The gravitational influence, however, decreases as the square of the distance. The distance of the Sun from the Earth is 390 times greater than that of the Moon from the Earth, and 390 x 390 = 152,000. If we divide 27,000,000 by this number, we find that the gravitational pull of the Sun on the Earth is 178 times stronger than the Moon's.
Even though the force of the Moon's gravity on us is only 0.56 percent of the Sun's, it is still much greater than any other gravitational force on us. Thus, the lunar attraction is 106 times greater than the attraction of Jupiter when it is closest, and 167 times greater than the attraction of Venus when it is closest. The gravitational influence of other astronomical objects on the Earth is even less.
Could gravitational attraction, when it is so strong compared to all other objects except the Sun, turn out to be a source of disaster for us? At first glance, it seems that no, it cannot, because the gravitational attraction of the Sun is much stronger than that of the Moon. And since the first does not cause us concern, why should we worry about the second?
A negative answer would be correct if astronomical bodies responded to the force of gravity equally at all points. But that's not true. Let's return to the issue of tidal effects, which I mentioned in the previous chapter, and look at it in more detail in relation to the Moon.
The surface of the Earth facing the Moon is at an average distance from the Moon's center of 378,026 kilometers. The surface of the Earth on the other side of the Moon is further from the center of the Moon by the thickness of the Earth and is therefore 390,782 kilometers away.
The Moon's gravitational force decreases as the square of the distance. If the distance from the center of the Earth to the center of the Moon is taken to be 1, then the distance from the surface of the Earth facing the Moon is 0.983, and the distance from the surface facing away from the Moon is 1.017.
If the force of gravity on the surface of the Earth facing the Moon is thus 1.034, then the force of gravity on the surface of the Earth facing away from the Moon is 0.966. This means that the Moon's pull on the near surface of the Earth is 7 percent stronger than the pull on the far surface of the Earth.
The result of the Moon's gravitational force varying with distance is that the Earth is pulled toward the Moon. The side closest to the Moon is attracted more strongly than the center, and the center, in turn, is attracted more strongly than the side away from the Moon. As a result, the Earth is deformed on both sides. One deformation - the side facing the Moon, occurs, so to speak, more vigorously than the rest of the Earth's structure. The other deformation is the side facing away from the Moon, so to speak, behind everything else.
Since the Earth is made of inelastic rock, which is especially resistant to even great efforts, the deformation in the solid body of the Earth is small, but it is there. However, ocean water is more pliable and deforms more strongly; it “bulges” in the direction of the Moon.
As the Earth rotates, the continents, finding themselves, so to speak, “under the Moon,” experience a rush of “bulging” water. By inertia, the water flows slightly above the coastline, then retreats, ebbs and flows occur. On the opposite side of the Earth, facing away from the Moon, the continents turned there experience a different deformation of water; after 12.5 hours, high tide occurs, then low tide. (An additional half hour is gained due to the fact that the Moon moves some distance during this time.) Thus, there are two high tides and two low tides per day.
The tidal effect produced on Earth by any body is proportional to its mass, but decreases like distance cubed. The Sun is (we repeat) 27 million times more massive than the Moon and 390 times farther from Earth. 390 cubed is about 59,300,000. If we divide the mass of the Sun (respectively the Moon) by the cube of its distance from the Earth (respectively the Moon), we find that the tidal effect of the Sun on the Earth is only 0.46 that of the tidal effect Moons.
So, the Moon is the main cause of the tidal effect on Earth, and the Sun is significantly inferior to it. All other celestial bodies produce no measurable tidal effect on Earth at all.
Now we must ask: could the existence of tides somehow lead to disaster?
Longer day
It would seem strange to talk about the ebb and flow of tides and catastrophes without taking a breath. In human history, ebbs and flows have always existed, and they have been completely regular and predictable. They were always helpful. Thus, ships usually sailed at the beginning of the tide, when the water lifted them high above any hidden obstacles, and the receding water carried the ship in the direction it needed.
The ebb and flow of the tides may become useful in other ways in the future. So, during high tide, water can rise into a reservoir, from which it can come out at low tide, rotating the turbine. The ebb and flow of the tides can thus provide the world with an inexhaustible source of energy. What does this have to do with the catastrophe?
So, when the Earth turns and swollen water rolls onto the land, moving to and from the shore, the water must overcome frictional resistance, and not only on the shore itself, but also in those areas of the seabed where the ocean happens to be especially shallow. Part of the Earth's rotational energy is spent on overcoming this friction.
As the Earth rotates, the planet's solid body also deforms, bulging toward the Moon, and this bulging is about one-third that of the ocean. However, the bulging of the solid body of the Earth occurs due to, so to speak, the friction of stone on stone, when the crust is pulled up and down, and this process is repeated again and again. Part of the Earth's rotational energy is spent on this too. Of course, the energy is not actually destroyed. It does not disappear, but turns into heat. In other words, as a result of the ebb and flow of the tides, the Earth gains a little heat and loses a little in its rotation speed. The day is getting longer.
It is often very difficult to explain in words the simplest things or the structure of a particular mechanism. But usually, understanding comes quite easily if you see them with your eyes, or even better, twirl them in your hands. But some things are invisible to our eyes and even being simple are very difficult to understand.For example, what electric current is - there are many definitions, but none of them describes its mechanism exactly, without ambiguity and uncertainty.
On the other hand, electrical engineering is a fairly well-developed science in which any electrical processes are described in detail using mathematical formulas.
So why not show similar processes using these same formulas and computer graphics.
But today we will consider the action of a simpler process than electricity - the force of gravity. It would seem that there is nothing complicated about it, because the law of universal gravitation is studied at school, but nevertheless... Mathematics describes the process as it takes place under ideal conditions, in some kind of virtual space where there are no restrictions.
In life, everything is usually not so, and the process under consideration is constantly superimposed on many different circumstances, imperceptible or insignificant at first glance.
Knowing the formula and understanding its action are slightly different things.
