B Does Relativity Impact Gravity's Influence on Fast-Moving Objects?

Click For Summary
Einstein's theory of relativity explores how time and space are affected by speed, raising questions about gravity's influence on fast-moving objects. The discussion suggests that if an object experiences time at a significantly slower rate, gravity's effect on it might also appear diminished in its surrounding environment. Additionally, it proposes that the natural frequencies of atoms could influence gravity differently than the mass itself. However, a response highlights that general relativity already encompasses these concepts, urging a deeper understanding of established physics before speculating further. The thread concludes with a warning against personal speculation and low-quality contributions.
pete94857
Messages
99
Reaction score
9
TL;DR
Could relativity be giving mass density value.
Hello,

I was thinking đŸ€”, Einstein's brilliant theory of relativity is an observation of time/space and how it alters with speed.

If for example an object were to oscillate at such a speed to produce a very noticeable difference to its progression in time to its surroundings environment, say for example time were to be near ten times slower than its surrounding environment. Does this also mean that the way gravity effects that object would according to its surrounding environment be near ten times slower ? Therefore gravity for the object would be for example 0.01m/s2 therefore would it appear to its surrounding environment to be near gravity neutral ?

Going on... it is well known all atoms produce a natural frequency. Could it be the different frequencies are actually causing the difference in specific gravity for that mass rather than different masses having more or less specific sub atomic particles that some how have more attraction to gravity. This would mean what produces gravity is not the same as what is attracted by it.

Just some random thoughts, I wondered if anyone had an opinion .
 
  • Skeptical
Likes PeroK
Physics news on Phys.org
pete94857 said:
Just some random thoughts, I wondered if anyone had an opinion .
Yes, it seems that you are not aware that a complete relativistic theory of gravity was developed more than a hundred years ago by Einstein. It's the theory of general relativity (GR), so named because it applies to the general case in which gravity may or may not be present; the earlier and simpler version of relativity applies only in the special case of negligible gravitational effect so is called special relativity (SR).

Expressing "random thoughts" that don't consider stuff that has been well-known for generations is a complete waste of your time and the time of the people that you are asking to listen to you. This has been a recurrent pattern in all of your threads here.

We applaud your enthusiasm and understand your fascination with physics - everyone here is an unpaid volunteer who wouldn't be here otherwise - but what you are doing is just plain ineffective. The best advice we can give you is to learn some more basic physics (the Khan Academy or appropriate textbooks, perhaps) to give yourself a solid base on which to build your ideas. If you don't, at some point you will likely be banned for repeated violations of the rules against personal speculation and low-quality posts.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes pete94857, FactChecker, Doc Al and 2 others
This thread is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes pete94857
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K