Giant Space Javelin

[Anchovyforestbane]

If a giant needle-shaped mass of tungsten carbide (9540km in length, 3567km in width, moving at 99% of light speed) collided with earth, pointy end first, at the north pole, precisely what would happen to the earth, both geologically, meteorologically, and ecologically? Additionally, how would the results differ if the object collided at, say, the south pole, or the peak of the mid-Atlantic ridge?

[Mutex]

It would liquify and vaporize all the matter (stuff) of all the earth, the 'atmosphere' would be vaporized rock, things would be bad, you might want an umbrella. (and to be somewhere else).

 

You don't have a geology or an ecology, just a big mess..  

[GAHD]

I don't think there'd be a real difference no matter what angle that kinda object collided at, nor where it collided. At that speed it should have already crunched into a sphere from it's own perspective and a rather elongated oval from the earth's

That kinda speed there would be just pure annihilation in a direct path. If you're looking for some fancy words and pipe-dream knee-jerk physics (cause at that speed we're in "best guess" territory)..
-there would be some fusion/fission events and plasma discharge from the atmosphere, probably with enough heat and force to strip the atmosphere right off that area of the planet within minutes...but there wouldn't be time for that before...
-the mass would go though the planet in practically zero time(~ 0.00004 seconds), causing fusion/fission events the whole way though and eject from the opposite side. Think gunshot wound from a FMJ going though ballistics gel but the long hole would still have matter in it...matter going though a fair amount of fission/fusion events. 
-Probably no appreciable deceleration of the object itself but likely it gives enough force to the stuff where it passed though to put a super-sonic geyser in place and eventually pump a continental chunk off into a different orbit around the sun over the next couple hours and weeks.
-the forces holding the matter together in and just outside the direct path would not be enough to keep doing that very well. Massive ionic plasma discharges comes from both "poles" of the impact line. Sudden pillar of light from both ends, ground itself "glowing" for miles around.
-a big old sudden jolt felt world-wide, just before two fire-storms of plasma rush around the planet from the impact-poles somewhere around the speed of sound, sterilizing everything in hot plasma-wash.
-oceans probably don't completely dry up, but most likely boil around the top for a couple days as the heat radiates.
-Lot of mixed H O Fe Si etc in pure atomic form reacting as it cools down from plasma being ejected from the active annihilation path over a couple months.
-Hole would mostly fill itself in over a couple years, active volcano at both ends.
-new tectonics for a couple millennia as things shift around.
-earth and moon gets rings like Saturn for a couple more millennia

-wait for life to condense a new non-reductive atmosphere and crawl out of the oceans.

Again, the "hole" wouldn't really change much weather it hit needle-first or flat-side, but the energies of the interactions would probably go beyond vaporizing and into plasma-fying everything in a wide radius of it's path.

The object itself would probably convert some mass to pure energy on its way though, but a good chunk of it would also likely just "miss everything" on it way though as well; since matter is mostly-empty and the normal EM holding stuff apart would be insignificant. It might realize it hit something and start to break-up on it's way out of the Oort cloud, though.

[Anchovyforestbane]

I don't think there'd be a real difference no matter what angle that kinda object collided at, nor where it collided. At that speed it should have already crunched into a sphere from it's own perspective and a rather elongated oval from the earth's

 

That kinda speed there would be just pure annihilation in a direct path. If you're looking for some fancy words and pipe-dream knee-jerk physics (cause at that speed we're in "best guess" territory)..

-there would be some fusion/fission events and plasma discharge from the atmosphere, probably with enough heat and force to strip the atmosphere right off that area of the planet within minutes...but there wouldn't be time for that before...

-the mass would go though the planet in practically zero time(~ 0.00004 seconds), causing fusion/fission events the whole way though and eject from the opposite side. Think gunshot wound from a FMJ going though ballistics gel but the long hole would still have matter in it...matter going though a fair amount of fission/fusion events. 

-Probably no appreciable deceleration of the object itself but likely it gives enough force to the stuff where it passed though to put a super-sonic geyser in place and eventually pump a continental chunk off into a different orbit around the sun over the next couple hours and weeks.

-the forces holding the matter together in and just outside the direct path would not be enough to keep doing that very well. Massive ionic plasma discharges comes from both "poles" of the impact line. Sudden pillar of light from both ends, ground itself "glowing" for miles around.

-a big old sudden jolt felt world-wide, just before two fire-storms of plasma rush around the planet from the impact-poles somewhere around the speed of sound, sterilizing everything in hot plasma-wash.

-oceans probably don't completely dry up, but most likely boil around the top for a couple days as the heat radiates.

-Lot of mixed H O Fe Si etc in pure atomic form reacting as it cools down from plasma being ejected from the active annihilation path over a couple months.

-Hole would mostly fill itself in over a couple years, active volcano at both ends.

-new tectonics for a couple millennia as things shift around.

-earth and moon gets rings like Saturn for a couple more millennia

-wait for life to condense a new non-reductive atmosphere and crawl out of the oceans.

Again, the "hole" wouldn't really change much weather it hit needle-first or flat-side, but the energies of the interactions would probably go beyond vaporizing and into plasma-fying everything in a wide radius of it's path.

