# IS IT GRAVITY THE MAIN SOURCE OF MOVEMENT? MAY BE THE ONLY?

## Recommended Posts

Just a few comments from a -51 parhia:

Regarding Venus, note that its retrograde rotation is very slow. Quite unlike Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, These all have fast direct rotations of less than, or not much exceeding, 24 hours.

One might suspect therefore, that Venus was originally a fast direct rotator, but got hit by a big asteroid/planetismal that "knocked it backwards", so to speak. The residual heat from this impact might account for the planet's high temperature, And the very dense atmosphere might result from gasses released from the disrupted body of the planet. A quasi-Velikovskian theory, but might contain some truth.

2. Regarding Kramer's original postulate, about Gravity causing rotation of bodies, Surely at least in some cases, this must true. In an earlier post I cited the axial rotation of the Moon as it orbits the Earth. Other posters keep referring to "tidal lock" in this connection. But isn't that just another term for "gravitional lock". If so, then can't we say that the Earth's gravitational field forces the Moon to rotate on its axis. I mean, could you have a non-rotating Moon orbiting the Earth?

3. On the "hammering head with metallic objects" feeling, great minds have experienced this throughout the history of Science. What seems to happen, is that a powerful intellect gets thoroughly saturated with current scientific ideas. It becomes so to be speak, "satisfied" with them. This makes it very unhappy about ideas which disturb this "satisfaction". Which can lead to emotional reactions.

• Replies 62
• Created

#### Posted Images

I mean, could you have a non-rotating Moon orbiting the Earth?

I don't think so - at least, not for very long (cosmologically speaking).

There is an equation that can be used to approximate the time required to tidally lock a satellite to its primary:

$t_{lock} \approx \frac{\omega a^6IQ}{3Gm_p^2k_2R^5}$

The part of this equation that becomes really important is the $\omega$ which is the initial spin rate of the satellite in radians. With a non-rotating body, this results in the time to lock being approximately equal to 0, which means that the non-rotating body would be immediately tidally locked, within the margin of error of the approximation. This, in turn, means it would,eventually establish a rotation equal to its orbital period (if I understand the mechanics correctly) and become tidally locked.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking for an explanation of the equation and its terms.

Edited by Greg H.
##### Share on other sites

Other posters keep referring to "tidal lock" in this connection. But isn't that just another term for "gravitional lock". If so, then can't we say that the Earth's gravitational field forces the Moon to rotate on its axis. I mean, could you have a non-rotating Moon orbiting the Earth?

There's an important distinction is using tidal lock. Gravity is a radial force, and if bodies were uniform, they could cause no rotation, because there is no way to exert a torque. The forces would act as if the bodies were point masses. Tides cause a breaking of any symmetry and there is a delay in the motion of the bulge as the planet rotates (so the deformation is not along the line connecting the centers of the spheres). It's the torque resulting from this deformation and its location that causes a change in rotation.

AFAICT Kramer's "model" lacks this fundamental recognition of freshman physics: that changes in rotation of rigid bodies are caused by torques, and only by torques.

In principle, you could get a non-rotating moon. In reality, getting and keeping no rotation would not happen. There will always be perturbations.

##### Share on other sites

------- I am sorry to tell this but I must:

From your posts I see that nobody understand the main idea of the post. Or everybody, understood it, but for an unknown reason “by pass” it.
The main idea is not about the moon or the Venus. It is about the source of movement.
Is it the gravity the source of the movement or not?
One direct answer from the specialist will be appreciated a lot, nevertheless is in favor or not of the thread.
I see this a cardinal issue, thrown in table by a layman, which has nothing to loose because of lack of selfishness. I invite everybody that want to debate, to leave for while aside the timidity of loosing the face. In the end of debate I will go to sleep sound after an “ ups! “. Because the doubt gives me more harm than
----- Swanson say;
. Gravity is a radial force, and if bodies were uniform, they could cause no rotation, because there is no way to exert a torque. The forces would act as if the bodies were point masses. Tides cause a breaking of any symmetry and there is a delay in the motion of the bulge as the planet rotates (so the deformation is not along the line connecting the centers of the spheres). It's the torque resulting from this deformation and its location that causes a change in rotation.

