# Source of Power (for motion)

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

1. ### HaydenRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
110
Pl give example.

Messages:
11,233
The earth.

5. ### HaydenRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
110
How the earth is stand alone?
It's rotational motion is due to Sun and various other motions due to galactic central object etc.

7. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,233
So what, the sun or any other body is not required for the earth to be in motion. For the earth to be in orbit then another body is required, but it would only require one body for that.

You are a making a claim in the math/science section so you need to support your claim with some calculations. Orbital mechanics clearly show how 2 bodies in isolation will orbit each other, this has been know for hundreds of years. You are making the claim that a third body is needed. Please show us why hundreds of years of physics is wrong and 2 bodies in isolation will not orbit each other.

As an aside, it is uncanny to me how much your posts remind me of a banned member named RajeshTrivedi, just a coincidence I suppose...

8. ### HaydenRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
110
Did I say that a third body is needed?
Pl read the OP again and don't be hostile.

9. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,233
Sorry if I misunderstood you. I was responding to this:
It certainly looks like you said a third body is needed. [shrug]
On this point another body is not needed to sustain motion. This has been known since Newtons first law of motion.

10. ### HaydenRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
110
I was enquiring about example of this, before you jutted in and created unwarranted hostility. Can you give an example where an isolated lone planet with its star in stable configuration. Probably no, because till our super cluster as indicated in earlier post, we cannot find any free object which is partner less. Some other object necessarily is there, whether you call that as engine or binary or multi body or energy source, is immaterial.

11. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,203
Hardly "immaterial" since the first and last terms you've used are completely wrong.

12. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,233
You are a sock puppet aren't you. Well, tsk tsk.

13. ### HaydenRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
110
I must keep you aside, because you do not seem to offer anything worthwhile. You are more into creating problems.

14. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,233
Says the trolling sock puppet...

15. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
That actually makes a lot of sense! Hayden got all "unwarranted hostile" at me in some other thread where I was debunking pseudoscience. Right before being banned, RajeshTrivedi couldn't handle his nonsense being debunked by me, so it's quite possible this Hayden is actually RajeshTrivedi holding on to a grudge.

16. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 71 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,019
Does Voyager 1 count as a lone object?

https://www.space.com/22783-voyager-1-interstellar-space-star-flyby.html

Now that NASA's Voyager 1 probe has left the solar system, its next big spaceflight milestone comes with the flyby of another star — in 40,000 years.

Voyager 1 entered interstellar space in August 2012, nearly 35 years after blasting off, scientists announced Thursday (Sept. 12). As it leaves our solar system behind, the robotic spacecraft is streaking toward an encounter with a star called AC +79 3888, which lies 17.6 light-years from Earth

*******

I'm not sure if any planet gravitational slingshot maneuvers were performed

If they were sure they would add speed (energy) to the craft as well as affecting its trajectory

Although I guess there is little stuff between itself and estimated destination there is always a possibility of a collision with something. Even space dust, owing to the vast distances involved, would affect, generally speed and less so direction, of the craft.

Unfortunately we will never know how close it gets to AC +79 3888

17. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
15,634
You misunderstand. You're the only one who thinks this. I'm asking you why you think 'things in the universe "require" other things'.

That we are, doesn't mean it is required to be so.

18. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
15,634
You're not getting hostility, you're getting criticism.

You have made an assertion that is contrary to known science. You're being asked on what basis you reject gravity and momentum as we understand it. And we're not hearing a lot of solid defense.

If you interpret that as hostility, then you might not be cut out for being a physics theorist. You are required to defend your assertions.

Absence of evidence does not make evidence of absence.

I can't show you any black swans either. Does that mean you can assert a principle that the universe abhors black swans? No.

19. ### HaydenRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
110
I am not offering something which requires defending.

I am not staying that a lone planet orbiting a lone star with nothing around is impossible in physics. I am just saying that such scenario may not be there. Everything seems to be connected to some other object. That's why I asked you for evidence when you suggested this, from my side it is sufficient to say that till the super cluster laniakea no such configuration is present.

20. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
35,929
Admin note: Hayden has been permanently banned from sciforums. This person was a sock puppet of a previously-banned user.