 

The object itself would probably convert some mass to pure energy on its way though, but a good chunk of it would also likely just "miss everything" on it way though as well; since matter is mostly-empty and the normal EM holding stuff apart would be insignificant. It might realize it hit something and start to break-up on it's way out of the Oort cloud, though.

Very interesting. Is there any other solid material the needle could be made of which would result in a more extraordinary reaction?

[Turtle]

Very interesting. Is there any other solid material the needle could be made of which would result in a more extraordinary reaction?

Yes; unobtanium. :Ebomb:

[GAHD]

Very interesting. Is there any other solid material the needle could be made of which would result in a more extraordinary reaction?

Depends on how you define "extraordinary"? A big point to consider is something ballistics looks at: overpenetration.

 

Going high-end fraction of C in speed means that there's no time for  "shockwave" to really form and transfer energy well. That's why a really-fast really dense bullet is in a lot of ways less dangerous to flesh than a slightly slower one that will deform. It's all about how much energy you can actually transfer to the target. .99c and massive means ENERGY, but it doesn't have much ability to transfer that energy.

 

When you end up with something like 40 miliseconds of total "contact" time spread out over a fairly large area geverything around that area Immediately gets "jiggled" and goes to highest-possible energy state (plasma) and probably gets a bunch of linear momentum added too. But that's a very small fraction of the actual energy of the "bullet" in this case, even with some nuclei being unfortunate enough to meet up with other ones at speeds that should overcome strong-force and do the annihilation-dance.

Speed of sound is the general speed you'll see energy get transferred in matter, and solid stuff has FAST speed of sound to suck more of that interaction energy outwards, but .99C is...just way outside those specifications. Most of the planet will just not even notice something went through it.

 

I'd wager the same something moving at 0.01C to 0.1C would do a lot more spectacular damage to a planet by the sheer fact that it could actually transfer it's momentum rather than just...ignoring the valance bubbles and leaving them shredded in it's wake. 

 

Yes; unobtanium. :ebomb:

Anti-matter? Anti-tungsten would be a riot. Anti-neutronium would be particularly vile since it would not "miss" anything even if it was much-much smaller by volume to same mass.

 

A slow-moving Strangelet would be the most terrifying unobtanium or phlebotinum.

[A-wal]

I don't think there'd be a real difference no matter what angle that kinda object collided at, nor where it collided. At that speed it should have already crunched into a sphere from it's own perspective and a rather elongated oval from the earth's

It wouldn't change size at all from its own perspective, how could it? It's inertial so it's obviously not going to 'get crunched' from its own perspective.

Edited September 16, 2020 by A-wal

[Mutex]

It wouldn't change size at all from it's own perspective, how could it? It's inertial so it's obviously not going to 'get crunched' from its own perspective.

 

That's opening up a big can of worms! For something to be 'inertial' it has to be inertial relative to some other thing, in this case that is the earth.

 

Now I am going to use my 'crazy' model of space that is a flat space with a fundamental 'length' property, and that it is matter that gives space that length value. 

 

In that case, 'being relative to' some thing, is a velocity in the length contribution of the relative object (the earth). 

 

So from the perspective of the javelin nothing is changing.

 

Same would apply if we on the earth measured we orbit the Sum and 0.99c then one day (by magic), all the matter in the universe goes away, yesterday you were doing 0.99c, the next day how fast are you going, and can you tell that you are going at any velocity? 

 

The answer is no, you cannot have a velocity in the space length that you contribute, only the length contribution of all other matter. 

 

That's why anything made of matter cannot go at c, you can't have a velocity in your own space length contribution.

 

So in the flat space-length model a velocity in another objects length will make you slightly larger (in all directions), this is special relativity and the reason is that over time you are in more space, a stationary object is in 1 unit of space over any unit of time, but a moving object is 'in' more than one unit of space length over time. Meaning you exist in longer space, the length of the space determines the size of the matter in that space.  (and the longer the wavelength of light from that space).

 

So apart from Doppler shift, an object at a high velocity (relative to earth) will experience longer space, because it sees more (longer) space over time (due to the velocity), the longer space makes clocks tick slower (longer space length between the numbers, larger clock). 

Time will measure as longer (we measure this), and therefore the frequency of radio (or light) is lower with a longer wavelength.

 

So the Javelin will look very red (after you correct for doppler shift) and it will look physically larger. 

 

When I work out how to post picture here, I want to start a thread about this, so we can argue it out.. I want people to understand the model (not believe it) and see if they can show me where I am wrong. (in true scientific method tradition).

[A-wal]

That's opening up a big can of worms! For something to be 'inertial' it has to be inertial relative to some other thing, in this case that is the earth.

No it doesn't. For something to be inertial it has to be under no acceleration, nothing to do with its motion relative to other objects. Now you could argue that you can only accelerate relative to other objects but that really is opening a can of worms.

 

That's why anything made of matter cannot go at c, you can't have a velocity in your own space length contribution.

Huh? Nothing can move at c relative to anything else because that would require infinite energy because the mass of an object in motion relative to an observer increases as the objects relative velocity increases, approaching infinite mass as they approach c.

 

So apart from Doppler shift, an object at a high velocity (relative to earth) will experience longer space, because it sees more (longer) space over time (due to the velocity), the longer space makes clocks tick slower (longer space length between the numbers, larger clock). 

