Jump to content

Light speed using circumference


3118beach

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Well, if you did reach the speed of light the relativistic mass would be so large it would turn into a blackhole wrap your mind around that.

Doesn't work like that. (After all, in the frame of reference of the object, there is no mass increase so it can't turn into a black hole.)

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_fast.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Doesn't work like that. (After all, in the frame of reference of the object, there is no mass increase so it can't turn into a black hole.)

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_fast.html

I had no idea strange, I thought the relativistic mass increase would do it eventually. 

Edited by Vmedvil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Strange said:

Doesn't work like that. (After all, in the frame of reference of the object, there is no mass increase so it can't turn into a black hole.)

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_fast.html

You would have to add energy for this to happen — it's not a matter of changing reference frames. It's a rotational system. The rotational KE does increase the mass, according to an inertial frame observer (e.g. in the frame of the rotational axis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

You would have to add energy for this to happen — it's not a matter of changing reference frames. It's a rotational system. The rotational KE does increase the mass, according to an inertial frame observer (e.g. in the frame of the rotational axis)

Ya, see thats kinda what I thought too, wouldn't an increased Relativistic mass, increase gravitational potential energy.

One can also say that, averaged over all directions, the tidal gravity increases when an object moves. ... Note that in General Relativity, gravity is caused not by mass, but by the stress–energy tensor. Thus, saying that a moving particle has "more gravity" does not imply that the particle has "more mass".

But, it has more of both in this case, Energy and Relativistic Mass near or at the speed of light.

17 hours ago, 3118beach said:

Trying to get my mind around this if you had a motorised arm that was capable of spinning an object 100mm from it's centre at 3000 kmh how long would that arm have to be for the object at the tip of it to be travelling light speed?

Where this is flawed logic you need an acceleration to generate energy it would stay constant @ 3000 kmh as you need an acceleration to transfer energy as

E = Δx a M

E = Energy

Δx or R = Distance

a = Acceleration

M = Mass

Not velocity, but acceleration, which Km / h  is velocity.

The acceleration here in toward the middle frame, thus energy is transferring toward the center of rotation frame not the spin frame.

translation_with_rotation.gif

975bca89ca2659de1ccc506a9099ff746ca95c53

Edited by Vmedvil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Ya, see thats kinda what I thought too, wouldn't an increased Relativistic mass, increase gravitational potential energy.

The thing is, it's not relativistic mass. If it was relativistic mass, then Strange's objection would be valid, but so-called relativistic mass comes from including translational KE. This device's COM is not translating.

 

47 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

One can also say that, averaged over all directions, the tidal gravity increases when an object moves. ... Note that in General Relativity, gravity is caused not by mass, but by the stress–energy tensor. Thus, saying that a moving particle has "more gravity" does not imply that the particle has "more mass".

This isn't a "moving particle" 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

The thing is, it's not relativistic mass. If it was relativistic mass, then Strange's objection would be valid, but so-called relativistic mass comes from including translational KE. This device's COM is not translating.

 

This isn't a "moving particle" 

 

Yes, but it constructed of particles at some point you hit Up and Down quarks along with electrons due to "Hydrostatic" stress on the space and it is being directed toward the "Hydrostatic" axis remember GR views energy as a Perfect fluid.

Untitled.thumb.png.e08ca98325f7ce44a5b18c33610e1b30.png

41 minutes ago, studiot said:

You always require at least two objects to generate a potential.

The "Hydrostatic" Stress by the energy acts as a second object, which could be said to be not different than the effect of mass on that space.

Edited by Vmedvil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Yes, but it constructed of particles at some point you hit Up and Down quarks along with electrons due to stress on the space.

If this made any sense I'd most likely disagree with it.

 

E2=p2c2 + m2c4

p is the linear momentum. All translation motion shows up in that term. Anything that's not translation CoM motion shows up in the mass term, including rotation and vibration.

It's when you try to say that E = mc2 applies to all conditions, you're including the translational KE.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, swansont said:

If this made any sense I'd most likely disagree with it.

 

E2=p2c2 + m2c4

p is the linear momentum. All translation motion shows up in that term. Anything that's not translation CoM motion shows up in the mass term, including rotation and vibration.

It's when you try to say that E = mc2 applies to all conditions, you're including the translational KE.  

 

What is rest mass?, it is the mass of these particles rest energy which is E = MC  , pC is KE or that.

23baa481f63737f6016ee014b0423adf.jpg

Edited by Vmedvil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Yes, but it constructed of particles at some point you hit Up and Down quarks along with electrons due to "Hydrostatic" stress on the space and it is being directed toward the "Hydrostatic" axis remember GR views energy as a Perfect fluid.

Untitled.thumb.png.e08ca98325f7ce44a5b18c33610e1b30.png

The "Hydrostatic" Stress by the energy acts as a second object, which could be said to be not different than the effect of mass on that space.

 

 

You have two objects in your diagram.

Either side of the free body diagram, because both objects are contained within the same body.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

 

You have two objects in your diagram.

Either side of the free body diagram, because both objects are contained within the same body.

 

Yes, but the stress is not within the same body look at the direction of ac and p.

Edited by Vmedvil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

E2=p2c2 + m2c4

p is the linear momentum. All translation motion shows up in that term. Anything that's not translation CoM motion shows up in the mass term, including rotation and vibration.

I did wonder about the rotational aspect when I made my comment. So are you saying that an object can rotate fast enough to turn into a black hole? This seems reasonable (I am reminded of another thread where it was pointed out that the time dilation of an object in a centrifuge could be described equivalently as either a gravitational effect or in terms of [rotational]speed.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

I did wonder about the rotational aspect when I made my comment. So are you saying that an object can rotate fast enough to turn into a black hole? This seems reasonable (I am reminded of another thread where it was pointed out that the time dilation of an object in a centrifuge could be described equivalently as either a gravitational effect or in terms of [rotational]speed.)

Well, it would turn the center of rotation into the BH because of the pC term.

Edited by Vmedvil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

So you have at least two objects.

 

:)

Yes the Rest Mass which is bound at every point within the Fermions and the Energy-Stress or Relativistic mass which is not.

Edited by Vmedvil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

I did wonder about the rotational aspect when I made my comment. So are you saying that an object can rotate fast enough to turn into a black hole? This seems reasonable

Yes it can. All inertial observers will agree that it's spinning — that's not relative. An excited-state atom has more mass than the ground state, as does a spinning vs stationary top, or hot vs cold bucket of water. (and none of that invokes relativistic mass)

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

(I am reminded of another thread where it was pointed out that the time dilation of an object in a centrifuge could be described equivalently as either a gravitational effect or in terms of [rotational]speed.)

I may have been the one who pointed it out. People did a follow-up of the Pound-Rebka experiment with a centrifuge. You can solve for the time dilation with SR or with a pseudo-potential and GR. Looks exactly the same.

 

28 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Well, it would turn the center of rotation into the BH because of the pC term.

p = 0 for that system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes it can. All inertial observers will agree that it's spinning — that's not relative. An excited-state atom has more mass than the ground state, as does a spinning vs stationary top, or hot vs cold bucket of water. (and none of that invokes relativistic mass)

I may have been the one who pointed it out. People did a follow-up of the Pound-Rebka experiment with a centrifuge. You can solve for the time dilation with SR or with a pseudo-potential and GR. Looks exactly the same.

 

p = 0 for that system

then it is just rest mass, then why is it moving if p = 0

Edited by Vmedvil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's rotating. Rotational motion and linear motion are not the same thing. A spinning wheel has no linear momentum, but it has angular momentum.

Is it really different besides being over a radius?

alm.gif

mim.png

Edited by Vmedvil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes it can. All inertial observers will agree that it's spinning — that's not relative. An excited-state atom has more mass than the ground state, as does a spinning vs stationary top, or hot vs cold bucket of water. (and none of that invokes relativistic mass)

I knew ... uh, should have known ... that.

I guess the hot water example can be described in terms of the increased kinetic energy of the molecules but the net momentum is, again, zero so all observers will agree on the energy increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.