Quick gravity question

[Karnuvap]

Another way to think about orbiting is as follows:

Imagine the Moon going merrily along in a straight line past the Earth.

It will start to fall towards the Earth.

But the Earth is not a huge flat plate (despite what the flat-earthers think) the surface actually curves away (it is spherical).

This curvature is just enough that the path of the moon as it falls means it stays the exact same height above the surface.

So it is constantly falling but the surface of the earth is also 'falling away' so the height remains the same thus the moon stays in orbit.

 

This might be easier to think about if you imagine firing a bullet horizontally across the ocean. If the speed of the bullet is insufficient it will eventually fall into the ocean. If the speed of the bullet is very high it will shoot off into space. But if the speed of the bullet is just right then the curve that it follows as it falls towards the surface of the ocean is exactly the same as that of the surface of the ocean on our curved planet. Thus it will stay the same height above the ocean (ignoring air resistance).

 

This high speed example is easier to visualise than the sedate progress of the moon. The further out you are the slower you need to travel.

 

This explains why the moon is slowly drifting out (contrary to an earlier post) the effect it has on our oceans is slowly sapping energy from the orbit of the moon. Thus it orbits slightly more slowly and thus it orbits slightly further out.

 

So there is no actual outward force 'generated' by the moon or acting on the moon to counter the pull of the Earth. In fact the moon is blissfully coasting along in what it thinks is free-fall.

 

Hope this helps.

[lenvanzanten]

okay my father and i were disscucing gravity and we really couldn't come to a consenus as to wheter or not there's an equal and oppsite side to gravity, for example consider the moon in orbit around the earth, gravity pulls inward on the moon but does the moon have a pull outward in resistence to that force? i hypothised that no, there is no out ward pull, otherwise the moon would rapidly orbit at a futher and futher distance. my father was on the side of yes, as every force has an oppisite effect, for example with a rock swung on a string, there is an outward pull.

 

Yes it is called Centrifugal force. (Newton's law)

[lenvanzanten]

okay my father and i were disscucing gravity and we really couldn't come to a consenus as to wheter or not there's an equal and oppsite side to gravity, for example consider the moon in orbit around the earth, gravity pulls inward on the moon but does the moon have a pull outward in resistence to that force? i hypothised that no, there is no out ward pull, otherwise the moon would rapidly orbit at a futher and futher distance. my father was on the side of yes, as every force has an oppisite effect, for example with a rock swung on a string, there is an outward pull.

 

"Modest" is correct he knows his stuff.

[max4236]

I think gravity might have something to do with matter trying to remain in a homogenous realm of time. Particles fall in an effort to maintain spacial symmetry? One side of a particle's matter wave gets stretched while the other compresses, to sort of close the gap on the differences in time? The net effect is movement, falling. I think there is a kind of duality of the forces; the particle becomes gravitationally polarized, two regions, the faster and slower regions of time flow. What influences time to be slower or faster in a region of space I'm not exactly sure, perhaps just the energy density contained within an area. The more packed into an area perhaps the longer it takes for the universe to sort it out, so it appears like time is proceeding slower there. More stuff makes the time flow like molasses. Inertia is like a resistance to the future. Maybe that's where gravitons come into play, or energions or something. I have a hard time believing dimesional space itself can be warped. Or expanded. Or that space and time are intertwined as part of the same dimension matrix stuff, they seem like apples and oranges to me. Seconds and meters. Moment and place. It's hard to believe if you were to rotate 4th dimensionaly, that from your point of view, some of the seconds would become meters & vice versa. Is the past still there like a physical place you could go back and visit? Or is the past more like musical chairs, a constantly changing temporary state? I still would like to be a vacation time traveler. Sorry for going off on a tanget there. It's geting late. Anyway, that's my take on it..

[line]

I am afraid that the formula of F1 = F2 (by Modest) is not the same thing as what Newton described in his third law: action and reaction, which are local. Think about it.

[belovelife]

Ok, without sarcasm, if you take my theory into account, (post #6 first refrence regarding gravity)

then a formula could be devised.