Time will measure as longer (we measure this), and therefore the frequency of radio (or light) is lower with a longer wavelength.

 

So the Javelin will look very red (after you correct for doppler shift) and it will look physically larger.

The javlin will be shorter in its direction of motion from the perspective of an observer on Earth, not longer. The Earth will be length contracted along its direction of motion from the perspective of an observer riding the javlin, they would say the flat Earthers are right.

Edited September 16, 2020 by A-wal

[Mutex]

No it doesn't. For something to be inertial it has to be under no acceleration, nothing to do with its motion relative to other objects. Now you could argue that you can only accelerate relative to other objects but that really is opening a can of worms.

 

Huh? Nothing can move at c relative to anything else because that would require infinite energy because the mass of an object in motion relative to an observer increases as the objects relative velocity increases, approaching infinite mass as they approach c.

 

The javlin will be shorter in its direction of motion from the perspective of an observer on Earth, not longer. The Earth will be length contracted along its direction of motion from the perspective of an observer riding the javlin, they would say the flat Earthers are right.

 

you can only accelerate or have a velocity relative to other objects, and an object in free fall is not accelerating, many relativists do not think acceleration has anything to do with it, it is just instantons velocity. It's just velocity, not the rate of change of velocity.

 

 

 

Huh? Nothing can move at c relative to anything else because that would require infinite energy because the mass of an object in motion relative to an observer increases as the objects relative velocity increases, approaching infinite mass as they approach c.

 

That's not the case, we don't observe that effect, that would mean that different accelerator potentials (velocities) would yield different measurements for mass. We don't see that.

Can you justify why mass would increase with acceleration?

 

 

No, mass can move at c, because c is the fastest you can push something, but as you as you go faster the amount it pushes goes down, until you reach c then the amount you can push is zero, even if you had infinite energy. The only way you can make matter move at c is to turn it into energy, so the amount of energy required to make mass move at c would be e=mc^2. 

 

 

 

The javlin will be shorter in its direction of motion from the perspective of an observer on Earth, not longer. The Earth will be length contracted along its direction of motion from the perspective of an observer riding the javlin, they would say the flat Earthers are right.

 

I understand that is the classical line of reasoning of special relativity, but I personally do not accept that that is the case, for me that is just an analytical artifact of the time differences from a FOR perspective. That it is only 'shorter' because of 'curvature', being on a different 'worldline' or 'like path'. But in fact it is actually longer, not shorter.

 

My reasoning for this is that on the javelin the speed of the light is the same (same for all reference frames), but because of it's velocity (relative to the earth FOR), it's clocks tick slower (longer seconds), and with longer seconds that means that you have longer meters, you are in longer space. 

 

And again, contraction has never been observed and I'm not the only person who considers it is not a real effect. 

 

Say you are beamed into an otherwise empty universe, you are in a spacecraft, once you are beamed into the craft you look at the instruments, and you see your fuel talk almost empty and that the rockets have just finished firing.

 

Can you measure any velocity?, can you measure any acceleration?  after a couple of days you notice a distant light and you see another craft just like yours, it appears to be moving towards you, are you both going in the same direction? or is it moving towards you, or you towards it? 

 

It's impossible to tell, it might appear to be moving towards you, but you are both going very fast in the same direction, and you are just going a bit faster, or you could be going in the opposite direction and it moving a bit faster than you. You can't tell.

 

In my model there is no common reference frame, so direction and acceleration is unknown, in the standard (text book) model, there is a relative velocity but the elephant in the room is that there is also an earth as a 3rd reference frame, and really V1 and V2 are relative to the earth reference frame that is then applied to the objects as velocity. 

 

I do admit that my take on general and special relativity is not 'mainstream', but it is a consistent model and is not contradicted by observations, as such it is a functionally equivalent model, and for me actually makes sense and explains important things like gravity and why things fall. It explains it with a real and practical mechanism, that is consistent to what we observe. If we observe longer time, we are in longer space, if we observe shorter time we are in shorter space. 

 

Velocity over space (and time obviously) means over time you exist in longer space, your clocks go slower (we agree on that), but that is not a directional length of space, it is every direction not only the direction of travel.

 

I really need to lay it out in a consistent model, then we can argue it, presenting it piecemeal is not the best way,  but its a very interesting  subject for me. I hope we can argue about this some more!  :vava:

[A-wal]

you can only accelerate or have a velocity relative to other objects, and an object in free fall is not accelerating, many relativists do not think acceleration has anything to do with it, it is just instantons velocity. It's just velocity, not the rate of change of velocity.

The point is an object is inertial if it's not accelerating. You said inertial is relative to other objects, it isn't.

 

That's not the case, we don't observe that effect, that would mean that different accelerator potentials (velocities) would yield different measurements for mass. We don't see that.

Can you justify why mass would increase with acceleration?

Yes it is the case and yes we do see that. Velocity is a measure of distance over time, as an object accelerates it becomes time dilated and length contracted making it take longer to cover the same distance so its increase in velocity becomes less pronounced using the same amount of energy to accelerate, therefore its mass increases as its relative velocity increases.

 

No, mass can move at c, because c is the fastest you can push something, but as you as you go faster the amount it pushes goes down, until you reach c then the amount you can push is zero, even if you had infinite energy. The only way you can make matter move at c is to turn it into energy, so the amount of energy required to make mass move at c would be e=mc^2.

