enridp

Hi HallsofIvy ! Thanks for your reply. I will try to explain it better (my english is not good, so I hope you be patient ): I know there's no black hole, but to deduce it this is what I do: I'm a stationary observer, and I'm looking a moving "ellipse" with m0 inside it. When I'm seeing it, I'm seeing at really a very contracted ellpise (just like a point) with m0 inside it (at really relativistic "m">m0), I can't explain why is no black hole from my own frame, for that reason this is what I do, I just move my frame to the moving frame, then I know that in this frame, the ellipse and the mass are at rest, and I can understand, in this frame, why the black hole is not formed. If the black hole doesn't form in this frame, then it doesn't form in any frame... My question is, how can I reach the same conclusion without changing my frame to the frame where the ellipse and the mass are at rest? thanks !

Hello everybody ! This is my question: Suppose you have a mass m0 inside an ellipse (at rest). Suposse someone see it from another frame, from this frame he will see the ellipse contracted. I know there's no black hole, but, how can explain our observer this result? I'm trying to see only the frame of our observer, I know he knows about relativity and he can calculate our m0, and our r0 (ellipse's radius at rest), and then conclude there's no black body. But what is seeing at really our observer? I mean, he can explain it seeing our viewpoint and noting that there's no black hole, but how can explain it from his own frame? Thanks ! PS: I have read many times articles like: If you go too fast do you become a black hole? http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_fast.html and again, I don't think there's a paradox here, I'm just trying to see what is seeing our observer. Maybe is analogous to: When we see a moving frame, we see their atoms contracted in the direction of motion. Then the orbitals don't follow the expected symmetry, how can be stable these "deformed" atoms?

I know many solutions for the twin paradox, and I'm not disputing these solutions, they are great, I know the traveller is younger at the end. And the importat thing is that the traveller knows it too! but the traveller explains it in a different way. I mean, for the "Earth twin" time dilation occurs during both legs of the trip and that's all, from the traveller's viewpoint this is truth too (but backwards), and the important thing: from the traveller's viewpoint the Earth's time is contracted during his acceleration (at really, the traveller can't see an acceleration, he sees a pseudo-gravitational field). They agree with the final effect, but they don't agree with the causes... So, causes are relative? PS: I's nice to see it like a movemente at constant speed © in 4D (spacetime), but anyway, I can't solve the "relativity of the causes", is that another SR consequence?

Hello ! I'm having troubles with the causes of time dilation. I will to appeal to the twin paradox because it is known for everybody. A = Earth twin. B = traveller twin. We know B is younger than A when he returns. Now, why? I mean... from the viewpoint of A, he is younger because his time was dilated during his inertial trip (we can neglect the effect of acceleration here). But from the viewpoint of B, A was under the effect of "time dilation" too, but during the acceleration, B sees a uniform pseudo-gravitational field fill the universe. And this field is the cause of the final difference between B and A's clocks. We have 2 very different "causes" for the same effect. What is the correct? bye !

OK, here is my problem... I mean, How do you prove there isn't a universal reference? I'm not trying to change nothing, just trying to understand... because I know it's really difficult to prove the non-existent of something, but I think should be some crucial difference if we accept a universal reference, because if the two interpretations are equally valid, then why we choose the first and no the second? This is what I'm asking at really and what I'm trying to solve... In principle I think there's a principal difference: If we accept a universal frame, then the physics allow us to have velocities higher than "c", then will be possible to find where is the universal frame. But I can find just that difference. I think I'm losing something. What is the problem with a universl frame?

