Speculation arising from the Paradoxical Nature of Black Holes

[Andre Lefebvre]

I' had to take a break. My mind was swirling and at the end, my neurons where hanging holding on to my ears.

 

But I'm back to work. I've got to tell you though. Most of those papers make me nervous. As I read their opinion based on "attraction of masses" (most of them in the introduction) instead of “space deformation”, I feel like reading science before 1915 and I have difficulty accepting deductions and interpretations almost all based on that old and false notion.

 

Another thing that comes to my perception is that all basic formulas used today seem to have been made at the end of the 19th and the first quarter of 20th century (except newton’s gravity 328 years ago). I get the impression that I'll have to cut a forest with a tomahawk instead of, at least, a chainsaw. I hope this impression will disappear.

 

Mordred;

 

in your link to STATISTICAL PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY I've found something that caught my interest greatly. It's the Fluid Equation.

 

It's going to take me some time but I've got to understand it perfectly. So I'll be working on it until I do.

 

Surprisengly the last phrase of the chapter doesn't bother me very much even though it says: "So Newtonian

theory suffices for a study of homogeneous cosmological models-a fact on which

the viability of this course depends!"

 

I guess I'm improving.

[Mordred]

I wouldn't worry too much, take for example the FLRW metric itself. The equation has evolved since 1919. The later form included DM and the cosmological constant. It also uses commoving distance instead of conformal distance. If you buy textbooks older than 1990 you may come across the older metric.

 

Equations can and do evolve as new research presents itself. Until the equation no longer fits evidence. Then it's replaced.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

Ok I won't worry ...for now Because when the base itself of a "deduction" us wrong, I keep it in mind. So I might worry later.

[Mordred]

Well if your concern is mass and how GR describes it you might consider how many tests have been performed.

 

Here is a lengthy article covering tests of GR. Bignose posted this in another thread. Figured you should read it as well.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377

 

Also keep in mind particle accelerators test mass gain due to inertia everyday. As the particles approach c greater amounts of energy is required to accelerate them as the particles acquire inertial mass.

Muon lifetime is extremely short lived. As they hit our atmosphere they shouldn't live long enough to arrive at the Earths surface. However due to time dilation they do.

 

Just a couple of examples the arxiv article has plenty more

Edited July 10, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

Thank you.

 

A simple question:

Why does neutrino have so little mass going at almost light speed?

 

I'll read those articles for sure.

[Mordred]

Thank you.

 

A simple question:

Why does neutrino have so little mass going at almost light speed?

 

I'll read those articles for sure.

So little rest mass. Or in modern terms invariant mass. It has enormous inertial mass old term is relativistic mass.

 

Invariant mass is mass that is the same to all observers ie the particle is at rest.

 

E=mc^2 isn't the full formula as it doesn't include the momentum p.

 

[latex] E^2=pc^2+(m_oc)^2[/latex]

 

 

 

Mass of a particle is defined by its invariant mass as it's inertial mass can change.

 

Observer effects can alter how one measures inertial mass.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

Mordred;

 

I’d like to show you the way I work. I’ll take, as example, what I did with the text that your first link gave me:

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf...h/0004188v1.pdf:"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido

My personal notes are in red.

 

Cosmology was born as a science with the advent of general relativity and the realization that the geometry of space-time, and thus the general attraction of matter, is determined by the energy content of the universe. (Attraction of matter is not in GR and matter energy is not “working” the same way as Kinetic energy).

 

Except for peculiar velocities, i.e. motion due to the local attraction of matter, galaxies do not move in coordinate space, it is the space-time fabric which is stretching between galaxies (peculiar velocity is not due to local attraction of matter since matter doesn’t attract itself).

 

One may be puzzled as to why do we see such a stretching of space-time. Indeed, if all spatial distances are scaled with a universal scale factor, our local measuring units (our rulers) should also be stretched, and therefore we should not see the difference when comparing the two distances (e.g. the two wavelengths) at different times. The reason we see the difference is because we live in a gravitationally bound system, “decoupled” from the expansion of the universe: local spatial units in these systems are not stretched by the expansion (which means that the volume of universe we live in is not subject to the “flat” universe. Our environment doesn’t respond to the same physic laws).

 

So far I have only discussed the geometrical aspects of space-time. Let us now consider the matter and energy content of such a universe.

