Problem with a hypothetical experiment

[unknow force]

well, the experiment is the following , 2 spaceships traveling in the same direction near the speed of the light increase its mass (and gravitational energy), so there is a attraction between these,now the attraction rate will be different for a external observer??? (by the relative increase of mass) or the gravity effects between both ships will be the same for the crew and observers??(lets imagine that both are huge mass ships and are travelling very close), so the ships will collide???

 

i mentioned that in other post, well, now it have a thread

 

btw, what about this...

 

1-a mass that travel very,very near of C can turn in a cold star???

2-what happens if the lenght particle that goes near C fall below uncertainly limits??

3-what is the energy limits to turn a wave into a particle (i mean the max frecuency)

4-could we "see" the gravitons dececcelerating very heavy particles near C velocity???, actually we are adding gravitons increasing their speed???

5-what is the velocity of the gravitatory energy, is also C???

6-if isnt C, then the explanation could be that the gravitons are very, very low energy photons with a huge lenghtwave that can travel much faster than the light (like high frecuency energy travels slower than the standar C,, with more frecuency it has more probability to turn in a particle and in the end have muuuuuch lower speed)

 

sooo, what you think guys....

[ydoaPs]

the two ships should see them being attracted to each other

[unknow force]

the two ships should see them being attracted to each other

 

i think that is clear for the observer, but also for the crew????

[ydoaPs]

the crew is what i was talking about. they wouldn't notice anything

[unknow force]

so there will be a collision for the observer, but not for the crew???

[ydoaPs]

actually, i don't think that the relativistic mass increase causes an increase in gravity. iirc, that is the rest mass that causes gravity.

[unknow force]

well, mass is mass, mass is gravity, not atoms quantify, so if you have a increase of mass, you have a increase of the gravity

[ydoaPs]

not the right kind of mass

[unknow force]

not the right kind of mass

 

all are the right kind of mass, remember all is relative

[eon_rider]

Could it be?

 

that the two ships think they are standing still. No movement. What-so-ever.

No funky gravity. Everything is normal, as long as they are in the same frame of reference.

 

The two ships do however see the observer flying by them at the speed of light like a shooting star.

 

 

I'm not sure.

[ydoaPs]

there is more than one kind of mass. this is not the right kind.

[unknow force]

there is more than one kind of mass. this is not the right kind.

 

so gravity has relation with the atoms quantify and not with the mass....well, i dont think so, that "right kind" is the old determinism theory

[ydoaPs]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9872

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11955

Not exactly. In relativity there are a number of quantities that are not relative. We call them "Lorentz scalars" or "rank-0 Lorentz tensors". For instance the 4D "dot product" of any two 4-vectors results in a Lorentz invariant. An example is the 4-momentum contracted with itself:

 

[math]

p_{\mu}p^{\mu}=m^2

[/math]

 

Hence "m" (the mass of the particle) is not relative.

[unknow force]

please could you give me the right link??? i dont know if is about the relativistic gravity increase, calcule modificators or vectorial relative effects variables...., but if you are based in that "the mass of the particle) is not relative", you are pretty wrong, but i guess that is about other thing, lorents tensors are relationated with the relativistics effects on the vectorial geometry

[unknow force]

6-if isnt C, then the explanation could be that the gravitons are very, very low energy photons with a huge lenghtwave that can travel much faster than the light (like high frecuency energy travels slower than the standar C,, with more frecuency it has more probability to turn in a particle and in the end have muuuuuch lower speed)

 

after a confirmation, i found that in fact lastest experiments shows that the G speed is actually C, but the reason of that we canot detect or measure isnt just that are photons with a huge wavelength, and not that complicated and almost fantastic string theory???

[swansont]

well, the experiment is the following , 2 spaceships traveling in the same direction near the speed of the light increase its mass (and gravitational energy)

 

 

As yourdad has been trying to point out, the relativistic mass increases, but that is not the relevant term for gravity.

[Spyman]

well, the experiment is the following , 2 spaceships traveling in the same direction near the speed of the light increase its mass (and gravitational energy), so there is a attraction between these,now the attraction rate will be different for a external observer??? (by the relative increase of mass) or the gravity effects between both ships will be the same for the crew and observers??(lets imagine that both are huge mass ships and are travelling very close), so the ships will collide???

The ships relative speed is zero so their relative increase in mass is zero.

 

The attraction against an external observer may be different but the attraction between the ships will be the same for observers and crews.

 

The ships will still need to continuously correct their distance or they will collide due to the force of gravity from their rest mass.

 

EDIT: (Off Topic Question)

the relativistic mass increases, but that is not the relevant term for gravity.

