accelerated frames

[enridp]

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?

[Country Boy]

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 !

I don't understand why you even mention "black holes"! Assuming you have mass m0 inside an ellipse, traveling at high speed relative to an observer, yes, he will see the ellipse contracted. He will NOT see a 'black hole'.

 

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

If you were under the impression that the ellipse, at high speed, will contract to a "black hole", this very link explains why that is NOT true!

 

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?

What orbitals are you talking about? Contracted orbitals are still orbitals.

[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 !

[J.C.MacSwell]

The contraction is only in the direction of the movement. It would not contract in the orthogonal directions.