It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# I have questions about Time dilation & Gravitational time dilation: Any mutually inclusive link betw

page: 2
4
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 06:30 PM

In order for an object of a given mass to become a black hole, it has to be compressed into a region with a radius less than its Swartzschild radius. It's not just a matter of mass... a feather can become a black hole if you compress it down to a small enough volume.

Now, the Swartzschild metric only applies in a rest frame, so, while an object travelling at relativistic speeds will gain relativistic mass, that makes no difference. Its rest mass is still the same, and it's rest mass that determines whether or not it will form a black hole.

If it's not a black hole at rest, it won't become a black hole at relativistic speeds.

posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 09:43 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

In General Relativity, spacetime is a 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold with the signature (3, 1), having 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. The temporal dimension differs from the spatial dimensions by being associated with a negative eigenvalue (essentially, a scale factor) in the metric, along with three positive eigenvalues corresponding to the three spatial dimensions. The metric assigns a tensor value to each point in the manifold. The deviation of each point from a flat Euclidean space (that is, its curvature) is given by a Ricci tensor. which then leads to the Raychaudhuri equation, describing how matter/energy moves within a manifold having the given curvature.

So you have described THIS (minus the experiment mentioned of course that NASA conducted which the vid is about)

Also I am a big Brian Greene fan. he can translate the professional academic diction into lay terms. I was wondering if you could do that here for me and others? Example a 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold or Pseudo-Riemannian manifold translation simply a "gravity well." Discribing that well with diction such as Metic- smooth curves surface, and Tenser- describing length and distance.

So can we try this again?

edit on 5-6-2012 by LilDudeissocool because: I added content.

posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 10:02 PM

No, I'm not going to patronize you. These physicists who explain things in simple terms are talking to people who aren't forming their own theories. If you're going to be using General Relativity to theorize about the universe, you need to understand it in all its complicated glory. I'm sorry, but since I'm assuming you're not a child, I'm not going to treat you like one. You need to learn the math and terminology if you're going to work with it.

If you want, I will try to teach you what all of those things are. But I'm not going to dumb it down for you.

posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 10:29 PM
The faster you go, the heavier you get, as your mass increases. It is minuscule in reference to the speed we can reach with human technology, but technically the heavier you get (the larger your mass), then time slows down for you relative to something not in fast motion, because gravity on your increased mass has a greater effect on you, which slows down time, relative to the non moving object. You would think all is fine, but there would be a discrepancy in time between the two.

By the same reason, being on Earth slows down time for everyone relative to being far out into space in a vehicle standing still, with less of Earth's gravitational forces on you. Again, relative between the two.

posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 10:34 PM

Well analogize "complicated glory" this.

If a an atom can travel fast enough across space utilizing all the energy in space including all that is used to create matter it will create enough mass to turn the linear fabric of space into a sock so to speak, a gravity well, stopping time. When that happens the Universe reverts back to the primeval atom with all of space time collapsed within it. Call it the final stage of a black hole if you want. It does not matter if the well is created by all energy in the Universe that has formed into dense matter, that is stationary mass, or accumulated mass of a single atom due to extreme velocity. The result would be the same either way.

A gravity well is a gravity well no mater how its formed. It's depth and so its surface increase with mass. Mass causes gravity and time to slow. Enough mass can potentially stop time completely.

I don't understand why I need professional academic lingo to state to communicate all of what I have stated. It's not patronizing, and I am not espousing a new theory. The potential theoretical stoppage of time is not new in terms of time dilation. The primeval atom being held in a state of zero time is not new either, nor is the Big Crunch. You want me to write a thesis paper on combining all three into one? This is ATS not Standford, Harvard or MIT of that matter.

PS I don't think Brian Greene patronized people. Carl Sagan never did in his PBS Cosmos series either. Do you think Alex Filippenko in that video I posted on the other thread was being patronizing to his audience? You standard of course is that you assume I am introducing a new theory to the world. I assure you I am completely incapable of doing so. I'm merely trying to find, or learn about, potential linkages between some established theories, and known facts, proven theories from other posters, such as yourself, who may know/understand a lot more about these subjects than I do.

edit on 5-6-2012 by LilDudeissocool because: typo

posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 10:39 PM

Originally posted by charlyv
The faster you go, the heavier you get, as your mass increases. It is minuscule in reference to the speed we can reach with human technology, but technically the heavier you get (the larger your mass), then time slows down for you relative to something not in fast motion, because gravity on your increased mass has a greater effect on you, which slows down time, relative to the non moving object. You would think all is fine, but there would be a discrepancy in time between the two.

By the same reason, being on Earth slows down time for everyone relative to being far out into space in a vehicle standing still, with less of Earth's gravitational forces on you. Again, relative between the two.

Because the gravity well deepens and that creates more surface area for you to have to travel forward in time, like an ant that has to crawl down and up the sides of an old fashion dried up water well to get to the other side.

posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 10:57 PM

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

I don't understand why I need professional academic lingo to state to communicate all of what I have stated. It's not patronizing, and I am not espousing a new theory. The potential theoretical stoppage of time is not new in terms of time dilation. The primeval atom being held in a state of zero time is not new either, nor is the Big Crunch. You want me to write a thesis paper on combining all three into one? This is ATS not Standford, Harvard or MIT of that matter.

