PDA

View Full Version : Are orbits in the universe kept stable by an unseen force?



Xerilon
05-04-2016, 08:34 PM
I have researched to no avail.

How in the world can satellites stay in a stable orbit when the two forces are sentrifugal force and gravitational force in "balance"?

Image a little ball in a bowl. The ball will stay in the bottom because the left and right forces stabilize each other out. Image the bowl upside down and place the ball on top. The perfect balance becomes an infinite theoretical point, which I believe is impossible to achieve in nature.

Imagine a little stone kept in place by two rubber bands. If you move it left or right, the forces on the rubber bands will try to bring it back to center and cancel each other out. In space the rubber band physics get inverted!!!

If an object in orbit speeds up just a fraction, it will get further from the gravity, and since it doesn't slow down in space it will lose a bit of gravity and move even further, possibly in a spiral.

How can various celestial bodies "tug" at each other and each orbit will stabilize itself afterwards? It doesn't make any sense to me...

Ghislain
05-05-2016, 02:12 AM
A body in orbit is always accelerating toward the Earth, any body in motion wants to travel in a straight line and thus you have two opposing forces acting on the object in balance creating said orbit.

Ghislain

zoas23
05-05-2016, 06:23 AM
You are somehow right, Xerilon... except that your examples aren't right.

The orbits of the planets do not contradict at all the basic Newtonian physics... though for a better accuracy the general theory of relativity has to be used (though the difference in using the physics of Newton and the physics of Einstein are almost meaningless, unless you need a very very accurate calculus).

BUT you are right... at least from the point of view of modern physics, it's just that you have to "jump" to a bigger scale. The orbit and rotation of "bigger" bodies such as galaxies do not make sense using either Newtonian physics or Einstein's physics... and the existence of an "unseen force" has to be introduced in the calculus as to give it a sense (or as to make it coincide with the visible "reality"). This unseen force is not meaningless, but it has a mass that is more or less equal to 1/4 of the mass of the Universe... and the interesting thing about this "unseen force" is that so far the physics can only say about it: "We have theories about what it could be, but we actually don't know what it is". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

So that's something interesting about modern physics... to calculate the orbits and rotations of "big bodies" such as galaxies, it is necessary to introduce in the calculus an "unseen force" that is as big as 1/4 of the perceptible forces... and it's definition is quite similar to the definition of the Spiritus Mundi (I am not saying that the Dark Matter IS the Spiritus Mundi, but it is funny how its definition is quite similar).

Xerilon
05-05-2016, 10:00 AM
Hmm, interesting. I can actually understand the orbit of galaxies as they appear to be unstable with their spiral pattern. That means the spin is slightly faster that the gravity. But it is interesting how dark matter interfere with the spiral pattern though...

I am not very familiar with the difference of the Einstein/Newton physics, but I know that there are different "curves" to the various forces. Gravity get weaker to the square of the distance (or something like that), and inertia/speed is constant and linear. I am not saying that an unseen force is meaningless, quite the opposite.

I have also thought about the force of the moon: As it pulls on the earth it creates earthquakes as the earth "bulges", and the ocean slides toward the moon making pressure on the top point that lifts the ocean a bit creating tides. BUT the movement of the oceans MUST create friction on the earth, which should interfere with the planets rotational speed would it not? However if we bring in the dark matter that keeps everything in a constant system, it explains alot :)

Zoas, Can you explain how my example of the upside down bowl with the ball on top does not apply to satellites around the earth? If seen from the side in 2d, we could say the gravity is left and inertia is right, and any movement of the ball is distance...It is simply unstable...(?)

Thus the typical explanation: Gravity=Spin/speed=Stable orbit, is very thin and unsatisfying.

Ghislain
05-05-2016, 03:54 PM
Gravity is a force of which according to Einstein is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy; and resulting in gravitational time dilation, where time lapses more slowly in lower (stronger) gravitational potential whereas Newton states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe using a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses but also inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

The formula for gravity, using the gravitational constant G=6.67410^−11 N  (m/kg)^2, where mass1 in this case we use the Earth's mass and mass2 the moon's mass and r=distance from the center of mass1 to the center of mass2; it has nothing to do with spin.

So the force of gravity (F) acting between the Earth and the Moon

F = G(mass1.mass2)/r^2

The Moon would quickly fall to Earth if it was not that it has a momentum in which it wants to travel in a straight line away from it, the same way that if you tie a stone to a piece of string and swing it, it will travel in a circular path unless you release the string, at which point it will travel in a straight line.

If you get a friend to hold your stone in the air and let it go, without the stone having any momentum it will fall and hit you on the head.

An object in Orbit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit) has an eliptical path and thus acceleration towards the Earth due to the gravitational force of atrraction keeps up its momentum. You could say the earth is like your hand keeping up the momentum of the stone on a string.

Ghislain

Edit: ^ = to the power of.

Xerilon
05-05-2016, 04:44 PM
Ok, you seem to know your stuff :)

But in my mind we can never use the stone/string comparison, because the string would have to be weaker at a distance. If you used a rubber band on the rock and swung it around you could simulate the elliptical orbit easily as the rock would start to accelerate at the furthest point from the hand/center and thus move very fast by at the closest point to gain momentum to get far away on the other side and so on. But as I mentioned, gravity is by far not like a rubber band, nor a string, even though it appears like all the planets are kept in a rubber band orbit.

Question: If a satellite is in stable orbit. What would happen if it increased speed just a little bit? Would it start spiraling slowly out (my assumption)?, or would it move to a new orbit further away and stabilize again?

Ghislain
05-05-2016, 06:11 PM
I certainly don't know my stuff when talking about gravity...there is still a question as to what it is even if Einstein is right and a mass can bend spacetime...how?

Your point is that a string would have to be weaker at a distance, but I don't see your point, there is still a force there even if it is weaker. If you carefully bring two magnets together at a certain point you will see them move, but the force was acting on them way before they moved, they only moved once the force was strong enough to overcome the coefficient of friction, and the closer you get the stronger that force will become. Does this not pose the same question for you?

The moon has momentum of a given force in a straight line the pull of the earth adds to this momentum in the form of gravitational attraction m/s^2 the balance is that the moon cannot overcome the gravitational pull of the earth with its given momentum and the earth cannot overcome the pull of the moon in its preferred direction and thus the result is circular momentum, orbit.

Yes I think you are right...if the moon increased in speed it would initially overcome the pull of the earth moving it to a wider orbit where it would stabilise once more...this is the force that has to be overcome to leave our gravity when sending crafts to the moon and such.

Try this experiment...it is sort of the reverse of what we are talking about...spin yourself on a swivel chair with your legs out...bring your legs in and you will spin faster.

It is the unknown in the area of gravity that holds back the Theory of Everything leaving us with just the Grand Unified Thoery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory).

Ghislain

Ghislain
05-05-2016, 06:17 PM
Not exactly relevant to your initial question but just to add more confusion ;)

Saturn’s mass 5.683610^26 kg
Venus’ mass 4.86810^24 kg
Earth’s mass 5.9722x10^24 kg
Moon’s mass 7.347 x 10^22 kg
Distance between Earth and Moon = 384,403,000 m (average)
Distance between Earth and Saturn = 1.43,000,000,000,000 m (average)
Distance between Earth and venus = 170,000,000,000 m (average)
Using the formula F = G(mass1.mass2)/r^2, where G = 6.67410^−11 N • (m/kg)^2 then...

Gravitational force between the Earth and the moon is...
2.96942459 x 10^30 N/m^2
Gravitational force between the Earth and Saturn is...
1.65991471 x 10^27 N/m^2
Gravitational force between the Earth and Venus is...
1.00597473 x 10^27 N/m^2

Note I have used the SI unit for the force of gravity as N/m^2, this is not correct as it is a grey area as to this SI unit and was only included to show they are the same forces.

See What is the SI unit of Gravitation ( https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_SI_unit_of_gravitation)

The point was to show that it is not only the Moon that has an effect on the Earth even though this is the greatest force exerted by another body; not sure about the sun, perhaps you could calculate that one. ;)

Ghislain

Xerilon
05-05-2016, 07:02 PM
Yes I think you are right...if the moon increased in speed it would initially overcome the pull of the earth moving it to a wider orbit where it would stabilise once more...this is the force that has to be overcome to leave our gravity when sending crafts to the moon and such.



So, in this example you have: more speed=wider oribt and stabilization? http://www.freemars.org/jeff/speed/
This is exactly where my mind pulls the emergency break :P

EDIT: I am really sorry to come off as stupid for not understanding what is obvious to so many others :)

zoas23
05-05-2016, 08:36 PM
So, in this example you have: more speed=wider oribt and stabilization? http://www.freemars.org/jeff/speed/
This is exactly where my mind pulls the emergency break :P

EDIT: I am really sorry to come off as stupid for not understanding what is obvious to so many others :)

We all have weak areas and strong areas (give me the address of a place and map... and take it for granted that it will take me hours to arrive there, even if it's 10 blocks away... my brain and maps don't get along).

But your thread brings, maybe accidentally, an interesting subject, which is the "unseen force" and its relation with orbits.
As Ghislain explained, you don't need any "unseen force" to explain the movement of the planets of the Solar system... but if you jump to a bigger scale, galaxies, then you are right... the formulas that Ghislain posted would stop giving accurate results and an "unseen force" would need to be introduced in the equation... and nobody knows for certain what the hell is this "unseen force".

Xerilon
05-06-2016, 07:50 PM
Haha, thanks for the understanding :)

Australian physicist Wallace Thornhill is pondering the same question as me, and he has a theory that planetary bodies exchange some form of electric discharge that pulls and pushes, and when this discharge between them has equaled out, the orbit becomes stable. I find that waay more logical than the conventional gravitational model, even if I don't know which of them is true.

The current explanation is a little like "the reason we stand upright is because the force of the muscles in skeletal balance is equal to the force of gravity". Yet we all know that LIFE controls the muscles after all.

If I find an image uploader I will post a simple 3d model I have made to illustrate my point :)

Andro
05-06-2016, 08:13 PM
If I find an image uploader

See: Posting Images & Videos (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2933-Posting-Images-amp-Videos)

Xerilon
05-06-2016, 08:38 PM
See: Posting Images & Videos (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2933-Posting-Images-amp-Videos)

Lol, thanks! See? I'm not awake at all :)

http://forum.alchemyforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=940&d=1462566723

Description: The yellow rings are "wheels" so that the outer magnet can slide without friction back and forth on the rail. The rail rotates to create centrifugal force.

I challenge anyone with the tools to make this model and prove that the magnets can stay apart from each other in a constant speed and distance, AND then try to influence the outer magnet a little bit with an external magnet and see if it regains its position. OR try to influence the rotational speed just a tiny bit.

Ghislain
05-07-2016, 12:18 AM
Xerilon, one may have to hold the magnets apart from start off as the rotational speed to initially separate them would, in my mind, eject the outer magnet off the track.


Australian physicist Wallace Thornhill is pondering the same question as me, and he has a theory that planetary bodies exchange some form of electric discharge that pulls and pushes, and when this discharge between them has equaled out, the orbit becomes stable. I find that waay more logical than the conventional gravitational model, even if I don't know which of them is true.

Gravity is an attraction it doesn't repel, and if it was a form of electrical discharge everything that is attracted would have to have opposing poles as only opposite poles attract...just a thought.

Another thing to note would be that we only possess the structure we have because of gravity and the need to overcome it. Without gravity we would probably not develop bones at all.

People occupying the space stations for a length of time suffer bone loss.

The mass of a white dwarf is 1,000,000,000 kg/m^3 and therefore if we happened to find ourselves on one we would be flattened over its surface due to gravity, bones or no bones ;)

I have to say that I had a similar idea to yours, that there is some unseen force in all matter and that is what we call gravity.

Ghislain

If you want a good book to read and have an open mind I would suggest, "Meme", by Sean Sinjin, you can download a pdf version free HERE (http://www.betterhuman.org/BuyMeme.htm)

In the book, which I read some years ago, Sinjin uses the concept of bether, his take on the ether, but today I think we may relate this to the Higgs field in quantum theory or visa versa.

Kiorionis
05-07-2016, 02:05 AM
I think you're looking at gravity on a much too linear scale, that there is some attraction or repulsion. If planets didn't rotate on an axis, space-time wouldn't be warped. Or, if space-time didn't begin rotating around a center point, mass wouldn't gravitate towards the center and form substance.

The magnets in the link are also linear, because they're not interacting with anything other than an adaptation of the Force -- magnetism. Same with electricity. Electromagnetism is getting closer.

Xerilon
05-07-2016, 10:17 AM
No, I do not look at gravity as a linear force NOR as a magnet with poles. And I am aware that dense gravity will smash you like a pancake :)

From my view it is exaclty because gravity is not linear that I have a problem with the conventional orbital model. It would simply be impossible for an object to be catured into orbit because there are too many variables and the setup is unstable. Gravity is not like a rubber band, therefore the elliptical orbital model we can observe is not controlled by gravity as the constant.

As I have said before, if you tie a rock in the end of a rubber band and swung it around you could simulate an elliptical oribt. You move you hand simply to overcome air friction and external earth gravity for that experiment. The result is something similar to what we obeserve in space.

BUT the force of a rubber band and gravity is opposite of each other.

https://plot.ly/~bensonbr/26.png

https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4029642065b8ac3fd640e2d4d57ba9af?convert_to_webp=t rue

True Initiate
05-07-2016, 10:23 AM
Does Gravity even exist? Earth is a big magnet so it could be possible that Newton just mistook gravitation for magnetic attraction?

Check this out:
http://bigthink.com/videos/gravity-doesnt-exist

Xerilon
05-07-2016, 11:14 AM
Does Gravity even exist? Earth is a big magnet so it could be possible that Newton just mistook gravitation for magnetic attraction?

Check this out:
http://bigthink.com/videos/gravity-doesnt-exist

Thansk for the link, but my internet is really slow and video doesn't play yet, but I'll let it load and watch it asap :)

Just to add to my thought, here is a graph showing centripetal force.

http://tamara-apphysics.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/9/9/2699975/3225787.jpg?600

If you overlay the graphs on Centripetal and Rubberband you get a stable model.
If you overlay the graphs on Centripetal and Gravity you get an unstable model.

And we come full circle to the open minded idea that an "unseen force" is added to the mix to keep orbits stable. When the orbit of a planet can be temporarily disturbed by the gravity of another planet and then regain its position in oribt, we should really consider some stabilizing unseen force to be present.

What gravity really is, we are not sure, neither how it really works. But trusting the traditional model that there is a "magical" balance between only gravity and centrifugal force to keep things in stable oribt is extremely questionable.

Ghislain
05-07-2016, 02:05 PM
Xerilon how are we looking at these orbits as there are many other factors to take into account such as the effects of the gravitational pull from other planets and according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon) "The Sun's gravitational effect on the Moon is more than twice that of Earth's on the Moon"

Is this the reason you wrote about the external magnet effect on your experimental image or were you thinking about the other planets in the solar system?

The point about the opposite effects of an elastic band to the gravitational force I can see, but even though gravity is weaker at a distance there must still be enough force to keep the Moon in its orbit or it would just break away, however not too far as the Moon also orbits the Sun as the Earth does.

Does the Moon orbit the Earth the same way a bolas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolas) wraps around its target?

Finding it difficult to get my head around this subject as it is not something to which I have given much thought in the past...but interesting :)

Here is another interesting point...if the Moon broke free of the Earth what would happen to its orbit around the Sun

Ghislain

Ghislain
05-07-2016, 02:35 PM
Could Gravity be the Casimir Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect) on a grand scale?

Ghislain

Xerilon
05-07-2016, 03:21 PM
but even though gravity is weaker at a distance there must still be enough force to keep the Moon in its orbit or it would just break away,


Ghislain

I would say no, because the speed and centripetal force would then overcome the weaker gravtational force, thus it becomes unstable. We are of course speaking if the moon would right now speed up or be dragged further out.

In my experimental model I mentioned an external magnet to play with "random" interference such as other planets passing by or a huge comet etc.. I did not take into account the gravity of the sun but that makes it actually more interesting. The true challenge is actually to be able to spin it at all and find a balance speed where the magnets are kept stable at a distance. I am pretty sure it is impossible.


Ghislain, you have many interesting thoughts that amplifies my idea. The Casimir effect could have a play, but even on subatomic levels, there is that mystical "strong force" and "weak force" that keeps neutrons and protons in relation to each other. http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae565.cfm

Where I am arriving at is that the universe may not be controlled by ONLY dead physical laws, but probably also some form of maybe consciousness to keep everything in order :) And that is very interesting if we are talking about God and such.

EDIT: Also I must add that static electromagnetism is not "pole" related. A thunderstorm does not have a direction per se. It just works because of ion buildup and discharge.

Ghislain
05-07-2016, 05:56 PM
A few of things to take into account,

the centripetal force acting on the planets is gravity,

as the Moon speeds up and moves out the distance it has to travel in one rotation lengthens and thus its circular momentum remains the same.

static electricity does have poles, lightening can travel from clouds to ground or visa versa also from cloud to cloud if the charges are opposite but still from positive to negative if using book notation but actually negative to positive,

when experiments are done on the Casimir effect they are not using materials the size of planets,

The strong force is no more mystical than other forces, it is the gluons that bind the protons and nutrons together, or rather the energy contained in such action, in an atom (this is the force utilized in atomic weapons); the weak force is responsible for radioactive decay, but this all brings us into the world of quantum mechanics, which is even more confusing ;)

N.B. I would just like to point out that I don't believe anything actually exists as we would describe existence and that all that exists is data, the more data the greater the mass...it is one massive quantum computer...I hope that doesn't make me a bad person ;)

Ghislain

Andro
05-07-2016, 06:08 PM
it is one massive quantum computer... I hope that doesn't make me a bad person ;)

No, it just makes you a 'bad' program :p

But I wholeheartedly agree with you about it all being data/information A.K.A. 'Code-Land' (my own term for it)

And if we accept this model, there's no need for any forces to explain anything, IMO. Just enter the desired code, and you have the rules of the Virtual Reality.

There is no actual gravity, etc in a microcosmic computer game, just pre-programmed algorithms - so no further explanation or inquiry is necessary, if this be the case.

Awani
05-07-2016, 06:09 PM
Just programmed algorithms - so no further explanation or inquiry is necessary, if this be the case.

Indeed, the best you can do is update.

:cool:

Ghislain
05-07-2016, 06:27 PM
And if we accept this model, there's no need for any forces to explain anything, IMO. Just enter the desired code, and you have the rules of the Virtual Reality.



Well it is still fun working out the rules :)

Ghislain

Ghislain
05-07-2016, 06:29 PM
Indeed, the best you can do is update.

:cool:


Not sure with my experience of Windows. :(

Ghislain

Xerilon
05-07-2016, 08:19 PM
Enlightening stuff guys!

And I admit to not knowing much about these physics, and as I can't understand the laymans explanation about gravity and centrifugal force, my mind tries to make sense of the holes in the theories.
But I found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%27s_theorem which comes from this https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2mmhku/in_space_can_magnetic_material_orbit_a_magnet/ and that shows that other people struggles with the same. The person commenting in that thread mentiones that there IS in fact a spring force that keeps things stable, but alas I can not read equations, at all. I understand things better when I envision them.

Btw I would wholeheartedly embrace the concept of being in a pre-pgrogrammed reality. It sounds comforting somehow. Though I would call for an update too, if I could :)

Andro
05-07-2016, 09:56 PM
Though I would call for an update too, if I could :)

For this, you would require a clearance level/password/access code which is even above the VR Super-Admin level 'pay-grade' :) ...

And after all, isn't this what High Alchemy boils down to?