Recent content by HansH

That means in case of a constant velocity such as in my rocket example that the determination fully complies with the current position of the sun. But is it only the position and speed? Or is it also more such as derivatives of the speed as al this is predetermined by the mass and speed of the...

no problem to be asbove the B level. akthough i cannot follow the details I think page 5 shows an interesting result about the basic behavior. as I understand gravity information progresses but toward its position extrapolated from this retarded data. so to my understanding this means nature...

do you think it is possible at all that the sun does something unexpected. For example suppose the sun is pushed away due to a collapse with a very fast moving other sun then I assume we can exactly predict what happens next, while curvature is also based on that second sun approaching, so I...

I think as Ibix explains, it remains causal: "pointing at a forecast of where the Sun is now" so based on the behavior of the sun it seems the curvature knows how to curve spacetime at the position of my rocket in the picture such that the force remains pointing towards the extrapolated position...

But if so, is then my conclusion right that spacetime curvature takes care of this effect basically extrapolating for the speed (as I could predict the current position of an object of say 10 lightminutes away, so initially sounds as not causal as I measure gravity at a different direction (in...

So if we talk about constant speed then if I understand you right it is the currernt position of the sun at the moment that the information of the gravity reaches the rocket? so basically what you would also expect with Newton.

I have some difficulties in understanding what you are saying: "retarded velocity times the difference between the current time and the retarded time" that sounds like a time x speed=distance. I would expect it is the distance between the source of gravity and the mass that sees the curvature of...

With Newton gravity the orbits of planets or stars can be calculated based on one over the square of the distance giving a force pointing from one mass to the other mass. on the other hand based on the shape of the orbit the corresponding amplitude and direction of gravity (as a vector) can be...

yes, I had already assumed adding it as total momentum

at the Dutch forum we summarised it as follows: in the moving mass frame there is no momentum (speed=0) so the mass without momentum is converted into radiation without momentum (symmetrical radiation) in the lab frame there is momentum (speed>0) so the mass with its momentum is converted into...

The second force was only applied because that was the way the idea came into my mind. I could use that to support the thought experiment to show the principle that you can harvest impulse from a radiating mass by describing the process split up in cycles similar to a carnot diagram. Of course...

so then is this cycle an example of propulsion by transferring mass into energy and transferring momentum of radiation into momentum of mass I suppose because finally you remain with a residual speed while you started with no speed.

now 1 next step: suppose you have this radiating sphere being at rest in its restframe called frame1. at t=0 you apply a force to it F during an interval t1 so adding a well defined momentum F*t1. then you let the mass radiate for some time so reducing its mass. and then you apply the same force...

but it looses momentun seen from a moving reference frame, so in that moving feference frame you must conclude that the lost momentum is treansferered to the radiation.

that reasoning (from jbriggs444 ) I do not understand. if i put a radiating spherical mass in free space then the only thing that can happen would be radiating in all directions at the same intensity. so if it looses mass it does not loose momentum seen from its own reference frame as there is...