I want to describe one system (two massive bodies synchronously rotating around each other in circular orbits). Bodies move counterclockwise. This system is well known - Kepler's problem - but with the only difference that the speed of propagation of the gravitational force is finite and, as predicted by general relativity, equal to the speed of light. This additional factor significantly changes the behavior of the rotating two bodies.
Let's look at this two-body system (attached file). Let us assume that at time T the bodies are located at points A (heavy body) and B (light body). Knowing the velocities of bodies in their orbits and the distances AO and BO, it is possible to determine the exact position of bodies in orbits at delayed time Tr = R/c = AO/c:
Arc length AA' = AO*v_h/c, arc length BB' = BO*v_l/c
where v_h and v_l are the velocities of heavy and light bodies. Why it is possible to determine the exact location of bodies at a retarded time is explained in: https://www.qeios.com/read/R1KXRJ
So, when the heavy body is at point A, the gravitational force, which ensures the rotation of the bodies, was emitted by the light body from a point with arc length BB*.
(arc BB*)= (arc BB")*OB/(OB + AO)
Let us assume for simplicity that this force comes from point B'.
If in the classical Kepler problem the gravitational forces are of a central type - they are always directed along a line connecting the points of instantaneous location of bodies - line AB, then at a finite speed of gravity the forces are of a non-central type. The force attracting a heavy body acts along the line AB', and the corresponding other force acts along the line A'B.
It can be seen that an additional tangential component of the gravitational force appears.
F_tan(B->A) = AB' * sin alpha, where sin alpha ~ alpha ~ v/c
The important thing is that this force accelerates bodies. Consequently, the angular momentum and energy of each body must increase. All calculations are given in the specified file.
This is a strange result, since the gravitational force is of a conservative type - no energy is spent to create this force. Thus, there is no energy loss to increase the energy of the system. We have a classic example of a perpetuum mobile.
My question is: if it is not possible, then why is it not possible?
Dear Vladimir Onoochin
maybe it can be useful to have a look at
DISCOVERY OF A PULSAR IN A BINARY SYSTEM
R. A. Hulse and J. H. Taylor
The Astrophysical Journal, 195 :L51-L53, 1975 January 15
A NEW TEST OF GENERAL RELATIVITY: GRAVITATIONAL RADIATION AND
THE BINARY PULSAR PSR 1913+16
The Astrophysical Journal, 253:908-920, 1982 February 15
Dear Stefano Quattrini ,
In the binary pulsar systems, the distance between the stars is comparatively small and the effects of the energy losses via gravitation radiation, the losses due to tidal can be greater than the increase of the angular momentum.
The effect of the angular momentum increase can be important in process of separation of wide binary stars (the distance between the stars is great) to two single stars. Such a process should occur as one paper predicts.
Dear Vladimir, Happy New Year!
As you may know, I investigated the matter of the "force field propagation velocity" back in 2020 ("On the 'Rigidity' of the Force Field of a Moving Source" The Physics Educator Vol. 02, No. 03, 2050011) and in 2021 ("On apparent faster-than-light behavior of moving electric fields" The European Physical Journal Plus, Volume 136, Issue 3). In fact, the second paper is on electric rather than gravitational field, but the question is the same.
Put as directly as possible, my conclusion is that between the conservation of angular momentum and energy and the propagation speed limited to c, I definitely choose the conservation of angular momentum and energy. It is far less problematic.
Cheers,
Germano
Dear Germano, Happy New Year to you too!
I will study your papers. I remember we had some discussion on your work "On apparent faster-than-light behavior of moving electric fields". Some objections went from Kirk McDonald. I hope I saved information on that discussion. But maybe I lost it.
With the best wishes,
Vladimir
I do not quite understand the construction, but there can certainly be extra forces that produce changes of energy. It can decrease or increase, according to whether gravitational waves are emitted or absorbed. There is also a well-known relativistic solution without change of energy.
I am sorry but my results are in some contradiction to your results given in your paper 'On the 'rigidity' of the force field of a moving source'. You mention the paper of Van Flandern and Carlip. Since I had some discussion with these persons some years ago (Van Flandern died in 2007) I know counter-arguments of Carlip and Ibison (whose work was uploaded at ArXiv.org).
Calrip and independently Ibison argued that despite the EM field is of retarded type, when the source moves with v = const, its fields 'rigidly' move with it. So the electric force is directed not from the retarded position of the source but from its present time position. The same is correct for the gravitational force.
Van Flandern tried to object that the planets move in circular orbits and the direction of the gravitational force can be different. But he could not compute the exact position of the planets at the retarded instant of time.
But when the bodies move in the circular orbits, the direction of the gravitational force is different. Why?
1. For the uniformly moving source, the effect of distortion of the field is of the order of (v/c)^2, for the rotating sources, the effect is of the order of (v/c) - then the post-Newtonian approximation reduces to Newtonian mechanics but with finite speed of gravity - like Jefimenko's theory.
2. In the Newtonian mechanics, the factor \gamma = 1/\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2} ~ 1 for the order of (v/c). So the gravitational field is not deformed.
Therefore the tangential component appears.
With the best wishes,
Vladimir
Dear Jose Gaite ,
If according to the general relativity the speed of gravitational interaction is finite, it means that the gravitational force 'emits' (despite without loss of the energy - that is strange since the emission means some expenditure of the energy but like the electric charge doesn't change with time despite it creates the E field - the source does not lose its mass).
The tangential force is of order of (v/c) - in this order any relativistic effects except the finiteness of the speed of gravity can be omitted.
Thus, the relativistic effect must be of order of (v/c)^2, the effect which is responsible for increase of the momentum is of order of (v/c) - it dominates.
Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,
I think that you are pointing to the problematic question. When you write
"the gravitational force, which ensures the rotation of the bodies, was emitted", there might be a mixture of different elements. The rotation of the bodies involves the gravitational interaction but nothing needs to be "emitted". If you think of the e.m. interaction and consider the quantum theory, the interaction can be described in terms of virtual photons, to some extent, but not in terms of real photons. These ones only appear when energy and momentum are sent away.
"Let us assume for simplicity that this force comes from point B'."
This assumption leads to the error. In fact the gravitational force is caused by the position dependency of the energy content in the field overlay. This overlay is present in the immediate environment of the body, which is subject of the force. Therefor no retardation occurs.
In both works with the objections to VanFlandern,
Ibison, The speed of gravity revisited, ArXiv.org:9910050.pdf
Carlip, Aberration and the Speed of Gravity, ArXiv.org:9909087.pdf
the retardation effects in the gravitation are analyzed.
So the statement that
is wrong.
Vladimir Onoochin "So the statement that is wrong."
No, the paper "The speed of gravity revisited" is erroneous.
The following statement (after equation (3) ) in the paper shows the error:
"That is, the current field at time t depends on the position of the source at a previous time, where the delay is equal to the time it takes light to traverse that distance (from the historical position of the source)."
Static gravitational fields propagate as fast as their source. They cannot be decoupled from their source, they are always co-moving. Therefor, assuming a retardation is erroneous.
If the field source gets accelerated, it radiates. The aperiodic part of the radiation adapts the field to the new velocity. After the radiation has passed and the acceleration has stopped, the field again is co-moving with its source, now with the new velocity.
This behaviour applies to all kinds of force fields, electric, magnetic, and gravitational.
The only thing, which in respect to gravitation can move faster than the field source, are gravitational waves. But these are moving with the speed of light. A faster movement, even capable to transport something which can be detected, is not possible.
By the way, you see that assuming retardation leads to energetic effects, which are in contradiction to energy conservation.
Wolfgang Konle ,
>
This statement contradicts to the general relativity. Assuming some body moved with constant velocity V1 and then instantaneously changes its velocity to V2 = const too. New gravitational field is 'static' but it cannot spread in the whole space instantaneously, it spreads with the speed of gravity.
The full analogue of this case is with the near-zone electric field. One person measured the speed of spreading the Coulomb ('static') field - this speed is equal to the speed of light.
Vladimir Onoochin "New gravitational field is 'static' but it cannot spread in the whole space instantaneously, it spreads with the speed of gravity."
If a "new" gravitational field would somewhere appear instantaneously, you would be right. But this does not happen. All gravitational fields in our universe are as old as their sources. All these "old" gravitation fields had enough time to extend itsself according to the 1/r² pattern around its source.
Therefor they always co-move with their source. You immediately see this in the inertial reference system of every source.
By the way it is the same thing for electric and magnetic fields.
This unconditional co-movement is the cause that accelerated field sources must radiate. The aperiodic part of the radiation is the only possibility to adapt the field to the new velocity.
