No. I have a new Reasoning!

In the Universe, even a relative ellipse doesn’t exist. Ellipses or parabolas or hyperbolas are human brain creations, just mathematical models. The Earth doesn’t turn around the Sun on an elliptic orbit, nor the Moon around the Earth, nor Saturn around the SUN, nor our artificial satellites have an elliptic orbit. All have a double-spiral, relative cardioidal looking orbit. One of the spiral is created by the translation movement along (z), the other around (z) orbit. Also, (x,y) has a rotational movement along (z).Nothing is constant. Ellipse is constant. Fig.I

Fig.I

Consider our Earth.

When I throw a projectile its orbit is expressed by (Vy^2=2*g*ymax ; Vx=xmax/t ; t=Vy/g).

(g) is the acceleration factor. It is related to the universal attraction law (F=G.m.M/r^2)

This is to write, practically, y=1/2*g*t^2 . (g) is considered as constant for small intervals.

My projectile will fall at the distances xmax=Vx*t.

Mathematically, it exist an orbit which will bring my projectile to the initial point after one full rotation around the Earth. These projectiles will came to death at P1,or P2 or at the Origin, after one full cycle around the Earth. Fig. II.

Fig. II

Or, my projectile may came to crash after many cycles around the Earth. Supposing (g) is constant (it is not) we will have a spiral around the Earth. (From the Cartesian coordinates, y is replaced by dR ; linear x replaced by angle).Fig.III

Fig.III

The birth date is the instant I throw my projectile. The “Bang” on the (z) orbit. The projected satellite starts the cycles around (z) orbit. Expanding and expanding, until it reaches its Max.

Like my projectile reaches its max h=yMax=Vy^2/(2*g). (g is related to F=G.m.M/r^2).

Then, the compression mode starts until the crash point, death point. Fig.IV

Fig.IV

A spiral ring around the MaxPoint looks like an ellipse. In reality, even this is not an ellipse.

The major and minor axes are in movement. The differences of length on the axes are so small that we do not feel the variations. And we approach to say: “this is an ellipse”. If it was possible to evaluate the variations of lengths for the axes, we may say:

-when (a,b) are in expansion mode the satellite did not reached the half Life- time

-when (a,b) are in compression mode the satellite is on the way going to his death point.

-ıf the eccentricity tends to “0”,the satellite has reached the half Life- time. It is stable

-if the eccentricity is near “1” the satellite is on “birth or death” mode. It is an unstable.

What about the planets of our Sun.

The orbit of our Earth

When our Earth’s orbit is simulated to an ellipse, with (a=1 ;eccentricity=0,0167; then b=0,99986 is calculated),we evaluate from the spiral formula (h1=0,99991 ;h2=1,000089 ;b2=0,999685 ;b1=1,000044).Simulated eccentricity=(a^2-b^2)^(1/2)/a=0,016735).

a=(h1+h2)/2 ; b=(b1+b2)/2

The (X) abscise starts from 0=Birth point, going to 1=Death point. This is just a mathematical simulation. The corresponding cycles starts from 0 degree going to 26850 degrees at the death point. (26850 is just a scaling, this may be chosen any value).

Half Life-time is at X=0,5 where Maxh2 is reached.

Or at 13425 degrees=13425/360=37,291666 cycles, where Maxh2 is reached. Fig.V

Fig.V

What is the meaning of 37,291666 cycles?

When (X=0 to 1) represent the total Life-time of the Earth, let say for example, 10^9 years,

10 000 000 000 years correspond to 26850 degrees. (just a value)

Half Life-time (26850/2=13425) degrees correspond to 5 000 000 000 years

(13425/360=37,291666) cycles correspond to 5 000 000 000 years.

At (h1), the angle correspond to (13425-180=13245) degrees=36,791666 cycles

36,79166 cycles correspond to (36,79/37,29*5 000 000 000=4 932 960 500) years

Then, no more than (5 000 000 000-4 932 960 500 =1 067 049 500) years for the Earth to reach the stable eccentricity =0 and then starts the second half Life- time until crashing on the Sun. Or the Earth has already started going to crash on the Sun. Table I

This is just a mathematical simulation; it does not correspond to the actual physic knowledge.

Table I

necattasdelen@ttmail.com

Türkçe

The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) has now responded to the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills (IUSS) Select Committee’s Report into science budget allocations for 2008-11.

The Institute of Physics (IOP) has commented on the publication of the Government’s response to the Committee’s Report.

Peter Main, director of education and science at the IOP, said, “The Institute is pleased that the Government’s response recognises the need to nurture fundamental physics research in the UK for long-term economic and societal benefits.  We agree that driving up the economic impact of the research base does go hand in hand with supporting excellent science.

“We must ensure however that the drive towards economic impact does not damage the research base.  There is a commitment in the response to continuing consultation and holding off damaging cuts until the Wakeham Review has reported, which the Institute welcomes, but our own feedback from our members indicates that university departments are already suffering from cuts in some fundamental research initiatives.

“Attention still needs to be paid to ensure that no irreversible decisions are made until Wakeham reports.” (iop.org)

The Wakeham Review was announced amidst much negative publicity surrounding the Science and Technology Facilities Council’s (STFC) funding shortfall and many hope that the Review will go some way to addressing current concerns.

The IOP’s submission discusses the value that physics-trained people add to the UK’s economy across a range of crucial industries, and the interdisciplinary nature of physics, reflecting on the catalysing effect that breakthroughs in physics can have across the other sciences.

It also raises key issues which need to be addressed to ensure a brighter future for UK physics, including the introduction of a system which would redirect the cost of running scientific facilities to the research councils which gain most use from them. At present, STFC foots the bill for a number of facilities for which its grant recipients are not the most frequent users.

Professor Peter Main, director of education and science at IOP, concludes the submission with a note of caution, “It would go some way to address the earlier bad publicity if the final report could be positive about the current and future importance of the subject and emphasise how much the nation needs physicists.”

(iop.org)