If the hammer is at rest, it still has mass (which is a measure of its inertia), but zero kinetic energy (because it is not moving).
Work is done (on the hammer or by the hammer), when its state of motion is changed.
When the hammer hits the nail, part of the work that went into accelerating the hammer from zero speed to the "hitting" speed (that is, its kinetic energy), is transferred to the nail.

You seem to be a bit confused: "inertial energy" is not more properly for inertia, and it is not a "subset" of the total kinetic energy.

That is not how it works.
The fact that "NASA scientists" cannot explain what happened, does not necessarily imply that your ideas are correct.
The lack of a satisfactory explanation is not direct evidence in support of your ideas.
You still have to show by providing evidence (or at least well thought-out speculations, that do not contradict well established facts) that your ideas are correct.
The burden of proof is still yours. But given your confusion about basic concepts such as inertia and kinetic enrgy, I do not think that you are in the position to tell "NASA scientists" that they are wrong.


You have proven to be confused about basic concepts of classical mechanics.
Your opinion is far from expert in matters of physics and engineering.

You cannot explain fields if you do not understand them yourself.
And you have shown that you do not understand.

On what is this hyptohesis based?

Don't forget the Moon.
The fact that we have probes travelling for years through the Solar System and still reaching their destination, as planned based on classical mechanics, contradicts your claim.

The total momentum of a system depends on its total mass.
The total momentum determines the inertial motion of the system.
The motion is inertial if there is no external force acting on the system.
All this does not require any gravitaional field and can be found in any textbook about classical mechanics.
It is clear that you did not spend much time reading such textbooks.


Evidence, please.


You have shown that you do not understand the basic concepts of mechanics.
You have not provided any evidence that supports your ideas.
Why do you think that your "explanation" is close to what actually happens?


"Obviously"?
What is this "kinetic potential" and where is the evidence?


Astronomers can quantify how close they estimates are.
Do you remember this post?
Please give us some quantitative estimates for how far from "perfection" astronomers are.

You used the lack of explanation as "evidence": this is not how it works.
Your ideas are not accepted because there is no evidence to support them.

Very cute, but far from reality.

The problem is that you have an enormous faith in your own ideas, in spite of the fact that they contradict well established facts and that there is no evidence to support them.

By the way, would you mind addressing this post?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

BS. On the one hand you're saying Newton is so far off that Titan's mass is triple the expected value, but at the same time, the impact on Halley is unmeasurable even though it's much further out from the sun. Care to show us, with numbers, how this is possible?

You also never addressed your "out to lunch" quote from the Do we know why there's gravity? thread. Bet you wish that would just go away. If, as you now claim, the difference in Halley's orbit in unmeasurable, why did you say that then? Were you wrong then or are you wrong now?

You don't say. And here I was under the impression that Edmund Halley calculated Halley's orbit in the 1600s, with some help from Newton. And he didn't even have a supercomputer!


Jerry, if you can't produce even ballpark numbers...how can you possibly say that Huygens is going to slam into Titan at three times the expected velocity? Where are you getting this from if you have no numbers???

Right, and you also said that the numbers were "derived from a complex string of hypotheses". I'm asking to see the calculations that produced your estimate of Titan's mass. But I'm not going to see those calculations, am I?

But you know what the funniest thing about all this is? We're about 18 hours away from Huygens entry. If you were right and Huygens had been accelerating at twice the expected rate (or whatever you've "predicted"), it would already have arrived at Titan by now and burned up in the atmosphere! Why do we need to wait until tommorow? Why would Huygens arrive at Titan at the scheduled time, if Titan's gravity is stronger than predicted?

You've already been shown to be wrong.

Perhaps I should explain better, not to convince but to help understand where I'm coming from.

If you work out the deBroglie equation, E=hc/L(proton mass), for E at (Earth based) =9E+16 J, with lambda L=1.32E-15 m, the proton mass works out to be =1.67E-27 kg. For a higher E, proton mass is lower (if L is constant, meaning the Sun's radiant wavelength remains the same for any distance), and conversely for lower E (farther from the Sun) the proton mass is greater. That is all that this equation gives us. Now, if you match proton mass to proton gravitational constant, increase in proton mass yields higher gravitational, which converts into higher G constant (proportional), for lower E. Why does proton gravitational converts into G? Because c^2 is the qualifier for mass in the E=mc^2 equation, so that it can be expressed as E=(1-g)c^2 instead, where m=1 always (an axiomatic postulate). So what this deBroglie-Einstein equation says is that for E you get an inversely proportional G.

