[CrazyScientist (OP)]

This model is based on a simple premise, that massive objects which are moving at 100% of the speed of light don't induce any gravitational attraction on non-comoving massive objects.

Such statement isn't in fact in any way radical or baseless - energy/information can't propagate in space faster than c, so not only the source is as fast as the force it induces on other objects, but it also can't accelerate those objects beyond the current relative speed of c.

Now the most important questions are:
1. How does the magnitude of gravitational interaction relates to the velocity of gravitationally interacting bodies, that are already moving in relation to each other?
2. Does the strenght of gravity vary according to changing velocity of relative motion (and so it's acceleration)?
3  Is there any existing formula, that properly describes the problem of energy distribution for different velocities of gravitationally interacting bodies in relative motion?
4. Can any of this be calculated using avaliable theories?

So, without any further delay, I can give you an answer to at least One Of those questions - sadly, it's The Last position on the list above. The answer is NO.  even If there might be some ways around this issue, bu using continuous transformation of coordinates for individual frames, yet I don't know about any known way to mathematically deal with the absence of gravity for massive bodies moving at c.

Of course, since I'm a free spirit, capable of abstract reasoning, I had to try tackling with the problem using a completely new approach to the subject of energy distribution for moving and stationary mass.

So, my first step was to learn WHY a massive object  moving at c won't indce any acceleration due to gravity on other bodies? I didn't have too many problems to find the most possible answer - it"s because the whole energy of that body turns at the speed of c, completely into the kinetic energy (momentum) and there's no energy left for that mass, that could potentially increase the kinetic energy at (beyond) c. Following this logic, for gravitationally interacting bodies, that are initially at rest in relation to dach other,  there's no kinetic energy that would be taken from the total amount of energy that a body can potentially gain by accelerating to c. Simply put, Evert body with a specific rest mass, has a specific level of energy, that it can potentially reach, while accelerating to c. In relative motion part of this energy is converted to kinetic energy (momentum),and  becomes equal to 0, when the speed of c is being reached (so never in a real-life scenario)...

As for now, such depiction of energy distribution for a massive body in motion, doesn't appear to be in aby way revolutional or particularly exotic - however, it's jest an illusion, as some of more observative  viewers, might notice already a teeny-tiny problem with all ofthis. You see, whatever you mightvthink about my idea of energy distribution in a moving body, it doesn't go well with the currently accepted description of potential energy. According to the current tgeory, level of the potential energy, is defined by the energy applied to a body at energy equilibrium (or at rest) and prevented from the releasing "stored" energy into the environment... Shortly, potential energy level is in curent model independent from the initial level of kinetic energy and you can increase it up to theoretical infinity by continously applying external mechanical force to that body. For example, we can change the current level of potential energy of a massive body, by holding it above the surface of Earth, (and so without changing the current level of kinetic energy induced on environment) - the same principle goes for mechanical energy "stored" in a fully drawed bow or for tension of a deformed metal rod with a high resistance to mechanical deformations. Here changes in the value of one doesn't necessarily affect the other, while in my model, both values strictly dependent on each other (relation of reversed proportionality).

In that case, I need to come out with a different depiction of the distribution of energy in the potential and kinetic form for a massive body in relative motion - and I can make it by using my own description of velocity of motion in relation to Constant c - the one that can be written as a nicely looking composition of symboles:  v_r (relative velcity) at any value between 0 and c - or 0 and 2c in two-directions of 1D motion...

0≤{...}≥v1≤{...}>c<{...}≥v2≤{...}>2c

All what I have to do now, is to describe the potential energy of a massive body as energy still needed to accelerate this body to the speed of or as the kinetic energy, that this body can still gain before it reaches velocity of c... So, the total potential energy of a massive object is equal to kinetic energy required to accelerate this object from it"s rest position (v=0) to c. Alternative option is to depict it as total energy released into environment due to matter annihilation - e.g.  in a direct head-on collision with itself (exact copy) moving at 100%/of c in opposite directions. Notice, that the "opposing direction" has here a crucial meaning, as collision in which one object is moving atvc and the other is stationary, won't lead to matter annihilation (that's why in the LHC particles are being accelerated almost to c in opposite directions, before they collide with dach other).