So, let's take a small step towards understanding the law of gravity. The law itself is simple - the force of gravity is directly proportional to the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, but the complexity lies in the unimaginable number of interacting objects.
Yes, we will consider only the force of gravity, so to speak, completely alone, which is of course incorrect, but in this case it is permissible, since this is simply a way to show the invisible.
And yet, the article contains JavaScript code, i.e. all the pictures were actually drawn using Canvas, so the entire article can be taken .
Displaying the capabilities of gravity in the solar system
Within the framework of classical mechanics, gravitational interaction is described by Newton’s law of universal gravitation, which states that the force of gravitational attraction F between two material points of mass m 1 And m 2, separated by distance r, is proportional to both masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance - that is:Where G- gravitational constant equal to approximately 6.67384×10 -11 N×m 2 ×kg -2.
But I would like to see a picture of the change in gravity throughout the solar system, and not between two bodies. Therefore, the mass of the second body m 2 let us take it equal to 1, and simply denote the mass of the first body m. (That is, we imagine objects in the form of a material point - one pixel in size, and we measure the force of attraction relative to another, virtual object, let's call it a “test body”, with a mass of 1 kilogram.) In this case, the formula will look like:
Now, instead of m we substitute the mass of the body of interest, and instead r we go through all the distances from 0 to the value of the orbit of the last planet and get the change in gravitational force depending on the distance.
When applying forces from different objects, we choose the larger one.
Further, we express this power not in numbers, but in the corresponding shades of color. This will give you a clear picture of the distribution of gravity in the solar system. That is, in a physical sense, the shade of color will correspond to the weight of a body weighing 1 kilogram at the corresponding point in the solar system.
It should be noted that:
- The force of gravity is always positive and has no negative values, i.e. mass cannot be negative
- the gravitational force cannot be equal to zero, i.e. an object either exists with some mass or does not exist at all
- the force of gravity can neither be screened nor reflected (like a ray of light with a mirror).
Let's now look at how to display the magnitude of the gravitational force in color.
To show numbers in color, you need to create an array in which the index would be equal to the number, and the value would be the color value in the RGB system.
Here is a color gradient from white to red, then yellow, green, blue, purple and black. In total there were 1786 shades of color.
The number of colors is not that great; they are simply not enough to display the entire spectrum of gravitational forces. Let us limit ourselves to the gravitational forces from the maximum - on the surface of the Sun and the minimum - in the orbit of Saturn. That is, if the force of attraction on the surface of the Sun (270.0 N) is designated by a color located in the table under index 1, then the force of attraction to the Sun in the orbit of Saturn (0.00006 N) will be designated by a color with an index far beyond 1700. So that all the same there will not be enough colors to uniformly express the magnitude of the gravitational force.
In order to clearly see the most interesting places in the displayed forces of attraction, it is necessary that values of the force of attraction less than 1H correspond to large color changes, and from 1H and above, the correspondences are not so interesting - it is clear that the force of attraction, say, of the Earth, differs from the attraction of Mars or Jupiter , yeah, okay. That is, the color will not be proportional to the magnitude of the force of attraction, otherwise we will “lose” the most interesting thing.
To convert the gravity value to the color table index, we use the following formula:
Yes, this is the same hyperbole that has been known since high school, only the square root of the argument is first extracted. (Taken purely from the light, only to reduce the ratio between the largest and smallest values of the force of attraction.)
See how the colors are distributed depending on the attraction of the Sun and planets.
As you can see, on the surface of the Sun, our test body will weigh about 274 N or 27.4 kG, since 1 N = 0.10197162 kgf = 0.1 kgf. And on Jupiter it is almost 26N or 2.6 kgf, on Earth our test body weighs about 9.8N or 0.98kgf.
In principle, all these figures are very, very approximate. For our case this is not very important, we need to turn all these gravity values into their corresponding color values.
So, from the table it is clear that the maximum value of the attractive force is 274N, and the minimum is 0.00006N. That is, they differ by more than 4.5 million times.
It is also clear that all the planets turned out to be almost the same color. But this does not matter, the important thing is that the boundaries of the planets’ attraction will be clearly visible, since the attractive forces of small values change color quite well.
Of course, the accuracy is not great, but we just need to get a general idea of the gravitational forces in the Solar System.
Now let’s “arrange” the planets in places corresponding to their distance from the Sun. To do this, you need to attach some kind of distance scale to the resulting color gradient. The curvature of the orbits, I think, can be ignored.
But as always, cosmic scales, in the literal sense of these words, do not allow us to see the whole picture. Let's see, Saturn is located approximately 1430 million kilometers from the Sun, the index corresponding to the color of its orbit is 1738. That is. it turns out in one pixel (if we take on this scale one shade of color is equal to one pixel) approximately 822.8 thousand kilometers. And the radius of the Earth is approximately 6371 kilometers, i.e. diameter is 12,742 kilometers, about 65 times smaller than one pixel. Here's how to maintain proportions.
We'll go the other way. Since we are interested in the gravity of circumplanetary space, we will take the planets separately and color them and the space around them with a color corresponding to the gravitational forces from themselves and the Sun. For example, take Mercury - the radius of the planet is 2.4 thousand km. and equate it to a circle with a diameter of 48 pixels, i.e. One pixel will be 100 km. Then Venus and Earth will be 121 and 127 pixels, respectively. Quite convenient sizes.
So, we make a picture 600 by 600 pixels in size, determine the value of the force of attraction to the Sun in the orbit of Mercury plus/minus 30,000 km (so that the planet turns out to be in the center of the picture) and paint the background with a gradient of color shades corresponding to these forces.
At the same time, to simplify the task, we paint not with arcs of the corresponding radius, but with straight, vertical lines. (Roughly speaking, our "Sun" will be "square" and will always be on the left side.)
To ensure that the background color does not show through the image of the planet and the zone of attraction to the planet, we determine the radius of the circle corresponding to the zone where the attraction to the planet is greater than the attraction to the Sun and paint it white.
Then in the center of the picture we place a circle corresponding to the diameter of Mercury on a scale (48 pixels) and fill it with a color corresponding to the force of attraction to the planet on its surface.