In your above, you said: "And since neutron stars produce less 'irradiance' than the sun, G should be smaller. How do you explain speed observed orbits of binary neutron stars with such a small G?" But this is the opposite of what the equation says happens. Instead, you should be saying "since neutron stars produce less 'irradiance' than the sun, G should be greater." That is what actually happens, that the gravitational 'proportional' for a neutron star's mass is much greater, so a very great gravity is observed, and hence a very great spin as well.

I hope this clarifies better what I meant, but again I must emphasize that I am only following the deBroglie-Einstein equation's results, and cannot say for certain that this is true. But it is enough to make me look deeper into this possible phenomenon, that G is inversely proportional to the E received from any star's radiant energy. Of course, until there is proof of this, it is invalid as a theory, and thus remains merely a possible speculative hypothesis. Don't expect anyone to believe me, nor even take it seriously, unless we can detect such an event 'on location' in the outer solar system. My apologies if you feel that I am misleading the ingenuous, since that is clearly not my intent. We're just looking...

RE
My view on this is that we use GR to interpret our observations, which is a kind of circular way of understanding what neutron stars are doing, so cannot rely on GR to either prove or disprove a variable G, since that would be self serving. I think neutron stars are either collapsed or 'failed' stars, meaning their burn rate is insufficient to displade the very great G there, so they are left with very high gravity. Put two of them together and they will revolve around each other at great velocities, since gravity is immense. I don't know about (assumed) radiating gravity waves, and neither does anyone else, since this is speculative until actually observed. What the deBroglie-Einstein equation hints at is that in very low E the G is very great. End of story until empirical observations bear this out, or they prove the equation (and me!) wrong. :^o

Huygens is of special interest here because it may offer a clue if its descent rate is higher than expected. We'll know in less than 24 hours... stay tuned!

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

It seems to me that there are a number of problems with your idea. But what springs to mind immediately is that, while you haven't actually defined "radiant energy", we do know that we can shield ourselves from the electromagnetic radiation given off by the sun. So...would this not mean that gravity should increase under these circumstances, which it obviously does not?
Observations have already proven you wrong. You just keep ignoring them! You still haven't addressed the Halley observation for pete's sake!

Actually we know now. I mean, aside from the fact that Cassini has been able to navigate in the outer solar system at all and aside from all the other observations brought up here and elsewhere, we have this:

Cassini had to execute a burn to avoid colliding with Titan after it released Huygens. If Titan's gravity is much different than expected, Cassini would be off course or in pieces on the surface of Titan right now. But it's not, because Newtonian gravitation has been demonstrated (again) to work just fine in the outer solar system. See this link: Cassini Significant Events 12/21/04 - 12/27/04. You can also see that the day after the release, when Cassini imaged Huygens, it was right on course:

"Uplinked the first Probe Imaging Sequence. The first Optical Navigation Images (OPNAV) of the Probe are in. We nailed it! With the wide-angle camera image, we were able to see the Probe about 3 pixels wide. Confirmed that the Probe is well within the entry corridor with an entry flight path angle estimate of -65.1 degrees (target was -65.0!)."

But I suspect this isn't a valid observation for some reason, right? Just like every other observation that disagrees with yours or Jerry's hypotheses, it'll get hand-waved away somehow or just completely ignored... :roll:

Yeah, let's hear it Jerry.

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

FYI. In the Halley's Comet article it says: So there are small perturbances to be accounted for, which varies the highly elliptical orbital period with each passage.

You'll find how I figured solar irradiance at http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...hlight=#348779 . In particular, the equation is (template only to find Earth's E=9E+16 J and recomputed for all planets: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...hlight=#375308 , where all the planets E and G are calculated.

Why does this not "shield" on Earth? My answer would be that ALL molecules on Earth respond to this Energy orbital region, which means energy is embedded in each atom at the E=9+16 J level. To cancel this energy by shielding does not remove it from the planet's embedded energy, so no effect. To do it right would you'd have to cancel ALL lambda, L=1.32E-15 m, from all mass on Earth, which we don't know how to do, yet. When we can do this, we'll have access to a new energy source using gravitational force in a continuously accelerative manner, but don't take my word for it. We're just not there yet.

For now, let's watch for further clues, like the very soon to encounter Titan Hygens. Though you may naysay everything I say, I am happy to just keep watching. Like I said before, the road to truth is paved with misconceptions, so can adjust for data as it comes in. Not worried. :roll:

ESA page showing Huygens descent timeline: http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Cassini-...YGQ3K3E_2.html

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

Well, duh.

Yes, and when physicists model the orbit, they take this into account which is how they could image Halley at the edge of the solar system. So far so good.

Right.

And how exactly does this help your case? Gravity still has far and away the greatest effect on the orbit of the comet. Newtonian physics predicts the orbit nearly perfectly. Your hypothesis still can't predict the orbit at all.

Why did you even post this stuff?

^^^ Witness Lunatik furiously waving his hands about.

Do you have one shred of evidence that anything quoted above is true? One teeny tiny little shred? We're just not there yet? Not only aren't we there...we haven't left yet and the car is in the shop.

Hey, I found a clue, Sherlock! Huygens and Cassini are in trajectories precisely predicted by Newtonian gravitation. I posted it in my last message. I predicted you would ignore it or wave it away. And you did. That's one more correct prediction than your hypothesis has ever provided.

Why do we have to wait until tommorow? What exactly is wrong with the observation I just posted? Why will Cassini/Huygens data be better tommorow?

Awww, am I just picking on you for no reason? :-({|= That must be it. It's not that your hypothesis is obviously flawed. I just don't like you.

What exactly would you like? Would you like everyone to just pretend that what you're saying is not contradicted by observation? It's not my fault you continually choose to expose an obviously flawed hypothesis to public debate instead of spending some time trying to fix it.

And what exactly are you watching for??? We have two spacecraft under the influence of Saturn's and Titan's gravity as we speak behaving exactly as predicted by Newtonian gravitation. This directly contradicts what you are saying should be the case. You hypothesis is therefore flawed. Case closed. You need to go back to the drawing board, like you said you were going to...but never did.

Umm, are you planning on "adjusting" anytime soon for all the data that's already come in that contradicts your hypothesis? Or are you just going to continue to ignore data you don't like? :roll:

And I disagree with what the road to truth is paved with. I believe it's paved by sticking to the scientific method, and throwing out what clearly does not work.

Let me ask you this, just because I'm dying of curiosity: What evidence would you need to see in order for you to say "Gee, I guess my hypothesis is wrong"?

Here's some more evidence to ignore. Well, OK, it's basically the same evidence that's already been ignored, just in a nice article-like format:

Huygens Trajectory Spot On

Huygens was released almost two weeks ago, and even though it has no engines of its own, it's still on a perfect trajectory. It's hard to imagine a better test of Newtonian gravitation.

"In fact, the accuracy of the probe trajectory is better than expected. The angle of entry was allowed to be within 3° either side of 65°. The image showed that the accuracy is now between +/- 0.8°, due to Huygens having exactly the right spin at separation.

Jean-Pierre Lebreton, ESA’s Huygens Mission Manager said: “We know now that Huygens is going to hit Titan’s upper atmosphere with a high precision. We are using this latest information to update our Huygens trajectory prediction. However, we still can’t say precisely where Huygens is going to impact on the surface as the touchdown longitude will be most influenced by the drift of the parachute caused by the wind. This may be as large as 300-400 kilometres eastwards."

... not yet... just not yet ... but hanging close to my drawing board. 8)

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

Well, here's another bit of information to add to your drawing board. From the Wikipedia timeline for Cassini concerning a test of GR (which uses a constant G):

The Cassini science team announced the results of a test of Einstein's theory of gravity, using radio signals from the Cassini probe. The researchers observed a frequency shift in the radio waves to and from the space craft, as those signals traveled close to the Sun. Past tests were in agreement with the theoretical predictions with an accuracy of one part in one thousand. The Cassini experiment improved this to about 20 parts in a million, with the data still supporting Einstein's theory.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Huygens transmission carrier detected at Green Bank observatory, around the expected time.

It's alive.

Relay of data from Cassini still several hours off.

Edit: Later. They report a good two hours of carrier received directly from Huygens. Data relay still to come.

Doppler measurements were with a few Hz of what was predicted.

It seems like they had a pretty good model of what Huygens would be doing.

Edit: Later still. On surface and still transmitting. I think they said it touched down one or two minutes after the middle of the 30-minute window they had anticipated for landing.

Edit: Later. Space.com says it landed between 13.45 and 13.46 CET. I must have heard wrong. I guess that super-dense atmosphere got in the way. Nah... That's still in their window of prediction 13.34 +/- 15.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0....