Simplico

If the rules worked, we would have a complete understanding of the universe.

I think you are using the definition of acceleration as being any change in speed or direction, so circular motion is considered acceleration. I am not using that definition. I am saying that if there is no transfer of energy there is no acceleration. Consider the case of a rocket ship far out in space, who wants to circle a particular point in space at a constant velocity. In order to do this, the pilot must continuously apply the thrusters. If s/he does not, the rocket will no longer travel in a circle. The rocket is not being accelerated because it is moving in a circle, it is moving in a circle because it is being accelerated. The transfer of energy here is not the potential energy of the rocket as measured by it's radius, or its kinetic energy, as both remain constant (ignoring the loss of mass from the fuel burned). The transfer of energy is from the rocket fuel to empty space.

Senior Members 1332 8481 posts Location: Somerset, England Report post Posted Saturday at 09:15 AM What energy is transferred to the accelerating body executing constant circular motion? A body only moves in constant circular motion if a force is applied to it. As force results in the transfer of energy, the source of energy is from the force being applied.

Theory of zero (part 1) - Inertial motion. Abstract The purpose of this essay is to show that gravity is a consequence of the law of conservation of energy, and not an agency in it's own right. Introduction This essay postulates that the law of conservation of energy is the only law of physics that exists at the macro level. All others - including gravity - are the local manifestations of this one universal law. This essay therefore defines common units in terms of energy; distance between two bodies is defined as the work required to bring them to a common centre of mass (barycentre); mass is the amount of work a body can do per unit of distance; velocity is the difference in kinetic energy between two bodies. A gun fired in space If a gun is fired in space, the bullet will move in one direction (relative to their barycentre), with the gun moving in the opposite direction (recoil). They move with velocities that are proportional to their mass, so that the work done (mass x distance) in each direction is equal. This leaves the nett work done as zero at the barycentre. Using the definition of mass as resistance to change in velocity means the work done by the individual components of this system (gun and bullet) may increase indefinitely, even though the nett work done remains zero. If one imagines reversing the procedure, then the gun and bullet would be moving towards each other and would stop moving relative to each other when they had collided and formed a common centre of mass. Thus, all motion between two bodies maybe considered to occur relative to their barycentre. If we say that mass is the amount of work a body can do per unit of distance then mass reduces as distance increases (in order to keep the work done in a given time the same). This means that both the energy levels of all components of the system and the nett work are unchanged with time. . Inertial motion Inertial motion is motion which does not cause the energy levels of any body in the system to change. Because it does not cause change it cannot be detected. The energy of a body (with respect to another body) in inertial motion can be given by the formula: e=m*d*G where e is the kinetic energy of the body, m is it's mass, d is it's distance from it's barycentre with another body, and G is the inertial constant (how much the mass of a body changes in a given period of time). Path of equilibrium The path of equilibrium is the path along which the mass point of a body in inertial motion travels in order to conserve the energy of the system. It is given by the formula: where x and y represent the centre of mass of a body in a co-ordinate system whose origin is the barycentre of said body and the body it is moving relative to. e is it's kinetic energy (again, relative to the body it is moving towards or away from) and m is it's mass (again relative). The only constant is G, as a body in inertial motion must do equal work in equal time, or violate the law of conservation of energy. Neutral and real observers The neutral observer is an observer who is at the barycentre of two bodies moving relative to each other. It is s/he who sees the bodies move in opposite directions with velocities relative to their mass. But the neutral observer is an imaginary observer only; any real observer must have mass of their own, and therefore can never be at the barycentre of themselves and any body they are observing. Additionally, any real observer will be unaware of their own motion relative to another body and will always see the other body as the one in motion. In the ollowing example, there are two spacecraft, A and B, who are 15km apart, and are going to dock with each other. Spacecraft A has a mass of 5000kg, and craft B a mass of 10000kg. The neutral observer will therefore be 10km from craft A and 5km from craft B. The neutral observer sees both craft moving towards him. An observer on craft A will see craft B as being 15km from him, and will not see his own craft as moving, while the same will be true for an observer on craft B. I now introduce a third craft spacecraft, C into the proceedings. This craft is moving relative to both craft A and B. So, observer A will see craft B and C move, observer B will see A and C move, while observer C sees A and B move. Because there is no interaction between the crafts, all 3 observers will see the energy of the system conserved - but none will agree as to what this energy is. This is because they cannot measure their own energy levels. Only the imaginary neutral observer sees the energy of the system as zero; real observers must see a non-zero value for the energy levels of the system - but this is different for all of them. Acceleration Acceleration is the transfer of energy from one body to another. This can be detected by all bodies involved in an interaction because it changes the energy levels of the bodies involved. All observers will agree on the change in the energy levels of the bodies involved. This transfer of energy takes place in waves. Gravity Two bodies in motion relative to each other will follow the path of equilibrium around their common barycentre. Depending on their energy levels, this path may take one inside the physical radius of one or the other body, in which case they will collide. This will cause them convert or lose some of their energy (accelerate) until they come to rest relative to each other (have a common centre of mass). This means however that the equation e=m*d*G is no longer true as the point of zero energy is now common to both. This imbalance causes all mass in the body to attempt to resume inertial motion. However, this is prevented by the other mass in the body, which is what we feel as gravity. When we lose contact with the ground, inertial motion resumes so gravity 'disappears'. Gravity is caused by preventing the inertial motion - which is needed to conserve the energy of the system - when the cause disappears, so does gravity. Prediction If e=d*m*G it then the distance (d) any body is from it's barycentre with another body is: d=e/mG. Velocity is distance over time, so that means that velocity (v) is e/mGt, where t is the time elapsed. As the energy of a body in inertial motion doesn't change and neither does G but mass (m) does, an observer will see the velocity of a body in inertial motion increase as it moves away from him (assuming he is measuring the distance between himself and the body he is observing as a straight line in a co-ordinate system). If an observer sees a body of mass mb, moving away from at a velocity v, this will be made up of the sum of the body's movement away from the barycentre, and the observers own motion in the opposite direction. In a given time (t) he will see the velocity of the body he is observing increase by tm/tm1 where tm is the total mass of the observer and the body he is observing, and tm1 is the same after one second has elapsed. In essence, the path the body is following straightens out the further away it is from the barycentre. So the observer will see the body increase in velocity, but the work done by the body in a given time remains constant. Conclusions Inertial motion is motion which does not change the energy of any body in the system. Inertial motion is orbital in nature. All observers see the energy of an inertial system conserved, but no two will agree as to what that energy is. The mass of a body is the work it can do per unit of distance from the barycentre. Distance is the amount of work that needs to be done to bring two bodies to a common centre of mass. Gravity is what happens when inertial motion is prevented. It is not possible to distinguish between inertial mass and gravitational mass because there is no gravitational mass - only inertial mass. Acceleration is the transfer of energy from one body to another. Time is the conversion of energy from one form to another.

Theory of zero

As current theories are leading to a logical cul-de-sac, I just think it would be a good idea to go back to the start and try to look at things from a different perspective. Starting with the question of what everything is moving relative to. The current idea is an inertial frame of reference, previously it was the stationary earth, and for a while the fixed stars. An inertial frame of reference is considered to be a place where the laws of physics are at their simplest. But if we don't know what the laws of physics are, how can we tell when they are at their simplest? It could well be in a hundred years time people will smile at the ideas we have about what bodies move relative to. I suppose I should have made this more clear in my post, but my point is as we do not understand the universe down the path we have been on, maybe we should look for another path. The theory of SR. I didn't make a good job of it, but I was going to point out that ideas of what bodies are moving relative to have changed over the centuries. Newton was one of the greatest scientists of all time, but he had the idea that you could use the 'fixed stars' as a reference point for motion. The idea of a fixed velocity has it's merits, but also leads to logical inconsistencies (division by zero) and objects that have mass but no size (black holes).

Ok, the concept of a preferred state of rest as told in the bible, by Aristotle, and everyone else up to Galileo (with the possible exception of Zeno).

The concept of the earth being flat is very useful for measuring or calculating short distances. It just doesn't represent reality.

Frames of reference are an invented concept.

'He who defends everything defends nothing'. If everyone has their own measure of space and time, does anyone have a measure of anything?

I am I being stupid, or does special relativity simply substitute the concept of a preferred state of velocity (the speed of light) for the old concept of a preferred state of rest?