Having a problem understanding orbits.....
Discussion
Bedazzled said:
I refer you to my previous answer; dunno mate! Then again currently we can't account for 96% of the mass-energy in the universe and nobody has a clue what dark energy is, apart from a necessary mathematical fudge... so anything is possible 
That there is a matter (dark matter) that repulses, rather than attracts, is a convenient workaround to the problems of inflation. I say this with no understanding or no appreciation for the exotic particles that existed during the initial period of our universe. I just think it is made up b
ks,rjben said:
Bedazzled said:
I refer you to my previous answer; dunno mate! Then again currently we can't account for 96% of the mass-energy in the universe and nobody has a clue what dark energy is, apart from a necessary mathematical fudge... so anything is possible
That there is a matter (dark matter) that repulses, rather than attracts, is a convenient workaround to the problems of inflation. I say this with no understanding or no appreciation for the exotic particles that existed during the initial period of our universe. I just think it is made up bks,rjben said:
I understand that. But where does the energy come from to warp 'space time'? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand?
Current thinking is that the mass of the stuff in the universe warps space-time. Where does the mass come from? The Higgs Boson is the prime candidate but at the moment we don't know. Then there's the thorny issue of there not being enough observable "stuff" in the universe to account for the structure of the universe now (needing the hypothesis of dark matter) and that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate (needing the hypothesis of dark energy).This stuff does fall into the "we don't (yet) know" bucket. That doesn't mean "it just does", it means the scientists are working on theories to explain our universe but as yet we don't have answers that fit the observations.
Mass warps space time. If you accept that, then there is no energy being expended in orbital motion at all (excluding friction) as everything is moving in straight lines (defined as the shortest distance between two points). Hence no contradiction with the laws of thermodynamics.
The "energy" to warp space time comes from the mass via E=mc^2.
The "energy" to warp space time comes from the mass via E=mc^2.
ewenm said:
Mass warps space time. If you accept that, then there is no energy being expended in orbital motion at all (excluding friction) as everything is moving in straight lines (defined as the shortest distance between two points). Hence no contradiction with the laws of thermodynamics.
The "energy" to warp space time comes from the mass via E=mc^2.
OK, I accept what you say, but don't understand it. Are you saying that when a body distorts space time, it can keep on doing so ad infinitum without losing energy?The "energy" to warp space time comes from the mass via E=mc^2.
(Edited due to stupidity)
Edited by rjben on Monday 9th April 22:34
rjben said:
OK, I accept what you say, but don't understand it. Are you saying that when a body distorts space time, it can keep on doing so ad infinitum without losing energy?
Yes. The mass of the body (not any motion of it) causes the distortion. What we see as the force of gravity can be described in terms of the distortions (bigger mass = greater distortion = greater apparent gravity).Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff