Kashai
What happens if one accelerates a spherical object in a rotation, equivalent to 99.99999999999999999999% the speed of light??
Any thoughts?
Kashai
What happens if one accelerates a spherical object in a rotation, equivalent to 99.99999999999999999999% the speed of light??
Kashai
What happens if one accelerates a spherical object in a rotation, equivalent to 99.99999999999999999999% the speed of light??
Imagine the sphere on earth weighs about 900 pounds.
Any thoughts?edit on 15-1-2014 by Kashai because: Added content
Kashai
What happens if one accelerates a spherical object in a rotation, equivalent to 99.99999999999999999999% the speed of light??
I think Bedlam is right. I don't know of any substance strong enough to stay together at those velocities. The fastest implied tangential velocity I've seen is about 24 percent the speed of light for a neutron star as described here:
Bedlam
Earth shattering kaboom as it comes apart long before you get there...
If it's less than 20 miles across then the tangential velocity is even lower than 24% of light speed, so that's the upper limit for this object to stay together. We aren't really sure exactly how big it is.
The scientists discovered the pulsar, named PSR J1748-2446ad, in a globular cluster of stars called Terzan 5, located some 28,000 light-years from Earth in the constellation Sagittarius. The newly-discovered pulsar is spinning 716 times per second, or at 716 Hertz (Hz), readily beating the previous record of 642 Hz from a pulsar discovered in 1982. For reference, the fastest speeds of common kitchen blenders are 250-500 Hz.
The scientists say the object's fast rotation speed means that it cannot be any larger than about 20 miles across. According to Hessels, "If it were any larger, material from the surface would be flung into orbit around the star."
Kashai
What happens if one accelerates a spherical object in a rotation, equivalent to 99.99999999999999999999% the speed of light??
Imagine the sphere on earth weighs about 900 pounds.
Any thoughts?edit on 15-1-2014 by Kashai because: Added content
That's probably the case with the neutron star I referenced earlier, but what you said is not what imafungi said and I was replying to imafungi's question.
anonentity
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Only the periphery would be travelling at high speed, the pole so to speak would be at speeds a fraction of the main circumerence.
Arbitrageur
reply to post by ImaFungi
It doesn't have to be rotating at all to travel at a high fraction of the speed of light linearly so I'm not sure if your question is on topic or what exactly you're getting at?
If you're talking about relativistic contraction in the direction of linear motion, isn't that dependent on the observer's frame of reference? In other words, an observer on or in the spinning disk wouldn't see the contraction due to linear motion that an external observer would observe.
Bedlam
I'm pretty sure it contracts. I am not sure I can find it but there's a proof that you can't have an infinitely rigid disk, because it can't rotate due to differential contraction. If you HAD such a thing, it would give you a means of detecting the absolute rotation of the universe in a non-relative way.
I doubt it. I think regardless of the linear velocity, the neutron star would still start breaking apart around the same rotational velocity for reasons similar to my reply to bedlam above, since the linear motion is dependent on the reference frame.
ImaFungi
would there be a difference if the mass/object was not relatively standing still, but also increasing its linear velocity?
Black hole math says the density is not just extremely dense, it's infinitely dense, but as Michio Kaku said when we get infinity in physics it often implies a problem with our math. If it was truly infinitely dense then I don't even know how to calculate the angular momentum which would make a black hole fly apart. I do think it's very plausible to suggest that black holes might spin faster than even the fastest spinning neutron star found so far, but we haven't measured anything like this to my knowledge. If the radius of the singularity in a black hole is really zero, then how can you calculate the tangential velocity at the surface of the rotation? Like other aspects of singularity math, it becomes meaningless.
And then I wondered if this is why black holes have perhaps some strange characteristics they do, because they are an extremely dense massive mass
So the black hole can have angular momentum, but if you have a way to mathematically calculate some fraction of the speed of light associated with this, you'll have to explain it to me since I don't know how to do that.
The no-hair theorem postulates that all black hole solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations of gravitation and electromagnetism in general relativity can be completely characterized by only three externally observable classical parameters: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum.