It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Question About Relativity

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 02:36 AM
link   
I'm sure most of us know the basic Theory of Relativity, and how as an object reaches the speed of light, time begins to slow down, for that object. Now I was thinking, what if, theoretically, we had some sort of ball, with a density and mass of x. X being whatever you wish as long as it's not zero, it really doesn't matter. Now what if, theoretically, this ball could be made to spin in whatever direction, while stationary on a specific point, to the speed of light. Imagine a basketball spinning on a players fingers. Now add a bunch of people ... whomever you wish ... to watch the experiment. Assuming no massive explosion were to happen and they were free to watch, how would they percieve the object?

My most probable guess would be that it would distort gravity and space around it considerably ... minus the extreme heat and energy it would most likely give off.

Now add a twist ... assuming this sphere has an infinite fuel source, then what would happen if we accelerated it beyond the speed of light? I know according to Einstein that that is not possible ... but for a moment, humour yourself and suppose it is. According to Einstein, theoretically, an object going faster than the speed of light would travel back in time ... so if it took an x amount of minutes or hours or whatever for that object to reach that speed, would that object proceed back to well beyond the point in time that it started accelerating? What about the scientists ... what would they see? Just a ball vanish in air?

The reason why I'm interested in this matter of discussion is because every model showing the Theory of Relativity, with mass approaching and exceeding the speed of light, seems to lack in detail about things other than that object moving forward in three dimensional space.

So with that being said, this topic is for those that are serious enough to ponder this, even though I'm sure it's been pondered before. 'Flaming', whilist I can't do anything about it, will be extremely disrespectful in this topic of scientific question. The only reason I bring that up is, in my short time posting on these forums, I've witnessed how the most innocent and un-biased topic can be turned into a mud slinging match by those festering with ignorance.

So please, let's have an insighftul discussion.




posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link   
well i ponder, but i have no clue as to what the ball would attain by spinning at the speed of light. perhaps the ball would warp itself to infiniti so you would not see any signifigant change.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grey
I'm sure most of us know the basic Theory of Relativity, and how as an object reaches the speed of light, time begins to slow down, for that object. Now I was thinking, what if, theoretically, we had some sort of ball, with a density and mass of x. X being whatever you wish as long as it's not zero, it really doesn't matter. Now what if, theoretically, this ball could be made to spin in whatever direction, while stationary on a specific point, to the speed of light. Imagine a basketball spinning on a players fingers. Now add a bunch of people ... whomever you wish ... to watch the experiment. Assuming no massive explosion were to happen and they were free to watch, how would they percieve the object?

So please, let's have an insightful discussion.


a very intelligent question indeed.

Though the answer is simple. the ball is made of atoms that when the ball spins move (Obviously).... However here is the interesting bit... because the sphere is in 3 dimensions then the centre of the ball would spin faster than the outer rim of the ball...

Now the problem with moving any object continually faster is that you would require an equally increasing amount of energy to be able to accelerate to higher speeds...

Basically what E=MC2 means is that the faster mass is accelerated the heavier it becomes and so the amount of energy you require goes up to be able to accelerate it faster and so on until you reach the point where einstien said you can't go any further. This is the point where the mass becomes so large that there would never be enough energy to push it ever further....

So what would happen is that if you had an unlimited power source that was somehow able to sustain an infinite amount of energy (Of course imposable) then what would happen to the ball is as it got close to the speed of light in truth you would create a singularity around which would be an event horizon (A BLACK HOLE).

Of course because the centre of the ball would reach the speed of light before the rest of the ball there would be a rather large implosion as the matter of the ball wrenched itself apart under it's own gravity.

This would in turn cause a Gravity Wave to ripple outwards from the ball and cause all sorts of mayhem as objects get squeezed and stretched

The Scientist and anyone close enough to observe would see the ball freeze for an instant before they were torn apart in the spagetification process that happens when you travel beyond the event horizon of a smallish black hole....



Hope that is a descriptive enough description, as you want??

NeoN HaZe...


[edit on 29-3-2005 by Neon Haze]



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   


because the sphere is in 3 dimensions then the centre of the ball would spin faster than the outer rim of the ball


This is not right. The outer edge of the ball spins the fastest. The center of the sphere doesn't even move (it merely rotates about the relevant axis).



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by utrex



because the sphere is in 3 dimensions then the centre of the ball would spin faster than the outer rim of the ball


This is not right. The outer edge of the ball spins the fastest. The center of the sphere doesn't even move (it merely rotates about the relevant axis).


No you are the one that is incorrect... the centre of the ball spins faster than the outer edge... think about a bike wheel.....

The only exception to this rule we know of is surprisingly our spiral galaxy.... (Actually the phenomena has been seen in many spiral galaxies) in truth the outer rim is the same speed as the inner, though we don't have an exact reason why this is, at the moment we just put it down to Dark Matter...


NeoN HaZe...



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
You are confusing angular speed with velocity. Let's say a circle of radius 1 rotates every second. The (exact) center moves at velocity 0 (it stays at the same point). The edge of the circle moves at velocity 2*pi units/second (circumfrence/time for one rotation). A point halfway between the center and the edge moves at velocity pi units/second. As we move closer and closer to the center, the velocity decreases.

The angular speed of all points is the same. They all move at 2*pi radians per second (all points complete one rotation per second).



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
utrex is correct, the outer surface of the sphere, specifically the equaitorial band on the surface of the ball located 90 degrees to the spin axis, will be traveling the fastest, ...to quote; "think about a bike wheel..."


And to quote again; "Now what if, theoretically, this ball could be made to spin in whatever direction, while stationary on a specific point, to the speed of light. Imagine a basketball spinning on a players fingers. Now add a bunch of people ... whomever you wish ... to watch the experiment. Assuming no massive explosion were to happen and they were free to watch, how would they percieve the object?"

So, how would they precieve this object?? Well that's a fairly simple deduction, they would precieve the object flying apart at the seams (read: massive explosion) due to centrifugal force long before it could reach the speed of light.



There is possibly new information forthcoming on Einstein's relativity,
go here to find out more:

einstein.stanford.edu...



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaxle
utrex is correct, the outer surface of the sphere, specifically the equaitorial band on the surface of the ball located 90 degrees to the spin axis, will be traveling the fastest, ...to quote; "think about a bike wheel..."


There is possibly new information forthcoming on Einstein's relativity,
go here to find out more:

einstein.stanford.edu...


O.k. then smarty pants just exactly what do you think a Gear Ratio is? A gear ratio of 5:1 means that the central point turns 5 times for every one at the outer rim.

However argument aside, we are not talking about everyday mechanics here we are actually talking about complex four dimensional physics...

Now think about a solar system..... the planets closer to the star orbit the star at a faster rate than the outer planets... are you getting it yet.....????

What I am saying is that as an object travels faster it acquires more and more mass and as it has more mass it distorts space-time to the point where anything close to it would rotate faster than anything further away...

This is not conjecture it has been proven and cannot be disputed..... It’s a FACT

Understand??

NeoN HaZe

P.S. Interesting link BTW….


[edit on 29-3-2005 by Neon Haze]



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze

Originally posted by Jaxle
utrex is correct, the outer surface of the sphere, specifically the equaitorial band on the surface of the ball located 90 degrees to the spin axis, will be traveling the fastest, ...to quote; "think about a bike wheel..."


There is possibly new information forthcoming on Einstein's relativity,
go here to find out more:

einstein.stanford.edu...


O.k. then smarty pants just exactly what do you think a Gear Ratio is? A gear ratio of 5:1 means that the central point turns 5 times for every one at the outer rim.

However argument aside, we are not talking about everyday mechanics here we are actually talking about complex four dimensional physics...

Now think about a solar system..... the planets closer to the star orbit the star at a faster rate than the outer planets... are you getting it yet.....????

[edit on 29-3-2005 by Neon Haze]


The whole planet analogy is completely bogus. The planets closer to the sun move faster becasue there is more gravity near the sun than farther away.

I dont think YOU ARE getting it yet.

The outer edge of a circle spins faster than the interior becasue it has to cover more distance to keep up with the interior, since they are connected. How can u not get this through ur head?????....



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Given a rigid rotating sphere, the further from the axis, the faster a point moves in a linear method.

All points in a sphere move the same angular speed.

Also the issues with galactic movement is based on the fact that the closer to the center of gravity you get the faster the orbit should be, but in a galaxy, this is not the case. It has nothing to do with rotations in a rigid sphere/disk.

As to the original question, its purely a mind puzzle since as you approach the speed of light the mass of the object increases and require energy toward infinity to accelerate. This is part of the law you are inquring about. Since you can't seperate time dialation from mass increase, you can't ask what is part A but not part B when A and B are just parts of a whole. Its a meaningless question.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I hope, Neon, you understand your errors here. There are plenty and make a huge difference.

The ball CANNOT spin at the speed of light, because then the particles at the edge are spinning at the sped of light which they can't do. You are right, however, about the massive distortions of space that would occur.

At any rate, you can't accelerate something faster than the speed of light. The ball will get more massive, and will assymptotically approach the speed of light, but never there.

Assuming, as you said, it did, well, crazy stuff. You'd see yourself traveling then dissappear and you'd get to places before you left... and it's better to go forward in time.


You'd also die from infinite energy.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   


At any rate, you can't accelerate something faster than the speed of light.


If I built a metal pole in space of exactly 299 792 km in length, and I started pushing on one end, would not the energy on one side of the pole travel to the other side of the pole faster than the speed of light?



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
How can you say the inner part of a circle moves faster than the outer part? Really, thats childrens physics you are messing with..

Back to topic - As I see it, as the sphere gets close to the speed of light, its mass will reach a critically point where it will implode on itself, and convert into a black hole. Comments?



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   


If I built a metal pole in space of exactly 299 792 km in length, and I started pushing on one end, would not the energy on one side of the pole travel to the other side of the pole faster than the speed of light?


No clue where you get the length of the pole from (as it's not really relevant), but there's no such thing as an incompressible substance, which is what would be required to instantaneously transfer energy from one side of it to the other.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by electric
If I built a metal pole in space of exactly 299 792 km in length, and I started pushing on one end, would not the energy on one side of the pole travel to the other side of the pole faster than the speed of light?


utrex said it. You don't notice these things because they're fast, but if you pushed a pole that long it would take 1 second for the end to move, relative to the original push.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze

Originally posted by Jaxle
utrex is correct, the outer surface of the sphere, specifically the equaitorial band on the surface of the ball located 90 degrees to the spin axis, will be traveling the fastest, ...to quote; "think about a bike wheel..."


There is possibly new information forthcoming on Einstein's relativity,
go here to find out more:

einstein.stanford.edu...


O.k. then smarty pants just exactly what do you think a Gear Ratio is? A gear ratio of 5:1 means that the central point turns 5 times for every one at the outer rim.

However argument aside, we are not talking about everyday mechanics here we are actually talking about complex four dimensional physics...

Now think about a solar system..... the planets closer to the star orbit the star at a faster rate than the outer planets... are you getting it yet.....????

What I am saying is that as an object travels faster it acquires more and more mass and as it has more mass it distorts space-time to the point where anything close to it would rotate faster than anything further away...

This is not conjecture it has been proven and cannot be disputed..... It’s a FACT

Understand??

NeoN HaZe

P.S. Interesting link BTW….


[edit on 29-3-2005 by Neon Haze]


The gear ratio of 5:1 means one gear has to rotate 360 degrees 5 times for the other gear to rotate once. Going by your logic, if I held my arms out, my shoulder width to extended arm width is (assuming I had very small arms) 5:1. Would that mean my body has to make 5 revolutions for my arms to make 1? My arm sockets beg to differ.

Planets? That analogy's unsuitable for a sphere. All the planets are moving at different speeds with different distances to travel. A basketball, on the other hand, is solid. It's all connected. The outer rim of the basketball has to move faster than a point on the inside to complete the revolution in the same time as the point on the inside. Planets aren't set in some ethereal sphere.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze
Now think about a solar system..... the planets closer to the star orbit the star at a faster rate than the outer planets... are you getting it yet.....????


Your analogy of planets to a ball shouldn't be the planets relative to other planets, but the inside of the planet to the outside because planets aren't connected to each other.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by utrex
No clue where you get the length of the pole from (as it's not really relevant), but there's no such thing as an incompressible substance, which is what would be required to instantaneously transfer energy from one side of it to the other.


I'm not seriously thinking about constructing such a pole.
I just find it easier to understand a problem if I can visualize it.

Instantaneous transfer wasn't really what I was hoping for, just something faster than the propagation of light. I could have also said the pole was a pipe filled with hydraulic fluid and there were pistons on each end of the pipe. The large size is just about creating something large enough so that the speed of energy transfer is easily comparable to light speeds.

This being the case, the energy exerted on one end of the pole must travel as a mechanical wave, a compression and a rare-faction in the material, no matter how dense the material. The speed of which is determined by the density. The end of the light-second length pole could arrive several minutes after it was initially pushed.

If you scale this up or down it means that all energy propagates as a mechanical wave through the medium. And if no material is dense enough to allow propagation faster than the speed of light, then that's the same as saying that nothing, at least at the atomic level, can inact upon anything faster than the speed of light, or, faster than the speed of a field of a magnet.

Now we get to the point in physics which I cannot understand. Why would light, or a magnetic disturbance, travel through a completely empty medium as a transverse wave?



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   

If I built a metal pole in space of exactly 299 792 km in length, and I started pushing on one end, would not the energy on one side of the pole travel to the other side of the pole faster than the speed of light?


Welcome to the Most Extreme Elimination Challenge.

Most Extreme Elimination Challenge (or "MXC", AKA "Tekeshi's Castle"... ) is the ultimate in reality sports, where contestants comprised of two teams are physically and mentally challenged and eliminated through crazy and challenging games.
So, let's push that 299 792 kilometer long pole!
To add to the fun, commentary is given to the audience through the hilarious comments of Kenny Blankenship and Vic Romano, along with special correspondant Guy LeDouche and Captain Tenneal.

They are all saying: "Don't get elimenated!!" (look-out for that pole!)



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:07 AM
link   
......


Come on, think about this....


What Einstein said was that TIME is not consistant.
Nothing DOES travel faster than light....but from what we have seen, light DOES NOT escape from black holes....so something HAD to change. (And guess what....black holes have a pulse, from what we've measured....becuase they ARE rotating.
) ...but it has little to do with the rotation, I think....it may have more to do with the basic gravity of the object beneath the event horison, as is already projected in the astronomy field. Yet, I think that that pulse we get from those we can measure is still rediculously fast....so hmmmm....something to think about at least. Try understanding this....had to read it slowly myself:



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join