 

One can also define a critical density ρc, that which in the absence of a cosmological constant would correspond to a flat universe (doing so is using the physic laws that work in our gravitationally bound system and applying them to the universe we are “decupled” from. It cannot apply. Critical density is a notion that is attached to Newton’s notion of “attractive masses”, which is a false notion. That “apparent” attractiveness of mass is a “tidal effect” when deformed volume of space-time touches each other; if they don’t “touch” there’s no “tidal effect” and masses stay completely independent from one another for example: galaxies).

 

Brief thermal history of the universe

 

In this Section, I will briefly summarize the thermal history of the universe, from the Planck era to the present. As we go back in time, the universe becomes hotter and hotter and thus the amount of energy available for particle interactions increases (But since temperature is the result of density, this increase of temperature while going back in time is the result of a backward trip through expansion of the universe which has been diluting energy since the beginning of Planck’s time. This explains the increasing amount of energy available for particles as we proceed in the past).

 

At the end of inflation, the huge energy density of the “inflaton field” was converted into particles (From this we learn that particles and antiparticles appeared during inflation and that they originated in the “inflaton field” which is completely independent of the “expansion field”. Expansion was still going on while inflation was happening. They are two different and separated events even if both change the volume of space-time).

 

Since then many different experiments have confirmed the existence of the microwave background. The most outstanding one has been the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite,

Note: In the lower figure we can see that there is more “energy” on the left side (more green) of the figure than on the right side (more blue) of the figure. This difference of energy was confirmed by both WMAP and Planck’s satellite afterward. (I couldn’t put here a copy of that photo; sorry; but it is shown in the link you gave me).

 

Soon after COBE, other groups quickly confirmed the detection of temperature anisotropies at around 30 µK and above, at higher multipole numbers or smaller angular scales (which means that the universe of that epoch was not (anymore) homogeneous).

 

Furthermore, the anisotropies observed by the COBE satellite correspond to a small-amplitude scale-invariant primordial power spectrum of inhomogeneities

 

where the brackets (·) represent integration over an ensemble of different universe realizations. These inhomogeneities are like waves in the space-time metric. When matter fell in the troughs of those waves, it created density perturbations that collapsed gravitationally to form galaxies and clusters of galaxies, with a spectrum that is also scale invariant (What is said here is that matter was created “on top” of space-time metric; that it exists on the troughs of space-time metric’s waves. This means that matter isn’t integrated in space-time metric and thus is not sensible to expansion; which means that equalizing expansion and gravity for a flat universe is irrelevant. It also means that it cannot have any “slowing down” effect on expansion so the notion of “critical mass” is also irrelevant).

 

From these observations one can infer that most galaxies formed at redshifts of the order of 2 − 6; clusters of galaxies formed at redshifts of order 1, and superclusters are forming now. That is, cosmic structure formed from the bottom up: from galaxies to clusters to superclusters, and not the other way around. This fundamental difference is an indication of the type of matter that gave rise to structure (Since matter doesn’t influence space-time and expansion is present between galaxies, no type of matter whatsoever can be responsible of those structures. The only logical explanation is that those structures are the consequence of the expansion of the “blue” spots on WMAP representing less gravity presence, which expanded exponentially faster than the red spots where gravity was present. That would create the filament distribution of matter in large scale space-time observation after a period of 13 billion years. No dark matter is needed to explain those structures).

 

So this is the way I work with those information. I simply put in what, I think, the real meaning of what is written, or bring my reasons why I disagree. And like you can see, there’s quite a bit of disagreements. L

 

Furthermore the desagreements are not regarding the definitions of the terms but in the notions behind those definitions.

 

That is where my problem stands.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Strange]

Attraction of matter is not in GR

 

GR explains why massive objects will move towards one another (in the absence of other forces). I don't see any problem with describing this as "attraction". But your only objection is to the choice of words; I assume you have not found an error in the Einstein Field Equations.

 

and matter energy is not “working” the same way as Kinetic energy

 

All mass and all energy is taken into account in the EFE. Kinetic energy is slightly more complex as it involves momentum, which is another factor that contributes to the curvature of space-time.

 

peculiar velocity is not due to local attraction of matter since matter doesn’t attract itself

 

And yet galaxies do orbit one another in clusters. Your dislike of a particular word does not change either the theory or reality.