But you are espousing a new theory. Whether you're picking bits and pieces of other theories and putting them together or creating an entirely original theory of your own making, you still need to understand what you're dealing with. And that requires an understanding of the math. It doesn't matter where you're presenting your theory...if you can't legitimately back it up, you shouldn't be presenting it at all.

PS I don't think Brian Greene patronized people. Carl Sagan never did in his PBS Cosmos series either. Do you think Alex Filippenko in that video I posted on the other thread was being patronizing to his audience? You standard of course is that you assume I am introducing a new theory to the world. I assure you I am completely incapable of doing so. I'm merely trying to find, or learn about, potential linkages between some established theories, and known facts, proven theories from other posters, such as yourself, who may know/understand a lot more about these subjects than I do.

They're not patronizing their audiences because their audiences aren't usually people who are working on theories of their own. But you are, and if I were to speak down to you with "layman" terms, that would be patronizing. And I won't do that.
I know you know this, but, when I'm explaining things to people, I try to make it as simple as possible. That's when people are just wanting a simple understanding of a complex concept. But you're working with those concepts, so you need to understand them.

If a an atom can travel fast enough across space utilizing all the energy in space including all that is used to create matter it will create enough mass to turn the linear fabric of space into a sock so to speak, a gravity well, stopping time. When that happens the Universe reverts back to the primeval atom with all of space time collapsed within it. Call it the final stage of a black hole if you want. It does not matter if the well is created by all energy in the Universe that has formed into dense matter, that is stationary mass, or accumulated mass of a single atom due to extreme velocity. The result would be the same either way.

A gravity well is a gravity well no mater how its formed. It's depth and so its surface increase with mass. Mass causes gravity and time to slow. Enough mass can potentially stop time completely.

And this is a perfect example of why you need to be able to work with the math of GR. Such generalized statement as "turn the linear fabric of space into a sock," and "the Universe reverts back to the primeval atom," and "It's depth and so its surface increase with mass", and "Enough mass can potentially stop time completely." If you had a working knowledge of the math, you would see just how nonsensical those statements are. The relativistic mass of an object travelling at relativistic speeds forms a very distorted gravity well (which isn't actually shaped like a well...that's why you need to know what a curvature tensor is). Not to mention the fact that relativistic mass will never lead to the formation of a black hole or anything resembling a black hole. And your last statement wouldn't need the added "potentially"...you should know that time stops at the event horizon of a black hole (according to an external observer). It happens all the time. It's happening right now at the center of our galaxy.

Also keep in mind that time only slows within a gravity well as measured by an external observer. Someone exposed to the gravity well will detect no time dilation. That means your primeval atom will also experience no time dilation in its own reference frame. Which means it won't form anything even resembling a black hole.
edit on 5-6-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 07:47 AM

Originally posted by ImaFungi

you should chime in over here! www.abovetopsecret.com...

try an set some records straight
edit on 5-6-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

Nah....it's not something I'm interested in.
The truth is with the way our universe is constructed there is only one of two way it could have happen, because everything is energy, including matter being made of energy, the only real question is how did the energy get here….

A. It just was always here with no begin or end and our universe is in a constant state of changing.
B. Or it had a beginning in which something outside this universe put everything in motion. (a.k.a GOD)

That’s really your only two options. Personally I like “B”. The big bang theory is “B” but without explain what started the universe in motion, they pick up seconds after that explosion of energy without saying what outside influence was.

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 08:32 AM

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

Well analogize "complicated glory" this.

If a an atom can travel fast enough across space utilizing all the energy in space including all that is used to create matter it will create enough mass to turn the linear fabric of space into a sock so to speak, a gravity well, stopping time.

edit on 5-6-2012 by LilDudeissocool because: typo

It’s fun speculating on stuff like this, and good to do, and to wonder about things, but at the same time it’s kind of destructive to getting to the big picture of how things work. An example of this was the theory if you can go faster than light you can travel back in time, but using conventional science nothing can go faster than light, so it’s really a moot point. It’s kind of like saying what if I could rewrite the laws of universe to make mickey mouse real….well I guess then anything is possible. Your idea starts with if atom can travel fast enough....but it can't

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 08:43 AM
....although I will say if you get matter near relativistic speeds, I bet it would cause some weird anomaly…what anomalies, I don’t know. But a super massive (not in size, but in mass) object speeding accross space/time could create some gravitional issuses.

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:30 AM
I did some number crunching….
I think it’s worth mentioning just how hard to push something near the speed of light, and how the energy curve works.

