Let’s consider a lunar lander heading towards the moon. The engines are off. The lunar lander is coasting towards the moon, gliding along because it has ‘conserved momentum’. No energy transfer takes place as the lunar landing coasts towards the moon.

Let’s consider the moon in orbit around the earth. The moon is falling, just as Newton’s Apple is falling, falling towards the earth. However the moon has ‘conserved momentum’ so it ‘falls’ in circles, circling around the earth as it maintains a position within the earth’s gravitational field. No energy transfer takes place to keep the moon moving, because, like the lunar lander, the moon has conserved momentum.

Now let’s consider a hydrogen atom rising up in earth’s gravitational field before escaping out into space. Does it require a transfer of energy to ‘fall up’. Does it require a transfer of energy to circle or to glide? If a hydrogen atom has ‘conserved momentum’ then it follows that a hydrogen atom could ‘fall up’ without any energy transfer taking place. It would seem that ‘conserved momentum’ is just the description of a total energy state, and it is the total energy state of an object that determines its behavior in a gravitational field. A hydrogen atom is ‘to dense’ to exist in the spatial gradient which defines the earth’s atmosphere. Therefore the hydrogen atom possesses ‘conserved momentum’ and the rising of a hydrogen atom is similar to the coasting of a lunar lander or the orbit of the moon, and no energy transfer is required for hydrogen to rise. This then implies that the observed ‘cooling’ of hydrogen as it rises is not due to a required transfer of energy to fuel its ascent, but rather is in part a relativistic effect (the dilation of the hydrogen atom as it rises into more dilated space and becomes less dense) with perhaps a portion of the cooling due to a loss of heat energy to the surrounding environment, an effect unrelated to its momentum, since it would seem that momentum is just a way of describing the density of energy state.

Let us consider the rising of a ‘lighter than air’ balloon. The rate of the rising of the balloon is the inverse of the rate of a falling object, in that the balloon takes off at top speed at it rises and then it gradually slows when it reaches its final altitude. This suggests that the apparent speed of an object moving through a gravitational field is directly related to the shape of space, much faster where space is contracted and slower as space dilates.

If a ‘lighter than air’ balloon were released on the moon, where there is no concern about friction with the atmosphere, would it accelerate or would it instantly achieve a certain velocity? It certainly seems to be the case here on earth that ‘lighter than air’ balloon attempts to instantly move at a certain velocity when released, the velocity appropriate to the energy state (the conserved momentum).

If it is true that objects can be seen falling in gravitational fields without a transfer of energy taking place, such as the moon, and since it seems to be the case that the direction in which an object falls in a gravitational field is relative to its energy state and its conserved momentum, would it be the case that for an object to fall down in a gravitational field an energy transfer must take place? An object would fall in the downward direction if it had a lower energy state, or a lack of conserved momentum’. If an object has conserved momentum, and higher energy state, it falls up or it falls in circles, and it does not require a transfer of energy to continue to fall. It has conserved momentum. It does not require more energy to fall. Therefore it seems logical to conclude that when an object does not have enough conserved momentum, and its energy state is low, it does not require energy to fall. Its acceleration must be a relativistic effect in that it is only apparent acceleration, and not real, and is actually a description of the shape of space and the slowing of time. Where space is dilated and the clock is running faster, it will appear to move more slowly, and as space contracts and there is less time, for the clock is running slow, it will appear to accelerate. This relative acceleration must be relative and not real acceleration in order for the law of the conservation of energy to hold true. If an object is conserving energy, which means that it is conserving whatever momentum it had when it entered the gravitational field, then it must appear to accelerate. This relativity of apparent increases in velocity must hold true unless one wishes to suggest that objects that full up or objects that coast or objects that fall in circles are somehow different than objects that fall down, in that objects that fall down, and do not have conserved momentum, must therefore require a transfer of energy to take place so that they may fall in the downward direction. For some reason falling down was different than falling in any other direction and therefore a transfer of energy was required to fall down for that very reason, whatever it might be.

I am going to draw the conclusion that falling down in a gravitational field does not involve any exchange of energy, since the direction of fall depends on conserved momentum, which is an energy state which is a density function. I will maintain this position until such a time as someone points out to me that key difference that exists in having things fall down rather than in some other direction, for at the moment I cannot see any difference myself.