FACTORS OF GRAVITY
CHAPTER 58 (Nov 2010) INDEX TO OTHER PAGES
This is not the first page one should read in the understanding of gravity, for while in my previous pages I went forth to evidence the nature of gravity in how it comes about, - in this page I am going "beyond" the Earth to behold where it leads.
As most everywhere else however if one is truly interested in gaining this treasure of knowledge to himself, you must read all, lest at end when all the pieces of the puzzle are put in place you miss out on the full view of it.
This thesis here is rewarding since I am not one to make for theories, but rather search out the truth by the evidence of nature that is all around us. And as usual I am going to take this in a step by step manner, to effect learning as well as revealing what is in the nature of things.
By my assumptions in the previous pages (years ago),
I listed a person of
165-lb x 26400-ft/sec2:
22,176,000-ft/r = 5,186-lb/cg (2,352-kg)
(5186 : 165 = 31.34)
And though by assumptions I may come somewhat near to reality, it warrants us to better. Accordingly, on the on-line encyclopedia I found where someone furnished us with sufficient relative data on the Hubble space telescope.
And odd as it may seem I have yet to find any man competent enough to utilize the simple calculations that reveal the very factors of gravity. So simple as these things are and why then am I alone in these?
Its gross weight was
From the center of the earth to its
This makes the Hubble telescope to have a g/force on it 27.23 times as much as it read upon the scale upon earth, since 667,148.5 divided by its scale weight comes to 27.23. (Note how I am not going by any kind of acceleration like ft/sec to ft/sec, but by a factor of things)
The factor of gravity 347 miles above the earth therefore is 27.23 and its acceleration if it were to fall would be 27.23 ft/sec/sec.
If then we deduct the
27.23 from 32.174 it comes to a decrease of
My estimate therefore in the previous
pages utilizing mere examples is not accurate at 31.34, since it should be 29.32
That person therefore of
His weight then of
The escape velocity of this person at
therefore no more than 17,388 ml/hr, just one mile over his stable orbital
condition. Yet in doing so he is not likely to escape from mother earth, but to
a slightly different orbit around it.
Then to enhance the point of vector, any object traveling around the earth for its calculation is vectored to the earth axis, since our calculations are relevant to earth's axis, rather than the center of the earth's mass.
We might then conclude if the space vehicle had its orbit over the center of the earth, that our calculations as such would not be valid Yet when calculating gravitational pull and/or inertia for any object vectored to the earth's axis, we utilize that figure of weight or g/pull that is vectored to the earth's center.
Conclusively every object orbiting earth is vectored to the earth's center as well as its axis, and our calculations for its axis are based upon the earth for its center of mass as well, the two going hand in hand and overlapping one another.
If then we are near the surface of the earth, we can independently calculate what the g/force is vectored to earth's axis, but in getting some distance from it, in general the center of mass takes over.
Whenever near the surface of the earth - if we keep a fixed distance from the ground, the circular diameter would be greater at the equator then at any midway point to the poles. And in circling the earth from pole to pole at a fixed altitude, his vector to earth's center remains fixed, but his vector to earth's axis is constantly changing.
As therefore his inertia does not change at any point, neither will the force of gravity change upon him, and he for all practical purpose is as such vectored to earth's center.
So at last we have a more accurate figure
of what the factor of gravity is at these altitudes.
Then let us take the space shuttle Endeaver, that had a weight of
The radius thus will be
The question then becomes if the decrease in the gravitational factor for increasing altitudes is constant, or, if it decreases more or less rapidly in the first hundred miles from an altitude such as between 400 to 500 miles?
In judging from the data of the Hubble telescope we came up with an
decrease of 0.0142878 per mile from sea level to
figure multiplied by
7.1439, that then deducted from the 32.174 comes to a gravitational factor of
We may have surmised that for a law: Taking the factor of gravity at the given altitude - multiplied by its
earth weight will give us the full amount of inertial stress, as well as
the gravitational pull upon it, in a stable condition. 25.03 times 180,390
then comes to
If then we take its inertial
weight of 4,518,889 and divide it by its earth weight, we come with a
gravitational factor of 25.05, a small difference it seems, yet that small
difference amounts to 3,727 of inertial stress as well as gravitational pull.
Or to say - any amount in inertia exceeding the
factor of gravity at the altitude desired. Yet in order for a space shuttle to
stay aloft at no more than a few hundred miles above the earth it is in need
of a velocity greater than the velocity at which the moon travels in its orbit
around the earth.
Escape velocity thus is rather a lose term, one is in need of a higher velocity when close to a planet as compared to much further from it. If for the example you are already at an 18,000 mph velocity and some 200 plus miles up, it does not take much to continually depart further and further, since the further one gets from the earth, the lower his velocity need to be to maintain an orbit.
We might wish to know what the factor of gravity is at the altitude at which the moon orbits, but in order to do so, we must know its weight, in terms of earth weight so that we might compute its inertial value at the velocity at which it travels, which then would provide us with that astronomical figure of gravity by which the earth pulls upon the moon, or so - we assume, but not necessarily correctly, since the moon is not an earth-weight.
the same, by what inertial value the moon draws upon our magnetic lines of force
to elongate the same causing a great deal of waters to rise.
The waters in their rise then should equal the inertial stress that the
moon places upon us, give or take a few variables to complicate the same.
Should it not be obvious for the magnetic nature of the planets to cause a stronger draw upon our magnetic fabric as evidenced by the greater tides upon the earth? When the sun, moon, and earth are in line the tides are higher, while at any time when the moon is to the sides thereof, the tides are less.
It matters nothing if the moon be on the far side, or on the near side of the sun, the magnetic stresses are either way. We therefore should have surmised the magnetic fabric to have a cause upon the tides, even more than gravity.
Here goes to show how it is not only gravity by which planets are held, the mere increase in the strength of the magnetic fabric lifting the waters to a higher level.
The moon at a distance given to us at 283,857 miles from earth - is listed at having an orbital velocity of 1.022 km/sec. And the duration of a single orbit given as 27 days, 7 hrs, and 43 minutes, let us calculate from it if that given distance jibes with the rest.
If we take that velocity in miles at 2,299.5
mph, multiplied by the time in hours as given, that makes for 655.74 hrs. That then
in the circumference comes to
If then we wish to obtain an accurate measure of the inertia that the moon places on it, we might compare it with the many tons of waters it is able bring to a rise, but here too are variables, not cut and dry. Or if we place a certain velocity, we ought to set a definite reference, a vector point by which in all respects it is valid.
Since again this fact exists that the
earth from the sun,
(assuming 93 million miles to be correct) has an orbital velocity of 15 km/sec,
and that the moon in traveling with our orbital path has its own velocity around
the earth plus the 15 km/sec space velocity in order to keep up with us, which
is not even to consider the solar velocity relevant to our galactic center.
And that velocity increases and decreases continually as the moon orbits the earth, having its relevance to earth's center of mass. The "solar" velocity of the moon thus changes constantly, while its "orbital" velocity varies by small degrees.
The moon therefore as it orbits earth (relative to the sun) accelerates and decelerates on a continual basis simply in order to keep up with us, while we on earth do not. And do these velocities add, and/or subtract from the inertial values by which they augment gravitational pull? (the answer is: Yes.) And the same is true for our earth relevant to the galactic center.
For this is an absolute fact, that gravity is implemented by movement, (any movement,) and that in strength it is relevant to the inertial value of all media, and relevant to that factor of itself at the different altitudes. If any person tells you differently, do not believe them, they are without knowledge in that matter.
Also I am hesitant to list for us what the inertial value of the moon is by which it pulls upon our magnetic fabric, since I not only require an accurate measure of its mass, but by what relevance in weight shall we place that?
Now let us take a rocket having an earth-weight of 50,000 lb., and place it 800 miles above the earth, with a velocity at 15,643 miles/hr. The radius then is 25,344,000 ft., with the velocity in ft/sec comes to 22,943,. This in the square times its earth weight, divided by the radius comes to; 1,038,473 lb., of gravitational pull, as well as inertia. That amount divided by its earth weight comes to a factor of g at 20.77.
If then we take our findings from the Hubble space telescope, for a ratio in the decrease of gravity for altitude, which was 0.0142478, and that multiplied by the 800 miles in altitude, and deduct it from the standard of 32.174 as the factor of g at sea level it comes again to 20.77.
So it appears evident as well as factual that we can do with less velocity at higher altitudes, and the same is confirmed by the relative velocities of the planets around their sun.
It would be dandy if indeed we could establish perfectly accurate figures and ratio's, but for myself I can hardly trust any of man's figures, as I might demonstrate in the next example. One whom I shall not name, placed this data on the net on a space shuttle launched in 1981, the data is as follows:
Orbit altitude 166 nm (that is 191 standard
That it made 37 orbits in 2 days 6 hours 20 minutes and 53 seconds,
covering a distance of
Let us take the 2 days as 48 hours plus 6
hours is 54 hours, with the 20 minutes and seconds as 1/3 of an hour, the time
therefore is 54.3 hours which we divide into the total of the miles; 1,074,567 :
54.3 = 19,789.4 miles/hr. And to
convert it in ft per second comes to 29,024.4 ft/sec.
The radius then of 4000 for the earth and
Then assuming the weight of the shuttle at
Obviously that person has a few things to learn, there being something very wrong here, since g/force decreases rather than increases as we gain altitude.
Things are however not always as simple as they may appear, for if we go by this factor of gravity as it decreases for distance away from the earth, and we aim to compute it for the moon at better than 230,000 miles away - that factor as we computed, and which agrees with the law of centrifugal by Newton, with it we will come to a nil thereof long before we get to the moon.
And how thus is it held in any computation thereof? This provides proof that gravity as the means by which planets in their distances are held - is in error, gravity as such having a limited distance.
The computation for this, if we divide the 32.174 at earth surface, by the decrease in the factor of gravity per mile (0.0142478) we come to a distance, or altitude of 2,259 miles.
At that distance from the earth therefore, (presuming our figure obtained by the Hubble telescope is accurate) one will have escaped from earth's gravitational force. His acceleration in a free fall at that altitude would be zero ft/sec/sec., since his factor of g is at zero.
How therefore is the earth to have any measure of its gravity effective upon the moon which is much further away than 2,259 miles? And for even less - to deter anyone claiming the moon's gravity to be affecting our waters for a tide, - it for one/sixth in measure would barely come to 377 miles, let alone reach our earth.
Or for the sun, even if the factor of g is five times that of the earth, how is that to be computed in distances as far as Neptune, or even the Earth?
When we sit here upon the earth and measure g/force, we must realize that such is relevant to but the earth, and that the same factor which applies so close to our home is not necessarily valid, nor the only factor by which the moon relates to the earth, or any planet to the sun, and much less any solar system to its galactic center.
We do know for a fact that there is a tremendous amount of g/force upon the moon, seeing how it pulls so strongly upon us to lift the many tons of water to the tides.
But in utilizing these words we are sort of deceiving ourselves to say "g/force." And not only that - but it may imply as were it of the moon, or for a second - if it be exclusively in the g/force of the earth, neither of which is true, or complete.
In computing any factor of g from the sun by which the earth may be held at a distance of 93 million miles - we will essentially come out with no gravity at all in utilizing the factors in the computation as we have up to this point. And I do mean NO gravity at all, since that so called gravity is in effect the magnetic forces acting upon the inertia of the mass.
We know that we are held by the sun, along with every other planet at far greater distances. Nor is it to be denied that it is by - what is - somewhat deceptively called - gravitational force.
We in effect are in error to say that planets are held gravitational, since it should be said magnetically, with gravity a partner, the name of the firm belonging to magnetic.
Consequently it is obvious that we do not have any single law or formula by which to state or compute the gravitational strength, or its relevant factor to apply to all bodies of mass under any and all varying circumstances. Gravity, simply said, is not that simple.
And while it was given me to educate man in a general understanding of the foundations of the earth, it is just that, a general understanding. This however does not take away from the "how to" in gravity as I have stated, but in arriving at formulas and/or calculations thereof for every mass at any distance, I, as well as you, we are as yet searching.
Considering all facts, it becomes obvious that there is no single law by which to determine gravitational pull for any and all objects. When we calculate inertial force, and the mass is at balance, that same inertial force is always equal to g/force.
But when we step out of our backyard, to calculate anything beyond our earth, we - for a measure of weight, - are at all times utilizing that which is relevant to mother earth. How then can we be certain of anything by applying what is only relevant to mother earth - to any mass other than earth?
Being thus far into this with you my reader, allow me to ask you this question: "How is it that we can not measure any force of gravity on all those objects in space encircling the earth, or even upon ourselves when standing upon the earth, when we know that - like everything else - by a centrifugal action we are being pushed away from the axis of the earth?
The correct answer is because for every action there is an equal reaction. When anything is driven into one direction and simultaneously it is pulled into the direct opposite direction with an equal amount - there is no reading of the force. This does not conclude that there is no force, but that the two forces offset one another.
So it is that no gravity in any measure of weight can be read that is upon us in its augmentation to the centrifugal impact moving at some distance in a circular motion around a vector, such as earth's axis.
I now should furnish us with a better understanding of - "factors of." When for example, we say; "factor of gravity," it can-not be dealt with singularly in as to understand the downward force upon a mass, since that factor is also called a factor of inertia.
But here we have opened a bucket of worms, an inconsistency in the understanding of those terms. We might therefore look upon them as distinct factors, yet relative to one another.
Let us first determine each one separately; The factor of inertia is relevant to the velocity of the mass in question, while the factor of gravity is relevant to the field strength of the globe.
Then again inertia is twofold, angular as well as linear, and in that respect - it is the angular which relates to that factor - called - of gravity, while the linear acting upon that angular finds its relevance to the velocity thereof.
And so there are a number of factors working together to a single aim. And to somehow make us aware of how this is put together in the simple language of my elementary tongue, let us refer to an illustration figure 58-1.
This illustration shows the two factors of inertia. The circle depicts the atoms of the mass, that for their high angular momentum like unto a spinning top affixes themselves for rigidity, meaning to stay in place, or be for an inertial factor to resist change. (arrows H, denoting - that it wants to stay in place) An example hereof is with our home-made gyro's that seem to defy gravity.
It then is not of these gyro's to defy gravity, but rather these have become, - and yes how shall I say that, since it can be said in many ways, - how for one; they have become relative, and/or, are susceptible to a scenario that ultimately leads up to a movement, - which for lack of other, or better wording, - we came to call gravity.
That movement then (circular atomic motion) is the angular factor of all that is mass. And it may be regarded to have a constant in any and all matter, with perhaps some variables - which for the sake of confusion - I better not go into.
Do not now assume however that this particular factor - angular - as it may be, is that factor spoken of in our computations for gravity and/or inertia. It is simply the angular factor of all mass, and relatively constant, and as such is called the "angular inertial factor" that bears upon all mass.
Then there is that second of the twofold factor of inertia, the linear factor that becomes real - in and by - the movement related to anything in the linear by the velocity thereof. And to best demonstrate it for its fundamental concept relevant to gravity as a whole, we do so again with the gyro (Figure 58 -1).
Line X is the imaginary axis of that gyro when it is not under the duress of a linear action upon it. This is like our toy gyro when it is spinning without any push or force to the one side or the other.
(click on the illustration for a larger image)
Yet when acted upon to the linear, the spinning top - as we know - begins to spiral, more properly called precession. And the action so activated is also called - placing a torque upon it. It then is this torque in its degree thereof, which becomes the linear factor, graphically illustrated X to Y.
