If we look closer at the Solar system as a plurality of separate objects, then there arises a problem of «making» the planets move along their intricate route not by chance but according to the formulas. Now they do it without permission of the «great» people.
What a scandal!
When Kepler studied the motion of the celestial objects and created empirical laws of motion of the planets around the Sun then at last there appeared an opportunity to call stones to order.
When Kepler’s laws were discussed it was decided that the Sun attracts planets with the force that is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance between celestial objects.
The square of the function appeared in the discussions not because someone had really measured this subjection (it’s still not measured and can’t be measured). But because planets «draw» ellipses, that are square geometric figure,in the space.
Next attempts to «mathematize» Solar system bumped into a well-known fact that free fall acceleration doesn’t depend on the body weight, then all three objects will reach the bottom simultaneously.
Free fall acceleration (g) on the Earth doesn’t depend on the weight of the falling bodies!
That’s why we can’t insert here a directly proportional subjection of the attraction force from the weights of gravidependent objects because it contradicts the reality.
If we only could leave the weight of the Earth and get rid of the weights of falling objects? But it is impossible! They must be equal, the must be mutually attracted.
It all came to a standstill.
But then like a rabbit from a hat there appeared mister Newton. Just the «right» guy — without any complexes.
Do you need constant free fall acceleration?
- Hocus- pocus!
- Let’s introduce a notion of object mass and let’s multiply it by its acceleration, in this case — by free fall acceleration.
Thus will the force applied to objects will look like now.
- What is mass? Don’t think too hard — your head will ache! Just divide body object weight by g and you’ll get the mass!
- Any physical sense of this mass? Well, make up something yourself, without Newton!
Though, we’ll have to concoct something chemical with dimension and volume, but physics and chemistry are twin sisters, one can make it fit!
- I don’t know about physical one but the sense lies in the following:
Let’s introduce a direct dependence of the gravity force between objects (F) from the product (to enable cancellation and not according to the experiment) of these objects’ mass (M иm) under inverse dependence of the squared distance between them (R2): (a sign* in the text means «to multiply», a sign / means «to divide»)
F = G * M * m /R2, where G — is a gravity constant (1)
-On the other hand just as I made up so brilliantly the force applied to an object is represented by the following formula:
F = m * g, where m — mass of a body, g — free fall acceleration.
- Then we make the right parts of formulae equal:
m * g = G * M * m /R2, where М — mass of the Earth. (0)
- We cancel out m in the left and right parts of the equation and finally get:
g = G * M /R2, where R — The Earth’s radius. (2)
- Here you got it — the acceleration does not depend on the mass of a falling body. That is what we needed to prove!
The women cried hurray! throwing caps in the air!
So, g = G * M/R2. If we divide only the mass of the Earth by the squared radius we will get a totally different dimension that acceleration have and the number will be different. But for this newtons and their zombified followers have such great science as the mentioned above chemistry.
In the units of SI the valuation is G = 6,67428 * 10-11 м3•с−2•kg−1, orН•м2•kg−2.
Do you see it, do you fell it? If we now multiply all the numbers in the final formula we will get 9,81.
And multiplying dimensions in the last and the first formula we will get dimensionality of acceleration or force.
Wow, how well it worked!!!
So one can make up in physics anything that «will do» we just need to glue it somehow to the fact. For example in the case with Newton’s «laws» they were glued to the actual orbits of the planets. And mismatches were «stopped» by silicone gravity constant with alkyd dimensionality.
The students of physics department try often and without results to understand physical sense of that of this doctrine or statement that are flogged into their heads by professors.
Gravity constant is one of such cases.
In this regard let’s examine the following:
Unbelievable adventures of the free fall acceleration
To do it, let’s carve a hypothetical tunnel through the centre of the Earth and throw stoned there. While we can’t possibly observe their fall — scientists say it is very hot there, so we have to see how they fly according to the gravity law of Newton.
As a stone falls there will be less and less mass of the Earth in front of them and more behind and from sides. Gravity will appear behind and side gravities with it. In the centre of the Earth there will appear null gravity state because gravity around and above will be the same and as the result g = 0. The pressure in the core will also equal zero and even discharge because the top layers simultaneously «pull apart» the core.