 

Furthermore the desagreements are not regarding the definitions of the terms but in the notions behind those definitions.

 

If that were true, you would tackle the models behind the words, rather than just attacking the words. Where is your proof that the Einstein Field Equations, or any of the standard solutions, are wrong? Where is your evidence that the models don't work?

[Mordred]

I honestly have to wonder if you understand what the term Kinetic energy means in Physics...

 

" The energy possessed by a body because of its motion, equal to one half the mass of the body times the square of its speed. kinetic energy in Science Expand. kinetic energy. (kə-nět'ĭk) The energy possessed by a system or object as a result of its motion."

 

[latex] ke=\frac{1}{2}mv^2[/latex]

 

It is a scalar measurement (has no direction) momentum is a vector quantity magnitude plus direction.

 

So I really don't see how you can use kinetic energy in replacement of attraction of two mass objects which are at rest...?

 

You keep trying to invoke your personal model into what your reading. Not a very good idea.

 

 

Your line " if they dont touch theres no tidal effect and masses stay completely independent from one another for example: galaxies).".

 

Then why are they gravitationally bound and shown to follow the same laws as other bodies? Ie Andromeda is definetely gravitationally bound with the Milky way. The motions of individual galaxies within large scale structures are predictable via the laws of gravity.

 

 

"But since temperature is the result of density, this increase of temperature while going back in time is the result of a backward trip through expansion of the universe which has been diluting energy since the beginning of Plancks time. This explains the increasing amount of energy available for particles as we proceed in the past)."

 

This is wrong specifically the last line. " specifically the increasing amount of energy"

 

There is no increase or decrease in total energy of the observable universe Conservation of energy laws apply. The change in temperature is due to change in volume, but the total energy is constant.

 

" energy cannot be created or destroyed only change from one state to another ie energy to matter or different particles."

Edited July 10, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

The energy possessed by a system or object as a result of its motion."

Which would mean that it's the object that produces kinetic energy. So the object "at rest" decides to move in order to produce kinetic energy. This doesn't seem logical to me; whatever the definition of the word "kinetic energy". I hope I'm wrong.

 

 

 

It is a scalar measurement (has no direction) momentum is a vector quantity magnitude plus direction.

The question is what causes the movement to appear?

 

 

 

You keep trying to invoke your personal model into what your reading. Not a very good idea.

 

I'm not invoking my model; I'm invoking that "attraction" is not a "force" but a "consequence" of the "tidal wave" produced by the "touching of two space-time deformations. Space-time deformation is nothing else than a geometric figure.

 

 

 

Ie Andromeda is definetely gravitationally bound with the Milky way.

 

How can we say that? The proper (peciliar) movement of both galaxies sends one toward the other. Where is the proof of a gravitational bound? If their movement where in a contrary direction wouldn't they move away from each other?One thing is certain: there’s not “mass attraction” of each galaxies toward the other. If gravity manifests itself, it has to be as a "tidal wave effect". And "tidal wave effects" are not from my personal model originally

 

 

 

The motions of individual galaxies within large scale structures are predictable via the laws of gravity.

 

The motions of individual galaxies show they move away from each other; how can gravity keep them "bundled up"? There has to be another explanation. I suggested one; it could be an error. But not as bad as the gravitational explication.

 

 

 

This is wrong specifically the last line. " specifically the increasing amount of energy"

 

Which means you're saying that expansion did not dilute density of the universe, since gradually going back further in the past doesn't increase the density of the universe.

 

 

 

There is no increase or decrease in total energy of the observable universe Conservation of energy laws apply.

 

Geez! I'm not talking of increase or decrease of energy; I'm talking about increase or decrease of the "DENSITY" of energy.

 

 

 

The change in temperature is due to change in volume, but the total energy is constant.

 

But the change in volume changes the DENSITY of energy, so the more it's dense, the more it's hot.

 

 

 

energy cannot be created or destroyed

 

We agree on that point. But somewhere in the copy of the paper, its says: ... represent integration over an ensemble of different universe realizations. These inhomogeneities are like waves in the space-time metric. When matter fell in the troughs of those waves,

 

To me "when matter fell in the troughs of those waves" means that the waves where already there before matter fell on it. So matter is something apart of the waves. And this is not from my personal model either. Sorry.