As then demonstrated in my previous pages how this precession upon the fundamental parts of nature turns into a rather complicated greater formation of precession upon the mass in its greater form yet still fundamental, which then is arrested for a downward movement by the magnetic tentacles of the earth.
Or, as we might say, flows into the embrace of the arms of the magnetic man of the earth, it is driven downwards precessionally, likened to a nut turned upon a bolt, or the bolt driving the nut, for which reason all objects of any weight, at any single factor of g, fall at the same rate.
When a nut turns upon a long treaded bolt driven by a fixed amount of revolutions per unit of time, that nut be it tiny and as light as a feather, or so large to measure into a ton of weight, both nuts will pass themselves along the treaded rod at equal rates of velocity, since their threads are the same even as their rotations per unit of time are the same.
When thus the fixed rate be at a factor of 25, the objects will accelerate at 25 ft per second per second towards the center of its source of power, being the magnetic in its figure of eight, and/or to the vector to which it is relevant, like earth's axis, etc.
For a little better understanding, conceive the fact that the magnetic motion, or lines of force, as they are often referred to, at their velocity at the speed of light. (evidenced also by electrical velocity) pervade all matter, as well as pass through what is known as empty space, and that these are very susceptible to all substance - locking themselves upon it. (evidenced by magnets and mother earth, or photographs of the sun).
When therefore these untold many atomic spinning tops are forced into a linear movements, a torque sets in causing a spiraling effect. This effect, precession as I called it, instigates a coordinate that for its format is something like unto a "precessional wave, (though I rather call it a coordinate in preference to wave).
This is so - since in the molecular, or greater formation something is born forth, that for lack of better terminology I came to call - "the gravitational component factor." In this overall fashion the media as a whole does not turn, nor spiral, like unto a spinning top, but finds itself induced by a coordinate of sort into the precession.
We call light to be a wave, to have a coordinate that has length as well as an angular momentum, it however travels in the linear. And we call for the atoms of nature to have a circular movement, termed angular. This coordinate then into our gravitational effect is both linear and angular, mostly angular, yet linear also since it acts like a screw turning as it moves onward.
It should not be all that difficult to realize how a coordinate can move itself upon a substance, like in rotating while the substance itself is not seen to move about. One example is with thunderstorms where there are one or more angular formations being the electrical to cause lighting yet the cloud itself in not seen to move, except with hurricanes etc.
And the angular upon a copper conductor, yet the conductor itself does not rotate. Or scuffing upon a carpet causing a rolling effect under your shoe generating an angular whereby you are shocked in touching any ground.
The illustration for this is figure 58 -2, depicting the mass by a block with the dual figure eight within - as the precessional, or gravitational component, that then - by the heavy line towards K, spirals inward, or downward, the broken lines then depict the magnetic fabric.
And this heavy line pointing to K may thus be regarded as a, or the - factor of gravity, and/or inertia, a factor that is regarded singularly yet formed by the action of three different factors, to wit; the angular, the linear, and the magnetic in its relation upon it.
And so you see how in working with this particular factor, noted of gravity in its earth given value at 32.174 at sea level, and its computations at higher altitudes, there are three different factors contributing to it.
When therefore we calculate the values by which a space shuttle maintains a stable orbit at no more than a few hundred miles from the earth, we must consider and enter in more values for an object such as the moon - not only at a far greater distance from the earth, but for its nomenclature as well.
GRAVITY BEYOND EARTH
The Space Shuttle for example, is not a magnetic entity, and as such may be regarded as a nail clinging to a magnet, while the moon being a magnetic entity relevant to earth, must be regarded as two magnets clinging to one another.
Obviously therefore the force holding such two components to each other is greater when both exhibit a magnetic force, both of them adding to the strength of it, as compared to a mere nail with no force of its own clinging to a magnet. Or for the same they might balance out one another by the polarities so positioned. Or for a third, draw away from one another their polarities set to that manner.
No my dear friends it is not as simple as Newton in his law made it appear, as in fact it was too elementary to name masses for their volume to be held and calculated. If we do so, our figures will be in error, since it is movement into inertia, and the marital status of these with their magnetic husband that determines gravitational pull.
If this places us back to square one, then let us start from square one, since previously we never even had a square one. This is not withstanding that his law into the centrifugal appears to be correct. (relevant to mother earth)
Considering the moon in its hold by the earth, and we come to view the separate factors - if per chance by them we may arrive at a single factor by which to determine the amount of gravitational pull, -- as in g/force --- let us begin with the fundamental angular factor.
The fundamental angular factor - is the ever movement of all the fundamental parts of nature. And I do not conjecture that there is much change in a constant thereof in any matter, excepting that which I better not mention. Therefore in that respect there is no difference in the atoms upon the moon as they are upon the earth, or upon any of our orbital satellites.
Are you with me so far? For then there is that linear factor implemented by the rate of velocity. And yes the greater the torque will be upon that first angular - the stronger it will embrace itself within the arms of her magnetic husband to draw it home. The moon however has a space velocity that is less than that by which the space shuttle holds its orbit.
This - so we reason - is because the greater radius lessens the impact by which the magnetic man looks at her, which as such is the third factor towards gravitational descend, and right we are.
If now we take a second look at all this, it seems we have not gotten anywhere that we wished to arrive at, for all things being equal, or relative to one another why can we not figure this out by a single law, in a single perspective, for any and all objects?
