So gravity seems to be a sticking point for most RE people. They also say the universal accelerating model doesn't work. I am just playing around thinking of a model that may solve those two issues.
So gravity seems to be a sticking point for most RE people. They also say the universal accelerating model doesn't work.This still has the major issues against UA.
...
So to start, I propose a spinning central "celestial machine" that swings the Earth around and the centrifical force is what we experience as gravity.
Additionally, gravity grows weaker as you get higher, but in this model, "gravity" gets stronger as you go higher.
"Gravity grows weaker as you get higher."Additionally, gravity grows weaker as you get higher, but in this model, "gravity" gets stronger as you go higher.
does it?
That makes sense."Gravity grows weaker as you get higher."Additionally, gravity grows weaker as you get higher, but in this model, "gravity" gets stronger as you go higher.
does it?
The gravitational acceleration on Mount Nevado Huascarán, Peru at an altitude of 6,768 m is 9.7639 2
and the gravitational acceleration in Lima, Peru at an altitude of 154 m is 9.782631 m/s2.
And on that "model, 'gravity" gets stronger as you go higher" because the acceleration due to the rotary motion is inversely proportional to the radius.Yeah, because tangential acceleration = v2/r ~ 1/r.
The top one because all parts of the earth (be it a Globe or a "What if?") rotate with the same angular velocity, ω.That makes sense."Gravity grows weaker as you get higher."Additionally, gravity grows weaker as you get higher, but in this model, "gravity" gets stronger as you go higher.
does it?
The gravitational acceleration on Mount Nevado Huascarán, Peru at an altitude of 6,768 m is 9.7639 2
and the gravitational acceleration in Lima, Peru at an altitude of 154 m is 9.782631 m/s2.QuoteAnd on that "model, 'gravity" gets stronger as you go higher" because the acceleration due to the rotary motion is inversely proportional to the radius.Yeah, because tangential acceleration = v2/r ~ 1/r.
And v is the linear speed, given by v = ωr (ω is the rotation speed).
Well, so also v2/r = (ωr)2/r = ω2r ~ r.
So which one do I use, the top one or the bottom one?
But there's no ω at all in the top one, so how do you keep it constant? There's only v, which might or might not change with r when angular velocity is constant.The top one because all parts of the earth (be it a Globe or a "What if?") rotate with the same angular velocity, ω.That makes sense."Gravity grows weaker as you get higher."Additionally, gravity grows weaker as you get higher, but in this model, "gravity" gets stronger as you go higher.
does it?
The gravitational acceleration on Mount Nevado Huascarán, Peru at an altitude of 6,768 m is 9.7639 2
and the gravitational acceleration in Lima, Peru at an altitude of 154 m is 9.782631 m/s2.QuoteAnd on that "model, 'gravity" gets stronger as you go higher" because the acceleration due to the rotary motion is inversely proportional to the radius.Yeah, because tangential acceleration = v2/r ~ 1/r.
And v is the linear speed, given by v = ωr (ω is the rotation speed).
Well, so also v2/r = (ωr)2/r = ω2r ~ r.
So which one do I use, the top one or the bottom one?
How do I wriggle my way out of this? Guess I don't and just say sorry, I wasn't thinking straight when I said:But there's no ω at all in the top one, so how do you keep it constant? There's only v, which might or might not change with r when angular velocity is constant.The top one because all parts of the earth (be it a Globe or a "What if?") rotate with the same angular velocity, ω.That makes sense."Gravity grows weaker as you get higher."Additionally, gravity grows weaker as you get higher, but in this model, "gravity" gets stronger as you go higher.
does it?
The gravitational acceleration on Mount Nevado Huascarán, Peru at an altitude of 6,768 m is 9.7639 2
and the gravitational acceleration in Lima, Peru at an altitude of 154 m is 9.782631 m/s2.QuoteAnd on that "model, 'gravity" gets stronger as you go higher" because the acceleration due to the rotary motion is inversely proportional to the radius.Yeah, because tangential acceleration = v2/r ~ 1/r.
And v is the linear speed, given by v = ωr (ω is the rotation speed).
Well, so also v2/r = (ωr)2/r = ω2r ~ r.
So which one do I use, the top one or the bottom one?
So which one do I use, the top one or the bottom one?Should have been, "The bottom one because all parts of the earth (be it a Globe or a "What if?") rotate with the same angular velocity, ω".
My bad. I clearly wasn't thinking clearly.Additionally, gravity grows weaker as you get higher, but in this model, "gravity" gets stronger as you go higher.
does it?