[Mordred]

That's your line not mine. That's thy the " " marks

This is wrong specifically the last line. " specifically the increasing amount of energy

Read Your post in red again.

Here is what you wrote.

 

" (But since temperature is the result of density, this increase of temperature while going back in time is the result of a backward trip through expansion of the universe which has been diluting energy since the beginning of Plancks time. This explains the increasing amount of energy available for particles as we proceed in the past).

 

My reply is the total energy of the observable universe Doesn't increase.

 

You evidently mistyped. The density does increase but that wasn't what you typed in the first place.

 

 

I still do not understand how you can believe kinetic energy explains gravity. That's why I'm asking you to look at how kinetic energy is defined.

 

In particular look at the difference between kinetic and momentum...

 

One is scalar ( no direction)

One is a vector ( scalar+direction)

 

Then think of the stress energy- momentum tensor. ( which in GR defines what causes space to curve)

Edited July 10, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

You're right. I made a mistake in the phrasing (in fact I repeated what was said in the paper). So now we know I was talking of density of energy. Does an increase in the density of energy causes an increase in temperature?

 

And if so; what can we think of the phrase in the paper saying: "As we go back in time, the universe becomes hotter and hotter and thus the amount of energy available for particle interactions increases". This time I'm not the one who says that energy is increasing.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

You're right. I made a mistake in the phrasing (in fact I repeated what was said in the paper). So now we know I was talking of density of energy. Does an increase in the density of energy causes an increase in temperature?

 

And if so; what can we think of the phrase in the paper saying: "As we go back in time, the universe becomes hotter and hotter and thus the amount of energy available for particle interactions increases". This time I'm not the one who says that energy is increasing.

Yes this is correct.

[Andre Lefebvre]

Which means that the paper is wrong in stating (I should say insinuating) that there's an increase of amount of energy caused by the growing temperature. Isn't it right?

Edited July 10, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

They probably meant per the same volume. Ie density increase. Happens sometimes lol. One reason why mathematics is better to describe relation changes than descrptives.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

I did laugh at that one.

 

Ok. So let's clear something else. You said previously:

 

 

I still do not understand how you can believe kinetic energy explains gravity. That's why I'm asking you to look at how kinetic energy is defined.

 

I must have made another error in phrasing because I don’t understand where I would have explained gravity by kinetic energy. I explain mass energy with kinetic energy oriented to a specific point of the metric of space-time (center of gravity) but certainly not gravity.

 

Gravity is the consequence of a deformation in a volume of space-time. Reorientation of Kinetic energy toward a definite point of the metric of space-time is the cause of its deformation.

 

But before you presented the same problem as:

 

“So I really don't see how you can use kinetic energy in replacement of attraction of two mass objects which are at rest...?”

 

I don’t know exactly what you’re talking about here; I believe it could be in regard of Andromeda and our galaxy that are moving toward each other. On this subject, I said that the diminishing of the distance between them was because they were moving toward each other according to their “proper” speed. Like if you and I throw a baseball at each other, the balls will approach one another.

 

Does this answer your questions?

 

As for:

The energy possessed by a system or object as a result of its motion."

Which would mean that it's the object that produces kinetic energy. So the object "at rest" decides to move in order to produce kinetic energy. This doesn't seem logical to me; whatever the definition of the word "kinetic energy". I hope I'm wrong.

You didn't answer to my hidden question

Edited July 10, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

In a way I am, replace the word kinetic energy with momentum for objects moving in a particular direction.

 

Here is why this is important take an object moving at constant velocity in one direction. When that object changes direction and maintains the same velocity/speed it still has the same kinetic energy. However it doesn't have the same momentum.

 

Now think of frame dragging of a rotating BH. Which term applies more accurately kinetic energy or momentum?

 

The term the object at rest decides to move in order to produce kinetic energy. Makes no sense. The object itself doesn't make choices, it merely interacts with other influences. You can describe that influence as space time curvature, tidal force of simply force of gravity. Any of these three ways of explaining it is acceptable.

 

Either way an influence affects the object. Not the object decided to produce kinetic energy. Though an increase in velocity does increase its kinetic energy.

I think the problem your having is thinking curvature is from one influence. It's isn't. Curvature involves energy, pressure, flux, shear momentum.

 

think of energy and momentum as four components of the same thing.

