Blackholes2 Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora *Bigelow Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by pmb on February 25, 2000 11:26:49 UTC

: But are you saying that relativistic mass is a source : of gravity?

Yes.

: If so wouldn't this mean that the : velocity of a stellar object could could cause it to form a BH? : Or an object traveling at a velocity : close to c could collapse the universe into a BH?

No and no. See my comment here http://news3.news.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/nf/twf/a/8--5.583.14.1.1

We need to be careful when we say that the gravitational field increases. Suppose we say that the acceleration of a small test body in free-fall near the gravitationl source increases as measured by an observer moving with respect to the source. The we can assign a meaning to it as follows "The strength of the gravitational field increased." Then the strength of the gravitational field increases with the velocity of the source.

For example: Given a photon - if, in your frame of reference, the when the velocity is such that the enegy yields a value such that the de Broglie wavelength is equal too the Schwarzschild radius (i.e. the radius such that the energy, if contained within the Schwarzchild radius, then the mass is the Planck mass and we're in the domain of quantum gravity, of which there is yet no theory.

zc - Chill out dude! You need to get used to people disagreeing with you and to accept corrections when they are given. And I've never seen anyone named "zephrame cochrane" in any other forum that I've visited except the why files. I was posting there looooong before I evenb saw your name. And disagreeing with you and pointing out that there is such thing as a curvature tensor whenb you were unaware of it's existance can in now rational way be considered stalking ... that is what you called it right?

So either (1) You've visited other forums posting under another name and I disagreed with you (2) You've visited other forums posting under various names such as y.i.s. and naysayer/twn/gonzo etc and you attacked me an I lashed out at you (3) You've visited other forums posting under other names and I've never posted a message to you (4) You're lying

Which of the above are you refering to?