That's the same as saying its mass increases.

 

I understand that is the classical line of reasoning of special relativity, but I personally do not accept that that is the case, for me that is just an analytical artifact of the time differences from a FOR perspective. That it is only 'shorter' because of 'curvature', being on a different 'worldline' or 'like path'. But in fact it is actually longer, not shorter.

No, length contraction is not an artifact of time dilation. The consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames is because of a combination of time dilation and length contraction, or a combination of time dilation and length contraction is responsible for the consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames, depending on how you want to look at it.

 

My reasoning for this is that on the javelin the speed of the light is the same (same for all reference frames), but because of it's velocity (relative to the earth FOR), it's clocks tick slower (longer seconds), and with longer seconds that means that you have longer meters, you are in longer space.

No.

 

And again, contraction has never been observed and I'm not the only person who considers it is not a real effect.

You're not the only person who doesn't understand special relativity. Length contraction is an integral part of why all inertial frames are equivalent and why the speed of light is the same in all of them.

 

Say you are beamed into an otherwise empty universe, you are in a spacecraft, once you are beamed into the craft you look at the instruments, and you see your fuel talk almost empty and that the rockets have just finished firing.

 

Can you measure any velocity?, can you measure any acceleration?  after a couple of days you notice a distant light and you see another craft just like yours, it appears to be moving towards you, are you both going in the same direction? or is it moving towards you, or you towards it? 

 

It's impossible to tell, it might appear to be moving towards you, but you are both going very fast in the same direction, and you are just going a bit faster, or you could be going in the opposite direction and it moving a bit faster than you. You can't tell.

Yes, inertial motion is relative, this is basic Galilean relativity and applies to special relativity as well.

 

In my model there is no common reference frame, so direction and acceleration is unknown, in the standard (text book) model, there is a relative velocity but the elephant in the room is that there is also an earth as a 3rd reference frame, and really V1 and V2 are relative to the earth reference frame that is then applied to the objects as velocity.

No that isn't how it works at all. All inertial frames are arbitrary choices and have nothing to do with Earth's frame. You can pick any other inertial frame and work out V1 and V2 in that frame and the time dilation and length contraction of the two objects depends on their velocity in this frame just as it does in any other inertial frame.

 

I do admit that my take on general and special relativity is not 'mainstream', but it is a consistent model and is not contradicted by observations, as such it is a functionally equivalent model, and for me actually makes sense and explains important things like gravity and why things fall. It explains it with a real and practical mechanism, that is consistent to what we observe. If we observe longer time, we are in longer space, if we observe shorter time we are in shorter space. 

 

Velocity over space (and time obviously) means over time you exist in longer space, your clocks go slower (we agree on that), but that is not a directional length of space, it is every direction not only the direction of travel.

None of this is true.

 

I really need to lay it out in a consistent model, then we can argue it, presenting it piecemeal is not the best way,  but its a very interesting  subject for me. I hope we can argue about this some more!  :vava:

No thanks, I'm out. Learn how sr actually works so that you understand why time dilation and length contraction, the consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames and increased mass with increased relative velocity are all interdependent because at the moment you don't even understand the model that you're trying to argue against.

[Mutex]

 

 

Yes it is the case and yes we do see that. Velocity is a measure of distance over time, as an object accelerates it becomes time dilated and length contracted making it take longer to cover the same distance so its increase in velocity becomes less pronounced using the same amount of energy to accelerate, therefore its mass increases as its relative velocity increases.

 

Yes, I agree that as the mass increases in velocity that the effectiveness of the energy (limited by velocity, c) applied to the mass is lower, and will be zero at the speed of light. 

But that does not imply that this effect is the result of the mass increasing, we measure the mass of the matter for say an electron or a proton, that measured mass does not change depending on the power of the accelerator. 

 

 

That's the same as saying its mass increases.

 

 

No, it's saying you cannot impart as much energy because energy has a finite speed, so the amount of 'push' decreases with velocity, because the push is limited in speed, but that is not the same as the implication that it is the result of increased mass. It's decreased pushability(!) not increased mass. 

 

 

 

No, length contraction is not an artifact of time dilation. The consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames is because of a combination of time dilation and length contraction, or a combination of time dilation and length contraction is responsible for the consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames, depending on how you want to look at it.

 

The constancy of the speed of light has to be because the length of time corresponds with the length of space, it has to be that way, I don't like the terms 'dilation' and 'contraction', if you measure or observe a longer or shorter time on a clock (as we do, both longer and shorter), then in that frame of reference the length of space has to be equally longer or shorter, otherwise, c would not be constant in all FOR's. 

 

Length of space measurements are impossible for confirmation of relativity (except the wavelength of light, ie, gravitational shift).

But you can measure the time difference 'over time' because the difference is accumulative.

 

Then the only way to measure length of space is to know that the speed of light is constant and that 'speed' is the length of space over a length of time, if time is longer then space is longer, if time is shorter then space is shorter. 

 

That applies to general relativity and special relativity, time is longer at the center of the earth relative to the surface of the earth, so space is longer as well. We can measure that length difference because we observe gravitational shift (both red for 'down' and blue for 'up').

