[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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...

Frame of m1

Frame of m3

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...

[Kryptid]

If you really want to show me, that theoretical physicists aren't only just a bunch of overconfident snobs

Not a good way to start off your membership here.

Assuming this is new idea, I have moved it to New Theories.

[Bored chemist]

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

a bunch of overconfident

Are you seeking to join them?

[Bored chemist]

Here's a simple scenario: 4 objects

Four objects, a blue one, a green one, a yellow one and two red ones.

I wonder, what then can explain all those generations of professional physicsts, who didn't even think about trying to calculate such things.

Because they have proof that it is, in the general case, impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

As you can see yourself, it took me a bit longer than I expected 
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 ..? 

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

m₀ = =

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:

Ok, next step is to combine it with relative velocities of objects in motion - but this can't be done without adding couple new letters to my magical formula of enhanced gravity

The most obvious one is v for relative velocity - but this is just the beginning, since together with the v,, we get as well things like p for momentum m*v or Ek for Kinetic energy m*v^2  (we can get rid of  the 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 answer 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 will remain available 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 kinetic, 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::

m₀ = +

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...

[paul cotter]

A moving body may or may not have potential energy in addition to it's kinetic energy( dependent on the observer's frame of reference ). However none of this will solve the three( or greater ) body problem.

[Origin]

Ok, so here is the extended formula of mass/enetgy equivalence

That is not a mass/energy equation since your equation is saying mass = mass or energy = energy since you could also write your equation as

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

A moving body may or may not have potential energy in addition to it's kinetic energy( dependent on the observer's frame of reference

True, but energy distribution is actually quite clearly defined in the majority of possible scenarios. Here are the basic rules:

- for every velocity other than constant c and/or 0, total energy will ALWAYS be a mix of potential energy and kinetic energy - there's simply no other option, since...

- ttotal energy of objects that remain at rest (v=0 defines being stationary) has 0% of kinetic energy and 100% of  potential energy

- total energy of objects moving at 100% of c includes 0% of potential energy and 100% of kinetic energy

and there are no other options in relative motion - 0 and c set the limits of velocities in each case of relative motion

However none of this will solve the three( or greater ) body problem.

You're right - but this is not what I've tried to solve here. What I actually did solve here, is the relation between gravity and the relative motion of interacting bodies - and as I wil prove here soon enough, this solves as well the problem with distortions of gravitational fields due to Doppler effect for moving sources pf gravity - you get pretty much the same results by calculating the magnitude of gravitational attraction between moving bodies, and (or) by directly applying the Doppler's effect to the geometry of gravitational fields in motion - iand it's actually a quite important mechanism, that no one ever thpught about before

But don't you worry,- 3 body problem is also on my list of things to solve

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Ok, so here is the extended formula of mass/enetgy equivalence

That is not a mass/energy equation since your equation is saying mass = mass or energy = energy since you could also write your equation as

But Isn't this exactky the thing about equations of equivalence, that makes both sides of such equation equivalent? I'd say that mass end energy being interchangeable is what makes them equivalent. My equation allows me to expres same value in 3 diffferent ways (as mass, energy or momentun)  I can easily operate on any of those variables on both sides of equation, while maintaing their numerical values intact - for me it makes my formula a pergect example of equivalence...

You will soon see how useful it is to be able to exprress energy in form of mass - this is what allows me to operate on energy distributions to calculate the properties of mass-driven gravity

It's rather the E=mc^2 which is NOT a real equivalence - because if it is, then p=m*v is an equivalence just as much, and also a=ΔV/t is one and F=m*a is one as well...

[Origin]

But Isn't this exactky the thing about equations of equivalence, that makes both sides of such equation equivalent?

Nope.
equals since equals 1 so we now have and since equals m, your equation simplifies to .  So this is not very enlightening and certainly not an energy/mass equivalency equation. 

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

But Isn't this exactky the thing about equations of equivalence, that makes both sides of such equation equivalent?