It’s not liner, that is to say at 50% the speed of light an object would not be contracted by 50%, in fact the object would only be 23% contracted.
Let say you have an object 12inch long….
At 25% the speed of light, the object to an outside observer would look 11.61 inches long
At 50% the speed of light, the object to an outside observer would look 10.32 inches long
At 75% the speed of light, the object to an outside observer would look 7.94 inches long
At 88.6% the speed of light, the object to an outside observer would look 6 inches long
(it takes you going almost that fast before your length/time dilation is 50%)

Now it's not till you get around 90% the speed of light before things really get hard…
The first column is % speed of light, the second is % length/time dilation, and last is how long that 12" object would be.
0.9, 0.435889894, 5.230678732
0.91, 0.414608249, 4.975298986
0.92, 0.391918359, 4.703020306
0.93, 0.367559519, 4.410714228
0.94, 0.341174442, 4.094093306
0.95, 0.3122499, 3.746998799
0.96, 0.28, 3.36
0.97, 0.243104916, 2.917258987
0.98, 0.198997487, 2.387969849
0.99, 0.14106736, 1.692808318
0.991, 0.133861869, 1.606342429
0.992, 0.126237871, 1.514854448
0.993, 0.118114351, 1.417372216
0.994, 0.109380071, 1.312560856
0.995, 0.099874922, 1.198499061
0.996, 0.089353232, 1.072238779
0.997, 0.07740155, 0.928818604
0.998, 0.063213923, 0.75856707
0.999, 0.044710178, 0.536522134
0.9999, 0.014141782, 0.169701385
0.99999, 0.004472125, 0.053665497
0.999999, 0.001414213, 0.016970559

The energy curve is inverse to percentage of length contraction. So let’s say it take you the energy output of 1 sun to get to 90% the speed of light....

90%c = 1 sun output
99%c = 3.8 suns
99.9%c = 9.27 suns
99.99%c = 30.9 suns
99.999%C = 97.46 suns
99.9999%c = 308 suns
99.99999%c = 974.67 suns
99.999999%c = 3082.21 suns

at these speeds to go .000009 percent faster took you from the power output of 945 suns to 3082 suns, it just keeps going like this, increasing the energy output tremendously, just to a faction faster and never getting enough energy to make it 100%

edit on 6-6-2012 by Tbrooks76 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2012 by Tbrooks76 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2012 by Tbrooks76 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:20 PM

I wonder if your concept of relating it to the idea of pressure could be expanded to look at the ideal gas laws, particularly P1V1/T1 = P2V2/T2 where temperature would also be involved in the pressure and volume measures? We live within a given temperature range, but if the inside of a vessel could be controlled opposed to the outside of the vessel, could changes in temperature also affect the matter and allow for different speeds without affecting the presure and volume (compression of it) in some way...
You gave some very interesting concepts to think about!

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:36 PM
The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing. ~ Socrates

If curious minds needed to use the full understanding of a present theory in order to develop further theories, we wouldn't have the Theory of Relativity to begin with as Einstein didn't have a full understanding of other theories nor of the theory he developed as he was developing it. ... memorization of a theory or concept is easy, expounding on it, especially without using the theory in and of itself is where greatness lies....

Just some "food for thought" ...
edit on 6-6-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:18 AM

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

I wonder if your concept of relating it to the idea of pressure could be expanded to look at the ideal gas laws, particularly P1V1/T1 = P2V2/T2 where temperature would also be involved in the pressure and volume measures? We live within a given temperature range, but if the inside of a vessel could be controlled opposed to the outside of the vessel, could changes in temperature also affect the matter and allow for different speeds without affecting the presure and volume (compression of it) in some way...
You gave some very interesting concepts to think about!

The analogy is that space/time works like air pressure, but really It’s pressure in general. Space and air have different properties so there isn’t a one on one relationship. Space/time would like a perfect fluid that is frictionless and cannot store energy, typically, however there an exception to this if energy is trapped in closed-loop system.
The temperature of an object including in air is a measure of stored energy, which space/time cannot store, so it not a perfect analogy, but I do think it’s better than calling space/time a fabric.

I like relating space/time to pressure because it is fundamental force that can explain the nature of waves, and flow and many other things include many aspects of gravity and I can even use a pressure analogy of space time to explain what time dilation really it.
Also as before, the analogy of gravity working like pressure helped explain general relativity vs special relativity allot better ,in my opinion, then calling it a bend in fabric.

With that said, I don’t know what to think of your comments, it’s something to think about.
What do you think about an ideal gas as it compares to space?

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Tbrooks76

With that said, I don’t know what to think of your comments, it’s something to think about.
What do you think about an ideal gas as it compares to space?

Good question... I don't really have an answer as I haven't put a lot of thought into it until I noticed what you had posted (then got distracted and didn't think about it further to the point that I would like to). I would have to think about it further before I'd be able to provide even a basic answer I guess, but it is very interesting and I do plan to visit the concept again when time permits.

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:14 PM

You know there actually allot more I got on this space being like pressure, like how using a pressure model I can explain what an atom could be, even a gravity idea, and antigravity, and time dialation. I made a few post on it the other day....maybe when I get some time I'll post allot more to get deeper into these idea of space and how it relates to pressure.

posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:36 AM
Time dilation and gravitational time dilation.
In simplistic terms, movement thru space dilates time
as well as gravity speeds up time ( opp to what GR says ).
Untill you throw GR out the window main stream science will continue to
go in circles for eg lol time reversed GR.

But according to evgeny podkletnov, if you are doing or proposing
a politically uncorrect science, you do not get anywhere.
Lol, yoummay also disappear just as he has.

top topics

4