The fact that I have debated this subject with a few scholars is somewhat surprising to me. I will try to summarize my opinion on the subject. Those who argue with me say that no energy is transferred by gravity. No work is done. I disagree. I believe they are arbitrarily picking a flawed external preferred point of reference when they choose the source of gravity. An accelerated object can only use itself as the judge of energy being transferred to it.

 

It is my opinion that energy imust be expended/transferred to cause an object to accelerate. Accelleration is deviance from a stable inertial state. Motion or lack thereof is entirely relational to an observer.

 

I will postulate that an object in orbit around a gravity source would immediately travel in a straight line and take on a stable inertial state if gravity was removed. Additionally I will postulate that if gravity were momentarily flashed on for a moment near an object in a stable inertial state, that object's inertial state would change. This is the same as saying a "still" object would begin moving toward the gravity source and an object moving perpendicular to the source would deviate from its course by a minute degree. All of these actions require a transfer of energy.

 

An object in a stable orbit must constantly have energy applied to it to cause it to deviate from a natural straight-line course into space. It is easier to understand if an orbit is broken into parts. In this first image, imagine a frictionless and weightless environment. The object traveling is a billiard ball and we instantly transfer an equivelent to the starting energy using another billiard ball at each of the arrow points.

 

 

The above model will help you segment an orbit into its constituent parts. Because a circle has an infinite number of points, I will give you a second diagram to help you start to make the transition toward infinite.

 

 

 

The above model should allow you to see how I have come to the conclusion that the energy that is transferred to an object in a stable orbit during one revolution is equal to the initial energy required to accelerate the object to its orbit speed times Pi. Given that orbits are not perfect circles I'm not certain of the exacting accuracy of the calculation but I believe it is a close approximation.

 

 

That's fine for orbits but what about objects resting on the ground?

 

I believe energy is constantly being transferred to objects at rest on the ground as well. I believe work is being done by gravity to an object you believe only has a balanced force applied to it. To say that you have a balanced force you must pick a preferential reference frame. Selection of a preferential reference frame regularly confounds science and is a very large part of why misconceptions about relativity are not cleaned up even in the face of evidence.

 

Take for example that two rockets and an observer are the only objects in the universe. If the two rockets thrust against eachother, without knowledge of the actual thrust output of each of the rockets, the dominant rocket is determined by the motion of the observer.

 

If you observe from the perspective of the sun, the motion of an object on earth that we percieve to be stationary you will see a very odd and regularly changing path. An inertially changing object. The question to be asked is: What is causing the object to deviate from a straight-line path? What is doing the work of pulling it through space?

 

Force = Mass * Accelleration.

Work =   Force * Distance (preferential inertial frame required)

 

I postulate that an object in a state of acceleration is moving regardless of the viewer's reference frame. All objects on earth, including those seemingly on the ground are in a state of acceleration measurable by an accelerometer. Regardless of that assumption, it is undenaible that all objects held in Earth's gravity are being pushed and pulled far outside of any straight line trajectory. Work is done. Energy is transferred.

 

 

Well then how much energy is being transferred to an object at rest on Earth?

 

I would assume that using an accelerometer at a given point on the earth you could find the intensity of the acceleration of a given object. Perhaps some pointing up and down to find an average would be needed. Simply assume it is an object under linear accelleration by some force other than gravity. You should know its mass already; so simply pick an interval and solve for the energy required to accelerate an object of that mass for that period of time.

 

 

 

 

Here's a little side thing just to tickle your fancy. I call it Pi R Scalable.