DimaMazin

1 - y/y0= gap/y0 (y0-2)1/2=y0-1 I don't know derivation of the arccos, but I don't see angle here. for A and B: t ~= {(gap+r)3/2/(2GM)1/2} * {(r*gap)1/2/(r+gap) + arccos[r/(r+gap)]1/2 } for D and C: t={(gap+2r)3/2 /(4GM)1/2} * {(2r*gap)1/2/(2r+gap) + arccos[2r/(2r+gap)]1/2 } r is radius of big objects

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall I think we can use it. t={ (gap+r1+r2)3 / 2G(M1+M2) }1/2 * { [(r1+r2)*gap]1/2/(r1+r2+gap) + arccos[(r1+r2)/(r1+r2+gap)]1/2 } r1 is radius of first body r2 is radius of second body

Where are correct calculations here? Reducing distance increases gravitational force and accelerations. We can't solve the question without integral equations. Sorry, I don't know them.

Radiations are motions. Do you think the clock doesn't count quantities of the radiations?

I don't know a clock which doesn't create motions and doesn't count them.

You overestimate abilities of clocks.

Clock is mechanism of motions and of count of the motions, but clock isn't count. Clock can wrongly measure time when it measures motion by not standard of simultaneity. Therefore definition of time "time is what clocks measure" isn't scientific.

Clocks show quantity of own motion which is counted by standard of simultaneity. Where did I say that time is a clock?

Then time is just a count of quantities of motions by standard of simultaneity.

My words and equations in my question didn't make that. That is just your disinformation.

Like Hitler's Germany with USSR before war.

For me it is simpler to define speed of system and mass of system than to define every speed of every object of the system relative to me and then sum of their momentums. I am not sure your method is correct .

No. The same is equation for gamma.Speed defines gamma. Speed of moving of the system relative to foreign observer can be not the same as speed of motion of the Moon around the Earth. For definition of relativistic mass of the Moon you shouldn't use gamma which you should use for definition of momentum of all the system.

I don't understand what you try to say. Here only answer of Janus is completely exact. He use relativistic mass, but his relativistic mass doesn't confirm relativistic mass of Strange in that post. Gamma for calculus of momentum of the system isn't the same gammas for calculus of relativistic masses inside the system.

Again you confuse us. gamma appears only for relativistic speed in calculation of momentum. Mass is Internal Kinetic Energy / c2. Now correct.

Develop yourself. Don't develop enemy. USA and Europe still don't understand benefit of these precepts.Only those who developed China compulsorily should finance war against China.

I don't understand why we can't consider system of Earth&Moon like system of warmed gas in cylinder. There a sum of all molecules masses is less than total mass.

Is Moon kinetic energy relatively of the Earth a part of total mass?

What is the formula we can use for definition of m0 of Earth+Moon ?

Different result doesn't change equation. The question about equation.

Maybe, but the guess explains why thermal energy of hot body has gravitational mass, but kinetic energy of the Moon hasn't gravitational mass relatively of us. For me physics is wild when it doesn't explain nature phenomenons.

S=ct/4 S - distance between observer and rotating object c - speed of light t - time of period of rotation of the object S is minimal distance till object when its kinetic energy completely is gravitational. When object moves to observer it radiates something at c, then the observer reflects the something and when the object is already escaping from the observer and recieving the something from the observer then gravitational interaction exists between them.

Is the momentum=gamma *speed of center of their masses*(mass of the Earth+mass of the Moon) Or the momentum=gamma *speed of center of their masses *(mass of the Earth+mass of the Moon+ + kinetic energy of the Moon relatively of the Earth / c2)

Thanks. And is that in the complex equations?

Good answer for half of question. Why cosmological increase of space doesn't work when gravitational forces are stronger than cosmological force of division?