[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Ok, here's question to those willing to stand in defense of Einstein's model - let's have 2 bodies of equal mass accelerated simultaneously at the same rate to relativistic velocities - so that both are moving at the same speed next to each other (appear stationary to each other) - will the increased velocity of those objects (observed in some other frame) have any effect on gravitational interactions between those accelerated bodies or they won't observe any difference?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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.

Ahh! Sh*t! Thanks! I posted wrong version - they are almost the same. Fixed it already

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Ok, here's question to those willing to stand in defense of Einstein's model - let's have 2 bodies of equal mass accelerated simultaneously at the same rate to relativistic velocities - so that both are moving at the same speed next to each other (appear stationary to each other) - will the increased velocity of those objects (observed in some other frame) have any effect on gravitational interactions between those accelerated bodies or they won't observe any difference?

I'm pretty sure (like 85-90%) that not even the most loyal supporters of Einstein's model  can tell with >50% certainty what the model actually predicts - and if some actually can make such prediction, it will most likely go against predictions of some other Einstein supporters...

As for myself - I literally have no idea what Einstein's Relativity tells us about such/similar scenario (otherwise I wouldn't ask ). I can however tell with >50% (but more like with 95%) what my model of relativity predicts in such situation - and it predicts that relative velocity of accelerated pair of objects won't have completely any effect on the gravity which they induce on each other - from perspective of those accelerated objects nothing changed (unless there's medium in which they move).
***
So ok, one more 'scenario' - what would happen with ISS if SuperMan or some other OmniMan would simply stop it's motion around Earth? Let's say it would stop moving right above my house and then would be left 'hanging there' not moving in relation to surface (at least horizontally) - what would happen then with it?

Now, in this case I can at least try figuring out what Einstein's model predict in similar situation..I'd say that according to Einstein, ISS would simply keep 'hovering' there endlessly or maybe even it would slowly 'drift away' from Earth. Why I'd say so? Well, since it stopped moving in relation to Earth's surface, it's energy decreased and so did the gravitational pull towards Earth - that's how I'd see Einstein's model...

What my model predicts however, is that I'd have at best 10 minutes to move most important stuff from my house before couple hundreds (thousands?) tons of 'space junk' would turn it into a landing pod (although 'falling pod' seems to fit better) - it would simply start falling down from it's orbit like 2 seconds after it's motion would stop...

[alancalverd]

Ahh! Sh*t! Thanks! I posted wrong version - they are almost the same. Fixed it already

If anything, you've made it worse. But if you let facts get in the way of a good delusion, you'll never get the Republican nomination. 

[alancalverd]

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

Aha, not a politician but an economist!

[alancalverd]

I'd say that according to Einstein, ISS would simply keep 'hovering' there endlessly or maybe even it would slowly 'drift away' from Earth.

Then you clearly haven't understood the first test of relativity. When v << c, all relativistic  predictions degenerate to classical mechanics.

[Halc]

I can defend relativty

1. there's a definitive & limited amount of energy in matter (according to Einstein it's unlimited) - equal to (half of) energy released to matter-antimatter annihilation.

Einstein is right. There is no limit to how much say kinetic energy one can give to a given object.  One can always apply a force on it to make it go faster, assuming one can find an energy source to do so.  So in the frame say some neutrino, the small bunny in my front yard perhaps has more energy than one stationary anti-bunny.

2. Body moving at 100% c

A 'body' has mass and cannot move at c, as Paul has pointed out. This is really basic stuff that shows you apparently know nothing about relativity theory.

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

Gravitational attraction isn't a function of acceleration. Not one bit.

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).

They're called natural units, and in such a system, c=1 and can be treated as such in all equations.  But you assign c=10, which isn't a natural unit.

let me show you an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_vs._rest_mass

Relativistic mass has been depricated since about 70 years ago.  By definition, mass is proper mass, and is frame invariant.  What varies from one frame to the next is momentum.  This is not a change in theory (The original SR paper did not treat mass as proper mass), but rather a standardization of convention.  Nevertheless, the idea of relativistic mass has an incredible presence on the internet, which is why chat bots use it so much.

Gravity is not a function of mass in relativity theory. It is a function of stress energy, which is frame invariant.

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).

Or negative even. Potential energy is negative and there's no limit to the depth of a hole you can drop a proton into.

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

Because you started with finite energy. Einstein doesn't say you can get more energy from a stationary thing. It has to be moving fast to have more energy than the stationary one.  If it's fast enough, you can do more work with it than the anti-matter thing, and it doesn't even have to disappear to do it.

and it's theoretically IMPOSSIBLE to get any more energy from matter.

So this assertion is clearly wrong.

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.

If it has KE, it isn't at rest is it?  If it has PE, that is negative.  There's a limit to how close to zero PE can get, but it isn't really defined where zero is. I.E. there's not a place you can be that is free from gravitational potential.

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?

Bunch of problems with the pic:  The comet cannot be a comet since it is moving too slow. It is clearly in eccentric orbit about Earth, while comets orbit the sun and move much faster relative to Earth when in its proximity.
The tail of the comet points the wrong way. It should extend to the right, not down where you drew it. A comet tail is not a wake, despite all the popular images depicting it that way.

That aside, if the comet takes the same initial trajectory but is moving only a tad faster, it will have less time to accelerate to the right as you depict. It will miss. This is basic Newtonian mechanics and all of this has squat to do with relativity theory.

In Einstein's model increasing speed = increasing energy = increasing mass what should lead to stronger gravitational attraction

This is completely wrong. Relativity theory says no such thing. Mass is not a function of speed. Gravity is not a function of mass, at least not directly.
Please do not say what Einstein's model predicts if you don't know how (and when) to apply the model. It is a straw man fallacy.

My model predicts something directly opposite - the faster the comet moves, the less it is attracted to Earth

This is also wrong. Yes, it will miss, but because of what Newton says, not because the attraction is less.

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.

Totally wrong. Relativity theory says no such thing.

Ok, here's question to those willing to stand in defense of Einstein's model - let's have 2 bodies of equal mass accelerated simultaneously at the same rate to relativistic velocities - so that both are moving at the same speed next to each other (appear stationary to each other)

Gravity isn't a function of acceleration.  So you're saying that you still have two objects that remain relatively stationary.  Gravity between them (in their own frame) will be unaffected per the first postulate of SR.

- will the increased velocity of those objects (observed in some other frame) have any effect on gravitational interactions between those accelerated bodies or they won't observe any difference?

In a frame in which the two objects are moving fast, the two objects will accelerate towards each other more slowly.  Less acceleration, not more like you describe.  It will take more time for them to collide than they would in a frame where their mutual center of mass was stationary.  In a frame where they're moving at 0.866c, they'll take twice as long to collide with each other.

I'm pretty sure (like 85-90%) that not even the most loyal supporters of Einstein's model  can tell with >50% certainty what the model actually predicts - and if some actually can make such prediction, it will most likely go against predictions of some other Einstein supporters...

The validity of a model has nothing to do with a vote of support. Plenty of people support relativity without understanding it. Some support alternative theories, and a small fraction of those understand both Einstein's theory and their own choice.  Supports relativity does not imply that one can make correct predictions.

As for myself - I literally have no idea what Einstein's Relativity tells us about such/similar scenario

You're sure making an awful lot of incorrect assertions about it for somebody who admits a lack of understanding.

So ok, one more 'scenario' - what would happen with ISS if SuperMan or some other OmniMan would simply stop it's motion around Earth?

Hope they take their time about it.  The ISS is delicate and does not take kindly to large forces being applied to a small area.  Irrelevant, I know.  We assume it is sturdy for this exercise.  We assume Superman can exert reactionless force, but only because it doesn't change the answer.

Let's say it would stop moving right above my house and then would be left 'hanging there' not moving in relation to surface (at least horizontally) - what would happen then with it?

Nothing to do with Einstein.  It would fall somewhat to the east of your house after around 5 minutes.  East is due to Coriolis force.
If the object has sufficient altitude, it won't hit Earth at all. If it has even more altitude, it won't even lose altitude, which is how geosync satellites manage to stay put despite not moving in relation to surface.

Now, in this case I can at least try figuring out what Einstein's model predict in similar situation..I'd say that according to Einstein, ISS would simply keep 'hovering' there endlessly or maybe even it would slowly 'drift away' from Earth.

Seriously, you thing Einstein would suggest that??  This is pretty hard evidence of crackpottery.

Why I'd say so? Well, since it stopped moving in relation to Earth's surface, it's energy decreased and so did the gravitational pull towards Earth - that's how I'd see Einstein's model..

A stopped thing still has mass, which is non-zero energy. Surely you don't think otherwise. OK, it seems you do...
If you want us to take your posts seriously, take seriously the thing with which you disagree.

What my model predicts however, is that I'd have at best 10 minutes to move most important stuff from my house before couple hundreds (thousands?) tons of 'space junk' would turn it into a landing pod (although 'falling pod' seems to fit better) - it would simply start falling down from it's orbit like 2 seconds after it's motion would stop...

