triskaidekaphile Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 From what I understand so far, objects cannot accelerate to the speed of light since it would require an infinite amount of energy and would increase the objects mass relative to a "motionless" observer. The object would become more massive as it tries to accelerate. If this is so then would the accelerating object become so massive that it would become a black hole, while in reference to itself nothing changes? Another way to look at it is: if there was an extremely dense white dwarf star that is on the verge of black hole density and/or mass, and you started moving relative to it, to a considerable speed, but much less then before, then would we see the white dwarf transition to being a black hole due to relative motion? I apologize if this is another case of an incomplete grasp of relativity, I'm young and am still learning. Thanks in advance for any replies.
MigL Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 No, relativistic mass increase, time dilation and length foreshortening are frame dependant effects.
triskaidekaphile Posted September 14, 2012 Author Posted September 14, 2012 So it can only appear to become a black hole?
ACG52 Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 So it can only appear to become a black hole? It doesn't become a black hole, and it doesn't appear to be a black hole. Relativistic mass, which is an outdated and misleading concept, does not contribute to gravity.
triskaidekaphile Posted September 17, 2012 Author Posted September 17, 2012 So is it the relative kinetic energy that contributes to gravity?
IM Egdall Posted September 18, 2012 Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) In spacetime physics, momenergy is the source of gravity (spacetime curvature). It is made up of rest mass, energy, and momentum. See link: http://www8.hp.com/u...Display=drivers Mywebsite: http://marksmodernphysics.com/ Edited September 18, 2012 by IM Egdall
ACG52 Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 So is it the relative kinetic energy that contributes to gravity? No. Relative energy does not contribute to gravity. The thing is, it's relative. If I were in a ship moving alongside of you, your relative kinetic energy would be zero. This would lead to a frame dependent gravitational field. It's rest mass which contributes to gravity.
triskaidekaphile Posted September 20, 2012 Author Posted September 20, 2012 Thank you all for your replies. I now have some more material to mull over, and I guess I need to stop reading oversimplified explanations and instead focus on the mathematical specifics.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now