 

 

My reasoning for this is that on the javelin the speed of the light is the same (same for all reference frames), but because of it's velocity (relative to the earth FOR), it's clocks tick slower (longer seconds), and with longer seconds that means that you have longer meters, you are in longer space.

No.

 

It's the only way that c can be constant, however with SR you are in longer space by virtue of 'consuming' or existing in more (longer) space over time, in GR you are just in longer space 'down' as the result of matter. (mass makes space longer). Velocity through space length (established by matter), will make the object moving in that space experience longer space, (and as we observe longer time).. 

 

 

 

You're not the only person who doesn't understand special relativity. Length contraction is an integral part of why all inertial frames are equivalent and why the speed of light is the same in all of them.

 

I think I understand it just fine, and that is not an argument, then explain why it is an integral part, I have explained why length varies, and it is because the speed of light is constant and the length of time varies. If the object contracted and the time was longer, then c would not be constant. 

 

I do understand the standard model of relativity, I just do not agree with that assumption, contraction is unproven and does not form any part of the observations that confirm that relativity is correct. 

 

So contraction is an unsubstantiated claim not supported by evidence, and that does not fit with the constancy of the speed of light. If time 'expands' (gets longer) for an object (regardless if from GR or SR) then to keep c constant the length of space must vary by the same amount.

 

That is consistent with our observations as well, we measure the wavelength of light to be longer with higher 'gravity', as that light is emitted from longer space (and therefore time). 

 

 

 

 

No that isn't how it works at all. All inertial frames are arbitrary choices and have nothing to do with Earth's frame. You can pick any other inertial frame and work out V1 and V2 in that frame and the time dilation and length contraction of the two objects depends on their velocity in this frame just as it does in any other inertial frame.

 

 

what if there is only V1 and V2, can V1 choose V2 inertial frame, are there any other frames you can choose from? So we are in two spaceships in an otherwise empty universe, so your velocity determines how fast my clock ticks? and vice versa? What produces that effect? 

 

 

 

None of this is true.

 

However, it is completely consistent with observation. Otherwise, you make a damn fine argument :)

 

 

 

No thanks, I'm out. Learn how sr actually works so that you understand why time dilation and length contraction, the consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames and increased mass with increased relative velocity are all interdependent because at the moment you don't even understand the model that you're trying to argue against.

 

Can you explain how gravity 'actually works' ?? (I ask knowing full well you cannot). So how can you say you understand SR (and I don't) when you know damn well the geometrical model of relativity does not actually explain why a rock falls to the ground when you let it go. 

 

However, explaining how gravity works from the understanding of the length of space with SR and GR is trivial! 

 

I think you kind of gave up at the end, I did not see much original thinking though.. but good debate anyway... thanks.. 

[A-wal]

Urgh, said I wasn't going to do this.

 

Yes, I agree that as the mass increases in velocity that the effectiveness of the energy (limited by velocity, c) applied to the mass is lower, and will be zero at the speed of light. 

But that does not imply that this effect is the result of the mass increasing, we measure the mass of the matter for say an electron or a proton, that measured mass does not change depending on the power of the accelerator.

That's exactly what it not only implies but explicitly demonstrates. The mass of particles does indeed increase measurably in particle accelerators exactly as should be expected.

Look at it like this. The same amount of energy will cause less acceleration the faster an object is moving relative to the observer, so where does that extra energy go? It has to still be there, meaning the object would impact another object with more energy than you would expect it to at that velocity, so its mass has increased.

 

If you work out what energy it would impact with if the velocity addition formula were linear (if the same amount of energy increased an objects velocity by the same amount regardless of its relative velocity) then to get the same amount of energy its mass would remain the same.
 

It's decreased pushability(!) not increased mass.

Same thing!

 

The constancy of the speed of light has to be because the length of time corresponds with the length of space, it has to be that way, I don't like the terms 'dilation' and 'contraction', if you measure or observe a longer or shorter time on a clock (as we do, both longer and shorter), then in that frame of reference the length of space has to be equally longer or shorter, otherwise, c would not be constant in all FOR's.

You've got this totally wrong. Time dilation (taking more time to cover a length of space) and length contraction (covering less space in a given time) together create the velocity addition formula. If length were to extend then it would counteract time dilation and create different velocity addition formula, one in which the speed of light was not constant in all inertial frames.

 

It's the only way that c can be constant, however with SR you are in longer space by virtue of 'consuming' or existing in more (longer) space over time, in GR you are just in longer space 'down' as the result of matter. (mass makes space longer). Velocity through space length (established by matter), will make the object moving in that space experience longer space, (and as we observe longer time).

This is nothing but confused nonsensical gibberish. The only way the speed of light can be the same in every inertial frame is with time dilation or length contraction, and it's both always in equal amounts. This is very easy to show, time dilation has the effect of slowing down the object the observer measures as time dilated in the same way that length contraction has exactly the same effect of slowing down the object the observer measures as length contracted. If it were length extended it would be sped up.

 

I think I understand it just fine

I know and it's annoying.

 

what if there is only V1 and V2, can V1 choose V2 inertial frame, are there any other frames you can choose from?

You can choose any inertial frame you like, objects will be time dilated and length contracted according to their velocities in this frame.

 

So we are in two spaceships in an otherwise empty universe, so your velocity determines how fast my clock ticks? and vice versa? What produces that effect?

