🚀 go-pugleaf

No force is necessary to cause orbital motion.
The planets orbit the sun (( roughly the center
of the effective mass (M-m) of the rest of the
universe ))  at a special mean orbital radius to
conserve total energy, consistent with the first
law of  thermodynamics, which states that the
total energy of the universe is a constant. The
sum of kinetic and potential energies of any
orbiting mass is a constant.

SEE BOOK:
ONE WITH THE UNIVERSE-
            THE MECHANICS OF
            THE UNIVERSE
            by  Allen C. Goodrich

SEE: ISBN  0-595-41598-9


THE MECHANICS OF
 THE UNIVERSE

Copyright 1984-2007  Allen C. Goodrich

SIR ISAAC NEWTON  (1642 - 1727 )is best
known for his laws of motion and his
proposition of a universal gravitation theory,
which states that all bodies in space and on
the earth are affected by a force  called
gravity.
However, we now know that orbital motion
has nothing to do with a force of gravity.
I have found that orbital motion obeys the
modified first law of thermodynamics. which
states that the total energy of the universe is a
constant. The total energy of a planet or moon
is a constant, because there is no known way
for its energy to be changed except by
radiation of eneergy or contact with another
mass.
Orbiting masses have kinetic and potential
energies that are nearly equal, because
orbital motion occurs at the only orbital radius
where a positive change of kinetic energy is
accompanied by an equal negative change of
potential energy, complying with the modified
first law of thermodynamics.
All of the planets and moons orbit in a
 manner that is consistent with the modified
first law of thermodynamics.
Any orbiting mass, m, such as the earth,
has a kinetic energy  m (2 pi L )^2 / t^2
because of its velocity ,v , as  m v^2 , and
 a potential energy  G ( M-m ) m  / L,
because of its orbital radius L and the product
of the masses m and the rest of  the effective
mass of the universe M-m, where M is the
effective mass of the total universe.  In the
solar system this mass M would effectively
 be the sum of the masses of the sun and
the rest of the masses of the planets and
moons of the solar system.
The sum of kinetic and potential energies
would be a constant for any particular planet,
or moon , because , no force,  as a  source
of an energy change, is available to the
orbiting mass ( if it is not in contact with another
mass ) . As a result,  it continues to orbit at
nearly the same  radial distance from the
center of the mass of the rest of the effective
universe, complying with the modified first law
of thermodynamics, as the fundamental
equation of the universe.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
> Stephen Hawking: "Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as
> consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be
> slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a
> famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley
> in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred
> and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from.
> How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."
>
> http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_uploads/static_resources/0534493394/4891/Ch01-Essay.pdf
> Clifford Will: "The first glimmerings of the black hole idea date to
> the 18th century, in the writings of a British amateur astronomer, the
> Reverend John Michell. Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular
> theory that light would be attracted by gravity, he noted that the
> speed of light emitted from the surface of a massive body would be
> reduced by the time the light was very far from the source. (Michell
> of course did not know special relativity.)"
>
> So Einsteinians Stephen Hawking and Clifford Will think John Michell
> was wrong because he did not know the Michelson-Morley experiment and
> special relativity. However Einsteinians John Norton and Jean
> Eisenstaedt seem to think that Einsteinians Stephen Hawking and
> Clifford Will are extremely silly whereas John Michell was right:
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
> John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
> evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
> universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
> relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> POSTULATE."
>
> http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
> Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
> vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
> que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
> n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
> Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
> trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
> raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
> Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
> newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
> opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
> resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
>
> Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
> the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
> the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
> there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
> Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
> concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
> reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
> don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
> what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
> end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pvalev@yahoo.com