AFAICT Kramer's "model" lacks this fundamental recognition of freshman physics: that changes in rotation of rigid bodies are caused by torques, and only by torques.
------- Can I take this as a point for debate? Leaving for a while aside the role of “tides”.
(Only the debate about tides, bring for me a question about “cumulative” effect of changes in the velocity of movement.
Is it that true, I mean this “cumulative effect”? Because this is in favor of my thread)
Further: Gravity is a radial force. So is electric force. That’s right.
1-- But we see that “things” move in circles. This means in 90 grad’s left or right the direction of the force.
And in the horizontal plan! Please denote it.
Any explanation for me: Why?
I mean -- why the velocity is perpendicular with force? May be this is the lack of recognition “of fundamentals” of physics by me. I am not embarrassed if you tell me direct where I am wrong.
Because you must have guessed the aim of my thread, it is just about “fundamentals”.
2 --- About torque. What cause it in planets? Please any explanation for me?
Isn’t it caused by the gravity of the planet? Isn’t this torque in the same sense of that of sun? That means that torque and orbital movement have the same mother: the gravity of mass.
What about the origin of movement?
The origin of movement, for me is disputable, even though the Pops of physic say they have solved the enigma once and for ever.
3---Why the “forces” are not able to cause rotational movement if they are not the same in different point of a rigid body as i explained with example of two Kramers.? I have explained that they are different because they applied in
different geodesics.
Sure they are in counter direction with the direction of the main spinning by the self gravity of planets, as have now noticed Mick, and Endy, even they don’t support the main idea.
Is it true that delta velocity is un-significant in comparison with orbital and spinning velocities, but we are not able to negate their right for existence. And as they exist, they will act step by step, every second, in cumulative mode ,during the transitory period, until movement reach the point of stability, when self gravity energy and induced from outside gravity energy, becomes equal kinetic energy of orbital and spinning movement.
Is it a “pun” or a "reasonable reasoning" you are the judge.

##### Share on other sites

observing the solar system from above, the Earth orbits counter-clockwise. The part at night should then go slower, and thus I understand that the Earth should spin on its axis clockwise. Isn't it the correct way to see things following your idea?

This should be true if the Earth had no gravity of its own. I believe Kramer supposed this in post #1.

If a planet were relatively large and extremely light, so that its own gravity could be neglected, then with the sun as the only gravitational mass to consider, the stuff closer to the sun should have higher velocity and the planet would naturally have a retrograde spin.

As it is, the part of Earth closer to the sun is pulled more by the Earth than the sun. I think you could at least approximate the speed of a particle here on its orbit around the sun, with the sun pulling in one direction and the Earth in another treated as a lower net gravitational force. Meanwhile, a particle on the night side of Earth has sun and Earth pulling in the same direction, so a higher gravitational force and therefore a faster orbit velocity around the sun. Thus the natural way for a massive body to turn is in the same direction as it orbits.

My understanding is that examples of retrograde orbits are caused by unusual circumstances (an impact knocking a planet off its axis, etc).

Edited by md65536
##### Share on other sites

------- I am sorry to tell this but I must:

From your posts I see that nobody understand the main idea of the post. Or everybody, understood it, but for an unknown reason “by pass” it.

The main idea is not about the moon or the Venus. It is about the source of movement.

Is it the gravity the source of the movement or not?

If that's the question, then the post is about Venus, the moon, and the other planets. They are the objects that will tell us what the answer is. They do not appear to fit your hypothesis. If you think they do, it's up to you to show it.

. Gravity is a radial force, and if bodies were uniform, they could cause no rotation, because there is no way to exert a torque. The forces would act as if the bodies were point masses. Tides cause a breaking of any symmetry and there is a delay in the motion of the bulge as the planet rotates (so the deformation is not along the line connecting the centers of the spheres). It's the torque resulting from this deformation and its location that causes a change in rotation.

AFAICT Kramer's "model" lacks this fundamental recognition of freshman physics: that changes in rotation of rigid bodies are caused by torques, and only by torques.[/size]

------- Can I take this as a point for debate? Leaving for a while aside the role of “tides”.

(Only the debate about tides, bring for me a question about “cumulative” effect of changes in the velocity of movement.

Is it that true, I mean this “cumulative effect”? Because this is in favor of my thread)

Further: Gravity is a radial force. So is electric force. That’s right.

1-- But we see that “things” move in circles. This means in 90 grad’s left or right the direction of the force. [/size]And in the horizontal plan! Please denote it[/size].[/size]

Any explanation for me: Why?

Because there are other forces, or these forces exerted under other circumstances.

I mean -- why the velocity is perpendicular with force? May be this is the lack of recognition “of fundamentals” of physics by me. I am not embarrassed if you tell me direct where I am wrong.

Because you must have guessed the aim of my thread, it is just about “fundamentals”.

Velocity perpendicular to the force, or something that's close to that, is the only way you are going to have a survivable orbit over many repeated cycles. Otherwise you get collisions.

2 --- About torque. What cause it in planets? Please any explanation for me?

Isn’t it caused by the gravity of the planet? Isn’t this torque in the same sense of that of sun? That means that torque and orbital movement have the same mother: the gravity of mass.

Torque cannot exist with a radial force and a uniform body. It will exist if the mass distribution isn't uniform, so the center of mass isn't on the axis of rotation. That would cause a change in angular speed, as with the tides slowing the earth's rotation.

If you think that somehow can cause orbits, feel free to develop a model and demonstrate it.

What about the origin of movement?

The origin of movement, for me is disputable, even though the Pops of physic say they have solved the enigma once and for ever.

It's up to you to clearly explain why you think you are right and the people who do physics for a living are wrong.

3---Why the “forces” are not able to cause rotational movement if they are not the same in different point of a rigid body as i explained with example of two Kramers.? I have explained that they are different because they applied in [/size]different geodesics. [/size]

What is that supposed to mean?

Sure they are in counter direction with the direction of the main spinning by the self gravity of planets, as have now noticed Mick, and Endy, even they don’t support the main idea.

Is it true that delta velocity is un-significant in comparison with orbital and spinning velocities, but we are not able to negate their right for existence. And as they exist, they will act step by step, every second, in cumulative mode ,during the transitory period, until movement reach the point of stability, when self gravity energy and induced from outside gravity energy, becomes equal kinetic energy of orbital and spinning movement.

Is it a “pun” or a "reasonable reasoning" you are the judge.[/size]

Phrases like "negate their right for existence" read as gibberish in this context, i.e. not reasonable reasoning.

Claims that a body should have "equal kinetic energy of orbital and spinning movement" is a prediction. Why should this happen (where does the prediction come from) and does it happen, anywhere (what is the evidence)? That's what you must show. That you have not done so means this is not a question of "reasonable reasoning", it a matter of no reasoning at all.

##### Share on other sites

I tried to post a sketch yesterday, but it was not accepted by site, Please, can somebody explain for me why and how can i post sketches. iI want to continue debate about role of gravity in movements in macro cosmos and picro picro cosmos.
If staf or moderators are not interested in it, please , openly say this and close the thread.

##### Share on other sites

I tried to post a sketch yesterday, but it was not accepted by site, Please, can somebody explain for me why and how can i post sketches. iI want to continue debate about role of gravity in movements in macro cosmos and picro picro cosmos.

Use PNG or JPG below 2 MB size, if I recall correctly (after going to full editor, by clicking More Reply Options).

I even managed to attach movie of electrolysis in other thread, but had to ZIP it first, so it's doable.

ps. Instead of "pico cosmos" you should rather say "at quantum scale", if you wanted scale smaller than micro scale.

Edited by Sensei
##### Share on other sites

If staf or moderators are not interested in it, please , openly say this and close the thread.

If it's actual evidence in support of your claims in compliance with the rules, sure. Post it.

Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

But if it's just more of the same unsupported conjecture, and avoidance of addressing issues raised by others then no, we aren't interested.

