User talk:Donteras

Newton's gravity
Hi Donteras. Talk pages are not intended for general discussion about the topic of an article, but are there specifically for discussing possible improvements to the article itself. I'm just leaving a quick comment here on some remarks you made at Talk:Newton's law of universal gravitation.

As you note, the motions of bodies in the solar system are dominated by the Sun. Small particles will tend to follow the same path, even if some of them are much more massive than others.

In Newton's model of gravity, this is because the particles experience a force towards the Sun, which is proportional to their mass. Since F = ma, the accelerations of the particles, and their orbits, are therefore the same, as the mass in the force equation cancels with the mass in "ma".

Take a large mass, like the Sun, with mass "M". Take a small mass "m", like a comet, at a distance "r". By Newton's force equation for gravity, the force is
 * $$F = G\frac{Mm}{r^2}$$

Therefore the acceleration of the smaller object, obtained by "F = ma", is
 * $$a = G\frac{M}{r^2}$$

Note that the acceleration, and the orbit, is independent of the mass of the smaller object. This is also why dropping a feather and a hammer on a airless body like the moon leads to the same acceleration.

If the smaller body is very massive, then one also starts to need to take account of the smaller body on the Sun, because the Sun also experiences the same force. But the same force applied to a comet, and applied to the Sun, have very different effects! In the case of Jupiter, there starts to be some significant effects on the Sun; for all other planets the effect is pretty much negligible.

Einstein gets almost the same effects, but not in terms of a force. Instead, a massive object in Einstein's model introduces some curvature into space and time, and other objects simply follow along the "geodesics" in the curved spacetime, regardless of their own mass. The effects are almost identical; in our solar system only Mercury has motions that have a detectable difference from the predictions of Newton's and Einstein's gravitational models. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  00:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You can rearrange the same formula anyway you want, you still don't make it true. I really wish reality and truth could win out over the fact that everybody else is wrong. Wouldn't it be great if you guys could be the first to publish this formula correctly since it was changed?

Also notice how your rearranging only works in a special case. If it were right, wouldn't it work in almost all situations?


 * I did not rearrange. I did some basic algrebra with two standard equations, Newton's gravitational law and Newton's first law, and used them to derive different equation, for a different quantity. I showed that Newton's laws mean that the acceleration of an object in a gravitational field does not depend on its mass. If you replace the multiplication of masses in Newton's law of gravitation with an addition, you find that falling masses on the Earth all have almost exactly the same force, which is absurd. Heavy objects, and light objects, fall at the same speed (if the effects of air resistance can be ignored). That means the heavy object must have a larger force, to accelerate its greater mass. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  21:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Why your formula cannot work
Donteras, I will make a good-faith attempt to explain to you why your  proposed   formula:  $$F = G \frac{m_1+m_2}{r^2}$$ for the force exerted on mass 2 by mass 1 cannot be correct. Let’s call the mass of the earth M1. Let objects 2 and 3 have masses of m2 and m3, respectively. Consider the situation when m2 and m3 are both  much  smaller than M1, the mass of the earth.

If Masses 2 and 3 are connected together (with a lightweight connection) to make  one object, their combined mass is m2 + m3,  and then  your  formula  says that  the  total force the  earth exerts on them is:  $$F = G \frac{M_1+(m_2 + m_3)}{r^2} = G \frac{M_1 + m_2 + m_3}{r^2}$$. I’m assuming that r stays almost the same when they are separated.

If we then separate them, the force on m2 is $$G \frac{M_1 + m_2}{r^2}$$, and the force on m3 is $$G \frac{M_1 + m_3 }{r^2} $$, so that the total of the forces on the two of them is $$G \frac{M_1 + m_2 }{r^2} + G \frac{M_1 + m_3}{r^2} = G \frac{2M_1 + m_2  + m_3}{r^2}$$

This is larger than the total force on the two objects when they are together. Since we  are  assuming  that  M1  is  much larger than either  m2 or m3,   2M1  + m2 + m3  is  just about  twice  as  large  as  M1 + m2 + m3. Therefore, the total force on the objects when they are separated is just  about  twice as large  as  when  they are together. The weight of an object is how hard the earth pulls on it. According to your formula,  if  we   break a one pound loaf  of  bread in two, the pieces have a total weight of very close to 2 pounds.