Doesn't the relativistic mass of a photon attract particles ?

[swansont]

EDIT: (Off Topic Question)

Doesn't the relativistic mass of a photon attract particles ?

There's a stress-energy tensor, which AFAIK contains all of the relevant energy terms. You'd have to check with someone better acquainted with the details of GR to be sure.

 

"relativistic mass" is in sense a bookkeeping issue for the energy - the increase in the value is equivalent to the kinetic energy of the particle, or the energy of the photon. You can have one or the other, but to use both would be double-counting the energy. The problems that arise are mainly due to inconsistent application; people get easily and understandibly confused when flopping back and forth between the different terms.

[Spyman]

There's a stress-energy tensor' date=' which AFAIK contains all of the relevant energy terms. You'd have to check with someone better acquainted with the details of GR to be sure.

 

"relativistic mass" is in sense a bookkeeping issue for the energy - the increase in the value is equivalent to the kinetic energy of the particle, or the energy of the photon. You can have one or the other, but to use both would be double-counting the energy. The problems that arise are mainly due to inconsistent application; people get easily and understandibly confused when flopping back and forth between the different terms.[/quote']OK, Thanks !

[morner]

Just pissing in the wind here. If (from stationary observer's point of view) both ships increase in mass relativistically, and their mutual gravitational attraction also increases likewise, no net change in gravitational acceleration between the ships would be observed.

 

From stationary observer's point of view:

Each ship would excert a greater force due to gravity, as gravity is proportional to the mass which has been relativistically increased. However, the other ship would have an identical increase in mass, so the increased gravity would be working to move a larger mass. I expect this would work out to produce a mutual gravitational acceleration of 'a'.

 

From crew's point of view:

Other ship is at rest. No funky relativity has to be considered. Each ship is attracting the other with an acceleration of 'a', due to accepted gravitational theory.

 

The 'a' terms are equal, so nothing weird happens with the observer seeing the ships collide before the crew do, or anything. It all cancels out nicely.

[[Tycho?]]

So an increase in relativistic mass doesn't cause an increase in gravitational attraction? ARG! I've been trying to find the answer to this for a long time, but I always get contradictory answers. Sometimes I hear it one way, sometimes the other. I could swear that some reputable person on these forums told me that the relativistic mass DOES cause an increase in gravity, and I thought I finally had my answer. Now I dont know what to think (again).

[swansont]

']So an increase in relativistic mass doesn't[/i'] cause an increase in gravitational attraction? ARG! I've been trying to find the answer to this for a long time, but I always get contradictory answers. Sometimes I hear it one way, sometimes the other. I could swear that some reputable person on these forums told me that the relativistic mass DOES cause an increase in gravity, and I thought I finally had my answer. Now I dont know what to think (again).

 

 

There is an argument that is basically this: if relativistic mass were the relevant quantity, then a sufficiently fast-moving large mass should collapse into being a black hole. And this depends on how fast the observer is moving relative to the object. But a stationary observer doesn't see the collapse. The two will disagree on simultaneity, but not on whether an event actually happened.

[[Tycho?]]

There is an argument that is basically this: if relativistic mass were the relevant quantity, then a sufficiently fast-moving large mass should collapse into being a black hole. And this depends on how fast the observer[/i'] is moving relative to the object. But a stationary observer doesn't see the collapse. The two will disagree on simultaneity, but not on whether an event actually happened.

 

Yes! That was exactly the example I gave when I was asking about it. I didn't see how two observers could agree in a situation like that, but I was assured that yes, a mass moving quickly enough would indeed collapse into a black hole. This is irritating, I keep on going back and forth here.

[arkain101]

Thank you for making this post. It helped me realize more facts and back up relating to my theory.

 

According the current special reletivity thoeries. All that has been explained would happen in this hypothetical thought experiment, I fully agree.

 

Although I see the crack in the reasoning behind this experiment loud and clear. In a realistic experiment I see a much different outcome.

 

no offense to anyones reasoning.

[swansont]

Thank you for making this post. It helped me realize more facts and back up relating to my theory.

 

According the current special reletivity thoeries. All that has been explained would happen in this hypothetical thought experiment' date=' I fully agree.

 

Although I see the crack in the reasoning behind this experiment loud and clear. In a realistic experiment I see a much different outcome.

 

no offense to anyones reasoning.[/quote']

 

How many times are you going to post the same nothing? I think it's "put up or shut up" time. Either post your hypothesis or don't, but it serves absolutely no purpose to tell us how it will explain everything, when you've explained nothing thus far, and each new post adds nothing.