##### Share on other sites

I tried to post a sketch yesterday, but it was not accepted by site, Please, can somebody explain for me why and how can i post sketches. iI want to continue debate about role of gravity in movements in macro cosmos and picro picro cosmos.

If staf or moderators are not interested in it, please , openly say this and close the thread.

For some mysterious reason I cannot post images created by picture editing programs. I always must make a printscreen. The printscreen (jpg) is accepted.

##### Share on other sites

For some mysterious reason I cannot post images created by picture editing programs. I always must make a printscreen. The printscreen (jpg) is accepted.

MS Paint by default is trying to save to BMP. Photoshop to PSD.

JPG can have two file extensions .jpg and .jpeg

If website is checking just for one (.jpg), it won't accept second one (.jpeg). It could also be case-sensitive.

Just a thought.

Edited by Sensei
##### Share on other sites

Thanks Michel123456 and Sensei for your friendly helps in my lack of ability to post sketches.
I hope that your further help will be in direction of slamming my extravagant thread, which torture me, for long time and I had nobody to debate with.
Sure you are not obliged for the sake of good will, or you are not interested in theme, or are engaged in other researches.

Swanson
If it's actual evidence in support of your claims in compliance with the rules, sure. Post it.

Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

But if it's just more of the same unsupported conjecture, and avoidance of addressing issues raised by others then no, we aren't interested.

------- My thread’s title was a question, not an assertion.
It was a question because I was astonished that formula (which was promoted, I don’t know from who, and I am embarrassed for my ignorance) show an evident law of nature:
The amount of velocity of cosmic objects depend exact by the amount of mass of an other cosmic object.
I conclude that velocity of planets is property of sun as it is the velocity of sun property of an alleged Black body in the center of galaxy.
To be appeared, for perceiving this property, it is imperative the existence of another “gravity object” up on which is it applied. Until then, this property is inperceivable, is only a potential possibility.
Here came the riddle of Einstein well known formula: E= M* C^2. This formula must be equal E = (M*G / R) * M. This means that His formula has a “reasonable” possibility to suppose for the existence of another M. (in this case the other M must have this condition: M*G / R = C^2 ).
This is all for first part of thread.
Sort of proof? ! But this is the proof : ( G*Msun / Rsun-planet) = Vplanet^2.
This is so evident, that just for this …… nobody can bealive in it.
(Another jibberish, another phrase worth to be derided.? Go ahead.)

##### Share on other sites

Here came the riddle of Einstein well known formula: E= M* C^2. This formula must be equal E = (M*G / R) * M. This means that His formula has a “reasonable” possibility to suppose for the existence of another M. (in this case the other M must have this condition: M*G / R = C^2 ).

$E=mc^2$ is not the equation for gravitational potential energy. You are claiming that no matter what r is, $\frac{GM}{r}=c^2$. This is not correct, since the speed of light is always constant.

##### Share on other sites

------- My thread’s title was a question, not an assertion.

I thought that was answered: No. Gravity is not the only source of movement.

##### Share on other sites

The amount of velocity of cosmic objects depend exact by the amount of mass of an other cosmic object.

What was first, egg or chicken.. ?

If we have rocket with satellite on board and want it to stay fixed above one place of Earth, we have to accelerate rocket to certain speed, which you can pretty much approximate to:

v = 2*PI*(r+h) / time

r - radius of Earh 6378000 m

h - altitude above surface

time - one whole day in seconds ~86400 s, but we need to use sidereal day = 86164 s

v = 2 * 3.14159265 * ( 6,378,000 + 35,786,000 ) / 86164 = 3074 m/s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit

If satellite will lose that velocity it will be attracted to Earth, and suddenly destroyed in atmosphere.

As long as it's going with that velocity or higher it's safe.

Same is with planet - if it would collide with big enough fast moving object, it could slow down and lose its current orbit.

Current orbits and current velocities around Sun are result of few billion years distant collisions and interactions with objects that are now part of planets.

##### Share on other sites

I thought that was answered: No. Gravity is not the only source of movement.

What is the other source?

1. what makes a planet orbit?

2. what makes a planet rotate?

##### Share on other sites

What is the other source?

1. what makes a planet orbit?