1) half that time  2) it will miss  3) it starts falling right away (just as it is doing now), not after 2 seconds.


I cannot quote the copilot answer since it isn't text, but almost everything in it is completely wrong, and is a fine example of why it is terrible to ask any chatbot questions on theories about which it has no actual understanding.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I'd say that according to Einstein, ISS would simply keep 'hovering' there endlessly or maybe even it would slowly 'drift away' from Earth.

Then you clearly haven't understood the first test of relativity. When v << c, all relativistic  predictions degenerate to classical mechanics.

So does it mean that kinetic energy starts to be added to the inertial mass/energy of a body only when a certain velocity is reached? Or what? If so, then what velocity is it? is 0,5c or 0,2c enough? And what if it's me moving in relation to the object in question? If total relative velocity of our (me and the object in question) motion is equal to 0,99c - how can we know how our velocities are distributed in other frames? Is there any difference between me incoming towards the object at 0,99c and object incoming towards me at 0,99c? And what if in some other frame we (me and object) are incoming at each other with equal speed? Where the additional mass/energy will be added?
***
And coming back to ISS and your answer - can you help me finding the fragment of text telling that relativistic mass becomes a 'thing' only at extremely high velocities and that it's effect is completely non existent below some specific velocity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity


And if not that - should I understand that classical mechanics might lead to effects that are contradictory to effects of SR? So until some particular value adding velocity allows escaping gravity but then and then just like that - "Flop!" - and now adding velocity will start increasing gravitational pull?

Or how exactly it is supposed to work?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Ahh! Sh*t! Thanks! I posted wrong version - they are almost the same. Fixed it already

If anything, you've made it worse. But if you let facts get in the way of a good delusion, you'll never get the Republican nomination.

I know - not every one might like the colors which I used on that image... Well... Sorry...
And BTW - it's possible that you've mistaken websites - things like this happen to people who try moderating multiple fora simultaneously. Sadly (not) I'm not into foreign politics of any kind, so it has to be simply your silly mistake... No problem at all...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Einstein is right. There is no limit to how much say kinetic energy one can give to a given object.  One can always apply a force on it to make it go faster, assuming one can find an energy source to do so.  So in the frame say some neutrino, the small bunny in my front yard perhaps has more energy than one stationary anti-bunny.

Nope. He's completely and utterly wrong about it. There's only 'as much' energy, that 'fits' into a given amount of mass (matter). You simply can't get more energy from a given amount of matter than energy released due to annihilation - in which mass is literally turned into photons and stops existing as matter.
https://www.britannica.com/science/annihilation


All what can be possibly achieved by adding more energy to LHC, is that at one (probably near) moment the energy will get too high for protons and they will also start turning into photons.

Just check out this movie and look for GZK limit. This reaches the very bottom of the whole issue...

[Halc]

So does it mean that kinetic energy starts to be added to the inertial mass/energy of a body only when a certain velocity is reached?

No.  It would violate energy conservation if I did work on an object and no energy was transferred to it because it wasn't yet moving fast enough. This again is not unique to relativity theory.

If total relative velocity of our (me and the object in question) motion is equal to 0,99c - how can we know how our velocities are distributed in other frames?

The relative velocity addition formula can do the frame transforms for velocity.  Lorentz transforms are for coordinate transformations between frames.

Is there any difference between me incoming towards the object at 0,99c and object incoming towards me at 0,99c?

Yes.  The vector of one velocity is the opposite of the other.  Different objects are stationary in the two respective frames.

And what if in some other frame we (me and object) are incoming at each other with equal speed? Where the additional mass/energy will be added?

Each object contributes its own kinetic energy in that frame.

[/quote]And coming back to ISS and your answer - can you help me finding the fragment of text telling that relativistic mass becomes a 'thing' only at extremely high velocities and that it's effect is completely non existent below some specific velocity?[/quote]It doesn't have a minimum speed. It's a thing at any speed (even zero), but not very significant at low speeds where classical approximations are sufficient to express the KE of the object (E=mv?).

And if not that - should I understand that classical mechanics might lead to effects that are contradictory to effects of SR?

Classical mechanics is a good approximation at low speeds. Neither classical nor relativistic mechanics says that objects gain no kinetic energy until some minimum speed is reached.

So until some particular value adding velocity allows escaping gravity but then and then just like that - "Flop!" - and now adding velocity will start increasing gravitational pull?

Yet again, this is totally wrong. Stop asserting this.

Nope. [Einstein is] completely and utterly wrong about it. There's only 'as much' energy, that 'fits' into a given amount of mass (matter).

Only so much in stationary matter. There's no limit to KE, else again, energy conservation would be violated.

