|
Einstein's theory assigns a curvature to every point.
In my theory, every distant point in spacetime is assumed to have a change in scale. Isn't that an ether again?
It behaves like the "sinc-sphere".
Imagine a surface as a 4-dimensional sphere. From the starting point to the opposite point on the sphere,
space should continuously contract to zero, which is what the sinc function does.
The opposite point is infinity. The actual distance is provided by the integral over the reciprocal of the function.
However, if you take a different starting point, all relative scales change. The same applies to gravitational scale changes.
Locally, there is no change in scale; an object with rest mass has neither velocity nor momentum locally.
The change in spacetime is perceived through "gravity," a synonym for gravitational acceleration.
In the Einstein elevator, there is no curvature of the light path and no gravity, thus no change in scale (at least temporarily).
Light and ordinary matter behave the same in a gravitational field.
Light and ordinary matter behave the same in a gravitational field. In an infinite world, there can be neither a nearly immortal black hole nor a long-lived dark matter particle.
After all, everything must be mortal (except ...).
Einstein Elevator:
Suppose you build an artificial comet with windows. This comet is supposed to move propulsively in this elongated ellipse around a central star.
Seen from this capsule, objects that are "at rest" relative to the central star are Lorentz shortened.
The question: Does the shortening correspond to the gravitational shortening of the length scale of the central star?
With the constant T=M•G/c², the Schwarzschild potential is 1-2•T/R.
With the constant T=M•G/c², the Schwarzschild potential is 1-2•T/R.
If gravitational shortening were the square root of the Schwarzschild potential, the equation would be: 1-2•T/R=1-v²/c².
This results in the velocity v/c = SQRT (2•T/R), which is exactly the same as with Newton's kinetic energy = 1/2•m•v²
and the gravitational energy difference m•M•G/R (m = test object mass).
One problem: At the event horizon, m would be the speed of light.
Newton's kinetic energy is only approximately correct.
The same calculation with the ART2 potential: 1/(1+T/R)²=R²/(R+T)²=1-(2RT+T²)/(R+T)²=1-v²/c²,
v/c=SQRT(2RT+T²)/(R+T) with Q=T/R: v/c=SQRT(2Q+Q²)/(1+Q) or R²/(R+T)²=1-v²/c²,
v/c=SQRT(1-R²/(R+T)²) or v/s=sin(phi), cos(phi)=Lorentz contraction (SQRT(1-v²/c²))
or gravitational contraction (1/(1+Q)).
Energy in the Gravitational Field:
A mass m is assumed to fall from a large radius onto a central star with mass M.
The total energy—excluding the unknown potential energy—is calculated,
on the one hand, from the velocity E=m•c²/(SQRT(1-v²/c²)).
On the other hand, this energy is m•c²+m•M•G/R, means rest energy + falling energy*.
Equating this yields 1-v²/c²=m²•c4/(m•c²+m•M•G/R)².
This, oddly enough, yields v²/c²=1-R²/(R+T)², or, as above,v/c=SQRT(1-R²/(R+T)²).
Therefore, "snow globe theory" can be derived from STR.
It is much simpler if we equate the kinetic energies:
m•M•G/R=m•c²(1/(SQRT(1-v²/c²)-1)
Rearranged and shortened for m, we get:
1+T/R=1/(SQRT(1-v²/c²)
The time dilation of the "snow globe theory" corresponds to the Lorentz factor.
Note:
The use of the gravitational energy difference m•M•G/R only applies to very elongated ellipses.
The "total energy"** of a planet is known (according to Newton with negative potential energy) -m•M•G/2a , where a is the major axis.
The velocity at the upper point (aphelion) is very small for large a, approximately zero.
The energy increase during the fall is therefore m•M•G/R. A planet, with a velocity v,
is said to be moving perpendicular to the radius of a central star. move. v=SQRT(M•G/R)=vk: The orbit is a circle.
The planet is just passing aphelion if v is smaller than vk. However, if v is chosen larger than vk,
the planet is either at perihelion or it is leaving the system forever. The energy of the escape velocity is equal to the corresponding falling energy.
A game ball, if all friction were eliminated, would bounce as high as it fell.
*The falling energy is equal to the converted potential energy or the kinetic energy in free fall.
** ""=m•v²/2-m•M•G/R. An unknown constant is missing from the use of potential energy in physics.
The so-called "potential energy" here is -m•M•G/R, almost zero for a large radius.
It is supposed to decrease with a smaller radius, which is why it is negative. The difference here would be the energy consumed.
With the conservation of energy, the kinetic energy thus increases (-•-=+).
Tatsächlich zählt diese "Gesamtenergie" im Maximum null, für den größten Radius. Bei Planetenbahnen ist sie immer negativ.
Ludwig Resch
|