Also, it  does  not  stop  there. By the same  argument, the  force  with  which the earth  pulls on a crumb of bread pulled off the  loaf  is  almost as  much as   the  force with  which the earth  pulled on the   whole  loaf. Suppose we crumble that loaf of bread into 1,000,000 crumbs. Since the force with which the earth pulls on each  crumb is almost  as  much as the force with  which  it  pulled on the  whole loaf,  the   total  of the forces  with which it  pulls on   the 1,000,000  crumbs  is  almost 1,000,000  times as  much  as  the force with which it  pulled  on the  whole loaf  before it  was  crumbled. So, by crumbling a  1  pound loaf  of  bred  into 1,000,000 crumbs we get a  pile of  crumbs  on which the  earth  pulls with a fore of 1,000,000  pounds. Do you believe that that is reasonable? For that matter, using your formula, the earth would pull on a single air molecule almost as  hard  as it  pulls on a battleship.

Newton’s formula does not have this problem. According to it, the earth pulls on m2 with a force of $$F = G \frac{M_1 \times m_2}{r^2}$$, and on m3 with a force of $$F = G \frac{M_1 \times  m_3}{r^2}$$. The total of these forces is $$F = G \frac{M_1 \times  m_2}{r^2} +  G \frac{M_1 \times  m_3}{r^2} $$, which comes to $$F = G \frac{M_1 \times  (m_2 + m_3)}{r^2}$$ with the aid of a little high  school algebra. This last force is also the same force with which the earth would pull on masses m2 and m3 if they were joined together.

I would also like to point out that, even if someone had a genuine advance in physics, Wikipedia would not be the place to publish it. Read the policy on original research if you don’t believe  me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research journal. Wikipedia   writes about things that are already  verifiable and  notable;  it is not a shortcut to make things verifiable and notable. Cardamon 22:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, if I were right, this wouldn't have been original research, it would have been the way Newton's law is. Second, you are right. It's not reasonable. I'm sorry I was wrong. I'm sorry about the toes I may have stepped on in my zeal for the truth. Now I have two intellectual tasks ahead of me: finding and reanalyzing the absurdities I've seen published as a result of this formula (they may actually be true) and trying to figure out why forces multiply instead of add. It still doesn't make sense, but I'm gonna have to make it do so, since that is the way it seems to be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donteras (talk • contribs).


 * Hi Donteras. It's a trick to be able to identify a good intuitive picture that helps the maths make sense.


 * Try this thought. A heavy thing is hard to move. If you have two large blocks sliding on the ice, you have to push the heavy one harder to get the same motions.


 * Also a heavy thing weighs more. A heavy backpack pushes down harder on you than a light one.


 * These two effects are inertia (how hard it is to move a thing) and weight (how hard a thing pushes under gravity). They turn out to be the same. Inertial mass equals gravitational mass. It seems obvious because we are so used to it, but they are actually very different concepts. Contrast this with electromagnetic forces. The forces on a particle in an electric field depend on its charge, and the rate at which it moves depends on its mass, and these are different. So different particles accelerate at different rates, depending on the charge to mass ratio. But in a gravitational field, the ratio of weight to mass is always one, so all particles accelerate in the same way.


 * Newton's equation for gravitational force is calculating the force, and you can measure the force with a bathroom scale. A heavy object pushes harder on the scale than a light one. So the force is proportional to the mass of the object. An object pushes harder on the scale when on Earth than on the Moon. So the force is also proportional to the mass of the planet. The total force is the product of both masses. But to get the acceleration, you have to divide by the inertial mass, which happens to be the same as the gravitational mass used to calculate the force.


