Continuation of energy concept!

[Bignose]

It would take energy though to change the orbit in some way though, and it was an energetic process in the first place that established the orbits.

 

But, that is beside the point. The point is that when a planet is in a stable orbit, there is plenty of motion and plenty of forces acting on the planet, yet no energy transfer.

 

walkntune keeps trying to equate the two. Mr. Skeptic gave a good example of a situation where there are plenty of very strong forces, and yet no energy transfer. walkntune's idea is therefore incorrect and needs revision.

[walkntune]

walkntune keeps trying to equate the two. Mr. Skeptic gave a good example of a situation where there are plenty of very strong forces, and yet no energy transfer. walkntune's idea is therefore incorrect and needs revision.

 

This is not quite my idea because I believe energy won't transfer unless it is easier to do.

If it's in a balanced state then it will remain unless a force from a different energy is opposing it.

I just see the orbit as two opposing energies in a balanced state.(Gravity against centrifugal force)

 

I don't just see it as one energy force in nature but more like a magnetic field where energy continuously opposes each other and causes each other to change in and out of form and coming to places where they are in balance with each other.

Magnetism is actually very key in my concept. I don't just believe the planets and universe find balance but I believe it's the very key to all existence and when things go out of balance is when they become more resistant and corrode away or die etc..

[swansont]

This is not quite my idea because I believe energy won't transfer unless it is easier to do.

If it's in a balanced state then it will remain unless a force from a different energy is opposing it.

I just see the orbit as two opposing energies in a balanced state.(Gravity against centrifugal force)

 

The centrifugal force is not real; an object moving in a circle is accelerating and thus experiences a force.

[walkntune]

The centrifugal force is not real; an object moving in a circle is accelerating and thus experiences a force.

Gravity against inertia but still same balance.

[Mr Skeptic]

I just see the orbit as two opposing energies in a balanced state.(Gravity against centrifugal force)

 

But if the net force is zero as you suggest, then the planet would be moving in a straight line, not orbiting. It wouldn't hurt you to read up on Newton's Laws of Motion.

 

swansont, what do you call the force equal and opposite to the centripetal force?

[walkntune]

But if the net force is zero as you suggest, then the planet would be moving in a straight line, not orbiting.

 

I am not really understanding what you mean or how I am suggesting a net force of zero?

[Mr Skeptic]

Alrighty then. What causes the planet to accelerate?

[walkntune]

Well I am guessing but we are closer to the sun sometimes then others so I would say falling toward the sun

[Mr Skeptic]

The change in potential energy due to moving down the gravitational potential (ie closer to the sun) accounts for only a small portion of the acceleration, and none at all for the perfectly circular orbit that I suggested.

[walkntune]

The change in potential energy due to moving down the gravitational potential (ie closer to the sun) accounts for only a small portion of the acceleration, and none at all for the perfectly circular orbit that I suggested.

That's good because this didn't seem like it would be enough to keep the earth from falling into the sun. Do other planets play a role somehow ?

[Mr Skeptic]

That's good because this didn't seem like it would be enough to keep the earth from falling into the sun. Do other planets play a role somehow ?

 

Good it may be, but not good for your idea if it can't explain it.

 

The other planets play a very minor role, not to the orbit itself so much as to making slight distortions to the orbit.

[foodchain]

Then how is physics ever to ever model gravity on a quantum level if that force cannot be modeled in terms of energy? Why is the graviton even proposed, would it be a particle of zero energy, how do you observe that?

 

Plus going from my layman's point of view, it seems even in a classical sense that gravity is not a force devoid of energy in terms of relativity, in fact how do you have something that has a physical interaction that has no energy, unless you say gravity is nothing short of a pseudo force used to describe the interaction of energetic things, overall I just do not understand how gravity is not an energy related thing. Basically without mass how would ever tell gravity exists, I know its a pointless question as it could not be tested, but really without mass, which is energy, would you even have gravity.

[swansont]

 

swansont, what do you call the force equal and opposite to the centripetal force?

 

I call it centrifugal. But I don't mean that the term doesn't exist, I mean that there is no such centrifugal force acting on object — there is no "balancing" of forces.

 

The force equal and opposite to the centripetal force does not act on the object in question; the centrifugal force is exerted by the object but does not act on it. And acceleration is due to the forces acting on the object.

[walkntune]

Good it may be, but not good for your idea if it can't explain it.

 

The other planets play a very minor role, not to the orbit itself so much as to making slight distortions to the orbit.

 

I am not so sure there is not more to the story.

What keeps star and planets from colliding into each other? I am not so sure space is empty. I think there could be more of a balance then we realize.

I believe only when an asteroid or such gets out of balance with these balancing forces I am talking about do they collide.

I thought the definition of space was the lack of force/matter. A void.

 

It is not logical to assume that just because A is between B and C, that A keeps B and C from colliding.

Especially when the definition of A (space) is the very lack of ability to interfere with B or C.

 

I believe the very cells in our body work as the universe does. When cells become out of balance in our body,they collide and disease starts to occur.

I believe science will be able to fit all of existence into one universal theory.

Edited November 21, 2009 by walkntune

[swansont]

What keeps star and planets from colliding into each other?

 

They aren't moving in a trajectory that intersects (both spatially and temporally).

[walkntune]

They aren't moving in a trajectory that intersects (both spatially and temporally).

I believe they are in a controlled movement pattern from the galaxy being a balanced ball of energy. I believe as stars get out of balance and collide and etc, eventually the galaxy can get out of balance and collide with other galaxies.I believe our body can behave the same as the universe and get off balance and cause disease.The energy of one galaxy can consume that of another and make one larger galaxy.

There must be some form of glue(type of energy) that holds a galaxy together and keeps a balance. And even a bigger picture is our galaxies keeping balance with each other and not colliding until one gets off balance and so forth.(Maybe universes doing the same. I believe this same principle can work all the way down to the atom.

[swansont]

I believe they are in a controlled movement pattern from the galaxy being a balanced ball of energy. I believe as stars get out of balance and collide and etc, eventually the galaxy can get out of balance and collide with other galaxies.I believe our body can behave the same as the universe and get off balance and cause disease.The energy of one galaxy can consume that of another and make one larger galaxy.

There must be some form of glue(type of energy) that holds a galaxy together and keeps a balance. And even a bigger picture is our galaxies keeping balance with each other and not colliding until one gets off balance and so forth.(Maybe universes doing the same. I believe this same principle can work all the way down to the atom.

 

I don't care what you believe. I care about what evidence you have.

 

A problem that has been pointed out by others is that you are using "energy" and "force" (e.g. glue, in this instance) interchangeably; these have specific definitions in physics.

[Mr Skeptic]

I believe

 

What you believe has no relevance to science nor even to your hypothesis. If you are still intending to talk about your hypothesis rather than about your beliefs, then you should show how that derives from your hypothesis.

[walkntune]

I don't care what you believe. I care about what evidence you have.

 

A problem that has been pointed out by others is that you are using "energy" and "force" (e.g. glue, in this instance) interchangeably; these have specific definitions in physics.

If you just assume that stars don't collide because of distance in space then that is just a belief also.

What you believe has no relevance to science nor even to your hypothesis. If you are still intending to talk about your hypothesis rather than about your beliefs, then you should show how that derives from your hypothesis.

 

My hypothesis is that everything is created and controlled by energy trying to take the easiest path and come to a place of rest or balance between all opposing energies and forces.

Everything is a result of energy. Just because no work is done doesn't matter.

If you push a brick wall and keep a force on it with your arms no work will be done but see how long it tales to run out of energy?

There is another thread going on I have noticed about Einstein returning to the ether(aether).

There is way more science in the idea so my discussion is rather fruitless except learning some science.

[elas]

At the risk of being wrong once again! I think the error is in your opening statement:

I believe energy is the only thing that exists.

Energy is measurement of the quantity of work an entity is capable of it is not an entity itself.

If you imagine two objects frequently colliding without damage and parting at different speeds after each collision then (ignoring friction etc) the combined speed of both objects remains the same but speed, and therefore collision energy; is transferred from object to object at each collision. Changes in action are measured as changes in energy.

0 mass = 0 energy = 0 action.

[walkntune]

At the risk of being wrong once again! I think the error is in your opening statement:

I believe energy is the only thing that exists.

Energy is measurement of the quantity of work an entity is capable of it is not an entity itself.

If you imagine two objects frequently colliding without damage and parting at different speeds after each collision then (ignoring friction etc) the combined speed of both objects remains the same but speed, and therefore collision energy; is transferred from object to object at each collision. Changes in action are measured as changes in energy.

0 mass = 0 energy = 0 action.

I don't think entities exist except as a form of trapped energy? I think all objects(entities) have a certain vibration of energy that keeps it separate from other objects. I think all entities are just a certain vibration of atoms.

Would a certain vibration of atoms not be considered a form of energy?

[Mr Skeptic]

If you just assume that stars don't collide because of distance in space then that is just a belief also.

 

Hm, but does your belief give accurate numerical description of the orbits?

 

Anyone know off the top of their head to how many significant figures the orbits are calculated to?

 

My hypothesis is that everything is created and controlled by energy trying to take the easiest path and come to a place of rest or balance between all opposing energies and forces.

 

That doesn't seem too unreasonable, but then it does seem like it's just well-known physics minus the specificity that makes it useful. For example, how do you tell which path is the easiest? Oh, and energies don't oppose -- they can't, since they don't have a direction.

 

Let me rephrase your hypothesis as precisely as I can, using known physics (includes a few corrections, bold stands for a vector quantity):

The force F is the gradient of the 3D potential energy function E(x,y,z). The easiest path is the one in the direction of F, since that would pull the object and require the least amount of work (or rather the largest amount of negative work, work done on the object). However, the force will simply result in an acceleration in that direction given by the formula a= F/m, so only objects at rest will follow the easiest path.

 

An object at rest in a local energy minima will be in a stable equilibrium since then any movement away from there will result in a restoring force pushing it back toward that minima, but at the minima all forces will cancel out.

 

Hm, I don't know how to describe stuff being "created and controlled" by this though. How's that so far though?

 

Everything is a result of energy. Just because no work is done doesn't matter.

If you push a brick wall and keep a force on it with your arms no work will be done but see how long it tales to run out of energy?

 

Right, you are doing no work on the wall, but your muscles require energy to remain flexed. The work here is at the molecular level on the actin molecules. Our biomachinery is not designed so that it can just freeze in place.

[walkntune]

Oh, and energies don't oppose -- they can't, since they don't have a direction.

Sorry, when I talk about opposing energy I really mean opposing magnetic fields and such.

I think there are two fields of energy in play with the universe that are opposing magnetic fields.In other words the whole universe is inside two magnetic fields that are always trying to find a perfect balance with each other.

 

Hm, I don't know how to describe stuff being "created and controlled" by this though. How's that so far though?

Instead of a man in the sky creating the universe I just see a constant force between opposing magnetic fields that force energy in and out of kinetic and potential forms.

[insane_alien]

walkntune, i suggest you go learn the scientific definitions of the words you are using. because what you are saying now in a scientific context makes less sense than an inebriated welshman.

[walkntune]

walkntune, i suggest you go learn the scientific definitions of the words you are using. because what you are saying now in a scientific context makes less sense than an inebriated welshman.

 

Please be specific with the post you are talking about so I can figure out how to make it scientific.