Next, we paint from the planet with a gradient in accordance with the change in the force of attraction to it and at the same time constantly compare the color of each point in the layer of attraction to Mercury with a point with the same coordinates, but in the layer of attraction to the Sun. When these values become equal, we make this pixel black and stop further painting.
Thus, we obtain a certain form of visible change in the force of attraction of the planet and the Sun with a clear black boundary between them.
(I wanted to do exactly this, but... it didn’t work out, I couldn’t make a pixel-by-pixel comparison of two image layers.)
In terms of distance, 600 pixels are equal to 60 thousand kilometers (i.e., one pixel is 100 km).
The force of attraction to the Sun in the orbit of Mercury and near it varies only within a small range, which in our case is indicated by one shade of color. 
So, Mercury and the force of gravity in the vicinity of the planet.
It should be immediately noted that the eight subtle rays are defects from drawing circles in Canvas. They have nothing to do with the issue under discussion and should simply be ignored.
The dimensions of the square are 600 by 600 pixels, i.e. this space is 60 thousand kilometers. The radius of Mercury is 24 pixels - 2.4 thousand km. The radius of the attraction zone is 23.7 thousand km.
The circle in the center, which is almost white, is the planet itself and its color corresponds to the weight of our kilogram test body on the surface of the planet - about 373 grams. The thin blue circle shows the boundary between the surface of the planet and the zone in which the gravitational force on the planet exceeds the gravitational force on the Sun.
Next, the color gradually changes, becomes more and more red (i.e. the weight of the test body decreases) and finally becomes equal to the color corresponding to the force of attraction to the Sun in a given place, i.e. in Mercury's orbit. The boundary between the zone where the force of attraction to the planet exceeds the force of attraction to the Sun is also marked with a blue circle.
As you can see, there is nothing supernatural.
But in life the picture is somewhat different. For example, in this and all other images, the Sun is on the left, which means, in fact, the planet’s gravitational region should be slightly “flattened” on the left and extended on the right. And in the image there is a circle.
Of course, the best option would be a pixel-by-pixel comparison of the area of attraction towards the Sun and the area of attraction towards the planet and selecting (displaying) the larger of them. But neither I, as the author of this article, nor JavaScript are capable of such feats. Working with multidimensional arrays is not a priority for this language, but its work can be shown in almost any browser, which solved the issue of application.
And in the case of Mercury, and all the other planets of the terrestrial group, the change in the force of attraction to the Sun is not so great as to display it with the available set of color shades. But when considering Jupiter and Saturn, the change in the force of gravity towards the Sun is very noticeable.
Venus
Actually, everything is the same as that of the previous planet, only the size of Venus and its mass are much larger, and the force of attraction to the Sun in the planet’s orbit is less (the color is darker, or rather, more red), and the planet has a larger mass, so the color of the planet’s disk is more light.In order for a planet with a zone of attraction of a test body weighing 1 kg to fit in a 600 by 600 pixel picture, we reduce the scale by 10 times. Now there are 1 thousand kilometers in one pixel.
Earth+Moon
To show the Earth and the Moon, changing the scale by 10 times (as in the case of Venus) is not enough; you need to increase the size of the picture (the radius of the Moon’s orbit is 384.467 thousand km). The image will be 800 by 800 pixels in size. The scale is 1 thousand kilometers in one pixel (we understand well that the error of the picture will increase even more).
The picture clearly shows that the zones of attraction of the Moon and the Earth are separated by a zone of attraction to the Sun. That is, the Earth and the Moon are a system of two equivalent planets with different masses.
Mars with Phobos and Deimos
The scale is 1 thousand kilometers in one pixel. Those. like Venus, and the Earth and the Moon. Remember that distances are proportional, and the display of gravity is nonlinear.
Now, you can immediately see the fundamental difference between Mars and its satellites and the Earth and the Moon. If the Earth and the Moon are a system of two planets and, despite their different sizes and masses, act as equal partners, then the satellites of Mars are in the zone of the gravitational force of Mars.
The planet itself and its satellites were practically “lost.” The white circle is the orbit of the distant satellite - Deimos. Let's zoom in 10 times for better viewing. There are 100 kilometers in one pixel.
These “creepy” rays from Canvas spoil the picture quite badly.
The sizes of Phobos and Deimos are disproportionately increased by 50 times, otherwise they are completely invisible. The color of the surfaces of these satellites is also not logical. In fact, the force of gravity on the surfaces of these planets is less than the force of gravity on Mars in their orbits.
That is, everything is “blown away” from the surfaces of Phobos and Deimos by the gravity of Mars. Therefore, the color of their surfaces should be equal to the color in their orbits, but only to make it easier to see, the disks of the satellites are colored in the color of the force of gravity in the absence of the force of gravity towards Mars.
These satellites should simply be monolithic. In addition, since there is no gravitational force on the surface, it means they could not have formed in this form, that is, both Phobos and Deimos were previously parts of some other, larger object. Well, or, at least, they were in a different place, with less gravity than in the gravitational zone of Mars.
For example, here Phobos. The scale is 100 meters in one pixel.
The surface of the satellite is indicated by a blue circle, and the gravitational force of the entire mass of the satellite is indicated by a white circle.
(In fact, the shape of the small celestial bodies Phobos, Deimos, etc. is far from spherical)
The color of the circle in the center corresponds to the gravitational force of the satellite's mass. The closer to the surface of the planet, the weaker the force of gravity.
(Here again there is an inaccuracy. In fact, the white circle is the boundary where the force of attraction to the planet becomes equal to the force of attraction to Mars in the orbit of Phobos.
That is, the color outside this white circle should be the same as the color outside the blue circle indicating the surface of the satellite. But the color transition shown should be inside the white circle. But then nothing will be visible at all.)
It looks like a cross-sectional drawing of the planet.
The integrity of the planet is determined only by the strength of the material from which Phobos is composed. With less strength, Mars would have rings like Saturn, from the destruction of satellites.
