Blackholes Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora Basketballs Do Not Fall Consistently Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Tim on April 25, 2003 03:52:59 UTC

duordi,

note: i realize that this discussion is getting a bit convoluted because of all of the quoting,
i'll try to keep going on any way for now.

i said:
heh heh, i don't think you mean only the measurable result that we can achieve which is that objects regardless of weight fall at the same rate in the neighborhood of a massive object.

you said
"The equations I developed can be repeated for 3, 4, ....etc. objects with similar results.
Each equation will contain a summation of all masses with a factor related to the angles between them."

here i was refering not to the equation you derived but to the statement quoted as follows:
"The other objects in the universe will be pulling in random directions and will not consistently change the results in one direction.
The introduction of other mass objects may confuse the issue but it does not change the result."

the result is what we measure, which is that objects fall at the same rate in the neighborhood
of a massive object.

you said:
"For your idea to be correct some of the individual masses must drop from the equations during the derivation of a composite acceleration.

I would be interested in seeing that result if you are able to achieve it. One or more of the
mass variables may vanish if a specific mass distribution is used."

currently i can't argue this point as i'm still pondering your equation and it's meaning. i'll
try to remmember to come back to this point once i complete your equation.

i said:
The introduction of other mass objects doesn't confuse the issue. it clarifies it.
how else would you explain inertia?

you said:
"Inertia is the attraction of a mass to its own gravitational field.
Inertia is a function of the mass of an object, the mass of the universe, and a masses
acceleration with respect to a previous velocity.
( Please note that I included the mass of the universe in that definition.)"

i don't have a real problem with your description.
i most definitely note the inclusion of the other mass out in the universe.
again objects that are more massive may be thought of as having more gravity pulling them toward the ground, BUT they also have more inertia to overcome. The two effects cancel each other out.

you said:
"I do not see why inertia would cause me to question the acceleration equation I derived."

but i do think any equation we apply to the question of do dissimilar mass's fall at the same
rate needs to be applied with consideration of not just the effects of the mass's in question but also the other mass's that exist in the rest of the universe. with the assumption that your equation is correct (and on first glance i think it may be) please show me how the equation AT = (G / R(^2) ) x ( M2 + M1 + ...) could do that for just two dissimilar mass's that we are trying to determine differance or lack of differance of their rate of fall in the neighborhood of a massive object.

you said:
"May all your trajectories be true.

amen :)

regards, tim