# Why does an object start to fall under gravity

In summary, the conversation discusses the concepts of potential and kinetic energy in relation to an object's movement in a gravitational field. The question is raised about how an object initially gains kinetic energy to start moving and whether it is possible for a stationary object to fall. The conversation also explores the idea of using different reference frames to understand the motion of an object. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the limitations of human intuition and the need for mathematical explanations in physics.
Hi
I can understand how once an object is falling in converts PE to KE. My question is how does it move in the first place. I know if we assume a gravitaional force that is fine.

However from the perspective of energy it seems if an object starts with no KE it can not lose PE by moving into an area of lower potential as it cannot have any velocity to enable the move. If no PE is lost how can there be a gain in KE.

If there is no gain in KE how can it accelerate.

Again I can clearly see that once the object is moving it is losing PE which converts to KE and it is accelerating. But from energy principles how can it start to move. Where does the KE come from to move into a lower gravitational potential.

Since a force is a gradient of the potential, I don't know why you wouldn't just accept the force explanation. Since the gradient is not zero, the position is not an equilibrium position. That is the same as saying there is a force on the object. I think you have the idea of KE and acceleration backwards. It can't gain KE unless it accelerates. It accelerates because $$\frac{dV}{dx}\neq0$$ where $V$ is the potential energy. But that is just the force.

If you want to find another explanation, you use the principle of least action. If you integrate KE-PE over any given time (giving the action), the path that the particle takes will minimize this. That path is the one for which it falls. While I think this is exceptionally interesting, I don't know if it will really make you feel better.

Why do you want an explanation that doesn't use force? I don't know if I'm really able to answer your question, because I don't think I really understand what is confusing you.

At some point any object has gained PE in the first place. This gain cannot (According to classical daily life physics) occour from nothing - but it appearently has anyways in spite of what physical laws we know of; The big bang. First it was nothing, then it exploded...
So from somewhere, any object has gained PE. Therfor it can lose PE as KE increase. No matter where an object is locating in a gravity field, it was put there by increasing or decreasing PE from its previous loction.

I'm not sure if one have to understand gravity first in order to explain WHY the object gained PE - appearently PE is a function of gravity and mass, and both are two sides of the same thing.

Vidar

But from energy principles how can it start to move. Where does the KE come from to move into a lower gravitational potential.

Choose a different reference frame where it is already moving and has KE. See how pointless it is to ask for "reasons from energy principles"? KE is just a number assigned to the object by an observer. It is not some invisible fuel, that needs to be filled into the tank of the object before it can start moving.

Hi

A big thanks for your replies. My problem is once a body is in motion relative to a gravitational field I can describe the motion by using energy or mechanics, but This does not work for a stationary object

Energy as a body moves to an area of lower gravitational it loses gravitational potential energy which is converted into KE and hence it moves faster hence accelerates

Mechanics there is a force due to the gravitational field acting on the mass this makes the object accelerate

Perfect harmony as physics should be

However the the two views are not in harmony if the object is stationary.

Energy the body has no KE relative to the gravitational field/massive object therefore it cannot move to reduce its PE and hence gain momentum/KE. The body does not move

Mechanics no changeI believe this is never observed as what Newton calls a stationary object has KE as it has molecules vibrating. We call this internal energy or heat. This explains why mechanics and energy models agree.

Interestingly an object at absolute zero which is unobservable would not move hence no inertial mass.
Further possibilities are a quark which I assume has no internal energy would have no mass.

Other effects would be a stationary object at absolute zero will not fall.

I have done some very crude drawings on my blog that might help. Please remember at no time does my blog use mechanics only the conservation of energy principle.

Last edited:
A.T. said:
Choose a different reference frame where it is already moving and has KE. See how pointless it is to ask for "reasons from energy principles"? KE is just a number assigned to the object by an observer. It is not some invisible fuel, that needs to be filled into the tank of the object before it can start moving.