And it seems that the collapse of space objects is not such an exceptional event. Even the Hubble Space Telescope “detected” a similar case.
The disintegration of asteroid P/2013 R3, which is located at a distance of more than 480 million kilometers from the Sun (in the asteroid belt, further than Ceres). The diameter of the four largest fragments of the asteroid reaches 200 meters, their total mass is about 200 thousand tons.
And this Deimos. Everything is the same as Phobos. The scale is 100 meters in one pixel. Only the planet is smaller and, accordingly, lighter, and is also located further from Mars and the force of attraction to Mars is less here (the background of the picture is darker, i.e., more red). 
Ceres
Well, Ceres is nothing special, except for the coloring. The force of attraction to the Sun is less here, so the color is appropriate. The scale is 100 kilometers in one pixel (the same as in the picture with Mercury).The small blue circle is the surface of Ceres, and the large blue circle is the boundary where the force of gravity on the planet becomes equal to the force of gravity on the Sun.
Jupiter
Jupiter is very large. Here is a picture measuring 800 by 800 pixels. The scale is 100 thousand kilometers in one pixel. This is to show the planet's entire gravitational region. The planet itself is a small dot in the center. Satellites are not shown.Only the orbit (outer circle in white) of the farthest satellite, S/2003 J 2, is shown.
Jupiter has 67 satellites. The largest are Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto.
The farthest satellite, S/2003 J 2, orbits Jupiter at an average distance of 29,541,000 km. Its diameter is about 2 km, its mass is about 1.5 × 10 13 kg. As you can see, it goes far beyond the planet’s sphere of gravity. This can be explained by errors in calculations (after all, quite a lot of averaging, rounding and discarding of some details were done).
Although there is a way to calculate the limit of Jupiter's gravitational influence, determined by the Hill sphere, the radius of which is determined by the formula
where a jupiter and m jupiter are the semimajor axis of the ellipse and the mass of Jupiter, and M sun is the mass of the Sun. This gives a rounded radius of 52 million km. S/2003 J 2 is moving away in an eccentric orbit to a distance of up to 36 million km from Jupiter
Jupiter also has a ring system of 4 main components: a thick inner torus of particles known as the “halo ring”; relatively bright and thin “Main Ring”; and two wide and weak outer rings - known as "web rings", named after the material of the satellites - that form them: Amalthea and Thebes.
A halo ring with an inner radius of 92,000 and an outer of 122,500 kilometers.
Main ring 122500-129000 km.
Arachnoid ring of Amalthea 129000-182000 km.
Spider ring of Thebes 129000-226000 km.
Let's enlarge the picture 200 times, there are 500 kilometers in one pixel.
Here are the rings of Jupiter. The thin circle is the surface of the planet. Next come the boundaries of the rings - the inner boundary of the halo ring, the outer boundary of the halo ring and the inner boundary of the main ring, etc.
The small circle in the upper left corner is the area where the gravitational force of Jupiter's moon Io becomes equal to the gravitational force of Jupiter in Io's orbit. The satellite itself is simply not visible on this scale.
In principle, large planets with satellites need to be considered separately, since the difference in the values of gravitational forces is very large, as are the dimensions of the planet’s gravitational region. As a result, all interesting details are simply lost. But looking at a picture with a radial gradient doesn’t make much sense.
Saturn
Picture size 800 by 800 pixels. The scale is 100 thousand kilometers in one pixel. The planet itself is a small dot in the center. Satellites are not shown.The change in the force of attraction towards the Sun is clearly visible (remember that the Sun is on the left).
Saturn has 62 known satellites. The largest of them are Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, Titan and Iapetus.
The farthest satellite is Fornjot (temporary designation S/2004 S 8). Also referred to as Saturn XLII. The average radius of the satellite is about 3 kilometers, mass 2.6 × 10 14 kg, semi-major axis 25,146,000 km.
Rings on planets appear only at a considerable distance from the Sun. The first such planet is Jupiter. Having a mass and size larger than Saturn's, its rings are not as impressive as Saturn's rings. That is, the size and mass of the planet for the formation of rings are less important than the distance from the Sun.
But look further, a pair of rings surround the asteroid Chariklo (10199 Chariklo) (asteroid diameter is about 250 kilometers), which orbits the Sun between Saturn and Uranus.
Wikipedia about the asteroid Chariklo
The ring system consists of a dense inner ring 7 km wide and an outer ring 3 km wide. The distance between the rings is about 9 km. The radii of the rings are 396 and 405 km, respectively. Chariklo is the smallest object whose rings have been discovered.
However, the force of gravity has only an indirect relation to the rings.
In fact, rings appear from the destruction of satellites, which consist of material of insufficient strength, i.e. not stone monoliths like Phobos or Deimos, but pieces of rock, ice, dust and other space debris frozen into one whole.
So the planet drags him away with its gravity. Such a satellite, which does not have its own gravity (or rather, has a force of its own gravity less than the force of attraction to the planet in its orbit) flies in orbit, leaving behind a trail of destroyed material. This is how a ring is formed. Further, under the influence of gravity towards the planet, this fragmentary material approaches the planet. That is, the ring expands.
At some level, the force of gravity becomes strong enough that the falling speed of these debris increases, and the ring disappears.
Afterword
The purpose of publishing this article is that perhaps someone with programming knowledge will be interested in this topic and make a better model of gravitational forces in the Solar System (yes, three-dimensional, with animation.Or maybe he will even make it so that the orbits are not fixed, but are also calculated - this is also possible, the orbit will be a place where the force of gravity will be compensated by the centrifugal force.
It will turn out almost like in life, like a real solar system. (This is where it will be possible to create a space shooter, with all the subtleties of space navigation in the asteroid belt. Taking into account the forces acting according to real physical laws, and not among hand-drawn graphics.)
And this will be an excellent physics textbook that will be interesting to study.
P.S. The author of the article is an ordinary person:
not a physicist
not an astronomer
not a programmer
does not have higher education.
Tags:
- data visualization
- javascript
- physics
- gravity
What else can you understand if you know about the existence of gravity? Everyone knows that the Earth is round. And why? Well, this is understandable: of course, thanks to gravity. The earth is round simply because there is attraction between all bodies, and everything from which the earth arose also attracted each other as long as there was somewhere to attract! More precisely, the Earth is not exactly a sphere; After all, it rotates, and the centrifugal force at the equator counteracts gravity. It turns out that the Earth must be an ellipsoid, and you can even get its correct shape. So, from the law of gravity it follows that the Sun, the Moon, and the Earth must be (approximately) spheres.
What else follows from the law of gravity? By observing the satellites of Jupiter, you can understand all the laws of their movement around the planet. In this regard, it is worth talking about one hitch that arose in the law of gravity with the moons of Jupiter.
These satellites were studied in great detail by Roemer, and he noticed that at times they violate the schedule: they are either late or arrive at the appointed place ahead of time (a schedule can be drawn up by observing them for a long time and calculating the average orbital period over many revolutions). Moreover, he noticed that delays occur when Jupiter is distant from the Earth, and when we are close to Jupiter, the movement of the moons is ahead of schedule. It was very difficult to fit such a thing into the law of gravity, and it would have been threatened with an untimely death if no other explanation had been found. After all, if even one case contradicts the law, then the law is incorrect. But the reason for the discrepancy turned out to be very natural and beautiful: the point is simply that it takes some time to see the moon in the right place, because the light from it does not reach us instantly. This time is short when Jupiter is close to the Earth, but it becomes longer when Jupiter moves away from it. This is why moons appear to rush or lag on average depending on whether they are close or far from Earth. This phenomenon proved that light does not travel instantly, and provided us with the first estimate of its speed (this was in 1676). 
If all the planets are attracted to each other, then the force that controls, say, Jupiter's orbit around the Sun is not exactly the force of gravity toward the Sun; After all, there is also attraction, for example, of Saturn. It is small (the Sun is much larger than Saturn), but it is there, and therefore the orbit of Jupiter cannot be an exact ellipse; it oscillates slightly relative to the elliptical trajectory, so the movement becomes somewhat more complicated. Attempts have been made to analyze the motion of Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus based on the law of gravity. To find out whether minor deviations and irregularities in the movement of the planets can be fully explained only on the basis of this law alone, the influence of each of them on the others was calculated. For Jupiter and Saturn everything went as expected, but Uranus - what miracles! - behaved very strangely. It did not move in an exact ellipse, which, however, was to be expected due to the influence of the gravity of Jupiter and Saturn. But even taking into account their attraction, the movement of Uranus was still incorrect; Thus, the laws of gravity were in danger (this possibility could not be excluded). Two scientists, Adams and Leverrier, in England and France, independently thought of another possibility; Is there another planet out there, dim and invisible, not yet discovered? This planet, let's call it N, could attract Uranus. They calculated where this planet would have to be to cause the observed disturbances in Uranus' path. They sent letters to the corresponding observatories, which said: “Gentlemen, point your telescopes at such and such a place - and you will see a new planet there.” Whether you get noticed or not often depends on who you're working with. They paid attention to Leverrier, listened to him and discovered planet N! Then another observatory hastened to begin observations - and also saw it.
This discovery shows that Newton's laws are absolutely true in the solar system. But are they true at distances greater than the relatively small distances to the planets? First, we can ask the question: do stars attract each other in the same way as planets? We find positive evidence of this in double stars. In fig. 7.6 shows a double star - two close stars (the third star is needed to make sure that the photograph is not upside down); the second photo was taken a few years later. Comparing with a “fixed” star, we see that the axis of the pair has rotated, i.e. the stars move around one another. Do they rotate in accordance with Newton's laws? Careful measurements of the relative position of the double star Sirius are given in Fig. 7.7. The result is an excellent ellipse (measurements began in 1862 and continued until 1904; since then another revolution has been made). Everything agrees with Newton's laws, except that Sirius A is out of focus. What's the matter? The problem is that the plane of the ellipse does not coincide with the “plane of the sky.” We do not see Sirius at right angles to the plane of its orbit, and if we look at the ellipse from the side, it will not cease to be an ellipse, but the focus may shift. So double stars can also be analyzed in accordance with the requirements of the law of gravity.
The validity of the law of gravitation at large distances can be seen from Fig. 7.8. One would have to be devoid of imagination not to see the work of gravity here. Shown here is one of the most beautiful celestial spectacles - a globular star cluster. Every point is a star. It seems to us that they are packed tightly together at the center; this happens due to the weak sensitivity of the telescope; in fact, the gaps between stars, even in the middle, are very large, and collisions are extremely rare. Most of the stars are in the center, and as you move towards the edge there are fewer and fewer of them. It is clear that attraction operates between stars, i.e., that gravity exists at such gigantic distances (on the order of 100,000 diameters of the solar system).
But let's go further and look at the entire galaxy (Fig. 7.9). Its form clearly indicates the desire of its substance to contract. Of course, it is impossible to prove that the inverse square law applies here; it is only clear that even over such a distance there are forces that keep the entire galaxy from falling apart. You might say, “Okay, this all makes sense, so why isn’t this thing, the galaxy, like a ball anymore?” Yes, because it rotates, that it has angular momentum (rotation reserve); if she shrinks, she will have nowhere to put it; all that remains for it to do is flatten - (By the way, here’s a good problem for you: how are the arms of a galaxy formed? What determines its shape? There is no detailed answer to these questions yet.) It is clear that the outlines of a galaxy are determined by gravity, although the complexities of its structure cannot yet be fully explained. The size of the galaxies is about 50,000-100,000 light years (the Earth is at a distance of 8 1/3 light minutes from the Sun).
But gravity also manifests itself over large distances. In fig. 7.10 shows some clusters of small spots.
It is a cloud of galaxies, similar to a star cluster. Consequently, galaxies are attracted to each other at such distances, otherwise they would not have gathered into a “cloud”. Apparently, gravity also manifests itself at distances of tens of millions of light years; As far as is now known, the inverse square law applies everywhere.
