All the systems, like solar system, in the Universe runs without changing its position. why? ... how? ... and what are the scientific facts behind the phenomena?
Dr Annamalai,
I do not understand your question.
The Earth is in orbit about the Sun.
The solar system is orbiting the Milky Way.
The Milky Way is part of the Local Group, and its speed and heading with respect to other superclusters is well-known.
These basic facts are widely available from any undergraduate introductory text in astronomy.
What makes you think that all objects are stationary?
Dear Dr. Garry,
Let me differentiate the term 'position' clearly to you.
There are two things in representing the term 'position': 1. revolving position on the same orbit. 2. stationary position.
I talk about the first one(1. revolving position on the same orbit).
One example for the scientific facts: Law of Inertia.
Dr Annamalai,
The Earth's orbit (the first of the classes of 'position') is a fixed geometry as there are no significant forces affecting the Earth other than the pull of the Sun.
In the absence of those forces the Earth is compelled to orbit the Sun in an ellipse. It is an inevitable feature of an inverse-square force law.
Dear Dr. Garry,
You are almost right.
Do you think that there is a force amidst the systems (like solar system) in the Universe to maintain its inertia (inability to change its position/regular function)?
With kind regards,
Do you mean "Despite our movement through the Universe, why do the orbital motions remain the same?" Or something else? If the former, the answer (as stated already) is that we are simply too far from anything but the Sun for anything else to affect our orbital motion, so other than perturbations caused by the other planets in our Solar System (primarily Venus, Mars and Jupiter), our orbital motion is more or less fixed. Those perturbations DO cause the orbital characteristics of the planets to gradually vary, back and forth around a fixed mean, over periods ranging from tens of thousands to millions of years, but on the average, the orbits ARE "more or less fixed". (See the diagram of how the eccentricity of Mars changes over time as an example; it and a discussion of the diagram are near the end of the page "The Oppositions of Mars", at http://cseligman.com/text/planets/marsoppositions.htm )
In the world, majority people including scientists/professors (in science and technology) believe that the Universe is controlled by a religious God. I think they don't know that the Universe is functioning under the scientific facts. Let them try to understand by reading these scientific facts.
Dr Annamalai,
>You are almost right.
Go on, I'm all ears.
>Do you think that there is a force amidst the systems (like solar system) in >the Universe to maintain its inertia
None appears to be needed.
The constancy of physical law is sufficient.
If you wish to ask why those laws are as they are, I suggest asking a philosopher.
If the models I use turn out to be accurate, I am content.
If you seek to explain matters by a deity, you're welcome to demonstrate their existance.
I note, in passing, this article:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
(and these are Americans - a famously credulous population!)
Here's a more international context:
Article Religion among Scientists in International Context: A New St...
Let us come to talk on the topic.
All the systems, like solar system, in the Universe runs without changing its position. why? ....Ans: Newton's law of universal gravitation.
Dr Annamalai,
The solar system is changing its position.
It orbits the centre of the Milky Way - we're barreling along at about 200 km/s.
What makes you think that it is not?
And an answer like "Newton's law of universal gravitation" surely suggests that there be motion? I honestly don't know how you come to have this notion of all things being static.
It is physically impossible for a free macro body to revolve around another moving body in any type of geometrically closed path. This can be observed by watching a person trying to move around another person running along a defined path. Planets are free macro bodies, the central body (sun) is a moving body and a circular/elliptical path is a geometrically closed path. Hence, in reality, no planets revolve around their central bodies but they orbit about their central bodies (Except that all macro bodies revolve around respective galactic centers). See 'Shape of orbital path' at http://vixra.org/pdf/1311.0018v1.pdf.
Dear Chinnaraji Annamalai
What has been established about planets orbiting the Sun and the solar system is synthesized in these two articles, with all formal references provided, including links to those that are available on the Internet.
Article The Corona Effect
Article Inside Planets and Stars Masses
Best Regards, André
Science is not in a fixed limit, fixed boundary, or fixed domain. We all must understand that the domain of science always expands when we are finding the scientific facts/technologies including information technology.
If you find errors in the existing scientific laws, you must have known the right answer. Otherwise, ignore it by not saying anything. - this is the only right answer for like-you. Note that there is no connection between gravity and relativity by definitions. What is escape velocity? ... how does it work? ....could you please answer the above questions with examples.
c - speed of light.
c^2 in the Einstein formula E = mc^2 is an assumption, not proved mathematically.
Well, It seems astonishing to me for an acclaimed researcher of computer science with a strong mathematical background even haven't heard of mathematical derivation of E=mc^2. Have I got your last comment entirely wrong?
"c - speed of light.
c^2 in the Einstein formula E = mc^2 is an assumption, not proved mathematically"
Observing atomic bombs and nuclear energy generations are enough experimental proof. And even any 12th grader competent physics student (at least in my home country, Bangladesh) can mathematically prove E=mc^2 (or rather dE=c^2 * dm)- in fact it have been one of the pinnacle derivations we were taught to derive in that class- only from 2 postulates of special relativity and nothing more ( 2 postulates=> Lorentz transform=>m=gamma*m_0=> and finally E=mc^2)
Have a look for the final part!
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337040387/figure/fig1/AS:822058745348109@1573005486535/A-common-derivation-process-of-E-Mc-2-on-the-internet-tu-1-wangshangchangjiandeyigetuidao-E-Mc-2-guocheng.png
And as for historical and contemporary philosophical-religious implication of science in general and cosmology in particular, the view is much more nuaced than "conflict thesis", But that is beyond my academic scope!
And tone of the raw words aside (bordering close to ad hominem, IMHO!) Preston Guynn have told the rest!
Energy(E) = Force(F) * Displacement (c). (Note that the equation, showed by you, was derived by math integral from E = F * c.
Momentum(mv) = F * Time(t), where m denotes mass and v denotes velocity.
At the unit time during which the force acts, the mass increases and the velocity stays constant at very close to displacement(c), that is,
F = m * c.
Therefore, E = F * c = m * c * c = m * c^2.
In your case,
"the speed of light has been adopted as a standard value and the length of the meter is redefined to be consistent with this value" - The statement(s) is taken from the web-link: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/ltrans.html#c2
I am interested to discuss further.
Dear Chinnaraji Annamalai
You wrote: "c^2 in the Einstein formula E = mc^2 is an assumption, not proved mathematically."
E-mc^2 is now regularly mentioned as being "Einstein's formula", but this is not really factual. This equation was known and mentioned in articles before Einstein mentioned it. For example by H.A. Lorentz in his 1904 article:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_phenomena
It doesn't need to be proven in any other way than the fact that it provides the exact amount of energy of which the rest mass of the electron is made E=m_0 c^2=8.18710414E-14 joules, which is an amount of energy corresponding to the electron Compton electromagnetic wavelength of (λ_c= 2.426310215E-12 meter) and electromagnetic frequency of f=1.235589976E20 Hz, and that has an electric charge of e=1.602176462E-19 Coulombs.
These are the very precise experimentally confirmed informations that we have about the electron.
Best Regards, André
Sumit Bhowmick
Einstein’s Postulates - First Postulate and Second Postulate. (Web-link: https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/introductorygeneralphysics2phys1207opticsfirst/chapter/28-1-einsteins-postulates/#:~:text=The%20first%20postulate%20of%20special,relative%20motion%20of%20the%20source.)
Here, the dictionary meaning for "Postulate": a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
Could someone enlighten me on the physical possibility of a body revolving around another moving body in any type of closed geometrical path, like the Earth revolving around the sun in an elliptical orbit as believed by a majority of scientists?
Dear Nainan Varghese
You ask: "Could someone enlighten me on the physical possibility of a body revolving around another moving body in any type of closed geometrical path, like the Earth revolving around the sun in an elliptical orbit as believed by a majority of scientists?"
That the Earth is circling the Sun on an elliptical orbit is not a matter of "belief" by the majority of scientists, but a matter of "understanding" that the data collected about this orbit confirms that this is so.