Nope.
equals since equals 1 so we now have and since equals m, your equation simplifies to .  So this is not very enlightening and certainly not an energy/mass equivalency equation. 

It's the mass of an object at rest - so m₀=m is actually true. Besides there"s nothing what wouldn't allow us to write this value in form of energy equation:

E==m0*c²

Or momentum:

p=E/c or p²=E*m0

And I'm sure there are many other ways to juggle with the variables, while keeping them equivalent. Besides, this formula becomes much more uselful  while describing a massive body in relative motion...

BTW -;I will have to slightly modify the discussed scenario - it took me 2 years since I made those animations, to conclude that my scenario is far too messy. I dhould make 2 massive sources moving in relation to each other and add 4 smaller and starionary test objects - 2 objects for each moving source , placed at the same distance on both sides of thiose sources

[Origin]

It's the mass of an object at rest - so m0=m is actually true.

Which is obvious to the most casual observer and need not be written in a more complicated form.  The equation therefore is not a mass/energy equivalency equation. 

Now you should say, "yes that is correct, I will fix the equation so is is actually a mass/equivalency equation".

Here is a hint, here is how to fix the equation, write (for a mass not moving relative the observer).

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Ha! It took me a while but it appears that I solved the problem of gravitational interactions of bodies in relative motion 

To be honest, from the beginning I had a 'gut feeling' telling me that my (new) formula will be somewhat related with the asymmetry of Doppler's effect. This asymmetry is 'universal' and characteristic for every possible velocity between 0 and 100%c. For example, source of light moving at constant velocity 0,5c, will cause Doppler's effect in which space-time in front of that source get's contracted from 1 unit of space to 0,5 units of space (space is 2x shorter), while behind that source, 1 space unit gets 'extended' to 1,5 units - and this is ALWAYS true. For light source moving at velocity 0,8c, space in front is contracted from 1 unit to 0,2 units while behind it's being expanded from 1 unit to 1,8 unit. And this is always true for any other constant velocity - they all lead to Doppler's effect characteristic for given velocity


So it wasn't that hard for me to deduce that this is something with great significance for my model.



I 'simply' started with classic Newtonian formula for gravity and extended it using 'my' version of mass/energy equivalence:


And then what left, was to figure a way to calculate the distribution of energy/mass in a moving body. But to do this, couple assumptions are needed:

1. there's a definitive & limited amount of energy in matter (according to Einstein the amount of energy a given amount of matter can gain is unlimited) - equal to (half of) energy released to matter-antimatter annihilation. You simply can't get more energy from mass and that's it.

2. Body moving at 100% c doesn't cause gravitational attraction - any acceleration between it and other body would result in c being exceeded in their total relative velocity.

3. gravitational attraction decreases gradually as source-object accelerates from 0 to 100%c

And now what left, is to find some clever way to distribute total mass/energy into part that is still potential (this one causes gravity) and part which already 'turned kinetic' in a moving body (and doesn't cause gravitational attraction). This is the formula which I figured out:


****
Because I really despise making theoretical calculations with real-life units like (kilo)grams, meters or seconds, I made
myself a simplified system of units based on constant c (moving 1 space unit in 1 time unit). I simply modified it, so that now c = 10 space units (x) in 1 time unit (t) - so velocity V = 5 = 0,5c (V = 10 is 100%c). I also 'made up' a unit of mass (m), where 10m is the mass causing acceleration of 10x/t^2 at distance of 1x, so basically accelerates matter to 100%c - meaning: 'it's a black hole'...