(To be honest, during my physics education I had learned this in a similar way as you are claiming it here. But this view is a fatal error is standard physics.)
Wolfgang Konle ,
In sec. 107 of Landau-Lifshitz, Theory of field, it is described that the gravitational field (or the metric) obeys the wave equation. The scalar potential in the electrodynamics obeys the wave equation of the same form. If in the electrodynamics, the E field always exist but it doesn't move with the source, why it must be different in for the gravitational field?
Could you write what are the equations which describe the gravitational field according to you?
Vladimir Onoochin "Could you write what are the equations which describe the gravitational field according to you?"
The gravitational field stregth g of a spherical mass M outside of the sphere is given by g(x,y,z)=-GMr/r³. Bold entities are vectors. r=(x,y,z)-r0. r0=(a,b,c)+v*(t-t0). (a,b,c) is the initial position of the mass at t=t0. v is the velocity vector of the movement of the sphere in the space. r=|r|.
Wolfgang Konle ,
I think that you didn't derive this equation. Can you give reference where this equation is derived?
As you see I gave corresponding information to the gravitational wave equation.
Vladimir Onoochin "I think that you didn't derive this equation. Can you give reference where this equation is derived?"
This equation has been derived as follows: "g(x,y,z)=-GMr/r³" is the standard equation in the inertial reference system of the moving mass.
"r=(x,y,z)-r0. r0=(a,b,c)+v*(t-t0)" expresses the paradigm of the co-moving field. (nothing else)
"As you see I gave corresponding information to the gravitational wave equation."
Yes, I think that this information is correct. But this information is not about the propagation of the static field component.
The key argument for the co-moving field is the non-zero energy density of the field. Because of this energy density we must exclude a permanent renewal of the field. Such a renewal would exhaust the field source.
But there is another important fact. The (relative) energy density of the gravitational field is negative. We immediately see this if we consider that gravitational fields get stronger if they provide energy. (Two bodies, which attract each other, gain kinetic energy and intensify their field.)
If the field energy would be (absolutely) negative, then the radiation mechanism, which adapts the field to a modified velocity, could not work.
Therefor the (relative) negative energy density of gravitational fields must be compensated by an omnipresent positive energy density. We call this energy density "dark energy".
With your work you have revealed that a retardation of gravitational action opens the possibility for a perpetuum mobile. We can exclude this, because there is energy conservation. Therfor this additionally proves the model of the co-moving field.
I see your work as an essential progress in physics, helping to get rid of a fault in gravitation theory, which apparently permanently settled in.
Wolfgang Konle ,
I ask who and where derived this equation.
It looks like the 'standard equation' of Newtonian gravity where the speed of this interaction is infinite.
Vladimir Onoochin "I ask who and where derived this equation."
I explained that this eqations are basic standard. You find both in basic physical textbooks. Newton found g(x,y,z)=-GMr/r³. "r=(x,y,z)-r0. r0=(a,b,c)+v*(t-t0)" is analytical geometry for a movement.
"It looks like the 'standard equation' of Newtonian gravity where the speed of this interaction is infinite."
No, there is no speed of an interaction involved, because the field has a speed of its own. The field source does not permanently contribute to the speed of the field. There is absolutely no interaction between the field source and the field. Field and source are independent unities but coupled by a coincidence.
If a force captures a field, it also captures the field source. But this is not because the field exerts a force on the field source. It is because the field overlay exerts a force on both fields. Forces on fields arise because a field overlay changes the energy density of fields. But the overlay exactly happens with the relative speed of the field source.
The key point is that there is absolutely no transport of information necessary, because the field information is and stays omnipresent within the whole field extension which permanently extends its range to infinity.
It is a fact that we cannot exert forces on field sources. We only can exert forces on fields and the source inseparably belongs to the source.
If we approach two equal charges the repelling force is caused by the energy needed to intensify the field between the charges. But in doing this we do not touch the charges, we only touch fields in which the charges are embedded.
It is not easy to accept the fact that there is no counter action from a field to its field source propagating with a certain velocity. But the existence of such an action would violate energy conservation. We cannot imagine the unit "field and field source" as something which is infinitely hard / incompressible. The fact is that any acceleration of this unit occurs with an aperiodic radiation component, which propagates with the speed of light. But something else does not happen. Therefore, during a constant movement there is absolutely no need for any transport within fields and field sources. Everything what is needed is permanently omnipresent. Accelerations are accompanied by aperiodic radiation components. These are supplemented by periodic components and together both components fulfil the wave equation.
