Does the picture of universe (Cosmology) same in all the religion of Abraham?

It was faked all the way.


http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Fakes/Fakes.htm

http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Kausch250-253.html

What sort of Soviet craft had orbited the earth then, if it was not a space ship with two cosmonauts on board? All stated contradictions and lies expose the secret of Leonov's 'space flight': What Soviet propaganda called 'Voskhod 2' was actually a tiny satellite that carried tape-recorded voices, heartbeats etc. and (faked) telemetric transmissions for a gigantic hoax!

'Four months of solid research interviewing experts in the fields of photo-optics, photo-chemistry and electro-optics, all of whom carefully studied the motion picture film and still photographs officially released by theSoviet Government ... (indicate them to be) double-printed .. The foreground (Leonov) was superimposed on the background (Earth below).The Russian film showed reflections from the glass plate under which a double plate is made ... Leonov was suspended from wire or cables ...In several episodes of the Russian film, light was reflected from a small portion of wire (or cable) attached to Leonov's space suit ...One camera angle was impossible of achievement. This showed Leonov crawling out of his hatch into space. It was a head on shot, so the camera would have had to have been located out in space beyond thespace ship.'

The Americans had to fake their missions as well since the SAME laws of physics were applied.

Try and improve your SAT score to 100 before responding.

The Americans had to fake their missions as well since the SAME laws of physics were applied.

Try and improve your SAT score to 100 before responding.

Faulty logic plus unproven conspiracy theories.

Didn't you see my sports videos? I clearly showed a fake injury, and since supposed 'real' injuries used the same laws of physics, they must be fake too and nobody ever gets hurt playing sports.  Right?

It doesn't take a SAT score of 100 understand that.

Here is proof that nobody has ever been injured playing sports, ever. Impossible due to the laws of physics!

Newton's law of gravity is worth shit in outer space.

Dark matter, dark energy, dark flow all defy Newton's law of gravity on a grand cosmic scale.

Actually, Newton's law of gravity should be outlawed as it is untenable both fundamentally and naturally.

You are trolling the upper forums.

Name other laws of physics, as opposed to those used in the Leonov mission, which were used by the Americans: you cannot.

Same laws of physics = same outcome.

You are trolling the upper forums.

Name other laws of physics, as opposed to those used in the Leonov mission, which were used by the Americans: you cannot.

Same laws of physics = same outcome.

The same laws of physics applied to both the Russian and American space missions, and both were real.

Same outcome, we put people into space.

Can't be.


http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Fakes/Fakes.htm

http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Kausch250-253.html

What sort of Soviet craft had orbited the earth then, if it was not a space ship with two cosmonauts on board? All stated contradictions and lies expose the secret of Leonov's 'space flight': What Soviet propaganda called 'Voskhod 2' was actually a tiny satellite that carried tape-recorded voices, heartbeats etc. and (faked) telemetric transmissions for a gigantic hoax!

'Four months of solid research interviewing experts in the fields of photo-optics, photo-chemistry and electro-optics, all of whom carefully studied the motion picture film and still photographs officially released by theSoviet Government ... (indicate them to be) double-printed .. The foreground (Leonov) was superimposed on the background (Earth below).The Russian film showed reflections from the glass plate under which a double plate is made ... Leonov was suspended from wire or cables ...In several episodes of the Russian film, light was reflected from a small portion of wire (or cable) attached to Leonov's space suit ...One camera angle was impossible of achievement. This showed Leonov crawling out of his hatch into space. It was a head on shot, so the camera would have had to have been located out in space beyond thespace ship.'

The Americans had to fake their missions as well since the SAME laws of physics were applied.

Can't be.

Your incredulity and disbelief is not proof.

If you can't understand something, all that means is you have yet to learn it. Not that there is a global conspiracy to confuse you.

Can't be.


http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Fakes/Fakes.htm

http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Kausch250-253.html

What sort of Soviet craft had orbited the earth then, if it was not a space ship with two cosmonauts on board? All stated contradictions and lies expose the secret of Leonov's 'space flight': What Soviet propaganda called 'Voskhod 2' was actually a tiny satellite that carried tape-recorded voices, heartbeats etc. and (faked) telemetric transmissions for a gigantic hoax!

'Four months of solid research interviewing experts in the fields of photo-optics, photo-chemistry and electro-optics, all of whom carefully studied the motion picture film and still photographs officially released by theSoviet Government ... (indicate them to be) double-printed .. The foreground (Leonov) was superimposed on the background (Earth below).The Russian film showed reflections from the glass plate under which a double plate is made ... Leonov was suspended from wire or cables ...In several episodes of the Russian film, light was reflected from a small portion of wire (or cable) attached to Leonov's space suit ...One camera angle was impossible of achievement. This showed Leonov crawling out of his hatch into space. It was a head on shot, so the camera would have had to have been located out in space beyond thespace ship.'

The Americans had to fake their missions as well since the SAME laws of physics were applied.

