Does anyone know that a cumulative jet is described by a formula that coincides with Kepler's third law, although slightly modernized (four parameters are reduced to three)? That is, under certain conditions (pressure, speed, etc.), the movement of any substance and ether ("emptiness", dark energy, dark matter) can be considered an incompressible fluid, described by a formula that is not widely known to most people, even those with higher education or a scientific degree: E=w²R³.
Great, thank you.
I was already starting to doubt... Many people are surprised by this presentation of Kepler's third law.
Thank you very much for your explanation of the presented form of the formula for all those reading my question. This is very valuable for me and for them even more so. Dear Stefan Bernhard Rũster, can you look at this law in this form and without the prefix of the universal gravitational constant with two masses of celestial bodies (often the Earth and the Sun)? After all, Kepler did not include this prefix in his third law, it was added later and distracts attention from the true nature, at least in my opinion.
The question is specifically about Kepler's third law, not about the universal law of gravitation. And I hope no one objects that it is valid for both star systems with tablets and for all satellites of each planet.
T1²/T2²=a1³/a2³
Dear Stefan Bernhard Rüster
thank you very much for the answers, and especially for the prompt answers, this is very valuable to me within the framework of the WarpDrive.RWA.ua project.It is very pleasant to have a constructive dialogue with you, thank you again.
In the last comment, I cited in its pure form the well-known, universally recognized, and unquestioned third Kepler law (T₁²/T₂²=a₁³/a₂³), which describes the motion of any two planets of our solar system around the Sun, and it does not contain any masses. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the parameter "p" in your explanations is used in slightly different meanings (I quote: w²R³=E=4π²p = const. and a³/T²=p, it is necessary to determine w²R³=E=4π²p or w²R³=р=4π²Е ).
Can you clarify the reasons for your use of different masses when discussing Kepler's third law? For now, I will give the values of E or "p", as you prefer, in the next comment. It is clear that Newton's law of universal gravitation was put forward, but this is not what we are talking about.
As part of your professional answers to my seemingly unprofessional questions, I hope that you and other scientists in this field will realize the not entirely adequate path we have been moving along, or rather marking time, for a century now, regarding the term gravity and its connection with the electromagnetic field.
Dear Stefan Bernhard Rüster
In this commentary I provide the values of constants for the planets of the solar system and some satellites of the planets in the solar system, obtained on the basis of Kepler's third law, without using Newton's law of universal gravitation. I hope the results will not surprise anyone. The data for the calculation was taken from open sources. Kepler's third law is not entirely accurate, from the point of view of Newton's followers, in their opinion it also includes the mass of the planet. How can the mass of an object on Earth coincide with the mass of the same object on the Moon, Mars or other planets and their satellites? The presence of people on the Moon confirms this. And even more so the mass of the same object on the Sun, as well as the mass of the Sun itself.According to the same followers of Newton, the gravitational attraction of a planet of a certain mass depends only on the distance to it, and not on other properties, such as composition or temperature. Don't you think that it does not depend on the mass of celestial bodies, since it is possible to make these calculations without the masses of these celestial bodies?
When moving in space, the mass of bodies is not applicable. It can be used only on planets and satellites that have their own gravitational flow. In this case, the mass of the same object will be different on each celestial body with a gravitational flow, but will be consistent with the calculations given.
Dear Stefan Bernhard Rüster
most likely, you mean in the previous comment that the formula E=w²R³ must correspond, both in the Sun-Planets system and in the Planets-Satellites system, with ALL its parameters, first of all, with the constant. Passing through its constant. But in fact, from my point of view, the formula is uniform except for the value of the constant, or energy, or call it any word convenient for you, for each individual system creating its own special gravitational flow. Both logic and calculations confirm this. Only no one wants to see or admit it. But having realized what I wrote, many things fall into place. Isn't that true?- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication