Time dilation next to matter orbiting at relativistic speeds

[Anonymous No.9882579]

If you were next to or in the middle of an orbit of a non trivial amount of matter going relativistic speeds would you experience time dilation because the mass of the matter increases with speed and the size of the object decreases making it more dense and therefore creating a deeper gravitational wave?

PLEASE RESPOND :3

[Anonymous No.9882584]

[Anonymous No.9882586]

[Anonymous No.9882587]

[Anonymous No.9882592]

[Anonymous No.9882597]

[Anonymous No.9882603]

[Anonymous No.9882614]

[Anonymous No.9882622]

[Anonymous No.9882628]

[Anonymous No.9882634]

>>9882579
>>9882584


> non trivial amount of matter

Explain s anon.

[Anonymous No.9882644]

>>9882634
like enough to impose time dilation effects?

like obviously scientists working at the LHC arent experiencing time dilation because the matter they are accelerating is very small..

[Anonymous No.9882673]

>>9882644

>Catgirl posts.

Well according to mainstream science; spacetime is a curved based on gravitational strength, so it would depend on how much mass, how fast, and how close you were.

[Anonymous No.9882681]

>>9882673
but do you know whether it's true that mass really increases from an observers perspective of relativistic particles?

i just read it's not true now..

[You are a fucking retard No.9882704]

>still thotposting despite the current year

[Anonymous No.9882705]

>>9882704
i bet you showed up to chans after gamergate?

[Anonymous No.9882709]

>>9882705
I bet you get b& from the SFW boards all the time

[Anonymous No.9882711]

>>9882709
yeah but im not a little bitch boi faggot cuck so i don't sweat it

[Anonymous No.9882712]

>>9882709
>>>>>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.9882715]

>>9882673
Yeah, that's his question. If there is enough mass aka a non trivial amount of mass. Is it possible. You seem like one of those people that hate word problems.

[Anonymous No.9882736]

>>9882579
for something to "orbit" at relativistic speeds it would have going around something absurdly massive and if you were in the middle of that youd probably be inside a black hole. and if you were inside a black hole the universe would look like it was moving in fast forward and hundreds of billions of earth years would appear to you to pass in mere moments.

[Anonymous No.9882737]

>>9882711
>gets himself b&
>"im not a cuck, u guise"

lmaoing @ ur life

[Anonymous No.9882746]

>>9882579

> Time dilation next to matter orbiting at relativistic speeds

Holy shit....bold. Very bold.

[Anonymous No.9882748]

>>9882584

Shit will make me vomit........christ....

[Anonymous No.9882772]

>>9882737
>i take pride in following rules

[Anonymous No.9882778]

>>9882748
hole phobia?

[Anonymous No.9882784]

>>9882736
hwat if you just used electro magnets to make it fly around ina tube around you?

[Anonymous No.9882793]

>>9882772
>i take pride in breaking rules

[Anonymous No.9882804]

>>9882793
>im an autistic faggot that's never been invited to a party and takes pride in being a slave to other men

[Anonymous No.9882805]

>>9882793
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>/reddit/

it's killing you that you can't downvote me huh?

[Anonymous No.9882814]

>being on a blue board, calmly posting, avoiding compulsive masturbation, cleaning your mind
>some anon post this girls

[Anonymous No.9882828]

>>9882579
Imma just say this now, I am not formally trained in this. This is just from my current knowledge. If anyone wants to critique my answer, or say it's downright wrong please do so.

> "going relativistic speeds... mass increasing with speed"
Okay, so mass does NOT increase when you're moving - your energy does, calculated by the mass times the lorentz factor (which is based on relative speed). More energy does mean stronger gravitational field though. However, looking only at the special relativity part (you say going relativistic speeds [which assumes constant], then increasing with speed [so, non-zero acceleration], please be a little more specific in your wording), a rock going at you at .5c ain't gonna do anything to you because of it's speed alone.

However, any presence of a gravitational field - due to the presence of an object with mass/energy - causes a time dilation (being on the earth vs in its orbit). So technically, since the object is going closer to you, meaning the the gravitational acceleration due to that object on you is gonna have a bigger effect, yeah, a super far away observer is gonna see your clock slow. But it's moving at relativistic speeds, so it aint gonna have any significant impact on you cause it's in the next moment its gone!

> density
Also, lorentz contraction aint gonna do anything cause the gravitational field has nothing to do with density. Doesn't matter what size or shape or density the object has, as long as the gravitational field is the same, you feel no difference (gauss's law or wtv - the earth's acceleration doesn't change if it were the size of a car). If the object is at a constant speed, it's total energy aint changing, so it's field aint changing (well, ignoring the fact that it's moving towards you, which i already addressed above). If it's accelerating though then the energy is increasing so change in field.

[Anonymous No.9882831]

>>9882814
>blue balling yourself on purpose
>getting testicular vein thrombosis on purpose
>self flagellating
>being triggered by the female form

You should move to a country where they hide all their women under bed sheets lol.. You wouldn't be able to be in public in any city with decent broads. Girls literally walk around in thongs down the street where my apartment is because there is a beach near by.. You'd be that weak ass faggot bitching and moaning about how "modern girls just aren't modest anymore," always being as negative and JEALOUS as possible. Meanwhile you'd also be the one that can't stop staring at them creepily.

You are really pathetic I just hope you know that, sad.

[Anonymous No.9882832]

>>9882828
Don't expect a reply from me. I don't usually go on this board btw.

[Anonymous No.9882835]

>>9882579

[Anonymous No.9882836]

>>9882831
slut

[Anonymous No.9882838]

>>9882828
>so mass does NOT increase when you're moving
yeah i read that to

>More energy does mean stronger gravitational field though
sauce????????????????

>aint gonna have any significant impact on you cause it's in the next moment its gone

what if it's circling you?

>gravitational field has nothing to do with density

yeah i guess?

>If the object is at a constant speed, it's total energy aint changing

so just to be clear you don't think a kg circling you at .9c is going to impart anymore gravity on your than a kg at resting speed?

>accelerating though then the energy is increasing

doesnt the gravity of the kg go up as it's accelerating then stay at the higher rate once it's at .9c?

[Anonymous No.9882840]

>>9882832
k

[Anonymous No.9882843]

>>9882836
ur mum

[Anonymous No.9882844]

>>9882840
Your response was quick so i havent left yet. Typing my response now

[Anonymous No.9882852]

>>9882804
>>9882805
>samefagging

[Anonymous No.9882860]

>>9882852
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.9882868]

>>9882736

A relativistic intelligence would be able to calculate the birth and death of entire universes in the time it took me to type this post.

[Anonymous No.9882871]

>>9882860
maybe if you add more maymay arrows, I'll stop posting lol

[Anonymous No.9882883]

>>9882838
>sauce
This could mean a lot of things so imma just clarify. A photon has no mass yet has energy, so it has grav. pull and is affecting by grav. fields. More energy something has, more grav. effects.

>what if circling you
Then this is analogous to the moon orbiting the earth. Of course it's gonna have grav. effects.

>.9c vs 0c
Okay bad wording on my part. Yes. the .9c rock will have more grav. effects than a 0c rock cause it has more energy.

>doesnt the gravity of the kg go up as it's accelerating
If an object is increasing in speed (accel.) then it has more energy, so stronger grav. field = more grav. effects. When it stops accelerating, then the energy no longer goes up, so the field is the same (except for the fact that it's moving in space)

>rate
This word bugs me. Sorry. Grav. field strength is better.

[Anonymous No.9882893]

>>9882597
Disgusting feet.

[Anonymous No.9882904]

>>9882883
>photons have gravitational fields

wow.. I'm seeing conflicting answers about this..

I know they are affected by gravitational fields.. like lensing but if they can affect other objects with their own field then why cant people just use lasers to produce artificial gravity??? I know photons carry the electromagnetic force but that has no effect on time dilation, does it? And if it does then how much?

[Anonymous No.9882906]

>>9882871
stay u fgt

>>9882893
bad taste

[Anonymous No.9882917]

>>9882906
you're going to post the sauce or what?

[Anonymous No.9882925]

>>9882904
>why cant people just use lasers to produce artificial gravity
Same reason why we burn rocket fuel instead of throwing rocks backwards to get into space, or use a car instead of walking to travel, lol.

>how much?
Photons? Not a lot, which makes sense. It's not like you can attract food with only your body's gravity, which has much more energy than a couple of photons.

There is significance of EM fields to gravitational effects though, so it ain't like we can ignore light in general (since it's the quantum for the EM fields [look up the EM stress tensor if you want]). The big thing here is energy. If you got energy/mass, there's gonna be SOME grav. effects, large or small

[Anonymous No.9883003]

>>9882579
I would dilate her time if you know what I mean

[Anonymous No.9883007]

>>9882917
Hello time traveler!
Due to relativistic time dilation you are now in 2018, and you are obviously still not accustomed to our current technology.
Look for a website called google, they can search anything, even images.
You'll find the source in no time.

[Anonymous No.9883023]

>>9882597
And here we see a middle age female representing the only thing her gender is appreciated for, the ability to spread her legs and absorb mountains of thick, veiny cock.

[Anonymous No.9883032]

>>9883007
That's not how sourcing your work is done. I know you're not smart enough to pass a high school English class, but if you ever out 'Lol, just google it' you would be a failure. Just like you are now. Imagine that.

[Anonymous No.9883037]

>>9883023
>female

[Anonymous No.9883053]

>>9883032
nonsummerjack capricious god bastet

[Anonymous No.9883808]

[Anonymous No.9883847]

So /sci/ this girl for your girlfriend
>>9883808
or a working fusion power plant design schematic?

I know what I'm picking.

[Anonymous No.9883926]

>>9883847
i want time machine

[Anonymous No.9884050]

Something about her screams man

[Anonymous No.9884070]

>>9884050

Yes...and?

[Miniature Spacecraft No.9884072]

>>9882579
Everyday, there is a porn bait thread on /sci/

[Anonymous No.9884141]

>>9882579
>Time Dilation
You are always experiencing time dilation whenever you have a velocity. The closer your velocity gets to the speed of light, the stronger the dilation becomes.

>"A non trivial amount of matter"
This could mean anything. For instance, it could mean a black hole or a neutron star. In which case it would have a great affect on your experience of time.

>Relativistic mass and length contraction
The length, or the "size" of the object will decrease from your perspective as it approaches the speed of light, however Einstein has said that it makes no sense to think of the mass of a moving body - but instead only rest mass.

>Density and Gravity
F = (m_1 * m_2) / (r^2) This is the equation for the strength of gravity. Density is equal to the Mass / Volume, so it order to constitute it into this equation you'd have to divide the force by the volume. In which case you would not be dealing with a "deeper gravitational wave" but instead that divided over the volume of the object.

>Relativistic Momentum
In the equation for Relativistic momentum we use m_0, or the rest mass of the object. The momentum will increase as the object approaches the speed of light, but the mass will always behave as it does initially.

[Anonymous No.9884164]

>>9884070
is she a tranny

[Anonymous No.9884183]

>>9884141
thanks

so just to make things more clear objects don't impose greater gravitational effects on their surroundings as they approach the speed of light?

[Anonymous No.9884269]

>>9884183
In order for you to experience a greater gravitational effect, the mass of the object would have to increase. Traveling at an increased velocity will increase the objects momentum, but not its mass. The mass is always measured at a 'rest velocity'.

It is pointless to think of a large mass traveling at the speed of light, because in order to achieve such a speed - the mass would have to be 0. Every amount of mass has a 'maximum velocity', so to speak. The larger the mass - the lower the max velocity is; this is due to the idea that the amount of energy required to achieve the speed of light accelerates as you get closer and closer to it.
To move an object of any mass at the speed of light requires an infinite amount of energy, this is partially due to the concept of length contraction - if an object of mass travels at the speed of light it's length would become infinitesimal, meaning it would have an infinite density AND an infinite momentum. Which is not possible.

If you're interesting in a more in-depth understanding why it requires an infinite amount of energy, you should look into some information about the Higgs Boson and other topics in particle physics, because I'm not really qualified to explain it. I only have a B.S in the subject, not a Ph. D.

[Anonymous No.9884323]

>>9884269
>Every amount of mass has a 'maximum velocity', so to speak

thnx i never knew that.. that'd still be small though for particles circling a particle accelerator ring right even if there is a metric fuckton of them?

>this is due to the idea that the amount of energy required to achieve the speed of light accelerates as you get closer and closer to it

yeah this is the whole relativistic mass thing right?? It confused me and i thought you could impose time dilation on a place by accelerating mass around it...

>it would have an infinite density

could you create a black hole this way?

>you're interesting in a more in-depth understanding why it requires an infinite amount of energy, you should look into some information about the Higgs Boson

I found this 30 minute video that was bretty good and not dumbed down:
https://youtu.be/xG_YtASz7gY

>I only have a B.S in the subject, not a Ph. D.

would you say that undergraduate science degrees are just a bunch of bs?
anyway thanks for reaffirming that relativistic mass is false.. but do you have any other insight on how to create mass from energy???? I am really interested in artificial gravity..

[Anonymous No.9884376]

>>9882579
There is only one way to figure that out. :)

[Anonymous No.9884519]

This thread really gets my particles accelerated

[Anonymous No.9884630]

>>9884519
does she have nudes?

[Anonymous No.9884644]

>>9884630
nope. This is the closest thing.

[Anonymous No.9884647]

>>9884630

he*

[Anonymous No.9884649]

>>9884644
>>9884630
And maybe this

[Anonymous No.9884652]

>>9884630
>>9884649
or this

[Anonymous No.9884718]

>>9884649
lol that reminds of the scene in silence of the lambs

[Anonymous No.9884899]

>>9884644
>>9884649
>>9884652
Name?

[Anonymous No.9884909]

>>9884899