Where does the energy of gravity come from?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bassplayer142
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Gravity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the source of energy associated with gravitational interactions, particularly in the context of gravitational slingshots and orbital mechanics. Participants explore concepts related to energy conservation, the nature of gravity as a force, and the implications of celestial mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that energy gained during a gravitational slingshot comes from the kinetic energy of the moon.
  • Others argue that gravity is a static force that does not do work on objects at rest, raising questions about how energy is transferred during acceleration.
  • One participant notes that while gravity does not generate energy, it can alter the trajectory of celestial bodies, implying that work is done in dynamic situations.
  • A later reply emphasizes that for circular orbits, no energy is radiated because the force of gravity and the velocity of the orbiting body are perpendicular.
  • Some participants propose that the energy required to maintain orbits must come from somewhere, questioning the conservation of energy in these systems.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that the moon gains energy from the Earth's rotation and tidal forces, leading to a gradual increase in distance between the two bodies over time.
  • There are claims that physicists use terms like "static force" and "potential energy" to navigate the complexities of energy conservation without fully explaining gravity's origins.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of gravitational energy and its implications. There is no consensus on the source of energy in gravitational interactions, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the limitations of their understanding of gravitational mechanics and the definitions of energy and work, indicating that assumptions may vary among contributors.

  • #61
DaveC426913 said:
No. No work is being done because the CoM of the (Earth/Moon) system has remained stationary.


Depends on whether you include the asteroid in the system or not. If you do not, then yes work is done (the CoM of Earth/Moon has moved due the external influence of the asteroid); if you do, tehn no work is done (because the CoM of Earth/Moon/asteroid has not moved).

Sorry if I have misinterpreted once more, but I understand you guys to be saying that energy is not used in a system if the sum of potential and kinetic energy is constant. Is this right?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #62
Leonardo de N said:
It is my belief that gravity is what is experienced when the boson graviton flow is compressed as it flows in a concentric manor toward the center of a clumped mass. That this graviton flux is confined and channeled (maximized) in a hyperbolic-parabolic environment as it zooms in on the magnetic equator of the clumped rotating mass. Unlike a photon we don't see the graviton flow because it is flowing sidewise within the plane of the channeled flow. I've chosen to call this a "null zone".

So how is the energy from the graviton transferd? first into a meu messon (the only particle which is it's own anti-particle and which only occurs naturally in a null zone) and than into 2 electrons and 2 positrons plus both positive and negative photons. The transfer from boson energy to fermion mass involves a chiral twist which is the rotational source (angular momentum) that keeps the mass (say the earth) spinning.

Remembering that all gravitational effects are additive, the rotation will increase or decrease depending upon the strength of the graviton flux. The moon without an electro-magnitic field will neither add to or subtract from the Earth's graviton field.

I don't suppose that you feel like any kind of saaaaay... proof or citation or anything to support your 'belief'? I can hear the high energy folks tearing out clumps of hair as we speak, and I suspect the GR folks are sharpening their knives. I'm just here to lap up the blood. :smile:
 
  • #63
flufffrost said:
Sorry if I have misinterpreted once more, but I understand you guys to be saying that energy is not used in a system if the sum of potential and kinetic energy is constant. Is this right?

Energy is never "used". It's not like energy just disappears, it just gets transformed to a different form. This is the law of conservation of Energy.

It's like my money. If I give my money to you to buy a hamburger, my money doesn't just disappear, it gets transferred to you! So if you say "hey did you use up that money?", I might say "yes, for you see, I have no money left"; however, if you consider both you and me as 1 system, then the money just made a transfer.
 
  • #64
Matterwave said:
Energy is never "used". It's not like energy just disappears, it just gets transformed to a different form. This is the law of conservation of Energy.

It's like my money. If I give my money to you to buy a hamburger, my money doesn't just disappear, it gets transferred to you! So if you say "hey did you use up that money?", I might say "yes, for you see, I have no money left"; however, if you consider both you and me as 1 system, then the money just made a transfer.

It's fungible baby, like goooold. :wink:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K