The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Why does a mass in motion tend to move in a straight line at constant velocity?  (Read 658 times)

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Why does a mass in motion tend to move in a straight line at constant velocity?
   A fundamental law of physics is that a mass in motion in pure free space tends to move in a straight line with constant velocity. Unless a force is applied to the mass, it will move with a velocity vector V basically forever. Newton wrote his basic laws mathematically and they have shown to be quite true. Einstein added some additional concepts to the basic law but they related to the variation of Newton’s laws as an object moved toward the speed of light C.
   Although the laws of physics are written using mathematical equations, they do not explain why they work. Is this a mathematical universe or a physical universe? If it is a mathematical universe then the simple Newtonian laws and Einsteinian laws suffice to explain things. However, as an Engineer I want to know why? I believe that we live in a physical universe and that the mathematical laws are best fit approximations to physical reality. Thus Newton’s laws of motion and Einstein’s corrections must have a physical explanation.
  It is a premise of the Dot-wave theory that mass is continually radiating energy. The backpressure to this radiation is our normal gravity. At the same time the radiated energy is filling up space and this causes the universe to expand. Therefore every mass has a gravitational field which is expanding.
  We can then say that a mass constantly radiates spherical energy and this fills up space time or that mass is concentrated waves and these waves keep expanding.  In either case what we call mass is a concentrated amount of energy while what we call the gravitational field is the external portion of the mass. The external portion moves away from the mass in jumps like an electric current.  A quantum of energy flows outward in steps and this pushes the previous quantum another step. Space is quantized and the energy flows from step to step. Far away the reaction moves at the speed of light C but right by the mass the amount of energy remains and only a tiny bit jumps at the speed of light C.
   We then have a mass and a gravitational field. When the mass is moving with velocity +V, in an arbitrary direction +X, the radiated energy compresses the previous radiated energy so that we get a compressed Doppler gravitational field. In the –X direction we get a decompressed gravitational field. The moving object now has a differential self- gravitational field. Now this will remain forever. So the basic law of Newton is a Doppler law which specifies that once you set a mass in motion, a certain distortion occurs in the self-gravitational field that remains forever.
   In effect the true law is a Doppler mass law such that the frontal mass is larger and the rearward mass is small and Einstein’s mass law is really the geometric mean of the two Doppler masses.
  The same is true for the rotational laws. There is a Doppler moment of inertia with a differential rotational gravitational effect. Years ago I put this in my “Doppler Space Time” book but I continued it in my “The Gravitational Wave and the Dot-wave theory’ book by Gerald Grushow.
  So Newton’s laws are good for masses which move slowly compared to their fields and Einstein’s laws are good from a geometric mean perspective when a mass is traveling at a high speed with respect to its own gravitational field. We then have an absolute speed in the universe which is the speed of an object relative to its own radiated field.
 
   


 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
If wevery mass is radiating energy, where does the energy come from and how long does it last?

And since radiation generally exerts an outward force, how come that gravity sucks?
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Why do you assume that not moving is a natural state? How do you distinguish between what is moving and what isn't moving?
 
The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
According to Newton, Einstein and everyone else, "constant velocity" includes v = 0. Movement is the change of position vector relative to some origin.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 124 times
    • View Profile
Newton was basically saying that an object continues in its current state unless something causes it to change state.  The maths is only another way of describing what is said in words.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
What causes an object in pure free space to move in a straight line with constant velocity?
   If we fire a spherical ball from a gun like in the old days, the spherical bullet will hit the air molecules and the ball will spin in a random direction which does not help to keep the bullet on a straight line path. To improve the accuracy a cylinder was added to the bullet design and this helped even more. Finally groves were cut in the barrel of the gun and this caused the bullet to spin. In effect the bullet became a type of gyroscope. The rotational of the bullet kept it on a straight line.
  When we deal with the control system I designed for the US Navy five inch guns, over 100 simultaneous equations were used by the programmers in the high speed computers to accurately point the guns to hit the targets. Smart shells have increased the accuracy but the dynamics involves temperature, wind speed, position of the ship on the Earth, rotation of the Earth, and a huge amount of other conditions. Thus a simple problem is extremely complicated.
   Let us now move to pure outer space far from any gravitational fields. We take a perfect spherical mass and give it a push. The ball starts to move in an arbitrary direction X with a velocity V. According to basic physics, the ball will move in a straight line with constant velocity V forever. How is that possible? Can this really happen?
   Does anyone have an answer to this basic law of physics? Did Einstein and other scientists come up with an explanation?  We are taught the basic mathematical laws of physics but not why the laws exist. All we know is that a mass have a gravitational field. If we move the mass the center of the field will move. Yet the best the fields can move is at the speed of light C. We then get a compressed field in the front of the mass and a decompressed field behind the mass. As the mass moves with a constant velocity V, the compression and decompression will remain constant. Thus a constant velocity V is associated with a constant differential compression of the gravitational field. That helps to explain why an object will move with a constant velocity forever in pure free space.  The question is why will it move in a straight line? The laws of physics say that the object will move in a straight line and at constant velocity in pure free space.
   The Doppler image of the gravitational field does not help to explain why the object will move in a straight line. However we know that a bullet when it spins will act like a gyroscope and this will keep it moving in a straight line. Thus since the laws of physics are quite similar, something must be spinning for the object in pure free space to move in a straight line.
   At a minimum when an object moves the motion of the object produces a gravitational field that not only has Doppler characteristics but at the same time spins. It is possible that the gravitational field by itself could spin but if it does, the object will tend to spin as well. Then one possibility is that a non-spinning object in pure free space will automatically spin.
   Thus a property of motion is that things spin. The electrons spin, particles spin, and photons spin as well. What do you guys think of this analysis of the first law of motion?
 
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 124 times
    • View Profile
There really is nothing remarkable about this. Objects stay in their current state unless something acts on them to change it. Thus an object will continue in a straight line unless something acts on it to cause it to deviate.

"However we know that a bullet when it spins will act like a gyroscope and this will keep it moving in a straight line."

A bullet in a vacuum, without gravitational influence will continue in a straight line even without any spin. When that same bullet is fired in an atmosphere there are variations in temperature, pressure, wind etc that cause it to deviate. Spinning the bullet helps it to resist those forces and keep a straighter line than it would without the spin.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
What causes an object in pure free space to move in a straight line with constant velocity?
Only the choice of coordinates.

Seriously, whether or not something is moving or not, and how it is moving, it an arbitrary choice. Once we make this choice, we can define forces to be that which causes something to change its motion.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
What causes an object in pure free space to move in a straight line with constant velocity?
Only the choice of coordinates.

Seriously, whether or not something is moving or not, and how it is moving, it an arbitrary choice. Once we make this choice, we can define forces to be that which causes something to change its motion.
   That sounds nice from an Einsteinian viewpoint, but I do not believe it is true. The problem is a mass has both particles, sub-particles and associated fields. The fields do not travel at infinite speed with respect to the particles. Thus we have compressed fields in the direction of travel and elongated fields in the opposite direction. If a particle was truly stationary in space, its electromagnetic and gravitational fields would be equal in all directions.  Thus from a higher light speed frame of reference we could tell if something was moving or not. Relativity is a practicable way of describing motions from one reference frame to another. the true answer of absolute motion with respect to one's own fields is not easy to accomplish.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
OK. Let's say that we are in a frame moving n times the speed of light. Then define n = a/b where b > a. We set up two observation points 1 light second apart along a path parallel to our direction of motion. We then send a photon from the first station and detect its arrival at the second. If we compare our speed with that of the photon we can then determine a and b which gives us n. Since c is the speed limit can we say we have mapped our absolute speed? If you say no then the speed of light cannot be constant.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
If you say yes then that means length contraction and time dilation don't exist.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
This apparent contradiction is resolved if spacetime is curved by mass. As relativistic mass increases then so does the gradient of this curvature. Welcome to general relativity.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Why does a mass in motion tend to move in a straight line at constant velocity?

 
 

The simple answer is because that is the way it is travelling unaffected by external forces.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
This apparent contradiction is resolved if spacetime is curved by mass. As relativistic mass increases then so does the gradient of this curvature. Welcome to general relativity.
  General relativity is a mathematical analysis of what is happening. And I have no objection to it since it appears to work well. But what is really happening? What is curving? As I see it within space are the photonic fields and the electromagnetic fields. The compression of these fields produce mass and photons. So Einstein looks at the mathematical operation of these fields. But I want to know what is happening within the fields to produce general relativity.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Why does a mass in motion tend to move in a straight line at constant velocity?

 
 

The simple answer is because that is the way it is travelling unaffected by external forces.
  But I am not happy by the simple answer. Why does a photon travel in a straight line? So we need to understand the exact structure of a photon. If we know that answer then we will know the answer to my first question. And I am starting to see the answer to my question.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile

  But I am not happy by the simple answer. Why does a photon travel in a straight line?


There is no  complex answer to an object travelling a linearity, however a Photon if they actually exist may be another story.

We can't really see Photons because they are ''invisible'', so what says they do travel in a straight line? 

 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile

  But I am not happy by the simple answer. Why does a photon travel in a straight line?


There is no  complex answer to an object travelling a linearity, however a Photon if they actually exist may be another story.

We can't really see Photons because they are ''invisible'', so what says they do travel in a straight line?
I just posted "What does a photon look like and how does it work" Once the photon is understood then it will be obvious why an object move in a straight line.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
If wevery mass is radiating energy, where does the energy come from and how long does it last?

And since radiation generally exerts an outward force, how come that gravity sucks?
  Sorry I missed this question previously. Everything is composed of compressed dot-wave energy. Over time this energy is radiated. A neutron has 1.221E45 quantum of dot-waves within it. The radiation of dot-waves is tied to the size of the universe. Radiated dot-waves push against prior dot-waves and the universe expands. It is a slow process and the radiation will last about 1088 billion years according to my engineering approximation of the oscillation time of the universe. This is really infinity by our time clock since the clock ticks slow as the universe expands.
  Gravity sucks or appears to attract because as the dot-waves radiated they push against the prior radiation. the gravitational field is not continuous but exists in separated distances such as plank length. Thus as new radiation occurs it must jump a distance and this pushes the prior radiation. The radiation moves at the speed of light C but this is the reaction just as an electron moves a small distance in a wire and pushes the next electron . Electricity moves at speed C but each electron merely jumps a small distances.
 
the jumping of the gravitational waves results in a back-pressure which is gravity.
 
The following users thanked this post: Thebox

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums