# Final Theory Orbital Question

1. Apr 6, 2006

### Simran737

Hi all,

The Final Theory" by Mark McCutcheon offers a lot of new (strange) thinking, but can anyone out there, in laymans terms, and assuming one is familar with "The Final Theory", tell me how the heck orbits are done, ie, Moon around the Earth? If the whole universe is expanding, how do orbits work out given that Mark states that there is no magical force known as gravity, but some kinda atoms /expansion goings ons.

On a side note, if there is really gravity, whereby a larger mass can attract another smaller mass, could a large rock, in my garden, attract a very, very small mass (very small in scale) like the Earth holds onto mass in its field of pull.

Also, if I walk and stop, and I wanted to be concerned with just the pull of gavity below me, I mean just straight below me and downward, then could it be said that if the Earth, just below me and around me, say not more than a 10' radius, were to be cut out and taken right thru to the other side of the Earth (so as to have now a very long solid tube like piece of Earth), would that single piece be enough to keep pulling on me at its tip, where I am standing, or is it that we need for the whole Earth to be bending time and space, in order for even the Earth straight below me to have the amount of gavity that exists.

Student Randy

2. Apr 6, 2006

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Please don't ask us to explain some crackpot theory. If you want to know about someone's personal theory that is not accepted nor verified, ask THAT person. We have enough on our plate here just trying to explain standard physics. We also have a policy that you have read in our Guidelines that we do not cater to such things.

Zz.

3. Apr 7, 2006

### Simran737

To ZZ

Hi,

Then what is gravity and its power source?

Thats all.

Randy

4. Apr 7, 2006

### Staff: Mentor

Gravity doesn't need a power source. Whether you're talking about an object orbiting another or a book sitting on a table (or with magnetism, a magnet stuck to your fridge), there is no change in energy level, so now power required.

As for "what is gravity", at some level, we don't really know. We describe it based on how it works.

One misconception you have there in your first post - gravitational attraction exists for all objects, regardless of mass. The earth is pulling on you, but you are also pulling on the earth. The combined mass is what determines the force (see: Newton's equation for gravity).

Last edited: Apr 7, 2006
5. Apr 7, 2006

### Simran737

For Russ

Russ,

You say no work is required, but for me to hold up a heavy weight above my head for an hour, requires energy spent from me, so how does a magnet hold up itself or an item forever, with no energy spent. Same for gravity, is that not a lot of work holding objects or attracting them.

6. Apr 7, 2006

### Staff: Mentor

It requires energy for you to support the weight because your muscles require energy to maintain tension. (Muscle fibers must continually fire to maintain tension, this requires chemical energy.) Rest the weight on a table and it will sit there easily, no energy spent at all. In either case, no work is done against gravity as the weight doesn't move.

7. Apr 7, 2006

### Staff: Mentor

You aren't gravity. You expend energy doing nothing at all. Look at the definition of "work" - force times distance traveled. For a book sitting on a table, where is the distance?

8. Apr 7, 2006

### masudr

Definition of work done on particle in moving from a to b:

$$W=\int^b_a dW = \int^b_a \vec{F}.\vec{ds},$$

where $\vec{F}$ is the force applied, and $\vec{ds}$ is the infinitesimal displacement of the particle. Furthermore, power P is given by

$$P= \frac{dW}{dt}.$$

So, classically, at least, holding a weight above your shoulder at the same height requires no work, and the "power" is 0.

EDIT: Oh, 2 people got there before me. Never mind...

Last edited: Apr 7, 2006
9. Apr 7, 2006

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
You need to understand that the WORDS you are using have clear, unambiguous, and more importantly, underlying mathematical definitions. Do NOT confuse the pedestrian usage of the word with that used in physics. When you use words such as "work", there is a clear way on how it is defined in mechanics.

Until you understand basic physics such as this, there shouldn't be any attempt at trying to deciper complex stuff, and this is why people are "seduced" by crackpottery such as this "Final Theory" crap.

Zz.

10. Apr 7, 2006

### scott1

I saw an ad of it on PF.I'll report it to you when I see it again.

11. Apr 7, 2006

### scott1

Can a really physicst on PF write a book called "The flaws of the claims of flaws in scentific theories" if crackpots are going to start publshing someone needs to write a book countering them.

12. Apr 8, 2006

### Simran737

To Zz

Everything that everyone is saying here, esp about the "work" thing, is just what Mark said you all would say. I have talked with him a few times, but other than that, I find his part about the universe expanding and gravity a mechanical act of this, interesting. Of course, since everyone has no idea what the heck gravity really is, I would think that the Final Theory stuff, makes as much sense as anything else. Dont you all find it frustrating, to only be able to show the "results" and not the "whys" on gravity.

Student Randy

13. Apr 8, 2006

### pervect

Staff Emeritus
Here's a suggestion.

Put the weight on your ass. Lie on your bed. For extra credit, go to sleep.

You are still supporting the weight. Are you doing "work"? If so, how much are you geting paid an hour?

Uh-huh.

Yes. And now for something completely different - Number 1, the Larch.

Last edited: Apr 8, 2006
14. Apr 8, 2006

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
I can play the same game too. Everything you have said here is the very same symptons that we have seen other quacks would do.

It appears that you are here NOT to learn what is faulty in your understanding, but to sell his idea. If you do not care about what standard physics answer is, why are you here then? If you only care about some made up answer that anyone can use at any discretion, you didn't have to come to PF to get that. Go to any crackpot site, or any open forum, and you can get that.

Somehow, the lack of knowledge here is being trivialized in favor of grandiose imagination. You'd rather have things made up in favor of basic physics facts. If that is the case, I strongly suggest you either re-read the PF Guidelines on overly speculative posting that you have agreed to, or go elsewhere.

I'm sticking a fork in this one....

Zz.