The online racing simulator
isnt contradictoy that gravitational law predicts a raise of cog by gravity here?
(65 posts, started )
#1 - lerts
isnt contradictoy that gravitational law predicts a raise of cog by gravity here?
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e222/raaaid/cograise.jpg

on this diagram you can see a north-south tunnel trough earth through which it goes a weightless arm that unites 2 weights of 1 kg and 4 kg each being at an altitude of 3*10E12m and 1*10E12m each so the cog of the weight system will be at the middle of the earth

f=g*m1*m2/d^2

if earth mass is 6*10E24kg

F1=10*6*10E24kg*1kg/9*10E24m=6.6N

F2=10*6*10E24kg*4kg/1*10E24m=240N

gravitational law predicts a raise of cog of the system

do you think that does this contradict science?

hell i hope not to be banned again for being urkel like
Starting the drive for Forum odball of 2009 early are we lerts?
It's a shoe-in QS. Can you think of anyone who would qualify for it more? Because I'd (not) like to meet them

As for the actual topic, I have absolutely no idea what the hell it's about. Normally I undertand what he's at least trying to say, but this one is just so far gone... I just... nope, I can't do it.

Error 001 - Default State: WTF
Where did the lerts ideas and theories thread go?? I miss that thread, twas legendary!
So the centre of mass for this system would be 2.6E11 m 'below' the earth (to use the orientation as provided in your drawing). The CoG would not be 'raised' due to gravitational attraction, it would move closer to the earth (and of course, the earth would move towards the centre of mass by an imperceptible amount).

So what's contradictory?

Note: I don't understand your forces calculation. Is this something to do with gravitational attraction at a distance? It seems pointless to analyse the points seperately if they are connected, surely you must treat the system as a whole?
#6 - lerts
yes thats my point if you treat them like a system being the cog of the weights in the midle of the earth they wont move

but if you look at each force of each weight independently the bigger one will push harder due to being more weight and being closer to the well of gravity (earth) so it will move, remember force of gravity is divided by distance squared so the closer the greater

if nobody points to a flaw on this i will post it in a phisics forums

maybe noone in this age thought of this

i just aplied f=g*m1*m2/d^2, the universal gravitational law from newton
But they can't be independent. You can't simply suspend the smaller object in space without creating a totally seperate force, negating it's own weight. And if it's not suspended in space, it's attached to the planet, therefor using the planet's CoG (which would move slightly, but not enough to make the slightest difference).
#8 - lerts
nono its not attached to the planet the weights are attached to each other and go through a tunnel on earth without touching earth

and the tunnel goes north south so thers no centrifugal force

just imagine this as a high school problem, calcualte the force of gravity that the planet earth exerces over each weight using universal gravitational law by newton and youll find out like me the cog will move up with a huge force(as well as the planet with equal oposite force)

maybe force of gravity though appears to take mass to the center actually spits it out as this isolated system case, earth- bar with weights

that would explain universe expansion, its due to gravity
Well in that case what would happen is that it would slow down as it got to the centre of the planet, since it would have equal gravitational force from all sides. Eventually it would just stop in the middle.

The planet would, in theory, move to counter that, but because of the difference in mass, it would be a minescule amount. And once the weight stopped in the centre, it would revert to a stable state.
how about because the earth in your drawing is not in the cog of the masses you blithering idiot?
humm thats correct, that would be the center of mass for 1 and 2 kg

well then imagine where it says 4 kg i correct it and put 2 kg

then the 1kg would be pulled with 6.6 N and the "2" kg with 120 N

so my point still holds valid if you analize the force on the weights caused by gravity on each weight the cog will raise

on the other hand you cant consider the weights with the bar as the same as an equal spot mass in the cog

the slightest speed they had would multiply by infinite as the radius of the cog becomes 0 as cons of mom states(think every time you half the radius you double its speed and to make it 0 youll have to double it forever), so this isnt valid you must consider both weights independently with wich newton predicted the cog will raise by gravity in this case
Quote from lerts :on the other hand you cant consider the weights with the bar as the same as an equal spot mass in the cog

I think this is the key point. Over such large distances gravity is for from constant, so the whole centre of mass simplification breaks down and as such can't be applied.
#13 - th84
I always seem to feel real stupid after reading these threads.
Sometimes you should. But this time you can feel clever, knowing that Lerts is the dim one (for once ).

Lerts - you are wrong. For a multitude of reasons (not least that g isn't constant).
i think one of the reasons i see this things is because im able to simplify a lot

if you put 2 equal weights with a very long arm that goes through earth, arm long enough so force of gravity varies with distance and the cog of the weights is in the midle of earth what will happen?

theyll be on unstable balance, at any moment one weight will be getting closer to earth, increasing the force of gravity over it, while the other weight will increase distance decreasing force of gravity over it

so gravity will pull one stronger and stronger and the other weaker and weaker with which the cog of the weights will lift at least as much as the arm is long

a think this proves at least to me and till im proved wrong that taught science is a petrol companies teaching
Going by what others have said i think you're wrong,

How ever, i think you're a very.. imaginative person, i just think you need a different way to show it, like through music or art, not by making others think you're a complete nutjob by making crackpot theories on a public forum. Maybe try making skins? Or editing screenshots and entering them in a Photomode competition. Would be interesting to see what a mind like yours can produce.
#17 - th84
Quote from tristancliffe :Sometimes you should. But this time you can feel clever, knowing that Lerts is the dim one (for once ).

Lerts - you are wrong. For a multitude of reasons (not least that g isn't constant).

That means so much to me coming from you. :rolleyes:
#18 - MR_B
not weight, mass*
Quote from lerts :
edit:
thanks im learning to draw i hope one day to tell my ideas through comic

No problem, People should learn to tolerate your differences , no matter how big or small.
No offense, Lerts, but why not find something scientifical that the majority of the forum can understand, rather than the minority?

Maybe then you'd get more people taking part in the discussion, rather than people mocking you etc, because, frankly, most of us don't have a bloody clue.
#23 - w126
But you forgot to tell us what law of science your thought experiment contradicts. Maybe... none?
And you can do away with one of the masses here. If you drop one mass into your tunnel in the earth from its surface, it won't be able to stop immediately in the middle, so after passing the center of the earth it will move 'up' also for a while.
you should know what im talking about its high school, ill be educative:

newton finds out after an apple hits his head, probably false, that as you double the distance to a celestial body its force of gravity decreases 4 times

in other words the closer you are to a planet the stronger gravity is

but this gives a result odities as creating energy without moving the cog of the system which i thought till now was imposible and whats more even creating energy while also raising the cog

so you understand this:

imagine a giant simple pulley with 2 masses hanging, one mass is double distance form earth center than the other, by what i already said whats the force of gravity over it?

thats it double distance 4 times less force of gravity

so the closer mass to earth will pull 4 times harder creating energy by friction for example as it moves

but notice that exactly the same distance one mass rises the other mass as much lowers, so the cog of the system remains static

and here is an example where energy could be created while even lifting the cog:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e222/raaaid/raise.jpg

now ive teach somebody something someone could teach me someone how to calculate the potential energy of each weight while taking into account that as height doubles gravity force decreases 4 times?
#25 - wien
Quote from S14 DRIFT :No offense, Lerts, but why not find something scientifical that the majority of the forum can understand, rather than the minority?

Lerts' lunacy aside, if you don't have the required brainpower to contribute in any meaningful way, that usually means it's time to shut up and move along to icanhascheezburger.com before you hurt yourself. Your input is neither wanted nor required.

isnt contradictoy that gravitational law predicts a raise of cog by gravity here?
(65 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG