earth gravitation-my explanation

here`s how i explain the earth gravitation :
due to the rotational conservation momentum law,the earth counter reacts a force against with an equal force,perpendicular on the plan of the first force...
the objects,because of their inertial massa,try firstly not to be dragged with the earth in its rotation,so they friction against the earth...the earth responds like i said with a force directed to its center,which is gravity,the objects weight...
i experienced this law with the giroscope,yo-yo and wrist toy,bike...
then why the moon has gravity,because it`s not spinning...maybe because it`s spinning with the earth around the sun...
anyway,they should put the gravity lower on the sf with the aselenisation in 1974...
please,if you have some examples(no out of space or non-provable theories)...

 

Gravity is not due to rotational forces. All objects have a gravitational attraction to one another, regardless of if they are rotating or not. It is a basic property of physics. The reason the Moon has gravitational force is simply because it is an object with mass just like the Earth, Sun, and any other object in the Universe. If you and I were placed in a vacuum, away from the gravitational influence of any other object, the more massive of the two of us would attract the other one of us towards them. Gravity is a basic force of physics along with Electromagnetism, the Weak Nuclear Force, and the Strong Nuclear Force.

 

So if the earth is larger and weighs more than the moon, how come the moon is moving away from us? In the future it's been predicted that it will not be a companion of earth.

 

Yes and no. An object not in motion certainly has weight and gravity but at the subatomic level of a stationary object is an immense number of electron orbits. Gravity is the sum of all sub atomic orbits and interactions within an object, not the movement or rotation of the whole object. Although this movement and momentum certainly changes gravitational interaction. This is why the moon stays in orbit, the movement and momentum of the whole counter the gravitational attraction to the earth.

nicolai, have a read from my explanation here:

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=427290&f=38

 

But the moon isn't keeping it's orbit. It's moving away at approx 3.8cm a year.

 

That's right. The moon has always been drifting away. Nobody said both forces must be in exact balance. After all, it's not like there's a supernatural being holding the moon in place with conscious willpower. The universe is what it is, and it sure isn't perfect.

 

``Gravity is not due to rotational forces. All objects have a gravitational attraction to one another, regardless of if they are rotating or not. It is a basic property of physics. The reason the Moon has gravitational force is simply because it is an object with mass just like the Earth, Sun, and any other object in the Universe. If you and I were placed in a vacuum, away from ...``
do you have an example with attraction between objects(no magnets or planets in space...)?
``Yes and no. An object not in motion certainly has weight and gravity but at the subatomic level of a stationary object is an immense number of electron orbits. Gravity is the sum of all sub atomic orbits``...
what object not in motion?you suppose smth then you are certain about the same...
i think the earth don`t want that the moon drifts away,but although it`s drifting...

 

let`s no mix things,like `why` and `how`...
why is the sun,earth,etc. spinning or why they exist we better ask a philosopher...

 

My take is gravity is identical to intent, be that intent, motion or what ever. Don't know if that applies as a spaced out theory, but if we are the measure of the world, if it is us we look to to define or discover functionality then we look to how aggregation is achieved in ourselves. Gravity doesn't seamlessly fit into current models because it is not a mathematical entity, but magnanimous intent.

 

are you serious? the moon rotates around its axis just like the Earth does. it just so happens that the moon's rotation velocity is exactly as much as to always have one single side directed toward us, i.e. it completes one period of rotation on its axis in the time it takes it to make one rotation around the Earth. it appears unmoving to us, but it's not.

 

I seriously suggest that all posters in this forum do a thorough reading of any reliable exposition about the Gravitational Force to clear up some misunderstandings. Even wikipedia appears to have a sound article. There is too much speculation in this post without anything to back it up (mathematical evidence, physical evidence, citations from real academic journals, etc.)

 

yes sir,that is korrect,the moon rotates in one month period...
sorry,my mistake...

 

i`m sorry if you don`t believe my explanation...but it`s understandable,because the rotational movement conservation law it`s rather new,50 y.o....
me too i learned other theories in school,but reality does`n`t want to know this...
einstein too didn`t know it,but i do...

 

Sorry we don't all meet your standards of education and research. I've yet to hear a better theory or explanation of gravity that makes more sense than mine. Can you please explain it better than I did in layman's terms without any equations? I mean WHY gravity is, not just what it is.

My theories on:
Magnetism - A displacement of space itself varying in magnitude or density.
Energy - The movement of spatial displacement (magnetism).
Matter - A conversion of linear energy propagation to orbital energy groups.
Gravity - Repulsion of spatial density through orbital energy group attractions.

 

I didn't mean to come across as condescending. My apologies if I did. I simply think that it is good for everyone in the discussion to have a working knowledge of the theory of General Relativity. You don't need to know how to compute Christoffel Symbols of the Second Kind or anything though!

I will add a reply to this thread in a little while with a concise summary of the standard view on Gravitation Theory.

Again, sorry if I sounded prissy.

 

Cool. That would be interesting to me

 

Here is my concise explanation of gravity.

Gravity itself is simply a consequence of the 'shape' of the space-time manifold. Recall that there are (at least) three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. However, mathematically, the two are nearly the same thing. There is a slight difference, but it literally boils down to the time term having a minus sign in front of it.

Anyways, objects on this manifold (the Universe) that have mass can put 'pressure' on the manifold. Say the manifold was completely flat (in four dimensions though) without any massive objects on it. With the inclusion of massive objects, the objects 'push down' the flat manifold to make it 'dimpled.' Of course, this is simply an analogy for two dimensions, so you have to really turn to the mathematical equations to understand it in all four, but that isn't necessary in our discussion.

So, as a consequence of these dimples on the space-time manifold, when particles and energy (of which are technically equivalent- see: DeBroglie's Wave Particle Duality) travel through time on this manifold, regardless of if they have mass or not, they will follow paths known as geodesics. These paths are simply the intuitive path that you would expect a particle of constant speed to travel if presented with dimples on its journey.

So, if the dimple is deep enough and the particle/energy is not traveling fast enough, it will go into an orbital pattern around the massive object. This is why the sun hold the planets in orbit but not objects farther out than the outer Oort Cloud. The objects out there have enough momentum (combined mass and velocity) to avoid being 'trapped' by the sun. However, their paths will still be altered as they 'weave' on the edge of the dimple.

So even light, which is without mass (see: Photons), which travels as fast as any particle in this manifold we call Home can travel, is 'bumped' around by massive objects. Of course, the only objects massive enough to 'trap' light are black holes, so the velocity of light is sufficient to simply have its 'ideal' path be 'bent' by the dimpling of the space-time manifold.

So it really boils down to a matter of geometry (technically called Differential Geometry) and although things like rotation are relevant, there is a better explanation using Differential Geometry (curved space-time).

There is still one big question: What gives some particles mass and others no mass.

Some ideas which I like indicate that on a ultra-microscopic level, massive particles are positioned 'perpendicular' to the 'flow' of space-time, where as things like photons with no mass are 'parallel' in orientation to the 'flow' of space-time. But that has not been proven yet since the scale of such orientations is literally on the order of 10^(-43) meters.

I hope that helps. Feel free to ask anything else.

 

On the subject of wave-particle duality, do you believe there are in fact "particles" other than the "fabric" of space itself existing together? Essentially particles affecting the shape of space they pass through?

Personally I don't believe in particles. Some say particles sometimes act like waves, I say sometimes waves have particle like properties. It just seems more likely to me. We know space "bends" and is a medium for energy to travel through. I believe it has density that varies like foam rubber, but is much more fluid than rubber. Energy is a wave to me, not a particle. Energy is a ripple of displacement through space. It is the vibration of the density of space itself, it requires no other substance than itself to create energy and matter.

 

My speculation as to what particles and waves are is simply that they are disturbances of the space-time manifold on a quantum level and each type of particle/energy has a unique pattern in which is alters the local space-time manifold. For example, maybe massless particles flow in the same direction that the time dimension of the space-time manifold is oriented.

There is still rampant speculation as to this stuff. It will probably be another 20 years before that question is rigorously answered.

 

Man, but there's the four body indeterminate problem. If we had a project to launch (watch) the moon's distance traveling in a spirally increasing orbit then the moon could increase it's distance constantly in a two body model. Three body models could be re attracted to the other body. But four bodies in outer space (which we know there are even more seem to wish the equilibrium of perfect orbits, but fail it just roaming into chaotically various orbit stabilities. Is the energy totally always the same?