gravity wells, mass, gravity and ftl travel

*Jess♥ · April 15, 2008

if an object gets more massive as it approaches the speed of light...

it must cause a big gravity well.

because gravity is usually proportionate to mass.

and you need more energy to create that..

but i was looking at ionocrafts.. and what happens is that the voltage crates a gravity well that the object falls into...

what if you could combine tejh two effects in some way?

or what if you could split the mass of an ogject..

what if you could concentrate that mass along 1 dimension and aim it at a black hole.. teh mass could attract each other and the object would move faster than light..

it would be warp drive.

what about a hill?

if you have a heavy object an put it on a hill, if the object gets heavier, it will roll faster. if an object approaching the speed of light gets more massive. can't we find a 'hill' in space and roll it down hte hill.. that will let it go faster than light times a million.

but of course you need to bend space time for that to happen. only travel in one direction..

if you push a snowball it gathers snow so the mmore you push it, the heavier it gets.. but what if you just melt the snow?

what if you make a vaccuum, there is no friction. you can add anergy and it goes faster and then even faster al the time.

with a rail gun, you can accelarate an object faster and faster and it is casued by magnetics. teh increase of force is casued by magenticas and does hnot slow down because of more mass. it actually increase because of more mass.

if you have an object and push it, you will never go faster than light just by pushing it.. but if you can create a gravity well ahead of teh object, it will fall forvere.

if teh mass increases, the object will 'fall' fastr. all you need to do is keep the gravity well ahead of the object and if the object is fixed and teh apparatus for producing the gravity well is fixed on the object the gravity well will awlays be in front of the object and it will always go faster.

inifinite mass, means it is infinitely heavy. which only causes more aceclaratiobn when falling.

*YoungGuyver · April 16, 2008

I think you are thinking of the 'sling shot' effect that is sometimes used to send space sat Satellites out even further Ryuki. Didn't Star Trek 4 even use a version of it to accelerate past warp 10 for time travel?

As for being attracted to a black hole, any object is still traveling through the fabric of space, there for E=mcc still applies, and it's speed will follow normal rules of physics.

But yes, finding a way to shed the extra mass, or prevent your mass from increasing, would indeed allow you to travel beyond light speed. Conventional warp drive tries to do just that. To warp the fabric of space in some fashion to help, all pending on the warp theory you use.

*Youngtusk · May 13, 2008

I was watching an Episode of the Universe the other night, it was about Gravity.

They were talking about the space-time continum, and how space and time are one in the same, essentially. How does that work, exactly? They said something about the natural attraction of matter would cause objects to directly collide with each other, but the distortions matter causes in space creates a more dynamic and almost ocean-like(as in wavey) enviornment. The part I missed was when they tied time into it, like this action somehow distorted the movment of time, and thus space-time was concieved of.

Anyway, I was wondering if someone could explain why space and time are considered the same? I mean, it makes sense; whenever I call someone to meet up with them I name a time and a place, but nonetheless could someone shed light?

*Jess♥ · May 14, 2008

i tink it means time as a constant.. or in ti's true form..

because i think the time that we keep by waches etc is different.

I'm not sure exactly how, but i think that watches and are relative to ourselves and teh movement of teh sun and earth and other stuff.

but i think that the actual time in spacetime is something that is a bit more mysterious.

does that make any sense?

I think that I would explain it more like "possibility" or "potential" ?

well I don't know what the actual science for this is.

is it just me.. maybe i'm tired. I find your words confusing. is it just me ior sre you writing in some complicated way?

sorry, I must be tired. that must be it.

*zeo · May 14, 2008

Anyway, I was wondering if someone could explain why space and time are considered the same? I mean, it makes sense; whenever I call someone to meet up with them I name a time and a place, but nonetheless could someone shed light?

Okay, I'll give it a shot...

Basicallly in relativistic contexts the rate at which time passes depends on an object's velocity relative to the speed of light (the fastest speed something can move through space), consequently anything that effects space would then also effect your velocity and thus effect how time flows for you. Demonstrating the link between Time and Space.

This all stems from a dimensional view of the Universe... The first three dimensions make up the 3D space we live in but to allow those three dimensions to interact there needs to be a fourth dimension that the first three can interact within. Otherwise the 3rd dimension becomes time and we would all be 2 dimensional beings.

This fourth dimension is thus what we would call time and allows us to interact in three dimensions, and since you need all the dimensions to work together to make it all work then time(4th-D) and space(1st 3-D) are all part of the same thing.

For example, without the other dimensions any single dimension will collapse into a singularity. Combine 2 and the possibilities explode into 2D space, but it needs a 3rd for interaction and thus a time reference.

Take a movie reel for example, if for argument sake you supposed the images on the film were alive. Then moving the film through the 3rd dimension would give the 2D beings a time reference and thus they would experience time. But change the rate the film is played and you alter the flow of time for that 2D perspective.

You might recognize this analogy from its more popular "Flatlander" name. . . Since our point of reference is from within the 3 Dimension of interaction, we aren't fully aware of the 4th dimension since we never can perceive all of it. But both space and time have to work together in order to work and thus anything that effects either also effects the other.

Such as gravity... Bending space it causes the rate of interaction to change and thus slow time down.

It's easier to explain mathematically, like the fact we measure speed with refering to both time and distance.

Time lets use determine the rate a distance is covered and the rate that distance is covered lets us determine how much time was involved... Basically showing they suppliment each other and work off each other.

Does this make sense?

*Youngtusk · May 14, 2008

Perfect sense! Thanks for the explanation; that film analogy actually works quite well(for me at least).

Well i'm taking Calculus right now for my CS requirements, so if you think you can explain it better mathematically you can give it a shot if you want. I might be able to keep up with some of it.

But as it is it makes more sense, especially considering the definiton of time; the movement of objects in space. Without space to move, you have no time to pass, and without time to pass, all you have are objects that don't interact. Right?

So let me see if I understand it. I remeber in an episode of Stargate SG-1 there was a team stranded on a planet near a black hole, and time was moving extremely slow for them--infact several minutes on Earth was only a second for them. This makes sense to me now, because the closer you are to a black hole, the more gravity will affect you(speed you up). And the faster you go, the slower time will pass relative to something outside the gravity's reach. So, the closer you get to a black hole, the faster you move, and thus the slower time passes? :confused:

*zeo · May 14, 2008

More or less correct, gravity warps space... which in turn alters the rate you can move through space.

Here, since you can probably understand the math this link should help with the detail...

http://online.redwoods.edu/INSTRUCT/darnol.../Relativity.htm

*Jess♥ · May 14, 2008

I was watching the program showing how to make stonehenge...

when i noticed that this was ways in which to move a huge mass without much effort.

so if more energy is required to make something go speed of light.. then why not find ways of making it easier to move such a mass.

reduce teh 'friction' as it were.

*Youngtusk · May 15, 2008

In that link you gave me, Zeo, it shows a graph and says that Time dilation is a function of maximum velocity and not acceleration.

So, dilation has nothing to do with speed or acceleration, but only vector velocity. But what exactly does maximum velocity refer to here? I would assume its the speed of light, but I googled it and nothign came up.

And Ryuki, thats a good idea, but theres very little, if any friction in space, because theres no gravitational force pushing matter against other matter. So that wouldn't work in space.

In atmosphere it would, thats why we have things like Surf Boards, Wheels, and Slip-n-Slides. They're all friction-reducing apparatuses.

*Jess♥ · May 15, 2008

yah, I hear what you're saying and that's why i said 'friction' and not friction.

as in ... uhm , I didn't mean friction exactly, but basically i was trying to describe any force that would act in the way that friction does on an object on the ground.

does that make sense?

*zeo · May 15, 2008

In that link you gave me, Zeo, it shows a graph and says that Time dilation is a function of maximum velocity and not acceleration.

Yes, remember the flow of time is directly related to your present velocity in relation to the speed of light limit. The closer you get to the speed of light the more time gets dilated.

Though you have to be going pretty near the speed of light for really noticable time dilation...

Acceleration is only the increase in velocity as you get closer to maximum velocity. While Velocity is your actual speed.

So, dilation has nothing to do with speed or acceleration, but only vector velocity. But what exactly does maximum velocity refer to here? I would assume its the speed of light, but I googled it and nothign came up.

Yes, essentially the speed of light. Though it changes depending on what medium you are traveling through and whether or not an outside force is effecting it like a strong gravity field.

Something like a black hole can essentially warp space in on itself and thus lowers the vector differential between your velocity and the speed of light.

And Ryuki, thats a good idea, but theres very little, if any friction in space, because theres no gravitational force pushing matter against other matter. So that wouldn't work in space.
In atmosphere it would, thats why we have things like Surf Boards, Wheels, and Slip-n-Slides. They're all friction-reducing apparatuses.

That would be gravity, as it warps space it distorts your path basically and can even drag the path in a new direction.

They call that frame dragging, since objects like rapidly spinning black holes can literally drag space/time along with it. So say a beam of light was shot at it - it would bend around the black hole before going into it.

Kinda like a whirlpool effect, similarly if the spinning black hole is moving as well as spinning the space/time around it gets dragged along with it.

*Youngtusk · May 15, 2008

Awesome. Thats a trip but i'm starting to get it now. I guess if I want to fully get Relativity and SPecial Relativity than i'm gonna have to take a couple Physics courses huh?

I prefer just asking you guys :biggrin:

I just have one more question(for now ) regarding the Twin Paradox and reference frames. So, if one of the twins left earth and flew away, depending on whose reference frame you used would determine who would expereince time dilation and differential aging(relative to the other, of course). But in actuallity, dilation is tied to velocity as a function, so the closer to maximum velocity you get, the more dilation you'll experience despite which reference frame you choose to use. So even though to the space-bound Twin it looks like earth is accelerating away from him, in actuality its the space ship's velocity that determines dilation...right?

*zeo · May 15, 2008

Yes, the vector velocity determines the level of time dilation.

To the traveler there would appear to be no time dilation, only when the traveler returns to their point of origin and can compare time that the time dilation becomes apparent.

Basically the Twin Paradox Both exists and doesn't exist (I suggest avoiding the distinction between General and Special Relativity since its just the difference of when they were introduced since Einstein worked on the theory through his whole life and thus the theory evolved over time). Since for the traveler time flowed normally, the apparent disparity only comes about when you compare two separate time references but Relativity views time like a dimension and thus it is flexible just like the other 3 dimensions.

Basically in relativity space flows according to whatever your vector velocity is at any given time. So two idential objects with two different vector velocities would experience time at different rates, even though to them they would appear to be the same.

Like the light beam being shot at a spinning black hole example, from the perspective of the light beam it would continue to move in a straight line. It is only from an outside view that the warping of the light beam's path becomes apparent.

Though Ryuki is right that there should be a kind of Super Time to account for all the possible time references, at least for our sensitive human brains to accept the concept without a major headache, but Relativity doesn't provide it.

However, moving onto String/M Theory and a multi-dimensional view of the Universe (think 11) and it opens up the possibility that one of those extra dimensions would be for the common reference point for universal time, or Super Time as it is sometimes coined.

Since these extra dimensions are curled up into stringlets the flexibility and interaction with the other dimensions is limited and thus a time reference from one of them would be closer to a universal constant.

Though frankly, science hasn't really defined the true nature of time yet. So there are many debates as to what is time and how does it relate to the rest of reality.

If you want to learn more about that, just stock up on asperins and anti-depresants and then feel free to have a go at it. Cause if Relativity seems weird then the theories to explain time will blow your mind :wink:

*YoungGuyver · May 17, 2008

All right, I have a question-

In string/M theory, the basic theory is that matter is a string which vibrates into the 11 dimensions, and that time is connected to all of them in order for a vibration rate to exist. So how would one of the extra dimensions in there be a reference for a super time? If mass is a measure of vibrational frequency, and relative time is a measure of string interaction and high energy/gravity/mass scenarios, why would there be a need for a dimension to represent super time? Wouldn't the mechanics of the operation themselves mathematically show a rate of energy interaction within the strings, across all of its dimensions? Why would you need an extra dimension for that?

Just asking, as it kind of seems to defeat the purpose of super time for me. Oh well, I'm weird, and have my own opinions.

*zeo · May 17, 2008

Correction, though I'm sure you just misworded that question, in string theory matter and energy are viewed as the same thing and it's dimensions that are viewed curled up into strings. It's the number of strings that are important in determining what elements could exist within the universe as they allow certain patterns to exists such as what we call matter as they interact with each other and oscilate in certain patterns.

Like 26 in the case of a theory with only forces (bosons), but 10 dimensions if there are both forces and matter (bosons and fermions) in the particle spectrum of the theory. Which is why it took so long for them to break it down to just 11 to get the right balance.

It's because stringlets are one dimensional, since they curled up and aren't merged together like the 3 dimensions we work with normally. So as they interact with the rest of the universe they only allow for the flow of time of either forward or backwards.

So in actuality strings explains why time seems to flow in one direction, and for traditional Relativity time to be explained as part of these interactions and thus why warping of space also alters the flow of time as it effects the interactions of strings within the world sheet view of the universe.

It's just that in most cases when People work with string theory they are not dealing with the time aspect as that just adds another layer of complexity to the equation but instead treat time as just a universal given and instead work with how everything else interacts within it. This is why a lot of People who read up on string theory get confused when time gets brought up.

But time itself is really also part of the equation and is ultimately represented by one of the extra dimensions proposed in String Theory.

Just like Gravity is also represented by one of the strings, in its case it's one dimensional nature means it can either pull or push and just like time our universe has given it a specific direction and thus we have gravity.

As you can see this is why they came up with strings to represent forces of nature such as time and gravity and why they seem to have polarity of direction.

However, this also breaks down to our concept of time... Since a dimensional view of time still breaks down to seeing time as the ability to move just like the other dimensions gives us direction of movement.

Which is why other views of time that it is really just a type of movement, in higher dimensions the next higher dimension then becomes time, etc.

So for super time to exist we need a dimension that will encompass all other dimensions... A concept that truly didn't come into its own until Brane theory joined string theory, fixing our assumption that all the extra dimensions curled up into stringlets... It only gets more complicated from there though if you want to know more as even space time as a fundamental comes into question in the true nature of reality.

*Jess♥ · May 17, 2008

how long are the strings supposed to be?

*zeo · May 18, 2008

Since strings are basically curved up dimensions they are both infinite and finite at the same time, just like the rest of the universe.

So short answer is we don't know, though there are two types of strings that are either basically nailed down with the other dimensions and those that aren't and freely move about (aka Open and Closed), and that it is basically impossible to tell without a proper perspective.

Like my beam of light going into a spinning black hole, to the beam it will appear to be going in a straight light. But if we could see the light from outside the space being distorted then we would see that its path is being warped.

But since we are part of space/time we can't really look from outside it and thus our perception is trapped within.

It's one of the things that are expanded on in Brane Theory that the universe we know exists within a much larger universe, but we can't see it because our perception is trapped within the brane of our universe... See how this is starting to get more complicated? :rolleyes: :wink: