Question: Cause of Movement?

[Kramer]

What is the cause of movement of mass and mass-les particles?

Is it the movement an intrinsic ability of matter, or it is caused by out-side factors?

[DevilSolution]

Balance.

 

Particles pertaining to little to no mass are pretty much non existent, The force they exert acts as if they were the same.

 

There's no absolute form of knowing where particular particles will be at any given time so we apply laws of probability to give an approximate. The sub atomic movement is dance of balance within the atom. EMW behave differently, they are in wave form and flow like a spiral of sorts with the sine and cosine having a relative phase to each other, because they're electro magnetic they are effected by various things within the universe like magnetic flux or other EM waves. The cause of most of the EMW are by product to huge nuclear reactors or stars basically, energy transforms from the tightly compact, high temperature chemical reaction into the release of this energy.

 

Realistically speaking we don't have the means to measure things we may presume have no mass.

 

Its easy to measure the mass of a bowl of sand, its almost as easy to measure a grain, it gets harder to measure fine particle of sand and once you get to the subatomic levels you might aswell give up on thinking in general terms of mass, speed, distance and time as they are impartial to some of what we observe.

[Strange]

What is the cause of movement of mass and mass-les particles?

Is it the movement an intrinsic ability of matter, or it is caused by out-side factors?

 

Massive particles are caused to move by some force. Massless particles always move at the speed of light.

[ajb]

Massive particles are caused to move by some force.

Newtonian mechanics says something a little different and relates acceleration and forces. A massive particle will move at a constant velocity as measured by some inertial observer provided the particle is not subject to any external forces.

 

So, movement is not really tied to forces, acceleration is.

 

To my mind, the only answer to the opening post is that Galilean relativity tells us that we cannot consider any massive particle to be at absolute rest. As there is no absolute rest things must be 'in motion'. The same holds in Einsteinian relativity.

[Strange]

Much better put, ajb.

[Kramer]

DevilSolution
Balance.
The sub atomic movement is dance of balance within the atom.

--- The balance of what, of force? The force acts in radial direction. The velocity of movement is tangential. In a dance you may attract or repel your partner, but that has very little to do with movement of feet of both dancers.

 

Stranger
Massive particles are caused to move by “some force”. Massless particles always move at the speed of light.

 

---- “That some force” is caused by “something” that is moving? Yes or no? What is the cause of “that something” for to move?
What cause mass-less particles to move at speed of light?

 

Ajb.

So, movement is not really tied to forces, acceleration is.

To my mind, the only answer to the opening post is that Galilean relativity tells us that we cannot consider any massive particle to be at absolute rest. As there is no absolute rest things must be 'in motion'. The same holds in Einsteinian relativity.

----Acceleration is the change of velocity of things that move, this mean it is tied with movement. What causes accelerations, if not some things that are moving with different velocities and interact with each other? For example: an electron in relative rest status is collided by a photon. Electron from relative rest status is put “in motion”, this is some kind of acceleration. Photon change direction, but move with the same velocity, even though has a change in frequency. (If not absorbed totally). What happens between them in moment of collide?
As for Einsteinian relativity I am confused: we have acceleration of gravity, but we don’t have force.

[Strange]

What cause mass-less particles to move at speed of light?

 

I don't think there is any answer to that. Why are there three dimensions? Why does electric charge exist?

 

 

As for Einsteinian relativity I am confused: we have acceleration of gravity, but we don’t have force.

 

The definition of acceleration is a bit different in GR. For example, someone in freefall is not accelerating. You can tell this is the case because when you are accelerating you feel a force - for example, when your car accelerates you are pushed back in your seat. But when you are in freefall, you feel no force. However, you do feel a force when standing on the ground. That is when you are accelerating!

 

I am disappointed that you are still too lazy to understand the very simple quote mechanism: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82164-the-quote-function-a-tutorial-in-several-parts/

Edited December 20, 2015 by Strange

[studiot]

 

Question: Cause of Movement?

 

If you want to look more deeply into why things move rather than how they move, I suggest you study

Hamilton's Principle of Least Action, which offers mathematical analysis of why rather than Newton's Laws which offer analysis of the how.

Hamiltonian-Lagrangian mechanics carries over into quantum theory and relativity and works for sub atomic particles as well as supra atomic ones.

[ajb]

So, movement is not really tied to forces, acceleration is.

None of us have been very technical here, so the above is okay. A body does not need a net force acting on it to be in motion.

 

Acceleration is the change of velocity of things that move, this mean it is tied with movement.

Yes, but a force is not needed for an object to have a velocity (as measured by some inertial observer).

 

What causes accelerations, if not some things that are moving with different velocities and interact with each other?

Forces... it depends on the description of the mechanics you are using, but external forces are at play when we have an acceleration.

 

Or you have fictitious forces which are due to non-inertial observers. That is you are picking coordinate frames for which Newton's laws do not hold. To 'fix' Newton's laws you add extra forces. Good examples here are the centrifugal force and Coriolis force, which are to do with rotation. (I will come back to this)

 

For example: an electron in relative rest status is collided by a photon. Electron from relative rest status is put “in motion”, this is some kind of acceleration. Photon change direction, but move with the same velocity, even though has a change in frequency. (If not absorbed totally). What happens between them in moment of collide?

As this involves a scattering of photons it is best described in terms of quantum electrodynamics. Things here become more complicated and the photon and electron are no longer 'small balls' and you cannot really think of them colliding.

 

Also remember that (as measured by an inertial observer) any photon (in vacuum) travels at the speed of light c. This does not depend on the energy or frequency of the light.

 

As for Einsteinian relativity I am confused: we have acceleration of gravity, but we don’t have force.

We start to get into technical semantics with the distinction between forces and fictitious forces. In general relativity gravity is seen as the local geometry of space-time. Test particles follow geodesics which are the straightest possible curves on a space-time. The fact that these geodesics are usually not straight lines as defined on R^n we have a force. There is change in acceleration and so a force.

 

However, this force is usually stated as a fictitious force as it really comes from the fact that we are unable to find inertial coordinates on a general space-time. There is no 'external force' here. However, you can always in a small enough region about a given point find inertial coordinates. This is is essentially the equivalence principal in a mathematical form.

[michel123456]

Motion is one of the expressions of conservation of energy.

Edited December 21, 2015 by michel123456

[swansont]

Energy need not be conserved. There would be motion if we could create energy, too.

[Kramer]

My question is very simple:
Is it the movement an “intrinsic ability of particles of matter”, or it “is caused by out-side factors”?

The answer will be senseless, if we use equivoques.
In Newton era was in mode concept of “ winding of cosmic clock “.
This means that an outsider action create the motion.
In modern era we have theory of Big Bang about creation of cosmos. I think that “winding factor” is on table for dispute.
There is a third option: The matter is eterne. It has not been created it will never disappear. The matter consists from “atoms (figurative)” that possess in them selves: “ability to move in space” in relativity velocity to each other. etc..

Stranger
I don't think there is any answer to that. Why are there three dimensions? Why does electric charge exist?
----You think that movement with C velocity is intrinsic nature of mass-les particles?
---------
The definition of acceleration is a bit different in GR. For example, someone in freefall is not accelerating. You can tell this is the case because when you are accelerating you feel a force - for example, when your car accelerates you are pushed back in your seat. But when you are in freefall, you feel no force. However, you do feel a force when standing on the ground. That is when you are accelerating!
----What about idea that in free fall you are floating in space with constant tangential velocity 7909 m/s and with a radial acceleration 9.82 m/s^2.The change of velocity in total is not to much. You feel the big change when collide with earth, which move with tangential velocity 465m/s? Am I wrong? Sure.
I am disappointed that you are still too lazy to understand the very simple quote mechanism: http://www.sciencefo...-several-parts/
--- I have tried a lot but have not find anywhere any satisfactory answer for my questions.
Studiot
f you want to look more deeply into why things move rather than how they move, I suggest you study
Hamilton's Principle of Least Action, which offers mathematical analysis of why rather than Newton's Laws which offer analysis of the how.
Hamiltonian-Lagrangian mechanics carries over into quantum theory and relativity and works for sub atomic particles as well as supra atomic ones.
---- Eh. I am sure that if I travel in the jungle of modern high math, I am lost. So I thought that maybe experts in math maybe simplify the essence and satisfy my curiosity.
Ajb
None of us have been very technical here, so the above is okay. A body does not need a net force acting on it to be in motion.
Yes, but a force is not needed for an object to have a velocity (as measured by some inertial observer).
Forces... it depends on the description of the mechanics you are using, but external forces are at play when we have an acceleration.
---- I understand better with simple examples:
The velocity of earth toward the sun is: V orb.= (G * Msun / Ds.e.)^0.5= 29718m/s The radial acceleration is: g = Vorb.^2 / Ds.e. = 5.9*10^-3 m/sec^2
Till now we have nothing to do with earth as object (it may be an atom) , but we have to do with a distance earth - sun = Ds.e. , and the mass of the sun. Who is responsible for orbital velocity of earth? Earth, or gravity of sun?
--------

Or you have fictitious forces which are due to non-inertial observers. That is you are picking coordinate frames for which Newton's laws do not hold. To 'fix' Newton's laws you add extra forces. Good examples here are the centrifugal force and Coriolis force, which are to do with rotation. (I will come back to this)
--- Okay
-----
As this involves a scattering of photons it is best described in terms of quantum electrodynamics. Things here become more complicated and the photon and electron are no longer 'small balls' and you cannot really think of them colliding.

Also remember that (as measured by an inertial observer) any photon (in vacuum) travels at the speed of light c. This does not depend on the energy or frequency of the light.
---- I am curious about movement and acceleration of elementary common particles. Because I think that real ultimate particles of mater, the blocks of every thing, must have C velocity as own ability. All kind of velocities we perceive, are result of interactions between particles via electro -- gravity. I continue to think so.
--------

We start to get into technical semantics with the distinction between forces and fictitious forces. In general relativity gravity is seen as the local geometry of space-time. Test particles follow geodesics which are the straightest possible curves on a space-time. The fact that these geodesics are usually not straight lines as defined on R^n we have a force. There is change in acceleration and so a force.

However, this force is usually stated as a fictitious force as it really comes from the fact that we are unable to find inertial coordinates on a general space-time. There is no 'external force' here. However, you can always in a small enough region about a given point find inertial coordinates. This is is essentially the equivalence principal in a mathematical form.
---- About General relativity of gravity I have that vague idea of popularized rubber sheet.
The simple “elegant” formula of Einstein for me is not so simple. In contrary it is too complicated. Can you give me any data please what are the physic constants of Gνμ and Tμν . Please.

Michel123456
Motion is one of the expressions of conservation of energy.
----It is always linked with energy I think.
-------
Swanson
Energy need not be conserved. There would be motion if we could create energy, too.
---- Isn’t motion prerequisite of energy?
-----------

[studiot]

Kramer,

 

There are tools in this forum to help lay out your answer so others can more easily see what was said by someone else and what was the reply.

 

 

Michel123456
Motion is one of the expressions of conservation of energy.
----It is always linked with energy I think.
-------
Swanson
Energy need not be conserved. There would be motion if we could create energy, too.
---- Isn’t motion prerequisite of energy?

 

Using those tools to look at the comments and replies we can more readily see that you are mistaken in your assumptions.

 

Motion is not connected with Potential Energy in any way.

 

As regards your response to me

 

Do you think the tax man would let you off filling in the last 53 boxes on the tax form just because you wanted it simplified?

 

C'mon Lagrange 1736 to 1813, Hamilton 1803 to 1865 so the mathematics is hardly modern.

As to its relative level I don't know what maths you know so I can't comment, but you can understand it with an old fashioned British A level in maths.

[Strange]

Stranger ...

 

You may have some interesting comments or questions. But as you are too lazy to use the quote function and make your posts readable, I am not going to waste any more time on it. Maybe others have more time to waste on you.

[ajb]

Is it the movement an “intrinsic ability of particles of matter”, or it “is caused by out-side factors”?

