-1
$\begingroup$

Let there be a solar system without Earth. Now what happen if we place the Earth suddenly on its actual position does the gravitational force of sun acts on it immediately because of its pre established field or the force will act after 8 minutes (the force reaches with the speed of light) I just want to know that does field have an emergent nature like light.

Edit: can some body please tell me how can i collapse my question.I just want to know that does pre existing field cause a force instantly or not? But it's put on hold because it's off topic. (Sorry for bad english)

$\endgroup$

closed as off-topic by Qmechanic Aug 5 at 15:32

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Qmechanic
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

2
$\begingroup$

The force of the sun will act immediately on earth but the force of earth on the sun will take 8 minutes to reach sun.

Remember: Sun and earth orbit around a common center because earth is acting on the sun, too. Only that for the sun it’s rather a wobbly motion. This wobbling will not start more than 8 minutes after earth’s appearance. However, I’m not sure if and how earth’s orbit is affected a tiny bit by the missing of the wobbling until then.

Edit: However, these kind of gedanken experiments, the one from your question and my answer, should be taken with a grain of salt (a big one). Earths sudden "appearance" is unrealistic and it is unclear to me if any physically sensible conclusion can be drawn from it. But at least it is well-proven tradition in science to ask questions in that way even when they later turn out to lead to inconsistent situations.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Obviously your answer does not conserve momentum so it is internally inconsistent, as is the question. $\endgroup$ – my2cts Aug 5 at 14:57
  • $\begingroup$ @my2cts I’m aware of the problems in my answer. I read from your comment that you are in favour of not answering at all, or at least not in this inconsistent way. In the frame of the question, with earth suddenly appearing (which is unrealistic in itself) my answer seemed correct to me. But you are right: if no valid physical insight can be drawn from it then I should have not answered in the first place. $\endgroup$ – Hartmut Braun Aug 5 at 15:33
  • $\begingroup$ It is important to point out the inconsistencies. It simply cannot be that the Earth attracts the Sun and not the other way around. Your answer can be used to point out the inconsistencies. $\endgroup$ – my2cts Aug 5 at 16:27
  • $\begingroup$ @my2cts First..Gravity is a fictitious force under GR, the Earth is traveling along the geodesic at constant speed and without acceleration. Second there is no generic way to define conservation of momentum or conservation of mass-energy outside of some very specific cases in GR. “Attract” is really “curve space time” if you are using GR as your model. $\endgroup$ – gdahlm Aug 5 at 21:45
  • $\begingroup$ @gdahlm But ... the physics of Earth moving in the gravitational field of the Sun is very well described by Newton gravity so action is reaction. $\endgroup$ – my2cts Aug 5 at 22:09

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.