Thread replies: 24
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: Smart Vsauce.jpg (73KB, 1920x1080px) Image search:
[Google]
73KB, 1920x1080px
Fact: Everything in the universe can travel no faster than the speed of light.
This also includes the propagation of fields like gravity.
If I were to suddenly remove our sun from space it would take 8 minutes before the Earth would hurl into the depths of space.
So since gravity is not instantaneous, it needs time to propagate. Imagine we had a very massive object moving at relativistic speeds through an infinite vacuum.
The object is producing gravity, but because the object is moving at some fraction of the speed of light and gravity travels at the speed of light, when gravitational fields are produced they 'Clump up' in-front of the object and disperse behind the object. So what happens is that the center of gravity produced by the object actually moves in-front of the center of mass of that object. This means the gravity well of the object leads the object. So the result is that we have a force acting on the object in the same direction as it is traveling accelerating it forward even more, in turn making it go faster, making the leading gravity well even stronger and so forth.
Eventually you would get to the point where the object is going faster and faster, and as it approaches the speed of light, it would get more massive, increasing gravity, making it go faster, making it more massive. We would be in a situation where this object has infinite energy. Therefore it would be in a position to break the speed of light.
tl;dr Perpetual motion solved, infinite energy source found, speed of light broken, laws of thermodynamics invalidated.
>>
>>7634304
Also, is this similar to the Alcubbiere drive?
>>
>>7634304
http://www.sparknotes.com/physics/specialrelativity/dynamics/section3.rhtml
Accelerating to c requries an infinite force
>>
>>7634304
FACT: three posts on /sci/ have this asshole as thread image and it's partially your fault
>>
>>7634341
sorry :(
>>
>>7634423
No you aren't. Don't even try and lie you naughty person.
>>
>>7634304
This is called doppler effect, it's essentially the loud sound you hear when you break the sound barrier. The source of the wave is travelling at the speed of the wave itself, causing an extremely high amplitude.
>>
Actually cherenkov radiation can cause charged particles to exceed the speed of light so you're wrong OP and your shits all retarded
>>
>>7634304
>The object is producing gravity
This is where your shitpost falls apart.
You are imagining your massive object and its gravity to be like a boat making waves as it moves through water. But its gravitation is not related to its motion; more crucially, motion is relative.
No matter what direction it might be moving in one frame of reference, it is moving another direction in another frame of reference. There is no "right" or "real" frame of reference, and so there is no way to say what its motion is except relative to something else.
>>
>>7634304
>gravity is traveling, just as light
according to einstein, gravity is more a deformation of space-time than some kind of wave or force that travels
sorry to shit on your dreams tho
>>
Does this mean we can create gravitational vibrations by moving a block of lead back and forth at close to the speed of light?
>>
>>7634666
Makes sense to me mr devil trips
>>
>>7634653
>"Doubt me, will you? Ha, take *that!*
>links to article devestating to own case
According to *the very article you linked to*, the given scenario wouldn't even produce gravity waves. Having a static gravitational field is not the same thing as producing gravity waves.
>I don't know how to read; just how to link to wikipedia.
Kill yourself.
>>
>>7636114
>implying OP is talking about static gravitational fields
You kill yourself m80 :^)
>>
>>7634304
I'd like you to try and imagine just a big object moving at relativistic speeds.
>>
>>7636213
>implying he is talking about an oscillating mass
>>
>>7634304
If this were true, then every mass in a vacuum would accelerate to the speed of light over time. They wouldn't have to start off with any more velocity than anything non-zero - it would just take longer to reach c with a lower mass and velocity.
>>
>>7634493
So the amplitudes (of soundwave and new soundwave) get added?
>>
>>7636257
Literally ur mom on my dick m8
>>
>>7634304
1. Gravitational waves still have not been observed.
2. What is special relativity? From the 'objects' frame of reference the speed of all propagating forces and effects are exactly the way we interpret them on earth.
3. Fastest observed large objects have velocities of less than 0,5% of C and even those speeds can most likely be reached only when a binary star system has a close encounter with a black hole and one of them gets flung away. There is nothing in the universe that could accelerate a large object to a meaningful fraction of C without disintegrating it.
4. Poor quality shitpost, please go to /b/.
>>
>>7636213
Let me stop implying and state it directly, then: OP is talking about a static gravitational field. He just doesn't know that's what he's talking about, because he doesn't understand relativity well enough to know that saying, "but it's moving really fast," doesn't mean anything. Everything is moving really fast relative to something else. There is no "stopped" reference frame that you can measure the "true" speed of things against.
>>
>>7636929
Basically this. The energy required to move a large mass at those speeds would break the bonds that any known element could form.
>>
>>7634498
>cherenkov radiation can cause charged particles to exceed the speed of light
implying fase velocity = c
Thread posts: 24
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1