Source of Power (for motion)

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Hayden, Jul 24, 2018.

  1. Hayden Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    110
    What is the source of dynamic kinorotational energy of our Galaxy?

    Should it not come from outside? Suggesting that almost every object from microscopic to galaxy clusters must have an outside engine. For example for Earth it is Sun, for Sun (solar system) it is galactic centre...yes one big source can tackle multiple objects like sun tackling many planets.

    The point which I am trying to understand is that no object in the universe (other than the whole universe) is without its partner, practically all linked together.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    What is kinorotational

    It does not take energy or an 'engine' for there to be rotation. It is simply a conservation of momentum that keeps things rotating.

    Most objects are linked to other objects by gravity.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Hayden Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    110
    Kinetic + rotational energy.

    Fine it is conservation of angular momentum, but that must have come from somewhere to start with.

    You say most objects are linked to other objects by gravity, why you use 'most'? Can you name one object which is not linked with any other object.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    I would suggest that when you make up a word you should define it.

    Obviously. The point is that it is not necessary to have some sort of 'engine'.

    Because I have not investigated every object in the universe.

    No.
     
  8. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,336
    The universe came with a package of energy and matter. Energy is driving the expansion, the dynamics mentioned in the OP. Once matter has expanded out, that energy used is stored as potential energy. When objects fall back from the "heights" they had attained from that initial energy, into a gravity well, the potential energy is released and converted into energy of motion, the matter not necessarily going straight into the centre, but offset enough to go into orbit, and rotate around. true of galaxies, star systems, even your sink.
    There is no energy that did not come through the Big Beginning, and it can not be destroyed or created, only converted.
    The Universe runs on stored energy from the Big Bang.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2018
  9. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,336
    The key word here is outside.
    If there was a time when there was no universe, and now in our time we have one with energy, then, yes, that energy now on the inside must have come from the outside. There must have been energy even when there was no universe,
    And perhaps there still is energy outside the universe, in the futuretime that it expands into, and perhaps that is why it has additional energy to fuel an accelerated expansion. Energy still being absorbed from the outside.
    An engine only converts energy to work, what kind of an engine did you have in mind in the OP?
     
  10. Hayden Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    110
    Engine here is loosely used as source.

    The source must be outside of it to sustain the motion. Accept the whole universe every object must have an outside source.
     
  11. Michael 345 Bali in Nov closer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,216
    I would have thought the Big Bang was the " engine" which started everything and is still in operation

    A bang on Earth dissipates due to resistance

    With no resistance Big Bang just keeps rolling with gravity playing its part along with physics to form the situation we have now

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    Why do you think something is required to sustain the motion?
     
  13. Hayden Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    110
    True, as per present theories, the entire energy was out of big bang only. But now once an object is formed, should it not require another object for sustained motion?
     
  14. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    Absolutely not. Energy, or force really, would be needed to change the motion of an object. In the absence of a force motion will be sustained.
     
    nebel likes this.
  15. Hayden Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    110
    You are not getting it.
    For the present regular motion of earth around the Sun, the Sun is the another object.

    For the present regular motion of the Sun (solar system) the galactic centre object is another object.

    Our Galaxy is moving towards the great attractor, so that is the another object...
     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,212
    In fact, he is. That's physics.



    Gravity and conserved angular momentum sustain the orbital motions of bodies.

    As the gas and dust of the Big Bang started to clump under gravity, the random motions of the masses was conserved. Like a twirling ballerina, the closer one draws in, the faster one spins.

    Once in a stable configuration, it will continue indefinitely, if not interfered with, and does not require any external input of energy.

    Indeed, any external input of energy will have the effect of destabilizing an otherwise stable configuration.

    A lone planet around a lone star, lost between galaxies - nothing else within a million light years - will actually be more stable than a similar configuration located in the chaos of a solar system or galaxy.
     
  17. Hayden Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    110
    Can we find such configuration, where a lone planet around a lone star with nothing else?

    My point is this lone object (planet+star) would require another object. There can be no true drift motion.
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,212
    Why do you think things in the universe "require" other things?

    In the vast gulfs between galactic clusters the pull of gravity is effectively zero to several decimal places.

    Moreso, it is quite possible to have a mass that is (distantly) surrounded by a homogeneity of mass in opposing directions, so that (even if one acknowledges that the body is ultimately in a gravity field anywhere in the universe) it cancels to zero, resulting the body having zero net force - leaving it following a truly straight path - or "true drift motion" - as you call it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
  19. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,336
    The only known accelerating effect that the Sun has on the Earth is the Yarkovsky effect. On Planet size objects, acceleration is almost negligible, like the rain of meteors in the morning, leading side of the Earth orbit would be braking .

    PS and to account for the accelerated expansion allegedly now occurring, There are 2 power sources for this: a) internal. (sacrificing mass to convert to, and generate that surplus energy, or b) absorb energy residing in the void, the timespace that the universe is expanding into, that is opening up between the gravity-bound entities.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
  20. Hayden Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    110
    We don't know. Earlier we had no idea about laniakea super cluster, we now know it, that our galaxy, virgo cluster etc are gravitationally bound to it.


    Yes it is quite possible, but the motion of all the objects involved may cause it to come out of zero net force scenario in due time.
     
  21. Hayden Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    110
    Para one supports the view that an object needs another object for regulated motion.

    Para two, I am not able to comprehend.
     
  22. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    That's trivial obvious, a mass does not orbit empty space.
    Why? That makes no sense.
     
  23. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,336
    The expansion of the universe is alleged to be accelerating again. That means more energy is now being put into that, rather than just using up the energy from the initial BB start up. You could convert some of the mass , making the universe leaner, and use the resultant energy for the acceleration, gain of outward movement.
    The b) scenario is based on the notion, that energy is fundamental, infinite, existed before the BB, was used to start the mass in the universe. but, that infinite energy is still our there too, and the expansion of the universe takes some of that in all the time. (read up on it in the "ALMA", or the "age of the universe" threads).
     

Share This Page