I don't see any evidence that the Leonov mission was a hoax. The second link you provided seems to think it was all just Russian propaganda but concludes with American Ed White's spacewalk as being real and the first one:

"All this would probably have been forgotten, had not Soviet propaganda on behalf of Party comrade Leonov brought him back to the memory of the world. Perhaps it was designed to bolster their great hoax after its near failure 10 years before. He was supposed to be not only a space veteran older than Stafford, but also "the first to walk in space" - an obnoxious insult aimed at the late Ed White, the really first free-floating spaceman. Alexei Leonov, the Soviet "cosmonaut hero," is truly a remarkable sample of Communist deceit."

The author refers to Ed White as the real first free-floating spaceman.

So this is in direct contradiction to your claim that if Leonov was fake, all space missions are fake. Even your author disagrees with you.

The Leonov mission is the most famous space mission of them all.

Is it really?  How come I have never heard of it then after 40 odd years interest in astronomy and space flight.  I know about Apollo, Shuttle program, Viking, Mariner, Venera, Voyager, GAIA, Yuri Gagarin and a few others besides but I have never heard of Leonov before.  When I Googled the Leonov mission, instead of what you are on about, it took me to the mission statement of Lenovo computers!  Not quite the same thing...

It requires moon landing, which is still in question.

So what you are saying is that any evidence which shows the Moon landings to have occurred can be dismissed because it shows the Moon landings occurred?
That isn't rational at all.

Did we know the distance between the moon and earth before moon landing.

Yes.
As already pointed out by both JJA and myself. The parallax of the moon can be measured by 2 observers on Earth.
Then by knowing the distance between those 2 points the distance to the moon can be determined.
It is not as accurate as later methods, but works reasonably well.

Doesn’t leaning away means the difference in heights

While something leaning away would make it lower, so would it simply being lower, which would be a separate argument to seeing it leaning away.
And the drop due to the curvature of Earth would be more significant than the lean.

For a simple first approximation of the lean, a 500 m tall building (still at 100 km) leaning away 0.9 degrees would have the top of the building lower to 499.94 m, i.e. it would lower by 0.06 m.
That is a change of 1 part in 8000.

Meanwhile, the drop due to the curvature of Earth would be 982 m.

In order for the change in height due to the lean to be more significant you need the building to have a height greater than the radius of Earth.

Actually, Newton's law of gravity should be outlawed as it is untenable both fundamentally and naturally.

Why?
Except in quite specific cases it seems to work quite well.

If the moon landings were real, then so was Leonov's spacewalk.
Right?
Conversely, if the Leonov spacewalk was faked, then so were the moon landings.

No, completely wrong.
They are 2 independent events.
That would be like saying if person X faked his own death then all murders are fake.
Or that if any scene in a movie where someone is killed is faked, than all murders are fake.
(and the converse, that if any murder is real, all must be real).

It makes no sense at all and there is no logical connection at all.

Actually, Newton's law of gravity should be outlawed as it is untenable both fundamentally and naturally.
Why?
Except in quite specific cases it seems to work quite well.

Can you please calculate the striking time of two identical point masses separated by on-center distance “d” with the help of Newton’s law of gravitation (F=GMm/d^2)? - For convenience, you can choose your own numerical values of mass and distance.

Quote

Actually, Newton's law of gravity should be outlawed as it is untenable both fundamentally and naturally.
Why?
Except in quite specific cases it seems to work quite well.

Can you please calculate the striking time of two identical point masses separated by on-center distance “d” with the help of Newton’s law of gravitation (F=GMm/d^2)? - For convenience, you can choose your own numerical values of mass and distance.

Not until you make a point.

Quote from: E E K on August 08, 2020, 11:29:58 PM

Quote

Actually, Newton's law of gravity should be outlawed as it is untenable both fundamentally and naturally.
Why?
Except in quite specific cases it seems to work quite well.

Can you please calculate the striking time of two identical point masses separated by on-center distance “d” with the help of Newton’s law of gravitation (F=GMm/d^2)? - For convenience, you can choose your own numerical values of mass and distance.

Not until you make a point.

I thought you are smarter than me and most members, after all, we are human. They strike each other @ d/2.

Quote

Newton's law of gravity is worth shit in outer space.

Dark matter, dark energy, dark flow all defy Newton's law of gravity on a grand cosmic scale.

Actually, Newton's law of gravity should be outlawed as it is untenable both fundamentally and naturally.

Do you have a replacement for Newton's laws of gravity that work better?

How would you calculate orbits and objects falling her on the Earth without it? How to calculate gravitational slingshots without it?

It's well known that Newton's laws are an approximation of reality, but they are a damn good approximation that work fine as long as you don't need to go a significant fraction of the speed of light or travel to another galaxy.  For anything us humans are going to do for the next few hundred years at least they work perfectly.

If you 'outlawed' Newtons laws, how exactly would you get anything done?

Quote from: E E K on August 08, 2020, 01:08:44 PM

Quote

Newton's law of gravity is worth shit in outer space.

Dark matter, dark energy, dark flow all defy Newton's law of gravity on a grand cosmic scale.

Actually, Newton's law of gravity should be outlawed as it is untenable both fundamentally and naturally.

Do you have a replacement for Newton's laws of gravity that work better?

How would you calculate orbits and objects falling her on the Earth without it? How to calculate gravitational slingshots without it?

It's well known that Newton's laws are an approximation of reality, but they are a damn good approximation that work fine as long as you don't need to go a significant fraction of the speed of light or travel to another galaxy.  For anything us humans are going to do for the next few hundred years at least they work perfectly.

If you 'outlawed' Newtons laws, how exactly would you get anything done?

Consequently, the presence of ifs ands buts in the universal Newton’s law gravitation and the statement of Galileo’s falling bodies (wrong as well) means Copernicus’s model of solar system, which overthrew geocentric planetary models is in question. 

I don’t know if the geocentric model is true but that why we all are here to rethink and look for something which is truly acceptable and free of doubts.

Quote from: JJA on August 09, 2020, 06:01:03 AM

Quote from: E E K on August 08, 2020, 01:08:44 PM

Quote

Newton's law of gravity is worth shit in outer space.

Dark matter, dark energy, dark flow all defy Newton's law of gravity on a grand cosmic scale.

Actually, Newton's law of gravity should be outlawed as it is untenable both fundamentally and naturally.

Do you have a replacement for Newton's laws of gravity that work better?

How would you calculate orbits and objects falling her on the Earth without it? How to calculate gravitational slingshots without it?

It's well known that Newton's laws are an approximation of reality, but they are a damn good approximation that work fine as long as you don't need to go a significant fraction of the speed of light or travel to another galaxy.  For anything us humans are going to do for the next few hundred years at least they work perfectly.

If you 'outlawed' Newtons laws, how exactly would you get anything done?

Consequently, the presence of ifs ands buts in the universal Newton’s law gravitation and the statement of Galileo’s falling bodies (wrong as well) means Copernicus’s model of solar system, which overthrew geocentric planetary models is in question. 

I don’t know if the geocentric model is true but that why we all are here to rethink and look for something which is truly acceptable and free of doubts.

It doesn't mean any such thing.  It means that Newtons laws are an approximation, not that we don't understand perfectly well that the Earth is a sphere and it orbits the sun.

We also have Relativity which explains the motions of all the bodies of the solar system perfectly, and that theory has no ifs ands or buts when comparing it to our solar systems motions.

Lots of scientists are looking for a universal theory of everything too. But they aren't going to suddenly discover that the Earth is flat and motionless.

You know about how big your kitchen table is. But you don't know EXACTLY. You can't tell me to the nanometer how big it is. But if you got some equipment you could measure it better than you can now. So if you got a micrometer to measure it, would you expect to suddenly discover it's actually a mile wide, or an inch high?  No... because you know how big it is, even if not perfectly. We know how bodies in space behave, we know this extremely precisely, but not 100% perfectly. We aren't going to suddenly discover they are not moving at all or are attached to gears any more than your measuring your table with more precision will suddenly reveal it to be a triangle.

Quote from: E E K on August 09, 2020, 09:20:17 AM

Quote from: JJA on August 09, 2020, 06:01:03 AM

Quote from: E E K on August 08, 2020, 01:08:44 PM

Quote

Newton's law of gravity is worth shit in outer space.

Dark matter, dark energy, dark flow all defy Newton's law of gravity on a grand cosmic scale.

Actually, Newton's law of gravity should be outlawed as it is untenable both fundamentally and naturally.

Do you have a replacement for Newton's laws of gravity that work better?

How would you calculate orbits and objects falling her on the Earth without it? How to calculate gravitational slingshots without it?

It's well known that Newton's laws are an approximation of reality, but they are a damn good approximation that work fine as long as you don't need to go a significant fraction of the speed of light or travel to another galaxy.  For anything us humans are going to do for the next few hundred years at least they work perfectly.

If you 'outlawed' Newtons laws, how exactly would you get anything done?

Consequently, the presence of ifs ands buts in the universal Newton’s law gravitation and the statement of Galileo’s falling bodies (wrong as well) means Copernicus’s model of solar system, which overthrew geocentric planetary models is in question. 

I don’t know if the geocentric model is true but that why we all are here to rethink and look for something which is truly acceptable and free of doubts.

It doesn't mean any such thing.  It means that Newtons laws are an approximation, not that we don't understand perfectly well that the Earth is a sphere and it orbits the sun.

We also have Relativity which explains the motions of all the bodies of the solar system perfectly, and that theory has no ifs ands or buts when comparing it to our solar systems motions.

Lots of scientists are looking for a universal theory of everything too. But they aren't going to suddenly discover that the Earth is flat and motionless.

You know about how big your kitchen table is. But you don't know EXACTLY. You can't tell me to the nanometer how big it is. But if you got some equipment you could measure it better than you can now. So if you got a micrometer to measure it, would you expect to suddenly discover it's actually a mile wide, or an inch high?  No... because you know how big it is, even if not perfectly. We know how bodies in space behave, we know this extremely precisely, but not 100% perfectly. We aren't going to suddenly discover they are not moving at all or are attached to gears any more than your measuring your table with more precision will suddenly reveal it to be a triangle.

I would suggest read the following before falling into universal theory of everything.

For Newton’s Law of Gravitation:

Please see the aforesaid example and the following link.
Does "g =GM/d^2" best in situ in F= GMm/d^2?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gravity_of_Earth/Archive_1#Does_%22g_=GM/d^2%22_best_in_situ_in_F=_GMm/d^2?


For Relativity:
Relativity of Simultaneity (Experiment):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Relativity_of_simultaneity/Archive_2#Relativity_of_Simultaneity_(Experiment)_2
Second diagram from top:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Relativity_of_simultaneity#Second_diagram_from_top

Quote from: JJA on August 09, 2020, 10:21:44 AM

Quote from: E E K on August 09, 2020, 09:20:17 AM

Quote from: JJA on August 09, 2020, 06:01:03 AM

Quote from: E E K on August 08, 2020, 01:08:44 PM

Quote

Newton's law of gravity is worth shit in outer space.

Dark matter, dark energy, dark flow all defy Newton's law of gravity on a grand cosmic scale.

Actually, Newton's law of gravity should be outlawed as it is untenable both fundamentally and naturally.

Do you have a replacement for Newton's laws of gravity that work better?

How would you calculate orbits and objects falling her on the Earth without it? How to calculate gravitational slingshots without it?

It's well known that Newton's laws are an approximation of reality, but they are a damn good approximation that work fine as long as you don't need to go a significant fraction of the speed of light or travel to another galaxy.  For anything us humans are going to do for the next few hundred years at least they work perfectly.

If you 'outlawed' Newtons laws, how exactly would you get anything done?

Consequently, the presence of ifs ands buts in the universal Newton’s law gravitation and the statement of Galileo’s falling bodies (wrong as well) means Copernicus’s model of solar system, which overthrew geocentric planetary models is in question. 

I don’t know if the geocentric model is true but that why we all are here to rethink and look for something which is truly acceptable and free of doubts.

It doesn't mean any such thing.  It means that Newtons laws are an approximation, not that we don't understand perfectly well that the Earth is a sphere and it orbits the sun.

We also have Relativity which explains the motions of all the bodies of the solar system perfectly, and that theory has no ifs ands or buts when comparing it to our solar systems motions.

Lots of scientists are looking for a universal theory of everything too. But they aren't going to suddenly discover that the Earth is flat and motionless.

You know about how big your kitchen table is. But you don't know EXACTLY. You can't tell me to the nanometer how big it is. But if you got some equipment you could measure it better than you can now. So if you got a micrometer to measure it, would you expect to suddenly discover it's actually a mile wide, or an inch high?  No... because you know how big it is, even if not perfectly. We know how bodies in space behave, we know this extremely precisely, but not 100% perfectly. We aren't going to suddenly discover they are not moving at all or are attached to gears any more than your measuring your table with more precision will suddenly reveal it to be a triangle.

I would suggest read the following before falling into universal theory of everything.

For Newton’s Law of Gravitation:

Please see the aforesaid example and the following link.
Does "g =GM/d^2" best in situ in F= GMm/d^2?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gravity_of_Earth/Archive_1#Does_%22g_=GM/d^2%22_best_in_situ_in_F=_GMm/d^2?


For Relativity:
Relativity of Simultaneity (Experiment):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Relativity_of_simultaneity/Archive_2#Relativity_of_Simultaneity_(Experiment)_2
Second diagram from top:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Relativity_of_simultaneity#Second_diagram_from_top

Can you summarize what point you are trying to make by linking those pages?

What is it you are trying to say?

I thought you are smarter than me and most members, after all, we are human. They strike each other @ d/2.

I want to know what your point is. So far you just keep going on more and more tangents, making wild claims and refusing to back them up.

Now you just ask a question with no justification for why this question matters.
Just what point are you trying to make with the question or are you just trying to waste people's time?

Consequently, the presence of ifs ands buts in the universal Newton’s law gravitation and the statement of Galileo’s falling bodies (wrong as well) means Copernicus’s model of solar system, which overthrew geocentric planetary models is in question.

You sure do love asserting things are wrong with no justification at all.
Science uses models which approximate reality and refines those approximations.

I don’t know if the geocentric model is true but that why we all are here to rethink and look for something which is truly acceptable and free of doubts.

Well that rules out the geocentric model and FE models then, because they have loads of doubts.

If the moon landings were real, then so was Leonov's spacewalk.

Right?

Conversely, if the Leonov spacewalk was faked, then so were the moon landings.

Those two things have no causal corellation.

If you paint your dog to look like a tiger, then is the zebra at the local zoo actually painted mule?