By inertia the stone will fly through the centre of the Earth then it will return several time like a pendulum and will stop in the centre. So the mythical core of our planet according to Newton is gravity-free.
Everything could be all right but here appears such phenomenon as
A «crazy» core of the planet Earth.
While the core is being held by nothing — null-gravity in other words, then it will be easily attracted by the Moon and the Sun with a significantly greater displacement than for example in the case with the waters of the world ocean. And during solar eclipse when they attract in one direction there will be great troubles. First of all there where mythical earth crust is particularly thin — under the ocean.
The core of the Earth will represent some sort of a metal ball that when shaken mixes paint in an aerosol spray can. The insides of the planet will be totally mixed!
So we can’t build a tunnel even a hypothetical one.
But let’s continue with the adventures of the free fall acceleration:
Formula (2) is obtained under the condition that the planet represents point mass accumulated in the centre. This does not happen in nature of course! It is one of Newton’s tricks with the following embarrassment.
Let’s hang down a hypothetical cable from a synchronistic satellite, fix it to a bucket standing on the ground and let’s start throwing stones from it after the Earth we are used to disappears and «concentrates in a dot».
According to the formula (2), g will be growing at the decrease in the distance to the centre (division by a fraction if we take R for one) and, at last, when distance between the dot and the stone is zero then free fall acceleration will become infinite. Because if we divide by zero we get infinity.
Body weight of any mass in the centre of hypothetical dot Earth will be infinitely great.
In other words, using the law of gravity and approved conventions we got two totally opposite meanings of free fall acceleration. By the way, if somebody doesn’t know: with these very mathematical insinuations a horror story about possibility of formation of «black holes» on the large hadron collider is connected.
In the LHC streams of nano particles are being accelerated to very high speeds towards each other. It is claimed that when they collide rapprochement of dot particles at zero distance and formation of «black holes» is possible.
But it’s of «physiсist joke»- type.
I’ll add that in the collider different kinds of energy matter are being accelerated, not particles. Scientists just simply make mistakes being in the grasp of the general acknowledgement.
They will find nothing useful for real worldview in the LHC, but it is possible that their studies will help medicine and electronics move ahead and in the result it will bring only harm, strengthening people’s opinion that the wrong way is right.
Secondly, neither material dots, nor produced from them «black holes» don’t exist in nature!
So free fall acceleration is constant only «horizontally», along the sphere (and even then it changes a bit) and vertically it is changeable or isn’t defined. We have all rights to write down the formula G = g * (R2/M), where even M changes, «wrapping» the body falling inside the Earth. In other words G is function of several volumes, including not defined one. G = f (g, m, r) and it’s not a constant one.
Now let’s get sorted dotage of Newton’s «laws» to the end. In order to do it we need to look here, let’s read the text attentively and look at the picture.
«Within the confines of classical mechanics gravitational interaction is described by the law of gravity. This law was formulated by Newton in 1666. It says that force of gravity between two material mass dots m1 and m2, separated by distance R is proportional to both masses and inversely proportional to the square between them. »
According to this distance R is to be measured between borders of bodies. But in this case zero distance between the bodies becomes achievable and weight of a body, lying on the surface of the Earth for example is infinite (divide by zero). That’s why pseudo-scientists out of blue claimed that «spherically symmetric body creates the same attraction as a material dot of the same mass, situated in the centre of the body» and distance is now measured not between bodies but between centres of these bodies.
And it is considered that the whole mass in concentrated in this dot. They are not worried by the fact that mass can’t be in the body that has no volume. In other words it’s impossible to draw all the things told by Newton and his kind! Drawings on this topic in wikipedia and textbooks are wrong!
There are no material dots in nature!
Or maybe scientists have solved the secret of nature of gravity and with the help of experiments proved that body and dot of the same mass have identical gravities?
Or there exists an order in the Universe that permits to take a body for a dot if mister Newton needs it?
Besides all these things discussed hereinbefore, such phrases as «material dot» and «black hole» mean one and the same thing because in this case it becomes possible to achieve zero rapprochement of masses. In other words, any way it is impossible to evade zero rapprochement.