2. what makes a planet rotate?

Planets aren't the only things that move.

##### Share on other sites

Planets aren't the only things that move.

Yes. I feel that Kramer was talking about planets. The title of the thread is misleading, he was over-excited with his "discovery" I presume.

##### Share on other sites

Yes. I feel that Kramer was talking about planets. The title of the thread is misleading, he was over-excited with his "discovery" I presume.

Kramer is free to clarify his writing, something that some of us have been pleading for him to do for a while.

##### Share on other sites

Endercreepr01

is not the equation for gravitational potential energy. You are claiming that no matter what r is, . This is not correct, since the speed of light is always
constant.

------ Indeed. This may happen only in Plank –Ejnshtein area. There, an alleged “tiny” particle with mass 1.85939987 10^-9 kg, in a distance, from the same other partner, 1.38054385810^-36 m., moving around each other with C velocity , fulfill conditions of both equations.

Swansont

I thought that was answered: No. Gravity is not the only source of movement.
------ Now to be clear: that “is not the only”, does not exclude the statement that “gravity is a source of movement. Right?
About the “other source” I, only in passing, answered to the John Kuthber rebut, because I thought it as another topic. My doubt in second part of title: ‘maybe the only…?” it is because I have a hunch that “ only high gravity it is the source that deliberate free the photons, and as they are deliberated they create the second source of movement”

Sensei

What was first, egg or chicken.. ?

If we have rocket with satellite on board and want it to stay fixed above one place of Earth, we have to accelerate rocket to certain speed, which you can pretty much approximate to:

v = 2*PI*(r+h) / time

r - radius of Earh 6378000 m

h - altitude above surface

time - one whole day in seconds ~86400 s, but we need to use sidereal day = 86164 s

v = 2 * 3.14159265 * ( 6,378,000 + 35,786,000 ) / 86164 = 3074 m/s

http://en.wikipedia....tationary_orbit

If satellite will lose that velocity it will be attracted to Earth, and suddenly destroyed in atmosphere.

As long as it's going with that velocity or higher it's safe.

Same is with planet - if it would collide with big enough fast moving object, it could slow down and lose its current orbit.

Current orbits and current velocities around Sun are result of few billion years distant collisions and interactions with objects that are now part of planets.
-----For the first part of this your post I have a question, and for short I answer my self:
what source of movement you use in your racket, to defy gravity? Sure photons. In my idea photons are the source and in the same time bearers of their movements.
In my idea photons are structure of interaction of two mater and anti mater sub-particles.

Michel 123456

What is the other source?

1. what makes a planet orbit?:

2. what makes a planet rotate?

Swansopnt
Planets aren't the only things that move.

##### Share on other sites

-----For the first part of this your post I have a question, and for short I answer my self:

what source of movement you use in your racket, to defy gravity? Sure photons. In my idea photons are the source and in the same time bearers of their movements.

In my idea photons are structure of interaction of two mater and anti mater sub-particles.

We call this gravity defying force rocket exhaust.

Ironically yes, there is a highly theoretical idea for a photon rocket, by and large however chemical rockets rule the day.

##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Kramer, you aren't making much sense. michel12345 has kindly tried to narrow down what you're talking about, but unless you can clarify yourself then I'm afraid this thread isn't going anywhere.

The concept Endy is pointing out to you is one of Newton's laws. This is very basic physics and it is stuff that I am sure other members have covered with you in numerous threads prior to this one. I suggest you go through those or go away and do some reading before responding again.

Please also do not drag this into another matter / antimatter thread. You had a thread on that; it was closed and you are not permitted to reopen the discussion.

##### Share on other sites

This may happen only in Plank –Ejnshtein area. There, an alleged “tiny” particle with mass 1.85939987 10^-9 kg, in a distance, from the same other partner, 1.38054385810^-36 m., moving around each other with C velocity , fulfill conditions of both equations.

It's simply too big to be true.

Mass of electron is 9.11*10^-31 kg.

Mass of proton is 1.67*10^-27 kg.

Do you remember how electron and positron can be made in pair production?

There are needed photons with f >= 1.23559*10^20 Hz (E >= 510999 eV).