Any field overlap can cause an acceleration of parts of fields and lead to a radiative reaction. But something else as such a radiative reaction cannot happen by principle.
Wolfgang Konle ,
I asked very simple and clear question:
where the equation g(x,y,z)=-GMr/r³ is derived within the general relativity and, therefore, the finite speed of interaction.
The finite speed of interaction provides the existence of tangential component which leads to incease of the angular momentum.
Vladimir Onoochin
"I asked very simple and clear question:
where the equation g(x,y,z)=-GMr/r³ is derived within the general relativity and, therefore, the finite speed of interaction."
I already gave you the simple and clear answer that Newton has derived this equation and that there is no other finite speed of interaction as the speed of light.
Wolfgang Konle ,
If you follow Newtonian theory of gravitation, where the speed of gravity is infinite, the effect of increase of the angular momentum shouldn't exist.
But the commonly accepted theory of gravitation is of Einstein. According to this theory, the effect of increase of the angular momentum should exist.
I hope now we resolve this problem.
Dear Vladimir Vladimir Onoochin ,
The way you approach the problem is impossible. It wouldn't be possible anyway. Because it would look like it couldn't be true. is theoretically possible at the elementary level, but it would also be based on the principle of electric current.At the elementary level, it is the quality and dynamics of change that would give this impression.
Regards,
Laszlo
Vladimir Onoochin "If you follow Newtonian theory of gravitation, where the speed of gravity is infinite..."
Who told you that the Newtonian theory of gravitation implies an infinite speed of gravity? From what book or from what author is this absurd claim?
If this claim would be correct, then we should be able to develop a gravity telegraph, which could send messages without a delay over largest distances.
"It can be seen that an additional tangential component of the gravitational force appears."
In fact, this is wrong, because it is based on the idea that gravity still acts as a static central force in general relativity. But that is not true. Incidentally, also electrical attraction and repulsion is not a central force anymore as soon as the charge on which it acts is moving with respect to the charge that emits the field. (Look up the electromagnetic fields resulting from the Liénard-Wichert potentials.)
The point is that if you calculate, say, the direction of the gravitational force exerted by the sun on the center of mass of the earth, using general relativity and doing so correctly, it does not point, at any given moment, towards where the sun seems to be, optically, due to the fact that light takes a bit more than 8 minutes from the sun to the earth. Rather, it points to where the sun would be in precisely the time it takes light to get from there to here, if it continued its motion relative to the earth inertially, i.e. in a straight line at 30 km/s. As it turns out, this slight deviation of the direction of the force leads to conservation of angular momentum of the earth on its motion around the sun.
So the problem comes from mixiing up concepts of Newtonian dynamics (a force formula that is valid only in the rest system of the center of mass of the two masses attracting each other) with the finite speed of gravity (which requires to use a dynamically valid law of gravity, which Newton's isn't). General relativity provides for the conservation of angular momentum correctly.
K. Kassner ,
On your argument
Yes, for uniformly moving charge, the direction of the electric force coincides with the line connecting the point of observation (the present position of the observer) and the present (not retarded) position of the source. The same is correct for the gravitation as Carlip and Ibison demonstrated in their papers with objection to Van Flandern.
But this deviation of the force is of order of (v/c)^2 - the terms of order of (v/c) are absent for uniform motion.
You can see in my original file (Qeios.com) that I consider the effect of the order of (v/c). In this order we should consider Newtoinan-like behavior of the system since even post-Newtonian approximation is the Newtonian mechanics + the corrections of order of (v/c)^2. But in 'Newtoinan-like behavior of the system' the speed of gravity must be finite - like in papers of Van Flandern, Carlip and Ibison because the speed of gravity is independent of linearization of the metric.
In the other words, I consider the same system as Carlip and Ibison did but I limit the consideration by terms of order of (v/c).
Stefano Quattrini
Laplace is wrong. There is no infinite speed of gravity.
Wolfgang Konle ,
at the same time Newtonian Gravitation is a first order approximation..
Stefano Quattrini "at the same time Newtonian Gravitation is a first order approximation.."
No, at the same time all models about forces excerted by force fields are wrong. The error has nothing to do with Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.
