Why are we orbiting around the sun not towards it?

Scott Miller wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scott You took my answer over Saul . Hard for me to believe. I've been
right before,but it went over your head for what I had to say was not in
Google . Best you raise your head when reading my answers to the
mysteries of the universe Well back to science Just saying closer to
the Earth's poles is the strongest gravitational area is right,but that
begs the question why? I know the answer do you Scott? Gets kind of
tricky knowing that gravity is zero at the Earth's exact center Bert
PS Saul don't feel to bad lots of people are just as dense as you.


Actually, you blathering makes only partial sense - I have no idea of
what you are talking about in the first three sentences. I do know I
have done the calculations related to this weight at poles versus
equator versus rotational contribution and simply reproduced it.

As to why the Earth's pull is as if all the mass is concentrated at the
center, yes, I do know - calculus is a wonderful thing for determining
this answer. If one looks at the vector contributions of all the matter
in the Earth, the vector sum of all those contributions can lead to a
net contribution at the center.

And, before you go knocking Saul - my observations are that he has much
more on the ball than you, and when you add nightbat's contributions, he
still comes out ahead (adding zero to any nonzero value is just that
value back again). You got this one right but couldn't demonstrate why.
So don't gloat.


Actually both the Earth's oblateness and its rotation fingure into the
variation of the force of gravity on its surface. There is a formula
that takes account of both effects and gives a value for gravity at any
distance from the equator:

"The nominal value of g on a smooth Earth, taking into account
oblateness and rotation is, at sea level:

g = 9.78031846(1+0.005278895sin^2(phi)+0.000023462sin^ 4(phi))

where phi is the latitude of the location."

http://saeta.physics.hmc.edu/Courses...s/Gravity.html

Double-A

Scott You are a great fudger. In your own words what makes gravity
closer to the earth's center greater. Why do things have to float at the
exact gravitational center of the earth"?. What keeps a spinning top
from not falling on its side?. What is meant by a third axis? Time for
you to do a little fudging. Reality is all answers are in Google so you
are in luck Maybe Saul and you can put your heads together. Two half
wits should equal a full wit *hopefully " Bert

Double-A Was the Earth spinning faster when it was in a molted state?
Now that it is spinning at 1030 mph at the equator that would mean the
ocean must be much deeper at the equator than the poles. Best to keep in
mind at the exact center of the earth's axis it is not spinning. How do
you account for no rise in water?? Venus that spins so very slow does
it have an equatorial bulge?. bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Double-A Was the Earth spinning faster when it was in a molted state?


Yes, it was spinning faster in the past and been slowing down,
transferring some of its momentum to the Moon.


Now that it is spinning at 1030 mph at the equator that would mean the
ocean must be much deeper at the equator than the poles.


But the ocean beds will tend to be higher too at the equator.


Best to keep in
mind at the exact center of the earth's axis it is not spinning. How do
you account for no rise in water?? Venus that spins so very slow does
it have an equatorial bulge?. bert


I wouldn't think so.

Double-A

In article ,
Scott Miller wrote:

snip

As to why the Earth's pull is as if all the mass is concentrated at the
center, yes, I do know - calculus is a wonderful thing for determining
this answer. If one looks at the vector contributions of all the matter
in the Earth, the vector sum of all those contributions can lead to a
net contribution at the center.

Say, maybe you can help me with a rather elementary (and only slightly
OT) problem I can't seem to get around when I try to derive this result.
(I had the idea in mind of playing with other shapes, but I get stuck on
the sphere ...) To find the force on an object on the surface, I write
an integral that's based on a Riemann sum of the contributions from
disk-shaped mass elements that are infinitesimally thin slices parallel
to the object's horizon. But this involves integrating from zero
distance up to the earth's diameter, and at the lower limit the equation
'blows up' from having terms with a zero denominator (although the disk
at zero distance has zero radius as well). What's the workaround?

--
Odysseus

Double-A Yes the Earth had to be spinning much faster when it was a hot
liquid. I would think 3 times faster. Venus's equator seems to be a
mystery. If it has a bulge say 0f 10 miles that knowledge would be of
great interest. How about the huge solid core of fast spinning
Jupiter(spins in less than 10 hours). Can we measure its bulge? The Sun
with its great surface gravity might make it very round?? The Sun being
gas and plasma makes it very flexible. When I consider its size(865,000
miles in diameter) I wonder if its spin of 25 Earth days is considered
fast or slow ?? Thought just jumped in. Did the Sun spin
faster 4 billion years ago?(tricky question at best) Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Double-A Yes the Earth had to be spinning much faster when it was a hot
liquid. I would think 3 times faster. Venus's equator seems to be a
mystery. If it has a bulge say 0f 10 miles that knowledge would be of
great interest. How about the huge solid core of fast spinning
Jupiter(spins in less than 10 hours). Can we measure its bulge? The Sun
with its great surface gravity might make it very round?? The Sun being
gas and plasma makes it very flexible. When I consider its size(865,000
miles in diameter) I wonder if its spin of 25 Earth days is considered
fast or slow ?? Thought just jumped in. Did the Sun spin
faster 4 billion years ago?(tricky question at best) Bert


Did you see my post on the "Football Planet", 2003 EL61, out in the
Kuiper Belt?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...355f6d6?hl=en&

That planetoid rotates in only four hours and has a temendous bulge,
such that it is as wide as Pluto at the equatorial edges, even though
its mass is only 32% of Pluto's!

Double-A

Double-A Less mass Less gravity Less roundness. More spin in liquid
state more chance of potato shape for small mass objects(like Mars
moons) Moons coming from explosions when two objects hit(oh
ya) give me a break. Its a shame we don't have a liquid size object in
our solar system . With all the cold space objects are immersed in they
must get crusty real fast go figure Bert

BEERTbrain IS a blathering idiot!

Saul Levy


On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:45:32 -0400, Scott Miller
wrote:

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scott You took my answer over Saul . Hard for me to believe. I've been
right before,but it went over your head for what I had to say was not in
Google . Best you raise your head when reading my answers to the
mysteries of the universe Well back to science Just saying closer to
the Earth's poles is the strongest gravitational area is right,but that
begs the question why? I know the answer do you Scott? Gets kind of
tricky knowing that gravity is zero at the Earth's exact center Bert
PS Saul don't feel to bad lots of people are just as dense as you.


Actually, you blathering makes only partial sense - I have no idea of
what you are talking about in the first three sentences. I do know I
have done the calculations related to this weight at poles versus
equator versus rotational contribution and simply reproduced it.

As to why the Earth's pull is as if all the mass is concentrated at the
center, yes, I do know - calculus is a wonderful thing for determining
this answer. If one looks at the vector contributions of all the matter
in the Earth, the vector sum of all those contributions can lead to a
net contribution at the center.

And, before you go knocking Saul - my observations are that he has much
more on the ball than you, and when you add nightbat's contributions, he
still comes out ahead (adding zero to any nonzero value is just that
value back again). You got this one right but couldn't demonstrate why.
So don't gloat.

Still a blathering idiot I see, BEERTbrain!

Saul Levy


On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 19:27:54 -0400, (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

Scott You are a great fudger. In your own words what makes gravity
closer to the earth's center greater. Why do things have to float at the
exact gravitational center of the earth"?. What keeps a spinning top
from not falling on its side?. What is meant by a third axis? Time for
you to do a little fudging. Reality is all answers are in Google so you
are in luck Maybe Saul and you can put your heads together. Two half
wits should equal a full wit *hopefully " Bert