Bjarne

Right after swing by I geuss ?

What is Trajectory Deflection Angle ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly

Thank you what then is the angle is 45 degree and 10 degree ?

Let’s say that the angle from a point between the Earth and Moon is 90 degree, - and the angle from the same point on Earth to the Sun zero degree. To keep it simple let’s say that the acceleration due to gravity against the Sun and the Moon is the same acceleration What still confuses me is that according to Newton’s second law (so far as I understand it) the resulting force will point between the two forces, which only mean only change of direction and therefore no change of force acting on the Earth so far. On the other hand there is no doubt that so soon the Eaeth/Moon/Sun alignment is completed (total eclipse) then 2 forces must have united , and therefore double so strong But where does the unification of the 2 forces start ? Does the 2 force already start to unite after the angle between the 2 forces (Sun and Moon) begins to decrease to less as 90 degree relative to a point on Earth? Or first when the eclipse starts ? I am lost

Very interesting I have many times thought the same; and asked myself why it isn’t done long ago Have you any idea about the cost to build and launch such space probes

According to the theory of relativity stabile acceleration will require more and more energy, or the speed will gradually drop How can the influence of the speed decrease be calculated (which equation can I use)

Is it so simple that I only need to add the acceleration due to gravity of the Moon (based on MG/r^2) 7,35E22*6,67@E-11/384000000^2 = 0,000033 m/s^2 I think not, it must be calculated from the common gravitational centre (near the center of the Sun) right =?

So soon the moon moves between the Sun and the Earth, by eclipse, - and the 3 objects will be aligned, - how fast can the Earth possible accelerate due to that ? And how can it be calculated ?

Thanks' for both answers Can you show me an example how to calculate it (correct) ?

According to measurements we know that the influence of the tide is about 100 µGal. This is for example illustrated by the example (image) below (this shows relative and absolute measurement during 24 hours) But how can such measurements be compared to calculations ? For example , the influence of Jupiter should be less that 1µGal, but when calculated based on the Newtonian equation (MG/r^2), I get 10 times so large values Also when I calculate the influence of the Moon and the Sun, I get very high values. For example the Moon.... Based on MG/r^2 M = Mass (of the moon) 7,35E22 G = Gravitational constant 6,67E-11 r = radius 384000000 meter^2 384000000*6,67€-11/6,32E11^2 = 0,00003324m/s (3324µGal) This value is much higher as the 100 µGal we measure In the same way the influence of the Sun can also be calculated to a much higher value. Where did I went wrong ? Why can I not use the Newtonian equation normally used to calculate acceleration due to gravity ? Which equation must be used ?

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/66986/finite-velocity-at-infinite-distance

But what have this with the question to do Repeat... How can I understand "Speed increment at infinity" "Infinity" seems to be a speed measurement point, - by space probe trajectories, - but where is "infinity" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly

What do you mean ?

How can I understand? "Speed increment at infinity" "Infinity" seems to be a speed measurement point, - by space probe trajectories, - but where is "infinity" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly

Wonder which kind of impact that would had on md65536's cup of coffee. As I said, this math is above my head.

Shall we understand this, so that length contraction or expansion, are proportion with the stretch / contraction of time (1 second) ? For example You live in a deep cellar, time here ticks 1/100,000,000 times slower than on my clock, - does that mean that your ruler is also 1/100,000,000 times longer than my ? I understand your point, - this is rational thinking But GR can also cause time to stop.. This is so strange that I still believe this is beyond our understanding capacity, because our brains can only truly understand something when it happens in time / distance. For example lets think about how does the universe look like if you was very close the event horizon. A photon from the edge of the visible universe (13,8 LY away from Earth) can reach the earth (seen from a down to earth perspective) within 13,8 billion years. But you would measure that the same event only took 10 second, because you and your clock is close to a black hole. Now image it is real, you really live in the reality near the horizon event ... How long time would it take you to drink a cup of coffee ? How would it feel to do so ? How big would you body be ? etc... Would it all be same proportions "exactly" like on Earth? Or would it be real slow motion to lift the cup to your month etc ..... Would you feel the 10 second it takes a photon from the distinct star to reach earth, - seen from your event horizon perspective, - in the same way as a person at the Earth feel the time it took based on Earth time (13,8 billion years)? It can be hard to understand real slow motion "live" - as just mentioned (?) But to understand that time no longer exist, I guess is completely impossible . I am just wondering which (comparable) differences would we notice if we could jump between different space-time "realities".. Maybe it help to understand the most extreme example first. (?) maybe not (?)

Sorry I put a dot not a comma, I mean time near the black hole was 10,000 slower not only 10 times. The trip from Barcelona to NY took 1 second seen from a extreme space-time perspective ( a spacecraft near a black hole). On earth it still take 10,000 seconds I didn't got the point. I think you misunderstood that, the point is that there is no way to compare 2 rules, in different space-time. Therefore we only have logical thinking left, when it comes to the question whether these are comparable the same length. The point is, to make it simple / mathematical logical. Try to Google this "photons are everywhere at the same time" You misunderstood that point, - photons was only mentioned in the last thought experiment (Barcelona-NY) to show that if times stops, distance doesn't exist. The same should (to my opinion) apply by the event horizon. The point here is , if you was by the event horizon, how would the universe then look like, - would there ne any universe at all ? - I believe it wouldn't, - if this is true rulers can most likely not be comparable the same length , different places in a gravitational field. Black holes, would then be geometric collapse etc... And this is the whole point. Good point Photons and other particle moving at c, are in a reality where everything happens at the same moment. But from that perspective "the moment" (time) doesn't exist, and also not distance, which mean the Universe doesn't exist. I know this is completely crazy, and maybe therefore Niels Bohr he once wrote..."Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true" At this extreme, don't even try to think any logical / rational thought,- just accept it is beyond our capacity . I am only trying to understand whether 1 meter is a variant not only in SR, - but also in GR. I think this question make sense, and must be possible to define based on simple math / logic .

I fully agree Lets say a trip between Barcelona and New York takes 10.000 seconds. Let's say that tomorrow morning when we wake up, we are on board a space craft and very close to a black hole. The clock is now ticking 10.000 time slower than on Earth, and the trip from Barcelona to New York, - seen from our perspective, - would now only take 1 second. What would happen if it was possible to compare our ruler (on board) with a ruler back on Earth ? - would they be comparable the same length ? How sure can we be ? Seen from the perspective of a photon, time doesn't exist, and therefore distance cannot exist. So seen from the photons own perspective, - it must be everywhere at the same time. I know this doesn't sound logical but this is a mathematical consequence. So it is not unknown that relativity must change distances as well. In the same way, - I believe, - if our space craft should reach the event horizon, - time is no longer ticking, - which also must mean that distance no longer exist (?) The trip between Barcelona and New York will now (from our perspective) take zero seconds. So at the event horizon I think it is fair to conclude that distant no longer exist, we must have reached the reality of the photon, - where everything must happen "at the same moment" But the lose of distance cannot happen suddenly, its not logical, - it must most likely happen gradually and proportional with the lose of time, I believe.

Sorry, - but I am afraid that if I would tell all that to my grandmother, - se would not understand anything, (and accuse me for the same) All I want is only have logical simple answers, - to a logic simple question. I mean time multiplied with speed must = distance. This is so simple as something can be. A and B doesn't agree about time, - it takes a photon to travel the mentioned distance (10 billion LY) - if they agree about speed of the photon, - the result must be different distant. How can A and B then agree about the distance the photons travels ? The math you have shown is above my head, I only need a simple questions as possible. You wrote "Light follows null geodesics, so" - The photon I mention in the thought experiment, followed the same path, both seen from A's and B's perspective. I am not trying to challenge GR, but rather trying to understand it, down to earth. We can instead use a thought experiment where you have a car driving round the earth lets say at the speed 100 m/s none stop 10 billion years If A and B must agree about the speed....100 m/s . A's clock would now also show that the car-race took longer time than counted at B's clock. Now A will calculate the distance the car have travel (10 billion years) and then claim that the car must have reach a longer distance, - than the distance B have calculated. Simple because A's clocks ticks faster in the top of the skyscraper than B's clock in the cellar. - All based on the simple fact, - that time multiplied with speed = distance. So what is "wrong" ? The answer must be simple, down to earth (regardless how complicated GR math can be).