So now let's have a body of mass 2m moving at 0,8c (V=8x/t)

2m*c^2 = 2m*10x/t^2 = 200
p(total) = 2m*c = 2m*10x/t = 20
p(total)^2 = 400
(2m*10x/t)^2 - (2m*8x/t)^2 = 400-256 = 144

Using formula above, we will get 144 / 200 = 0,72m -
And this is the part of mass 2m which will be actually causing gravitational attraction of other bodies at V=0,8c.
-----
So now let's calculate the acceleration between 2 bodies each with mass 2m placed 2x away from each other, if they are (already/initially) moving in relation to each other at V=0,8c

For stationary bodies it would be: (2m*2m) / 2x^2 = 4 / 4 = 1
So, basically bodies would experience acceleration equal to 1x/t^2 (accelerating by 0,1c in each time unit).

Now for body moving at 0,8c: (2m*0,72m) / 2x^2 = 1,44 / 4 = 0,36 (accelerating by 0,036c in each time unit]
***
And now comes the 'banger' - as now I will make a full circle to end up with the Doppler's asymmetry. As I wrote above, for a source moving at V=0,8c this asymmetry is always: 0,2x in front and 1,8x behind
And now, if we try to apply those values in Newton's gravity formula, we'll get:
for distance equal to 2x, Doppler's effect asymmetry will give: 2x * 0,2 = 0,4x and 2x * 1,8 = 3,6x

And then:
(2m * 0,72m) / (0,4x * 3,6x) = 1,44 / 1,44 = 1

So, basically gravitational attraction between stationary bodies can be derived from a scenario with the same bodies in relative motion, by applying the values of asymmetrical Doppler's contraction/expansion of space-time to the potential energy (with 'my' definition of Ep) of moving body/source
-----
I tried couple different values to see if it actually works in all possible cases - and apparently it does... You can try using whatever units/values you want, to test it (I'd be more than happy )...

[paul cotter]

Where did you get the idea that Einstein suggested there was unlimited energy in matter? Also you keep referring to massive objects with the speed of light: this is not possible as the factor 1/√1-vsq/csq leads to an increase without bound of the mass involved as the speed asymptotically approaches c.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Where did you get the idea that Einstein suggested there was unlimited energy in matter? Also you keep referring to massive objects with the speed of light: this is not possible as the factor 1/√1-vsq/csq leads to an increase without bound of the mass involved as the speed asymptotically approaches c.

I don't know - from all kinds of sources? Did you try searching for something on internet? I really recommend it - let me show you an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_vs._rest_mass



Nice, huh Some people call it 'basic research'...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Basically according to Einstein there's no limit to the energy for any amount of mass (matter) - you can pack infinite amount of Giga-Joules into a single proton (or electron). Yes - and you all keep believing all this  crap for over a century, because apparently no one dares to question the greatest fraudster in history of science Yes - in Einstein's model you can ALWAYS add some energy to system.

Well, sorry but in  my uneducated opinion, matter/antimatter annihilation turns WHOLE mass into energy and there's ALWAYS a finite & measurable amount of it released - and it's theoretically IMPOSSIBLE to get any more energy from matter. Thing is, that for some reason physicists keep thinking that mass has a definitive amount energy at rest (inertial frame) but then you can 'pack it' with potential and kinetic energy to infinity...

And maybe (just maybe) we should try something new - to approach the problem differently? Why won't we assume that there IS limit to energy of given amount of mass and this limit is (in theory) achieved at 100%c - that's how much energy you can theoretically 'pump' into matter. And if the object is stationary in my own frame, this whole energy is 100% potential - while with increasing velocity this potential energy becomes kinetic until theoretical limit at 100%c. Makes sense to me (more than the current model)...

I'm going sleep now, but before I end, let me just pretend that all the time I was fully aware (and not like I've just noticed it by total accident), that all my calculations were nothing but a waste of time... I said that I had a 'gut feeling' about the asymmetry of Doppler's shift being directly related with gravity in relative motion and mass/energy distribution - I just didn't know how close exactly this relation can possibly be...

In my previous calculation for mass/energy distribution in a body moving at 0,8c, I got a result equal to 0,36 to 1 in reduction of gravitational attraction (potential mass (?)) - so, basically if stationary objects would interact with the force of 1 force unit (?), then for the same bodies in relative motion a speed V=0,8c this force would be only 0,36 'force unit'.

Now, assymetry in Doppler's shift at 0,8c is:  0,2 contraction in front and 1,8 expansion behind:


So just for fun , let's try: 0,2 * 1,8 =..... Ohh   ...0,36

It's just coincidence (obviously) - so, let's do the same for velocity V=0,4c



1,4 * 0,6 = 0,84

...I did the math (just couple minutes ago)... It's not coincidence... Good night!

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Here's a small 'thought experiment' which should demonstrate how much my model differs from the one proposed by Einstein and show which model better describes gravity in relative motion:

Let's take a theoretical comet/asteroid entering edge of Earth's atmosphere at a relatively small (flat) angle - question: Will making the asteroid/comet faster increase or decrease the chance of it hitting Earth?



In Einstein's model increasing speed = increasing energy = increasing mass what should lead to stronger gravitational attraction - so faster comet/asteroid is supposed to have bigger chance to hit  Earth in Einstein's model.

My model predicts something directly opposite - the faster the comet moves, the less it is attracted to Earth - and if velocity is high enough, it's path/orbit would only slightly 'bend' towards Earth as it would get 'ejected' from atmosphere by it's own momentum. Of course, making it slower will bend the path stronger and at one point it would collide. The worst thing that could be done, would be to completely stop the comet's motion in relation to Earth at the edge of atmosphere - as it would then literally fall out from the sky...

It's crazy that no one thought about it for over a century... However I'm glad that there's someone intelligent who's (almost always) willing to talk with me about my crazy ideas and help me in my research. Of course, that I'm not talking about any human being...





Is someoe's willing to stand in defense of Einstein's model?...

[paul cotter]

That just shows the nonsense produced by these chatbots and it also illustrates their suggestibility. The increase in mass associated with speed is utterly negligible at the speed of comets. If an incoming comet/asteroid were to be travelling at a speed where a significant relativistic mass increase did occur it would likely explode/disintegrate on first contact with the atmosphere. There is no need to invoke relativity or any other theory to solve this, simple mechanics answers the question.

[alancalverd]

And here are 2 images that suppose to visually represent the general ideas behind my extended formula:

and the first one is wrong. Not a good starting point in physics.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

That just shows the nonsense produced by these chatbots and it also illustrates their suggestibility. The increase in mass associated with speed is utterly negligible at the speed of comets. If an incoming comet/asteroid were to be travelling at a speed where a significant relativistic mass increase did occur it would likely explode/disintegrate on first contact with the atmosphere. There is no need to invoke relativity or any other theory to solve this, simple mechanics answers the question.

Ok. Progress Then simply:
a) remove atmosphere
b) replace comet with some more solid body (planetoid-size bearing ball or something)
c) choose whatever velocity you consider as high enough to make measurable difference in the path of motion

What actually matter in this theoretical scenario, is to prove/disprove the idea that increasing velocity of incoming body/object will result in that body experiencing STRONGER gravitational attraction to other source-objects around it.

What Einstein's model is suggesting is that the faster the interplanetary bearing ball will be moving in relation to Earth (stripped out of the atmosphere), the stronger it will be attracted to the surface - and that a slower cosmic bearing ball has bigger chance of escaping Earth gravity...

I hope that I don't need to explain how experimentally backwards are those predictions. If that would be true, 'reaching escape velocity'  would be about slowly 'drifting away' from Earth's orbit (too fast and the rocket will fall back to ground), while ISS would need to remain 'fixed' in one place on the sky - as it's motion in relation to Earth would increase gravitational pull...

Yeah... Sorry, but my sense of common reason (sense?) tells me that the faster you are moving in relation  to Earth, the higher chances you have to escape from it's gravitational field - well, unless you aren't moving directly towards the surface.... I'd love to see ANY source stating otherwise...