Can you summarize what point you are trying to make by linking those pages?

What is it you are trying to say?

Gravity model presented by Newton and Einstein is just simply wrong and so does the Copernicus’s model of solar system. Its a fact and I provided it with justifications. It can't be a standard model however everyone has the right to exercise freedom of thought and belief. One can’t just approximate things simply while using universal law of gravitation as two point masses fall towards each other at higher motion not just acceleration as explained very clearly in the link. Further, here is another glitch in the solar system and hence in the solar calendar as well. The occurrence of midnights are more than the noons. It’s a separate question in this forum.

Now you just ask a question with no justification for why this question matters.
Just what point are you trying to make with the question or are you just trying to waste people's time?
You sure do love asserting things are wrong with no justification at all.

Here, we respect and do not judge members. I asked it for reasons so that I can take you to the subtle nuance of the theory missed by the illuminati. Anyone can just IGNORE if my questions/replies waste his/her time. Neither forum nor questioner force remembers to reply. I had shown you the link before if remember but here again and for those didn’t have the opportunity to see.

Is Galileo's statement correct, theoretically?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Equations_for_a_falling_body#Is_Galileo's_statement_correct,_theoretically?
Although it’s quite lucid however I can clarify it more if someone needs really help.

Well that rules out the geocentric model and FE models then, because they have loads of doubts.

I'm not a flat earther either unless satisfied.

Gravity model presented by Newton and Einstein is just simply wrong and so does the Copernicus’s model of solar system. Its a fact and I provided it with justifications.

No, you didn't.
You baselessly asserted it was wrong with no justification at all in this thread.

If you think there is a problem with it clearly explain just what you think is wrong with it.
Make sure you can distinguish between it being an approximation and it being wrong entirely, and between what the model indicates vs what people use the model to do with potentially more approximations.

here is another glitch in the solar system and hence in the solar calendar as well. The occurrence of midnights are more than the noons.

No, it isn't another glitch. It is just another baseless claim from you, with a picture that makes no sense at all.
Just what are you trying to say?
The path of all the points at midnight is longer than all the points at midday so that magically means there are more midnights? If so, it simply doesn't work like that.
Any point on Earth is not simply following along the line at midnight or the line at mid day. Instead, Earth rotates and a point cycles between them.

I asked it for reasons so that I can take you to the subtle nuance of the theory missed by the illuminati.

Alternatively, you could just provide just what argument you want to make, instead of appealing to a vague question with no apparent justificaiton.

Is Galileo's statement correct, theoretically?

Yes.
If you took 2 objects, in a vacuum, side by side, and dropped them simultaneously, while in the gravitational field of a much larger object, they would hit the ground at the same time.
That is because the larger object (e.g. Earth) would be accelerating upwards at a negligible rate towards both objects the same amount.
Earth can't magically accelerate towards the heavier object faster than it accelerates towards the lighter object. It needs to accelerate the same as it is the same Earth at the same time.

It is not dropping it from 2 antipodal locations. The objects are dropped side by side.

The only iffy part would be if the objects were not dropped together, where you then have the minuscule acceleration of Earth.
For example, if you dropped a 1 kg object from roughly the surface of Earth, it would accelerate towards Earth at a rate of roughly 9.8 m/s^2.
Meanwhile, Earth would accelerate towards it at a rate of 1.6e-24 m/s^2.

If you ignore the acceleration due to Earth, and for simplicity approximate the acceleration as constant, and the object was dropped from 1 km, the time required for the object to fall to Earth would be 14.3 seconds.
In this time, Earth would have moved upwards a staggering 1.7e-22 m. That is less than the size of a proton.
Even if you increase the mass of the dropped object to 1000 tonnes (or 1e6 kg) Earth still only moves 1.7e-16 m. Still less than the size of a proton.

The difference due to not considering Earth is insignificant.

But none of that is an attack of Newton's law of gravity, nor Einsteins. It is merely attacking a further approximation.

And when you consider antipodal locations you also need to consider the non-symmetrical distribution of matter in the primary object, and the contribution of the other objects.

Newton says gravitational force “F” between two point masses (A and B) F= GMm/d² where
G= Gravitational constant
M = mass of point mass of A
m= mass of point mass of B
d = on-center distance between them.

Gravitational acceleration of A = g_a=GM/d²
Gravitational acceleration of B = g_b=Gm/d²
This means B falls toward A @ rate of ga=GM/d² and A falls twaod B @ the rate gb=Gm/d²

For identical two point masses, A = B, M =m, the aforesaid gravitational equation becomes F= G(M/d)²

Gravitational acceleration of A = Gravitational acceleration of B = GM/d²=Gm/d²

If one thinks both A and B fall towards each other with just an acceleration of GM/d²=Gm/d² then s/he is wrong. It is very clear that higher types of motion are involved in their falling just because on-center decreases on either (both) sides not just on one side. (Am I wrong to say that?). Isn’t it justified? Did I not mention it earlier clearly?

