avito009

Proof that Gravity is not a conserved force.

Now as I earlier showed you that acceleration is independent of mass for fictitious forces like gravity.

This research is intended to explain to the layman that Fictitious forces are not conserved. As we know F=ma and I showed that mass and acceleration are independent. This proves fictitious forces are not conserved. Here is how.

Law of conservation of angular momentum says angular momentum is conserved. The total angular momentum of the system about that axis remains constant.

So L= r x m x v or r x p. r is the distance from the centre of mass and m is the mass and v is the velocity. So to prove the case we assume mass remains constant. So this shows velocity increases when the position from the centre of mass or the distance from centre of mass decreases the velocity increases and when distance from centre of mass increases velocity decreases,

Example a skater when she pulls in her arms the distance from centre of mass decreases so this increases the velocity while spinning on ice with skates on and when the skater opens her arms the distance from centre of mass increases resulting in decrease in velocity.

In plain mathematics just plug in the values.

m remains constant now when v is 2 and r is 4 and say m is 1 the angular momentum works out to be 1 x 2 x 4= 8. So now when v is 4 then naturally it follows r has to be 2 in order for answer to be 8. The answer is constant it will always be 8 in this case.

This proves angular momentum is a conserved.

Now in case of our finding we said mass is independent of acceleration it simply means that if mass is 4 and acceleration is 2 the force is 8 but when mass is 2 it does not follow that acceleration is 4 which proves that Fictitious force like gravity is not conserved.

Sine in my earlier thread i proved gravity follows the formula F=ma it is a fictitious force and as per the research above it is clearly seen that gravity is a conserved force. Since if mass increases acceleration does not increase and vice versa.

In my previous thread i proved formula for gravity is F=ma because when we equate the two equations universal gravitation and f=ma the result that gravitational acceleration is independent of mass is arrived which means gravity formula if f=ma.

So since m and a are independent it proves gravity is not a conserved force.


Proof for the layman. How do u people like this reasoning or simplification?

Could find on google that gravity is a conservative force but couldnt find the reasoning as to conserved force. Which gave me the chance for this research.

avito009

When mass is converted to energy is energy conserved?

Let us see F= ma say mass is 1 and acceleration is 2 so force is 2. Now mass is converted to energy so this becomes F=Ea so if energy is conserved then E= F/a should be conserved.

need time.

topsquark

I don't recall if I have responded to your other threads. Sorry. But I'm afraid I don't have time right now to go through your other posts (for now) but you have made a bit of a mistake here, not so much in the Math but in your understanding of what GR does in terms of how certain properties are conserved. Your comments on conservation of gravity are mirrored by the similar problem of conservation of matter and the conservation of energy. Neither energy nor momentum is conserved (even in SR.) However in SR the energy-momentum 4-vector is conserved. $\displaystyle p_{\alpha} p^{\alpha} = m^2$ ) In the same way we have that the "force" of gravity is not conserved either, but the energy-momentum tensor is conserved. It is in this sense that gravity is a conservative force.

We can also talk about it in reference to the metric and the gravitational potential. The gravitational potential and the metric components are intimately related. If gravity was not a conservative force then the "metric" derived as it normally written would not satisfy the conditions that a metric tensor must have.

-Dan

__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

HallsofIvy

Of course not- you have more energy than you did before. It is "mass-energy" that is conserved relativistically not "mass" or "energy" separately.

No, "mass converting to energy" does not mean the quantity "m" of mass becomes the quantity "E" of energy. Rather you need to use the famous "$\displaystyle E= mc^2$" so that you replace m kg with $\displaystyle \frac{E}{c^2}$ Joules.

avito009

I know this is completely rubbish but i am putting it up here so that if it is not rubbish it could help someone to do further study.

As per your logic HOI. F= E/c^2 x a from which we derive E= F x c^2/a. This looks too complex but it could be utter rubbish.

But this is a new definition of energy and as per energy conservation has to be conserved.

Let us go by the logic of E=mc^2 as we all know c is the conversion factor as Energy is in joules and mass is in kg so converting kg to Joules.

Now Units of Energy are Joules so as per this logic units of force are Newton so Newton converted to Joules and divided by acceleration.


By doing dimensional analysis RHS is F x c^2/a as we have derived that F x c^2 converts units to joules and units of acceleration are m/s^2 so what is J*s^2/m. But RHS is joules and has to match LHS how does that happen.

I am stuck.

avito009

I dont know whether this has been done before but what will happen if we equate the two equations E= kinetic energy + potential energy to E=mc^2.

kiwiheretic

E = mc^2 is the energy of a particle at rest and not moving relative to you

__________________
Burn those raisin muffins. Burn 'em all I say.

Pmb

This is all wrong. Unfortunately my new sip messed up and I can only get online using g my cell phone a d it's too difficult to post like this to explain the errors above. When I get back online I'll explain I. Detail.

Dan - in still unless there is a force acting on a system of particles bofh energy and .momentum are conserved. If there's is a conservati e force acting then total energy is conserved. Please note that the time component of 4-momentum is mass-energy, not total energy.

HallsofIvy

"Fictitious force is not conserved".

As I explained in a response to another of your posts, "force" is never conserved. Perhaps you are thinking of 'conservative force", a force such that energy is conserved.

avito009

Just listen to me carefully you will understand the purpose of defining gravity to not be conserved.

Reasoning is simple observe when you throw an object in air verically it falls down with a constant acceleration 9.8 m/s^2. This means the pull of gravity is stronger close to the earth which proves gravity is not conserved.

This is the basis for the new theory I am proposing. In brief i would prove that light cant be pulled inside the black hole because there cant be acceleration because nothing travels faster than the speed of light. Since there is no acceleration if light is pulled inside the black hole it would mean gravity is conserved since the pull of gravity would be uniform and the pull would not be greater at the bottom.