Kepler was the first to collect sufficient data to establish that the orbit of the Earth about the Sun and that those of the other planets are elliptical. From this data, Newton established the classical mechanics of orbiting bodies centuries ago.
You need to study the history of physics and its successive experimentally confirmed discoveries to understand that this not a matter of "belief" but of progressively "understanding" more and more aspects of physical reality.
Best Regards, André
I have no objections to the "understanding" of elliptical planetary orbits around their central bodies and other theories based on this assumption.
However, I believe that the sun is a moving body and the planets in the solar system orbit about the sun. I am unable to visualize a person running around another moving object (a man walking or running along a defined path) in any type of geometrically closed path, like an ellipse.
The shape of a planetary orbit about its central body is wavy about the central body's path, alternately moving to the front and rear of the central body. It cannot be circular or elliptical.
To have a geometrically closed orbit, the central body has to be static in space and this is an impossibility. An apparent elliptical orbit about a static central body is a convenient assumption for the analysis of annually repeating events and some other theories.
You said: However, I believe that the sun is a moving body and .....
For your understanding, I say the facts here:
The distance between solar system and its neighboring planetary systems are almost same or not variable(This is due to the law of inertia and gravitational interaction/attraction). if these distances change time to time, the systems in the universe will collide each other.
Dr Annamalai,
"The distances between solar system and its neighboring systems are always same"
This is simply not true.
The radial speeds of the closer and brighter stars, in the frame of Sol, are well-known by a variety of methods (spectroscopic and geometric)
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2021/08/aa41344-21/aa41344-21.html
Those methods lead to well-publicized databases such as:
https://publicationsonline.carnegiescience.edu/publications_online/stellar_radial_velocities/default.html
...which lists the radial speeds of 15,000 star systems.
Why ever would you think that their distances from Sol are fixed?
I recommend an introductory text for undergraduates such as Zeilik and Smith. It will introduce you to the basics of astrometry.
Bringing religion and god as explanation on ResearchGate shows nothing more than sheer disrespect towards scientists who are trying to be professional. You should refrain from such questions revealing exactly what Preston Guynn said, in your futile attempts of driving the discussion towards thousands old religious beliefs. Go to a religious scholar/church/mosque/temple or whatever if you want to feed your delusions about some supernatural being ruling the Universe and keeping planets on their orbits. Respectfully, ResearchGate is not the place for this kind of discussions.
Planetary Systems ( https://universe.nasa.gov/stars/planetary-systems/#:~:text=Our%20solar%20system%20consists%20of,bits%20of%20ice%20and%20rock )
A planetary system is a set of gravitationally bound non-stellar objects in or out of orbit around a star or star system ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_system )
@ Chinnaraji Annamalai
“For your understanding, I say the facts here:
The distance between solar system and its neighboring planetary systems are almost same or not variable(This is due to the law of inertia and gravitational interaction/attraction). if these distances change time to time, the systems in the universe will collide each other.”
Does this mean that the sun is static in space? If so, what is keeping it floating in space without translation? No real body can stay static in space.
There are no physically limited units like solar systems. All neighboring macro bodies, moving together in space as a group around a galactic center is called a planetary system (like a solar system). It is the distances between these groups that differentiate them into separate planetary systems. Although each body may appear to move around another body in an assumed static state, none of the member bodies actually move around each other or around the largest (assumed central) body of a group. Each one has its own independent path, the shape of which may be influenced by gravitational attractions toward other bodies in the group (and toward all other bodies within a galaxy. These perturbations of their paths when related to a central body in an assumed static state appear as closed geometrical shapes. A statement that the sun orbits around the static earth in one direction is equally valid as the earth orbits around the static sun in the opposite direction.
For various reasons, distances between the member bodies of a group (or between different groups) may change in due course of time and such bodies may collide with each other or may fly away from each other. There are no physical boundaries limiting the movements of member bodies within a planetary system.
Nainan
- Badges
- Science topic