Gravitational force vs. relativity


by crebigsol
Tags: force, gravitational, relativity
crebigsol
crebigsol is offline
#1
Dec12-09, 08:40 PM
P: 6
Suppose two terrestrial objects B1 and B2 have concentrated a high quantity of mass while being reasonably separated by a distance. When a high speed rocket ship flies by in direction more less parallel to the line connecting these two objects, relativity must predict a drastic disturbance in the physical state between B1 and B2. Not only the mass of each of the two objects is seen increased as moving mass by someone in the rocket ship according to relativity, but also the distance between B1 and B2 found shortened by the observer. Gravitational force between them must be predicted by this theory to increase many folds. Indeed, if relativity is valid, the increase is by a factor of {1/[1-(v/c)2]1/2}4
(2, 1/2, and 4 are all in superscript)! Gravitational force thus escalated must force these two objects to collide, or at least to be predicted as having much higher potential of ultimately colliding by this observer. Does relativity reveal what kind of physical effect that a fly-by rocket ship can exert on these two objects? Or does relativity have paragraph rewriting Newton’s equation of universal gravitational force in a moving person’s observation?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Simplicity is key to co-operative robots
Chemical vapor deposition used to grow atomic layer materials on top of each other
Earliest ancestor of land herbivores discovered
AEM
AEM is offline
#2
Dec12-09, 08:50 PM
PF Gold
P: 363
Quote Quote by crebigsol View Post
Suppose two terrestrial objects B1 and B2 have concentrated a high quantity of mass while being reasonably separated by a distance. When a high speed rocket ship flies by in direction more less parallel to the line connecting these two objects, relativity must predict a drastic disturbance in the physical state between B1 and B2. Not only the mass of each of the two objects is seen increased as moving mass by someone in the rocket ship according to relativity, but also the distance between B1 and B2 found shortened by the observer. Gravitational force between them must be predicted by this theory to increase many folds. Indeed, if relativity is valid, the increase is by a factor of {1/[1-(v/c)2]1/2}4
(2, 1/2, and 4 are all in superscript)! Gravitational force thus escalated must force these two objects to collide, or at least to be predicted as having much higher potential of ultimately colliding by this observer. Does relativity reveal what kind of physical effect that a fly-by rocket ship can exert on these two objects? Or does relativity have paragraph rewriting Newton’s equation of universal gravitational force in a moving person’s observation?
You have misinterpreted what the theory of relativity says. It tells you what the observer in the rocket ship measures. An observer at rest next to the two masses would not observe any changes in either their mass or the distance separating them. Your observer in the rocket ship would only observe a contraction of the distance between the two masses. Without actually interacting with them, he would not be able to measure a change in their mass, but that is a different situation from what you describe.
Mentz114
Mentz114 is offline
#3
Dec13-09, 12:14 AM
PF Gold
P: 4,081
Gravitational force between them must be predicted by this theory to increase many folds. Indeed, if relativity is valid, the increase is by a factor of {1/[1-(v/c)2]1/2}4
I don't know where you learned relativity, but this is wrong.

Gravitational effects are observer independent. That is why general relativity is written in terms of tensors or an equivalent formalism.

crebigsol
crebigsol is offline
#4
Dec13-09, 02:44 AM
P: 6

Gravitational force vs. relativity


Quote Quote by Mentz114 View Post
I don't know where you learned relativity, but this is wrong.

Gravitational effects are observer independent. That is why general relativity is written in terms of tensors or an equivalent formalism.
Tensor is a mathematical means, not any insight of physics of any kind. An equation of 1+1=2, no matter how correct, tells you nothing about any material state in a physical world. On the ohter hand, without any math, people can explain why on can see his image in a mirror.

Besides, does relativity proposes that gravitational effects are observer independent and tell people why it should?
crebigsol
crebigsol is offline
#5
Dec13-09, 02:54 AM
P: 6
Quote Quote by AEM View Post
Your observer in the rocket ship would only observe a contraction of the distance between the two masses. Without actually interacting with them, he would not be able to measure a change in their mass, but that is a different situation from what you describe.
Wouldn't the moving length contraction influence the gravitational effect? If the contraction affects time measurement, why is it exempted from affecting gravitational measurement? Besides, special relativity has mathematical prediction on how moving mass changes, how has it become "Without actually interacting with them, he would not be able to measure a change in their mass"? In fact, it is this prediction leads to the E=mc2
HallsofIvy
HallsofIvy is offline
#6
Dec13-09, 07:08 AM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,879
Once again- the moving observer would observe an increase in mass of the two objects and a decrease in the distance between them. An observer in the rest frame of the two masses- and the two masses themselves- would see no change in mass, distance, or gravitational force.
DaleSpam
DaleSpam is offline
#7
Dec13-09, 07:51 AM
Mentor
P: 16,472
Quote Quote by crebigsol View Post
Or does relativity have paragraph rewriting Newton’s equation of universal gravitational force in a moving person’s observation?
This is much more than a paragraph, it is the entire theory of General Relativity. Newton's equation is simply not compatible with relativistically moving bodies, although GR does reduce to Newtonian gravity for non-relativistically moving bodies in weak gravitational fields.
Quote Quote by crebigsol View Post
On the ohter hand, without any math, people can explain why on can see his image in a mirror.
I don't believe this is true.
Quote Quote by crebigsol View Post
Besides, special relativity has mathematical prediction on how moving mass changes
Don't forget that in GR mass is not the source of gravity; in GR the source of gravity is the stress-energy tensor. This means that gravity couples not only to mass, but also to momentum, pressure, stress, etc.
crebigsol
crebigsol is offline
#8
Jan1-10, 12:17 PM
P: 6
[QUOTE=DaleSpam;2489480].I don't believe this is true.QUOTE]

The truth is only a simple concept of reflection, although how precisely the reflection works out does require math. However, math steps in after physiccal explanation not before. Possibly a primitive man can explain why he sees himself while staring at water ssurface. When Archimeda used concave mirrors to burn enemy's ships, possbibly (it means I do not say this with certainty) he had not figured out the mathematical relationship between curvature of the reflecting surface and the focus point.
Vanadium 50
Vanadium 50 is offline
#9
Jan1-10, 06:22 PM
Mentor
Vanadium 50's Avatar
P: 15,571
I don't understand where you're going here. You posted an equation that turned out to be wrong, and now you seem to be complaining that things get quantitative too soon.
crebigsol
crebigsol is offline
#10
Jan1-10, 09:14 PM
P: 6
Quote Quote by Vanadium 50 View Post
I don't understand where you're going here. You posted an equation that turned out to be wrong, and now you seem to be complaining that things get quantitative too soon.
Possibly I have to discontiue this thread because I seem not being able to have a full grasp on how to follow the publishsing mecahnism here. For example, you can quote clearly from what I say, but I am unable to do the same thing. It only creates difficulty between our communicaiton. Thank you for all your time and effort, anyway.
crebigsol
crebigsol is offline
#11
Jan1-10, 09:16 PM
P: 6
Ah, after I complain, I see I can quote you clearly. But it is ok. I will come back some other time. Thank you.
DaleSpam
DaleSpam is offline
#12
Jan1-10, 11:24 PM
Mentor
P: 16,472
Quote Quote by crebigsol View Post
I will come back some other time.
I am glad to hear it. In the meantime you may wish to learn more about the use of tensors in GR as was mentioned previously. The main point is that in GR the source of gravity is not simply mass (a scalar) but energy, and momentum, and pressure, and stress all together (a tensor). And for relativistically moving bodies the mass is not the only significant component of the stress-energy tensor.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Calculate the net force pulling on Earth with phases of Moon(Gravitational Force) Introductory Physics Homework 4
Relativity: Gravitational Redshifting Advanced Physics Homework 2
Free body diagram involving normal force, gravitational force, and applied force. Introductory Physics Homework 4
Equilibrium: Electrostatic force and Gravitational force Introductory Physics Homework 1
Gravitational Force, the derivative of Gravitational Potential Energy? Classical Physics 3