The error is that these models do not consider the energy density contained in the force fields. If the energy density is considered, action on a distance is no longer needed because the energy modification is located close to the object which feels the force.
The valid force law is given as follows: The force F on an object, which contributes to a force field is given by the derivative of the joint field energy content E of the contribution in respect to the distance s of the object from the field source. F=dE/ds.
In a more common speech, we can say that there is some energy contained in the field overlay. This energy depends on the relative position of the object in respect to the field source. A position dependent energy content leads to a force.
The source of the force is the field overlay. This overlay always is close to the object, which feels the force. Therefor the force is not caused by the far distant field source. The source of the force is close to the object, which is subject of the force.
Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,
I don't have to say anything new. K. Kassner gave a relevant objection...
This is a theoretical concept like Newton's theory of gravity or Einstein's theory of relativity.
If these two theories are refuted, it follows that the concept is flawed.
The theory was refuted in these two papers:
Research AZ ELMÉLETI TUDOMÁNY KÉNYES JELENSÉGE
Article A 2017. Fizikai Nobel-díj „gravitációs hullámai”
Has the idea been put into practice? Then you can easily see that the
concept is incorrect.
Regards,
Laszlo
Dear László Attila Horváth ,
Unfortunately, I don't know Hungarian so I cannot estimate your works.
With the best wishes,
Vladimir
Vladimir Onoochin "Yes, for uniformly moving charge, the direction of the electric force coincides with the line connecting the point of observation (the present position of the observer) and the present (not retarded) position of the source. The same is correct for the gravitation as Carlip and Ibison demonstrated in their papers with objection to Van Flandern.
But this deviation of the force is of order of (v/c)^2 - the terms of order of (v/c) are absent for uniform motion."
No. There clearly is a term that is linear in v/c in the formula for the electric field of a moving point charge. (The formula has two terms, one of which vanishes for zero acceleration. But the other has a direction dependence ~(n-v/c) where n is the vector pointing towards the retarded position of the source and v/c is the vector (often called β) of the deviation of the direction of the force (physically, this is related to aberration, which is linear in v/c, not quadratic). As a result, the force points in the direction of the present position of the charge, not its retarded position. So the force vector "anticipates" where the source is at the present time, and this saves angular momentum conservation for the motion of a point charge in the field of another point charge, moving at constant velocity. The physics of gravitational fields of point masses is similar. Planetary motion is not exactly on elliptical orbits because of the deviation of the field from 1/r2, not because of a violation of angular momentum conservation.
I was somewhat sloppy in my previous post. I did not assume prior knowledge about the effect I was explaining, so I was trying to make it as simple as possible. Whether the gravitation field of a point mass is a central field depends a bit on what you precisely mean by this.
Clearly, the Schwarzschild metric, which is the gravitational field of a point mass, describes a central field in the standard sense. The "force" on any test mass freely falling in that field (outside the horizon) will point to the center. And if you go to a frame moving at constant velocity, then the force on any freely falling test mass will still point to the now moving center.
But from the point of view of the test mass, if it has a non-radial velocity component, the center will not be seen in the direction of the force (assuming it to be a sphere, extending beyond the Schwarzschild radius, rather than a point), because the light from it takes some time. So if you intuitively assume a central force to be one pointing to the point-like source of the field causing it, then the force is no longer central, because it does not point to the position where the source was, when the field experienced now by the test mass was emitted. Rather it points to the position where the emitting source is at the present time. If it did point to its position at emission time, then the angular momentum of a planet would keep increasing with time and the planets should spiral out of the solar system. (I do not know how large the effect would be but I suspect that they would have already moved far enough out to be captured by other stars, during the 4.5 billion years of existence of the solar system.)
K. Kassner ,
The gravitational potential with finite speed Cg in post-Newtonian approximation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Newtonian_expansion
with accuracy to (v/c) is equal
\Phi = (G*M)/(r - r *v/cg)
For the circular orbit r *v = 0
and only r - the distance between the retarded position of one body and the present position of the other body - is being in the denominator.
If you don't agree it would be good if you show (by means of calculations) that the line of interaction lies between the present positions of the bodies
Vladimir Onoochin "the line of interaction lies between the present positions of the bodies"
There is no interaction between two objects which overlay their force fields. The only interaction occurs between the fields and is concentrated in the close vicinity of the objects.
