Mass a function of orbitals

[DevilSolution]

I have an idea that i would like a well rounded physicist to give their opinion on. Look at this with open eyes to the extent that science always changes, what was once seen as fact gets discarded for theory's that make more sense or can be proven axiomatically.

 

Okay so basically im thinking that if you had say a planet (or atom) that had only one satellite (or electron) in its orbital, lets use earth, the moon orbits the earth approx 12 times a year. Now if the earth and the moon are the only things in a particularly large vacuum and we zoomed out from earth and moon both in time and size. Now lets say 2 to the 64 in years, that is 2 to the 64th exponent, the amount of orbits is now exponentially large, 18446744073709551615 * 12, quite a large amount of spins. Now say your a human, but your like 2 to the 128 larger than the planet and satellite. What im curious to know is that could the spinning motion of the orbital actually create a mass? its intuitive to conclude there would certainly be a force exerted, for example if you had a finger the same circumference as the earth, then when you go to touch the earth the moon (still spinning at 2 to the 64 * 12) relative to how fast you can move your hand, into the earth, then it would to push your finger away / block you from touching earth (unless you push with a greater force ofcourse). At this point, when we know we have a force working against us based soley on an orbital object, could we say that if we had collection these orbital objects orbiting planets which are orbiting something bigger like the sun, which is then orbiting a black hole or center of a galaxy. Could this combined force create a force that is actually mass?

 

Again guys i dont know a great deal about physics so dont rip me apart to bad and please read this thread with an opan scientific mind, not a scientific mind that says the worlds flat or aids cant be cured.

 

Thanks

Edited February 25, 2013 by DevilSolution

[ajb]

Okay so basically im thinking that if you had say a planet (or atom) that had only one satellite (or electron) in its orbital...

You will have to take great care comparing the motion of planets with electron orbitals. The latter requires the use of quantum mechanics.

What im curious to know is that could the spinning motion of the orbital actually create a mass?

Sort of. Your system has rotational energy so you could use [math]E=m c^2[/math] and then consider this in the light of general relativity, or even the Newtonian limit. If you are far enough away the system might look like one mass with a mass larger than the two pieces.

 

There will be some technical stuff here and so this picture may not be very reliable.

[DevilSolution]

Thanks for the reply ajb, im grateful someone agrees its possible an orbit could create some perceived mass. Are you proposing that the orbital cycle and the force it creates can be directly convertible to energy? I thought about it and it should definitely be convertible to energy but at the loss of momentum of the orbital. Before extracting the energy the cycles are in a state of perpetual motion, however as soon as you start converting it to another form of energy the laws the thermodynamics dictate that eventually the energy that was in equilibrium will be transferred out the cycle. Im sure gravity plays a role but not exactly sure what it is as its not classed as a form of energy, so perhaps the laws of thermodynamics dont apply in the same way?

 

Back to the main point tho, the fact that this cycle creates a force i think means that things like the speed of orbit and overall mass of the satellite and planet combined would create its calculable mass (pushing force); There would also be other variables involved in what we perceive as mass too because gravity can potentially be speeding up or slowing down the orbit speed based on the locality of other planets. Also gravity holds the satellite in orbit of the larger mass and the relative pull from other neighbor planets are what i imagine cause the relative motion of an orbit, so its gravity itself which causes this pushing effect.

 

Whats the technical stuff skews the picture??

Edited February 26, 2013 by DevilSolution

[ajb]

Are you proposing that the orbital cycle and the force it creates can be directly convertible to energy?

A rotating system has rotational energy, that is all I am claiming.

I thought about it and it should definitely be convertible to energy but at the loss of momentum of the orbital. Before extracting the energy the cycles are in a state of perpetual motion, however as soon as you start converting it to another form of energy the laws the thermodynamics dictate that eventually the energy that was in equilibrium will be transferred out the cycle.

If you extract energy from the system then it will slow down, sure.

Im sure gravity plays a role but not exactly sure what it is as its not classed as a form of energy, so perhaps the laws of thermodynamics dont apply in the same way?

One would expect the laws of thermodynamics to be okay in gravitational systems.

Back to the main point tho, the fact that this cycle creates a force i think means that things like the speed of orbit and overall mass of the satellite and planet combined would create its calculable mass (pushing force); There would also be other variables involved in what we perceive as mass too because gravity can potentially be speeding up or slowing down the orbit speed based on the locality of other planets. Also gravity holds the satellite in orbit of the larger mass and the relative pull from other neighbor planets are what i imagine cause the relative motion of an orbit, so its gravity itself which causes this pushing effect.

I don't think this is a good picture. All I have really said is that the rotational energy of a system can be thought of as equivalent to a mass via Einstein's formula.

Whats the technical stuff skews the picture??

One could be thinking of the Newtonian limit of nearly flat space-times, where you can think about the total non-gravitational energy. Then you may like to think of post-Newtonian effects as approximations to GR, but I don't think this will always be a good picture of what is going on.

[derek w]

If I have a piece of string 1 metre long,point A being one end of the string and point B being the other end of the string,if I flick the piece of string like a whip and send a wave down the length,the distance between point A and point B will be shorter,they will gravitate towards each other.

[DevilSolution]

If I have a piece of string 1 metre long,point A being one end of the string and point B being the other end of the string,if I flick the piece of string like a whip and send a wave down the length,the distance between point A and point B will be shorter,they will gravitate towards each other.

 

 

How would equate for the increased pull when the points are closer?

What is flicking the string?

Would the force going into the flick increase proportionally relative to the 2 masses?

 

I don't think this is a good picture. All I have really said is that the rotational energy of a system can be thought of as equivalent to a mass via Einstein's formula.

 

Could you elaborate? I understand my analogy is a basic example and is probably contradicted by some very well founded laws but which??

 

What force is created by rotation? i presume you mean that the energy created by the rotation can be converted to a mass?

Edited February 27, 2013 by DevilSolution

[derek w]

How would equate for the increased pull when the points are closer?

What is flicking the string?

Would the force going into the flick increase proportionally relative to the 2 masses?

The point about the piece of string is that a wave distorts the carrier it is travelling along,and that points A and B,do not get closer because of some mysterious force acting at a distance.

[DevilSolution]

The point about the piece of string is that a wave distorts the carrier it is travelling along,and that points A and B,do not get closer because of some mysterious force acting at a distance.

 

Yeh i wasnt exactly sure whether to take your analogy as being scientifically accurate or you just showing me something, although it does make perfect sense and explains waves in a reinvigorating light. I understand what your saying, physically the force of gravitation has an actual connection, not a visible one but physical nonetheless. I dno what a "carrier" is in physics so i dno what you mean by saying a wave distorts it?? a particle? an atom?

 

Is there any physical law that show why mass attracts mass??

[derek w]

Is there any physical law that show why mass attracts mass??

general relativity.

[Kramer]

Or : C^2 / sqrt(G) * C^2 / sqrt(G) !



Kramer