Gravitacional Field and momentum conservation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the gravitational effects of a third body on the Moon's momentum and the implications of converting mass into energy. It highlights that while classical momentum is not conserved in relativity, energy and momentum must still be conserved. The gravitational force is explained as a result of the curvature of space-time, which is influenced by mass and energy. The participant expresses confusion about these concepts, particularly regarding the disappearance of gravitational fields when mass is converted to energy. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding these principles in both classical mechanics and general relativity.
Littlepig
Messages
97
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


So imagine we have Earth and Moon, and there is a tird body(A), equidistant from moon circular tragectory in one point, from Earth. whoever, that body haven't enought graviticional Force to pull moon from his orbital around the Earth.
Whoever too, that gravitacional force provokes positive linear aceleration when moon is aproching the equidistant point(somewhat like a comet aproxing the sun, provoking increase of velocity), and provokes negative linear aceleration when the moon is moving away from that equidistant point(like when a spaceshutlle is tring to move away from Earth): as aceleration has the same direction when the moon is aproching that point, and have opposite direction when the moon is moving away from that point).

So, we can say the moons momentun is conserved, as in a complete rotation, the moon's velocity is the same.

Now, hypoteticly Imagine Human already can transform all mass in energy, by Emc^2.
So, when the moon was moving away from the equidistant point, Human would transform all the (A) mass in energy, what would happen to the gravitational Field of (A)?? would the gravitational field disappear??

Homework Equations


P=mv(just the concept)
E=mc^2(just the concept)
Pf=Pi(momentum conservation)

The Attempt at a Solution



So, my real point is, if gravitational field disappear, the moon, instead of losing the velocity by (A) graviticional aceleration, it won't, what makes the moon to have highter momentum than in the beginning of the process...
if we would transform that energy in mass again when the moon was aproaching the point again(after semi period), the moon would get positive aceleration again...
Where is the logical error here(if there is), has there is no momentum conservation. what can't be true has there are no dissipative forces included here...

thank you in advance,
Regards, Littlepig
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Where to begin. Firstly in relativity classical momentum is not a conserved quantity; however, energy and momentum must be conserved. Secondly, in general relativity the gravitational 'force' is produced by the curvature of space-time (as you have probably heard). Now, not only does mass curve space time; but energy also causes space-time to curve (momentum also curves space time). Therefore, if 'somehow' we could convert the mass of this mysterious body into energy, the gravitational field would not disappear.

I think that'll do for starters. (Btw is this a homework question - interesting course if it is)
 
Hootenanny said:
Where to begin. Firstly in relativity classical momentum is not a conserved quantity; however, energy and momentum must be conserved.

yeh, I understood the concept not the detail, has you said, even in relativity must be a conservation, and that thing was missing me in this question...

Secondly, in general relativity the gravitational 'force' is produced by the curvature of space-time (as you have probably heard).
well, but i preferred to use the classical mecanics in gravity has I'm not quite known about general relativity(has you said, "heard" about)


Now, not only does mass curve space time; but energy also causes space-time to curve (momentum also curves space time).
that is waht i didn't know...:biggrin: and that was mistake...:P (always learning)

I think that'll do for starters. (Btw is this a homework question - interesting course if it is)
i'm 17years old, not have relativity still, but was in classroom when i putted this question to myself(so i can say is a homework right?)...to don't put a post so basic like this in the general forum, i preferred to put it here, in a "lower degree" :approve:

tks for the rapid answer,
regrads, Littlepig
 
Littlepig said:
that is waht i didn't know...:biggrin: and that was mistake...:P (always learning)
Learning it good, its when we stop learning that's the problem...:rolleyes:

Littlepig said:
i'm 17years old, not have relativity still, but was in classroom when i putted this question to myself(so i can say is a homework right?)...to don't put a post so basic like this in the general forum, i preferred to put it here, in a "lower degree" :approve:
Never be scared of asking a question, if you have an inquisitive mind, you'll not go far wrong with your studies. (And who says that homework forums are at a "lower degree" that the general forums, you should see some of the posts in there :smile: )
Littlepig said:
tks for the rapid answer,
regrads, Littlepig
It was a pleasure :smile:
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Back
Top