The energy E contained in the field overlays depends on the distance s of the objects. The force F on both objects is given as F=dE/ds.
The energy contained in the field quadratically depends on the field strength. Because of the quadratic dependency, this energy is concentrated in the immediate vicinity of the objects. It decays with the forth power of the distance to the objects.
The source of the force therefore is close to the object. A retardation does not occur. The orientation of the force is determined by the orientation of s, which is the current orientation.
Everything relevant for the force action is permanetly present in the near vicinity of the space where the force is generated and where it acts. This is caused by the fact that fields are co-moving with their sources.
Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,
concerning the retarded potentials I see that we already have some discussion here
https://www.researchgate.net/post/On_the_origin_of_the_anomalous_precession_of_MERCURYS_perihelion_space_time_curvature_or_Newtonian_retarded_potentials
Robert A. Phillips
"I see that you are still suggesting a modification to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Could you elaborate?"The action, caused by the energy density of force fields, has nothing to do with thermodynamics.
Dear Stefano Quattrini ,
Yes, we discussed very close problem (in the link you gave).
However, I think the effect of increase of the angular momentum cannot be detected in the solar system. A mass of the Sun is much greater the masses of all planets. So the Sun can be treated as a fixed center (although it rotates around the center of our galaxy and all planets follow it). This effect could be detected in binary stars but such systems are too far from us.
The effect of non-stability of two rotating charges had been discussed at the beginning of XX century - not only collapse of this system because of the energy losses by rotating (having constant acceleration which should lead to the EM radiation) but because of increase of the angular momentum.
But the electrons are quantum particles and instead of rotation like rigid balls, they form something like a cloud of the charge density - without any EM radiation and without any increase of the momentum.
I remember Schott and Darwin wrote few works in attempts to resolve the problems of two rotating charge within the classical electrodynamics. If I find these works, I will inform you.
Robert A. Phillips
"Thermodynamics describes the flow and exchange of energy."Thermodynamics describes the irreversible flow and exchange of energy.
Robert A. Phillips
"you can spend your life trying to disprove the 2nd without admitting that to yourself or to anyone else."What a nonsense. It is not necessary to disprove any law of thermodynamics to derive the root cause for forces, given as F=dE/ds, the derivative of energy in respect to a position change.
Robert A. Phillips
"if you prove that energy fields are congregating to cause gravity then you have disproven the second law"This is an unproven claim.
We know that gravitational fields, like all force fields, add their field strength component by component. We also know that the energy content of force fields is proportional to the field strength squared.
These are proven facts of field theory. Where do you see a conflict with the second law of thermodynamics?
Robert A. Phillips
"Gravity is an irreversible process. Gravity from massive objects results in energy arriving at Earth In the form of gravitational waves."This is crazy. The energy content of gravitational waves arriving at earth is extremely small.
In the scope of gravitational forces or the perpetuum mobile energy exchange it can be neglected. (It is about a factor 1.E-16 (too small))
Robert A. Phillips
"It (the energy loss due to gravitational radiation) is not negligible. That’s why perpetual motion is not possible."Yes perpetual motion is not possible. But within our context ist is possible. It would take hundreds of billion years until gravitational radiation decelerates earth on its orbit around the sun up to a critical amount.
The orbit elongation due to the mass loss of the sun is much more significant.
Physics compares and estimates relative influence. Therefor we know that the energy loss of all movements due to gravitational radiation is so small that we must neglect it. Neglecting it also means that it does not at all bother thermodynamics. Thermodynamics explicitly is about energies we cannot neglect.
If something moves in an atmospheric environment, the airdrag dominates gravitational radiation by an immense factor. Therefor we definitively must neglect it. In our considerations we often neglect the air drag for good reason. But the effect of gravitational radiation is so small that it cannot be determined with the finest tools we have.
The experiment LIGO shows us how tiny the effect of the strongest detectable gravitational waves is.
Robert A. Phillips
"You seem to be in agreement with my position that there are irreversible losses"Yes, the generation of gravitational waves leads to extremely tiny irreversible losses. But compared with other interactions in our world, these losses are irrelevant. We even cannot detect those losses, because they are too tiny.
Robert A. Phillips
"Do you realize that you have just committed heresy in the mainstream physics community?"Fortunately heresy is not applicable to science. But the knowledge present in the mainstream physics community is not free from errors.
