Scott comments in bold italics below
Scott,
I've been reading over your explanation for the tides. I understand
that the barrycenter is a critical point, but first of all I question, where
is the barrycenter? Where does it begin? I've repeated some interesting
comments by Cater in this regard at the bottom. Please comment.But I'm not here looking for an excuse to put forward Cater's
theories, for once ( don't anybody fall out of their chair ). I have a
question: What are you saying when you say that an object, a
baseball, at the barrycenter would fall towards the sun with its
gravity cancelled out and fly off in a straight line and leave the
solar system forever? The sentence seems to be mixed up there,
and there seems to be a contradiction. Then you say " This means
that at any point in time, the portions of the Earth's surface that
are closer to the Sun than the barrycenter are prone to sheering
forces in that direction. They are a matter of no more than a
thousand miles or so closer to the sun than the perfect balance
point which is the barrycenter.
Dean, I was referring to the balance of forces. Any
object according to standard physics will have an inertia either
to remain in motion or to remain at rest. Any body that orbits
the Sun has a forward velocity of motion that if not combined
with the gravitational force from the Sun, would cause it to
fly in a straight line since there would be no force acting upon
**it to bend its flight or natural inertia to move in a straight line. **
In geometry, forces are measured as the combination of vectors
all acting on the same object. The barrycenter is that point
within the Earth where the Earth Moon **system orbits the Sun. **
I was sure everyone was aware that the Moon causes the Earth
to wobble in its orbit as the Earth/Moon system orbits the Sun.
The history of the barrycenter is that two astronomers
**were viewing a pair of planetoids or asteroids and they noticed **
from those observations that the time period of their
reappearance on far side of the Earth varied. They worked
it out that the Earth had a definite wobble in its course
around the sun. I don't have the exact particulars, but this
observation is actually in my eyes the source of a faulty
reckoning that the mass of the Moon is 1 part in roughly
81.3 compared to the Earth. If you take the mean orbital
radius of the Moon traveling around the Earth and divide
it by the measurement of the barrycenter you arrive nearly
exactly at the ratio of mass **I just mentioned. **
This value is divided into the accepted value for the
Earth's mass and you get the value of the moon's mass as
it is claimed to be. Y****ou arrive at exactly the one sixth
gravity that has always been claimed for the Moon surface
**drop rate or little g. **
To me this is bad science. Not only is the value of
gravity in the alleged Moon walk photographs nothing like
what a 1/6th gravity ought to show but before even considering
the question of which body provides what tidal motion on the
earth, we should have an accurate mass figure to begin with.
One time I asked a question of one of the AOL guru's
that are there to help students with science questions. I asked
what the effect would be on the barrycenter if the Moon were to
be moved further away from the Earth. One guy provided me
with lots of math and his conclusion was that since the Earth is
81.3 times the mass of the Moon, the barrycenter would always
be at the fulcrum or distance value of 1 / 81.3 times the mean
orbital distance that the Moon orbited the Earth by. He said
with great confidence that the barrycenter would move further
away from the center of the Earth.
One example that would support their fallacious argument
is that of a solid stick and the laws of leverage. That formula
is Weight times Leverage distance. In other words, this is the
reason one man once stated that if given a long enough pry bar
and a place to stand, he could lift the world. If the distance
between the Earth and Moon were to increase and they were
both balanced at the end of a long stick, then yes, the point of
fulcrum or barrycenter would move further away from the center
of the Earth, but that isn't the correct analogy for orbiting
planetary bodies even though it was exactly the same way this
AOL guru was approaching the question.
I find that his reasoning is false. In fact, the barrycenter
would move closer to the center of the planet (Earth), not away!
Two reasons make this clear to me. The first is that as bodies
orbit their primaries at ever greater distances, the velocity of
the orbiting planet is decreased. This causes the orbiting Moon
to take longer to complete one orbit. Secondly, and in
conjunction to the first point is that the further away one body
is from another, the less gravitational force there is between
the same two bodies. It is akin to an example I once told of
an adult grasping a 10 year old child and spinning the child
around himself in slow circles. Due to the weight of the child,
the adult has to lean in the opposite direction than where the
child is to balance **the tandem spin act they are both performing. **
If, on the other hand, an adult holds an object of lesser weight,
perhaps holding a smaller toddler, and very gently swings this
**burden **in circles, they are not required to lean near as much,
**if at all. **
In this case, the smaller child or object that is being swung
in slow lazy circles, is representative of the same Moon which
though containing the same mass, is at an increased distance.
This extra distance makes for less force exerted against the
Earth, which is the primary of the Moon's orbit and due both
to the inverse square law and Kepler's third law of planetary
**motion less force is exchanged between the two. **
It may further be stated that due to the conditions I have
just set out, the arc or circular shape of the orbit of increased
mean radius is slightly more straight than when the Moon was
orbiting closer to the Earth. If we consider it to be a question
of vector magnitudes, my point can be further proven as
sound reasoning:
The moon's mass or weight if you will is constant. If this
body is moving at 0.63 miles per second velocity in a straight
line, and you require the body to be continually turned slightly
so that it will orbit the Earth, a given force is required to make
it do so. In geometric terms this force can be assigned a rate
of acceleration which is the result of gravity inward, or a
centripetal force toward the center of its orbit. Anybody who
knows how to work with the geosynchronous orbit formula
knows that the further out one orbits, the slower that the orbiting
body is moving (Kepler's proven 3rd law of planetary motion)
and, according to the result of the formula, as distance increases,
the more the drop rate or acceleration slows. Another example
of all this is that it takes more force to alter the course of an
object propelled at high velocity ( force = mass times velocity )
than it does to alter the course of the same projectile propelled
at a slower velocity. There can be no doubt as to this reasoning!
**Force is mass times acceleration or velocity. ** It is a foregone
**conclusion that the farther out a Moon orbits at, ** the less force
**is required upon the primary to maintain an orbit. ** So, I believe
that my logic in this is quite undeniable. The further out the
Moon orbits the earth, were a change in mean radius to occur,
the less force between both Earth and Moon would exist.
Reflecting my analogy, the rate of spin slows down and
since the forces that the adult has to balance against are lessened,
the less lean they are required to maintain to remain in balance
standing on a stationary spot**. This means that the barrycenter**
moves inward toward the center of the Earth since the influence
of a slower orbiting more remote object is less.
If they are all wet as to what would happen to the
barrycenter if the Moon's orbit grew in orbital circumference,
and I believe that I just proved that, then how can we trust in
the methodology that they used in determining the mass
**relationships between the Earth and the Moon? If we don'****t **
know that for certain, how is it possible for anyone to promote
**reliable theory pertaining to Lunar tides? This why I have **
**concentrated first on the Solar tides and I also don't rely on **
**force equations that to me must be in doubt being based on **
**faulty assumptions regarding the mass and thus the gravity **
**of the Moon. **
Now I am really confused. According to Cater's statement below,
this barrypoint is further away than 1,000 miles.
Cater's comments:
I read Mr. Cater's statement but it is not the barrycenter
he is referring to. He is talking about the neutral gravity
or gravi-spheres between the two bodies at which point the
gravitational forces between the Earth and Moon are in
perfect balance, or equivalence. The fact that Mr. Cater
**brings out is very correct in that the Moon mission **
rockets began to accelerate 44 or 45 thousand miles
away from the Moon rather than 22 thousand miles. The
only way this relates to the tides is the relationship to the
Lunar tide force which is really much stronger than the
1/6th surface gravity of Earth that is claimed. It cannot
be argued using establishment techniques that the Moon
has only 1/6th the surface gravity of earth since equal
gravi-spheres must reflect equal accelerations in both
directions or zero cm/sec^2 at that position.
Actually, and this is only a suspicion on my part,
I have long suspected that the equal gravi-spheres position
is actually even further away from the Moon than is stated
in the 45,000 mile figure. The reason for this belief is that
the space vehicle has been stated as travelling at about
2000 miles per hour at this point where acceleration began
to increase again after having slowed down escaping from
the Earth. This makes me curious. It seems to me that
there has never been a space vehicle that was perfectly at
rest in relationship between the the Earth and the Moon at
the equal gravi-spheres or neutral gravity position. All these
vehicles have been moving toward or away from the Moon
at velocity.
I wonder if a vehicle that WAS perfectly stopped at this
point and then nudged toward the Moon would not take a
considerable time to accelerate to the point where the dying
acceleration away from the Earth would be finally exceeded
by the accumulated ( 1/2 * rate * time ^2 ) acceleration formula
**for falling bodies. The question I have is whether or not the **
**space vehicle immediately benefits from crossing over the **
**equal gravi-sphere position or whether the rate of acceleration **
**must first surpass the vehicles current declining velocity in **
order for acceleration to commence. If equal gravi-spheres
were passed by space vehicles, would it not stand to reason
that **the natural **acceleration of the inverse square law would
**take **a while to exceed 2000 miles per hour or whatever the
velocity would **be at that point. ** I may be wrong about this
belief but I **don't believe it is **pivotal to the tide discussion.
****> " The anemic jumping feats of the astronauts under alleged,
ยทยทยท
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:54:05 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" [email protected] writes:
one-sixth Earth gravity, as shown on the telecasts, represent
only part of the evidence of a high moon gravity. The consistent
reports of the point where the space ships entered the
gravitational influence of the moon indicated moon gravity
comparable to that of the Earth. If the Moon's surface gravity
were only one-sixth earth gravity, this point of entry, or the
point where the gravitational influence of the moon exceeds
that of Earth, would be approximately 22,000 miles from
the moon. This can easily be confirmed by elementary
mathematics and mechanics and will not be given here. The
distance will vary slightly percentagewise because the Moon's
distance from the Earth fluctuates. Since the advent of the
Apollo missions, the distance reported reported for this
point of entry has been consistently much greater than
22,000 miles. The distances claimed by various writers,
as well as the media, have varied from about 39,000 to
nearly 44,000 miles. This is, indeed, incredible since it
contradicts the consistent claims of a low moon gravity.
Interestingly enough, prior to the space program, this
distance was always given in the 20,000 to 22,000 range,
corresponding to one-sixth Earth gravity of the Moon. It
can be found in a number of earlier textbooks, including
Encyclopedia Britannica. Yet, the later editions of
Encyclopedia Britannica put this distance at about the 40,000
mile range. "
I will re-send Scott's explanation so that everyone can get
a look at it and refresh memories. It's important for the HET
to get to the bottom of gravity, and the behavior of tides
tells us a lot.
But if it ain't your bag, don't worry about it.
Dharma/Dean