matterdoc

Rotation of earth, considered here, is with respect to its axis. Magnitude and type of earth's resultant motion, with respect to an external reference, depends on other simultaneous motions also. Earth also moves in linear direction along with sun (around galactic centre). Therefore, earth's absolute spin motion is relatively very small. Part of 'central force' due to gravity between earth and sun causes steady acceleration of earth's spin motion. For details, kindly see http://vixra.org/abs/1008.0029 Nainan

Dear Studiot, You can see my views on Brownian movements at http://vixra.org/abs/1103.0117 Nainan

Dear Studiot, Please note that I have no argument against ‘Kinetic theory of gas’. My doubt (expressed in my first post) is how come an assumption used in it has transformed itself into a real fact without a proper mechanism that relates them and lead towards equating energy with motion (by many). I think it is only fair that a logical mechanism of action is required before equating them. In other words, I am interested to know how does energy move a matter-particle. Thanks, Nainan

@strange @Janus By real parameters, I meant parameters of real physical actions. Apparent parameters are those observed with respect to references. For example; According to present concept, earth moves at (almost) constant and unidirectional angular speed around sun. This is an apparent parameter as is observed from sun. However, an observer from outside solar system would see earth’s real angular motion (parameter) as of constantly varying magnitude and changing directions every half orbit about moving sun’s path (wavy). I have not made a new discovery. All I meant was ‘having prior knowledge of non-circular orbital motion, why do we perpetuate circular planetary orbits in all text books and other literature’. Have you come across any text book or other literature that qualifies circular orbital path as apparent only with respect to a static sun? Even Kepler’s planetary laws unambiguously state that planetary orbit is elliptical, with sun at one of its focus. Kindly note that Kepler’s planetary laws were derived from relative positions of few planets with respect to sun, as observed from earth. He has conveniently avoided parameters of moon, which was much easier to observe from earth. Having considered earth as a moving macro body, moon’s orbital motion would not suit his planetary laws, which were based on static central body. Although we have better information, we use and perpetuate same planetary laws for all cosmic bodies, including moon. You could avoid intended ridicule. @ophiolite Kindly see http://vixra.org/abs/1311.0018 Regards, Nainan

Thanks to all for illuminating comments. @studiot I have nothing against kinetic theory. It works admirably in its area. My doubt is only about one of its assumption being changed to a fact without having a definite mechanism or causes for action. Explanation on Brownian motion is also based on the same assumption. Here again no mention of a logical mechanism of action. Having the same assumption, working in different areas does not make it a fact. @swansot Every physical action should have a prior cause. Nature follows strict cause and effect relation. @Bignose All references on kinetic theory of gas give ‘continuous, rapid, random motion of gas particles in linear direction’ as one of the assumptions used. Nainan

By simple mechanics, no free macro body can orbit around another moving macro body in any type of closed geometrical path. Yet; (1). Knowing sun is a moving macro body, why do we perpetuate circular/elliptical planetary orbits around the sun, in all text books and other literature? (2). Knowing earth is a moving macro body, why do we perpetuate circular/elliptical orbital path for moon around earth, in all text books and other literature? Planetary laws are derived from relative positions of few planets about a static sun. They are good enough to predict relative positions (and cyclic phenomena related to relative positions) of macro bodies in a planetary system. Although they do not give real parameters of concerned macro bodies, why do we use planetary laws to find real parameters?. Kindly see; http://vixra.org/abs/1311.0018 Nainan

Dear Enthalpy, I don’t think there are accelerometers that can be attached to moving molecules in gas or pressure sensors that can measure impact pressure of individual molecules in gas. If random motion of molecules are already measured and found real, why is it still maintained with the list of assumptions on which gas-laws are based? Most people, while using this assumption for their purposes, usually forget to mention its assumed nature and thereby giving impression that random motion is real. As Bignose suggested, within its domain, gas-laws give accurate prediction. However, these predictions are still based on the assumption of random motion of molecules. Unless definite mechanism can be explained for cause and random motion of molecules, the assumption cannot become real fact. It is not correct to carry an assumption that works for certain phenomenon as real fact for other phenomena that gives apparently similar results as original phenomenon. Nainan

Thanks. Nainan

Why random motion of molecules, assumed for kinetic theory of gas, is currently accepted as real displacements and thus pave for equating energy with motion? Nainan

All real entities have substance/stuff. Substance provides objective reality and positive existence to real entities. In material universe, matter alone provides substance to real entities. As long as real entities are considered, matter is universal. Nainan

Space is a functional entity, presupposed by rational beings, whenever they think about existence of real entities. It is a container of real entities without limits, form or structure. Space extents to infinity means that matter-bodies can be found however far you go. Nainan

Advent of universal gravitational attraction necessitated that all matter in the universe accumulate at a point. This is absurd and against observation and common sense. Expansion of space/universe and all related theories are attempts to escape from this conundrum. Until real reasons for 'steady state' existence of universe is revealed, similar theories will continue to exist. Nainan

I think, time is a functional entity, invented by rational beings to compare interval between two actions with respect to a reference interval (between two actions), which is assumed constant. Nainan

'Cause and effect relation' gives us a sense of (flow of) time. Time is a functional entity that compares interval between two actions with respect to a reference interval (between two actions, interval between which is assumed constant). Time has no existence, except in minds of rational beings. Nainan

Energy is the ability to do work. Ability is nothing but a qualification and hence a functional entity. It has no form, structure or real existence. All functional entities exist in beholder's mind. They have no physical existence. Question arises; energy is ability of 'what' to do work?. To answer this question, there has to be an undefined entity that does work (on or about a matter-body). Then, energy can be defined as the stress produced in that entity, due to the work-done. Currently, energy is measured in terms of work-done on or about a matter-body. The work may be in any form like; motion, pressure, tension, etc. However, energy being the stress in the undefined entity, it cannot be equated to these actions. Energy is present wherever and whenever work is done. Work seems to be the real entity and energy its shadow. Nainan

Swansont is very correct. Energy is defined as 'the ability to do work'. Therefore, energy is a qualification or an adjective. However, it is currently used in every aspect, where an undefined term is required to represent cause of an action.