You simply can't get more energy from a given amount of matter than energy released due to annihilation - in which mass is literally turned into photons and stops existing as matter.

A fast moving small thing emits more energy (higher energy radiation) in such an annihilation. There's no limit to it. You seem to be in continuous denial of a simple theory, rather than taking the position of trying to learn about what you don't want to accept. You cannot falsify a theory that you refuse to attempt to understand.  I see little point in responding to somebody so closed to learning.

Your chosen quotes from wiki do not contradict this, except in their using the word mass to mean relativistic mass, which is an unconventional usage of the term.

[paul cotter]

Thanks, Halc. One small addendum: On #12 (1) the OP suggests that according to Einstein there is an infinite amount of energy in matter and I responded to this falsehood. In subsequent discourse I began to think I had misread (1) as the OP was then referring to putting an unlimited amount of energy into mass. Very different scenarios.

[alancalverd]

And if not that - should I understand that classical mechanics might lead to effects that are contradictory to effects of SR?

The correct phraseology is that classical mechanics cannot describe some observations that were predicted by relativistic mechanics.

[Halc]

Thanks, Halc. One small addendum: On #12 (1) the OP suggests that according to Einstein there is an infinite amount of energy in matter and I responded to this falsehood.

The wording must be done carefully.
Relative to some given frame, a given mass has finite speed and thus finite energy.
Relative to some given mass, a frame can be chosen such that the object has any arbitrarily high value of energy.

The former wording caps energy, and the latter wording does not.  Mr Crazy finds a quote relevant to the second case and interprets it as the first case, thus manufacturing a falsehood where there wasn't one.

He also seems to assert that a fast moving object that does an antimatter annihilation would put out no more radiation energy than the same thing happening to a stationary object of the same mass.  That of course would violate energy conservation.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Thanks, Halc. One small addendum: On #12 (1) the OP suggests that according to Einstein there is an infinite amount of energy in matter and I responded to this falsehood. In subsequent discourse I began to think I had misread (1) as the OP was then referring to putting an unlimited amount of energy into mass. Very different scenarios.

Thanks! You're correct and I'm fixing it right now

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

So does it mean that kinetic energy starts to be added to the inertial mass/energy of a body only when a certain velocity is reached?
No.  It would violate energy conservation if I did work on an object and no energy was transferred to it because it wasn't yet moving fast enough. This again is not unique to relativity theory.

Here is an example which you can calculate yourself if you want: let's have a 100g bullet (m) hitting a stationary 1 ton rock (M) at 0,99c. Now let's have opposite situation - rock M is accelerated to 0,99c and hits a stationary ('suspended' in vacuum) bullet m.

According to main postulates of relativity, the total energy released to environment should exactly the same in both situations (bullet moving vs rock moving) - so this should be true:

(γ-1)Mc^2 + mc^2 = Mc^2 + (γ-1)mc^2

Now put the variables in place and tell me how it can possibly be interpreted in a way which makes sense. Total energy of the system varies depending which object is moving, what makes it frame-dependent - what means motion is not relative only a definitive property of frame.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

A fast moving small thing emits more energy (higher energy radiation) in such an annihilation.

So you claim that fast moving annihilation releases more energy than energy equal to 2mc^2 (2 because of equal amounts of matter and antimatter) in stationary frame? Do you have anything to support such claim or you're just making things up on the way if they fit your narrative?

But anyway If this is your claim, then you just made motion a definitive property of frame. Thank you for proving my point...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Anyway, I spent some time with Windows 11 calculator (cool stuff) and it turns out that 'Lorentz factor' (γ) can be relatively easily derived from my own calculations. So, as I promised last time, I made a graph representing my calculations of mass in relative motion but also so called (by me) Doppler's asymmetry:






But after experimenting a bit with the functions, I figured out that my calculation for distriobution of mass in relative motion has to be modified to this √y= (c-v)(c+v)
Because not only now the distribution is symmetrical but also it's probably smarter to do √mass than divide by mass.


I never said that my theory is finished - it constantly evolves in time
I also (apparently) found a (possible) way to calculate kinetic energy from 'my' formula (although I still need to check out if the values match observed ones). Why such formula? I don't kinow - the graph simply fits in my expectations...


And  for the end, to get Lorentz factor from y=(c-v)(c+v), you just need to do 1/√y

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Also love this: https://www.lhc-closer.es/taking_a_closer_look_at_lhc/0.relativity They did so much math, only to have it reduced in the end to classic Galilean model (consistent with my theory)

[paul cotter]

In #35 you are confusing impact energy with total system energy.