Hi theCPE ! Yes, something like that is what I'm asking. Now, your answer is therefore the classical: * both and nobody (it's relative...) But I don't know... to me is really easier to think that someone, and only ONE, is in the right way... the right answer is in hands of that hypothetical universal reference frame. It only modifies our interpretation of the results... again, we don't change our equations, but now we say: We don't know if A or B has the right answer, but we know THERE IS a right answer... I think this point of view is easier to visualize and eliminate many paradoxes. Let me go back to the twin paradox: A -> Earth-Twin B -> Traveler-Twin When B is going, we KNOW(*) his time is going slow, we don't say "it's relative", there's a reality there... My example is the same thing, but now we don't know who accelerated... and for that we just say now the reality is relative? That's my logic problem... And I don't understand why nobody accepts the alternative interpretation. At really, I'm trying to find a problem with this alternative interpretation, that is the really subject of this post, because I can't sleep fine with two possible interpretations (*) Here I must to clarify something I think... In the "aternative" interpretation (there's a universal reference frame, somewhere), although B is who accelerated we can't know if B's time is going slower than A's time. We can be sure that B is younger if he returns, but we can't know (without knowing where is the universal frame...) who is younger in a going travel only...

Hello again ! First, thanks for your replies. Now, I think I'm not explaining well, maybe it's due my poor english, sorry for that, I'll try to do it better now: Atheist understood my question very well, so I will try to follow his answers and to explain me better. The classical travel It's an interesting comparison, maybe it really has no sense to wonder WHEN does the time difference appears. I need to think that a bit more... But look at this situation: Two ships (A and B) in middle of the universe, they meet in a moment, call it t=0. Both are perfect inertial frames. Now A will say: "B's time is going slow", and B will say: "A's time is going slow". So who is right? Many people accept the answer: *both AND nobody And it really breaks my logic. But if we now say something like: OK, every physical theory should LOOK the same mathematically to every inertial observer, and the laws of the universe LOOK the same regardless of inertial frame of reference, BUT EXISTS a preferential frame, somewhere, although we can not detect it. Now we still without knowing who is right, A or B, but we know they can't be right at the same time. SR is not changed, only its interpretation, at least I think so... and we save our logic... Now, have passed more than 100 years and the original interpretation remains in the science community, then, my question is: * What is the problem with the "new" (at really is not new, and of course, not mine...) interpretation of the SR? What is wrong with it? if it preserves all the mathematical structure and it's more logic, why we are not using it? greets! enrique.

Hello everyone ! I want to ask you something and I hope you think your answer and not just reply with an orthodox foundation. I'm not another Einstein's enemy, I believe in SR but sometimes I just can't imagine some situations... Look at this: I will use the famous twin paradox because it is known for all... but I won't answer who is younger at the end, we know "Earth-Twin" is older, now... WHEN "Traveler-Twin" get this difference? was it during his acceleration? was it during his inertial movement (outbound or inbound travel?). Even more... let me modify our paradox: Now the "Traveler-Twin" never returns to the Earth. Does he remain younger? And if we don't know WHO accelerates? who is younger? I hope you can understand my doubt. To me, THERE is the real paradox... and I don' think relativity of simultaneousness solves it... Someone told me once: If nobody is accelerating and nobody turns back, then, they cross at maximum ONE time, and then is not relevant who is younger... I can understand that answer in a practical way, but I think it's not acceptable from a theoretic point of view. I think SR, with the current interpretation, can't solve this. But look at this: I we assume there's a preferential frame of reference, if we assume the nature of universe is NOT the same for all inertial observers, BUT: every physical theory should look the same mathematically to every inertial observer, and the laws of the universe are the same regardless of inertial frame of reference, so, we left the equations of our SR unbroken, and we save our "logic", because now, like before, we can't answer WHO is younger... but we KNOW that one of them is younger... I think there's an important difference, because again, we can't save our practical problem, but yes the theoretic one. Now, why the science community choose the first interpretation of SR, which is so cruel with our logic if the second interpretation take us the SAME equations and preserves our logic? Is there some problem with this second interpretation? Please, again, I'm not trying to break up the SR or something similar, I'm just trying to solve this logic paradox... Thanks for read! (and thanks a lot if you reply...) enrique.