It is very funny: according to the gravity law, when there are zero distances between the bodies there appear «black holes».
On the other hand, gravity law is very convenient for «intelligent» mountebanks because it is impossible to measure attraction between celestial bodies that is stated there!
And you call this a law? And is the one who promotes it a scientist?!
Second law of Newton (motion law) has a very narrow application in real life; moreover, at some points it contradicts the reality. In particular it can’t be called a motion law — it works more or less only with the motion of bodies with acceleration.
You, my dear reader, when you studied in school, perhaps you tried to understand what is this mass and how is it related with weight, acceleration, force and other things and tricks of mathematical physics.
I know that most young people naturally understood nothing. Others accepted it and memorized it according to the principle «I must».
So, until a traffic warden Ivan Nikolaevich Belov (Vanka Beluj) or future singer Alla Pugacheva (I don’t know her school nickname) won’t understand, memorize and in 10-20 years repeat everything they were told at the physics lessons, until then the contents of the physics textbooks is damned nonsense. Honestly!
For example, solve this problem:
You are standing on the scales. Your body doesn’t move with acceleration (a=0). What will the scales show?
Erudites will begin to multiply mass by g but I ask you to solve it in general, according to Newton’s motion law, because as we’ve seen hereinbefore, formula for g is formulated against common reason. It’s just made to fit.
If g is number 9,81, then say it : «Mass is approximately tenth part of the weight.» Than why do we need it?
By the way, the body at a standstill or in a state of steady motion isn’t affected by the forces or their resultant is zero. Acceleration of such a body equals to zero as well. Them, according to the second law of Newton 0 = m*0 and m = 0/0.
Mass of the body at a standstill or in the state of steady motion represents uncertainty, something like zero divided by zero.
In other words, as long as the body moves with the acceleration under the applied to it force, its dynamic mass can’t be measured.
We can make an analogy to the resistance of a conductor in electricity — it’s impossible to measure resistance until there is current there.
But body weight in the planet or on the Sun can be measured. We can measure attraction force of a magnet, force of electric of electromagnetic attraction, pressure force of different nature, though there is no acceleration. Not all forces appear in the result of accelerated motion!
Body weight isn’t a particular case of Newton’s motion law, that’s why for example one shouldn’t have written equation (0) hereinbefore.
Mechanical (inertial) body mass isn’t general natural magnitude. Sciences and theories that give this mass universal character are initially false. These are for example relativity theories of Einstein or so called quantum sciences.
In science mass is held for general characteristics of a solid body only because of ignorance.
Gravitational and inertial body masses appear at its saturation with gravitymatter. If gravity matter is taken away from the physical body then this body becomes weightless and non-inertial.
There is principle of equivalence after all! Is it so difficult to make your brains work?
A cosmonaut works at the orbital station. His body moves with centripetal acceleration a (it is thus written in the textbooks).
According to Newton he will have weight because there is acceleration and on the TV we see that he is gravity-free.
So what will the cosmonaut’s weight be? After Newton or after TV?
By the way, cosmonauts break the principle of equivalence without any scruples — they don’t have gravitational mass but they do have inertial one.
Especially obvious is absence of gravitational attraction of the Earth at the relatively insignificant distance from it if we take synchronous satellites as an example. They are those that «hang» above one and the same spot on the planet.
This assumed cosmonaut sitting in such a satellite can be looked upon as a man situated on the viewing platform of a very high tower. There is no attraction. Gravity law is damned rubbish! As well as the principle of equivalence.
Pseudo-scientists claim that the Triple Alliance: Newton’s laws of mechanics + gravity law of Newton + law of conservation of momentum, allows to formulate Kepler’s law strictly at the mathematical basis.
Here we approach the next topic:
The main sham in the scientific model of the Solar system.
The law of conservation of torsional moment states the following:
A body rotating its axis at the absence of decelerating force will rotate the way it likes.
In other words, we speak about a body as the whole. It is for example a teddy-go-round, gyroscope, flywheel, merry-go-round etc. In this case the rotation axis goes through the body and is inside it.
The law of conservation of momentum can’t be applied when the rotation axis of a body does not go through the centre of its mass!
To apply it to explain the rotation of planets around the Sun means to recognize the Solar system as a whole material object and planets as its passive part. When they say that «The Earth and the Sun rotate around one common mass centre» they a priori create a solid bodied nonsymmetric «dumbbell».
Thus scientists approached «illegally» the real celestial mechanics. Though they don’t understand it themselves.
That’s why illegal from the point of view of the modern scientific model of the Solar system application of the formula of torsional impact moment allows them to get «working» formulae for the calculations in practical cosmonautics.
A butterfly flying around a lamp or a candle also has nominally as long as it is alive a torsional moment not being connected with it. But it is a totally different story, another cause of rotation.
When wings burn down «rotation» will stop immediately. So the law of conservation of rotation can’t be applied in this case.
The «rotation» of a butterfly can be if needed described by the same formulae that the rotation of planets though there is no gravity, no axis of rotation, there is no point around which an insect would «rotate».
And finally one can’t take a butterfly, a plane or a bird etc for a material dot because it is not a passive object, not a point of application of external action. It is an independent intellectual object that performs work itself.
In other words, mathematics is blind, purely a software tool — what is being put in the same thing comes forth.
Laws have wax noses.
Let’s recall a classical example with the rotating around his axis ice-skater.
When he or she straightens and puts together hands and legs the speed of his or her rotation increases several times.
Planets increase their speed of rotation around the Sun once a year and once a year decrease it.
Who puts hands and legs together in this case? For the moment of body rotation changes only when there is a moment of force directed at its change. And there where force is applied work is being performed.
Who performs it?
So the far-fetched mathematics does not explain material causes of the planets rotation around the Sun!
The Kepler’s laws can not be derived from the combined laws of Newton without illegal application of the law of rotation conservation.
It is fraud!
The scientists that are interested in mathematical tricks in the worldview should sit in prison and not write textbooks for schools and universities!
Dead ones do not care about disgrace but for the modern multimillion strong academic army «laws» of Newton as a worldview factor are a great shame!
Theories of Einstein as well Newton’s laws are also a paranoia but we’ll talk about it later.
The fact that Maxwell, Newton and others adapted the calculations with the help of chosen by them «constants» and with the help of «dimensional constants» adapted dimensions does not mean they are geniuses. It speaks only about the level of industry and science development at that time. This level was low! Naturally brains were not higher than their times.
It is impossible to place in the basis of modern scientific world view mathematical insinuations of the middle of 17th century!
It is stupid!
It is clear that formulae can help in calculations, help to understand how and according to what trajectories planets and satellites move.
Formulae can’t answer the question why it happens thus and not the other way. The most brilliant formulae can’t move planets along their orbits and can’t help to find out the material causes of universal mechanics.
The attempts to state the cause and effect relationship that were made by Newton, Einstein and other scientists continue nowadays unfortunately and are condemned to fail and cost much to the mankind.
The most important thing is that precious time is foolishly and irrevocably wasted.
Petrification of the biosphere is a constant and fast process. The duration of the existence of the planet, nature, humans calculated on the basis of mythical radiocarbon analysis is overstated because science does not know what radiation is. Only mouldy compositions.
Factual uselessness of the modern scientific worldview on the background of imaginary brilliance of its creators is the result of distorted conceptions of the structure of the Universe as of a sum of solid-bodied objects dispersed in the void in the result of mythical explosion.
In reality Universe represents a «broth» from many different interconnected matters. There is no void in nature! Kinds of matter «closest» to people are substance, field, nevima, druma, gravity matter, energy matter etc. Substance «drowns» in gravity matter and energy matter vice versa «comes to surface» in it.
If we speak about mass, for example in the invisible matter druma that is inhabited by humanoids, mass doesn’t exist and all objects there don’t have inertia.
Initially mister Newton formulated his second law thus:
Change in the quantity of motion is proportional to the applied propelling force and goes in the direction of that straight line, along which this force is applied.
In other words, the harder the trolley is pushed, the faster it goes there where it is pushed to.
Who will even doubt it?!
But when they try to replace life with a formula, then inevitably like a rabbit out of a hat there appears nonsense with all its friends.