Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/10/2021 19:08:20
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: vr (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:
(https://i.ibb.co/g758ZzW/pEk.png)
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+2,04Notice 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
Post by: Origin on 16/10/2021 21:42:07
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.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/10/2021 21:58:39
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...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/10/2021 22:50:30
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMNWZL7g/equiv.png)
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...
Post by: Origin on 16/10/2021 23:01:37
By stating that gravity is gone for a source moving at cThere have been thousands of experiments that have shown that the above statement is incorrect.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/10/2021 23:06:54
By stating that gravity is gone for a source moving at cThere 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...
Post by: Origin on 16/10/2021 23:54:26
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.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 17/10/2021 01:58:14
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
(https://i.ibb.co/NYbscsQ/dh.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/vPKGTfx/g5ahb.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/vPKGTfx/g5ahb.gif)
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
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/10/2021 11:17:34
Sure, photons are affected by gravitational fields, but they don't have any potential energyYes they do.
Here's how it was measured
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
Post by: Origin on 17/10/2021 13:05:03
Post by: CrazyScientist on 17/10/2021 15:02:47
Sure, photons are affected by gravitational fields, but they don't have any potential energyYes 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...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 17/10/2021 16:51:22
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...
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/10/2021 17:26:55
For me, pseudoscience is everything, what tries to look like science, while being empirically contradictedOK
That covers statements like
photons are affected by gravitational fields, but they don't have any potential energywhich 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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/10/2021 17:30:37
it's purpose wasn't to see if photons have potential energy, but to see if their kinetic energyPhotons do not have kinetic energy; they have electromagnetic energy.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 17/10/2021 17:49:37
it's purpose wasn't to see if photons have potential energy, but to see if their kinetic energyPhotons do not have kinetic energy; they have electromagnetic energy.
Which also is kinetic (induces force)
Post by: Kryptid on 17/10/2021 17:51:08
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.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 17/10/2021 17:59:55
photons are affected by gravitational fields, but they don't have any potential energy..
Quote
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
Post by: Kryptid on 17/10/2021 18:01:53
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/10/2021 18:08:10
Which also is kinetic (induces force)No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/10/2021 18:08:55
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/absorbtionThat's just word salad.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 17/10/2021 18:10:38
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.
You're right - the increased energy of photon doesn't go from nowhere. But it doesn't also come fromt the potential energy of that photon - it comes from the kinetic energy of interacting massive body. Because of it's potential energy massive objects can be decelerated from 9999% of c to 0 and then accelerated back to the same speed without any loss of the rest-mass. If you slow down to 0 a photon propagating in free space, it will disappear...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 17/10/2021 18:38:07
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.
Is there any change in the energy state of a massive source, before the absorbtion/reflection of the photon it interacts with. Because the gravirtional red-shift is a purely relativistic effect, that has no effect on the energy state of source in it's own frame
Post by: CrazyScientist on 17/10/2021 18:45:27
Yes.Which also is kinetic (induces force)No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force
But to be clear: by "kinetic" i mean "capable of inducing a definitive change in energy state"
Post by: Origin on 17/10/2021 19:14:21
But to be clear: by "kinetic" i mean "capable of inducing a definitive change in energy state"So when you say kinetic energy, you don't mean kinetic energy??!
Post by: Kryptid on 17/10/2021 23:13:09
it comes from the kinetic energy of interacting massive body.
Citation needed.
Is there any change in the energy state of a massive source, before the absorbtion/reflection of the photon it interacts with.
Yes. The gravity of the photon pulls on the massive source, thus causing it to accelerate as well (very slightly).
Post by: CrazyScientist on 18/10/2021 09:05:57
it comes from the kinetic energy of interacting massive body.
Citation needed.Is there any change in the energy state of a massive source, before the absorbtion/reflection of the photon it interacts with.
Yes. The gravity of the photon pulls on the massive source, thus causing it to accelerate as well (very slightly).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265258824_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_POTENTIAL_ENERGY_OF_PHOTONS_IS_AGAINST_THE_EXPERIMENTAL_EVIDENCE
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-potential-of-a-photon
Funny, how different answers are in contradiction to dach other...
On the second hand I can give you one simple explanation, why photons can't induce a gravitational pull on massive object - it's not possible since both photons and gravity propagate at Constantin speed of light - If you would be correct, gravity of photons would have to exceed the speed of light and recent experiments show that it's not the case...
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/10/2021 10:54:39
Funny, how different answers are in contradiction to dach other.They don't contradict each other.
Post by: Origin on 18/10/2021 13:16:47
On the second hand I can give you one simple explanation, why photons can't induce a gravitational pull on massive object - it's not possible since both photons and gravity propagate at Constantin speed of light - If you would be correct, gravity of photons would have to exceed the speed of light and recent experiments show that it's not the case...That is the wrong conclusion. If we used your conclusion for sound that would mean that if a jet flew by you at 343 m/s, since that is also the speed of sound, then you would never hear the jet. That doesn't seem right, does it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/10/2021 13:26:08
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.So, everything you wrote in this thread then?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82373.msg658175#msg658175
Post by: Kryptid on 18/10/2021 15:34:59
why photons can't induce a gravitational pull on massive object
We know for a fact that they do. Gravitational lensing occurs when a massive object's gravity pulls on light. That changes the momentum of the light. In order for conservation of momentum to be satisfied, the light must also pull on the massive object.
If you would be correct, gravity of photons would have to exceed the speed of light and recent experiments show that it's not the case...
Gravity doesn't travel. It's only changes in a gravitational field that travel at the speed of light.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 18/10/2021 21:46:09
On the second hand I can give you one simple explanation, why photons can't induce a gravitational pull on massive object - it's not possible since both photons and gravity propagate at Constantin speed of light - If you would be correct, gravity of photons would have to exceed the speed of light and recent experiments show that it's not the case...That is the wrong conclusion. If we used your conclusion for sound that would mean that if a jet flew by you at 343 m/s, since that is also the speed of sound, then you would never hear the jet. That doesn't seem right, does it?
And will you hear a jet incoming directly at you with supersonic speed?
Will you be able to see light emitted by a source incoming at 100% c?
.
why photons can't induce a gravitational pull on massive object
We know for a fact that they do. Gravitational lensing occurs when a massive object's gravity pulls on light. That changes the momentum of the light. In order for conservation of momentum to be satisfied, the light must also pull on the massive object.
Quote
If you would be correct, gravity of photons would have to exceed the speed of light and recent experiments show that it's not the case...
Gravity doesn't travel. It's only changes in a gravitational field that travel at the speed of light.
If Sun would suddenly disappear, it would take 499s until we would notice it on Earth - both visually and gravitationally... So, it should be ok to tell, that gravity just like the light light propagates at c. Explain me the mechanism that allows the interaction between distant sources of light/gravity movig towards each other at c. How a planet can interact gravitationally with a star that moves towards it at 100% c?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 18/10/2021 21:58:18
But to be clear: by "kinetic" i mean "capable of inducing a definitive change in energy state"So when you say kinetic energy, you don't mean kinetic energy??!
Kinetic force applies work on a body, increasing it's kinetic evergy.
Ok, here's an interesting question - what will happen, if we take a body of rest mass m and and use energy equivalent to that mass (or greater) to accelerate it?
Post by: Origin on 18/10/2021 22:07:02
Kinetic force applies work on a body, increasing it's kinetic evergy.Nice try.
Ok, here's an interesting question - what will happen, if we take a body of rest mass m and and use energy equivalent to that mass (or greater) to accelerate it?In physics we use a force to accelerate a mass.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/10/2021 23:13:07
Will you be able to see light emitted by a source incoming at 100% c?No such source can exist.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/10/2021 04:20:31
So, it should be ok to tell, that gravity just like the light light propagates at c.
The change in gravity is what propagates at c.
Explain me the mechanism that allows the interaction between distant sources of light/gravity movig towards each other at c.
Gravitational lensing doesn't happen that way. It only occurs when the light is moving at an angle to the massive object, not directly towards or away from it.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 23/10/2021 17:24:00
Kinetic force applies work on a body, increasing it's kinetic evergy.Nice try.Ok, here's an interesting question - what will happen, if we take a body of rest mass m and and use energy equivalent to that mass (or greater) to accelerate it?In physics we use a force to accelerate a mass.
Thing is, that force is a vector, while energy is a scalar. However applied force multiplied by time or distance gives a scalar work, which then can be translated to ΔEk making a clear connection between energy and force. Thing is, that physicists don't know yet, how to connect it all together in a single equation of mass, motion and energy. Here's a nice discussion about this subject:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_relation_of_equivalence_between_energy_and_force_like_mass_energy_equivalence_in_the_nature_of_physics
One would think, that when it comes to the basic Newtonian mechanics of macroscale bodies, there can't be possibly anything more to add or change - and yet physicists have no idea, how to relate the energy of a massive body to the force which it induces on other bodies...
Let me help: motion of a massive object is defined by 2 main properties: energy and momentum and to get a complete picture of energy state for a moving mass, both values have to be included. E=mc² is in fact only just 1/3 of the equation - part that describes the scalar energy of mass moving at limiting velocity c and since m≠E, it doesn't even make an actual mass/energy equivalence, in a true meaning. To get a true equivalence of mass/energy, we have to iclude it's momentum, so we can get m=
- and only in such form we are able to juggle freely with all of it's 3 parts, without messing up the formulas for E and p.And only now it will be possible to find the proper relation between scalar and vector values of energy and force. To make it happen, we need to distribute change of energy state (work) in a distance/area/volume.- and from here it should be possible, to define the spatial properties of force fields.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMNWZL7g/equiv.png)
So, it should be ok to tell, that gravity just like the light light propagates at c.
The change in gravity is what propagates at c.
Still, my point holds - motion causes changes in gravity due to displacement of massive object in the field. Gravitational intertactions are delayed in time due to the limited speed of informatioln transfer at c, thus obejcts moving at relative speed of c can't interact with each other at distance - the only way for them to interact, is to directly collide with each other. Amen.
Quote
Explain me the mechanism that allows the interaction between distant sources of light/gravity movig towards each other at c.
Gravitational lensing doesn't happen that way. It only occurs when the light is moving at an angle to the massive object, not directly towards or away from it.
Then what about gravitational redshift of massive light sources?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/10/2021 17:31:17
thus obejcts moving at relative speed of c can't interact with each other at distance
The photon will still interact with the gravitational field as it moves through it (resulting in red shift or blue shift). The reaction of the massive source will just be delayed until the change in the photon's gravitational field reaches it.
Then what about gravitational redshift of massive light sources?
That wouldn't be gravitational lensing. The photon is still interacting with the gravitational field as it passes through it. That's what causes the red shift.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 23/10/2021 17:47:09
thus obejcts moving at relative speed of c can't interact with each other at distance
The photon will still interact with the gravitational field as it moves through it (resulting in red shift or blue shift). The reaction of the massive source will just be delayed until the change in the photon's gravitational field reaches it.Then what about gravitational redshift of massive light sources?
That wouldn't be gravitational lensing. The photon is still interacting with the gravitational field as it passes through it. That's what causes the red shift.
Point is, that photons are not the source of an interaction (force/work), but the mean of which interaction between massive bodies occurs. They also work under somewhat different laws of physics, since their relative velocity doesn't change due to gravity...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 23/10/2021 17:50:52
Will you be able to see light emitted by a source incoming at 100% c?No such source can exist.
Just like a point-mass, perfect vacuum or Absolute 0 - since when it bothers anyone in theoretical physics...?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/10/2021 19:20:14
Similarly, you can't talk about an object travelling at c when discussing relativity.
So the answer to your question is "it bothers theoretical physicists when it's a really obviously stupid thing to do".
On a tangentially related note, have you decided which charity yet?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82373.msg658175#msg658175