The fact, or suspicion that the moon for its magnetic nature requires less inertia by which to place so much duress on us elongating our lines of magnetic force along with its own, as compared - if it were not magnetic, is no doubt one factor in consideration for gravitational pull.
Nor should we be so naive to say, that; yes, the 3M (magnetic) lines between two magnets always draw themselves more straight (elongation) between two magnets, contributing to the greater tides upon the earth. But how is that a factor of holding the moon in its orbit?
If we come to that reasoning, are we implying that two magnets cannot maintain a bond between each other unless there is gravity between them?
Are you still with me? Since we ought to know full well that two magnetic entities can hold on to one another, with or without any gravity existing between them, holding on to one another simply by their magnetic lines of motion - that for all practical purposes stretch (so it seems) endlessly. And this pertains equally to the atomic bonding of all substances, movement being conductive.
The moon therefore, for all practical purposes, could remain in orbit around mother earth simply by the magnetic bond, in the strength thereof, - without any gravity existing - against the inertia by which for its mass and velocity it attempts to drive itself away from mother earth.
No my friend, don't get me wrong, we are taking this step by step, and while I will come to a conclusion, I, at the same time am showing how to get there, to, as one might say; "teach learning."
It then is absolutely correct that our moon can remain with us without gravitational force on the format of the magnetic fabric which the moon as well as the earth possesses. But that in itself however does not discount the fact, that there is a force of gravity on the both of them as well as in between them.
For again in the first place if there were no gravity upon the moon, it would not be a sphere, it would rather be a like unto one of the many rocks in various shapes that orbit the sun.
Magnets do hold on to one another, and magnetic force does act upon the A/factor, upon all angular inertia, and when it does, drawing that inertial mass to itself we call it gravity. But think clearly now how the cause was magnetically together with inertia, rather than gravity as such.
Gravity therefore is a byproduct of magnetism with inertia, the same as saying; of movement with movement. And to be perfectly correct, gravity is the rib of magnetic, just as the woman is man's rib, the woman coming from the man, and being a very part of him. Equally so is gravity with magnetic -- husband and wife.
Shall I repeat this for us, to say that "gravity is a product of a magnetic hold upon inertia," ?? For this indeed reveals a cause towards gravity.
How therefore by our previous calculations in the factor of gravity as they decrease for altitudes are we to apply the same for any mass such as the moon to orbit the earth, or any planet as a magnetic entity to orbit the sun? We cannot therefore apply our gravitational rules upon any such mass with a degree of reality.
Nor can we invent for ourselves magnetic rules by which to calculate the uniform circular motion of the planets in our our solar system, since it is not only the man (magnetic) that exists, along with his wife (gravity), but these two - interwoven as husband and wife are - as the Creator spoke of us; "One flesh."
To in one be known as two, or to in two be known for one. Future generations will no doubt attempt to discover such a law, the means by which to calculate the same.
A bucket of nasty worms is it not as I opened here? And if I got you all confused or irritated - stay with me to put that lid back onto that bucket of worms not to the likens of most of our scientists that wish to maintain their glory upon their own ill conceived ideals. No one likes to see his labors disappear into a bottomless pit, or be found to have erred, yet it takes a man to admit to errors.
My metaphors and figures of speech, may perhaps seem naive or ironic to the so called wise in physics, yet for those with a good knowledge they do bring home the bacon, and it is a friendly way of speaking. I after all am playing a game, as it has been for all these years.
My toy-box then may not seem much of a toy to most others, in that a well ripened knowledge is required to follow me.
But how can I help myself, when there is no real effort for me in getting to it, like the Lord said; "He gives it his sons in their sleep."
Not therefore that I dreamed all these things, for while I slept nothing at all was revealed. But in my thoughts as I contemplated matters, or as I placed a pen into my hand and began to write, it is the Lord teaching me that which I may receive of Him, or that I should compile.
And indeed He answered my request of Him, but had He not first placed the question in me, to follow up with the answer, I would not have known what to ask.
ADAPTING SET TERMS
Let us now at last come to a final of this, that it is not just, or only - by -- what we understand as -- gravitational forces that all bodies in the universe are bound to their sources, but like all things in nature there is a twofold phenomena. (gravity itself being twofold as well)
If then this evidence destroys all the hard work man has done in compiling his theories and figures, as well as his laws - I say to you, should man not have known better, seeing how well he is acquainted with magnets one to the other, and that the planets as well as our moon are in fact magnetic entities?
Let us again refer to an illustration figure 58 -3, the scenario of the moon to the earth. The factors then by which this moon is held to mother earth is twofold. In one it is held magnetically with the inertia of the moon keeping its distance from the earth relative to the strength of both magnetic powers. In the second is the gravitational hold, that for good reasons - in this case - I prefer to call "the inertial hold."
Perhaps one ought to stop and re-chew the above, to meditate upon it, for this is important to realize that all in itself a magnet may hold on to another magnet at a distance provided that second magnet has sufficient inertia to remain aloof by its velocity into an orbital path.
What then I will say, - and perhaps I am revealing more than I should, - how there is no substance required for magnetic lines of movement to pass, yet in order to be of force it must be implemented and rest upon a structural entity specific to its formation. (Another bucket of worms)
We should be well aware of this seeing how an iron bar can be magnetized, but not retain the same, yet there being ample structural substances by which it can and will be retained, and still many more that can-not in any wise be magnetized.
And so to define myself better let us adapt ourselves to some fixed terms.
Let the "angular factor" of inertia as we demonstrated in figure 58 -1, be known as, the; "A/factor."
And let the "linear factor" of inertia, be known as, the; "L/factor."
Then for the field strength of the earth, as it is known by the factor of gravity and/or inertia, let it be called, the; "g/factor."
While the magnetic force in itself for a factor be know as the M/factor, in reality being the factor of 3M.
(The term 3M is what I at my very young age adapted for the magnetic fabric that pervades all space. Be it called magnetic motion, or magnetic lines, or magnetic movement, or fabric, or flux, these are all one and the same, abbreviated 3M)
If then we consider the Hubble telescope at H, in figure 58-3, at no more than 347 miles from the earth, the g/factor is found to be at 27.23 (in lb), with the L/factor at 17,047 mph, while the A/factor is constant for all media.
Then suppose we get ourselves 150,000 miles away from the earth, at point G in the illustration. At this point what shall we place for a g/factor when by that time in that distance - further than 3,000 miles as noted before - there is not much left of those 32.174 (lb) to account for?
By our standard gravitational calculations the g/factor has indeed pretty well disappeared, but the A/factor is still there in full force, and the L/factor, though not as great as it is on H, is nonetheless there in full strength for its velocity.
And looking at the moon nearly 100,000 miles further yet, how is there to speak of any earthly g/factor, when instead we rather come to a g/factor of the moon?
If therefore it seems superficial to speak of any earthly gravity to act upon the moon, there are still these three factors, namely, the A/factor, being equal to anything upon the earth, and the L/factor, though greatly diminished to the velocity at which the Hubble telescope travels, there is still the M/factor, in a dual configuration to lay hold upon the moon.
The M/factor then is competent enough to hold the entire moon by its own strength in the dual semblance, yet it requires both the A/factor and the L/factor in order to provide the inertia - against which the forces of 3M may retain that moon in orbit.
And that is important to remember. So we see how all things are relative and compliment each other. With me hoping you are still with me thus far having come to the knowledge in the cause and nature of gravity.
For indeed we have, however complicated it may seem, and yet how simple it is, with the facts actually presenting themselves.
Not that it came to me in that way, but I must present it in that manner lest you would not otherwise understand nor believe me, but you would believe the natural evidence as it is shown, or so I hope you will.
ODDS AND ENDS
If then being 150,000 miles removed from the earth, we presume that we have escaped the gravitational force of the earth, we presume correctly. Yet we are not free from our sun, nor even from the 3M/factor of the earth, since we still posses these two factors, the A, and the L, upon which the 3M lays a due hold.
If then by presumption we were idle in space, having our A/factor, (from which we can never get away), but doing away with the L/factor, (our velocity) then indeed the 3M merely comes to pass us by and not lay a hold on us. (A cause showing how and why all planets move about.)
But let us not celebrate too quickly as if now we found a way to zero gravity, for though you may be idle with the earth turning under you, you are still traveling at near 15 km/sec in a journey around the sun, wherefore you will need engines to create yourself a velocity equal to those 15 km/sec., in reverse. But as soon as you do, are you not again creating an L/factor upon yourself?
Or will you presume that by going 15 km/sec in reverse you are bringing your movement in space to a halt, to a zero velocity?
You may fancy yourself such a scenario, but it is of no avail, for how then will you counteract the movement in its velocity by which our whole solar system travels relative to the center of our galaxy? And even if you were so able, how will you come to counteract the galactic movement itself?
Take it therefore for an absolute fact that there is no way for mankind to escape from the bounds which the Almighty Creator has set for him. Relish rather in this that He was so kind and generous towards man to reveal to him the very foundations upon which He placed the earth.
For He after all made us in His own image, which is to have knowledge and understanding - so that he might come to know his Creator, and honor and glorify Him in all that He has made.
For in observing the works of His hand these are most marvelous, in full perfection, by which also we might come to know him for the Creator of it, and not presume ourselves to have come forth by chance, or by anything other than a wisdom and ability that is far beyond our cunning, and endlessly unreachable for mankind. For we after all are but man, creatures made in the dust of the earth, yet greatly beloved and cared for by their Creator.
Let us now suppose we are at some 5,000 miles from earth at which point there is no longer anything left of that g/factor by which the earth might hold on to us. We are therefore free of the gravitational influence of mother earth. Where then shall we go?
If we start our engines to apply a reverse trust, the inertia upon us will decrease, and we will start moving towards earth again, or better said - we will start moving towards our sun and earth, that are still pulling on us with their 3M relative to our inertia.
Since however we were happily orbiting our earth how did we surmise to be pulled by the sun? Correct we are, for in mentioning 3M, that is the fabric of the earth as well as the sun, or of any planet having a magnetic entity. Therefore, simply because we were in an earth orbit, and we were being drawn by the mixture of the 3M of the earth's as well as of the sun - it is towards home, the earth, that we will be drawn.
When therefore we come closer and closer to earth under the duress of the 3M, we begin to pick up on the g/factor of the earth again, at which point we are now duly related to mother earth again in its gravitational pull, rather than merely a 3M. And as we slow down we cannot hold an orbit, since the closer we get to the earth the greater our velocity needs to be to remain in any orbit.
And picking up on our atmosphere our g/factor has become nearly the value at which it read at sea level, wherefore we are pulled with an ever stronger force and greater velocity, and for all appearances we have entered into quite a storm, a mass of Nitrogen gas (our air) bouncing up against us causing friction, to give us a warm welcome.
If however on the other hand, we at 5,000 miles from home, set our engine to increase our velocity, our inertia will exceed the g/factor of the earth in the embrace of the 3M, and we can happily explore the further reaches of our solar system.
And not likely - if we maintain velocity - shall we fall into an orbit to adapt a uniform circular movement, since as our radius increases, the velocity by which to hold an stable orbit becomes less and less.
If then we presume that before long we can leave our solar system to head for another star, to see who lives there riding his horses, and to have a cup of coffee, or shoot the breeze, we may have presumed a fallacy. For in that instance we may have become the likes unto a comet, the system pulling us back towards the sun.
If anything we must have engines and a steering wheel to get us out of our system. But frankly who wants to go there to die in loneliness? Good or evil - man ought to be with his kind.
FACTORS BEYOND EARTH
Let us entertain ourselves with some more examples in their calculations, and familiarize ourselves once again with what "inertia" stands for, and its relation to magnetic and gravitational force. By illustration figure 58-4, let us name each specific action as a "factor" since the sum or outcome of any action can be called the factor of. And we ought to memorize to ourselves just which one is what.
The first is our A/factor, the atomic angular. The second is the L/factor, its movement into the linear. The third is the T/factor, the torque that is placed upon the A/factor by the L/factor. The fourth is the M/factor, the magnetic embrace upon the precessional inclination in its coordinate upon the mass.
The fifth and final is the g/factor, which is the net, or gross outcome of all the above. Then there is the E/factor, and as illustrated it is the combined efforts of the A, the L, and the T factors, or simply said "its inertia."
Click on picture for larger view.
This illustration therefore, in the understanding thereof, defines the full "how to" in the cause of gravity, after which we adapt the law of Newton for the centrifugal by which to calculate the inertial force upon the mass.
Since then it reads "g/factor" rather than inertial/factor, how did we come to interpret gravity for centrifugal?
You can blame Sir Isaac Newton since he wrote his law of centrifugal as were it gravitational. We then adapted the same since when the two are equal, the inertial value is the same as the gravitational value.
But I have taken this one step further to place the term g/factor at the end of the line below the coordinate of the gravitational inclination, leaving the E/factor where it belongs more fundamental upon the mass. And as you will notice the M, as the M/factor is excluded from the E/factor, while the g/factor includes the M as well.
Now let us look at a few more examples in what a factor of g may come to. Let us place ourselves at 10,000 lb., in orbit around the sun, at the radius of our earth. Those 93 million miles then comes to 491,040,000,000 feet for radius, while our velocity of 15 km/sec, or 9.375 ml/sec, comes to 49,500 ft/sec.
Our mass therefore with the square of the velocity divided by the radius comes to an inertial weight of 49.9 lb. We have lost 9,950.1 lb in our inertial factor verses our mass taken as weight.
Then to compute the factor of gravity (the g/factor) we must divide that 49.9 by 10,000, to the sum of 0.0049. Our factor of g therefore has gone far into the minus. (remembering the vector to which that is)
Here however we are to remember that we have taken an earth value (weight) that is relevant only to earth's vector, applying it to a totally different vector, that of the sun, for which reason our values so obtained are but for our amusement.
Before we go further, let us take inventory. First, our inertia to a factor of gravity from the sun, is way past the zero point where one would fall down by any rate of acceleration, it as such is no longer with us, we having past that point to the tune of 0.0049 in the minus.
Secondly, we are still under the impact of a pull, (as gravity) from the sun by the M/factor, to the tune of about 50 pounds, meaning, our 10,000 lb on earth now on a scale relevant to the sun in any draw upon us, would show only 50 lb, since it is by that degree of inertia that we are held in check by the sun.
Thirdly, our real and full inertia for all of our 10,000 lb, is still at 10,000 lb., for any deceleration or acceleration. Our inertia for our volume thus remains as what it was from the start, which has increased by our velocity at 15km/sec to a decrease of 9,500 lb., while in reference to any change in speed, should we wish to stop or something, the inertia upon us is our 10,000 lb multiplied by our velocity.
At 15 km/sec, if we came upon a brick wall there would be nothing left of either, not us nor the brick wall, yet in relevance to the sun to maintain us in orbit, at the radius that we are to that sun we at plus 10,000 lb, are no more than at best 50 lb.
Next, let us place ourselves at again 10,000 lb of mass in orbit but this time around our earth at the same radius at which the moon travels. The radius now is some 240,000 miles, that comes to 1,267,200,000 ft. Our velocity will be 2300 mph which is 3,373 ft/sec, that then by the law of Newton comes to an inertial weight upon us of 89.7 lb., which divided by our mass is a g/factor in the minus at 0.00897.
Then again taking a look at Saturn that is 886.7 million miles away, traveling at 15,988 ft/sec, the radius is 4,601,776,000,000 ft. And utilizing the same 10,000 lb of mass, that by the calculation comes to an inertial weight upon us of no more than 0.5459 lb, which translate into a factor of g at 0.00005459.
