Another question about Gravity -- Does the apple attract the Earth?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter TheQuestionGuy14
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    apple Earth Gravity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of gravity and the interaction between an apple and the Earth, particularly questioning whether the Earth moves to catch the apple or if the apple falls towards the Earth. Participants explore concepts related to gravitational models, the Equivalence Principle, and the implications of local versus global perspectives in general relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the idea that "the Earth rises to catch an apple," questioning its implications on Earth's orbit and motion.
  • One participant notes that while the Earth does stray slightly from its orbit, the center of mass of the Earth-object system remains unchanged.
  • Another participant argues that every jump has equal and opposite effects, resulting in no net impact on Earth's orbit.
  • There is a discussion about local versus global models of gravity, with some suggesting that local models can be misleading when applied globally.
  • Some participants highlight that the apple follows a geodesic path and can be considered at rest in certain reference frames, while the Earth accelerates in others.
  • Concerns are raised about the terminology used in a referenced video, particularly regarding "true acceleration" versus "proper acceleration," and the characterization of gravity as a fictitious force.
  • Participants question why we do not observe chunks of Earth rising to catch falling objects if the model of the Earth rising is valid.
  • There is a discussion on the relativity of motion, emphasizing that in different reference frames, the apple can be seen as falling or the Earth as rising.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the interpretation of gravity and the motion of the Earth and apple. There is no consensus on the validity of the video referenced or the implications of the models discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in applying local models to global scenarios, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of reference frames and the nature of gravitational interactions.

  • #31
bhobba said:
When I posted a lot of sci.physics.reativity we had a lot of high powered people posting at one time - they gradually disappeared due to the cranks. But back then when I just found out about it and posted could I see a proof - only John Baez and Steve Calip knew about it - of those that posted there of course - and were not cranks. I suspect others did know it but not the proof - so kept quiet. I had to dig it up myself. John and Steve of course knew the proof but also knew I would learn more doing it myself. Of course they were right - that was a lesson I learned there and try to foster here - targeted at the appropriate level of course.

Thanks
Bill
As to how well known it is, both Synge’s 1960 book and MTW discuss it. Those are fairly early standard texts.

There are actually many variants of proof. The one you reference is related to work done by Einstein, Infeld, and Hoffman way back in 1938 - the first derivation of particle motion from the field equations. This early type of proof is not affected by the issue of energy conditions because it does not actually apply to matter at all - you assume the vacuum field equations throughout, and are really talking about the motion of BH as stand ins for test particles.

The more complicated problem is showing that matter, in an appropriate limit, follows timelike geodesics. It is this case for which it has turned out that dominant energy condition is both necessary and sufficient for timelike geodesic motion to follow from the field equations, for the limit of small bodies. This line of work starts from Geroch, and the most rigorous derivation is by Gralla and Wald (for a while, several years ago, Sam Gralla was active on these forums).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeterDonis and bhobba
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
PAllen said:
As to how well known it is, both Synge’s 1960 book and MTW discuss it.

I lost my copy of MTW ages ago - but never really did an in depth study - I preferred Wald which I did study a lot of.

Might have to get a copy again. They do say if you really want to understand GR you need both MTW and Wald. I am going to check now if its in Wald and simply forgot (its been ages since I was into GR). Will get back.

Added Later:
Had a quick scan of Wald. You so and so - looks like I will have to get MTW - again :-p:-p:-p:-p:-p:-p

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #33
bhobba said:
I lost my copy of MTW ages ago - but never really did an in depth study - I preferred Wald which I did study a lot of.

Might have to get a copy again. They do say if you really want to understand GR you need both MTW and Wald. I am going to check now if its in Wald and simply forgot (its been ages since I was into GR). Will get back.

Added Later:
Had a quick scan of Wald. You so and so - looks like I will have to get MTW - again :-p:-p:-p:-p:-p:-p

Thanks
Bill
Actually, they (Wald) do discuss it briefly, referencing literature, on page 73-4 of the edition I checked. However, they don’t present a full discussion as MTW do (a whole 10 page section, 20.6)
 
  • #34
PAllen said:
Actually, they (Wald) do discuss it briefly, referencing literature, on page 73-4 of the edition I checked. However, they don’t present a full discussion as MTW do (a whole 10 page section, 20.6)

So it does - on those very pages - but as you say the detail is in references - sneaky.

Relented - got MTW - huge difference in the Kindle price and while its not the best for serious study - if I remember right MTW was so huge it wasn't physically an easy read either so got that one. Talk about HUGE - it took a while to even download.

Thanks
Bill
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 99 ·
4
Replies
99
Views
6K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K