The law of gravity leads not only to an understanding of the nature of nebulae, but also to some ideas about the origin of stars. In a large cloud of dust and gas like the one shown in FIG. 7.11, the attraction of dust particles will collect them into lumps. “Small” black specks are visible on the figure - perhaps the beginning of an accumulation of gas and dust, from which, thanks to their attraction, a star begins to emerge. Whether we have ever seen the birth of a star is a moot point. In fig. 7.12 gives some evidence that it was necessary. On the left is glowing gas with several stars inside it. This is a photograph taken in 1947. The photograph on the right was taken 7 years later; Now two new bright spots are visible. Has gas accumulated here and been forced by gravity to gather into a ball large enough for a stellar nuclear reaction to begin in it, turning it into a star? Maybe I do, maybe I don't. It is unlikely that we would be lucky enough to see a star become visible in just seven years, but it is even less likely to see the birth of two stars at once.
We all know the structure of the solar system from school astronomy lessons. We are also given some idea about the origin of the planets and even explained their movement using some laws of physics that are presented to us as true. However, many have already had doubts about the truth of these theories and questions still remain: how did planets appear in the solar system and where did planet Earth come from?
Let's try, based on existing data, to understand, without formulas and serious calculations, the movement of planets in the Solar System. We will also try to understand the origin of the planets themselves and find out what gravity is. Let me make a reservation right away: this analysis of the ongoing processes is greatly simplified and differs from the official postulates, although it does not contradict them at all.
Take a look at the following photos:
whirlpool
galaxy
These photographs make us understand that there are the same principles of the movement of matter on Earth and in space. This movement is based on vortex rotation, twisting the flows in the form of a spiral. If everything is clear with the whirlpool and tornado, then what is rotating in the galaxy? That's right, broadcast.
What is ether?
Even the ancient Greek philosophers guessed about ether. For Plato, the ether appears as a special, heavenly element, clearly delimited from the four earthly ones - earth, water, air and fire. Aristotle endowed the ether with the ability for eternal circular (the most perfect) motion and interpreted it as a prime mover immanent in the universe. Lucretius also considered the ether as the principle that moves the celestial bodies and consists of the lightest and most mobile atoms.
Modern physicists believe that the ether fills all space and consists of tiny particles millions of times smaller than an electron, which allows them to easily penetrate through all material bodies. It is the ether that is the basis of the magnetic field, and also acts as a medium for the movement of light and other electromagnetic waves.
By taking two magnets in your hands and bringing them closer to each other with the same poles, you can feel the flow of this ether. The closer the magnets, the more difficult it is to connect them, and therefore, the denser the flow of ether. We could see what the shape of this flow is in school physics textbooks, where we visually depicted the direction of magnetic lines by conducting an experiment with metal filings and a permanent magnet.
Exactly the same ethereal vortex rotates the stars in the galaxy, which, under the influence of centrifugal forces, are stretched along a horizontal plane in the central part of the toroid. Water flows in a whirlpool and air flows in a tornado move in a similar way, although they usually have an irregular elongated shape, with their trunk descending to the ground or to the bottom.
Solar system.
Let's look at the Solar System.
First, let's calculate the distances between orbits in astronomical units:
Here we see that the outer orbits are equidistant from each other, and the inner ones gradually become denser towards the center. Moreover, looking at the numbers, it seems that there should be another planet in place of the asteroid belt. And this planet exists! One of the largest asteroids, Ceres, is called a minor planet. And all this thanks to its spherical shape.
Look, the closer the planets are to the center of the system, the faster they rotate. The same scheme works in the example of a planetary system with its satellites. All this resembles a whirlpool. The movement of planets is similar to the movement of stars in a galactic spiral. It is obvious that a huge ethereal vortex revolves around the Sun, in whose orbits rotate smaller vortices - planets, which, in turn, also have small vortices - satellites - in their orbits. So maybe this ethereal vortex gives birth to gravity? And what comes first? The planet or its gravity? Most likely gravity. This is what determines the spherical shape of the planet from the very beginning of its inception. It turns out that for the birth of a star or planet, an ethereal gravitational vortex must first be born. Let's just call it a gravitational vortex (GV).
It is clear that the asteroid belt is a planet that existed in the past. They even came up with a name for it - Phaeton. And, apparently, Phaeton was destroyed by some very large object. And if the planet was destroyed, this does not mean the destruction of the GW itself. This is what we observe in the example of the dwarf planet Ceres, which remains in the place of the previously existing planet Phaethon. Its spherical shape is the first sign of the presence of gravity.
How is everything going? Let's draw an analogy with a tornado. A tornado is formed when large air masses collide. Apparently a gravitational vortex is born in a similar way: when a solar GW collides with a vortex of another star or some other object with significant gravity, a planetary GW spins. And this happens at the edge of the solar system.
What is at the center of such a newly minted GW? An area of low pressure forms in the center, where space begins to contract. And what is this area called? Right! There is already a name for this - a black hole (BH). The newly created black hole begins to draw matter into its center until it replenishes its gravitational mass and becomes covered with a solid shell, around which a cloud of gas and dust will form. This is how a planet is born. Thus, the newly created planet looks like a spherical cloud of gas and dust.
Now look at our planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars - planets with a solid surface, Jupiter - a liquid surface, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto - with a gaseous surface, of course, they are all solid inside. What do we see? There is an evolution of the planets from the periphery to the center. Which again confirms the theory of spiral movement towards the center of the solar system. Thus, emerging at the edge of the solar system, the planets gradually approach the Sun and ultimately, dying, fall onto it. Probably at a minimum distance from the Sun, the planet, heating up, flares up like a second small star. Maybe it is precisely this phenomenon that we see as a double star system?
At the moment of the birth of planetary vortices, small vortices in orbits - future satellites - may also be born. The movement of satellites in each planetary system occurs according to the same laws - from the periphery to the center. The satellites of the planets, moving in a spiral, eventually fall onto the planet, just like the planets on the Sun. Take a look at this photo of Mars:
This is the so-called Grand Canyon or Valles Marineris. It is believed that this is a trace of contact with a large asteroid. However, it is absolutely clear that this trace stretches along the curve of the planet for almost a quarter of the circle. This means that the impact was not tangential, as it could have been from an asteroid or comet, but from an object located in the orbit of Mars. The Grand Canyon is nothing more than a trace from the fall of a satellite of Mars!
Saturn has 7 large spherical satellites, Jupiter has 4 large satellites, Mars has two satellites and a trace from the fall of the third, Earth has one satellite, Venus and Mercury, as the oldest planets, have none. Which again indicates the evolution of planets from the periphery to the center of the solar system.
What conclusions arise? And the following conclusions suggest themselves:
Gravity is not generated by the mass of a body; on the contrary, gravity first appears, and then a large cosmic body grows in this place. Planets, their satellites, stars, galactic centers and black holes have their own gravity. Other space objects - asteroids, comets, meteorites - do not have their own gravity. The primary signs of its own gravity are: spherical shape, rotation around its own axis and orbital movement.
Useful links:
We all studied the law of universal gravitation in school. But what do we really know about gravity beyond what our school teachers put into our heads? Let's update our knowledge...
Fact one
Everyone knows the famous parable about the apple that fell on Newton's head. But the fact is that Newton did not discover the law of universal gravitation, since this law is simply not present in his book “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.” There is no formula or formulation in this work, as anyone can see for themselves. Moreover, the first mention of the gravitational constant appears only in the 19th century and, accordingly, the formula could not have appeared earlier. By the way, the coefficient G, which reduces the result of calculations by 600 billion times, has no physical meaning and was introduced to hide contradictions.
Fact two
It is believed that Cavendish was the first to demonstrate gravitational attraction in laboratory ingots, using a torsion balance - a horizontal beam with weights at the ends suspended on a thin string. The rocker could turn on a thin wire. According to the official version, Cavendish brought a pair of 158 kg blanks from opposite sides to the rocker weights and the rocker rotated at a small angle. However, the experimental methodology was incorrect and the results were falsified, which has been convincingly proven. Cavendish spent a long time reworking and adjusting the installation so that the results would fit the average density of the earth expressed by Newton. The methodology of the experiment itself involved moving the blanks several times, and the reason for the rotation of the rocker arm was microvibrations from the movement of the blanks, which were transmitted to the suspension.
This is confirmed by the fact that such a simple installation of the 17th century for educational purposes should have been installed, if not in every school, then at least in the physics departments of universities, in order to show students in practice the result of the law of universal gravitation. However, the Cavendish installation is not used in educational programs, and both schoolchildren and students take the word that two blanks attract each other.
Fact three
If we substitute reference data on the earth, moon and sun into the formula of the law of universal gravitation, then at the moment when the Moon flies between the Earth and the Sun, for example, at the moment of a solar eclipse, the force of attraction between the Sun and the Moon is more than 2 times higher than between Earth and Moon!
According to the formula, the Moon would have to leave the earth's orbit and begin to revolve around the sun.
Gravity constant – 6.6725×10 −11 m³/(kg s²).
The mass of the Moon is 7.3477 × 10 22 kg.
The mass of the Sun is 1.9891×10 30 kg.
The mass of the Earth is 5.9737 × 10 24 kg.
Distance between the Earth and the Moon = 380,000,000 m.
Distance between the Moon and the Sun = 149,000,000,000 m.
Earth And Moon:
6.6725×10 -11 x 7.3477×10 22 x 5.9737×10 24 / 380000000 2 = 2.028×10 20 H
Moon And Sun:
6.6725 × 10 -11 x 7.3477 10 22 x 1.9891 10 30 / 149000000000 2 = 4.39×10 20 H
2.028×10 20 H<< 4,39×10 20 H
The force of attraction between the Earth and the Moon<< The force of attraction between the Moon and the Sun
These calculations can be criticized by the fact that the reference density of this celestial body is most likely not determined correctly.
Indeed, experimental evidence suggests that the Moon is not a solid body, but a thin-walled shell. The authoritative journal Science describes the results of the work of seismic sensors after the third stage of the rocket that accelerated the Apollo 13 spacecraft hit the lunar surface: “the seismic ringing was detected for more than four hours. On Earth, if a missile struck at an equivalent distance, the signal would last only a few minutes.”
Seismic vibrations that decay so slowly are typical of a hollow resonator, not a solid body.
But the Moon, among other things, does not show its attractive properties in relation to the Earth - the Earth-Moon pair moves not around the common center of mass, as it would be according to the law of universal gravitation, and the ellipsoidal orbit of the Earth contrary to this law doesn't become zigzag.
Moreover, the parameters of the orbit of the Moon itself do not remain constant; the orbit, in scientific terminology, “evolves”, and does this contrary to the law of universal gravitation.
Fact four
How can this be, some will object, because even schoolchildren know about ocean tides on Earth, which occur due to the attraction of water to the Sun and Moon.
According to the theory, the Moon's gravity forms a tidal ellipsoid in the ocean, with two tidal humps that move across the Earth's surface due to daily rotation.
However, practice shows the absurdity of these theories. After all, according to them, a tidal hump 1 meter high should move through the Drake Passage from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic in 6 hours. Since water is incompressible, the mass of water would raise the level to a height of about 10 meters, which does not happen in practice. In practice, tidal phenomena occur autonomously in areas of 1000-2000 km.
Laplace was also amazed by the paradox: why in the seaports of France full water comes sequentially, although according to the concept of a tidal ellipsoid it should come there simultaneously.
Fact five
The principle of gravity measurements is simple - gravimeters measure the vertical components, and the deflection of the plumb line shows the horizontal components.
The first attempt to test the theory of mass gravity was made by the British in the mid-18th century on the shores of the Indian Ocean, where, on one side, there is the world’s highest rock ridge of the Himalayas, and on the other, an ocean bowl filled with much less massive water. But, alas, the plumb line does not deviate towards the Himalayas! Moreover, ultra-sensitive instruments - gravimeters - do not detect a difference in the gravity of a test body at the same height, both above massive mountains and over less dense seas of kilometer depth.
