# Newton's Gravity equation

Discussion in 'Physics' started by reerer, Apr 2, 2016.

Apr 1, 2016
71
3

2. ### reerer Thread Starter Member

Apr 1, 2016
71
3
Which do you like better the above or__________

Newton's gravity equation F = (G m1 m2)/r2 is verified by Cavendish using lead spheres that gravitational force is measured using a torsion mechanism which is an extremely crude and inaccurate experiment since Cavendish is measuring a force of 1 µg that is approximately equal to the weight of a single grain of pollen which proves Cavendish's experiment is physically invalid.

3. ### BR-549 Well-Known Member

Sep 22, 2013
1,987
388
I would like to see figure 12. From your description, it seems an invalid comparison to Cavendish.

You've stated lots of different old theories tonight, what's your flavor?

4. ### reerer Thread Starter Member

Apr 1, 2016
71
3
Newton's gravity equation

F = (G m1 m2)/r2................................................................................................................................73

is similar to Coulomb's law,

F = (k q1 q2)/r2................................................................................................................................74

Coulomb law represents positive and negative charges that represent attraction an repulsion forces yet gravity only displays an attraction force. Also, Coulomb's law represents point charges that is incompatible with mass that have a large volume. Also, for large masses such as on used in Cavendish experiment the value of r cannot be determine since the masses used are not point masses yet Newton's gravity equation is verified by Cavendish's experiment using two lead spheres that gravitational attraction force is measured using a torsion mechanism which is an extremely crude and inaccurate experiment since Cavendish is measuring a force of 10 −9 lb which represent the approximate force of that is equivalent to a single grain of pollen which cannot be detected using Cavendish experiment. Using m1 = .73 kg and m1 = 158 kg and the distance of r = .5 m which G = 6.67384×10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2, the force between Cavendish lead spheres is calculated using equation 73,

F = (6.67384×10−11) x (.73)(158) / (.5)2 ≃ 1μ gram......................................................................................................................75

"The German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was among Newton's sharpest critics in this respect. He objected that the conclusion that every body is attracted to every other body by a gravitational force was not 'deduced from the phenomena' as Newton had claimed." (Gower, p. 72).

Last edited: Apr 3, 2016
5. ### BR-549 Well-Known Member

Sep 22, 2013
1,987
388
The gravity equation came in 1687.

The charge equation came in 1784.

Both remain incomplete.

Cavendish nulled out earth's gravity with his balanced suspension system.

Your alternative experiment does not and is invalid.

6. ### reerer Thread Starter Member

Apr 1, 2016
71
3
Cavendish experiment used to verify Newton's gravity equation but Cavendish's attraction force is 1μ gram which cannot be detected with Cavendish's torsion mechanism composed of a .76 kg and 158 kg lead spheres suspended from metal rods. Your not making that stuff up are you. My good friend Nanospook would not approve.

Last edited: Apr 3, 2016
7. ### Kermit2 AAC Fanatic!

Feb 5, 2010
3,789
945
Nano-who? Is it time to break out the micro-give-a-shit meter?

(Kermit gets up and grabs the remote to change to another ....

8. ### wayneh Expert

Sep 9, 2010
12,123
3,047
We put a man on the the moon almost 50 years ago using Newton's equation and it seems to get the job done.

Are you seriously trying to suggest it's wrong?

Apr 1, 2016
71
3
1μ gram

Sep 22, 2013
1,987
388

Apr 1, 2016
71
3
12. ### BR-549 Well-Known Member

Sep 22, 2013
1,987
388
"To find the wire's torsion coefficient, the torque exerted by the wire for a given angle of twist, Cavendish timed the natural oscillation period of the balance rod as it rotated slowly clockwise and counterclockwise against the twisting of the wire. The period was about 20 minutes. The torsion coefficient could be calculated from this and the mass and dimensions of the balance. Actually, the rod was never at rest; Cavendish had to measure the deflection angle of the rod while it was oscillating.[10]

