DimaMazin Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 Let's consider acceleration of two spaceships wich are rigidly connected on distance. In frame S backward spaceship is earlier accelerating. In S' frame backward spaceship is later stoping, therefore backward spaceship is attracting forward spaceship . Also backward spaceship is more traveling in S and in S' therefore it is younger . By the analogy a center of the Earth is backward spaceship and a surface is forward spaceship in frame of BB, in frame of center and in frame of surface. Escape velocity is caused by the non-simultaneity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 30 minutes ago, DimaMazin said: Escape velocity is caused by the non-simultaneity. Caused by? Being able to cast time dilation in terms of escape velocity in no way implies that the former "causes" the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted December 22, 2018 Author Share Posted December 22, 2018 On 21.11.2018 at 2:01 PM, swansont said: Caused by? Being able to cast time dilation in terms of escape velocity in no way implies that the former "causes" the latter. Gravitational field does not attract objects , it accelerates them relative to BB. Therefore free objects run to farther space, which is in gravitational deepening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 18 minutes ago, DimaMazin said: Gravitational field does not attract objects , it accelerates them relative to BB. Therefore free objects run to farther space, which is in gravitational deepening. The BB happened everywhere, so how do you accelerate relative to it? What is “gravitational deepening”? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C.MacSwell Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 Which direction is the BB...exactly? Why is it not just as much here, as over there, where ever that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted December 22, 2018 Author Share Posted December 22, 2018 6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said: Which direction is the BB...exactly? Why is it not just as much here, as over there, where ever that is? The direction is from BB ,exacter, to farther distance , which exists in gravitational field. 6 hours ago, swansont said: The BB happened everywhere, so how do you accelerate relative to it? What is “gravitational deepening”? Increase of distance from BB proves the accelerating relative to it. Farther distance from BB to earlier accelerated objects is gravitational deepening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 49 minutes ago, DimaMazin said: The direction is from BB ,exacter, to farther distance , You seem to be treating the Big Bang as an explosion from some central point. It isn’t. It is the uniform expansion of space everywhere so there is no “direction from BB”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted December 22, 2018 Author Share Posted December 22, 2018 29 minutes ago, Strange said: You seem to be treating the Big Bang as an explosion from some central point. It isn’t. It is the uniform expansion of space everywhere so there is no “direction from BB”. I don't consider your central point. Acceleration direction is from visible BB to bigger distance to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 20 minutes ago, DimaMazin said: I don't consider your central point. Acceleration direction is from visible BB to bigger distance to it. Expansion is uniform in all directions. The Big Bang is visible equally in all directions. So I don’t know what “from visible BB to bigger distance” is supposed to mean. It must mean all directions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted December 22, 2018 Author Share Posted December 22, 2018 6 minutes ago, Strange said: Expansion is uniform in all directions. The Big Bang is visible equally in all directions. So I don’t know what “from visible BB to bigger distance” is supposed to mean. It must mean all directions. Yes. But bigger gravitational field creates bigger acceleration and longer space to BB. All run to big masses and to own masses, changing velosities ,redusing and increasing distances. So gravitational force is stronger cosmological force on local level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 22 minutes ago, DimaMazin said: But bigger gravitational field creates bigger acceleration and longer space to BB. All run to big masses and to own masses, changing velosities ,redusing and increasing distances. I'm afraid I have no idea what that means. Perhaps you could try using Google translate? Or find a friend who speaks better English? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 1 hour ago, DimaMazin said: longer space to BB. This has no meaning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C.MacSwell Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 2 hours ago, DimaMazin said: Yes. But bigger gravitational field creates bigger acceleration and longer space to BB. All run to big masses and to own masses, changing velosities ,redusing and increasing distances. So gravitational force is stronger cosmological force on local level. Are you speaking of gravitation and movement with respect to the BB frame of reference (the frame of CMBR isotropy)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 58 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: Are you speaking of gravitation and movement with respect to the BB frame of reference (the frame of CMBR isotropy)? He mentioned distance, so that can’t be it. The CMBR frame is for velocity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted December 26, 2018 Author Share Posted December 26, 2018 Mass does not lose energy for acceleratiom of objects. Then it use energy of space expansion. Why I can not say that mass uses cosmological force for a fall of objects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 26, 2018 Share Posted December 26, 2018 1 hour ago, DimaMazin said: Mass does not lose energy for acceleratiom of objects. No, it gains energy by being accelerated. 1 hour ago, DimaMazin said: Then it use energy of space expansion. What is "energy of space expansion"? 