>> Force on Earth / Mass(Earth) = acceleration?
>
>Not quite. See below.

Where did I go wrong, oh, the M isn't the Earth?

>> >The relative acceleration of the light object and Earth is AE +
>> >G(ME)/r^2.
>> >The relative acceleration of the heavy object and Earth is AE +
>> >G(ME)/r^2.
>>
>> In opposite directions, right?
>
>No, you've misunderstood me. I'm putting a light object (say, a melon)
>and a heavy object (say, the Moon), both a distance r away from the
>Earth, and I'm letting them both go at the same time, and I'm comparing
>the relative acceleration of the light object (the melon) towards the
>Earth to the relative acceleration of the heavy object (the Moon)
>towards the Earth. Please look again at what I said above.

Sorry, that wasn't clear, you did not mention
a third object.

>Both of them (the melon and the Moon) accelerate towards the earth at
>AE + G(ME)/r^2.

Of course.

>This is certainly what Newtonian gravity predicts. It's also confirmed
>by experiment.
>PD

What experiment?

It is not what Newtonian gravitation predicts!

The moon attracts the Earth enough that
the Earth has to move back a thousand miles or
so from the center of the mass of the system.

I know you are NOT going to say that
Newtonian gravitation predicts the melon will
do that.

I think I see this clear enough now, and
see a challenge to devise an experiment that can
verify that heavier things fall faster.
A challenge is what makes things more
exciting. I hope everybody will accept that a
melon will NOT cause the Earth to move the way
the moon makes it move, and NOT suggest that
Newtonian gravitation predicts a melon would
cause the Earth to move as much as the moon
causes it to.

Apparently looking at the "force" formulas
fails to communicate any definite result without
the quantitative analysis, and a quantitative
analysis in this case seems to be beyond the
measuring capability at present.

And since GR describes gravity without
a "force" acting on freefalling objects, in contrast
to Newtonian concepts, it is good to have a model
that is simple (many will testify that Divergent Matter
is that), that provides "_____A___W_A_ Y______"
for gravity to work without a force acting on objects
in freefall.

For this reason, I suggest that more capable
and talented people than me should study the model.

Joe Fischer

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Falling Objects, How They Fall
    ... I'm putting a light object (say, a melon) ... >>Earth to the relative acceleration of the heavy object (the Moon) ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Falling Objects, How They Fall
    ... I'm putting a light object (say, a melon) ... >>>Earth to the relative acceleration of the heavy object (the Moon) ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Electrogravitics is Reality!
    ... we do live on a planet called Earth and it is ... orbited by a moon, and we can build things called rockets to access it ... That's fantasy too. ... SRBs increase cost, increase danger, and are a bad idea. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Noahs age?
    ... I arrived at evolution ... God does not lose his Creator status if his methods were a bit more ... moon is moving away from earth. ... is that at one time it was closer to earth than it is now. ...
    (alt.religion.christian)
  • Re: Mining the Moons of Mars
    ... soil, bodies of water, oceans, or forests of Earth - which are also ... you'd see the moon shine like a beacon - despite its 8% albedo. ... moon Cruithne 3753, at not 1% the cost of doing a Mars moon? ... asteroid belt - 3 years. ...
    (sci.space.policy)