In his paper “ON LAPLACE AND THE 3-BODY PROBLEM” Miles gives an argument for why the distance between Saturn’s and Jupiter’s orbit should be shrinking with time if only gravity was present as a force. He writes:
Let us look at four positions of the two planets, in four diagrams, in a straight 3-body problem.
With gravity as a force of attraction, and no other force fields playing a part, we find that we would expect the gap between Jupiter and Saturn to be getting smaller. Because, while Jupiter is sometimes being pulled away from the Sun by Saturn and sometimes toward it, Saturn is always being pulled toward the Sun by Jupiter. I challenge you to find a relative position of the two planets where Saturn is not being pulled into a lower orbit by Jupiter.
(Diagrams created by Miles Mathis.)
It seems to us that this argument does not make any sense. Consider for example the following similar diagram where the big dot represents the Sun and the smaller dot represents the earth:
If Mathis’s arguments were valid, a two-body system could certainly not be stable because the earth could only fall into orbits closer to the sun. The (mathematical) two-body problem however exhibits stable solutions – we are, approximately, living on one!
Are you really two graduate students in theoretical physics?
You’d better forget it. This last “response” is too moronic even for the standard level. Not even stupid.
Dear shubhash rao,
Would you care to elaborate as why the post is moronic?
Mathis uses these argument to show that only a repulsive force could be the cause of the observed deviations of the orbit of Saturn and Jupiter from their expected path. He claims that Laplace’s derivation must therefor be false since it only uses the attractive force of gravity in the framework of newtonian mechanics. He goes on to claim that electromagnetic repulsion of the two planets is the cause of the observed perturbations.
However, only because the force is attractive, that does not mean that things always must come closer together. (See e.g. here.)
I agree that the post is very short, but it certainly shows that forgetting to take the momenta of the involved bodies into account gives invalid arguments that cannot be used to predict the future motions of the bodies.
Cheers,
Cee
You have got remember that these two guys are gradstudents inphysics, and although I have only posted twice I am a grad student in math. People trying to learn physics do in a proper setting. What is being offered here as a service to all those arm chair physicists out there, in a hope that they will not pervert their brain with brackish Internet nonsense.
Nobody here is shooting for a Nobel prize with what we write, but we have all become somewhat concerned that Mathis is gaining a following and we are doing our tiny bit to help ensure no young mind is corrupted by his nonsense. Any one of us could prove facts prom partial differential equations testing to orbit mechanics that demonstrate he is wrong, but that is first gross overkill and second probably far to involved and sohisticated an argument for a causual conversation.
And like the othr guy I responded to earlier. Instead of slinging mud, why not use that grey matter between your ears and clearly,concisely, in a scientific method demonstrate how Hecate wrong. You will get much more credibility than by mindlessly mudslinging.
My two cents
Shoul read …demonstrate how we …
End edit
Your “similar” diagram and the concept behind it are not logically comparable to that of Mathis’ thought experiment. Mathis points out the Jupiter is pulling Saturn into a closer orbit – one that is stable, not unstable as you claim. You’ve twisted this one inside out and have shown your hand.
This post is not to the point. Miles says the gap between planets SHOULD be getting smaller IF gravity was the only force in action. It should state the SAME on the diagram you have presented on a two body “problem”. If gravity was the ONLY force, the earth SHOULD be getting closer to the sun. If there’s ONLY attraction, what would keep the Earth from falling into the Sun? Mathis presents charge repulsion via photon collision as a mechanism to why that doesn’t happen. You haven’t taken down his hypothesis, on the contrary, you’ve just showed the the earth should be falling into the sun according to the standard model, did you not? That’s what the arrows tell us. Then you just state that because the Earth doesn’t fall into the Sun it exhibits a stable solution, even though you don’t explain what that solution is. That’s PRECISELY Mathis point. Did you intend to back him up?
Dear Erto,
That is precicely the point: Newtonian gravity explains stable orbits of the Earth around the Sun, even with just the purely attractive force of gravity. It is a misunderstanding that an attractive force always implies that systems collapse.
If you find this counter-intuitive, istead of considering the earth-sun-system, let us consider a satelite orbiting the earth. You wrote: “If there’s ONLY attraction, what would keep the Earth from falling into the Sun?”. Shouldn’t this argument be true for the satelite as well? But it is certainly not using any fuel to stay in orbit, nor is it held up by its charge. (If it were, why do we need to use rockets to put up satelites instead of just setting them free here on earth and waiting for the charge field to make them move up to a stable height?).
Cheers,
Cee
Hi Cee! Thanks for the opportunity to debate and possibly learn something!
First, yes, it should be true for a satellite as well! And it is! Come on, IF the ONLY force is attraction, NOTHING can stop it from being attracted! Imagine this sentence applied to ANYTHING, satellites, pigeons, water bubbles, etc… if there’s ONLY attraction and no other forces between two objects whatsoever, there’s no possible way they wouldn’t attract each other, that’s a logical FACT.
Furthermore, Newtonian gravity does NOT explain stable orbits that are elliptical. It could explain a stable circular orbit only if gravity were pulling equally strong from all directions, which implies perfect spheres of mass generating that field, which we no is not the case. And in any case, any perturbations would either expel the orbiter or make it fall, since bodies cannot correct their orbits (they’re not fueled!).