Their relative velocity determines how time dilated and length contracted each is from the perspective of the other spaceship.

 

Can you explain how gravity 'actually works' ?? (I ask knowing full well you cannot).

Yes!

 

So how can you say you understand SR (and I don't) when you know damn well the geometrical model of relativity does not actually explain why a rock falls to the ground when you let it go.

Now that's a completely different question, that's why gravity works, what causes it. You're right, gr does absolutely nothing to explain why massive objects attract each other. The way I look at it, energy pushes outwards (negative curvature) accelerating objects away from each other while mass pulls inwards (positive curvature) accelerating objects towards each other.

 

I think you kind of gave up at the end, I did not see much original thinking though.. but good debate anyway... thanks.. 

I'm more than capable of independent thought thank you. For example I don't agree with how gr asserts that freefall is inertial, it's acceleration due to gravity and is felt in just the same way as acceleration due to energy is felt. With gravity it's called tidal force. I also don't see any distinction between an object following a curved path through flat spacetime (as in sr) and an object following a straight path through curved spacetime (as in gr). Flat and curved spacetime are meaningless, just arbitrary subjective choices of a coordinate system, it's worldlines that can be objectively straight or curved.

I also don't think it's possible for any object to reach a black hole because an infinite amount of time would have to pass on all distant clocks first as time dilation and length contraction approach infinity at the horizon, so a black hole will always die before any object can reach it. It's amazing how many qualified people don't seem to grasp this.

See I can rant against the official interpretation too. The difference is I actually know what the official interpretation says.

[Mutex]

 

I'm more than capable of independent thought thank you. For example I don't agree with how gr asserts that freefall is inertial, it's acceleration due to gravity and is felt in just the same way as acceleration due to energy is felt. With gravity it's called tidal force. I also don't see any distinction between an object following a curved path through flat spacetime (as in sr) and an object following a straight path through curved spacetime (as in gr). Flat and curved spacetime are meaningless, just arbitrary subjective choices of a coordinate system, it's worldlines that can be objectively straight or curved.

 

I also don't think it's possible for any object to reach a black hole because an infinite amount of time would have to pass on all distant clocks first as time dilation and length contraction approach infinity at the horizon, so a black hole will always die before any object can reach it. It's amazing how many qualified people don't seem to grasp this.

 

See I can rant against the official interpretation too. The difference is I actually know what the official interpretation says.

 

The first part of your comment is 'what the text books say', so sure, I can understand you not agreeing or not taking the time to consider what I am actually saying. That's fine.

 

as for the last bit about black holes, you cannot really justify physics of black holes, especially if you have to use the word 'infinite' in any way or form. 

 

Nothing in nature is infinite (except maybe the universe itself, it is infinite because it is all that there is).

 

If you get infinities in physics, you did something wrong. With black holes it is usually a divide by zero error. 

 

And if the zero you introduce is 'time' or 'space', do you mean that time is stopped? or space length is zero?

 

Also it is immaterial what a remote clock says about your time, so even if a distant clock may see you take forever to fall into the black hole, you who are falling into the black hole are doing it in your time and you are a screaming fireball and for you it happens very quickly. 

 

You falling into a black hole will have zero effect on my clock.

 

 

 

With gravity it's called tidal force. I also don't see any distinction between an object following a curved path through flat spacetime (as in sr) and an object following a straight path through curved spacetime (as in gr). Flat and curved spacetime are meaningless, just arbitrary subjective choices of a coordinate system, it's worldlines that can be objectively straight or curved.

 

you and me are in identical labs but your lab is in a very high gravity potential compared to me, we are relatively stationary with each other (no SR).

 

I have a magic telescope that I can see your lab to scale and I can measure lengths in your lab both space length and time length.

 

The first thing I notice is the clock on your wall going half the speed that my clock is going, it takes 2 of my seconds for your clock to go 1 second.

 

In each of the labs we have a NIST calibrated standard 1 meter ruler and a laser tape measure that measures length by timing how long it takes for light to be 1 meter.

 

I see you walking around in your lab, but I notice you are not walking slowly, or doing things at half speed, but I do see your clock going at half speed!

 

You can also see into my lab and to see my clock going twice the speed of yours, you notice I have 1 second every 1/2 a second by your clock, you also notice me moving around in the lab and you also notice that I am not going faster, I'm not going like those old movies. But my clock is going twice as fast.

 

I find these observations interesting, so I decide to conduct more observations, So the first thing I do is measure the length of your NIST standard ruler, that is certified as 1 meter long, I measure your ruler, USING MY RULER, and I find that the 1 meter ruler in your lab actually measures 2 meters long.

 

So do the same measurement for my ruler and you find my 1 meter ruler only measures 1/2 of a meter. 

 

Now things are starting to make sense: so we do some more tests, I confirm that my 1 meter ruler is accurate with my instruments (the laser tape measure), then I pack that ruler in a box and send it to you. 

 

You receive my ruler and you check its length with your instruments, and it measures 1 meter. I measure that ruler from my location and it still measures at 2 meters.

 

From General relativity, it is mass that gives space a fundamental property of length, it is this fundamental length value that determines the SIZE of any objects at that location in space.

 

A 2 to 1 ratio of length difference would not be possible I would not think in nature, but it is easy numbers to visualize. 