Try to explain further how you define "local" speed. Which comparable difference would it be between A's and B's definition of local speed of light ? So fare I understand, A and B have only 3 mathematical factors to deal with here, - one is speed, - the other is time, - the (third), the result = distance. Time multiplied with speed must be = distance. If A and B both agree that the speed of light is a universal constant that always is local "the same", - for any observer, we do have a problem, - unless A and B's ruler not is comparable the same length . It is a fact that A and B does not agree about the time it took for 2 photons to travel to the Earth. If we say that A has counted the photons travel-time to 10 second more than B, - A must also have calculated the distance to the star emitting the photon (time*speed) to (10 * 300.000 km) = 3.000.000 km more than B. So how can the distance not be the same for A and B ? Must the distance be the same ? The only logical option I can see , - is that the ruler is simply not comparable the same length (seen from A and and B's perspective / in the cellar and top of the skyscraper). Which mean, - because 1 second on B's clock (compared to A's clock) is "stretching" (due to gravity difference) - B's ruler must compared to A's ruler (proportionally) do the same. And therefore B' will simple measure / calculate a different (shorter) distance than A to the star, - that 10 billion years ago was emitting the photons now hitting A and B in the same moment. I mean, - there must be a logical and simple explanation to that A and B not is able to agree about the distance to that star. Or ? You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother. Albert Einstein

According to the example, we have in this case 2 observers One observer "A" in the top of the skyscraper The other "B" in the Cellar of the same skyscraper Both have measure the time it took the photons to reach the earth. B's clock shows that the 2 photon was 10 second faster to reach the Earth ( to reach the skyscraper) compared to A's clock. So how can A and B agree about the speed of the photons. Let's say A would claim that he is 110% sure that the photons was travelling with the speed 299792458 m/s (because this is what is written in the book). This statement leaves B with only 2 options. 1.) Either B's ruler cannot be the same comparable length as A's ruler 2.) Or - (if the length of the ruler is a comparable universal standard) - the speed of light (299792458 m/s) is not the same for all observers. Which option is correct?

The speed of light is measured to 299 792 458 m / s and 1 meter defined to 1/299 792 458 of the speed of light. Let us assume that A live at the top of a skyscraper and B in the cellar the past 10 billion years. After 10 billion years B’s clock have “lost” (let's say) 10 second due to different gravitational influence, compared to A’s clock. 10 billion years ago 2 photons was leaving a star 10 billion light years away and hit A and B at (almost) the same moment (splitsecond) 10 billion year after. B would now say that he measured the time it took for the photon to reach earth to 10 second less than A measured. B would therefore claim that either the speed of light must have been faster than 299 792 458 m / s, or local distance (where B is) must be different (stretching proportional with the stretch of time). Which option is correct, and what proves it ?

I forgot Acceleration Opposite a Secondary Absolute Motion Direction = t(a5+a6) t = Time (s) a5 = Acceleration (for example acceleration due to gravity away from an absolute motion direction) a6 = RR.

I regret this statement. So fare I understand particles in the LHC will accelerate equally, doesn't matter whether the relativistic resistance should be a little less towards a certain direction. It is first when acceleration of the particles is going on that the LHC really is using huge amount of power. ( By idling electromagnet are using relative little power.) I should be possible to compare this to how a transformer works. First when consumption of elasticity is used on the secondary side of the transformer, the consumption is (of course) also increasing on the primary side. This mean the larger secondary consumption (resistance), automatically results to larger primary delivery. This shows that attempt to resist the magnetic field, is immediately and automatically counteracted, by larger power delivery, to counteract. This of course then also means that less secondary consumption, automatically mean less, primary power to counteract. So I think rather we can say that less relativistic resistance (as expected) towards a certain direction will automatically save electricity consumption of the LHC, - and still the expected speed is achieved, also towards a direction with less relativistic resistance. Furthermore I want to add this simple equation. Acceleration Towards an Absolute Motion Direction = t(a1- a2) t = time (s) a1 = acceleration (for example acceleration due to gravity) a2 = RR. Can be calculated by the shown Lorentz transformation Acceleration Opposite the Absolute Motion Direction = t(a3+a4) t = Time (s) a3 = Acceleration (for example acceleration due to gravity away from an absolute motion direction) a4 = The same magnitude as 'a3', so long 'a3'<'a4'. - If 'a3'>'a4' = 'a4' is stable. - Basic 'a4' is calculated by the shown Lorentz transformation.

I am sure what the theory predict, but I am not sure whether it includes motion of particles trapped by a strong magnetic field . All ideas trying solve for example the dark matter mystery, - have shown not only to have been weak, but also wrong. There are always a risk that we (and I) are wrong. There are not many shot left. Sooner or later we are forced to open our mind for controversial suggestions. Relative small error or misunderstanding can indeed lead us fare away from the truth. http://atramateria.c...or-dark-matter/