Your using of science effect your life.Did you use something of their discoveries on ISS? I think nothing. Some scientists use the discoveries for development of science.
Wait or work in science.
Wait or work in science.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Can you create counteraction to the energy?If the object is stationary in the scale's frame of reference, it's simply mass (not relativistic mass) which increases.
So, if I keep heating it, it will eventually form a black hole?
Simplified, there are two things I wrote, one is the question if 'gravity' should be considered a 'force'. Which I don't agree on. The other was your question, which is answered by how all geodesics actually transform away the 'gravity'. There can't be a gravity in a geodesic, it's the equivalence to a free fall, in space. No 'gravity' to be noticed locally.Nano-inhabitants of traveling muon can't predict change of energy of terrestrial muon without definition of distance between own muon and center of Earth.Should they use own coordinates or coordinates of motionless observer relatively of Earth?
and my spelling needs some polish
You can't explain something without counteraction.Energy of satellite creates gravitation to stranger.You can add much energy to the satellite, but additional energy doesn't create gravitation,because it have no counteraction.Kinetic energy without counteraction doesn't create additional gravitation.I don't understand what you mean by "counteraction." Kinetic energy DOES generate a gravitational field though. That's quite a well-known fact.
Regarding the term "invariant." Invariant does sound like it means "does not change with time" but this is not the case. It gets its name from the fact that it remains inchanged upon applying a Lorentz transformation.
I want to remind you that invariant mass only applies to closed systems. It's meaningless in more general cases.
Not if it is a preferred direction Simplified. We are that ones defining it as a 'force', well some do, not all. But if it just is a observer dependent 'path' (as described by us measuring lights 'propagating', or muon's) then those definitions will be found lacking.In our system we can define changing of energy of traveling muon due to gravitational interaction(or due to geodesic). Terrestrial motionless muon should have the same energy for traveling muon. Isn't it? How does traveling muon predict the same,using own contracted distance?
Remember that you locally can transform away any gravity, by any geodesic, no matter what 'speed' you define to it.
thus the height of the atmosphere is contracted from the frame of the muon and they can cross that contracted space in even their short normal life spansContracted distance should increase gravitational interacting,but that doesn't increase due to length contraction.
Ahem, think it's your turn to present arguments Simplified.
Just use your logic to show me how you think it is done.
And try to be as clear as you can so we get how you think there.
Have we measured this? Can we measure this?We can't measure this.We can observe and calculate.
Yes, I think you can, using light as your clock, maybe splitting it relative a rotating mirror, and using a interferometer. What will that tell you inside your black box about motion? When it comes detecting that gravitational field, you either have to assume that this will create a detectable motion inside your box, or? That you're not 'moving' at all.There experimental measurements with atomic clocks do not coincide with usual calculatings.
In relativity that uniform motion or geodesic only are described as detectable relative another frame of reference though. A acceleration is something else, detectable locally as a blue or/and red shift, depending on which way you measure in relation to the light source, and your accelerations direction. Well, as I think of it.
So you define it such as a free fall, following a geodesic slows down time locally? Ok, then do you define it such as with different uniform motions you get different 'time'? And do you define it relative the gravity?Gravitational mass is energy which creates gravitational field.Gravitational interaction exists even in the black box.I can measure all gravitational mass in the black box.I can create motionless clock and moving clock inside the box.Using exact measurements ,smart scientists can calculate changing external factor of my slowing of time inside the black box.
If you do, then inside a 'black box', deep space with no tidal forces, can you prove that gravitational field? By some local experiment inside that black box. And how will you prove a motion? No windows, no outside peeking. Inside, by a experiment.
Are you thinking that if you're in a free fall under gravity, you're still in a gravitational field?Who did make experiment "muon at free fall"?I thought I said that my free fall slows down my time.
Then you have another definition of it than Einstein had Simplified, and you will need to make it a proposition that covers most any situation relativity takes up. And the point there is that it need to fit relativity, at least those parts we have measured directly, or indirectly, as muons. So you need your idea to cover, for example, why muons can go further than their allowed 'time' if measured at rest. And as they are particles of mass we find them to exist measurably. Read that paper I linked and use it to test your ideas.
My free fall slows down my time.Einstein was wrong.What is uniform gravitational field at free fall?He's correct. If you're in a uniform gravitational field and you're in free fall then you're frame of reference is for all practical purposes an inertial frame of reference with no field present. That's exactly why Einstein said that you can transform away a gravitational field.HmmNo,that doesn't.Gravity increases my energy.
. If you fall with the gravity, the gravity disappear for you.