 

The point is it has nothing to do with the path between the two labs, or a worldline, but it is the result of the relative length of space at the two locations, it's not the position of a 4d Array element, defined in X,Y,Z,t it is the VALUE of the array element (that value is the length of space).

 

That is why in this thought experiment I do not see you walking around and doing things at half speed, but I do see your clock going at half speed, the only way that can happen is the range of motion is twice mine, you are twice as big as I am, everything goes for you at normal speed, and appears to me at normal speed but when I measure your length (like of your 1 meter ruler) I measure it as twice as large (in every direction).

 

The gradient of space length gives you the mechanism for gravity, what you refer to as tidal forces, that is the gradient of the length property of space. 

'DOWN' is towards a lower energy state, longer space, and 'UP' is a higher energy state shorter space.

 

One more thought experiments, while we in our labs, and you are in the long space high gravity lab (twice mine).

I fire a constant speed spacecraft towards you at in my space and time is going at 100Km/h we see me launch it and you get out your radar gun and you measure its speed, you measure it going at 50Km/h. (your Kilometer is twice as long remember).

 

the spacecraft is just flying it is not powered, I watch my radar gun and I see the ship getting faster (accelerating) getting faster than 100km.

 

At the half way point between you and me, I measure the ships speed again, and I see that it is going at 150K/m, you measure it's speed at that point and you measure it as 75Km/h. 

 

Finally the shop gets to you, you measure its speed you measure it at 100km/h, I measure its speed and I measure it at 200k/m, we both agree that the ship accelerated, but we can not agree on the actual speed or how long the trip took or at what time the ship was half way. 

 

If the trip took 100 seconds in my time, it took 50 seconds in your time.

 

That's why things fall, any velocity is a higher velocity in longer space (including 0 and negative).  So gravity is just the direction of longest space, matter has to 'fall' towards longest space.

 

If an object has a velocity in that space such that in the direction of travel is the direction of longest space then that will be something that is 'ballistic', 

 

It requires energy to be in shorter space (because the energy is distributed over a shorter area of space and time), but would mean the relative density is higher in shorter space and lower in longer space. 

 

Just work through that thought model, take it on face value and not in terms of relativity, just say "what if".

[A-wal]

Wtf happened to the forum? It's hidious!

 

Quote

The first part of your comment is 'what the text books say', so sure, I can understand you not agreeing or not taking the time to consider what I am actually saying. That's fine.

I don't give two sh1ts what the text books say, that's how simply how time dilation and length contraction have to work for the speed of light to be the same in all inertial frames.
 

Quote

 

as for the last bit about black holes, you cannot really justify physics of black holes, especially if you have to use the word 'infinite' in any way or form.

Nothing in nature is infinite (except maybe the universe itself, it is infinite because it is all that there is).

If you get infinities in physics, you did something wrong. With black holes it is usually a divide by zero error.

And if the zero you introduce is 'time' or 'space', do you mean that time is stopped? or space length is zero?

 

Time dilation and length contraction reach infinity at the event horizon, that's a just fact of how black holes work so yes an object would be contracted to zero length and their clock would be frozen at the horizon from the perspective of a distant observer. No object is ever infinitely time dilated and length contracted though because no object ever reaches an event horizon from the perspective of a distant observer, they just keep falling towards it at an increasingly slow rate.
 

Quote

 

Also it is immaterial what a remote clock says about your time, so even if a distant clock may see you take forever to fall into the black hole, you who are falling into the black hole are doing it in your time and you are a screaming fireball and for you it happens very quickly.

You falling into a black hole will have zero effect on my clock.

 

No, me falling into a black hole will never happen on your watch so it never happens on mine either. The black hole would be dead before any object could reach the horizon from any perspective. As I fall towards the horizon you see my clock slowing down and I see yours speeding up, no time on your clock corresponds to me reaching the horizon.
Now it is true that we could both calculate the time on my watch when I would reach the event horizon but the black hole be dead by then regardless of how long it lasts, and that's obviously true for both of us.

The rest of your post is utter nonsense! These for example:

Quote

I see you walking around in your lab, but I notice you are not walking slowly, or doing things at half speed, but I do see your clock going at half speed!

Of course if the clock is moving at half speed due to time dilation then everything in the lab is time dilated by the same amount. If my clock is moving at half speed from your perspective then all other measurements of time that can also be considered clocks (because that's all a clock is) are also moving at half the speed.

 

Quote

I find these observations interesting, so I decide to conduct more observations, So the first thing I do is measure the length of your NIST standard ruler, that is certified as 1 meter long, I measure your ruler, USING MY RULER, and I find that the 1 meter ruler in your lab actually measures 2 meters long.

If you measure my clock (and all other measurements of time that can also be considered clocks because that's all a clock is) moving at half the speed of yours then you measure a one metre ruler in my lab as 0.5 metres according to your ruler, not two metres.

 

Quote

Now things are starting to make sense

🙂

 

Quote

I fire a constant speed spacecraft towards you at in my space and time is going at 100Km/h we see me launch it and you get out your radar gun and you measure its speed, you measure it going at 50Km/h. (your Kilometer is twice as long remember).

No, if it's traveling at 100kph from your perspective then from my perspective it's traveling towards me at 400kph because 100k for you is 200 km by my ruler and an hour on your watch is thirty minutes on mine.