Afunctional entity is visualized to fulfill functions assigned to it by rationalminds. Function of space is only to provide a place for existence ofmatter-bodies. Space is required only when and where matter-bodies are present.Being functional entity, it requires no form or structure. It exists only inrational beings’ minds. That is why it is a container without form orstructure. Distanceis the separation between two matter-bodies (or between two points on amatter-body). It is not a measure of space. Area and volume are degrees ofdistance. Spacehas any meaning only when it is filed entirely (without voids) by a realentity. Matter is the only real entity in nature. As and when we discover anall-encompassing universal medium, made of matter and which fills thespace, space will have a form and structure. Without form and structure,provided by real entity, space cannot deform. Only in a space, filled withuniversal medium, “all the characteristics of our reality(physical attributes, properties of interaction, and time itself) emerge fromthe underlying form and structure of the context of our reality (space)”.

I heard of mass-energy equivalence. Where does it say matter and energy are equivalent or convertible into each other? Matter (a real entity) provides substance to all real entities to have objective reality in space. Mass (a functional entity) is the quantitative measurement of inertia. Although mass (like weight) is often taken (at low linear speeds) to represent matter content of a body, matter and mass are entirely different entities. Therefore, if it is said mass may be converted into energy or vice versa, it does not mean matter may be formed from or reverted into any of these.

Space is a functional entity, envisaged by rational beings, where real entities exist. It is a container without form or structure. Space extends to infinity means that you can find matter bodies (real entities) however far you go.

May be my mechanics is stale. But I reason it as shown in the attached figure. Figure shows the star at the centre and a planet being formed in the condensing part of accretion disc at certain distance from the star. Black arrows show linear speed of whole system. Red arrows show relative speed and blue arrows show resultant speeds of condensing part of gas. If the star is static in space: the condensing part of accretion disc will move around the star at (say) constant angular speed and form into a planet. (We may ignore non-circular orbit, for the time being). This is the scenario envisaged in nebular hypothesis. Let us now consider real status of the central star. The central star along with surrounding gas-disc, being a part of a rotating galaxy, moves at certain linear speed, V, along a circular path around the galactic centre. Linear motion is represented by black arrows. As seen from the figure, at different locations, relative to the star, the condensing part of accretion disc will have different resultant speeds, R. Irrespective of the magnitude of relative speeds, v, different resultant speeds will not suit a circular path around the central star at all. In fact, a planetary orbit will not form any type of closed geometrical path around its central star. Doc1.doc

Heliocentric solar system was envisaged from observed relative positions of sun and few of its planets. Gradually Kepler's 'laws on planetary motion' came to dictate all aspects of planetary orbits. Currently, planetary orbits are considered as closed geometrical paths around their central bodies. However, it should be noted that by simple mechanics, it is impossible for a free planet to orbit around its moving central body. Real shapes of planetary orbits are wavy paths along with path of its central body. Heliocentric model of solar system can provide relative positions of its constituents and nothing more about orbital motions.

Space is a functional entity, presupposed by rational beings, whenever they envisage real entities. It is an imaginary container of real entities. Space has no form or structure. Universe is the total extent of real entities. It is unlimited because however far you go, you will find real entities there.

"During the infancy of a planetary system, it usually consists of a young star, surrounded by a disc of spinning gas and dust. Eventually, turbulence in the disc results in the accumulation of clumps of matter, which over time grow into massive objects, which can eventually become planets, if they become so great as to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium and clear their orbits." Try to visualize above scenario with the young star moving at definite speed, as it happens in a galaxy. Formation of planets as envisaged in 'Nebular hypothesis' will be an impossibility.

No, Sir. You did not answer any of my doubts. I will be satisfied if you will clear my one doubt as given in my last post: Why are spring tides, both at opposition (when sun and moon are on opposite sides of earth) and at conjunction (when sun and moon are on the same side of earth) are equal?

DH, There is no point in saying 'nonsense', when you cannot answer. I raised only four doubts about cause of tides, which are obvious even to high school students. It seems you read only one of them, the doubt related to relativity theory. In this case, I quite agree with your answer. Answers to all other points are included in one collective 'nonsense'. All of them are related to Newtonian mechanics, which you consider infallible. Even the moderator seems to think that the points raised by me are taboo and he transferred my posts to an obscure corner so that it may be viewed by as few people as possible. I can not see in which way I tried to hijack the thread away from discussion on tides or tried to promote my view, other than to express certain doubts about current explanations. It seems no thoughts against current teachings are tolerated in this forum. You seem very confident and knowledgeable about the cause of tides being acceleration due to gravity. Your equations are beautiful and they positively state your view. Kindly clear at least one of my doubts. Why are spring tides, both at opposition and at conjunction (when sun and moon are on opposite sides of earth) are equal? If you care, you can explain others also. Ophiolite, It is not my claim. I only quoted an authoritative source.