It will be cleared once you try to solve the aforementioned question that I asked for this reason if YOU WANT

This formula F= GMm/d² was used to determine the masses and gravitational accelerations of all planets including earth’s moon. So if we don’t know the “g” of the moon then why astronauts pretended their moonwalks similar to the celestial body which has 1/6^th gravity of earth.

here is another glitch in the solar system and hence in the solar calendar as well. The occurrence of midnights are more than the noons.
No

Both axial rotation and orbital rotation of earth are independent of each other. We know that both noon and anti-noon are happening together at once instantly. Neither one can be delayed. At any instance, multiple midnights are not possible for single noon.

Is Galileo's statement correct, theoretically?
Yes.

Three masses are involved in the Galileo statement. Mass of earth, mass object A and B. it's not necessary A and B have to be small masses like feather and hammer. You will notice what I said earlier once you play with masses of A and B including earth.

Newton says gravitational force “F” between two point masses (A and B) F= GMm/d² where
G= Gravitational constant
M = mass of point mass of A
m= mass of point mass of B
d = on-center distance between them.

Gravitational acceleration of A = g_a=GM/d²
Gravitational acceleration of B = g_b=Gm/d²

This is where you're going wrong.

Lets take the Earth and Moon as examples.

G = 0.00000000006674
M = 5972000000000000000000000 kg
m = 73476730900000000000000 kg
d = 384400000 m

The force between them is 198193345664504055673 N.

Note that both objects experience this force. You can't separate the force like you did, just taking out one of the M/m values doesn't work. Your units don't match either.  The first result is in Newtons, your second set are in m/s^2.

If you want to separate the two forces you need to use vectors, and then you simply get the same force but pointing in opposite directions.

Quote from: E E K on August 10, 2020, 05:13:40 AM

Newton says gravitational force “F” between two point masses (A and B) F= GMm/d² where
G= Gravitational constant
M = mass of point mass of A
m= mass of point mass of B
d = on-center distance between them.

Gravitational acceleration of A = g_a=GM/d²
Gravitational acceleration of B = g_b=Gm/d²

This is where you're going wrong.

Lets take the Earth and Moon as examples.

G = 0.00000000006674
M = 5972000000000000000000000 kg
m = 73476730900000000000000 kg
d = 384400000 m

The force between them is 198193345664504055673 N.

Note that both objects experience this force. You can't separate the force like you did, just taking out one of the M/m values doesn't work. Your units don't match either.  The first result is in Newtons, your second set are in m/s^2.

If you want to separate the two forces you need to use vectors, and then you simply get the same force but pointing in opposite directions.

Don’t be confused. It is said an earth pulls on the apple, but the apple also pulls on the Earth but its (Earth) acceleration is so miniscule to be noticed. Here is split analyses of the gravitational force “F” between the earth (A) and an apple (B)  F= GMm/d² where
G= Gravitational constant
M = point mass of A (The Earth)
m= point mass of B (An Apple)
d = on-center distance between them.

Gravitational acceleration of A (The Earth) = g_e=GM/d² = 9.8 m/s/s,
Gravitational acceleration of B (An apple) = g_a=Gm/d² here d is diameter of apple, not earth. Please make a correction above (My bad) - TY. Now, this means

B (An Apple) falls on A (The Earth) @ the rate of g_e=GM/d² = 9.8 m/s/s and
A (The Earth) falls on B (An Apple) @ the rate of g_a=Gm/d² = very small value. Hard to notice.

A lil more detail:

Case#1: An apple resting on earth

Weight of apple on earth = Weight of earth on an apple
mg_e = Mg_a

Case #2; An elephant resting on the earth
Weight of elephant on earth = Weight of earth on an elephant
mg_e = Mg_el, where g_el is the gravitational acceleration of an elephant and m is mass of an elephant

Case #2; Mini spherical earth (of 10 meter radius) resting on our real earth

Weight of mini earth (of 10 meter radius)  on our real earth = Weight of our real earth on mini earth (of 10 meter radius)
mge = Mg_me , where g_me = gravitational acceleration of mini earth and m is mass of mini earth

Now slowly increase the size of mini earth till it reach the size of our real earth and visualize it resting on our real earth.  Here m=M

Weight of imaginary earth on our real earth = weight of our real earth on imaginary earth
=Mge = Mg_ie , where g_ie = gravitational acceleration of imaginary earth 

As both g_e and g_ie are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction therefore both will cancel each other. This means both earths are weightless

Doesn’t this mean, weight of an OBJECT decreases if we oncreases its size and mass if resting on an earth.

It also clears the Gallileo statement of falling bodies as well. Gravitaional acceleration of feather is way less than the gravitational of imaginary earth.

Isn’t our weight scale in question?

Quote from: JJA on August 10, 2020, 08:06:02 AM

Quote from: E E K on August 10, 2020, 05:13:40 AM

Newton says gravitational force “F” between two point masses (A and B) F= GMm/d² where
G= Gravitational constant
M = mass of point mass of A
m= mass of point mass of B
d = on-center distance between them.

