- #1
Royce
- 1,539
- 0
Thinking about gravity and ineria I had the following thought. Please, give me your thought about it and feel free to blow holes in it.
When any object with mass moves, even in what we may perceive as a straight line with constant velocity on a curved surface or within a curved spacetime, whether closed or not , it must move in an orbital path. Obviously we may not recognize or be able to define the path but it would have to be orbital within a curved spacetime if no other force were acting upon it. In any accelerated motion we would be able to detect and define that accelerated motion and see it as curved or speeding up or slowing down.
The object would be at a minimum kinetic energy state for the orbit that it occupies even if it was sitting on my kitchen table and appeared motionless to me. In order to move it in relation to us, the table or it's local spacetime energy would have to be applied to it to get it to change it's orbit. We would have to add energy for it to reach a "higher" orbit and thus slow it velocity or subtract energy from it for it to reach a "lower" orbit increasing its relative velocity. No matter how we attempt to move any object of mass we have to apply energy to change its orbit in curved spacetime. It's energy state, whether seen as kinetic or potential, would be changed. Actually in such a reference there is no real difference between kinetic and potential energy. Even sitting on a "higher shelf" in my kitchen increasing it's potential energy actually increases it's kinetic energy in its orbit in spacetime though not in reference to me or my kitchen.
When any object with mass moves, even in what we may perceive as a straight line with constant velocity on a curved surface or within a curved spacetime, whether closed or not , it must move in an orbital path. Obviously we may not recognize or be able to define the path but it would have to be orbital within a curved spacetime if no other force were acting upon it. In any accelerated motion we would be able to detect and define that accelerated motion and see it as curved or speeding up or slowing down.
The object would be at a minimum kinetic energy state for the orbit that it occupies even if it was sitting on my kitchen table and appeared motionless to me. In order to move it in relation to us, the table or it's local spacetime energy would have to be applied to it to get it to change it's orbit. We would have to add energy for it to reach a "higher" orbit and thus slow it velocity or subtract energy from it for it to reach a "lower" orbit increasing its relative velocity. No matter how we attempt to move any object of mass we have to apply energy to change its orbit in curved spacetime. It's energy state, whether seen as kinetic or potential, would be changed. Actually in such a reference there is no real difference between kinetic and potential energy. Even sitting on a "higher shelf" in my kitchen increasing it's potential energy actually increases it's kinetic energy in its orbit in spacetime though not in reference to me or my kitchen.
Last edited by a moderator: