Medium entrainment considered as flow

LB, I am not distorting your words or anything else here. I do avoid the deep stuff you relish that simply leads no where at all. You can call a rose by any----oh wait, that,s been said already.

Just trying to help, Jim.

Actually, acceleration and energy and momentum are not any deeper than force. And they are not any harder to use. It's just that you are used to thinking and talking in terms of force. And not used to the others. That makes force seem more natural to you.

And that is OK. There are not a large number questions about gravitation that can't be figured out using the force model. But when someone else makes use of one of the other models, it is not very reasonable to say "... that model is useless - it leads no where at at all". If that were actually true, it would apply to the force model as well.

===

Now that I understand your limits, I'll not bother you with the attempted tutorials again. Unless you ask.

Failure works out best if you don't insist on being right.

___

Imagine a large shallow lake. In the lake, there are a number of balls (maybe they gently rest on the lake floor). The balls are so hot, that the water boils on contact. The steam moves up into the sky, where it forms clouds. The clouds then rain down on the lake again (evenly).

The surface of the lake is covered with duckweed. The duckweed travels along with the currents in the lake, and can accumulate, but not unlimited. The duckweed is not evaporated by the balls, but there may be some other interaction.

The rate at which the lake water settles to equilibrium is much faster than that of the duckweed.

___

Each ball causes a current in the water, towards itself. The bigger the ball, the more water it evaporated, so it will cause a larger current. When two balls are close, they will be in eachother's current, and accelerate towards eachother. The duckweed will have a higher density around the balls.

The balls are not in direct contact with the water (because of the boiling), so motion is frictionless. But if you push a ball it won't start moving just like that, because the current-patterns in the water have to be adjusted.

___

In this analogy, the duckweed represents the light carrying medium, of course. Relativistic effects would involve large accumulations of duckweed.

LB, Now who is twisting these words? I asked about gravity energy. You agree gravity is a force but not just a force. But, you never showed how gravity is energy. I'm also trying to help by putting limits on how sloppy concepts become in the name of what ever works and solving the problem at hand is all that matters.

<b>[Jim] "... you never showed how gravity is energy"</b>

???

I never tried to do that.

Gravity is not energy.

And, it is not force.
And, it is not acceleration.
(It is also not himelfarb, but that is probably not on topic.)

These things are tools (models, theories, ... FANTASIES !! ) we use to think about and talk about certain aspects of gravitation.

They are not gravitation. (HINT - no one knows what gravitation IS. (Except me, of course, and I'm not going to tell.) We are trying to figure it out.)

=====================================
=====================================
=====================================

I wonder ...

Is this what you are looking for?

for a given mass m: It is likely that these conversion equations can be simplified. I have not looked into that issue. In this format they clearly show a relationship between force and energy. In a simplified format that clarity might be reduced.

LB, Of course these properties are intertwined-however,force is not energy. IMO, force is a field property(whatever a field is) and energy is as stated in E=mc^2. If gravity is energy then it will radiate,but, as a force it exists as a field and does not radiate. This has a lot to say about the proposed speed of gravity in that there is nothing moving in the structure of a field. Since you know all about how gravity maybe you also can understand why a field exists.