Gravitational acceleration of A = g_a=GM/d²
Gravitational acceleration of B = g_b=Gm/d²

This is where you're going wrong.

Lets take the Earth and Moon as examples.

G = 0.00000000006674
M = 5972000000000000000000000 kg
m = 73476730900000000000000 kg
d = 384400000 m

The force between them is 198193345664504055673 N.

Note that both objects experience this force. You can't separate the force like you did, just taking out one of the M/m values doesn't work. Your units don't match either.  The first result is in Newtons, your second set are in m/s^2.

If you want to separate the two forces you need to use vectors, and then you simply get the same force but pointing in opposite directions.

Don’t be confused. It is said an earth pulls on the apple, but the apple also pulls on the Earth but its (Earth) acceleration is so miniscule to be noticed.

You are getting your units and forces and masses all mixed up.

The first equation is this: F= GMm/d²

This gives the force in Newtons between two objects.

The force is pulling on BOTH of them, equally.

There is a force in Newtons pulling an apple and the Earth to each other, the force is EQUAL for both of them.

The difference is one is very large and one is very small.

So that same force acting on the Earth pulls it only a tiny fraction closer to the apple, and that SAME force pulls the apple much harder.

You are speaking of acceleration, and THAT is the combination of the force in Newtons and the objects mass.

So the apples acceleration will be greater because of the small mass to Newton ratio compared to the Earth.

Does that explain it better?

If one thinks both A and B fall towards each other with just an acceleration of GM/d²=Gm/d² then s/he is wrong. It is very clear that higher types of motion are involved in their falling just because on-center decreases on either (both) sides not just on one side. (Am I wrong to say that?). Isn’t it justified?

Yes, you are wrong. No, it is not justified.
No, they aren't.
They each accelerate towards each other.
That doesn't mean the distance between them will shrink at that rate.

The acceleration of each object is not necessarily the same as the time rate of change of the time rate of change of the distance between the centres.

Instead, that time rate of change is the sum of the 2 individual rates.

i.e. if you have 2 objects of equal mass M, that are separated by a distance d, then the acceleration of each mass will be equal to GM/d^2, and thus the time rate of change of the time rate of change of the distance between the centres will be 2*GM/d^2.

That means at some time t, the distance between them will be 0.
If you assume they are spherical masses of radius r, you have 0 at the centre, object 1 starting at d/2 and object 2 starting at -d/2, such that the initial separation is d.
Then at some time t, the 2 objects collide such that object 1 is now at r and has travelled a distance of d/2-r, object 2 is at -r and has travelled a distance of d/2-r, and the separation between them has shrunk to 2r, or by d-2*r.
It is a simple scaling factor.

There is no problem here, just annoying math.
If you want to do the math to show there is a problem, go ahead.
I might later, but as you need to solve d²x/dt² = -k/x^2, which is not trivial to solve, I can't be bothered at the moment, especially when you show absolutely no willingness to deal with the refutation/rebuttal of your claims and instead you just move on to something else.

Now like I said, if you have a point, make it. Don't expect others to do your work for you.

So if we don’t know the “g” of the moon then why astronauts pretended their moonwalks similar to the celestial body which has 1/6^th gravity of earth.

But we do know. And there you go again, just assuming it is all faked with no justification at all.

Both axial rotation and orbital rotation of earth are independent of each other. We know that both noon and anti-noon are happening together at once instantly. Neither one can be delayed. At any instance, multiple midnights are not possible for single noon.

And there isn't multiple midnights for any noon.
An "instant" represents a single point in time, which corresponds to a single angle, not an arc or any length. At any angle in your image there is a single noon and a single midnight. Thus there is no issue.
If you want to focus on a length, then you still need to consider the rotational motion of Earth and consider just how far it moves in a given time.
In the sun centred inertial frame, the point on the surface of Earth at midnight is travelling faster than the point on the surface at noon. Thus it will sweep out a longer path.

Again, THERE IS NO PROBLEM!
The nonsense you are spouting now is like claiming that rotational motion is impossible because the outside needs to travel further than the inside.

Quote

Is Galileo's statement correct, theoretically?
Yes.

Three masses are involved in the Galileo statement. Mass of earth, mass object A and B. it's not necessary A and B have to be small masses like feather and hammer. You will notice what I said earlier once you play with masses of A and B including earth.

Deal with what has been said rather than just ignoring it.

Play with the masses all you like, it won't magically make Earth accelerate differently at the same time.
You cannot physically have Earth accelerate more towards the heavier object while at the same time have it accelerate less towards the lighter object when both objects are in the same direction.

Like I said, and clearly demonstrated, on Earth, the acceleration of Earth is insignificant.
And again, Earth accelerating towards the object doesn't magically mean the objects accelerate more.

As both g_e and g_ie are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction therefore both will cancel each other. This means both earths are weightless

No.
The 2 forces are acting on different objects.
That means each object has a weight.
What it means is that if you were to place an object in the middle of them, there would be no net force. Or alternatively if you consider the system of both "Earths" there would be no net force and thus the centre of mass of the system would not move.

We have learned two forces cancel each other if they are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction. Same thing here in the universal law of gravitation why would two point masses move towards each other at first place when they pull each other equally but opposite in direction? Force doesn’t generate automatically inside object (A) upon observing the other mass (B), which causes it (A) to fall toward that foregoing mass (B). This should be the case but anyway, Newton says A pulls B (there is an external force on B) and B pulls A (there is an external force on A) simultaneously. Both pulls are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. There exist countineous actions and reactions according to Newton's third law of motion, but scientists are in agreement with Newton that both masses should have to move toward each other despite the cancellation of forces. There must exist imbalance net force on an object for it to be in motion. How does it possible for a mass to move in the absence of force? Let it be correct for the sake of argument.

You are getting your units and forces and masses all mixed up.

Where did I mess up? Can you show me please? I did the math what Newton says exactly.

The first equation is this: F= GMm/d2

I said so

This gives the force in Newtons between two objects.

I never denied

The force is pulling on BOTH of them, equally.

There is a force in Newtons pulling an apple and the Earth to each other, the force is EQUAL for both of them.

Correct. Do we not use the formula of W=F=GMm/d² = mg where g =GM/d² = 9.8 m/s/s for finding the weight of an apple (or anything) on earth. I have explained it above.

Weight of an apple on earth = Weight of earth on an apple

Both weight forces are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction. They cancel each other therefore they do not feel weight of each other (similar to our standing or sitting on earth].

Weight of an apple on an earth = Mg_e where g_e = GM/d² = Gravitational acceleration of earth (Here "d" is the diameter of earth)= 9.8 m/s/s.
Weight of an earth on an apple = Mg_a where g_a is the gravitational acceleration of an apple = G(mass of apple) / (diameter of an apple)²= some value but very small

As both forces are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction therefore accordimg to the third law of motion Mg_a = mge. Didn’t Newton say that earth also accelerate toward an apple but its value is so miniscule to be observed?

Observer on earth sees apple falls on earth. Let there is tiny observer on apple or in imagination who doesn’t affected gravitational acceleration of apple. That tiny observer on an apple sees earth falls on an apple @ the rate of g_a , not @ the rate of 9.8 m/s/s. This is the acceleration of earth at which it falls towards an apple, which is so so small to be noticed however it (earth motion) can be detected when we increase the mass of an apple to a level when it becomes comparable with the mass of earth.

Similarly, we know F = GMm/d². As “F” is inversely proportional to on-center distance “d” therefore shouldn’t both “M” and “m” decelerate instead of accelerating towards each other as gravitational force “F” decreases when on-center distance “d” decreases.

Further, Newton also derived it for hollow spherical masses wrong. Just stick to the difference between “Force ON the particle and Force BETWEEN particles” in the following. There is a difference between "ON" and "BETWEEN".

Here is a the detail: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74267.msg2027970#msg2027970
Inside a Shell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shell_theorem#Inside_a_Shell
Application of Shell Theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shell_theorem#Application_of_Shell_Theorem

We have learned two forces cancel each other if they are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction.

Only if they are acting on the same body. That is because they add to 0 and thus they collectively produce no net force.
When they are acting on different bodies that is not the case at all. Instead each body has a force on it.

For example, if instead of 2 Earths, you had 3 in a line, then the one in the middle would have a net force of 0, because the force on it from the left Earth would be cancelled out by the force on it from the right Earth.
Note that this middle Earth, with no net force, would not move.

Both weight forces are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction. They cancel each other therefore they do not feel weight of each other

Again, completely wrong as already explained.
The forces are acting on different objects and thus do not magically cancel.

This is the acceleration of earth at which it falls towards an apple, which is so so small to be noticed however it (earth motion) can be detected when we increase the mass of an apple to a level when it becomes comparable with the mass of earth.

Yes, like if you increase it to the mass of the moon and they then orbit around their common barycentre.

This is not the only problem

It isn't a problem AT ALL!
You have failed to show any problem at all.
Instead you just repeat the same mistakes and act like an APPROXIMATION not applying well outside the range it was made for is a problem.

Newton also derived it for hollow spherical masses wrong.

Stop just making baseless assertions with links which in no way justify your claims.

Provide the justification for why you think it is wrong here.

Provide the justification for why you think it is wrong here.

All is well justified clearly. its all about how one picks. Its a truth, not claim. You can stop replying if you can’t stop the truth with logical reasoning. As mentioned earlier, none of the members is forced here to reply. It all about mutual understanding however wording like “spouting nonsense” is not tolerable. We are not palsy-walsy therefore we have to be professional at all times. Never underestimate others don’t know such language. Usually, I stop chatting and don’t respond in a negative way when the opponent is frustrated however its still up to me whether to respond or not negatively but whenever i start to respond in such fashion then it will be one step above what I receive.