"Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"

[d3x0r]

I know; two posts is hard to combine and quote but... to go further back.  I'm not swiming.  I read several books on fractal geometry and fractal dimensions... and abstract ways to conceive of dimensionality from 0 to N....


I've begun to simplify things in my own mine, like a vector is just a parameter list... and math is a horrible syntax for programming... but it can suffice.


I spent some time attempting to derive the slope of a mandelbrot... ended up converting it to polar coordinates and had a relatively good shot at it, but... it was just a more complex calculation and wouldn't simplify predicition of failure any more than just evaluating the position.


I'm having a little hard time wrapping my mind around T^3 per cubic space... that really means 3 seperate parameters for the function to T... although it's T*T*T it's really AT*BT*CT  or (Ai*Bj*Ck) with units of T^3.....


and that also means we can take a derivitive of mass....


But if I can make another leap, it sounds like you're heading to say that M/S is really A unit, and all other things are built around that metric.


Keep it as simple as possible and no simpler...

[Khwartz]

The reason that a feather will fall at the same speed as a marble(in a vacume ofcourse),has nothing to do with the amount of mass. It is how gravity reacts with atoms.As all things(well not all)that have mass are made from atoms,and gravity reacts on those atoms in the same way,then we know why the feather falls at the same speed as the marble.

Hi, tinman.

You stated that "the reason that a feather will fall at the same speed as a marble(in a vacume ofcourse),has nothing to do with the amount of mass" but here the trivial demonstration it has all to do with masses:

Indead, the equation:

• F [N] = g [m.s^-2] * M [kg]   (1)


is very known but we forget often that "g" depends on:

• M [kg]    (2)


where "M" is the Earth-mass ("m" will be here the mass of the object CONSIDERED as "falling down" on the surface of the Earth).

The truth as you could know is that both masses (object and Earth) are attracted with the same intensity and "fall on each other".

The complete equation is:

• F [N] = k [(m.s^-2)kg^-1] * (M [kg] * m [kg]) / d^2 [m^2]   (3)


Where " k [(m.s^-2)kg^-1]" is what I call personally (because of a generalisation I try to clear-up for any kind of energy): "SPECIFIC (ENERGETICAL) SENSIBILITY" OF THE "(ENERGETICAL) CHARGE" (here the MASS).

So, from (1) & (3) we can express "g" as A DIRECT FUNCTION of the  "CHARGES" involved:

• g [m.s^-2]  = k [(m.s^-2)kg^-1] * M [kg]  / d^2 [m^2]   (4)


So, you can see that ACCELERATION here is depending on the Earth-mass and of the "SPECIFIC SENSIBILITY" of the MASS (MASS = "GRAVITATIONAL CHARGE").

Correct me, anyone, if I have made any error in my maths

Cheers.

[forest]

Yup, again the effect of the most basic law : Newton III law.

[lancaIV]

Good morning(Vila Cha time view) ,
did you all ever seen a poolbillard-championship ? ( other sports: how a volley-ball may be treaten :punshing the ball with the hand palm)
Motion with no motion: a ball that is moving on one fixed XYZ-point/pinion ( f.e. XYZ-ZeroPoint)
with 3-movement potentials : rotatory -translatory-linear

a natural/artificial spin-filament with a water-drop( or buckyball) : moving/rotating (centrifugal/peripetal) the filament : in(n)ert X(=different)-haerent drop forces !
what happens and how inside the tube of agriculture drop-watering process ?

Sincerely
             OCL

[d3x0r]

There is an experiment to measure gravity between two similarly sized, uncharged, non-magnetic objects. 
When the difference between the two is great, then the smaller is neglegable in effect of accelerating the other.  It does not additionally accelerate itself, only the other.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#History_of_measurement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation


I've misremembered the equations  


F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2  in m-s^-2


where:
F is the force between the masses,
G is the gravitational constant, (arbitrary scale conversion factor)
m1 is the first mass,
m2 is the second mass, and
r is the distance between the centers of the masses.




newton did propose a correction factor for gravity...
F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2 + B * m1 * m2 / r^3;  // look a B field
kepler had something to do with that....


... I don't remember... the forces exerpted are not symetrical, and the gravitational acceleration of the object never accelerates itself.
It's not equal and opposite halves added together.


Under a constant of a different cosmic scale of object vs another insignificant object simplifies to just


F = g m d^-2


g = gravity constant for the gravity field reference
m = is mass
d = is distance of the mass from (the center of mass)
...


okay so if I approach this as a limit...


as m2 approaches 0 compared to m1....


F = G * m1 * 0 ; no that doesn't work...


I should sleep on it maybe


-------------
re notes on relativity being better than newton for explaining things...
Ug nevermind, I can't even bear to read that.
Yes it just a bunch of mislabled words, but it's the same thing the dyslexic russian alphabet does to me.  P is R and H is N and there's like 12 B's


the corrections applied are all electromagnetic effects.  Gravity does NOT bend light.
But magnetism does all the time - in crystal lenses for instance.  and hence the dark 'matter' isn't matter at all, but magnetic fields... measuring distance star light bend around the sun, or bend around jupiter is equally pointless not having seperated the extreme magnetic fields both of these have.