| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GodWarrior98 Royal Citizen

Joined: 22 Mar 2008 Posts: 463 Local time: 10:58 PM
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject: Special Relativity and Spaghettification |
|
|
It seems to me that spaghettification may conflict with certain principles of relativity.
Consider three objects. Two are stationary relative to each other(A and B), and the third(C) is flying between both of them at a relativistic velocity. Now, A and B will observe C as having a large amount of mass, and C will observe both A and B as having large amounts of mass. A and B will gravitate toward C(or so they think). C will observe A and B attracting each other and C(or so he thinks). (Note: I am not certain if these would actually be identical scenarios, as I am quite lazy. For the purposes of this thread, I am assuming that all observers will see a consistent reality.)
Now, this would be all fine and dandy under most conditions. Everybody sees a reality perfectly consistent with relativity. However, add spaghettification into the picture. Certain parts of each observer will have different amounts of attraction. What I want to know is if these different amounts are actually different for each observer.
Observer C will observe A and B to be spaghettificated toward each other, and slightly toward itself.
Observers A and B will observe each other as slightly spaghettificated toward each other, and strongly toward A.
To me, these appear to be entirely different realities. From C's picture, A and B will be "pointed" toward each other mostly, and slightly tilted toward C.
To A or B, the "point" will be more toward A, and only slightly tilted to the other stationary observer.
Am I overlooking something? _________________ In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
 |
josephpalazzo Illusion Master

Joined: 30 Aug 2006 Posts: 8036 Local time: 10:58 PM Location: D-brane
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| For spaghettification, you're missing a black hole. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GodWarrior98 Royal Citizen

Joined: 22 Mar 2008 Posts: 463 Local time: 10:58 PM
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | For spaghettification, you're missing a black hole. | A black hole isn't necessary to spaghettificate, just to do so a very noticeable amount. _________________ In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
josephpalazzo Illusion Master

Joined: 30 Aug 2006 Posts: 8036 Local time: 10:58 PM Location: D-brane
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GodWarrior98 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | For spaghettification, you're missing a black hole. | A black hole isn't necessary to spaghettificate, just to do so a very noticeable amount. |
Wrong. No black hole, no spaghettification...
... unless you have a pasta machine, but that would not work in your scenario, LOL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GodWarrior98 Royal Citizen

Joined: 22 Mar 2008 Posts: 463 Local time: 10:58 PM
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | For spaghettification, you're missing a black hole. | A black hole isn't necessary to spaghettificate, just to do so a very noticeable amount. |
Wrong. No black hole, no spaghettification...
... unless you have a pasta machine, but that would not work in your scenario, LOL. | The gravitational field doesn't diminish in strength with distance, now? _________________ In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
josephpalazzo Illusion Master

Joined: 30 Aug 2006 Posts: 8036 Local time: 10:58 PM Location: D-brane
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GodWarrior98 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | For spaghettification, you're missing a black hole. | A black hole isn't necessary to spaghettificate, just to do so a very noticeable amount. |
Wrong. No black hole, no spaghettification...
... unless you have a pasta machine, but that would not work in your scenario, LOL. |
The gravitational field doesn't diminish in strength with distance, now? |
Spaghettification has to do with a body being caught at the horizon event of a black hole. As it enters, the part caught by the force of gravity will split into two parts, then each of these are split again into two, making 4 parts, then 8, 16, and so on. This process goes on up to the point in which the split-up pieces of the original object are of the order of atoms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GodWarrior98 Royal Citizen

Joined: 22 Mar 2008 Posts: 463 Local time: 10:58 PM
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | For spaghettification, you're missing a black hole. | A black hole isn't necessary to spaghettificate, just to do so a very noticeable amount. |
Wrong. No black hole, no spaghettification...
... unless you have a pasta machine, but that would not work in your scenario, LOL. |
The gravitational field doesn't diminish in strength with distance, now? |
Spaghettification has to do with a body being caught at the horizon event of a black hole. As it enters, the part caught by the force of gravity will split into two parts, then each of these are split again into two, making 4 parts, then 8, 16, and so on. This process goes on up to the point in which the split-up pieces of the original object are of the order of atoms. | You're smarter than this. _________________ In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kraft

Joined: 08 Jan 2005 Posts: 758 Local time: 1:58 PM Location: MB, Canada.

|
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
By spaghettification are you actually trying to talk about length contractions? _________________ 'Why [...] is the philosophy of religion so boring?' - Kai Nielsen
"I don't condone reading, I believe it poisons the mind" - Adam Carolla |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GodWarrior98 Royal Citizen

Joined: 22 Mar 2008 Posts: 463 Local time: 10:58 PM
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kraft wrote: | | By spaghettification are you actually trying to talk about length contractions? | No. I am talking about the slight difference in gravitational pull. _________________ In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
josephpalazzo Illusion Master

Joined: 30 Aug 2006 Posts: 8036 Local time: 10:58 PM Location: D-brane
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GodWarrior98 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | For spaghettification, you're missing a black hole. | A black hole isn't necessary to spaghettificate, just to do so a very noticeable amount. |
Wrong. No black hole, no spaghettification...
... unless you have a pasta machine, but that would not work in your scenario, LOL. |
The gravitational field doesn't diminish in strength with distance, now? |
Spaghettification has to do with a body being caught at the horizon event of a black hole. As it enters, the part caught by the force of gravity will split into two parts, then each of these are split again into two, making 4 parts, then 8, 16, and so on. This process goes on up to the point in which the split-up pieces of the original object are of the order of atoms. | You're smarter than this. |
Thanks... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|