Regarding rockets to put up satellites, that’s really a bad argument, Cee. According to Mathis’ model, our measured gravity is already unified, meaning it is already gravity’s pull minus charge repulsion, so that’s why we would need rockets: at the surface of the earth the pull is stronger than the push. At the moon’s distance, though, push and pull are averaged (to the moon’s weight), so she “floats”. The only REAL problem here is that all our measurements are already unified (according to him), so he should develop a way to test for them separately. He admits that it is still impossible to block either field, but he points to data supporting him all the time, specifically his corrections on eccentricities and some other evidence, like the negative tide on the moon’s near surface and the C shape orbit of a meteor. Truly, is there any other way we can explain that? How can an approaching body suddenly make a turn when gravity obeys the inverse square law? Obviously we NEED a counter force to the pulling of gravity, for the same reason you yourself pointed out: it is certainly not using any fuel. It cannot correct the orbit for itself.
I visited a physics museum once and there was an apparatus that simulated an orbit only with gravity, and it turned out to be a very slowly decaying spiral down. It presented no explanations for why orbiters wouldn’t fall and I left with the impression someday in a million years we would sink into the sun. Feynman’s visualization of an elliptical orbit has yet another problem: it demands two central bodies to deliver the ellipse, which is obviously not the case.
I can imagine an ellipse being created by the pull of outer planets, but i cannot imagine how an orbit with such varying perturbations, created only gravity, would become stable.
Now, how is it a misunderstanding that an attractive force always implies that systems collapse? Please explain to this dumb brain how could only attractive forces NOT end up in a collision! You must use ONLY attractive forces, and please, use a two body problem. And also please, do not just say “Earth and Moon”, I want to know HOW Earth and Moon won’t collide, using ONLY attractive forces between the two bodies, no other forces allowed! And also, if you decide to put them in perfect equilibrium (that’s the only way to solve), then add an outside perturbation and show how can the orbit correct itself and not fall in or spit out.
TKS, this is fun.
Dear Erto,
Conservation of momentum nicely explains why things keep moving instead of collapsing. Where do you get all this stuff? Parabola-shaped orbits of asteroid can be explained with newtonian mechanics as well without any counter fources. Concerning the two-body-problem: There are standard derivations of Kepler’s laws and eliptic orbits in every mechanics textbook, so I’m not sure what you want me to do here. If you want, I can write something up and we can go through it together. (This would require basic calculus.)
Concerning Mathis’ model of orbits: If the moon and satelites were moving on orbits where the gravitionational and that other force cancel each other, would that not imply that there is only one orbit for each satelite of a certain mass? How is it that we can put satelites on orbits of different heights? And most importantly: Why have humans never put up a satelite that is stationary (i.e. does not move). Since in Mathis Model there really is a counter force, there is nothing that would make the satelite fall back on earth. (If we ever find out that Mathis is correct, I suggest putting up stationary solar panels in space to harvest the energy.) Real satelites however are moving (or rather: they are forever falling towards the earth!) – on orbits very much like those of the planets around the sun!
Cheers,
Cee
Hello Cee.
Well, first of all, I’m not sure the C-shape orbits I was referring to are parabola-shaped orbits at all, take a look: http://milesmathis.com/aster.pdf
As for elliptical orbits, all I could find was the same visualization Feynman did, wich has two focal points to create an ellipse, I couldn’t find any way to explain an elliptical orbit of one body orbiting around a central (more massive) body. If you find anything on this, link it to me, please. And yes, if you can write something up I would appreciate it.
Regarding satellites’ orbits, I don’t know if there is only one orbit possible for a certain mass, but I believe what Mathis points out is just that. That is precisely why satellites we put up are ever falling. We do not know about the unified field so we cannot figure out where exactly we have to put them up in the first place so they can be stationary. Remember that charge repulsion and gravity’s pull are not equivalent: gravity obeys the inverse square law while charge bombardment drops off at 1/Rˆ4. He also points out that surface area (r) of both bodies are as important as mass to solve: http://milesmathis.com/uft.html
And finally, planets are ever falling towards the sun??? You said: “Real satelites however are moving (or rather: they are forever falling towards the earth!) – on orbits very much like those of the planets around the sun!”- Clarify please.
Tks
That is a horseshoe orbit. It only can happen in a rotating coordinate system, so that there is no net force on the “earth” blob and it doesn’t move. This force is not really there, and the graph shows what you would see if you were rotating so the “earth” blob and “sun” blob seemed to be in the same place and you took a long-exposure photo, or if you exposed the plate exactly once a year. Also, you = Mathis, I believe.
Hi, fgd.
Nope, I’m not him, sorry… but if I was him trying to pass as me I don’t think I’d tell you… anyway, returning to the horseshoe orbit, thanks for the clarification, I thought that the asteroid was actually reversing it’s orbit, it makes a lot more sense this way. I did a few searches on the net regarding this orbital shape to have a better visualization of what really happens, so let’s go:
Mile’s argument is still valid. I believe he already understood this orbit the right way, that was my mistake… But the fact remains that, for some reason, as the asteroid gets close to the Earth, something changes it’s orbital velocity (and it’s path gets closer to the sun)… and then, when the Earth approaches it from behind, its velocity is accelerated (and it orbits farther from the sun). What pushes it back and forth (relative to the Earth) this way? Again, if gravity was the ONLY force (attraction) we would expect the exact opposite, right? The point here is not the horseshoe shape itself, but the varying velocities of the asteroid. What causes these fluctuations? How can you possibly explain an asteroid SLOWING DOWN as gets close to the Earth using ONLY attraction between bodies??? I can’t make any sense of it except a counter force opposing gravity. That is what Miles proposes. Any other explanations?
Thanks for the response.
I find this website hilarious. All I have to say is that kinematic pi = 4. (I don’t actually believe Mathis’s theories because I actually listened in math and physics classes, but they are a great joke when my friends and I have lab parties. There’s a phrase for people like him, “Mathis” not his best subject. LOL!!!
If solving the 3-body problem could be accomplished with positing a 2-body problem (as above); there would be no 3-body problem. Your analysis does not address Mathis’ criticism at all.