Cavendish's equipment was remarkably sensitive for its time.[9] The force involved in twisting the torsion balance was very small, 1.74×10−7 N,[11] about 1⁄50,000,000 of the weight of the small balls[12] or roughly the weight of a large grain of sand.[13] To prevent air currents and temperature changes from interfering with the measurements, Cavendish placed the entire apparatus in a wooden box about 2 feet (0.61 m) thick, 10 feet (3.0 m) tall, and 10 feet (3.0 m) wide, all in a closed shed on his estate. Through two holes in the walls of the shed, Cavendish used telescopes to observe the movement of the torsion balance's horizontal rod. The motion of the rod was only about 0.16 inches (4.1 mm).[14] Cavendish was able to measure this small deflection to an accuracy of better than one hundredth of an inch using vernier scales on the ends of the rod.[15] Cavendish's accuracy was not exceeded until C. V. Boys' experiment in 1895. In time, Michell's torsion balance became the dominant technique for measuring the gravitational constant (G) and most contemporary measurements still use variations of it. This is why Cavendish's experiment became the Cavendish experiment.[16]"

It used to be that when in physics class, a student had to repeat the classic experiments. Maybe they don't do that anymore, but this experiment has been done many, many times.

One can argue if he really found the g constant, but that's for bean counters. The point is that he measured the gravitational force between 2 objects with real class.

It has not harmed our understanding in any way, that I can see. And it teaches that sometimes to figure something out, you have to skin a cat. Some of the ways these old timers solved their setup problems, is genius in itself.

13. ### reerer Thread Starter Member

Apr 1, 2016
71
3
"With tremendous variety in the size of grain and the component material, grains of sand weigh an average of 0.0000044 kilograms (4.4 mg)."

mg ---- 10^-3 and a 1μ gram is 10^-6--------a grain a pollen is thousand times smaller, in weight or force than a single grain of sand.

14. ### BR-549 Well-Known Member

Sep 22, 2013
1,987
388
Yes, pollen is lighter than sand. There are many things lighter than pollen too, did you know that?

The sky is blue, I've been told.

Why do you refuse to clearly state your point?

15. ### reerer Thread Starter Member

Apr 1, 2016
71
3
"The German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was among Newton's sharpest critics in this respect. He objected that the conclusion that every body is attracted to every other body by a gravitational force was not 'deduced from the phenomena' as Newton had claimed." (Gower, p. 72).

16. ### BR-549 Well-Known Member

Sep 22, 2013
1,987
388
That was Leibniz point, what is yours?

17. ### reerer Thread Starter Member

Apr 1, 2016
71
3
The same, with the proof (Cavendish's equipment---->1μ gram). The sky is indeed blue, in Arcata, today.

18. ### BR-549 Well-Known Member

Sep 22, 2013
1,987
388
That's great, can we get to Mars easier now?

19. ### BR-549 Well-Known Member

Sep 22, 2013
1,987
388
Your problem(and everybody else) is that you are using the "M" term for mass.

You (or anybody else) has never defined what M is. This is why no one understands anything.

There is no such thing as mass, media, ether, stuff, material or star dust.

It's ALL just the AM of charge(confined energy) and it's fields. That's all there physically is. A negative charge particle and a positive charge particle is the only physical entities in the universe. Not counting the husk, a neutrino.

This is why all forces and phenomenon are unified.

Since there is no mass, gravity can not come from it. Gravity is not fundamental.

Gravity does not come directly from charge either. It takes two opposite charges to manufacture gravity.........in a dipole process. Gravity causes neutral dipole attraction, not particle attraction.

However, gravity indirectly affects solitary charge all the time. In a E10-40 kind of way.

For those who still use the M term........here is the proper formula for the F of g.

Gravity.jpg

File size:
23.6 KB
Views:
5
20. ### reerer Thread Starter Member

Apr 1, 2016
71
3
Using m1 = .73 kg and m2 = 158 kg

Last edited: Apr 6, 2016