DimaMazin

Are center and surface of the Earth not simultaneusly accelerating relative to BB ?

Recommended Posts

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. :P

Escape velocity is caused by the non-simultaneity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which direction is the BB...exactly? Why is it not just as much here, as over there, where ever that is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DimaMazin said:

longer space to BB.

This has no meaning 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

:P

Making up stuff like this isn't funny. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by DimaMazin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (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 by DimaMazin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now