Not sure what you mean if I observe from a different frame of reference both the large mass creating the gravitational field and the object move in the same way there is no difference in their relative positioning hence no acceleration. Sorry a bit confused.

I do understand that my use of terms is not very good. KE is not a vector. It is the velocity relative to the large masss/gravitational field creating the KE that is a vector.

I do understand that my use of terms is not very good. KE is not a vector. It is the velocity...
I think your problem has nothing to do with energy or gravity. You can construct the same apparent paradox for any object starting to move from rest:

In order to move away from the initial position it needs some velocity, but it has no velocity in the initial position, so how does it ever get away from the initial position?

It's a problem of intuitive human reasoning vs. math of limits.

A.T. said:
I think your problem has nothing to do with energy or gravity. You can construct the same apparent paradox for any object starting to move from rest:

In order to move away from the initial position it needs some velocity, but it has no velocity in the initial position, so how does it ever get away from the initial position?

It's a problem of intuitive human reasoning vs. math of limits.

Thanks for the comment it is very thought provoking :) but I do not think that is the paradox.

I am happy for a warm object to start moving.

Simply if it gains KE it will move form rest
For example one snooker ball hitting another or a car being towed. both get EPE? which gives them KE so they move. They get that energy without moving as other things are moving. A free object by definition does not get anything from anywhere it is free. So how can it move.

I think gravitational force causes me problems as I can see you need a force to stop a body accelerating we call this the reaction to the weight. My problem is all the observations we do are for warm objects so we will never see what I am theorising about. I am trying to just stick to the energy model. In our mind I think we see gravity as an invisible elastic band pulling things together but there is no elastic bands just areas of different potentials which you need movement to access.

I think my problem is a stationary object has zero velocity but it has KE (except at absolute zero) we ignore this by calling it internal energy. however the indivdual molecules ( or quarks) have no internal energy they have KE.

Last edited:
A couple of points. Firstly, what has the movement of an 'attracting' object got to do with the field it is producing at the point where you put your test object? At that point, there is just a Field, which will interact with the test object. If the attracting object happens to be moving, then the field may be changing in time but we are considering what happens at one particular point in time.
Secondly, there is nothing special about a velocity of Zero, because the velocity depends upon the frame of the observer but the field at that point does not. There is, therefore, no "paradox".
You seem to be using macroscopic and microscopic terms interchangeably here. Forget Temperature; it is not relevant here. Your mention of a "free body" is not relevant here, either. Free Body is a concept which is used in calculations, which add the effects of all relevant forces. If equilibrium is the result then these forces add to zero but, in your case, there is no equilibrium because (obviously) the object will be accelerated.
You seem to have a bit of a jumble of ideas here which are causing confusion. Take one thing at a time and it should resolve itself.

sophiecentaur said:
A couple of points. Firstly, what has the movement of an 'attracting' object got to do with the field it is producing at the point where you put your test object? At that point, there is just a Field, which will interact with the test object. If the attracting object happens to be moving, then the field may be changing in time but we are considering what happens at one particular point in time.
Secondly, there is nothing special about a velocity of Zero, because the velocity depends upon the frame of the observer but the field at that point does not. There is, therefore, no "paradox".
You seem to be using macroscopic and microscopic terms interchangeably here. Forget Temperature; it is not relevant here. Your mention of a "free body" is not relevant here, either. Free Body is a concept which is used in calculations, which add the effects of all relevant forces. If equilibrium is the result then these forces add to zero but, in your case, there is no equilibrium because (obviously) the object will be accelerated.
You seem to have a bit of a jumble of ideas here which are causing confusion. Take one thing at a time and it should resolve itself.

I am trying to give an explanation of movement due to a gravitaional field for example earth. An object moving towards Earth clearly is losing PE and gaining KE no forces are required for the effect. It is simple energy conservation.
This agrees with the model that fields create? forces hence momentum.

I am saying fields create acceleration if you move through them and hence a force is required to stop them.

