koti

Right. My gripe was with rotation, it somehow eluded me that as opposed to translational motion, rotation will add energy to the frame. Which is obvious because the energy for adding the rotation has to come from the outside. So simple...how could I not take into account that the energy has to come from outside the frame.

Maybe you are experiencing sleep paralysis. I had it multiple times about 20 years ago and it was very distrurbing...untill I found out what it is, then the experience became less frightening and actually amusing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis

Why would anyone use natural units for c and hbar and then convert back? I don’t understand...might as well use the units I proposed above if we are to convert back anyway.

Natural units as in pink unicorn urine per cubic cm?

They’re not the same, they’re just treated under energy instead of mass to make the math simpler. Edit: I think.

„Boys on wheels” are funnier that both of you...by a factor of at least 10^-20

Because its true - relativistic mass does change depending on speed and rest mass doesn't. He says they are the same in the sense that modern physics treat both rest mass and relativistic mass as energy. I don't think so. For example the gravitational potential increase (why I started this thread) due to rotation seems to change for all the frames. Relativistic time dilation and length contraction are frame dependent phenomena. But we need @swansont or @Janus to chip in to be sure.

But a hypothetical, non elastic body of certain mass could rotate into a colapse? Obviously the rotational energy has to be provided from the outside.

I'm not entirely sure as to your masses with rope example, it complicates things further due to rope elascticity for ex. Unless I'm missing something, I think that a rotating mass creates more gravity for all the reference frames as opposed to a non rotating mass.

15 Ridiculous Paintings That Sold For Millions of Dollars: https://www.sadanduseless.com/2018/03/overpriced-art/ This is funny:

Gravity never affects any mass, its the other way around - mass/energy causes spacetime curvature and we perceive that as gravity. The answer seems to be yes - an object rotating would have a higher gravitational potential than a non rotating object for all the reference frames, the effect is miniscule though. I found a video of Sean Carrol nicely explaining my question, start watching from 6:45: Which brings me to another realated question...what rest mass an object would have to have for it to start spinning (limited by c obviously) to reach a black hole colapse? Is that even possible?

I’m sure its not.

Mass is a property of matter. Electromagnetism is a force. They are two different things.

Yes, my description is crude but I get it now. Your statement that „Translational motion cannot affect the physics” ticked me to understand. I have a „why” at the tip of my tongue but I’m beginig to realize that it would be a null question.

I think its like I wrote in my previous post, that if we draw an arrow on the ball and put the ball in any motion that does not change the direction of that painted arrow - the gravitational potential for that frame stays at the value of its rest mass (stays the same) If we put the ball in a motion that would change the direction of the arrow drawn on the ball - its gravitational potential will change. If not I have to go back to my mental drawing board.

So if we draw an arrow on the ball and it will be showing the same direction while the ball is given a motion, the physics do not change while if the arrow starts to show different direction/s then consequences. Do I have that right? Edit: If what I wrote is correct which it looks like it is, I guess I should have posted in classical physics instead of relativity.

Humor is highly subjective so no point in debating

This is everything but funny.

I feel such a relief after reading your post. You cogenty phrased what I was trying to say all allong in this thread, I will definitely need to work on the way I am conveying my thoughts by written text. A giant plus 1 for this one Eise. Oh and you got me there for a split second. I got shivers all over me when I read „Yes, you must distinguish between truth1 and truth2” as my phone displayed the sentance in such a way that it took me time to see „just kidding”

Mass is the same on all the planets, its the weight that changes due to gravity. Mass and weight are two very different things. Sensei for fs keep it simple for the guy I’d sure wouldnt want you to explain a complex issue to me that I don’t understand

Lore was Data’s evil twin brother and you need to get your facts straight Prometheus.

The question is, what exactly is intelligence? Its such a difficult concept to define that its nearly impossible to state fully what factors cause it. We can be sure that knowledge, experience, upbringing are all factors but we can never be sure thats all. Its not a binary concept like say 2+2=4 or time dilation is a tested scientific fact, or that the sole purpose of guns is to kill. Theres much more nuance in the issue.

Heres a wild goose chase...Whenever I spend more time with my 23 month old in the last few months, both me and my partner we see a dramatic change in his behaviour, progression and widely interpreted development. Its dozens of small things that change/get triggered in him and all of them are for the positive. I’m talking a timescale of 2, 3 days maximum...if I spend/don’t spend a lot of time with the little guy in that short time frame, the differences are very noticable. Its logical to assume that having a single parent will bring profound and probably permanent effects. As for intelligence being inherited biologically from either parent alone, it sounds like complete nonsense. I’m far from being an expert on genetics but this sounds like something extremely far fetched and most likely biased by some ideological agenda. At least I hope so...evolution is an ongoing process and theres recent shifts in perceiving gender related issues.

This is clear, thank you. This is the core of my question, I wish I phrased my initial post better. Why is there no distinction in this case? The rest mass doesn’t change for the ball whatever its velocity but when its start spinning, its gravitational potential starts increasing. Why is gravitational potential „distinguishing” between ball velocity and spin?

I don't know if there is one in English but the translation goes like this: "It's not the catching of the rabbit which makes you happy, it's the chase" This proverb is primarily directed at sexual situations but it fits very well here too.