Artificial Gravity

With energy?
Maybe?

Of course.
Acceleration and gravitation are interchangeable.

>>8242920
Acceleration and gravity are the same thing, so yes.

Any acceleration can

>>8242920
That's a weird question. acceleration doesn't cause gravity, gravity is the act of objects with mass accelerating towards other objects with mass based off the amount of mass they both posses. Since E = mc^2 you can probably draw a relation between Energy and Gravity so maybe with enough energy in one place gravity would be dilated... But then again, I don't know much about this stuff :D

The spinning clock may as well sit on a 100g earth. Is it that?

>>8242964
>acceleration doesn't cause gravity
but it simulates it. artificial gravity runs on w^2*r and natural gravity runs on GM/R^2 (aka g) and the effect is supposed to be identical. both quack like a duck..?

>>8243016
I maed me a formula for the relative time difference d of a clock

d=sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2))-1

A clock at 100g would require 100 times the earth mass, size unchanged. The time loss is shocking.

Would a null result of the dryer experiment send shock waves through the physics community?

>>8242920
It would, but it's the same time dilation you'd predict from special relativity.

>>8243756
What would you predict for an acceleration of 100g?

All gravity is artificial. It's a pseudo-force.

>>8244100
It depends on potential difference, not just acceleration. Here's the formula:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#Definition

>>8244123
Artificial gravity isn't based on mass, it runs on w^2*r. The equivalent mass producing the same acceleration as the dryer (100g) would be an earth with 100 times its mass and its time dilation.

I'm expecting a null result. Science fair experiment debunks principle of equivalence.

>>8244269
Again, the time dilation does not depend on just the value of the gravitational field, it depends on the gravitational potential difference, which is the field integrated over distance. Look at the link. You would only get 100 times the time dilation of the earth if you built a 100g centrifuge the size of the earth.

>>8242920
Not on a scale that You could measure (with what time measuring devices are available to you).

>>8244310
Again, artificial gravity doesn't run on mass, it runs on w^2*r to produce simulated gravity. The clock that spins in the dryer feels exactly like it's sitting on a 100g earth. Just like in the elevator example used to describe the equivalence of accelerations.

>>8244313
I did the calculation and I would at least be able to qualitatively detect the time dilation.

File: Space_station.jpg (20KB, 620x465px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 620x465px

Artificial gravitation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_torus

>>8244697
What do you mean by qualitatively? With which instrument?

File: Stanford_torus.jpg (29KB, 220x174px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 220x174px

>>8244960
>qualitatively?
Effekt present or absent (null effect), roughly how much
>which instrument?
Summary: Three reference generators, one at the center, two at the diameter. (hmm.. why two) The signal is a change of frequency or of color, essentially redshift. Would love to design & build that stuff.

>>8242920
No, it will cause speed time dilation.

File: clock125.png (5KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 125x125px

>>8245656
It will, but how much? It should be tiny.
1 second in 22 million years or my calculator is kidding me

>>8242920
Isnt gravity just derived from the mass and speed? Compared to radius of ... you know... first youtube commenter...

>>8244930
Can you derive two circles rotating enought fast, so they wouldnt have exocentric force you pretend in this circles to be gravity? what happens then? There is something like... Differential than,.

>>8244313

You're an idiot

>>8242950
>accelleration and gravity are the same thing
Incorrect.

>>8246018
what's the difference between an elevator in space accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 and an elevator on earth if you are inside it with no outside view?

>>8246050
In one you are moving and the other you are not. I'm trying to get at the fact that gravity is the force responsible for the acceleration, not the acceleration itself.

>>8246056
i see. i can't really contend that viewpoint.

>>8246056
>In one you are moving and the other you are not.
But it's literally impossible to determine which is happening.

>>8246067
Sorry, the original question actually failed to ask what the difference in perception is, rather than the actual difference. Either way, it's besides the point. Acceleration =/= gravity.

>>8246072
you can't prove that there is a distinction in the frame of reference using any physics whatsoever. you're only able to looking outside of it because the reactionary force isn't being applied by a mass other than the earth itself through a field. but in this case that can be considered the acceleration because there's action at a distance can it not? therefore acceleration is the same as gravity, otherwise we would need a medium to represent gravity and the force carrier can't be a gauge boson.

File: 1470072936832.jpg (59KB, 655x527px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 655x527px

So hol up hol up

If I turn on a vacuum cleaner, that creates a weak form of artificial gravity

Does that then cause time dilation?

List of people who have never been in an elevator: >>8246067

File: elevators_clocks_torus.jpg (106KB, 720x828px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 720x828px

So far:

The equivalence principle equates acceleration and gravity effects and posits that you cannot know which is which as long as the accelerating elevator does its thing in free space.

If locally experienced acceleration as such causes redshift, the clock in the dryer should redshift.

Artificial acceleration by means of rotation is a totally localized process, it only exists inside the dryer. Does the clock rate inside the dryer differ from that outside of it in the field of things?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal.
The rest is poetry, imagination."

How to calculate what to look for ...

>>8246148
Have you ever noticed while vacuuming time seems to slow down, or is that because you're having no fun.

File: timelight.jpg (173KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1280x1024px

How to calculate ...