1 hour ago, DimaMazin said: Why I can not say that mass uses cosmological force for a fall of objects? Because it is wrong. Because there is no such thing as "cosmological force". Because if there were such a force, it would be opposed to gravity (expansion causes things to move apart, gravity causes them to move together) Because if there were such a force, the effects would be tiny and barely be noticeable on Earth. Because you would have to explain why mass doesn't cause gravity despite all the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted December 26, 2018 Author Share Posted December 26, 2018 13 minutes ago, Strange said: No, it gains energy by being accelerated. What is "energy of space expansion"? Because it is wrong. Because there is no such thing as "cosmological force". Because if there were such a force, it would be opposed to gravity (expansion causes things to move apart, gravity causes them to move together) Because if there were such a force, the effects would be tiny and barely be noticeable on Earth. Because you would have to explain why mass doesn't cause gravity despite all the evidence. Energy, created by potential energy, can exist only in gravitational field. Let's consider annihilation of matter and anti-matter. They have energy after falling to each other mc2+mc2+so called potential energy of fall . After the annihilation, created photons have energy = 2mc2 +so called potential energy . There is no gravitational field but energy, created by potential energy , exists because the energy arrived from space. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 26, 2018 Share Posted December 26, 2018 37 minutes ago, DimaMazin said: Energy, created by potential energy, can exist only in gravitational field. That's not true. There is potential energy in an electromagnetic field, for example. 37 minutes ago, DimaMazin said: Let's consider annihilation of matter and anti-matter. They have energy after falling to each other mc2+mc2+so called potential energy of fall . After the annihilation, created photons have energy = 2mc2 +so called potential energy . There is no gravitational field but energy, created by potential energy , exists because the energy arrived from space. They would have kinetic energy if they fall towards one another (which is more likely to be because they have opposite charge than gravity). The energy did not "arrive from space". 39 minutes ago, DimaMazin said: Making up stuff like this isn't funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted January 10, 2019 Author Share Posted January 10, 2019 On 12/26/2018 at 1:14 PM, Strange said: That's not true. There is potential energy in an electromagnetic field, for example. They would have kinetic energy if they fall towards one another (which is more likely to be because they have opposite charge than gravity). The energy did not "arrive from space". Making up stuff like this isn't funny. Also any field is ability to take energy from space and to return it back. -4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 3 hours ago, DimaMazin said: Also any field is ability to take energy from space and to return it back. Fields do not “take energy from space” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted January 22, 2019 Author Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) Escape velosity between center and surface exists. We can see contracted distance and slowed time, but we can not see change of distance because center and surface have general acceleration, wich compensates redusing or increasing distance by gamma factor due to acceleration. We can define the acceleration: Change of distance due to escape velosity= r - vet Change of distance due to acceleration= r- r/gamma r - vet=r- r/gamma gamma= r/(vet) t= 1 second therefore r/ve= 1/(1- a2/c2)1/2 a= (r2- ve2)1/2 c/r Edited January 22, 2019 by DimaMazin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 58 minutes ago, DimaMazin said: Escape velosity between center and surface exists. We can see contracted distance and slowed time, but we can not see change of distance because center and surface have general acceleration, wich compensates redusing or increasing distance by gamma factor due to acceleration. We can define the acceleration: Change of distance due to escape velosity= r - vet I don't even know what this is supposed to mean, but it's not from relativity Why would vet be meaningful value? An object only has that speed at t=0 (or some infinitesimal afterwards) Quote Change of distance due to acceleration= r- r/gamma gamma does not tell you the acceleration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted July 28, 2019 Author Share Posted July 28, 2019 (edited) On 1/22/2019 at 9:05 PM, swansont said: I don't even know what this is supposed to mean, but it's not from relativity Why would vet be meaningful value? An object only has that speed at t=0 (or some infinitesimal afterwards) gamma does not tell you the acceleration I am wrong there. On 1/10/2019 at 10:38 AM, Strange said: Fields do not “take energy from space” Let's concider next experiment: Big planet ,approuching to star, can trow away small planet. The small planet gets energy of escaping. Does the big planet lose the same energy? Edited July 28, 2019 by DimaMazin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 28, 2019 Share Posted July 28, 2019 7 minutes ago, DimaMazin said: Let's concider next experiment: Big planet ,approuching to star, can trow away small planet. The small planet gets energy of escaping. Does the big planet lose the same energy? Probably. Certainly the total energy before and after is the same. Exactly how the energy is distributed between the two planets, the star and anything else can't be calculated without more information. Quote Are center and surface of the Earth not simultaneusly accelerating relative to BB ? No. Because they are held together by electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Expansion only happens on the scale of galactic clusters and above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted July 28, 2019 Author Share Posted July 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, Strange said: Probably. Certainly the total energy before and after is the same. Exactly how the energy is distributed between the two planets, the star and anything else can't be calculated without more information. The small planet gets additional escaping momentum. It means that the big planet or the star get negotive momentum. It means the big planet or star get less energy than the small planet, but they don't lose energy. Were do the energies come from? -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now