# Gravity

Posted by: Dogrock

## Gravity - 01/15/06 01:51 PM

I entertain or punish myself by thinking about gravity every so often. It's sometimes comes back to the question. What makes things move. Could a person state as a fundamental law "every object moves at the fastest possible speed". It's not answering why, but at least it might pin-point where the mystery is. I know there's complexities but they seem to go round in circles. Any sympathy would be welcome.
Posted by: Johnny Boy

## Re: Gravity - 01/15/06 02:22 PM

Fastest possible speed relative to what? One can also state that every object is stationary within a reference frame travelling with it.
Posted by: Dogrock

## Re: Gravity - 01/16/06 01:33 AM

The falling apple's speed, the moon's speed, relative to the environment it's in. First that every object moves and that it moves through least resistance, therefore the fastest movement available to it. Whether a straight line or not, just the fastest. Why do objects move at all?
Posted by: Johnny Boy

## Re: Gravity - 01/16/06 08:37 AM

"relative to the environment it's in" has no meaning! Any object moves relative to a myriad of possible refence frames which are also moving; there is no unique stationary refence frame; i.e. environment (Einstein's theory of relativity). The trajectory and speed one observes for a moving object depends on which refence frame one chooses. So you cannot define a fastest movement, only movement relative to the refence frame you have chosen; most probablynthe one within which you think that you are stationary. Even kinetic energy is not an absolute quantity but depends on the reference frame it is measured relative to.
Posted by: Dogrock

## Re: Gravity - 01/17/06 01:06 AM

ok, I know all motion is relative. And all objects fall towards the earth (relative to the earth) at the same speed. I'm suggesting that this is their maximum speed in this reference frame. And in any reference frame they attain their maximum speed. It's just stateing the obvious but putting emphasis on the objects moving. The question is: Why do they move?
Posted by: Johnny Boy

## Re: Gravity - 01/17/06 10:30 AM

All matter moves because there is no uniquely stationary refence frame. Thus if you move with an object its speed as measured in your framework is zero. If you move relative to the same object, you will think it is moving and you will measure a speed relative to your framework. The maximum upper limit to the speed you can measure is thus given by the speed of light. As I said it is the upper limit because matter (including you the observer) can never move with this speed relative to any other piece of matter in the universe. Why do they move? As said above there is no stationary reference frame in the universe; so matter must always move relative to each other! If they did not, one would have a uniquely stionary reference frame.
Posted by: Justine

## Re: Gravity - 01/17/06 07:11 PM

Everything moves for the observer.
Posted by: Johnny Boy

## Re: Gravity - 01/17/06 09:34 PM

Justine: Except when the observer moves with an object with mass!
Posted by: jjw

## Re: Gravity - 01/17/06 11:38 PM

Dogrock Post:

?I entertain or punish myself by thinking about gravity every so often. It's sometimes comes back to the question. What makes things move? Could a person state as a fundamental law "every object moves at the fastest possible speed". It's not answering why, but at least it might pin-point where the mystery is. I know there are complexities but they seem to go round in circles. Any sympathy would be welcome.?

Rep: I will make an offer which is not altogether accepted science.

When I was in my teens and started junior high in public school I had a science class for the first time and became so interested in the areas dealing with the universe and our solar system that I did a lot of self educating for the mere enjoyment of it. Your question ?what makes things move?? was the same for me then and it still is 60 years later. The one universal thing we know about the universe is that everything is in motion, moving. I do not know if the current theory of gravitation answers this question but I think that the answer can be found within the basic application of gravitation in diminishing effects. Let?s start with a galaxy. We have seen that the center of the spiral (globular excluded for now) is also the center of the mass for the galaxy. Quite simply this means that everywhere from the center to the edges the mass diminishes. The almost impossible thought to seriously consider is that the diminishing mass, and the diminishing gravity resulting there from, can be equated to the lessening of a ?substance? that exudes into space much in the way the jets of air on a space capsule give the occupants control. Let me try again. The entire universe has been shown to be in motion, if not by rotation than at least by expansion. This means that all of the contents are moving outward from a hypothetical central point. These objects, galaxies for the most part, are still in communication on the gravitational scale. The outward movements of all inputs a relative drag or push, as each member effects the others. This energy is converted into a rotational force providing for all of the movement we see. As between the galaxy and the contained solar systems the same holds true.

This could be thought of as related to the ?Big Bang? original push. I have not been convinced yet of that fact but the expansion of the universe, if in fact it is expanding as the ?red shift theory? argues, would tend to provides an answer.
jjw
Posted by: Dogrock

## Re: Gravity - 01/18/06 03:32 AM

Does gravity explain the paths that the planets move on and the big bang explain how they got moving in the first place?. This sounds logical to me, but because I haven't read it anywhere in a science book, I assume it's not correct. I've entered "why do planets move" on the internet but got only gravity as the answer. Maybe no one knows why (not in the philosophical sence but by what force)they move.
Posted by: jjw

## Re: Gravity - 01/18/06 07:45 AM

Hi Dogrock, you question:

?I've entered "why do planets move" on the internet but got only gravity as the answer. Maybe no one knows why (not in the philosophical sence but by what force)they move.?

I feel you are sincere and welcome a response from a non-accredited source. So I will share a view. When I was writing my little book about the Solar System I was confronted with a great many issues that, to me, had not as yet been answered. Mysteries intrigue me and this way it is possible to combine entertainment with some possibility of learning. Your first question is at the hub of the issue. My universe has all motion starting at the basic formation of the universe. Galaxies import motion to the objects born to them as a part of the motion of the galaxy. I want to be brief but I am confronted with a compromise as to how much information is required to make my comments intelligible and understandable with out going too far.

The galaxy is first for us imparting motion to all it contains. The Bible has a quaint way of stating this when ?god moved upon the waters? to enliven our solar system when up to then there was only dust.

How much mass is required to respond to the effect of the central mass of a galaxy? We are about two thirds of the way from the center to the edge of this galaxy. Logic suggests that as an unorganized collection of dust and gasses we could rotate as a diffuse unit, unrecognized collection of stuff for many rotations of the Galaxy. Why would it change? I think it slowly changed when the inertia of the solar stuff was attracted by the gravitation of the galaxy. This attraction would by nature effect the inner edge of this solar stuff and slowly drag that edge along at a faster rate then the central areas. As this motion was slowly shared by the inner parts of the solar stuff more and more began to rotate. As the rotation increased consolidation of the stuff increased and made it more attractive to the galaxy gravitation. The rest is well reasoned by the experts. The original motion of the galaxy fed the motion to the solar system and it remains the same to this day.

So why do the planets move as they do? Al matter with in this system moves at the whim of the sun. The single most massive object that controls everything with in its purview. For lack of a better description I think of the sun providing an envelope of gravitation, which itself moves, and takes along everything else. I think my math proves this. The sun moves and therefore so do the planets, its children.

The book is Surfing the Solar System. Poorly named. It was going to be the ?Solar Simplicity?. My follow up will use the latter.

It is all in fun.
jjw
Posted by: Justine

## Re: Gravity - 01/18/06 03:30 PM

If the observer moves in time with certain matter then the matter and observer appear to be static to the first observer, but to a second observer of a seperate perspective, the original observer and it's related matter moves.
So everything moves for the observers including the observers.
If there were only one observer then anything moving with it would actually be still.

Is that right? Or is it blather?
Posted by: Dogrock

## Re: Gravity - 01/19/06 01:40 AM

Ok, I think I understand at last. Gravity explains why the planets move and objects fall to earth. Newton said they attracted each other and of course that would cause movement. Einstein said it warped space time so I conclude that causes planets to move. Warped space time is then a force that can move planets. Would that be correct?. In that context my question of why would be unneccessary and maybe ignorant of understanding gravity. Glad I asked it though. And jjw thanks for your patience and persistence, and others also. Maybe when it's all straightened out someone could move it back to the science discussion section.
Posted by: jjw

## Re: Gravity - 01/19/06 05:26 AM

Hi Dogrock:

You offered:
?Gravity explains why the planets move and objects fall to earth. Newton said they attracted each other and of course that would cause movement. Einstein said it warped space time so I conclude that causes planets to move. Warped space time is then a force that can move planets.?

I do not debate Einstein?s theories mainly because I do not have a command of what they mean.

Gravitation, by way of the Sun, is the current source of all motion in this Solar System. That is my view. When Einstein?s followers talk about Gravity warping space they seek to explain how gravity affects other objects in space at a distance. It has nothing whatever to do with moving anything, especially planets in orbits around the sun. When Newton explained the nature of gravitation he was at a loss to explain how it could function at a distance even though he knew full well that it did. The alleged warping of space was invented to explain the elliptical or circular orbit of orbiting objects, NOT why they moved. Newton did not try to explain why they moved except to suggest the objects were ?falling? into the Sun and this effort was converted into orbital motion. Not a viable explanation because the argument that the energy was converted to orbital velocity, instead of gravity causing actual falling, doe not appear to be workable.

My conclusion, as simplistic as it sounds, fits all of the observable phenomena. The galaxy imparted a counter clockwise motion to the sun when it was formed. All objects forming around the sun were likewise circling the sun, both in formation and later as spheres, in a counterclockwise manner. This is directly due to the gravitation influence of the sun. This can be proven by comparing the solar system to a large solid flat plate with the sun at the center. If the plate was solid the objects on the plate would be orbiting faster and faster as you traveled towards the edge of the plate. In real life just the opposite is true. Because it is the sun?s gravity proving the energy as the sun turns the energy is strongest near the sun and weaker towards the edges. For this reason all planets orbit slower as you get farther from the sun which is also a measure of the weakening of the sun?s gravitation farther from the sun.

The key is that current science does not view the sun?s gravitational ?envelope? as a container moving all objects with that envelope to the tune of the sun?s gravitation. To me this is self evident. This same force causes the rotation of the planets, an item which I have offered proof by way of calculations. Thank you for your interest.

I suspect some other members will have contrary views to offer.
jjw