A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass

[sm0ky2]

what i meant by ring, was basically its current position and and directional vector / speed

distance, angular velocity

its not just the speed that matters, but also the angle it is traveling with respect to the sun (or whatever mass the sattellite is orbiting)
As the orbit decays, the angle of approach becomes steeper, which is why it speeds up, and also why it moves to the next closer step towards the sun. Remember, gravity is an accellerating force, and although the sattellite isnt falling "straight down", gravity is still pulling on it, the closer it gets, the more accelleration is imparted onto it, but not in the right vector-angle to push it outwards, its moving closer.

its a giant, slow spiral path, but each closer lap is at a slightly different angle than the one that preceeded it, and the orbit is slightly shorter around as a result. The overall angular momentum is conserved (minus losses), so, change the angle and the velocity changes.

If it simply sped up, without changing the angle - the orbit would assume a path further out. If you just gave it small bursts of speed, to maintain its current path, it would become "constant" like our man-made sattellites.

[fritznien]

what i meant by ring, was basically its current position and and directional vector / speed

distance, angular velocity

its not just the speed that matters, but also the angle it is traveling with respect to the sun (or whatever mass the sattellite is orbiting)
As the orbit decays, the angle of approach becomes steeper, which is why it speeds up, and also why it moves to the next closer step towards the sun. Remember, gravity is an accellerating force, and although the sattellite isnt falling "straight down", gravity is still pulling on it, the closer it gets, the more accelleration is imparted onto it, but not in the right vector-angle to push it outwards, its moving closer.

its a giant, slow spiral path, but each closer lap is at a slightly different angle than the one that preceeded it, and the orbit is slightly shorter around as a result. The overall angular momentum is conserved (minus losses), so, change the angle and the velocity changes.

If it simply sped up, without changing the angle - the orbit would assume a path further out. If you just gave it small bursts of speed, to maintain its current path, it would become "constant" like our man-made sattellites.

an increase in energy takes the satellite into a higher slower orbit.
a decrease in energy takes the satellite into a lower faster orbit.
yes you can push one into a lower energy orbit where the satellite will reach a higher point for part of its orbit and lots
of other neat combinations.people like Brian are confused enough, how about you concentrate on writing
as clearly as possible so that they might learn something.
fritznien

[brian334]

The proposed test will prove gravity has mass.
Than maybe all of the nonsensical stuff posted here will go away.

[sm0ky2]

The proposed test will prove gravity has mass.
Than maybe all of the nonsensical stuff posted here will go away.

None of the tests you have proposed are possible to perform with a degree of accuracy necessary to answer the question at hand..
If you truly wish to test such a thing, the test must be pheasible, and within the scope of human abilities.


The ground-based test i proposed, using equipment we are already familiar with, and well known methods currently in use - based on the direction of motion of the earth with respect to the direction of its' gravitational force, will definitively answer the question one way or the other.
The results (if gravity does indeed have mass) can be calculated mathematically, and compared to the results of the test.

[brian334]

The silly people that believe the mass of a object changes when it moves fast base there belief mostly in test performed in particle accelerators.
Therefore to prove mass does not change and gravity has mass why not use a acceptable method like a particle accelerator?