So it shows that with all our mass registering ten thousand lb., on earth, our inertial weight as such is little more than one half of a pound. And why should it not be so, the minor cylinder in which we are enclosed, how we are virtually proceeding by a straight line, at which there would be no draw of any kind.
Still for that minor alteration in our direction to proceed by a uniform circular path - the 3M looks at us enclosed within our spaceship as nothing more to hold on to than just over a half pound in earth weight.
Accordingly, we must always consider the vector to which anything applies.
The factor of g therefore becomes less and less as we depart from our sun, and weight as such in the term therefore is hardly anything to concern ourselves with by the time we get to Neptune. That planet so far from the sun seems to travel as were it by itself with hardly any inertial weight upon it, by which it may be drawn into the 3M lines of the sun. Yet it orbits the sun however minor its change in orbital direction may be.
But then of course we have been utilizing that law of Newton in the centrifugal, rather than the factual gravitational which for Neptune relative to the sun is a factor of M in the twofold.
It is therefore that I previously said, how we have no single law by which to compute the g/factor upon any and all bodies. The law of Newton is fine for anything close to home, and for a general beyond our home, but for a truly accurate law, I for one am as yet at a loss.
Let us not however get carried away and assume that in our spaceship at 10,000 lb of mass, the gross total of our inertia is but less than a single pound, for that 0.5 pound of inertia is only relative to the vector of the sun to hold us in orbit. If we at the radius of Neptune attempt to come to a stop, the force required to stop us is directly proportional to our inertia in the linear, which is our real 10,000 lb.
When therefore the 32.174 rate is used in inertia by which a vehicle is stopped upon the surface of the earth, that ratio is relevant to our earth at the surface thereof. Since I conjecture that the A/factor is unchangeable, and equally so with the L/factor in its relevance upon the A/factor, what therefore may that E/factor be so far removed out in space? I would not conjecture to say - 32.174.
Notice how I now no longer specify "weight" but rather the term "mass?" This is so because weight is a measure of gravity upon the earth, and at the orbit of the moon, or ourselves vectored to the sun, weight becomes a measure relevant to these vectors, remembering that by the time we reached better than 3,000 miles from our earth, our earthly factor of gravity had already come to a zero. Our computations therefore should no longer be based upon it, yet what then are we to use?
This in other words means, we are no longer under the duress of the gravity of mother earth, but rather in the first example to the M/factor of the sun, with in the second was the M/factor of the earth.
Then to clear up a possible misunderstanding, we might conclude that when we are out of the gravitational reach of any planet or sun, that it is no longer the gravity by which we are held. Or that perhaps now it is only magnetically.
The answer to this is a yes as well as a no. It is yes since we are no longer subject to the individual factor of any planet. And a no, because we are nonetheless subject to the pull of any and all planets with their sun be it called gravitational or otherwise.
This of course is confusing simply because we must come to realize just what the power of gravity is. If you call a swine, a pig, it are two terms for the same animal. And so with the term gravity hammered into us, never at all realizing just what the power thereof may be - it becomes difficult to adapt any term in the way of magnetic.
Nor should we call the force that draws us "magnetic," since as such it has its own meaning. Nor should we call it "inertia," seeing it also has its own meaning.
Therefore in combining the two, let it remain at gravity, since as such it is gravity. The best solution is to think of man and his rib, how the two are one, or the one in two, and intertwined with one another, nor how one can do without the other. Or at least I can not.
And to give us a still better perspective of this, let us refer to an illustration figure 58-5. Here we have the earth and at one place we are 500 miles away where our factor of g is 25.03 As then we remove ourselves to 5,000 miles away, our earthly g/factor has come off the scale, meaning we are no longer relevant to mother earth and her specifics in the nature of her gravitational pull.
Yet in looking at either location the factors that bears upon that which we call -- to come about by gravity --- are the same for both. All the factors are there, none is missing. Wherefore in that respect there is no difference, we being drawn in the same way.
And so why are these both identical, when in the one it emanates from the earth by what we behold as gravity, while in the second, that earthly gravity is no longer there, and we must call it by the M?
Click on picture for larger view
The answer is simple, that which in the first emanated from the earth is factually as much M, as it is g, it is just that we call it by a g, and we continue to call it g, even when our homemade g has come to its end. And right we are, only when we come out as far as the moon, - not our, but "the" - factor of g has come to a minus.
One last experiment taking the mass of the moon at 7.347/22 Kg comes to 14.694/22 lb. with its velocity at 3373 ft/sec, at a radius of 1,267,200,000 ft., comes to an inertial force of 1,319,251,369,365,530,303,030 lb. that is more than one billion trillions. If then we take the mass in pounds divided by the outcome of the inertia, the factor of it comes to; 111.38.
If then we estimate the amount of water in weight that rises for the tides for both ends of the earth - it should come somewhat proportional to the inertial force that the moon places upon our magnetic 3M.
In all of this now my calculations are not to be taken as fully accurate since I took relative figures merely for the example. I will leave it up to the scientists that have need of it, or that are getting paid for it to discover the actual figures.
All things are relative, nor is it all as cut and dry as things may appear by the simple mathematics which we wish to place upon it, or have been doing to this day.