Thread: Gravity In Relative Motion - is there any approved solution?

Hello! Quite some time has passed, since my last visit here and a lot of things changed... For example, it turned out, that I can in fact do some math and use it, to show you the only correct model of gravity and energy distribution in relative motion. I've spent around 6 weeks and wasted some 8 pages format a5 on calculations, while looking for the right formula - it took me so long, because I did such things for the first time in some 20 years or so and also, this was that part of physics, which as far as I remeber, I've always hated at most... I wonder, what then can explain all those generations of professional physicsts, who didn't even think about trying to calculate such things... If you really want to show me, that theoretical physicists aren't only just a bunch of overconfident snobs, then show me, that mainstream science can actually deal with the problem, which is presented below:

Here's a simple scenario: 4 objects with masses:
m1=4, m2=1, m3=4, m4=1
Objects m1 and m3 move in relation to eachother at v=0,2c (1c=1d/1t)
Distances between m1 and m2, just as between m3 to m4 are equal to 2d. Due to gravitational attraction m1 makes m2 to accelerate at a1=1 (where 1a=0,1d/t^2) and attraction between m3 and m4 is just as strong.
Can you calculate the kinetic energies or acceleration (a2) for object m2 in relation to object m3 or for m4 in relation to m1? I can do it, but I had to find my own way...

Frame of m1:

\
Frame of m3:

I will wait a day or two for you to make any attempt of solving this problem and then I will begin to show you, how to do it my way...

The best solution is to stop posting.

Originally Posted by AstralTraveler

Hello! Quite some time has passed, since my last visit here and a lot of things changed... For example, it turned out, that I can in fact do some math and use it, to show you the only correct model of gravity and energy distribution in relative motion. I've spent around 6 weeks and wasted some 8 pages format a5 on calculations, while looking for the right formula - it took me so long, because I did such things for the first time in some 20 years or so and also, this was that part of physics, which as far as I remeber, I've always hated at most... I wonder, what then can explain all those generations of professional physicsts, who didn't even think about trying to calculate such things... If you really want to show me, that theoretical physicists aren't only just a bunch of overconfident snobs, then show me, that mainstream science can actually deal with the problem, which is presented below:

Here's a simple scenario: 4 objects with masses:
m1=4, m2=1, m3=4, m4=1
Objects m1 and m3 move in relation to eachother at v=0,2c (1c=1d/1t)
Distances between m1 and m2, just as between m3 to m4 are equal to 2d. Due to gravitational attraction m1 makes m2 to accelerate at a1=1 (where 1a=0,1d/t^2) and attraction between m3 and m4 is just as strong.
Can you calculate the kinetic energies or acceleration (a2) for object m2 in relation to object m3 or for m4 in relation to m1? I can do it, but I had to find my own way...

Frame of m1:

\
Frame of m3:

I will wait a day or two for you to make any attempt of solving this problem and then I will begin to show you, how to do it my way...

Hullo CrazyScientist. How many other forums have you spammed with this?

Originally Posted by AstralTraveler

Here's a simple scenario: 4 objects with masses:

You have 5 objects. If you can't even count, I'm not sure why I should trust you with anything more complicated.

You animations are wrong. As the objects are moving horizontally. There must also be a vertical component due to the other masses. If your animation is so wrong, I don't think your calculations can be correct.

Why have you swapped the positions of the coloured balls in the last two images? If you can't even get details like that right, I doubt you can get anything right.

Why all the wiggly lines and random black dots? If you are throwing all that random shit into your animation, I guess it reflects the chaos in your brain.

I've spent around 6 weeks and wasted some 8 pages format a5 on calculations

I think you mean you have wasted 6 weeks.

If you really want to show me, that theoretical physicists aren't only just a bunch of overconfident snobs, then show me, that mainstream science can actually deal with the problem, which is presented below:

Yep, insulting your audience is always the best way to get a constructive response. Well known fact.

Can you calculate the kinetic energies or acceleration (a2) for object m2 in relation to object m3 or for m4 in relation to m1?

Looks like basic Newtonian physics. But with 5 bodies, it would probably require a numerical simulation.

If it was just two, then you could write down the equation without too much difficulty. I suspect even I could do it.

I will wait a day or two for you to make any attempt of solving this problem and then I will begin to show you, how to do it my way...

Don't bother. No one cares.