Hello! I would like to present you the only correct model of gravity and energy distribution in relative motion. I've spent around 6 weeks and wasted some 8 pages format a5 on calculations, while looking for the right formula - it took me so long, because I did such things for the first time in some 20 years or so and also, this was that part of physics, which as far as I remeber, I've always hated at most... I wonder, what then can explain all those generations of professional physicsts, who didn't even think about trying to calculate such things... If you really want to show me, that theoretical physicists aren't only just a bunch of overconfident snobs, then show me, that mainstream science can actually deal with the problem, which I present below:
Here's a simple scenario: 4 objects with masses:
m1=4, m2=1, m3=4, m4=1
Objects m1 and m3 move in relation to eachother at v=0,2c (1c=1d/1t)
Distances between m1 and m2, just as between m3 to m4 are equal to 2d. Due to gravitational attraction m1 makes m2 to accelerate at a1=1 (where 1a=0,1d/t^2) and attraction between m3 and m4 is just as strong.
Can you calculate the kinetic energies or acceleration (a2) for object m2 in relation to object m3 or for m4 in relation to m1? I can do it, but I had to find my own way...
(https://i.ibb.co/8KdJHtf/key.jpg)
Frame of m1
(https://i.ibb.co/LRxdXGv/ffg-1.gif)
Frame of m3
(https://i.ibb.co/3pNDZJD/ffg.gif)
I will wait a day or two for you to make any attempt of solving this problem and then I will begin to show you, how to do it my way... :)
As you can see yourself, it took me a bit longer than I expected 8)
This is what happens, when someone like me thinks that he knows how to solve a sophisticated problem to the point, when he doesn't even check, if he isn't just making a fool of himself... So, after I ended up with results that didn't match too well with my own predictions, I decided that it'll better if I rerturn to this subject only after I will be absolutely sure that I have the proper solution this time around...
And just so happens, that around a week ago, I was at last allowed to put the right letters in the right places in my equations and it finally 'clicked'...
But let's get to the point - in order to have any chances to tackle the presented issue, I need to base my model of gravity on my extended edition of mass/energy equivalence formula - who could've guess ..? :P
Below is the link to a thread, in which I tried (with a rather poor outcome) to discuss the general idea behind this formula:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=83455.msg659155#msg659155
But I will give you here a short sneak peek of it, so you won't need to go through nultiple threads, to get basic understanding on the mechanics I'll be using here.
Those of you who might rernember me from other threads, which I made here during last couple years, can quess already that my extended formula of mass/energy equivalence is deeply rooted in my (yet another) model of constant c in Galilean relativity. I know, right - one might think, that I did all of this while having some actual reasons. on my mind...
Anyway, here's the link to a thread: where my model of constant c in relative motion is explained in details...
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82070.0
Ok, so here is the extended formula of mass/enetgy equivalence
m
0 =
=
Pt is for total momentum - m*c
Et is for total energy - m*c^2
And here are 2 images that suppose to visually represent the general ideas behind my extended formula:
(https://i.ibb.co/g758ZzW/pEk.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMNWZL7g/equiv.png)
Ok, next step is to combine it with relative velocities of objects in motion - but this can't be done without addining couple new letters to my magical fornula of enhanced gravity
The most obvious one is v for relative velocity - but this is just the betinnijg, since together with the v,, we get as well things like p for momentum m*v or Ek for Kinect energy m*v^2 (we can get rid of tthe 1/2 from the classic formula for Ek).
Yet this still isn't enough - Ek makes only part of the total energy that is defined by m*c^2 - but after we subtracf the Ek from Et,, we'll always end up with some amount of energy that is still avaliable for the object in question, before it reaches the speed of lifht c. Where does this energy 'hide'? Is there some term thar describes it? Do we know any formula to calculate it?
Warning! Spoiler alert: the answe for last two questions is: "no". The only term I can think of, would be potential energy Ep - however this term is already used to describe energy that is being added to a system, by applying work - for example by lifting an object in a gravitational field - and this isn't what I'm looking for.
So, it seems that I have no other option, than to make out my own definition of potential energy Ep. Here's how I understand the distribution of energy for objects in relative motion::
Et = Ek + Ep
Total energy is the sun of kinetic and potential energies. As velocity
of a moving body increases, so is it's kinetic energy, but as the relativ velocity keeps getting closer to the constant c, the less potential energy wiill remain avaliable to it, until it finally gets to 0 when a body reaches 100% of c.
In shortcut, for a body moving at c, it's total energy is purely kinettic, while for a body at rest, potential energy makes 100% of it"s total energy - it's actually quite simple...
And Finally, last step is to express such concept of Ep and energy distribution with a mathematically valid formula. How to make it happen? Well, probably as swiftly and erfficiently as we can - if the Ek of a moving body is being defined by iit's relative velocity v, then what should define the Ep. is the velocity that is still needed for that body, to reach 100% c - let's call it for now as \potential velocity\ vp (let's also use the term \kinetic velocity\ vk, to describe the relative velocity of a body in motion - this way it will be much less confusing...
So to wrap this all up - this is, how to calculate the potential velocity: vp = c - vk -
Ahd this is what we get by applying tit to a formula describing the energy distribution for a body in relative motion at kinetic velocity vk::
Et = Ek + Ep = m * vk^2 + m * (c - vk)^2
And wiith all of this being done, we can finally desribe the distribution and relation between Ek and Ep for moving bodies, using my extended frormula of mass/energy equivalence::
m
0 =
+
And now everything what left for us to do, is to use the formula of energy distribution to describe the gravitational interactions between bodies. in motion - it can't be that hard, right?
You are absolutely correct - it's actually much easier than it sounds. All what is needed, is for us to guess which part of the total energy is responsible for the gravity itself - is it Ek or Ep or maybe both of them that define the magnitude of gravitational attraction between moving bodies?
But maybe this time I'll let you to guess the correct answer. You can't expect that I will always serve you all the answers on a golden plate. It's healthy for rhe brain, to gtive it a small workout from time to time - just try picking out tue answer, that seems to make the most sense tfo ou - and I will be more than happy to see if you are somewhat sensitive to logic. And please: don't be afraid to share gere your answer with the rest of us - I won't laugh even if you'll be wrongl
But if you belong to the group of people, who can only consume the food that is being cooked by others, then you'll learn the correct answer in the thread which is linked below...
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=83455.msg659155#msg659155
In my next post I will make the actual calulations using the values given by me in the beginning of this thread...