Gravity

[hecd2]

That linked post does properly account for both: Normal and Tangential components in the ground and in the moving inertial reference frames.
The Galilean/Newtonian relativity is a subset of the Special Relativity.
If the Galilean relativity is screwed up so is the whole relativity.

But Galilean relativity and Newtonian mechanics aren’t screwed up are they? In the case of looking at the same motion from different inertial frames of reference, Newtonian mechanics gives exactly the expected result which is that the acceleration is the same in all inertial frames. You can calculate it for any function of motion you choose (including your “wave trajectory”) and you’ll get that result, and the reason you know you will get that result is that it’s child’s play to prove that the acceleration is the same in all inertial frames for the general case of an arbitrary function.

It is very simple: any calculation that gives a different acceleration for the motion of a particle in different inertial frames is wrong either conceptually or computationally or both. If your calculation doesn’t give the result that the acceleration is the same in both inertial frames then it’s wrong. If your complaint is that the tangential and radial acceleration components aren’t the same in the two frames then that is expected because those co-ordinates are not fixed in an inertial frame, as I have explained four times now, but the resultant vector of the components in the two frames must be identical.

Since your first post on this thread it’s been obvious that you don’t understand the physics but your arrogance has prevented you from learning anything. You are invested unshakeably in the crackpot notion that Newtonian mechanics is inconsistent. Why don’t you take these ideas to a decent physics forum and see whether professional physicists other than me tell you the same thing - or write a paper and submit it to a reputable physics journal and see what the result of that is?

 

[Jaaanosik]

But Galilean relativity and Newtonian mechanics aren’t screwed up are they? In the case of looking at the same motion from different inertial frames of reference, Newtonian mechanics gives exactly the expected result which is that the acceleration is the same in all inertial frames. You can calculate it for any function of motion you choose (including your “wave trajectory”) and you’ll get that result, and the reason you know you will get that result is that it’s child’s play to prove that the acceleration is the same in all inertial frames for the general case of an arbitrary function.

It is very simple: any calculation that gives a different acceleration for the motion of a particle in different inertial frames is wrong either conceptually or computationally or both. If your calculation doesn’t give the result that the acceleration is the same in both inertial frames then it’s wrong. If your complaint is that the tangential and radial acceleration components aren’t the same in the two frames then that is expected because those co-ordinates are not fixed in an inertial frame, as I have explained four times now, but the resultant vector of the components in the two frames must be identical.

Since your first post on this thread it’s been obvious that you don’t understand the physics but your arrogance has prevented you from learning anything. You are invested unshakeably in the crackpot notion that Newtonian mechanics is inconsistent. Why don’t you take these ideas to a decent physics forum and see whether professional physicists other than me tell you the same thing - or write a paper and submit it to a reputable physics journal and see what the result of that is?

Still proud to admit you were wrong?

Just check the trajectories. Circle wave has period pi/2 and the cycloid wave has period 2pi.
How this periods will translate to velocity and acceleration periods?
If circle wave trajectory demands pi/2 period and cycloid wave trajectory follows 2pi period then how these two accelerations will be equal?

I checked plotting in two different programs. They both must have the same bug if plots are wrong.

 

[hecd2]

SJust check the trajectories. Circle wave has period pi/2 and the cycloid wave has period 2pi.
How this periods will translate to velocity and acceleration periods?
If circle wave trajectory demands pi/2 period and cycloid wave trajectory follows 2pi period then how these two accelerations will be equal?

I checked plotting in two different programs. They both must have the same bug if plots are wrong.

You never read and try to understand what you are being taught, so you’ll just have to continue in your invincible ignorance. I have wasted heavens knows how much time explaining patiently to you why you are wrong but you never engage with those explanations - you just troll the thread with another misconception. Good luck with getting even one competent physicist to agree with you. I’m out of here for good.

 

[rossum]

Actually, I think it is. But I’m not a physicist.

I am a physicist, and yes it is, though only very slightly. Gravity is a mutual attraction between masses.

rossum