Any and all opposing forces that slows the rate at which the earth moves away from the sun. If there is no opposing force then the net force is simply the total force of the sun pushing the earth out.
If the force of the sun pushing earth out is 100, and there is an opposing force from the outside of 50, then the net force out is 100-50=50. If there is no opposing force then the net force is 100-0=100. The greater the net force the greater the motion out.
Because the earth came from the sun and is moving out in an orbital pattern. It’s the same reason why electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom. They are all one object, just like all the mass of our solar system is all one object, the sun. The entire solar system IS the sun, getting less dense because the mass from the core (the sun) is moving out. It is a balloon getting bigger and bigger because the mass is moving out, making the balloon less dense as it gets bigger. The way the universe works is that mass evolves to space by getting less dense as time goes on. Heat death. It is why a camp fire goes out if you don’t add more wood mass, because mass evolves to space. It burns out until there is basically nothing left except space.
Right, you said that. I’m asking if you’re claiming there is at least one such force (and if so, what it is), or if you’re claiming that the only force acting on the earth is the sun’s push.
This is not an answer.
Why doesn’t Earth just continue in a strait line in the same direction? What causes it to change direction?
The sun is forcing the earth out into a less dense area of the solar system. Consider the solar system like a small scale spiral galaxy (because it is) where earth is close to the core. It is being forced out but it is still part of the total rotating mass of the solar system. It is not being forced to empty space it is being forced outwards from the core into a less dense area which is an opposing force. If it was moving in empty space there would be no opposing force other than its own inertia, but it is not. It is being forced away from the core into a sea of less density. You can think of it as an air bubble at the bottom of a lake that is moving away from the center of earth (rising towards the surface of the water) while rotating with the earth.
The same thing with earth and the sun, it is “rising” away from the core of the solar system while at the same time rotating with the system around the core.
It is rotating with the mass of the solar system as it it is being forced further from the core. It would be impossible for it to travel straight away from the core because the core is rotating and so is all the surrounding mass which makes up the solar system. As I explained earlier, the entire solar system IS THE SUN. It is just like a small scale galaxy with a core and surrounding mass.
Is nothing falling into the sun? Does nothing fall into a black hole?
This makes it sound like there’s still a connection between the earth and the sun. In mainstream astronomy, that connection is the sun’s gravitational pull on the earth. What is the connection in yours?
How is it different from gravity? I ask this because I’ve seen gravity described as a force and as a warping of space so that a “strait line” is one that curves around the sun, is that something like what you have in mind?
Nothing falls into the sun, the outward force that the sun creates makes it damn near impossible for something to “fall in.” It is a sphere of force that is pushing outward in every direction with such unimaginable force that even if you powered the earth with a huge rocket engine towards the sun, as it got close to the sun the outward force the sun produces would be so great that it would be damn near impossible to try and FORCE an object to get closer to the sun. You could not build a rocket powerful enough to overcome the force of the sun.
Nothing falls into a black hole, because all the mass surrounding a black hole CAME FROM the black hole and is moving OUT. The black hole is FORCING that matter away. A galaxy is an object like a solar system, just at a larger scale. They form for the same reason, because the mass of the core is evolving to space. They are becoming less dense and the only way to do that is for the mass of the core to move outwards from the core. Same mass and greater size means less dense.
In mine there is no “pull”, it is simply an object that is rotating and getting less dense as it rotates, meaning the entire solar system is the object the sun, rotating and getting less dense by transferring mass from the core outwards as it rotates. There is no “pull” there is simply rotation and expansion, which is a rotating outward force.
As the core rotates there is “slippage” between the core and the mass at greater distances from the core. So for example, Mercury is close to the core so it has the least slippage. Venus is farther from the core so it has a greater slippage. Earth is even farther from the core so it has a greater slippage than Venus, etc… It is all one object “the solar system” but just like an atom is all one object the components of the object have relative motion to each other. All objects are comprised of components and because a circumference of a circle is greater as the radius increases there must be slippage in order to keep the outer speeds the same or less. Earth could not orbit the sun in the same time as Mercury does, because that would mean earth was “magically” traveling at a faster speed in space, and there is no force to make that happen, so it has to take more time to complete an orbit the greater the distance from the core. It’s why a spiral galaxy arms are curved around the core.
So the space between the earth and the sun is also part of the sun? And that space is rotating?
If the whole solar system is the sun, do you have a different name we can use for the ball-of-fire part of the solar system?
I’m a bit confused by your system, so this may just be my misunderstanding, but it seems like you’re changing the words you use to refer to all the parts of the solar system and the forces acting on those parts without really changing the underlying ontology. To be clear, I think that can be a legitimate thing to do and can often make an ontology more intuitive, I’m just trying to understand the move.
So, for example, your system has no “pull”, and instead you seem to have the planets rotating because the “mass of the solar system” is rotating. So the planets are kind of stuck in space, and the space itself is rotating around the sun, so that their trajectories are curved rather than straight. But space isn’t a solid, so earth is also moving through this rotating space, and changing its position relative to other parts of space.
This ‘rotating sticky space’ must be accurately modeled with equations that suppose empty space and gravitational forces, because we use those equations to launch rockets that arrive at other planets when we expect them to, years after we launch them. So some combination of the stickiness and the rotation of the space in your system have to approximate gravity.
So ‘parts of the solar system loosely stuck in rotating space-stuff’ and ‘gravitational force pulling the parts of the solar system toward each other’ work out to mean similar things, at least when reduced to math. Is that right?
Another question: does Jupiter exert a gravitational pull on other objects in the solar system? Or rather, what’s the sticky-rotating-space description of how Jupiter deflects other objects?
The “sun” the way we usually refer to it is actually the nucleus of the object the solar system. The solar system is like a scaled up version of an atom so to speak. There is a core object and surrounding objects that make up the object the solar system. The solar system is one object and travels as a whole through space. Space is 3 dimensional distance or otherwise known as volume. Space is irrespective of mass. Space is “gallon” whether there is mass in that volume or not. Space is simply 3 dimensional distance (volume.)
Nucleus.
Core.
Make up a new word, it makes no difference. You know what a core is, right? The core of a peach. The core of a plum. The core of an atom…
The core of the solar system, which is actually the core of the sun because the entire solar system is the sun, expanded.
It is all one object like a peach is an object. A peach has a core, which is its own object, and it is surrounded by other material, which in total is the object peach. It is all one object that is comprised of molecules, which are comprised of atoms, which are comprised of nucleus and electrons etc etc infinitely, because everything is simply distance and time. There is no “smallest particle” that everything is made of. Every thing is made of motion, which is distance and time.
No. There is no “gravitational force pulling parts together.” There are parts of an object that form a higher scale object, like solar systems form galaxies around the core of the galaxy. The Earth-Moon object orbits the core of the solar system, and the solar system object orbits the core of the galaxy. It is all objects at different scales, high and low. There is no highest scale and there is no lowest scale. Infinity high and low, just like there is no smallest number and there is no largest number. Infinite in both directions.
Objects have an outward force from the core of the object just like the sun has an outward force from its core. The larger the object the greater the outward force. Jupiter is FORCING objects to be away from it, just like earth is forcing the moon away. Just like the sun is forcing the planets away, and just like the core of our galaxy is forcing our solar system away.
Granted I did not read the entire thread. However, isn’t asking if the sun is pushing or pulling a lot like asking if a tornado is sucking or expelling?
Everything is (all things are) acting/reacting between absolute energy and absolute dissociation.
I guess the interesting question then is: can there be an adhesive force if there is no direct connection?
The surface of a peach, if the peach is rotated, will experience outward force but will not fly away from the peach because of adhesive forces.
If the answer is no, I suppose a good question too would be whether there is actual massive connection between the Sun and the Solar bodies, or if the connection would be of something like energy. Which, in the case that the answer to the previous question is no, would be my guess, as there doesn’t seem to be massive connection in an atomic system, just electrons orbiting and such.
It requires energy external to the system when connection or disconnection is forced (the released energy becoming external)… which doesn’t happen naturally in a closed system. Only (gulp) willfully…or from interference from another free/closed system.
How does your theory account for elliptical orbits? Planets orbiting the sun, and moons orbiting planets, orbit elliptically. The earth may be moving away from the sun on average, but for half of each year it is getting closer to the sun.
This is especially apparent in objects like comets, whose orbit is highly elliptical.
How does your theory account for gravitational slingshots? Humans use the gravity of planets to change the direction and speed of space probes, and the maneuver bends the trajectory of the probe towards the planet.
The physics of thse are explained (and predicted) by gravity, but I don’t see how a push would cause them.
Matter could account for the adhesion of external objects. For example, if a small pebble is thrown in such a course and with such energy as that it would penetrate the surface of the peach as it is rotating, the peach could “slingshot,” alter its course in a curve while it is passing through the mass of the peach, to continue in a straight line once it exits the peach.
Right, yes. Inertia is the other piece. The spacecraft has inertia along its trajectory, which is deflected by the gravitational pull of the planet.
I’m also under the impression that the orbital motion of the planet matters, though I’m less sure on the details. It has something to do with how gravitational force changes with distance, so that the acceleration as an spacecraft approaches a planet can be different from the deceleration the spacecraft experiences as it travels away.
Would this just be a random alteration of its course? I would think a regular deflection would be toward less density rather than greater density. But according to @Motor_Daddy’s model, all mass emanates from the center. Since the volume of a sphere increases as the cube of the radius, the mass density should decrease with distance from the (nucleus/core of the) sun.
The alternative is that space with less mass exerts more drag. But then we would see a greater deflection at the periphery of the solar system where mass is least dense. Instead, the effect on trajectory seems to be greater near the center.
Also the peach analogy might work for an object like 'Oumuamua, which came from and returned to interstellar space, but planets and comets don’t appear to ‘leave the peach’, i.e. their trajectories remain elliptical around the sun.