To save the established theory, scientists came up with a support for it: they say the reason for this is “isostasy” - denser rocks are located under the seas, and loose rocks are located under the mountains, and their density is exactly the same as to adjust everything to the desired value.
It was also experimentally established that gravimeters in deep mines show that the force of gravity does not decrease with depth. It continues to grow, depending only on the square of the distance to the center of the earth.
Fact six
According to the formula of the law of universal gravitation, two masses, m1 and m2, the sizes of which can be neglected in comparison with the distances between them, are supposedly attracted to each other by a force directly proportional to the product of these masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. However, in fact, not a single proof is known that matter has a gravitational attractive effect. Practice shows that gravity is not generated by matter or masses; it is independent of them and massive bodies only obey gravity.
The independence of gravity from matter is confirmed by the fact that, with rare exceptions, small bodies of the solar system have no gravitational attractive ability completely. With the exception of the Moon and Titan, more than six dozen planetary satellites show no signs of their own gravity. This has been proven by both indirect and direct measurements; for example, since 2004, the Cassini probe in the vicinity of Saturn has been flying close to its satellites from time to time, but no changes in the speed of the probe have been recorded. With the help of the same Casseni, a geyser was discovered on Enceladus, the sixth largest moon of Saturn.
What physical processes must occur on a cosmic piece of ice for jets of steam to fly into space?
For the same reason, Titan, Saturn's largest moon, has a gas tail as a result of atmospheric outflow.
No satellites predicted by theory have been found on asteroids, despite their huge number. And in all the reports about double or paired asteroids that supposedly revolve around a common center of mass, there was no evidence of the rotation of these pairs. The companions happened to be nearby, moving in quasi-synchronous orbits around the sun.
Attempts to place artificial satellites into asteroid orbit ended in failure. Examples include the NEAR probe, which was sent to the Eros asteroid by the Americans, or the HAYABUSA probe, which the Japanese sent to the Itokawa asteroid.
Fact seven
At one time, Lagrange, trying to solve the three-body problem, obtained a stable solution for a particular case. He showed that the third body can move in the orbit of the second, all the time being in one of two points, one of which is 60° ahead of the second body, and the second is the same amount behind.
However, two groups of companion asteroids found behind and in front of Saturn's orbit, which astronomers joyfully called the Trojans, moved out of the predicted areas, and the confirmation of the law of universal gravitation turned into a puncture.
Fact eight
According to modern concepts, the speed of light is finite, as a result we see distant objects not where they are located at the moment, but at the point from which the ray of light we saw started. But at what speed does gravity spread? Having analyzed the data accumulated by that time, Laplace established that “gravity” propagates faster than light by at least seven orders of magnitude! Modern measurements of receiving pulsar pulses have pushed the speed of propagation of gravity even further - at least 10 orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light. Thus, experimental research contradicts the general theory of relativity, which official science still relies on, despite its complete failure.
Fact nine
There are natural anomalies of gravity, which also do not find any clear explanation from official science. Here are some examples:
Fact ten
There is a large number of alternative studies with impressive results in the field of antigravity, which fundamentally refute the theoretical calculations of official science.
Some researchers analyze the vibrational nature of antigravity. This effect is clearly demonstrated in modern experiments, where droplets hang in the air due to acoustic levitation. Here we see how, with the help of a sound of a certain frequency, it is possible to confidently hold drops of liquid in the air...
But the effect, at first glance, is explained by the gyroscope principle, but even such a simple experiment mostly contradicts gravity in its modern understanding.
Viktor Stepanovich died under rather strange circumstances and his work was partially lost, but some part of the anti-gravity platform prototype has been preserved and can be seen in the Grebennikov Museum in Novosibirsk.
Another practical application of antigravity can be observed in the city of Homestead in Florida, where there is a strange structure of coral monolithic blocks, which is popularly nicknamed. It was built by a native of Latvia, Edward Lidskalnin, in the first half of the 20th century. This man of thin build did not have any tools, he did not even have a car or any equipment at all.
It was not used at all by electricity, also due to its absence, and yet somehow it went down to the ocean, where it cut out multi-ton stone blocks and somehow delivered them to its site. laying out with perfect precision.
After Ed's death, scientists began to carefully study his creation. For the sake of the experiment, a powerful bulldozer was brought in and an attempt was made to move one of the 30-ton blocks of the coral castle. The bulldozer roared and skidded, but did not move the huge stone.
A strange device was found inside the castle, which scientists called a direct current generator. It was a massive structure with many metal parts. 240 permanent strip magnets were built into the outside of the device. But how Edward Leedskalnin actually made multi-ton blocks move still remains a mystery.
The research of John Searle is known, in whose hands unusual generators came to life, rotated and generated energy; discs with a diameter of half a meter to 10 meters rose into the air and made controlled flights from London to Cornwall and back.
The professor’s experiments were repeated in Russia, the USA and Taiwan. In Russia, for example, in 1999, a patent application for “devices for generating mechanical energy” was registered under No. 99122275/09. Vladimir Vitalievich Roshchin and Sergei Mikhailovich Godin, in fact, reproduced SEG (Searl Effect Generator) and conducted a series of studies with it. The result was a statement: you can get 7 kW of electricity without costs; the rotating generator lost weight up to 40%.
The equipment from Searle's first laboratory was taken to an unknown location while he was in prison. The installation of Godin and Roshchin simply disappeared; all publications about her, with the exception of the application for an invention, disappeared.
The Hutchison Effect, named after the Canadian engineer-inventor, is also known. The effect manifests itself in the levitation of heavy objects, the alloy of dissimilar materials (for example, metal + wood), and the anomalous heating of metals in the absence of burning substances near them. Here is a video of these effects:
Whatever gravity actually is, it should be recognized that official science is completely unable to clearly explain the nature of this phenomenon.
Yaroslav Yargin