Orbiting systems
uitterdijk
Dear physicist, Orbiting systems
One of the most amazing phenomena in the universe is the eternal rotation of an object relative to another object. For example: the Earth relative to the Sun and the electron relative to the atomic nucleus. The only condition for this process to be eternal is that it takes place in vacuum.
Surprisingly physics has a fundamentally wrong view of the intrinsic energy of such a system: it is assumed to be minimal for the shortest possible distance between the two objects.
This misunderstanding arises from the belief that both potential and kinetic energy play a role in this system. However, the centripetal force on the orbiting object is at every instant exactly equal and opposite to the centrifugal force exerted on it, whether the orbit is a circular or an elliptical one.
As a result, the orbiting object ultimately experiences no external forces at all.
The proof for this statement was found during the development of a digital simulation model of the Earth orbiting the Sun. In doing so, this criterion inevitably had to be applied in order to obtain the desired results. The pages 174-176 of chapter “Encore” in ‘Physics since Einstein’ show that even the amplitude and period of the so-called wobble of Earth, on its trajectory around the Sun, have been found, applying this principle: 4650 km, resp. 29.5 days, the so-called synodic month of the Moon.
So the potential energy of an orbital system is at any moment zero. Only the kinetic energy remains. Therefore the text in, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital should have been formulated with the red words:
“In atoms with a single electron ...., the energy of an orbital .... is determined exclusively by n. The smallest (n=1) orbital has the lowest highest possible energy in the atom. Each successively higher value of n has a higher lower level of energy, but the difference decreases as n increases.
For high n, the level of energy becomes so high low that the electron can easily escape from the atom.”
N.B. The incorrect model has become decisive for the modelling of not only the atom, but ultimately also of the atomic nucleus.
If physics, when encountering fundamental problems in modelling the atomic nucleus, had not been hampered by such an incorrect model of orbital systems, it might perhaps have come to the idea that the neutron can in principle be modelled in the same way as the protium hydrogen atom: an electron orbiting a proton, but then with extreme small orbit radii.
The calculation of the intrinsic energy of such a newtron learns that its so-called maximum energy density, expressed in J/kg, is ‘about exactly’ equal to the maximum energy density of atomic bombs: 70 TJ/kg.
The electron in this newtron would have an orbit radius being a bit larger than the radius of the proton.
According to the theories of relativity the energy-density of an arbitrary object with mass m is E/m = c2 = 9*1016 J/kg = 90,000 TJ/kg. One would expect that such an observation should be convincing enough to reject E = mc2.
See for a few more details the copy of page 102, titled as '11 Energy density of elementary particles', out of chapter XXIII ‘Atomic nuclei modelled without exotic particles and magic forces’ in ‘Physics since `Einstein’.
Kind regards,
Sjaak Uitterdijk
matterdoc
It is physically impossible for a free macrobody to revolve around another moving body in any type of geometrically closed path. Planets are free macrobodies; the central body (sun) is a moving body, and the circular/elliptical path is a geometrically closed path. Hence, planetary orbit cannot be circular/elliptical. This fact can be determined by observing someone trying to run around another person moving along a defined path. See: Shape of orbital path at http://vixra.org/pdf/1311.0018v1.pdf