The rest answered in private message.

-----For the first part of this your post I have a question, and for short I answer my self:

what source of movement you use in your racket, to defy gravity? Sure photons.

Our rockets are accelerated by burning Hydrogen with Oxygen, and highly accelerated molecules of water are ejected from engine.

Edited by Sensei
##### Share on other sites

------ Now to be clear: that “is not the only”, does not exclude the statement that “gravity is a source of movement. Right?

Right. I was merely responding to a question posed in the thread title.

##### Share on other sites

Endy 0168

We call this gravity defying force rocket exhaust.
Ironically yes, there is a highly theoretical idea for a photon rocket, by and large however chemical rockets rule the day
.
-------- Maybe I am wrong but all chemical reactions are in fact physical actions where the main and only protagonist is photon. As I told in my post the photons for my conviction is the second ones responsible for movements. He bears movement, and he transfers it in the sphere of particles world. It has its real first origin in the belly of cosmic bodies that have tremendous gravitation pressure for beginning of nuclear reaction.

Hypervalent yodine

Moderator Note

Kramer, you aren't making much sense. michel12345 has kindly tried to narrow down what you're talking about, but unless you can clarify yourself then I'm afraid this thread isn't going anywhere.

The concept Endy is pointing out to you is one of Newton's laws. This is very basic physics and it is stuff that I am sure other members have covered with you in numerous threads prior to this one. I suggest you go through those or go away and do some reading before responding again.

Please also do not drag this into another matter / antimatter thread. You had a thread on that; it was closed and you are not permitted to reopen the discussion.

Moderator say: Kramer you aren’t making much sense.
Here is the post of Mishel12345.
I don’t know if it is directed for me, or for forum. Because my thread is in fact a question too, maybe the same with other words,
The questions asks answers. I gave my, as I might. The moderators that supposed to be the most knowledgeable, which have read o lot more, I think have their part in to.
Michel 123456

What is the other source?

1. what makes a planet orbit?:

2. what makes a planet rotate?

-----1 -- If it is how? You sure know better than a layman, how the mass gravity gave form to space, and how space say to mass gravity how to move.
My question was about: is the gravity the main source of movement? Not how and why.
?
2 – I think the planet rotate by own gravity, which is a property of bases particles of mater, as it is electric charge too.
The discrepancy between the calculated velocity and the fact, I think came from the counter clock movement as I have suggested in second part of my thread.
Sure orbit and rotate movements of planet are linked with their kinetic energies. I suppose that must be an equality between summa of both kinetics energies, with the summa of gravity energies of sun-planet and own planet.

Sensei
It's simply too big to be true.
Mass of electron is 9.11*10^-31 kg.
Mass of proton is 1.67*10^-27 kg.

Do you remember how electron and positron can be made in pair production?
There are needed photons with f >= 1.23559*10^20 Hz (E >= 510999 eV).

----- Even this is out of topic, caused by my example about equivalence of kinetic energy with gravity energy, which allegedly happens only for particles in Plank—Einstein area.
Out of Plank area particles, like electron, are in comparison, more far than earth by center of galaxy.
My example was to show that is absurd, in view-point of gravity, that a particle in C velocity will have infinite energy.

The rest answered in private message.
Our rockets are accelerated by burning Hydrogen with Oxygen, and highly accelerated molecules of water are ejected from engine.
With this you want to say that here is not a link with photons from sun? Gravity is not cause that I suggested? Make sense. I don’t know how those two inorganic elements are created in nature.

Swanson

Right. I was merely responding to a question posed in the thread title
----- So you are not against fact that sun’s gravity is the only responsible factor for velocity of planets, velocity that differs only by different distances of their centers of gravity, from sun.
You disapprove the idea that sun’s gravity is responsible for counter clock moment in rotation of planets in their axes.
I am not sure 100 % too. I will try other way, with equality of energies, which I think is more convincing argument than causal and provisory disturb that may create an meteorit hit, only if it is not to much as to change the mass or distance.
As Hypervalent sugests you may close the thread. I don’t accept limitations in my post, without a standing argument.

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

×