Does moving close to c turn something into a black hole?

[alpha2cen]

I didn't say time dilation was an illusion. If you are in a spaceship traveling at 99.99% of the speed of light will you age slower or faster then a person on the ground? You have your clock on the spaceshipe and he has his on the ground. According to you your clock will be normal. According to him your clock will be slower then his. If your clock is indeed slower then his will time be equal to both of you?

According to the relativity, when you travel around 99.999999...% of the speed of light, you would be a Black Hole.

 

V------------->C

m_relative------>infinite

F_g------------>infinite

 

Fast moving Black Hole.

 

At the fast moving state, this gravity force relationship, F_g=m_relative g is uncertain.

But, the high energy density (energy/volume) can make the object to be a Black Hole.

[swansont]

According to the relativity, when you travel around 99.999999...% of the speed of light, you would be a Black Hole.

 

V------------->C

m_relative------>infinite

F_g------------>infinite

 

Fast moving Black Hole.

 

At the fast moving state, this gravity force relationship, F_g=m_relative g is uncertain.

But, the high energy density (energy/volume) can make the object to be a Black Hole.

 

Since we are moving at very high speeds relative to some particles, e.g. in accelerators, that travel vey fast, and we are not a black hole, this presents a problem for your claim.

[altergnostic]

According to the relativity, when you travel around 99.999999...% of the speed of light, you would be a Black Hole.

 

V------------->C

m_relative------>infinite

F_g------------>infinite

 

Fast moving Black Hole.

 

At the fast moving state, this gravity force relationship, F_g=m_relative g is uncertain.

But, the high energy density (energy/volume) can make the object to be a Black Hole.

So, your clock is or isn't indeed slower because blackhole. I see. What a great way to address the question! I have to admit it was funny, though.

 

My god! What's that behind you??? (gone)

Edited January 9, 2013 by altergnostic

[alpha2cen]

 

Since we are moving at very high speeds relative to some particles, e.g. in accelerators, that travel vey fast, and we are not a black hole, this presents a problem for your claim.

Quantum object, i.e., proton is increasing the position uncertainty at that high speed. So, energy density(energy/ volume) is not so high.

[elfmotat]

Quantum object, i.e., proton is increasing the position uncertainty at that high speed. So, energy density(energy/ volume) is not so high.

 

1. Pick an object traveling at .9999999999999c.

2. Boost to object's rest frame.

3. Object is at rest in this frame, and therefore has zero kinetic energy.

 

So according to you, it collapses into a black hole in one frame but doesn't in another. Obviously this makes no sense.

[alpha2cen]

 

1. Pick an object traveling at .9999999999999c.

2. Boost to object's rest frame.

3. Object is at rest in this frame, and therefore has zero kinetic energy.

 

So according to you, it collapses into a black hole in one frame but doesn't in another. Obviously this makes no sense.

F_g=m_relative g is uncertain.

We do not know a real collapse phenomena happening.

But we can see a fast moving Black Hole.

When the people in the space craft look at us, they only see a fast moving Black Hole.

[elfmotat]

F_g=m_relative g is uncertain.

We do not know a real collapse phenomena happening.

But we can see a fast moving Black Hole.

When the people in the space craft look at us, they only see a fast moving Black Hole.

 

You can't just plug relativistic mass into Newtonian formulas. That's not how gravity works at all relativistically. Objects do not collapse into black holes due to kinetic energy alone, or the paradox I mentioned above would ensue.

[alpha2cen]

 

You can't just plug relativistic mass into Newtonian formulas. That's not how gravity works at all relativistically. Objects do not collapse into black holes due to kinetic energy alone, or the paradox I mentioned above would ensue.

How do we think about the high energy density of fast moving object? Is it only the difference of speed?

[Moontanman]

 

You can't just plug relativistic mass into Newtonian formulas. That's not how gravity works at all relativistically. Objects do not collapse into black holes due to kinetic energy alone, or the paradox I mentioned above would ensue.

 

 

I think the idea that it would result in a paradox is interesting by it's self. How does gravity work at relativistic speeds? Would the increase in mass not have gravitational effect?

 

From the stand point of an object traveling at very close to the speed of light doesn't the entire universe appear to be behind it as a point? Similar to the way the universe would disappear as you fell into the event horizon of a black hole? I am operating on memories of some of the odd effects of black holes and very near c travel as described by, I think it was Carl Sagan, in a TV show, maybe Cosmos... I may be well off mark here, it was a long time ago...

[elfmotat]

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_fast.html