Redshift at the surface of the Earth:

d = sqrt(1-2GM/Rc^2)-1 s/s

d is the local redshift relative to the Great Void (where the hat gets flat)
(GM/R) is the gravitational potential, unit m^2/s^2
(GM/R^2 would be the corresponding gravitational acceleration g, unit m/s^2)

d_1g = -6.96e-10 s/s -- about -60 µs per day


The 100g Dryer experiment:

acceleration 1000 N/kg
radius 0.25 m

w^2*r = 1000 m/s^2
T = 0.1 s, ten revs per second

SR redshift, surface speed:
d = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)-1

w^2*r = v^2/r = 1000 m/s^2
v^2 = 250 m^2/s^2 (potential)
about 16 m/s, v <<< c

hypothetical effect of the 100g Dryer:
(acceleration equivalent 100g earth)

d_100g = -6.96e-8 s/s
about -6000 µs per day

let it count for a day
subtract ref counter
missing time ?

yup - Yo Local Time Machine
nah - Equivalence not found

>>8246056
I didn't know the earth stood still.

>>8246050
>what's the difference between an elevator in space accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 and an elevator on earth if you are inside it with no outside view?
The means by which they extert force. The force is experienced the same, but the mechanics is different. No one can answer that any particularly further than to point out that gravitons as a force partcle are different than the force particles that a pushing surface uses. No one can answer that because there is no theory that unifies particle physics with ordinary/large scale physics.

>>8247587
>gravitons as a force partcle
>implying a gauge invariant conserved current can form a Lorentz-covariant 4 vector.

>a force partcle are different than the force particles that a pushing surface uses

You could just say photon.

>there is no theory that unifies particle physics with ordinary/large scale physics

I'll assume you mean QM and Gravity.

>>8242920
Its entirely possible. Gravity is everywhere.

>>8246018
>accelleration
>he hand types quotes
You've lost all credibility.

>>8242920
Open. Experiment pending.

>>8248418
>not remembering things as soon as you have read them
Brainlet detected

File: the_wheel.jpg (67KB, 620x414px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 620x414px

>>8247418
I think equivalence-compatible acceleration must point in the direction of motion and this is why artificial gravity doesn't qualify.

Other anon says that this experiment has already been done on a cyclotron and the result was that even 10^19 g leave clock rates unaffected. [anecdotal]

Not every acceleration is made equal.

>>8242920
imo time moves the same for everything, but if it were possible, wouldn't we see some evidence of it at lower accelerations too... as in, wouldn't it scale? why would there be a specific point where it suddenly occurs?

>>8247418
>d_100g = -6.96e-8 s/s
I've explained several times that time dilation is proportional to gravitational potential (field integrated over distance), not just the field. You even use this fact in your own calculations, so I don't see how you blatantly disregard it in this line. According to what you're doing here, if I was sitting on a planet with four times the mass and twice the radius of earth, my time dilation relative to someone in deep space would be the same as an earthling's because the gravitational acceleration was the same. You can already see from the formula you used to calculate time dilation on earth in the first place that that is wrong. If you're confused about how you'd calculate potential in the dryer example, you do it by a line integral of the field. I hope you know how to get GM/R from GM/R^2 and aren't just taking it as a presupposition.

>>8250674
>a specific point
I don't think such a point exists. As mentioned, artificial acceleration runs on w^2*r, radial acceleration. It increases with r and the square of the rev count, all smooth. But it rotates.

>>8247061
Accelerating elevator fails to pass new time dilation equivalence test.
Dilation at rest is constant according to fixed gravitational potential GM/R
Dilation in free space follows variable kinetic potential v^2, increasingly.
Not equivalent.

>>8251319
For clocks in elevator resting on planet (planet mass M, planet radius r, clock height difference h), the higher clock measures [math]1 + \frac{GMh}{r^2c^2} + O(h^2)[/math] times the time measured by the lower clock. For clocks in an elevator in free space accelerating "upward" at rate a, the higher clock measures [math]1 + \frac{ah}{c^2} + O(h^2)[/math] times the time measured by the lower clock. Equivalence principle holds.

File: 220px-Ehrenfest-paradox-disk.svg.png (13KB, 220x180px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 220x180px

>>8250805
largely hostile obfuscation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
Earth's gravitational well will cause a clock on the planet's surface to accumulate around 0.0219 fewer seconds over a period of one year than would a distant observer's clock.
-60 µs per day * 365 days, you do the math.

>>8251416
Ok, two clocks and locality. But does that mean all artificial gravity has its time dilation?
When the thrust stops, the local difference disappears but the clocks now share a common velocity-related time dilation and accumulate fewer seconds than without motion just like the clock at rest does to a distant observer, but with a different value.

Just found the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox

"But, according to the principle of equivalence, K' [rim of a rotating disc] is also to be considered as a system at rest, with respect to which there is a gravitational field (field of centrifugal force, and force of Coriolis). We therefore arrive at the result: the gravitational field influences and even determines the metrical laws of the space-time continuum. If the laws of configuration of ideal rigid bodies are to be expressed geometrically, then in the presence of a gravitational field the geometry is not Euclidean."

Funny that he relates gravitation to force rather than to acceleration. Have to think about it.

File: hat.jpg (3KB, 178x103px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 178x103px

>>8242920
I would suggest to put a harmless, fast decaying radioactive substance in the dryer, let it spin for a while and then compare its activity to a stationary control.

>>8242920
http://www.frandeaquino.org/TOE.pdf