 

You have energy mass is just a form of energy. (bit oversimplified), then you have momentum, pressure, flux and shear. The stress energy tensor describes the motion of all individual paeticles. Not volume itself.

 

this article shows the hydrodynamic relations involved of a perfect fluid(ideal gas) with curvature

 

 

http://mathreview.uwaterloo.ca/archive/voli/2/olsthoorn.pdf

 

Unfortunately there's no simple way to properly explain GR. The stress energy tensor itself leads to 10 differential equations. As the stress energy tensor defines how space time curves....

Edited July 10, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

You can describe that influence as space time curvature, tidal force of simply force of gravity. Any of these three ways of explaining it is acceptable.

So you don't have any explanation for initial movement. Space-time curvature doesn't cause movement it cause acceleration; it's the same effect as in space-time deformation (in fact it's the same thing). And again "tidal effect" is related to space-time deformations. All three are the same.

 

 

 

The term the object at rest decides to move in order to produce kinetic energy. Makes no sense.

I agree but that's exactly what you said was implying in saying "by a result of his motion".

 

 

 

Though an increase in velocity does increase its kinetic energy.

 

So for you energy doesn't produce a "work"; it's the "work" that produces energy. This is were we don't agree. To me it's adding kinetic energy that increase the velocity. Just like adding mass energy increases a space-time deformation.

 

Energy is "active"; it's not an "after effect".

 

 

 

The stress energy tensor describes the motion of all individual paeticles.

 

Universe doesn't need energy tensor to make motion; all it needs is energy. Mathematical descriptions need tensors; nothing else does.

 

I'm doing my best to assimilate the mathematical way of describing events; but it has to make sense,

 

 

 

I think the problem your having is thinking curvature is from one influence. It's isn't. Curvature involves energy, pressure, flux, shear momentum.

 

When we talk about curvature, I don't know what we're talking about anymore. Is it curvature of the flat universe or the curvature of a space-time deformation? Space-time deformation is the result of mass energy on the center of gravity; which pressure is a side effect making temperature increase. An object "falling" in a space-time deformation gains velocity; its momentum is his mass times his velocity in a certain direction; nothing to do with curvature.

 

 

 

think of energy and momentum as four components of the same thing.

 

I try but I can't. Energy does "work"; momentum is a description of that work; same as velocity speed and movement. So energy is not the same as the others.

 

 

 

Unfortunately there's no simple way to properly explain GR.

 

Maybe not General relativity; but one thing is certain it's that gravity is a simple consequence of the deformation of the geometry of space-time. And it's pretty easy to visualise what happens in this space-time deformation, we liove in it. All you have to do is not mix space-time with matter.

 

 

 

As the stress energy tensor defines how space time curves....

Like I said for the particles; stress energy tensor is not necessary to space-time to curve; all it needs is energy. Tensor are needed by maths to describe what energy does.

 

Finally what we have is a universe made of energy that produces movement who's speed slower than light results in space-time (distances/length and duration/length of time). That movement came in two directions 1) all directions 2) toward a definite point. The "all direction" movement made flat space-time; the definite point movement made space-time deformations. The rest that happened afterward was successive "after effects" of space-time deformed volumes. Which is pretty simple to understand.

 

Starting from there I've got to find the maths to describe the events; because what I read all day, just goes into a merry-go-round that doesn't lead anywhere. But I'll find it.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

Why do you keep missing the key elements? Kinetic energy isn't the same as velocity or momentum.

 

Kinetic energy is a scalar quantity. Velocity and momentum are both vector quantities.

 

You cannot state kinetic energy Is the same as momentum or velocity as kinetic energy has no direction terms.

I don't know how many times I've had to explain this simple principle.

 

You keep throwing kinetic energy into your explanations when you should be using velocity or momentum. Not kinetic energy.

 

The stress energy momentum tensor INCLUDES both for good reason. It's called the lanquage of mathematics.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

Why do you keep missing the key elements? Kinetic energy isn't the same as velocity or momentum.

Kinetic energy is not the same as velocity or momentum. What I said was that kinetic energy produces movement. Velocity and momentum are descriptions of movement.

 

 

 

Kinetic energy is a scalar quantity. Velocity and momentum are both vector quantities.

Kinetic energy is energy that does a "work". Velocity and momentum are descriptions.

