Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: ErikDahlen on 15/04/2016 13:58:28
-
I don't know if this counts as a theory, but at least it is an idea. I do not believe the Moon rotates around its own axis. (Yes, I am full aware that the majority of people believes that it do. And I have tried to accept their view, but I can't get it, and hence I have come up with a better theory of my own.)
I will assume that you know the current theory of an object in orbit and how it moves in free fall. (If you don't know it, look it up.)
The first reason to doubt the present theory is that it seems, for me at least, very Newtonian rather than relatively. For me general relativity seems to claim that an object moves in orbit due to it is its natural path and not that the object is in free fall. But this is neither a theory or any proof, it is just an explanation to why I started to doubt the present theory.
Let's continue to why I don't believe in the present theory. Today the theory predicts a non-rotating body in orbit to show different sides towards the central mass. And that is fine and works as one would expect. But what if the object is a non-rigid body, e.g. a lump of gas. This gas cloud will, as I see it, show the same side towards the central mass, even if it isn't rotating. This can be explained by the fact that a gas cloud is not an object, it is many objects traveling close to each other. In the cloud every particle will travel in its own path around the central mass, and hence will the cloud show the same side towards the central mass. This will then mean that an object in orbit will behave different depending on whether it is a rigid body or not. According to me this seems wrong, I don't think gravity behaves differently depending on the state of the object in orbit.
A second thing I think is strange with the present theory is the hard definition of an object. Let us have two objects orbiting a central mass, one after the other. If we move these two objects closer to each other they will eventually be next to one another. Then the question will arise, is this now one or two objects. If they are considered to be two objects they will orbit the central mass as the right part of the picture below, and if they are considered to be one object they will orbit as the left part of the picture. According to me this makes no sense, since I do not believe that the universe has this strong definition of an object. How should gravity know if it should consider them as one or two objects?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frotation.jpg&hash=0ef87b35f7b015eb09e6ab190a8f0f79)
My suggestion is then that all objects in orbit will travel in the same way, and the only reasonable way, according to me, is that all particles travel in its own orbit. Therefore will a non-rotating rigid body orbiting a central mass show the same side towards the central mass. I like to think about this as: “An object moving in orbit, or close to a massive object, is moving in a straight path in a curved environment, rather than in a curved path in a flat environment.” Since we believe in general relativity this seems reasonable according to me.
I hope to get some constructive criticism for this port :)
If you like to read more about this I have published a paper and a video about it. (I publish this here because I haven't got any constructive criticism. I would love to hear why you think I'm wrong or, less likely, why you think I'm right.)
The paper:
https: // www .smashwords .com/ books/ view/ 621753
The video:
https :// www. youtube. com/ watch? v= -YIrc4 vx65I
I'm not allow to post external links.
-
But what if the object is a non-rigid body, e.g. a lump of gas.
The moon is a rigid body.
Therefore will a non-rotating rigid body orbiting a central mass show the same side towards the central mass. I like to think about this as: “An object moving in orbit, or close to a massive object, is moving in a straight path in a curved environment, rather than in a curved path in a flat environment.” Since we believe in general relativity this seems reasonable according to me.
A complicated way of defining rotation.
-
When viewed from Earth the Moon wobbles [libration] ...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_450px.gif)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration#Lunar_libration
Tidal locking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking) causes the same side of the moon to face Earth.
Before tidal-locking all of the moon would have been visible from Earth,
( no eyes on Earth at that time to see that though).
-
Alancalverd:
Yes, The moon is a rigid bodybuilding, thats why my theory differs from the present theory.
If it is complicated or not isnt importaned, if it is true not is importaned.
Rd:
Yes, i know that the accepted theory claims that tidal locking makes the moon to show the same side towards earth. But that is what i dont think.
-
When viewed from Earth the Moon wobbles [libration] ...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_450px.gif)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration#Lunar_libration
Tidal locking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking) causes the same side of the moon to face Earth.
Before tidal-locking all of the moon would have been visible from Earth,
( no eyes on Earth at that time to see that though).
That look's quite buoyant.