H

Why do planets orbit their stars, or moons orbit their planets?

10 Answers
Does anyone have a favorite theory? I have heard that scientists have no way of explaining what they call "angular momentum" in space. But to me it seems elementary. Any takers?
H

I'm sorry Angels55. This web page is a sort of forum. Anyone can ask questio9ns; anyone can answer. My remarks are not directed at any one person in particular. It is simply the educational system at large. Anything and everything that attempts to educate us from the time we are born; school, books, magazine and news articles, movies and documentaries. And we feel that we are to swallow all of it; not question anything in the realm of science. We question everything in the field of philosophy and religion, to the point of declaring there are no absolutes, but we listen to our science teachers as if they know everything. It is simply this: one of the hardest things for a scientist to do is to say, "We simply don't know." Now, if someone dare mention the possibility of a Creator God, then it's "Oh, no. Impossible. Out of the question. That's an old children's fable." So then the challenge comes, "Well, then, how did it all happen? And what keeps it functioning for all this time?" And the standard reply is, "Well, somewhere around x billion years ago this may of happened, and we believe in this era that possibly happened, and.." so on with vague ambiguities and general assumptions that have no basis in fact. One of my many theses is this: instead of leaning towards the "God is dead" ideology and the MTV lifestyle, and following hard after technology ad scientific theory, consider, just for a moment, there is a God who created all this, and did it in six days - just consider it. Sure, it takes a leap of faith, but what if all this really is only about 6,000 years old?
Just consider that this giant clock keeps running just because He wants it to. And one day it will stop running, just because He will want it to. No lecture, just think about it.

...
H

It sort of seems to me that gravity alone would serve to simply pull the two objects together. And as for scientists and their models for cosmology, (no reflections on Newton, a brilliant man) I have tended to wink at about anything they have come out with in the last 30 or 40 years. They pretend to be able to explain how this universe sort of "sneezed" itself into existance, how galaxies form, how solar systems form, even how stars and planets themselves form. Even coming out with time frames for how these things happened. But cannot explain why one body orbits another. And the best they can do ist to, if you will, point at Newton and say, "We don't know. Ask him." High school students, college students, ask your science teachers. Read the eminent Carl Sagan. Talk to some astro-physicists. Look in the encyclopedias. Surely some one out there has a theory.

...
S

The relative position of the planet Earth in it's orbit is simliar in principle to the iron ring which orbits some black holes.

The sun at it's birth had a certain specific gravity, and retained certain elements, at certain distances from it.

Gravity is more of a magnetic force than anything. As matter is compressed, electrons are driven from their orbits. This creates an ionically positive mass, just like the core of the sun, and quite possibly the earth.

This positive magnetic field will attract atoms which hold electrons in their shells.

Small bodies like asteriods even have minimal gravitational fields, as do you.

Just nowhere near as powerful, but, everything is electric.

I'm working on the math, but I think that gravity is a compounded, positive weak electrical force.

...
I

You've apparently heard wrong. Angular momentum is a basic property in Newtonian mechanics. This is high-school physics level stuff.

Anyway, the planets move because they were part of the nebula that collapsed to form the Sun, and that nebula (like almost everything) was rotating at some rate before the collapse. As the nebula collapsed, the mass got closer to the center, and the rotation rate ticked up as a result (any rotating object will do this -- the usual example is a pirouetting ice skater pulling in their arms so that they spin faster).

The problem for making stars isn't creating angular momentum, in fact, it's losing it. One way to do that is to dump enough momentum into making planets and/or a secondary star (which is why there are so many binary stars).

...
A

Angular momentum in fundamental particles is considered an intrinsic property, in the class with mass, electrical charge, spin, charm, and so on. There is no theory to explain these properties that I know of. Newton's Laws of Motion (upgraded by Einstein) taken together with the gravitational force are needed to describe the orbits of planets and moons. Please don't lecture me.

...
A

Conservation of angular momentum follows from Newton's Laws of Motion. Scientists cannot explain much more than that; they can discover the Laws of Nature and apply them without being able to answer the question, "Why?"

As far as planetary orbital motion, that follows from Newton's Laws and the effect of the force of gravity.

...
A

you will win a Nobel Prize if you can do this. Although theories now connect the electric force with the weak force (electro-weak), there is nothing around that connects gravity to electromagnetism. And that still leaves the strong nuclear interaction unintegrated.

...
A

You should put your remarks in the religion and spirituality section. this is the science section. Science includes using factual evidence to disprove claims. What you are writing is just opinion. You don't seem to have a question or an answer.

...
A

This "question " was submitted in the physics subsection of science and math; that is where it showed up. The author is the one who choses the place the question is aired.

...
S
Angels55
A question may be submitted in one section and then show up anywhere because of the tags.

...