 

 

 

You cannot state kinetic energy Is the same as momentum or velocity

I didn't.

 

 

 

You keep throwing kinetic energy into your explanations when you should be using velocity or momentum. Not kinetic energy.

 

I can't understand why you don't see that I'm talking about the "work" produced by kinetic energy. That "work" is movement. Velocity and momentum are descriptions of that movement. All of them are different things. Velocity or momentum doesn't make movement.

[Mordred]

You will never get this until you come to grips that physics has specific units and definitions for its terminology.

 

So unless you learn those definitions and resulting units. Your limitting yourself.

Your not going to change something as long lived and basic as to how kinetic energy is defined. Nor why physics and math states it's different from momentum and velocity.

 

Think of it this way take object a with x amount of kinetic energy. Colliding with ball b at rest. Which direction will ball b move?

 

As you only applied kinetic energy to ball a you haven't established a direction.

 

 

The point your missing is when ball a strikes ball b. The work is done by its momentum. Not it's kinetic energy.

Here maybe a basic set of calculations will tell you the difference.

 

http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/mechanics/energy/KENOTMomentum.html

Meatball vs truck

 

The other point is kinetic energy is not a conserved property. Momentum is.

 

A bullet can lose kinetic energy due to heat loss or gain kinetic energy to friction

 

Please look at how basic terms are defined.

 

Thermal energy is directly related to temperature. We can't see individual atoms vibrating, but we can feel their kinetic energies as temperature. When there's a difference between the temperature of the environment and a system within it, thermal energy is transferred between them as heat.

Momentum [latex] p=mv[/latex]

Kinetic energy [latex]\frac{1}{2}mV^2[/latex]

 

Note not the same formulas. If you try using kinetic energy instead of momentum in GR you will get the wrong answer for say a falling body. Not to mention throwing your unit conversion s off.

 

Kinetic energy being measured in joules where one joule =1 kg*m^2/s^2

 

Momentum being Kg*m/s.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

The point your missing is when ball a strikes ball b. The work is done by its momentum. Not it's kinetic energy.

 

I taught that when a ball strikes another ball there was a transfer of kinetic energy from the striking ball to the other one.

 

Tell me; what work produces kinetic energy?

[Mordred]

The problem is kinetic energy is a measure of the quantity of work. Not the direction the work is applied.

 

Several of your statements read as if you have kinetic energy=movement.

 

Let's look at this statement

"

Universe doesn't need energy tensor to make motion; all it needs is energy. Mathematical descriptions need tensors; nothing else does."

 

It needs energy scalar (kinetic energy of you like) and direction vector. Velocity or momentum. Tensors simply combine the two in a non coordinate system. You can use the same tensor relations regardless of coordinates.

 

 

In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion.[1] It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity.

 

it's the measure of work for velocity. However momentum is velocity * mass. Ie a body already in motion Or Newtons laws of gravity.

 

The relationship for kinetic energy to momentum does have a formula.

 

[latex]E_k=\frac{p^2}{2m}[/latex]

 

but remember in inelastic collisions kinetic energy can be lost to heat and sound.

 

The reason why velocity and momentum terms are used in GR and SR is that both terms are conserved and both include kinetic energy+direction. However both are also observer dependant.

 

Multi particle systems are typically described via velocity and momentum when describing how one influences the other. Not via kinetic energy. That's just your scalar quantity.

 

That's the point I'm getting at. If your describing bodies in motion use velocity or momentum. Or for that matter motion period.

 

If you don't include the vectors of particles in motion you won't take into account the shear stress aspects of space time curvature or frame dragging.

 

Force is also a vector quantity.

Another key note matter wave uses momentum.

 

The connection to particle waves in SR requires two formulas one for energy and one for Momentum.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave

Edited July 11, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

I think I'm starting to understand your point.

 

I'm mixing the fact that when I don't have anymore energy, I've got to eat or sleep to recuperate. So when I talk about energy, I'm thinking about that kind of energy. I need it to work.

 

I'll read a few more times what you just said. I'll probably get it.

 

Thanks a lot.

[Mordred]

No prob, you'd be amazed how many posters in speculations ignore vector quantities. However the majority of formulas include vector and scalar quantities. Ie f=ma mass is scalar acceleration and force is vector.

 

+1

Edited July 11, 2015 by Mordred