- #1
helix_angle
- 4
- 0
Hello,
I have a question concerning general relativity. (go easy - I have only knowledge from general consumption physics books). Something curious I have been thinking about requires an explanation as to where I am incorrect in my thinking:
My understanding is that, as something moves relative to an observer, the speed at which it moves constitutes its energy, and therefore its mass. Since mass curves space-time, the amount of curvature an object causes (i.e. the gravitation pull caused by its mass) must be also be relative to the observer. This seems to me absolutely bizarre - but pressing on:
Assuming the above is correct then: At some point approaching the speed of light the mass an object relative to an observer must reach the point where photons reflected from its surface can no longer escape its mass, causing it to appear to the observer to be a black hole (invisible), where for another observer moving with the object it would appear perfectly normal.
Then would it also not be true that what we indirectly detect to be black holes in galaxies far away that are rushing away from us (the further the faster with accelerating space-time expansion) may actually not be black holes but normal (if large) stars relative to an observer in the same galaxy? Therefore the number of "visible" stars in galaxies far enough away should appear to be less and less, but I haven't read anywhere that this is the case. Why?
Thanks,
Helix_Angle
I have a question concerning general relativity. (go easy - I have only knowledge from general consumption physics books). Something curious I have been thinking about requires an explanation as to where I am incorrect in my thinking:
My understanding is that, as something moves relative to an observer, the speed at which it moves constitutes its energy, and therefore its mass. Since mass curves space-time, the amount of curvature an object causes (i.e. the gravitation pull caused by its mass) must be also be relative to the observer. This seems to me absolutely bizarre - but pressing on:
Assuming the above is correct then: At some point approaching the speed of light the mass an object relative to an observer must reach the point where photons reflected from its surface can no longer escape its mass, causing it to appear to the observer to be a black hole (invisible), where for another observer moving with the object it would appear perfectly normal.
Then would it also not be true that what we indirectly detect to be black holes in galaxies far away that are rushing away from us (the further the faster with accelerating space-time expansion) may actually not be black holes but normal (if large) stars relative to an observer in the same galaxy? Therefore the number of "visible" stars in galaxies far enough away should appear to be less and less, but I haven't read anywhere that this is the case. Why?
Thanks,
Helix_Angle