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

pete94857
Messages
99
Reaction score
9
TL;DR Summary
Could relativity be giving mass density value.
Hello,

I was thinking 🤔, 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
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...
Back
Top