"GRAVITYMECHANIC2" wrote in message
...

PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY
THE FORCE OF GRAVITY IS AN ILLUSION
Copyright 1984-2004 Allen C. Goodrich

Gravitational effect is the result of an acceleration
of mass. Galileo demonstrated this. Newton assumed
that this was caused by a force of gravity between
all masses. Was this a correct assumption? Einstein
and many other scientists felt that there must be
more to gravitation than an attraction at a distance.
Action at a distance was considered to be impossible
in the absence of a transfer of energy at the speed
of light.

Hubble then showed that the distant Galaxies were
moving away from the earth and that the universe
was expanding in all directions. If this is true ,
What else must be true?

1. The potential energy of the rest of the universe
must be decreasing relative to the mass of the earth.

It has long been assumed that the first law of
thermodynamics, which says that the total energy of
the universe is a constant, was a fact of nature.
If this is true what then.

2. The kinetic energy of the universe must be
increasing at the same rate that the potential
energy is decreasing as the universe expands.

How is this possible? Masses must be accelerating,
because, kinetic energy change is the result of an
acceleration. But all orbital masses are
accelerating toward the center of the earth or
some other mass. Why would this occur otherwise?

This is where you make your mistake.
The kinetic energy that thermodynamics speaks of is kinetic energy on a
molecular level, in random directions - not coordinated movement of large
aggregates of molecules in a specific direction (i.e. planets). In other
words, thermodynamic kinetic energy is heat. The kinetic energy of a large
moving mass is a higher energy state than heat. Hence, it can be used to
produce heat (or do other work) if resistance is applied to it, slowing it
down in the process. The reverse, on the other hand, is not the case. Heat
alone will never make an object move in a single direction. It's too random
for that. Without a little daemon that selects only the molecules headed in
the right direction, of course ;-)
Thus, the expansion of the universe does not explain orbital motion. The
idea is actually rather silly :-)
Thermodynamics can't explain the accellerating expansion of the universe,
either. Neither can gravity, by the way.
If thermodynamics were to dictate the behaviour of the universe alone,
without other factors, the universe would expand at a fixed rate, and all
higher energy states in it would gradually migrate towards the lowest - heat
(kinetic energy!). Eventually, heat would dissipate, causing all local
concentrations of it to disappear, rendering the universe universally
"lukewarm" (slightly above absolute zero). And even then it would gradually
approach absolute zero more and more, because it would still be expanding,
but not creating more heat. It would eventually come infinitely close to
absolute zero, but never reach it. That would be the ultimate end of
everything.

It would seem that you're forgetting the second law of thermodynamics....


3. Orbital motion could then be the result of the
expansion of the universe. The Gravitational
illusion could be the result.

But how? Even if heat *could* move large objects, why would they move in
systems around each other rather than in random directions?


Based on the first law of thermodynamics
The total mass energy of the universe is a constant.
(total kinetic (mass) energy plus total potential
energy is a constant).
m(2 pi L)^2 / t^2 + G (M-m)m / L = A constant.
m is any mass say that of the earth.

From this equation the equation
Delta m (2 pi L)^2 / t^2 = - Delta G (M-m)m/L
follows mathematically.
From this equation the equation
Delta m 4 pi^2 L /t^2 = Delta - G (M-m)m / L^2
or the modified Newton equation for gravity can
be derived,but only when L is the orbital distance.
The earth orbit is a result of an energy equilibrium,
( the absence of a change of total energy )
and not the result of a force of gravity between masses.
Force of gravity is the resulting illusion
assumed by Newton to be a force.

If a planet (say earth) moved away from the sun
its potential energy would decrease as L increased.
Its kinetic energy would decrease because it is
no longer accelerating toward the sun in orbital
motion. Total energy would have to decrease. A very
great change of total energy would have to take place.

The free-fall of earth into the sun accellerates the earth, yes. If that
influence was gone, with earth hurtling through space far away from the
influence of other bodies, yes, the earth would gradually slow down. Very
slowly, due to friction with dust, interstellar gas, etc. producing heat in
the process.
No change in total energy would take place.


POTENTIAL ENERGY = G(M-m)m/L
KINETIC ENERGY = m(2 pi L)^2/t^2
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + G(M-m)m/L = A constant = M
G= Gravitational constant; M = total energy
of the universe (or effective universe) ;
m = mass in question.
t = time ; L = radial distance.

No mechanism exists for this to occur rapidly.
So it could not happen. The magnitudes of kinetic
and potential energies of planets and moons
travelling in orbital motion are equal and any
increase or decrease of orbital distance L results
in an equal change in magnitude of both.This is
the only value of L where no change of total energy
will occur if the value of L changes. At any other
distance L, an increase of kinetic energy will be at a
different rate than potential energy decreases.
Orbital motion conserves total energy.
Force of gravity isn't needed to explain orbital
motion or any other motion at a distance.

Yet you do use a gravitational constant to arrive at that idea. How would
the calculations fare without one?

No change in total energy would occur if the solar system flew apart right
now.
Of course, it doesn't. Because of gravity.