Further if they are not moving through a field there is no acceleration hence no force required.

I know this can never be observed as all objects are moving unless at theoretical absolute zero.

The increase in velocity is relative to the field in fact the increase in velocity has to be in the direction of the field.

In my model you have to move to a lower potential to gain KE and hence velocity.

My apologies if I am not explaining this too well.

My explanation is totally in terms of energy and potentials which should exactly match fields and forces. This match is perfect except if there is no initial velocity to create the change in distance required to change the potential to create the loss in PE to create the gain in KE

I hope this is clearer again a big thanks for trying to help me sort out my model.

Thanks for the comment it is very thought provoking :) but I do not think that is the paradox.
Then how would you resolve the apparent contradiction I posed?
Simply if it gains KE it will move form rest
Why not the other way around? If it moves form rest it gains KE. Does it make any difference?
there is no elastic bands just areas of different potentials
Both are just models, or rather parts of the same model.

many tanks for your inputI am trying to give an explanation of movement due to a gravitaional field for example earth. An object moving towards Earth clearly is losing PE and gaining KE no forces are required for the effect. It is simple energy conservation.
This agrees with the model that fields create? forces hence momentum.

I am saying fields create acceleration if you move through them and hence a force is required to stop them.

Further if they are not moving through a field there is no acceleration hence no force required.

I know this can never be observed as all objects are moving unless at theoretical absolute zero.

The increase in velocity is relative to the field in fact the increase in velocity has to be in the direction of the field.

In my model you have to move to a lower potential to gain KE and hence velocity.

My apologies if I am not explaining this too well.

My explanation is totally in terms of energy and potentials which should exactly match fields and forces. This match is perfect except if there is no initial velocity to create the change in distance required to change the potential to create the loss in PE to create the gain in KE

I hope this is clearer again a big thanks for trying to help me sort out my model.

Work is being done, PE and KE are changing. Of Course force is involved.

I really can't see your point, here. There are forces involved, changes of energy and fields. The velocity - whether zero or not - is irrelevant.

What "explanation"? You just seem to be asking a question, involving some random ideas. The 'correct' bits of your 'model' are correct but what's new?

Thanks for the comment it is very thought provoking :) but I do not think that is the paradox.
I do think that A.T.'s comment is the actual paradox that you are looking at. If you can solve it for his example then the same reasoning should apply for your situation.

However, I think that your reasoning from energy principles is wrong even for a moving object. An object with KE could be moving up, down, or horizontally, and your reasoning as presented cannot distinguish those situations. Furthermore, if it is moving horizontally then it is not moving into a region of lower PE, and yet it falls also.

The proper way to reason from energy principles is called the Lagrangian formulation of mechanics. In Lagrangian mechanics you use the "action" which is KE - PE, so it is purely based on energy considerations. The other major difference is that in Newtonian mechanics you specify the position and velocity at one point and then solve for the trajectory using the forces, while in Lagrangian mechanics you specify the position at the beginning and the position at a later time and solve for the trajectory using the action. Specifically, the trajectory which the system takes is the trajectory which minimizes the action (most PE least KE).

So, as an example, say that the position is the same at the beginning and at the end. If it goes down then it will be increasing KE and decreasing PE, which would maximize the action, so it goes up. How high does it go? Well, if it just stayed level, then its KE would be 0, but its PE would also be 0. The higher it goes the higher its PE but the higher its KE also, so there is a trade off. It wants to go as high as possible to increase PE, but not too high that the KE goes up too much. The parabolic path that it takes winds up being the exact optimal path, it is the highest PE it can get without allowing too much KE.

That is how you reason out an actual specific trajectory from energy principles.

Last edited:
I am saying fields create acceleration if you move through them and hence a force is required to stop them.

Further if they are not moving through a field there is no acceleration hence no force required.

A ball thrown up in the air stops moving in order to turn back towards Earth (unless you have a really good arm). This is an example of acceleration when there is no motion.

In my model you have to move to a lower potential to gain KE and hence velocity.

This is not true according to classical mechanics which has proven to be a very good description of reality. One part does not precede the other. The motion and the gain of KE are simultaneous.

If you want to use a purely energy description of reality, you need to either postulate the principle of least action or the fact that a gradient in a potential field induces acceleration. Again, the second one is equivalent to a force. You don't need to explicitly talk about forces, but conservation of energy is not enough information to describe our world. If it were, you would be correct, objects at rest in a field would not move, but this is not the case.

You commented that a particle with no internal degrees of freedom would not move, but this is not the case either. Electrons in an electric field accelerate despite having no internal temperature.

However from the perspective of energy it seems if an object starts with no KE it can not lose PE by moving into an area of lower potential as it cannot have any velocity to enable the move. If no PE is lost how can there be a gain in KE.

If there is no gain in KE how can it accelerate.

Again I can clearly see that once the object is moving it is losing PE which converts to KE and it is accelerating. But from energy principles how can it start to move. Where does the KE come from to move into a lower gravitational potential.
I would like to point out one other flaw in the reasoning presented here for the moving object, and how that same flaw causes the confusion in the stationary case. You have presented the exchange of energy in terms of a chain of cause and effect.

1) Cause: object moves, Effect: object loses PE.
2) Cause: object loses PE, Effect: object gains KE.
3) Cause: object gains KE, Effect: object accelerates.

The problem with this is that causes always preceed effects. So if a loss of PE causes a gain in KE then there is some time between the cause and the effect where energy is not conserved. So, since energy is conserved, the loss in PE and the gain in KE must happen at the same time and therefore one cannot cause the other. They simply happen together.

So the correct way to state it is that as it moves down it loses PE and gains KE. This is all you can say. Without additional information you cannot say whether or not it is moving down in either case. So the exact same reasoning applies in both cases, as well as the exact same limitation in what you can conclude.

Without doing a full Lagrangian analysis you cannot work out the actual trajectory from energy principles. And things get worse for the naive energy analysis if you move to non-uniform gravity. How can you explain a circular orbit with it? According to the naive energy analysis it should simply travel in a straight line slowing down as its PE increases. But the Lagrangian analysis works it out correctly from energy principles.

Last edited:
DaleSpam said:
Without doing a full Lagrangian analysis you cannot work out the actual trajectory from energy principles.

I assume you mean in the general case... in the simple case of an object falling from rest in a uniform gravitational field the trajectory q(t) can be derived from conservation of energy. To my mind that constitutes a solution of the original problem: energy conservation dictates the relationship between the velocity and position, which in this case uniquely determines q(t) given zero initial speed and a known starting position. (Not sure if this is what the OP had in mind, though.)

DaleSpam said:
I would like to point out one other flaw in the reasoning presented here for the moving object, and how that same flaw causes the confusion in the stationary case. You have presented the exchange of energy in terms of a chain of cause and effect.

1) Cause: object moves, Effect: object loses PE.
2) Cause: object loses PE, Effect: object gains KE.
3) Cause: object gains KE, Effect: object accelerates.

The problem with this is that causes always preceed effects. So if a loss of PE causes a gain in KE then there is some time between the cause and the effect where energy is not conserved. So, since energy is conserved, the loss in PE and the gain in KE must happen at the same time and therefore one cannot cause the other. They simply happen together.

Hi first of all big big thank you for your reply I am in trouble with the moderators for having a personal theory.

Thanks for the cause an effect discussion you may have sorted out my confusion however I seem to remember at uni some 40 years ago that you can break energy conservation rules as long as the time is short enough it was a formula involving h (plank's constant). Does this not apply. I will look it up if needed.

psmt said:
I assume you mean in the general case... in the simple case of an object falling from rest in a uniform gravitational field the trajectory q(t) can be derived from conservation of energy. To my mind that constitutes a solution of the original problem: energy conservation dictates the relationship between the velocity and position, which in this case uniquely determines q(t) given zero initial speed and a known starting position. (Not sure if this is what the OP had in mind, though.)

That's not true. Energy conservation gives many possible solutions. If a ball were to float in the air without moving, it would have the same potential and kinetic energy. In order to pick out the correct path, you need the idea of forces or the least action.

Heisenberg uncertainty relation. ΔE.ΔT <h/2∏

Surely this allows causality as I suggest as Δt can be made as small as you wish

DrewD said:
You commented that a particle with no internal degrees of freedom would not move, but this is not the case either. Electrons in an electric field accelerate despite having no internal temperature.

Only because it is moving ie Δx>0.

An electron to be not moving would have to be at absolute zero as if not it will be moving by the momentum change caused by infrared photons hitting it a little like brownian motion. sorry if that sounds a little patronizing it was not meant to be

Is there any experimental evidence that such a electron starts to move.?

sophiecentaur said:
A couple of points. Firstly, what has the movement of an 'attracting' object got to do with the field it is producing at the point where you put your test object?.

There are two explanations of the movement of objects by fields. I am only talking about energy and potential field differences. As under certain conditions it disagrees with force and interaction with field movement.

I am trying to explain motion from energy only and it works for every observable situation. (by works it agrees with forces produced by interaction with fields.)

From energy only, it can only accelerate if it has a velocity ie it moves from one potential to another hence loses PE and gains KE hence it accelerates This is always observed as Δx<>0. Δx=0 is never attainable although classical theory I think says this would happen at absolute zero. When

if Δx= 0 then Δpe =0 ∴Δke =0 ∴Δv=0 ∴acceleration = 0

In this theoretical situation there would be no acceleration and hence it implies no gravitational force

Last edited:
I have been warned by the moderator,

So can I apologize I have " introduced a number of off-the-wall concepts that I probably made up on my own. Yet, I am USING them as if these are unambiguous physics concepts that are well-defined"

and for trying can I apologize for trying " to educate all of us of simple, basic mechanics." it was not meant

and can I appologize for not knowing my audience.

I am sorry but find it difficult to communicate possibly as I have aspergers

I can understand how once an object is falling in converts PE to KE. My question is how does it move in the first place?

No one has mentioned Zeno's Paradox yet in this thread... But as far as I can tell, this is Zeno's paradox expressed in terms of infinitesimally small changes of energy instead of distance.

An electron to be not moving would have to be at absolute zero as if not it will be moving by the momentum change caused by infrared photons hitting it a little like brownian motion. sorry if that sounds a little patronizing it was not meant to be

First, internal temperature of a fundamental particle is not defined because there is no internal structure, so an electron at 0K is meaningless. An electron can be part of a system that is cooled, but not itself.

You don't even need to consider photons colliding with an electron. If the electron is in a position eigenstate, then it doesn't have a well defined momentum. You can't have a localized particle that is not moving in quantum mechanics, so your question is meaningless in that circumstance. In classical mechanics, it is perfectly acceptable and your claim is wrong. You have chosen rules that do not describe the world.

I checked out your blog before the mods pulled the link down. It is good that you are trying to think about such interesting questions, but you would serve yourself much better if you spent your time learning about the well studied theory of quantum mechanics instead of making up your own theory of non-Newtonian mechanics.

Nugatory said:
No one has mentioned Zeno's Paradox yet in this thread... But as far as I can tell, this is Zeno's paradox expressed in terms of infinitesimally small changes of energy instead of distance.

I do sort of agree with you, but the laws of motion don't imply this paradox. I think it is a paradox due to the OP misunderstanding of physical laws, but maybe I'm not thinking deeply enough about it.

DrewD said:
That's not true. Energy conservation gives many possible solutions. If a ball were to float in the air without moving, it would have the same potential and kinetic energy. In order to pick out the correct path, you need the idea of forces or the least action.

That is appealing intuitively. However, consider that
$$\frac {1}{2} m \dot{q}^2 + mgq = E$$
contains all the information contained in
$$m \ddot{q}^2 + mg = 0,$$
which i think we both agree gives the trajectory uniquely given an initial velocity and initial position. The former is just the "first integral" form of the latter. It can be solved according to (apologising in advance for potential algebraic slips but the principle is sound):
$$\int_{q(0)}^{q(t)}{\frac{dq'}{\sqrt{2(\frac{E}{m}-gq')}}}=\int_{0}^{t}{dt'}.$$
I think the solution is unique up to throwing away an unphysical solution in which the object accelerates upwards - certainly there is no room here for the object to stay stationary.

I can't deny that the object staying stationary forever satisfies conservation of energy though. I think the reason why the maths works is to do with the fact that in the above integral over q', although there is a singularity in the integrand, the actual integral itself is well-behaved. I reckon Zeno's paradox is also absorbed into this observation: the time stays finite because the q'-integral stays finite.

Certainly an interesting one... i agree that in general conservation of energy is not enough to work out dynamics.

Nugatory said:
No one has mentioned Zeno's Paradox yet in this thread... But as far as I can tell, this is Zeno's paradox expressed in terms of infinitesimally small changes of energy instead of distance.

psmt said:
That is appealing intuitively. However, consider that
$$\frac {1}{2} m \dot{q}^2 + mgq = E$$
contains all the information contained in
$$m \ddot{q}^2 + mg = 0,$$
which i think we both agree gives the trajectory uniquely given an initial velocity and initial position.
I do not think all the information is contained in the two equations when $\dot{q}$ =0
It works well if $\dot{q}$>0

Yeah, i retract what i said before. Didn't think about it carefully enough the first time. The solution that needs to be rejected as 'unphysical' is precisely that which we are trying to avoid in the first place, i.e. staying still at q(0). Apologies, DrewD!

I just mentioned this curiosity to a scientist friend. She suggested that the existence of the stationary solution could be the mechanism by which clouds stay up. Maybe the OP could work on turning this into a viable theory? :P

Thanks for the cause an effect discussion you may have sorted out my confusion however I seem to remember at uni some 40 years ago that you can break energy conservation rules as long as the time is short enough it was a formula involving h (plank's constant). Does this not apply. I will look it up if needed.
No, you can never break energy conservation, neither in classical mechanics nor in quantum mechanics.

In any case, all of QM is based on the Lagrangian and the closely related Hamiltonian approaches, using energy principles. The mechanism is what I described before, so if you want to reason from energy principles, that is the way to do it.

Heisenberg uncertainty relation. ΔE.ΔT <h/2∏

Surely this allows causality as I suggest as Δt can be made as small as you wish
The uncertainty relationship for energy and time is quite specific. The ΔE is the uncertainty in the energy of the state. The ΔT is the lifetime of the state. For a quantum state with a very certain energy the lifetime of the state is very long. So here, the more sure you are that the system has 0 KE the longer it will stay that way according to this relationship, assuming that it even applies which I am not convinced of.

I am trying to explain motion from energy only and it works for every observable situation. (by works it agrees with forces produced by interaction with fields.)
The point I have been trying to get across to you is that your explanation is wrong (or at least incomplete), even when you are dealing with a case that has motion. You have to do more than what you are suggesting. Specifically you have to use energy to construct the action then use the principle of least action to analyze the motion. Otherwise even for a moving object you cannot get the right path.

For example, given an object of 1 kg mass in a 1 g uniform field, what is the trajectory if it has KE = 100 J and PE = 0 J initially?

If that is all that you are given then you cannot solve for the trajectory.

Even if you are also given an initial velocity, how does simple conservation of energy tell you that you get a parabolic path. Why not just a straight line path with the speed determined by energy considerations? You need something additional, the principle of least action.

Since your explanation doesn't work for the moving case, you shouldn't be surprised that it doesn't work for the stationary case either.

Last edited:
DaleSpam said:
The point I have been trying to get across to you is that your explanation is wrong (or at least incomplete), even when you are dealing with a case that has motion. You have to do more than what you are suggesting. Specifically you have to use energy to construct the action then use the principle of least action to analyze the motion. Otherwise even for a moving object you cannot get the right path.

Many thanks for your efforts particularly if I am frustrating you.

My apology my opening statement is misleading

I agree 100% with what you say I am not trying to replace mechanics (forces) with potential changes for moving objects. Therefore I am not trying to prove a path or trajectory mechanics both works and is very sophisticated at this.

My only concern is if a particle starts moving from rest ie stops remaining stationary. My model predicts it does not move, Any path would prove the model wrong. I am only trying to prove my model wrong. Any path would do.

I feel the Principle of minimum energy or 2nd law of thermodynamics constrain the particle to move to a lower potential. If the field is linear this will be perpendicular to the field (thus in the direction of the force). Such would be sufficient to prove my model wrong.

again I apologise if my comment seems condescending it is just that I am working from first principles only.

Last edited:
DaleSpam said:
No, you can never break energy conservation, neither in classical mechanics nor in quantum mechanics.

Yes I agree as mechanics is based on observation this not possible. The particle in my model has I believe never been observed and possibly can never be observed.

Not sure if I am allowed to do this but there is a thread which although it is inconclusive indicates that conservation of energy cannot be observed if Δt.ΔE is small enough.

Therefore I feel my causality which you object to is at least feasible or more importantly not yet shown to be false.

Thanks very much for your thoughts

sophiecentaur said:
Work is being done, PE and KE are changing. Of Course force is involved.

I really can't see your point, here. There are forces involved, changes of energy and fields. The velocity - whether zero or not - is irrelevant.

What "explanation"? You just seem to be asking a question, involving some random ideas. The 'correct' bits of your 'model' are correct but what's new?
I agree work done is done as there is a change in energy.
and I agree mechanics use F.X=Work Done

First I do not know if what I suggest is new.

However it seems mechanics has been built on theories which are then proved true or false by observation. Hence mechanics is an excellent model for observable objects.

I believe as it is impossible to observe an object with velocity = 0 only objects whose average velocity = 0 by this I mean all observed objects have internal energy. I think of them as having little bits vibrating around ( quarks molecules ...whatever)

However mechanics takes these observations and applies them to a theoretical unobservable particle and assigns such particle with velocity =0

In short I am saying mechanics has not been validated for this theoretical state an unobservable state of a particle.

I am unsure of the ramifications of this.

My apologies again for lack of scientific terminolgy

Last edited:
I agree 100% with what you say I am not trying to replace mechanics (forces) with potential changes for moving objects. Therefore I am not trying to prove a path or trajectory mechanics both works and is very sophisticated at this.

My only concern is if a particle starts moving from rest ie stops remaining stationary. My model predicts it does not move, Any path would prove the model wrong. I am only trying to prove my model wrong. Any path would do.
Then I don't understand the point. You already seem aware that your model doesn't correctly describe the motion of a general moving particle, so why would you be at all concerned that it also doesn't correctly describe the motion of a stationary particle?

It is possible to use energy principles only to correctly describe a particle in general, you just have to use the Lagrangian approach. You should hold off trying to invent your own approach until you have actually learned Lagrangian mechanics.

• Mechanics
Replies
9
Views
2K
• Mechanics
Replies
4
Views
1K
• Mechanics
Replies
3
Views
1K
• Mechanics
Replies
24
Views
345
• Mechanics
Replies
5
Views
17K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
27
Views
619
• Mechanics
Replies
2
Views
873
• Mechanics
Replies
4
Views
2K
• Mechanics
Replies
13
Views
2K
• Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
1K