Three steps...

[iacob alex]

.....regarding the principle of design ( working model ) , for a ( gravity self-powered ) simple machine.

The first step at :
http://www.rapturenotes.com/slingsandstones.html
It's a very old freely revolving launch arm ( human body ) " manner" ...to throw a mass(as a war hand weapon).

The second step at :
https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=of5mVlAWKgo
It's an old (Middle Ages) freely revolving launch arm (gravity powered simple machine ) "manner"...to throw a mass (as a war machine).

The third (and last!) step to use a freely revolving "launch" arm (machine)...can be yours , if you have in mind a gravity self-powered simple machine.

Simply :play variable leverage /sling motion !

Al_ex

[iacob alex]

.....and a common " natural " working principle ( freely revolving launch arm ) , at:

http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/image/s ... f/84290148

The human arm can flex to and fro (0* - 180 *) , due to muscles.

The variable leverage ( freely revolving "launching " arm ) of a gravity powered simple machine (LEVER....) is "deserved"if we release rotational
inertia ( an increasing spiral trajectory throw ).

In this manner , it's so easy to imagine "self" motion , due to a continuous torque difference on the same side of the fulcrum, as follows:

-a starting unbalance (inverted pendulum type)

-a two-steps full rotation (0*-180*,then 181*-360*) , as a continuous acceleration

-the "remake" of the starting unbalance , due to the freely revolving (variable ) arm.

Al_ex

[iacob alex]

.....related to the same design ( serial leverage ) , intended to expose continuous motion , due to an "unseen" input:

-"hidden" electro-magnetic "assistance" , at :
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixKnAWua0_Q

-"invisible" air-motion "assistance" , at :
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH8AKDhcSv4

-"Perceptible" push-pull "assistance" of inertia , if we play gravity unbalance, of the same serial leverage...

This design , is nothing more than a simply , minimized copy of a natural concept , at :

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iSR3Yw6FXo

Al_ex

[TGM]

Looks pretty complicated!

[pequaide]

In the discussion of earth moon barycenter it states (2:55 SkyMarvels) that the center of rotation is at the center of mass of the two objects and the distance to the two masses is directly proportional to the relative masses.

The moon is about 1/81 the mass of the earth and the distance to barycenter is 81 times greater for the moon than the earth. This means the circumference of the circular lunar path is 81 time greater than the circumference of the path taken by the earth. They have equal mr not equal mr². They have equal (mv) linear Newtonian momentum. They do not have equal angular momentum.

The solar system tells you what is going to be conserved in any rotational interaction of masses. mv.

But it is not about balance it is about a throw.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi

given the sun is traveling at about 782,000 km/h and the earth is orbiting at about 1,770 km/h, with the earth's total speed about 108,000 km/h around the sun what are the true velocity vectors of the earths orbit, and the true CF vectors and strength for the earths true total velocity?

I will try and find the link for the speeds and post it because they are not the same on all sites.

Edit, + link http://www.universetoday.com/18028/sun-orbit/

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi,

given the sun is traveling at about 782,000 km/h and the earth is orbiting at about 1,770 km/h, with the earth's total speed about 108,000 km/h around the sun what are the true velocity vectors of the earths orbit, and the true CF vectors and strength for the earths true total velocity?

This indicates to me that Orbits are totally work done by gravities, this and the fact that the Suns gravity accelerates and decelerates the Earth's Orbiting speed as and when needed, which take energy input.

Someone told me it was the velocity of the planets when first set in motion that provided all the kinetic energy of orbiting Planets. Billions of years of acceleration and deceleration orbits say this is not true.

TLW

[Tarsier79]

Peq.

mr^2 relates to inertia. We are not trying to accelerate or decellerate the moon. This relates to the kinetic energy of the moon vs the earth (obviously not taking into consideration their rotational KE). IE. Does the moon have more KE than the earth: KE = mv^2, of course! so it stands to reason it would take more energy to stop the moon than it would to stop the earth.

Kinetic Energy and inertia relate to eachother mathematically. All you are left with is trying to accomplish a perfect mv mass interaction and using that.


TLW.

Isn't this currently being discussed on another thread? Energy is not added or taken away from any planets during their complete orbit. Energy in a gravity system = rotational KE + translational KE + Potential Energy. Energy can be added to a satelite's velocity via a slingshot manouvre around a planet, this energy is removed from the planet.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi kaine,

If no energy is added to the Earth why was it going faster for nearly half a year. if no energy is added to the earth it cannot make the next orbit.

[pequaide]

If no energy is removed it would not make its orbit.

Unless the orbit is a perfect circle; in half the orbit the object is accelerating and in half it is decelerating. But in one full orbit no energy is added to the system.

Every single paired set whether it be the Sun and Jupiter or the Earth and Moon orbits about its common center of mass with equal linear Newtonian momentum on each side.

Whatever means and complexity of formation one would logically think that the type and quantity of motion to have preexisted before the formation of the binary system would be linear Newtonian momentum. One would think that the original quantity of linear Newtonian momentum remained in the system since that is what appears to be conserved.

Just for sake of discussion lets amuse the Moon came in from outside the solar system. The Moon would have preexisting momentum. And the velocity of he Earth and Moon would increase as the two gravitational bodies approached each other. Precisely at the point when the Earth had half the linear Newtonian momentum and was precisely on the other side of the center of mass orbit was achieved. The Moon would have to come in at the exact angle and speed for this to occur.

Obviously if half the energy was on both sides the Moon would have passed on by.

Obviously if half the angular momentum was on both sides the Moon would have passed on by.

Obviously the system does not give a hoot about conserving energy or angular momentum; it conserved linear Newtonian momentum.

Yes the Moon has hugely more kinetic energy than the Earth but the system grabbed it and kept it. And continues to keep it. Newton's third Law of Motion says that the force between the two is equal and opposite yet that same force grabs an object of much greater energy and keeps it.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Pequaide,

If no energy is removed it would not make its orbit.

That is correct, and no Centrifugal Force no Orbit, but more importantly no Gravity no Orbit. Gravity does work on every part of the Orbit, constant changes of speed takes energy. The Orbits are totally Forced.

Edit, If you can get billions or years of mass rotation without a constant energy input that is clearly getting energy from nothing even more so when you think of all those gravity force you have to work against.

I will try not argue anymore, if gravity can produce mass rotation once set in motion with no more energy input for billions of years then I am a happy bunny, well maybe one or two carrot thrown in as well

[daxwc]

Trevor Lyn Whatford

If no energy is added to the Earth why was it going faster for nearly half a year. if no energy is added to the earth it cannot make the next orbit.

Why does a coil spring go one direction for half a cycle? Does the springs in your world make energy Trevor?

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Daxwc,

you would not of seen my Edit so I will repeat it here.

Edit, If you can get billions or years of mass rotation without a constant energy input that is clearly getting energy from nothing even more so when you think of all those gravity force you have to work against.

I will try not argue anymore, if gravity can produce mass rotation once set in motion with no more energy input for billions of years then I am a happy bunny, well maybe one or two carrot thrown in as well

[daxwc]

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/g ... n99272.htm

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Daxwc,

thanks for the link that was mind blowing!

http://www.letusfindout.com/why-does-th ... e-craters/