 * End effect: for two objects, A and B, pulling on each other through gravity, the rate of acceleration for object A depends only on the mass of object B; and vica versa. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  05:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. M1 puts out an M1 sized gravitational field. M2 is affected by an M2 "sized" portion of that field. Since gravity has energy we know by e=mc² that it also has mass. That means that gravity is attracted to gravity. Because of this, M2's "size" is proportional to its mass and not its surface area. That also means the formula as it stands only takes one of the gravitational fields into account. This is fine for measuring weight, but for orbital mechanics we need to take both fields into account. This oversight is the probable reason that Newton's laws are off by a factor of 2. Donteras 04:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Woah! The first two sentences (about an M1 sized field and being affected by an M2 size portion) might be a convenient way to think about it and recognize the need to multiply M1 and M2. The rest is all wrong, I'm afraid. Newton's laws are very accurate indeed; off by only a very small factor in extreme cases. The idea that only one of two fields is taken into account is wrong as well. Newton's law is a force law, which defines the force between two masses. The field can be thought of as a measure of the force on a test mass around an object. That is, the force law comes first, and the field is derived from it as a consequence. If you have two masses M1 and M2, it makes no sense to ask of the effect of M1's field on M1. M1 is in the field of M2, and M2 is in the field of M1. Each mass experiences a force, proportional to its own mass and to the field of the other mass.


 * The comments about relativity are also mistaken. There is energy in a gravitational field, but it does not have mass. This is getting into very deep waters indeed, which caused all kinds of confusion as people first started to work out the theory of energy and gravitational waves. The situation is now pretty well understood, but to explain it requires reference to some some pretty technical terms.


 * Basically, in relativity gravity is expressed through geometry. The Einstein field equations relate a stress-energy tensor, which deals with how energy and momentum is distributed through spacetime, to the Einstein tensor, which in turn is a based on the metric tensor for spacetime. Put intuitively, matter and energy determines the geometry of spacetime, and then the geometry of spacetime determines the motions of particles. The energy of matter and electromagnetic fields is captured in the stress energy tensor; but there is also energy in gravitational fields, and gravitational waves; and this is NOT captured by the stress energy tensor. Dealing with gravitational energy is very hard work; and generally it cannot be done with tensors and it cannot be mapped to locations in spacetime. Instead, it needs to be handled with a pseudotensor, such as the Stress-energy-momentum pseudotensor of Landau and Liftschitz. But that is way too much detail than really needed. In most cases, the gravitational energy involved is negligible. You really only need to use it in very extreme cases like a supernova or rapidly rotating neutron stars. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  05:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not ignoring you. I'm just very busy.  I am learning quite a bit from this conversation and I do value your insights.

First of all, if you believe Newton's laws to be very accurate, you are mistaken. Most of the times when they say "very accurate" they mean very close. Close does not mean accurate. Mercury's orbit completely fails to obey Newton's law and the orbits of Neptune and Pluto deviate enough to make people believe in Planet X. Obviously you are also unaware of why Einstein's theory won out over Newton's.  At one time, both theories were off by a factor of 2, but Einstein's theory is creative enough that he could just make something up to make up the difference. The idea is neat, but warped time is the same thing as warped space. He can't get twice the effect by stating the same idea twice.
 * I was never concerned with M1's effect on M1. M1 pulls on M2 with the force of (oh, say,) X.  M2 pulls on M1 with the (same) force of X.  The means that relative motion between M1 and M2 is governed  by the force of 2X.  BTW all energy has mass.  What makes you think that some does and some doesn't?  And it is significant.  Consider the slingshot maneuver.  There is a momentum transfer there.  I hope you have learned enough Einstein to know that momentum has mass, so basically the slingshot maneuver involves mass transfer.  The spacecraft and the planet don't touch (hopefully) so the transfer is done strictly with gravity.  That means that if the theory does not take the mass of gravity into account, then it's a flawed theory.
 * You might have to define the word "tensor" for me. If I had to guess as to the meaning, I would say that it's a tensing vector, which is a directional force.  Of course it has to be that way.  By definition, you can't make a non-moving object move unless you apply a force (this is mentioned in the intro to the Principia).  I didn't make up this definition, but it does suggest that any theory that tries to eliminate force from gravity is doomed to fail unless you can hide it behind weird words.
 * Donteras 04:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I might have failed to mention that except for Newton's mathematical error and Einstein's warped space, the two theories are just 2 ways of saying the same thing. Therefore, if gravity's attraction to gravity is implied in Newton's theory, it is also implied in Einstein's.  Einstein's theory is so complicated that finding such an implication is probably a needle-in-a-haystack exercise.  Those special situations where you have to pay attention to the mass of gravity are very likely a little inaccurate because the mass of gravity is already implicant in the equations.
 * Donteras 04:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)