It is intrinsic in the sense that no massive body can be considered at absolute rest. Other than that you are really starting to probe metaphysics.

 

The velocity of earth toward the sun is: V orb.= (G * Msun / Ds.e.)^0.5= 29718m/s The radial acceleration is: g = Vorb.^2 / Ds.e. = 5.9*10^-3 m/sec^2

Till now we have nothing to do with earth as object (it may be an atom) , but we have to do with a distance earth - sun = Ds.e. , and the mass of the sun. Who is responsible for orbital velocity of earth? Earth, or gravity of sun?

It is a composite system, but as the Earth is much smaller than the Sun you can reasonably assume that the Earth is a 'test particle' moving in the gravitational field of the Sun. So, I would say that the Sun's gravitational field is the key player here.

 

I am curious about movement and acceleration of elementary common particles.

You should try to get to grips with some basic ideas in Newtonian mechanics as well as the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalism. From there you should also look into the basic ideas of quantum mechanics.

 

 

About General relativity of gravity I have that vague idea of popularized rubber sheet.

That is a nice analogy, but please keep in mind that it is an analogy.

 

The simple “elegant” formula of Einstein for me is not so simple. In contrary it is too complicated.

Okay, it does involve some knowledge of differential geometry...

 

Can you give me any data please what are the physic constants of Gνμ and Tμν .

The are not constant but rather tensors on space-time. Tensors are the right way to encode anything 'physical' as they transform nicely between different reference frames. Basically what the field equations tell us is

 

'Local Geometry = Field/Matter Content'

 

The local geometry is described by the Einstein curvature Gνμ and the mater content by the energy-momentum tensor of the fields/matter Tμν.

 

As we are talking about motion, we also need an equation analogous to the Lorentz force. This is provided by the geodesic equation which we take to be the equation of motion for test particles.

[swansont]

My question is very simple:

Is it the movement an “intrinsic ability of particles of matter”, or it “is caused by out-side factors”?

Intrinsic ability? Sure. Everything can be moved. But they do not cause themselves to be moved, it is cause by outside factors. Using "ability" makes for awkward phrasing – the two conditions are not mutually exclusive.

 

Swanson

Energy need not be conserved. There would be motion if we could create energy, too.

---- Isn’t motion prerequisite of energy?

No. As Einstein showed, merely having mass (at rest) means you have energy.

[Kramer]

Studiot
Kramer,
There are tools in this forum to help lay out your answer so others can more easily see what was said by someone else and what was the reply.
Kramer,

Using those tools to look at the comments and replies we can more readily see that you are mistaken in your assumptions.
----- I am embarrassed, but I can’t find the tools, you mention, in my old computer. I used the red color for riders response and the black for my on them. I don’t know why they are faded when posted.

Motion is not connected with Potential Energy in any way.
---- Maybe I am wrong but I think differently. Potential energy must be connected with movement.. If you are in the position 100 m plus radius of earth you are in a tangential lesser velocity (V = scrt ( G*Me / (R+100)), and in a lesser gravity, which I suppose must be : g = V^2 / (R+100) So your potential energy must be Ep = G * Me*ms / (R + 100) = ((G*Me/(R+100) ) *ms = V^2 / (R+100). Can you tell me where I am wrong
As regards your response to me
Do you think the tax man would let you off filling in the last 53 boxes on the tax form just because you wanted it simplified?
---- Isn’t this a dodge for my simple and forward question in my post?
C'mon Lagrange 1736 to 1813, Hamilton 1803 to 1865 so the mathematics is hardly modern.
As to its relative level I don't know what maths you know so I can't comment, but you can understand it with an old fashioned British A level in maths.
---- You are pushing me for a new post:
”Doesn’t expansion of space undermine the validity of math?”
Lagrange and Hamilton use Cartesian system. The zero point and the axes “of space” are supposed dimension-less. What if this supposition is not valid? The point zero is not zero but a sphere, the axes are not dimension - less lines but cylinders and they all bulge every second via expansion of space?
As to its relative level I don't know what maths you know so I can't comment, but you can understand it with an old fashioned British A level in maths.

----I don’t hide my ignorance in both physic and math, but I can’t suppress my curiosity to know what intelligent people think about issues that I fail to grasp in my meditation.
I can’t chew on the other side, the assertion, of intelligent people, that without math is impossible to understand physics phenomena.

Strange
You may have some interesting comments or questions. But as you are too lazy to use the quote function and make your posts readable, I am not going to waste any more time on it. Maybe others have more time to waste on you.
---- Above, I responded about it. It ‘s not about laziness. Your will, I value your time.
Ajb

It is intrinsic in the sense that no massive body can be considered at absolute rest. Other than that you are really starting to probe metaphysics.
----If not in absolute rest, means “always” in relative movement. It is an intrinsic property of matter in “what ever status”, am I right?
I am not probing metaphysics. I see the movement of matter as an important issue in physics. If you don’t mind, I would like to have further your opinion about some ifs.
It is a composite system, but as the Earth is much smaller than the Sun you can reasonably assume that the Earth is a 'test particle' moving in the gravitational field of the Sun. So, I would say that the Sun's gravitational field is the key player here.
----- So do I. But I can’t give an answer why the velocity of ‘test particles’ near the gravity body or on the surface of it, have so high discrepancy with simple calculi.

You should try to get to grips with some basic ideas in Newtonian mechanics as well as the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalism. From there you should also look into the basic ideas of quantum mechanics.
---- This is a repetitive refrain…. by all moderators. Doesn’t that means: don’t go in opera if you have no idea about sol-fa, about construction of musical instruments, about laws of harmony? Or don’t bother us with your nasty so called song?

Okay, it does involve some knowledge of differential geometry..
The are not constant but rather tensors on space-time.
---- My mistake. I intended “physics unities” instead of constants. About constants I wanted to know what is ν and μ, if they are physics concepts what are their physics unities.
Tensors are the right way to encode anything 'physical' as they transform nicely between different reference frames. Basically what the field equations tell us is

'Local Geometry = Field/Matter Content'
---- I hope I don’t bother you if I beg some further explanations:
1- Local Geometry. Is this about non uniformity of space time, I mean change of “density” of dispersed “physics space” over Euclidian space? And with it change of profile of landscape like “geodesics” but here in volume not in surface. And in different geodesics move “test particles” with different “constant” velocities?
This deformation of space time is caused by field “devided /?” by Matter Contend?
2 – Field. Is expressed by: 8 * Pi * G / C^2 * C^2 .
Now please don’t take this as a joke. If I transform this with
8 * pi * G / (G * M / R)^2 = 8 * Pi / (G * M^2 / R^2) = 8 * Pi / Plank force
has it any physics meaning?
3 – Matter contend is this like (M*C^2 + (P*C)^2) like some W
The local geometry is described by the Einstein curvature Gνμ and the mater content by the energy-momentum tensor of the fields/matter Tμν.

As we are talking about motion, we also need an equation analogous to the Lorentz force. This is provided by the geodesic equation which we take to be the equation of motion for test particles.
---- Any numerical example? Or is it too much, for the lazy man that want free lunch.
Swanson
Intrinsic ability? Sure. Everything can be moved. But they do not cause themselves to be moved, it is cause by outside factors.
---- “Everything can be moved”- that ‘s right.
Moved by “what”, moved by “who”, because this “what” or “who” must move itself to causes movement to ‘non moving’ others. And when we intend creation of things, the question is what or who gave them movement, on the moment of creation? What happens after first movement, like things cause movements on each other, this is different issue.

Using "ability" makes for awkward phrasing – the two conditions are not mutually exclusive.
----
No. As Einstein showed, merely having mass (at rest) means you have energy
----I think there is no rest. Even the elementary particles that have mass have structure, by subs that move in circular movement.

[studiot]

 

Kramer

Maybe I am wrong but I think differently. Potential energy must be connected with movement.. If you are in the position 100 m plus radius of earth you are in a tangential lesser velocity (V = scrt ( G*Me / (R+100)), and in a lesser gravity, which I suppose must be : g = V^2 / (R+100) So your potential energy must be Ep = G * Me*ms / (R + 100) = ((G*Me/(R+100) ) *ms = V^2 / (R+100). Can you tell me where I am wrong

 

The above was created by selecting the quotation bubble (13th tool from the left) on the second line of the toolbars.

Then copy and pasting the excerpt from your post

Then identifying the author of the quote as yourself by typing in your name.

 

In response to your question about potential energy

 

Yes you are wrong.

Any energy a body possesses by virtue of its motion is Kinetic energy.

Any body of the same mass and charge at the same position would have the same potential energy, regardless of the velocity of that body or even if it was no moving at all.

If it's velocity changes as a result of a position change this kinetic energy changes any change in its potential energy is totally independent of its kinetic energy or changes in its velocity.

 

So a body can circle at a constant radius, speed up or slow down whilst circling and its kinetic energy will change, but its potential energy does not change.

 

Conversely a body can change its radius so cahnging its potential energy and simultaneously maintain its velocity so keeping its kinetic energy constant.

 

There are further energy considerations for these events to occur since work has to happen to cause them.

[ajb]

Potential energy must be connected with movement..

You do not need a potential to have an object in motion. You have 'free objects' with no net force acting upon them.

 

”Doesn’t expansion of space undermine the validity of math?”

Lagrange and Hamilton use Cartesian system.

Not nessisarily. Depending on the problem there maybe other natural choices of coordinates.

 

The zero point and the axes “of space” are supposed dimension-less.

The 'zero point' is not fixed in any way. Really we have an affine structure.

 

If not in absolute rest, means “always” in relative movement. It is an intrinsic property of matter in “what ever status”, am I right?

I think so. You cannot define absolute rest and you cannot define absolute velocity. Thus one has to think that everything can move.

 

I am not probing metaphysics. I see the movement of matter as an important issue in physics.

I think you are starting to probe metaphysics. We know how to describe mathematically the motion of physical systems (in principal anyway). We see that things are in motion and that is that.

 

We know how forces are tied to accelerations and we can describe it all mathematically. More metaphysically one could ask what is a force? The best answer is to point to a term in the Euler--Lagrange equations!

 

 

But I can’t give an answer why the velocity of ‘test particles’ near the gravity body or on the surface of it, have so high discrepancy with simple calculi.

I do not really follow you here.

 

Can you be a little specific?

 

Anyway, if you have some differencing velocity to what is observed it is probbaily due to some of the simplifying assumptions you have made not being valid. For example, air resistance.

 

I intended “physics unities” instead of constants. About constants I wanted to know what is ν and μ, if they are physics concepts what are their physics unities.

ν and μ are indices that run over the dimension of your space-time. In standard general relativity is is 0,1,2,3.

 

1- Local Geometry. Is this about non uniformity of space time...

There are several ways to describe this, but the usual way is in terms of a metric. By local geometry I mean a method of defining the distance between two point that are close to each other. The metric tensor encodes all this and in general it will be different to the Euclidean metric (d^2 = x^2 + y^2 etc).

 

This also gives you a notion of a length of a path. Without details, geodesics are basically the shortest paths between two points.

 

Now please don’t take this as a joke. If I transform this with

8 * pi * G / (G * M / R)^2 = 8 * Pi / (G * M^2 / R^2) = 8 * Pi / Plank force

has it any physics meaning?

You are free to pick various units and write things in terms of Planck units. Such units help you think about scales at which quantum gravity are expected to be important, but they tell you no more than this.

 

3 – Matter contend is this like (M*C^2 + (P*C)^2) like some W

That can be understood as the energy of a free particle on a flat background. This will hold true in small enough regions of space-time. The way to interpret what you have written is as the equation of motion for massive particles in special relativity.

 

Any numerical example? Or is it too much, for the lazy man that want free lunch.

It is possible to write down a closed expression for (some)the solutions to equations of motion of a test particle in the Schwarzschild background. I won't do that here, I am not sure you would follow the calculations based on what you have said so far.