A widespread error is disregarding the energy content of force fields.
One note on interaction with finite speed of propagation. The effect of retardation can give non-central forces between two interacting bodies. Simple example - the electric forces calculated in (v/c)^2 approximation from the Darwin potentials. Although these potentials are calculated for instantaneous type of interaction, the effect of retardation gives non-central electric force. As result in a system describing by the Darwin potentials, some deviations from basic principles of mechanics take place.
For example, Kirk McDonald from Princeton Univ, in explanation one paradox, obtained the in the closed system with the absent external forces and internal magnetic forces, the center-of-mass of the system oscillates:
http://kirkmcd.princeton.edu/examples/onoochin.pdf
It is definitely in contradiction to the basic principles of mechanics (the center-of-mass of the closed system must be at rest).
Since modern theory of gravitation is a theory of finite speed of interaction it is impossible to state with sure that the total angular momentum of the system conserves.
I add that in the classical electrodynamics, the law of the total momentum conservation does not have a form
\sum_i P_i = const
where P_i is a set of all momenta (including the EM momenta) of the system.
Instead it is
\sum F_i + d_/dt (\sum P_i) = 0
where F_i are all forces acting in the system. Thus the total momentum does not conserve but the sum of all forces + time derivative of the sum of all momenta is equal to zero.
Robert A. Phillips
"I’ll be posting a preprint soon that proves the irreversibility of gravity and explains why it has remained unrecognized."Gravity is irreversible because movements of gravitating objects lead to gravitational waves. But the energy exchange with gravitational waves is so extremely small that it is below any detection limit. Therefore, it is a very good approximation to consider gravity to be reversible.
If you raise and lower a weight in Earth's gravitational field, then the Earth's gravitational field and the weight's field will be the same again once the weight has reached its original position. In terms of the gravitational fields, the effect was then completely reversible. But the forces acting on the object slightly deformed the object. Also, this deformation is not completely reversible. A tiny fraction of the deformation energy was converted into thermal energy. But even this tiny fraction is significantly higher than the much smaller energy loss caused by gravitational radiation in this simple process.
If you really want to take into account losses due to gravitational radiation, you first have to consider the losses within macroscopic objects that occur due to a modification of the forces acting on the object. My assessment is that these losses are more relevant by a factor greater than 1.0E+10. This estimate is intended to give an idea of how tiny the gravitational loss effect actually is.
Dear Robert A. Phillips
,I am sorry but where is your file? How can I download it?
Robert A. Phillips
My feeling says that you are chasing a chimera. Your description indicates that the effect, you are assuming (also) would violate energy conservation.
(also) is related to the proposal of Vladimir Onoochin .
Robert A. Phillips
"pistons, pulleys, and flywheels"Nice mechanical view. But do you really think you can outwit energy conservation? If you want to claim a patent about that, the patent authority would decline it without looking into your description.
Robert A. Phillips
Ok, the emission of gravitational waves leads to energy dissipation. But in our world, this dissipation effect is so tiny that it dissappears behind all other dissipation effects.
Robert A. Phillips
,In your preprint you consider some device that is completely described within the classical mechanics where the speed of gravity is infinite.
For this case gravitational perpetal motion is impossible. But it is not so if the speed of gravity is finite - due to some retardation the accelerating component of the gravitational force appears
Robert A. Phillips
,In my example, massive bodies move in vacuum so the friction is absent in the system.
The gravitational force does not contain a factor like exp(- alpha *t) so this force can be treated as 'conservative' (and reversible). For c_grav = infinity, the angular momentum is constant (one of integrals of motion). But for c-grav is finite, the accelerating component apepars. Do you agree that this component should appear in the system of two rotating bodies?
Robert A. Phillips
,What does it mean 'Gravitational fields seem'? Where is it proven (a paper in journal with high rank of citation)?
Vladimir Onoochin "But for c-grav is finite, the accelerating component apepars. Do you agree that this component should appear in the system of two rotating bodies?"
C-grav does not exist. The gravitational force is caused by the fact that superposing gravitational fields reduces the energy content in the fields.
E=-g²/(8πG). This is a local mechanism because this energy density is concentrated around the objects, on which the gravitational force acts.
Wolfgang Konle ,
If the speed of gravity 'does no exist', how about the experiments with detection of the gravitational waves? It was found that the these waves have been detected after measuring the difference in registration times of the detectors located in America and Australia
Vladimir Onoochin "If the speed of gravity 'does no exist', how about the experiments with detection of the gravitational waves?"
With the speed of gravity you did not talk about gravitational waves, you talked about the propagation of gravitational forces. Gravitational waves propagate with the speed of light. But they have nothing to do with gravitational forces.
Robert A. Phillips
,- it is only words. Can you rewire it as some expressions or equations?
Otherwise, it can be treated as your personal opinion.
Wolfgang Konle ,
In papers of Van Flandern, Carlip, Ibison (I cite these works in my preprint), all authors consider propagation of the gravitational force - all these authors make initial assumption that the speed of propagation of this force is equal to c. All these authors appeal to the concept of the general relativity.
When you state that the speed of gravity =/= the speed of light, does it mean that something is wrong with the GR that predicts cgrav = c ?
Vladimir Onoochin "When you state that the speed of gravity =/= the speed of light, does it mean that something is wrong with the GR that predicts cgrav = c ?"
No, my claim is that the speed of gravity, in the sense of a propagating action of the field source on the object which gets attracted, does not exist.
The field source has nothing to do with the force. The force is caused because the energy contained in the field overlay depends on the distance of the object from the field source.
What is moving with c, are disturbances of the field. But those disturbances have nothing to do with the forces exerted by static fields.
Wolfgang Konle ,
In the GR, the gravitational field is equal to the metric of the space. In Sec. 107 of Landau-Lifshitz, Theory of field, the authors derive the wave equation for the gravitational field but the wave equation is written for h - a perturbation of the metric. The gravitaional field and this perturbation are the same. If the source h moves, this motion creates the waves - the waves of the gravitational force when h approaches other material body.
Robert A. Phillips
,Viscosity, turbulence, laminar flow -> exist only in atmosphere. Outside atmosphere these effects are absent. Even altitude the corona of the Sun is too small comparatively to a diameter of our star. In no one paper influence of atmosphere onto gravitational effects is considered.
Vladimir Onoochin
It is generally valid that forces generated by static fields and waves are completely different concepts. Waves can lead to forces but with a different mechanism. Fact is that waves need an extremely high intensity to generate considerable forces.
Considering forces as created by F=dE/ds, the derivative of an energy contend E, which depends on a position s is the best and the most convincing concept, available in physics. All other concepts are misleading.
Wolfgang Konle ,
Is it a law of the nature?
The magnetic forces are generally generated by moving charges. Even in permanent magnets, it is assumed that the magnetic field is created by spins of atoms - nobody states that spin is something static.
Vladimir Onoochin "Is it a law of the nature?"
The law of nature is as follows:
The force F on an object, which contributes to a force field is given by the derivative of the energy content W in the field overlay in respect to the distance s between the object and the field source. F=dW/ds.
dW/ds=(∂W/∂sx,∂W/∂sy,∂W/∂sz)
The objects can be moving. F,W,s can be time dependent. This law of nature applies to electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields. The law only concerns the energy in the field overlay because only this energy is modified if the objects move relative to each other.
Robert A. Phillips
"Energy content is not dependent on position, it exists at each position."You misunderstand. The law of nature is:
The force F on an object, which contributes to a force field is given by the derivative of the energy content W in the field overlay in respect to the distance s between the object and the field source. F=dW/ds.
s does not specify a position in space. It specifies the position difference between the object, which is subject of the force, and the source of the field, which leads to the force on the object.
Apart from that, the energy content W is given by the integral over the energy density in the field overlay. It does not exist at each position. Only the energy density exists at each position.
Wolfgang Konle ,
I don't know where you found such a definition of the force but it is absolutely wrong for application to the EM forces. The only static electrical force is the Coulomb force created by a charge at rest.
But if this charge moves, the electrical force acquires a component which depends on motion of the charge (velocity, aceleration).
Moreover, the magnetic component of the Lorentz force does not change the energy of the system.
I hope you find more adequate definition of the force.
Vladimir Onoochin "I hope you find more adequate definition of the force."
No, F=dE/ds is the most adequate definition of the force which exists. It describes all forces in our world. Even F=dP/dt with the momentum P is a direct consequence of F=dE/ds. The energy and position dependency of the force also holds if the field sources move.
What would you propose as a more adequate definition of the force exerted by force fields?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Force