Of course, that I'm fully aware, that the last statements brutally violate the rule of relativistic velocity addition, but what to do if only this way it seems to work correctly...? Anyway,  I depicted such way of describing the total energy of a massive body on the image below:

However the obvious incompatibility of my model with Einstein's relativity, is the least problematic part, because on the image above, you can swe, that in order to get a full picture of such equivalence, we need to describe the mass as a combination of square function of scalar energy with the directional vector of linear momentum - and it seems that this part is missing in the generally accepted Formula of mass / energy equivalence - the most famous formula in physics:

E=mc²

Thing is that this equation describes the total energy of a mass moving at the speed of c, but without the inclusion of oppositely directed vectors of a total momentum, it won''t give us the complete outlook on energy distribution in relative motion... So, the time came for me to także a pencil and a piece of paper and try calculating something by myself (a very uncommon practice of mine). And suprisingly, after using just two of my few remaining braincells, it didn't take me too long, to figure out this strange mathematical creature:

m=

If you wonder from where I got the square of total potential momentum (m*c)^2, I will admit , that I'm not exactly sure - however despite my natural aversion to formulas, equations and kilometers of calculations, I know enough to tell, that this is how, I'm able to get a numerically valid result on both sides of my equation...

But don:t get too excited, as it's not even half way on the way to complete success. Now that I have the proper equation, I need to apply it to a scenario with objects in relative motion. And this is where I had to exploit  the rest of  my remaining braincells.and with a pencil in my hand and a piece of paper, I've spent almost a whole week by trying all possible configirations of a wild mathematica orgy of letters and nubrers from my equation with the addition of "v" (for velocity), to figure out the way to calculate what part of the total rest mass of a body makes the kinetic energy and what part makes the remaining potential energy - and in the end I was successful... Here's how I did it

To make it simple, I've made a simple system of the necessary units based on constant c -  using the metric system doesn't make sense.in this case. So.. 
For c=10d/t
And for rest mass
m=10 inducing acceleration of 10d/t^2 (mass of a black hole).

Let"s say that object of rest mass m=4 is moving at v=7d/t
It's total energy is E=m*c^2=4*10^2=400d/t^2 and the total momentum pt=m*c=40md/t and pt^2=1600. For a body moving at v=7d/t, p=m*v=4*7=28md/t and p^2=784

Considering the given values,  the potential energy of a body of rest mass m=4 and velocity v=7d/t, potential energy can be calculated from mp=°


And there's the master equation:

mt=+=+

And then after we put given values mt=+=1,96+2,04

Notice that potential energy is higher than kinetic energy, despite the object being further than half way to c. Let's compare it to a relative velocity of v=9d/t

p=4*9=36
p^2=1296
pt^2-p^2=304

mt=1296/400 + 304/400 = 3,24 + 0,76

For the same mass of 4 and for v=5d/t p°2=400:and 1600-400=1200
mt=1+3

For v=2d/t p^2=64 and pt^2-p^2=1536
mt=0,16+3,84

And with those coupl results, I can now conclude that there's MUCH higher efficiency for the mass/energy convesion in case of potential energy than for kinetic energy. It means that energy of the velocities between v and c are translated to much more energy than energy included in velocities from 0 to v

Ok. In next post I will show some interesting results from a reversed operation - where pt=p^2 is being divide by variable kinetic energy m*v^2 and potentiall energy (m*c^2)-(m*v^2) and then apply all of this, while calculating gravitational interacrions between bodies in relative motion...


TBC

[Origin]

This model is based on a simple premise, that object that moves at the speed of light doesn't induce any gravitational attraction on non comoving objects.

Why would you base a model on something that is not possible??  There is no point in reading anything else you've written.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

This model is based on a simple premise, that object that moves at the speed of light doesn't induce any gravitational attraction on non comoving objects.

