Thread replies: 13
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: spinninghammer.jpg (14KB, 225x225px) Image search:
[Google]
14KB, 225x225px
Question for the physics majors.
I have a steel bearing of perfect smoothness. I put said bearing in orbit of a black hole at speed c - infinitesimally small value (assume black hole is large enough to keep bearing from leaving orbit, right on the edge of the event horizon).
To an outside observer the bearing would move (nearly) infinitely slow.
To an observer inside the singularity (an alium in some super advanced ship) the bearing would instantly whizz by.
Let's say this bearing was melted by a laser constantly targeting it.
To the aliums a huge magnetic field is generated due to spinning liquid metal.
My question is simple:
To the outside observer is there a huge magnetic field generated as soon as the bearing is introduced to the orbit? Or is there a weak one? Or none at all?
If none at all that would mean magnetic fields have are relative to an observer
If a small field is produced we can assume that magnetic fields have a finite energy output based on time
If a large field is produced can we assume that a magnetic field has infinite energy over time?
>>
>>8802103
>that would mean magnetic fields have are relative to an observer
Yes, that's exactly what they are.
>>
>>8802115
So if I had a planet in orbit around a black hole at radius X from the center and I placed a solar array with wireless transmission at 10X could I generate a larger amount of power per unit of time on the planet than if they were both at position 10X?
>>
go back to >>>/pol/ you nazi
>>
>>8802148
I don't get it
>>
>>8802147
Sure, but on the planet it would be normal because they're in the same frame. Power being emitted would take nearly infinite long to reach outside the hole.
Also, magnetism isn't a real force, is due to relativistic motion of charged particles under a coloumb force.
>>
>>8802203
Instead of colonizing useless planets why don't we simply move our planet around a black hole then? We are close to long range wireless energy transmission with low loss and our solar panels are approaching 50% efficiency. In theory we could "live it up" around a black hole, especially since we could bring asteroids into orbit synched with ours and when done mining we just drop it into our hole.
>>
>>8802246
>why don't we simply move our planet around a black hole then?
Because:
>Really energy intensive
>Hazardous environment
>No sun
It really only has down sides.
>>
>>8802285
Couldn't we bring our sun and orbit it in a warped planar motion perpendicular to the direction of gravity of said black hole?
>>
>>8802285
Also energy intensiveness shouldn't matter as it would be considered an energy "investment"
How is it hazardous? Wouldn't it be no more so than orbiting our current star?
>>
>>8802311
So you basically want to take the entire solar system and put it in orbit around a black hole? I don't see any reason to do so. Also:
>and when done mining we just drop it into our hole.
That would be a complete waste of materials.
>>
>>8802321
I guess it would be a waste.
Also more or less that's what I think we should do, if our sun ever "started dying out" we could fuel it with the other planets
>>
>>8802365
increasing the mass of our sun would just cause it to burn hotter and go through it's fuel faster.
Thread posts: 13
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1