 

An easier example maybe just to solve for geodesics on the plane equipped with the standard Euclidean metric. The solutions are just straight lines.

 

Another example that is not too hard is the geodesic equation on a sphere. You get great circles as the solutions.

 

I think there is no rest.

There is no absolute rest. However you can consider the frame for which a give massive particle is at rest.

 

Anyway, what we know is that when you balance any equations involving energy you must also take in to account the mass.

 

Even the elementary particles that have mass have structure, by subs that move in circular movement.

Elementary or fundamental particles? There is a difference.

 

Fundamental particles, as defined by the standard model, are thought not to have any internal structure.

[Kramer]

Kramer says:
---- We were speaking about gravity potential energy. I thought that gravity potential energy depends by movement:
The gravity that create a mass body (Mb) in the unity of mass (M1) of 1 kg mass in a distance D from Mb is:
g = G*Mb. / (Rb+D)^2 = (G*Mb / (Rb+D)* (Rb+D)) = Vg^2 / (Rb + D) m / s^2 Here Vg is velocity of test body. (Caused by gravity of Mb or is self of test body velocity) which is the question of OP.Now Vg^2 * M1 is kinetic energy = Ek of test body, equal unity mass of system.
Now g * M1 is potential gravity force, of Mb on Unity of mass M1 in distance (Rb +D). Here g*M1 = g*1 kg.m. / s^2 = Fg .
So gravity potential energy of body Mb toward test body (1kg) will be :
Fg*distance = g*1* (Rb+D) = (Vg^2 / (Rb + D) )*1*(Rb +D) = Vg^2 / (Rb+D) = Ek =Eg
So potential energy depends by velocity as kinetic energy.
Any mess I have created?
-------

Studiot says:
So a body can circle at a constant radius, speed up or slow down whilst circling and its kinetic energy will change, but its potential energy does not change.
-------
Kramer says
-----If body is under the field of gravity and its velocity is only under the command of gravity field, I think the potential energy is equal kinetic energy. If you ads some outside forces, this is another problem. Depend by the direction of force, but in this case always you ads in the body energy from out side.
But maybe I have wrong concept. To clear it, I give two questions.
Two question example:
1) To hold a satellite pending upon one point radial on earth, does needed a constant correction of its velocity, or is used a special radius of orbit? Or let it be whatever orbit but you made a correction of speed of satellite once and for ever, without change of distance from earth?
2) Can you orbits one satellite, for example North South or West-East and hold it without adding energy from outside source?

Kramer say:
Ajb. Thanks for your patience in our conversation, and for your meticulous responses.
I take from your responses only two of them, which interest me more.
-------------
Ajb says:

I think you are starting to probe metaphysics. We know how to describe mathematically the motion of physical systems (in principal anyway). We see that things are in motion and that is that.
-------

Kramer says:
Was not my aim to probe metaphysics. I am interested for my speculative idea to know this crucial issue.
I make this hypothesis:
Let have two “ speculative fundamental sub particles” that have, each of them, the same electric “ Charge - e” and a mass Mu = Mplank*scrt(α), in the space that have electric constants ε and magnetic constant μ, with a distance toward each other Rx.

If suppose they are free from influence of outsider (or absence of them) they will interact with each other with electric force repulsive and gravity force attractive.
Fe = e^2 / (4*Pi*ε* R^2) = (μ/(4*Pi)* ( e* v )^2 * (2*pi* α^-1)^2*R^2 =
And Fm = G * Mu^2 / R^2 =
Their forces are equal, the two subs will be in equilibrium, the distance between them will be R (unchanged) .
What is your opinion about my conundrums:?
1) Will subs to go around each other in fields of each other with out taking any push from out side?
2) Will be orbit in a plane or in sphere? I mean, will electric force create orbit in the same plan with gravity force?
3) Has this post to do with metaphysics or physics?
---------
2)
3) Ajb says:
You are free to pick various units and write things in terms of Planck units. Such units help you think about scales at which quantum gravity are expected to be important, but they tell you no more than this
------
Kramer says:
The formula of general relativity has two symbols that I thought have to do with some frequency and with magnetic constant of space.
As formula contend Plank force (G / C^4) = 1 / ((G*Mu^2) / ( Ru^2)) I thought to use it.
In my speculative thought about fundamental particles, gravity acts as a tiny, so called black hole, for the distance Ru. But it acts as a common particle for radiuses < Ru.
I thought that that for energies of common particles, formula of which contend frequency , magnetic constant of space and a radius formula of general relativity may help for spatial configuration of common particle:
Two numerical examples:
1) With energy of common particle named electron:

Gνμ = (( 8*Pi*G) / ( C^4)) * Eme = ((8*Pi*Ru) / (G*Mu^2 / Ru)) * Eme =

Gνμ = (( 8*Pi*Ru) / Emu)) * Eme = (8*Pi*Ru) * (Eme / Emu)
2) For particle Eme will have:

Gνμ =(8*Pi*Ru) * (Emu / Emu) = (8*Pi*Ru) *1

This means that structure of electron particle (me) has the same structure as particle mu ( black hole) that has for radius = Ru. But with a radius which is bigger by ( Re / Ru)

Now if you see my post boring, wrong, uninteresting don’t respond. I will not be offended.

 

Readers --- Merry Christmas!

[ajb]

Their forces are equal, the two subs will be in equilibrium, the distance between them will be R (unchanged) .

What is your opinion about my conundrums:?

1) Will subs to go around each other in fields of each other with out taking any push from out side?

2) Will be orbit in a plane or in sphere? I mean, will electric force create orbit in the same plan with gravity force?

3) Has this post to do with metaphysics or physics?

If the forces balance then the two particles would be free and just continue moving according to their initial velocity.

[studiot]

 

kramer

What is your opinion about my conundrums:?

 

 

My thoughts are that you are overthinking this,

when you should be listening harder to what others are telling you (that is the easy way)

 

Merry Christmas.

 

[swansont]

Gravitational potential energy is only dependent on position. Another introductory physics concept you would know if you learned basic physics. Without which you will never understand these advanced concepts

[Kramer]

Ajb
If the forces balance then the two particles would be free and just continue moving according to their initial velocity.
-----

Kramer say:
The two hypothetic sub particles, supposed free from other out side sources, which may have caused any movement on subs.
This means they have only two options: or they will be in rest toward each other, or they will go around in the both geodesics of partner. But if will be true the second option, the first option will be true too (relative to each other), only if they go around with the same velocity. And this is speculation about the structure of common particles: sub-particles go around each other (after free fall concept) always.

Studiot
My thoughts are that you are overthinking this,
when you should be listening harder to what others are telling you (that is the easy way).
Merry Christmas.
-------
Kramer say:
The dummies learn from others knowledgeable people easier by examples. For this I make question, for this I participate in this forum. Unfortunately I had not any forward answer for my question.
-------
Swanson say:
Gravitational potential energy is only dependent on position. Another introductory physics concept you would know if you learned basic physics. Without which you will never understand these advanced concepts.
------
Kramer say:
A vise man said: If ones has clear concept in his brain, it easy to explain those concept in other people: if this “other people is a scientist” --- with high math, if the other is a plain intellectual --- with numerical and unities examples, if is a low educated --- with rubber sheet, balloons, peas, etc.
Do you think that advanced concept are only for the elite to understand? We see that the elites between them have disarrays concepts, and concept disarray every day. This gave people to think that something wrong in the some “basic”.
Now you tell me why I am wrong if my simple math. show me that, in free fall of a body, kinetic orbital energy is equal gravity energy , even though that direction of them are perpendicular? Why if there is something doubt in basic?
-------

[ajb]

The two hypothetic sub particles, supposed free from other out side sources, which may have caused any movement on subs.

This means they have only two options: or they will be in rest toward each other, or they will go around in the both geodesics of partner. But if will be true the second option, the first option will be true too (relative to each other), only if they go around with the same velocity. And this is speculation about the structure of common particles: sub-particles go around each other (after free fall concept) always.

You are considering classical particles, so write out the equations of motion form the particles and see what you get for their trajectories. Just use F=ma.