Why would you base a model on something that is not possible??  There is no point in reading anything else you've written.

To define the absolute limits of energy state. E=mc^2 is based on mass moving at c  something that might not happen - yet we use it to know how much energy makes a massive object. I do exactly the same. In physics you deal with perfects and absolutes, to define a realistic scenario in between those values

By stating that gravity is gone for a source moving at c, I can describe a scenario, where a body moves at 0,99999c and calculate the most possible results. If you really deal with theoretical physics in your life, then you probably deal with at least a dozen of constant perfects and absoltes, that are "not possible" in real life (do I really have to give the examples?). My model is based on one of such "impossible abstracts", just like most of theoretical model do...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I believe, that the old graphical depiction of my model of mass, energy and momentum equivalence, is in fact quite outdated. Here's a more accurate representation of rest mass being equal to energy that will be released to environment due to matter annihilation - e.g. in direct head-on collistion for 2 exact copies of a massive body, moving at 100% of c in opposite directions...

Red arrows represent the total momentum of a massive object (two-directional vector of m*c) and with yellow color representing the total kinetic energy of that body being released to environment in all directions (in perfect conditions).

I still didn't go so far with my model, but my uneducated intuition tells me, that it should be possible to use this model, to calculate the spatial distribution of energy fields, surrounding a source-body (and I have the feeling, that the the factor of r^2 for the spatial distribution of potential fields, might be here the secret key). But even I still didn't look that deep into ths rabbithole...

[Origin]

By stating that gravity is gone for a source moving at c

There have been thousands of experiments that have shown that the above statement is incorrect.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

By stating that gravity is gone for a source moving at c

There have been thousands of experiments that have shown that the above statement is incorrect.

Thyere were thousands of experiments, where a massive body was accelerated to c? And it didn't have any effect on the gravitational interactions between that body and other non-comoving test-objects...? Interesting... I would love to see some sources of such revolutional news...

[Origin]

Thyere were thousands of experiments, where a massive body was accelerated to c?

When a photon moves past earth it is just as if the earth were moving past the photon at c, and the effects of gravity are still felt by the photon, the path of the photon follows the curve of spacetime from the earths gravity.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Thyere were thousands of experiments, where a massive body was accelerated to c?

When a photon moves past earth it is just as if the earth were moving past the photon at c, and the effects of gravity are still felt by the photon, the path of the photon follows the curve of spacetime from the earths gravity.

Sure, photons are affected by gravitational fields, but they don't have any potential energy since they lack rest mass - they are literal particles of pure kinetic force, with a variable level of energy during a "lifespan of propagation" in the process of energy transfer (e.g. via heat or mechanical force).

But that's not the point in this case. What matters, is the gravitational field of a massive source approaching c - will it induce the same force on a stationary test-body located on it's path (source is approaching it at 0,99c), than it would be able to induce, if we wouldn't change the  distances between bodies, only make them stationary? Will motion of the source (v=0,99c) have some impact on the resulting interaction of those bodies?

Sure - a massive body that approaches c, still can interact gravitationally with non-comoving object, while passing through a strong external gravitational field - and it will most likely curve the path of motion for the massive object speeding through space close to c (or maybe even at c?).

But now comes the interesting part - spatial geometry of gravitational fields of massive bodies that approach each other at relativistic velocities, will be affected due to Doppler's effect, affecting the process of interaction

Thing is, that a source of gravity that moves at c is just as fast as the gravity it creates - gravity won't have the time to induce any force on a test-object, as in the same moment, the physical impact of the source itself will induce on that object a MUCH greater force, compared to gravity

[Bored chemist]

Sure, photons are affected by gravitational fields, but they don't have any potential energy

Yes they do.
Here's how it was measured
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

[Origin]

CrazyScientist, learning physics is fun and rewarding, making up pseudoscience is silly and a waste of time.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Sure, photons are affected by gravitational fields, but they don't have any potential energy

Yes they do.
Here's how it was measured
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

Thanks! Never heard about this experiment before. Yet, it's purpose wasn't to see if photons have potential energy, but to see if their kinetic energy will be altered due to influence of an external graviatational field. To know, if photons have potential energy, we would have to see if for example 2 parallel laser beams will be attracted towards each other for photons that move in the same direction and remain at rest in relation to photons from the second beam...

SPOILERS: they won't. But on the other hand attraction between 2 laser beams will be 4 times stronger for photons moving in opposite directions, than it would be for massive bodies at rest...

"Gravitational Properties Of Light"
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/18/2/023009

This pretty much proves, that photons DON'T have a potential energy and are defined solely by the state of their kinetic energy. Potential energy is the source of all potential force fields, that characterize a massive body that emits photons which are responsible for converting potential fields into actual kinetic forces, by being the carriers ("messengers") of those forces. It's photons, that carry the force that is being induced on massive biodies in the potential field of a massive source and as such, they can't be a source of potential fields themselves - if this would be true, photons would have to become emitters of photons themselves and we know, that it's not the case...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

CrazyScientist, learning physics is fun and rewarding, making up pseudoscience is silly and a waste of time.

It depends, how you define "pseudoscience". For me, pseudoscience is everything, what tries to look like science, while being experimentally disproven or being beyond any kind of practical verification. Strangely enough, big part of so-called "mainstream" seems to meet those criteria....

I love, how modern day physics tries to appear as something, what gives answers, which people can be always sure of, while being completely messed up under the fasade of "accepted science". Physicists ensure the ignorant public that things couldn't be better and the theoretical physics got everything secured, while in reality, they are in the middle of civil war for over a century. Problem is, that we're living in the era of internet and the science is accessible to anyone without the need of intermediation of some "science-wizard" from tv. And if you're someone, who tries to be up-to-date with modern-day theoretical physics, then you know how far it is right now from being "settled".

And since it appears, that physicists still can't find the guts, to look critically at their own creation and continue to make something new and better, it's a perfect opportunity for someone whoi like, is not afraid to say out loud things, that you shouldn't say in public and propose ideas that were completely "unheard of" up until now...

[Bored chemist]

For me, pseudoscience is everything, what tries to look like science, while being empirically contradicted

OK
That covers statements like

photons are affected by gravitational fields, but they don't have any potential energy

which is empirically contradicted by the P R experiment.
Similarly this is pseudoscience

So, my first step was to learn WHY a massive object  moving at c won't indce any acceleration due to gravity on other bodies?

If that was true it would violate Newton's 3rd law.

[Bored chemist]

it's purpose wasn't to see if photons have potential energy, but to see if their kinetic energy

Photons do not have kinetic energy; they have electromagnetic energy.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

it's purpose wasn't to see if photons have potential energy, but to see if their kinetic energy

Photons do not have kinetic energy; they have electromagnetic energy.

Which also is kinetic (induces force)

[Kryptid]

Yet, it's purpose wasn't to see if photons have potential energy, but to see if their kinetic energy will be altered due to influence of an external graviatational field.

That's the same thing as measuring the gravitational potential energy of the photons. Kinetic energy doesn't come out of nowhere. If the kinetic energy of the photon is increased, that is because some of the potential energy it had has been transformed into kinetic energy. It's the exact same thing that happens when you drop a heavy object. Some of the heavy object's gravitational potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy as it accelerates.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

.[/quote]

photons are affected by gravitational fields, but they don't have any potential energy.

.

which is empirically contradicted by the P R experiment.

It has nothing to do with potential energy of photons. To have potential energy, they would have to induce a force on a massive objects from distance - heat or push the matter, before undergoing reflection/absorbtion

I

[Kryptid]

To have potential energy, they would have to induce a force on a massive objects from distance

Due to conservation of momentum, we know that they do exactly that via gravity.

[Bored chemist]

Which also is kinetic (induces force)

No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

[Bored chemist]

It has nothing to do with potential energy of photons. To have potential energy, they would have to induce a force on a massive objects from distance - heat or push the matter, before undergoing reflection/absorbtion

That's just word salad.