 

Quote

Finally the shop gets to you

Does it sell alcohol?

 

Quote

Just work through that thought model, take it on face value and not in terms of relativity, just say "what if".

Worked through the model, evaluated its value and seen how it demonstrates again what happens when somebody who doesn't even grasp the basics of what it means for time to dilate or length contract finds it preferable to believe that their lack of understanding is due to a deeper level of understanding.

[Anchovyforestbane]

I had posted a series of questions here, but it seems they have disappeared in the midst of the forum change. I shall rewrite them to the best of my memory.

On 9/11/2020 at 4:28 PM, GAHD said:

-there would be some fusion/fission events and plasma discharge from the atmosphere, probably with enough heat and force to strip the atmosphere right off that area of the planet within minutes...but there wouldn't be time for that before...
-the mass would go though the planet in practically zero time(~ 0.00004 seconds), causing fusion/fission events the whole way though and eject from the opposite side. Think gunshot wound from a FMJ going though ballistics gel but the long hole would still have matter in it...matter going though a fair amount of fission/fusion events. 
-Probably no appreciable deceleration of the object itself but likely it gives enough force to the stuff where it passed though to put a super-sonic geyser in place and eventually pump a continental chunk off into a different orbit around the sun over the next couple hours and weeks.
-the forces holding the matter together in and just outside the direct path would not be enough to keep doing that very well. Massive ionic plasma discharges comes from both "poles" of the impact line. Sudden pillar of light from both ends, ground itself "glowing" for miles around.
-a big old sudden jolt felt world-wide, just before two fire-storms of plasma rush around the planet from the impact-poles somewhere around the speed of sound, sterilizing everything in hot plasma-wash.
-oceans probably don't completely dry up, but most likely boil around the top for a couple days as the heat radiates.
-Lot of mixed H O Fe Si etc in pure atomic form reacting as it cools down from plasma being ejected from the active annihilation path over a couple months.
-Hole would mostly fill itself in over a couple years, active volcano at both ends.
-new tectonics for a couple millennia as things shift around.
-earth and moon gets rings like Saturn for a couple more millennia

-wait for life to condense a new non-reductive atmosphere and crawl out of the oceans.

How specifically would the fission and fusion effect the Earth's geochemistry? Could life potentially resurface without the atmosphere according to these geochemical changes; if so, how long would it take? If that is not possible, how long would it take for an atmosphere to reform, and how much longer after this would life resurface? What would either of these forms of life look like in contrast to life now?

 

On 9/16/2020 at 1:42 PM, A-wal said:

(1): The mass of particles does indeed increase measurably in particle accelerators exactly as should be expected.

(2): I also don't think it's possible for any object to reach a black hole because an infinite amount of time would have to pass on all distant clocks first as time dilation and length contraction approach infinity at the horizon, so a black hole will always die before any object can reach it. 

(1): How specifically does the relationship between fermions and Higgs bosons change on a nuclear scale throughout this process?

(2): Quite fascinating. In that case, what do you propose would happen to all the matter trapped in an event horizon after the black hole dies? In the meantime, is the trapped matter capable of chemistry among itself, or photochemistry with either the Hawking radiation or external light? If so, what could be the potential results, and would it effect nearby astral bodies in any way? 

[A-wal]

On 10/12/2020 at 8:12 PM, Anchovyforestbane said:

I had posted a series of questions here, but it seems they have disappeared in the midst of the forum change. I shall rewrite them to the best of my memory.

How specifically would the fission and fusion effect the Earth's geochemistry? Could life potentially resurface without the atmosphere according to these geochemical changes; if so, how long would it take? If that is not possible, how long would it take for an atmosphere to reform, and how much longer after this would life resurface? What would either of these forms of life look like in contrast to life now?

 

(1): How specifically does the relationship between fermions and Higgs bosons change on a nuclear scale throughout this process?

(2): Quite fascinating. In that case, what do you propose would happen to all the matter trapped in an event horizon after the black hole dies? In the meantime, is the trapped matter capable of chemistry among itself, or photochemistry with either the Hawking radiation or external light? If so, what could be the potential results, and would it effect nearby astral bodies in any way? 

(1): It doesn't. The object has the exact same mass from it's own perspective, all inertial motion is relative motion. It's just that it's mass is increased from the perspective of an observer in a different inertial frame. If an object accelerates to 0.6c in your frame and then uses the same amount of energy to accelerate again then it would be traveling at 0.8c in your frame, so it's mass has increased.

(2): Nothing can be trapped in an event horizon, objects fall towards it at progressively slower rate from the perspective of a distant observer but they never reach the horizon so after the black hole dies those objects will still be there, so they obviously can't reach the event horizon from their own perspective either.

Time moves normally from the falling observer's perspective and there is a future time on their watch that corresponds with reaching the event horizon but that's also true for the distant observer who would also calculate the falling observer's watch showing the same time infinitely far in the future by their own watch at the point when the falling object reaches the horizon.

The closer an object gets to the event horizon the more tidal force it will feel, which is the difference in the strength of gravity over that object. Other than that nothing unusual happens. This is exactly what a normally accelerating object feels, if the energy that's accelerating it were evenly spread over that object then the object would feel no G-force.