Escape velocity implication

kmarinas86 · Nov 8, 2005

<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> steve.... Suppose you have two stationary objects seperated by a vast distance. Given a certain radius, push the smaller object so that the approach velocity is the opposite direction of the escape velocity needed to attain an infinite distance from the larger object in a infinite amount of time. This is the reverse concept escape velocity. When the objects collide, they should impact at the escape speed at the new radius. The escape velocity at the schwarzschild radius is c and away from the black hole, according to theory. Mass, however, cannot attain the speed of light. gamma=1/sqrt(1-v²/c²) So how can mass attain the speed of light? It doesn't. Light can travel at the speed of light, but does it make sense for light to have infinite energy? Gravitational Potential Energy=-GMm/r where m is the mass of the smaller object. Schwarzschild radius is where c²/2GM=1/r. So GPE = -GMm*(c²/2GM) = -.5mc². Gamma not included. Therefore the KE for a object of mass m gained from gravity alone cannot equal to .5mc² times gamma. So here, KE divided by gamma equals expended GPE energy. So where does the extra energy come from? In the same way how a photon increases in frequency according to gamma, so does the momentum and kinetic energy of a mass versus the gravitational potential energy. The power of an object is calculated by the energy expended divided by the time over which it is expended. Does it makes sense for gamma to ever equal infinity? Gravitational Time Dilation=1/sqrt(1-V²/c²) Where V is the Escape velocity, initial velocity beginning at a certain radii needed to escape the system Velocity Time Dilation=1/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Where v is the velocity of the object

vogon13 · Nov 8, 2005

In an otherwise empty universe, infinite in size, two dust motes seperated by a finite distance, with no relative motion, will eventually collide. But not at a speed any where approaching C. Not sure I follow your post enough to go further with this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

kmarinas86 · Nov 8, 2005

The gobbledegook kicker, which renders the whole supposition questionable, is what the heck, in scientific terms is a 'velocity which is the opposite of that needed to obtain an infinite distance'? There is no such thing! Nonsense. Velocity is a vector consisting of a magnitude and direction. The opposite velocity just has the opposite direction. Semantics galore. Use your brain please, and stop assuming invalidity when there is none <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> The escape velocity of the sun (where you can go on forever without the sun catching you back) is very, very high. If you coast without propellant to the interstellar void, you will have decelerated greatly, especially if you start from the sun's surface. If you have an uniform object of great mass, and an object travelling a certain path towards that great mass, the magnitudes of velocities for each radii value from the great mass can match those for an object of equal mass, travelling the same line of path, but in the opposite direction. This is obvious when you consider the fact that if you throw an object (once) straight up at at a initial velocity in a frictionless environment, the velocities of the object at each height value will be a constant, whether the object is going up or down. That of course, is the case when assuming that the gravitational field is not irregular. It's commonsense physics which you obviously disagree with (in a spoken sense), since you claim to have proven that I what said consists no facts.

kmarinas86 · Nov 8, 2005

In an otherwise empty universe, infinite in size, two dust motes seperated by a finite distance, with no relative motion, will eventually collide. Right. But not at a speed any where approaching C. But mass will travel at exactly c at the Schwarzschild radius of black holes - supposedly. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> [irony] That's the escape velocity after all. A mass particle, without any pressures keeping it from sinking consistently will collide with the schwarzschild radius at the speed of light, according to simple principles <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> The above is like saying that mass cannot exist at a place where it must travel c, since mass cannot travel at c. Such a paradox. All the more we need asymptotic gravitational time dilation to keep matter from collapsing to a singularity, or to keep time from "stopping". Note that asymptotes never reach the line which they are approaching. Gravitational time dilation at a place is absolute and is a function of curvature at that place. Relative gravitational time dilation compares the gravitational time dilation of two different places, and is thus relative. It would be a mistake to say that the gravitational time dilation of a place depends on the observer. The relative gravitational time dilation yes, but not the absolute gravitational time dilation. How can a mass exist at the speed of light? It just can't. Let v equal the escape velocity=object velocity from a particular radii, and let gamma be a function of v. gamma=1/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Where v is expressed in units of c (299,792,458 m/s) <pre>v v/gamma 0 0 0.05 0.049937461 0.1 0.099498744 0.15 0.148302899 0.2 0.195959179 0.25 0.242061459 0.3 0.28618176 0.35 0.327862395 0.4 0.366606056 0.45 0.40186285 0.5 0.433</pre>

jatslo · Nov 8, 2005

uh, accreation and dissipation should be quantified as vector and scalar quantities, as well. Simple adding and subtracting, which I do not see in your logic.

kmarinas86 · Nov 8, 2005

I wasn't talking about accretion disks, accretion, nor dissapation.

jatslo · Nov 8, 2005

Your talking about dynamics of a moving system, so why is it moving?

jatslo · Nov 8, 2005

You can't move objects without an action

kmarinas86 · Nov 8, 2005

Move relative to what? Motion is relative. Basically, a person cannot move anything without sunlight. Sunlight powers our food, and we need food so that we can survive, and so that we can move things. You can't have sunlight without gravity, because without gravity, there would be no sun. Without electromagnetism, there would be no atoms. Can you imagine a universe without these two fundamentals? We certainly don't live in such a universe. Moving objects always requires a transfer of momentum. All action is a transfer of momentum. Planck's constant is a unit of action, that is, energy*time, or kg·m²/s. The photoelectric effect is a transfer of (massless) momentum from a high-energy photon to an electron - so much momentum that the electron is kicked out of the atom. http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aphotoelectric+effect

jatslo · Nov 8, 2005

If your dust particle is moving, while dissipation is greater than accretion, the motion and/or direction is greater than or less than a system that is accreting faster than it is dissipating. These oscillations are, in fact, needed to quantify motion, not omitting any near particle passing particle that has influence on mass. If you have a sudden snap of accretion or dissipation, the force could annihilate your particle, and I think this is what you are trying to accomplish, or partially. You are, in fact, dissecting a very dynamic system.

kmarinas86 · Nov 8, 2005

Just like at very high speeds you need to change from Newton's laws of motion to Special Relitivities ones, then also at very high gravity fields you need to change from Newton's laws of gravity to General Relativities ones. So useing F=2GMm/r^2 is only a first approxamation. To correctly solve it you must work out the Einstein field equation to get the full solution. I wasn't looking at the force (F) but at the Schwarzschild solution to the Einstein field equation. The GPE in Einstien's theory is an infinite series (isn't it?). So the Newtionian GPE is an approximation, but I don't know if one has to mutiply gamma into the GPE equation for relativity. Do you know?

jatslo · Nov 8, 2005

The magnitude of oscillation is so great that E = mc 2 is required to convert the particle to energy safely or catastrophically, but this depends on relative position of scalar or vector mass, composition, and/or viscosity (density etc). None of which are quantified by you or the people you are defending.

Saiph · Nov 8, 2005

I get what you're saying. You've got a chunk of rock, at a distance R from the black hole. It's moving at escape speed, but it isn't heading "out" it's heading in. this is achievable in two ways, it falls in from infinity, or it got slung there by something else. Since it's going that speed, of faster, it'll hit the BH event horizon at the escape speed for the event horizon...or C. Quick answer: It doesn't hit C until it hits the event horizon...and then it doesn't matter. One should think of it as an energy problem, as the rock approaches the BH gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic. This energy can approach infinity, but the associated velocity will never exceed C ('cause we gotta use the relativistic kinetic energy). So it certainly won't hit C before entering the black hole, and afterwards....I'm not sure (don't know enough GR to answer for things inside a BH). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

vogon13 · Nov 8, 2005

Tidal effects as the object approaches the BH may manifest themselves as heating and deconsolidate the object. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

tdamskov · Nov 8, 2005

I found this text as part of the description of the area around an event horizon (actually from the link I dropped in another thread): -quote: Now, at small radii, the solution [Swarzchild's] began to act strangely. There was a "singularity" at the center, r=0, where the curvature of spacetime was infinite. Surrounding that was a region where the "radial" direction of decreasing r was actually a direction in *time* rather than in space. Anything in that region, including light, would be obligated to fall toward the singularity, to be crushed as tidal forces diverged. This was separated from the rest of the universe by a place where Schwarzschild's coordinates blew up, though nothing was wrong with the curvature of spacetime there. (This was called the Schwarzschild radius. Later, other coordinate systems were discovered in which the blow-up didn't happen; it was an artifact of the coordinates, a little like the problem of defining the longitude of the North Pole. The physically important thing about the Schwarzschild radius was not the coordinate problem, but the fact that within it the direction into the hole became a direction in time.) -end quote Perhaps your problem of infinities at the event horizon are rooted in the coordinate system used to describe it?

kmarinas86 · Nov 8, 2005

http://skybooksusa.com/time-travel/timeinfo/bhfaq001.htm Now, at small radii, the [Schwarzschild] solution began to act strangely. There was a "singularity" at the center, r=0, where the curvature of spacetime was infinite. Surrounding that was a region where the "radial" direction of decreasing r was actually a direction in *time* rather than in space. Anything in that region, including light, would be obligated to fall toward the singularity, to be crushed as tidal forces diverged. This was separated from the rest of the universe by a place where Schwarzschild's coordinates blew up, though nothing was wrong with the curvature of spacetime there. (This was called the Schwarzschild radius. Later, other coordinate systems were discovered in which the blow-up didn't happen; it was an artifact of the coordinates, a little like the problem of defining the longitude of the North Pole. The physically important thing about the Schwarzschild radius was not the coordinate problem, but the fact that within it the direction into the hole became a direction in time.) Remember to put the url. Perhaps your problem of infinities at the event horizon are rooted in the coordinate system used to describe it? Yes, and it is rooted in the Schwarzschild solution to Einstein's field equations. In order for a Schwarzschild radius to exist, we will need matter (of mass) to have kinetic energy of infinity and a speed of c, or else there is no escape velocity of c. Wouldn't that mean the energy density at the Schwarzschild radius is infinity when a mass is crossing it? What happens to energy under the schwarzschild radius (i.e. kg*m²/s²) Does it become kg*s²/m² ???????? Wouldn't the laws of gravity change if one replaces the time coordinate with a spatial coordinate and 3 sp

Search

Escape velocity implication

kmarinas86

Guest

vogon13

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

jatslo

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

jatslo

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

vogon13

Guest

tdamskov

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page