Lorentz Contraction and Constant Acceleration

  • 13 Replies
  • 4895 Views
*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Lorentz Contraction and Constant Acceleration
« on: November 03, 2013, 10:40:54 AM »
Okay.
Assuming the Earth has been around for 4 point whatever billion years:
The Earth would be moving at roughly the speed of light right now, considering the constant 1G acceleration through a vacuum.
I use the word "roughly" here pretty loosely. Let's consider that it's even moving at .7c.
Saying "the Earth would never reach (roughly) the speed of light, because it would take a (roughly) infinite amount of energy is true according to special relativity, which I don't adhere to, but we can talk about that later if you'd like.
From an outside reference point :
Quote
the ship will appear to be gaining mass due to its high kinetic energy, and the Mass-energy equivalence principle. Should the engines be giving a constant thrust, this will result in progressively smaller acceleration due to the higher mass it is required to accelerate.
However, from the Earth as a reference point :
Quote
the acceleration would continue at the same rate. However, due to the Lorentz contraction The galaxy around the ship would appear to become squashed in the direction of travel, and a destination many light years away, would appear to become much closer.

Okay. That being said, we should be experiencing major Lorentz contraction at this point.
Even if we are only close to the speed of light, there would be a noticeable effect relative to the other photons that deliver to us our visual stimuli.

Quote
As the magnitude of the velocity approaches the speed of light, the effect becomes dominant, as can be seen from the formula:

   

where

    L0 is the proper length (the length of the object in its rest frame),
    L is the length observed by an observer in relative motion with respect to the object,
    v is the relative velocity between the observer and the moving object,
    c is the speed of light,

and the Lorentz factor, γ(v), is defined as

   

Also, if you adhere to special relativity, the mass-energy relation equation would say that the closer you are to the speed of light, the more mass you appear to have.
If we were, for the sake of argument, .8c, we would exhibit properties of having much more mass than we actually do from the outside reference point.

If we ignore special relativity, which I advise most of you to do, considering that the most popular FE belief rejects gravity, we would definitely notice ourselves going (1.357e+17)G, or 4435859637.269461 times the speed of light.



« Last Edit: November 08, 2013, 08:47:43 AM by th3rm0m3t3r0 »


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Serious problem with UA
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2013, 10:57:12 AM »
Special relativity has exactly nothing to do with gravity. That's general relativity you're thinking of.

The apparent gain in mass does not occur to within the frame of reference. To an outside observer not moving at speeds near light, the Earth would appear to be gaining mass. But to us, this is not the case.

I encourage you to read the FAQ and the Wiki. We're hardly unaware of these concerns.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Serious problem with UA
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2013, 04:05:01 PM »
Special relativity has exactly nothing to do with gravity. That's general relativity you're thinking of.

The apparent gain in mass does not occur to within the frame of reference. To an outside observer not moving at speeds near light, the Earth would appear to be gaining mass. But to us, this is not the case.

I encourage you to read the FAQ and the Wiki. We're hardly unaware of these concerns.
I'm just saying that special relativity is part of a two-part theory called relativity...
The other half, obviously, is general relativity..
Which has everything to do with gravity.

That's beside the point.

I've been lurking for like 4 years.
I've never seen this addressed.
You could actually read my post...
Quote
However, from the Earth as a reference point :
Quote
the acceleration would continue at the same rate. However, due to the Lorentz contraction The galaxy around the ship would appear to become squashed in the direction of travel, and a destination many light years away, would appear to become much closer.


Okay. That being said, we should be experiencing major Lorentz contraction at this point.
Even if we are only close to the speed of light, there would be a noticeable effect relative to the other photons that deliver to us our visual stimuli.

This is more about that.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Serious problem with UA
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2013, 10:36:46 AM »
Nobody has an explanation for this?
Why do we not experience increased Lorentz contraction as we accelerate?
We would notice this phenomenon increasing in intensity for sure.
EDIT: Furthermore, we would be experiencing a decreased acceleration over time as v reaches c, as you seem intent on adhering to special relativity. You can't constantly accelerate at 1G forever and not reach c. Special relativity says that the closer you get to c, the less you can accelerate. The UA breaks special relativity. I think you people misunderstand and misinterpret this as a means to support your hypothesis.
So, we would notice a decreased rate of acceleration, and we would notice Lorentz contraction.

Quote
Even without considerations of causality, there are other strong reasons why faster-than-light travel is forbidden by special relativity. For example, if a constant force is applied to an object for a limitless amount of time, then integrating F = dp/dt gives a momentum that grows without bound, but this is simply because approaches infinity as approaches c. To an observer who is not accelerating, it appears as though the object's inertia is increasing, so as to produce a smaller acceleration in response to the same force. This behavior is in fact observed in particle accelerators, where each charged particle is accelerated by the electromagnetic force.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 11:22:27 AM by th3rm0m3t3r0 »


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

Junker

  • 3925
Re: Serious problem with UA
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2013, 11:22:08 AM »
Nobody has an explanation for this?
Why do we not experience increased Lorentz contraction as we accelerate?
We would notice this phenomenon increasing in intensity for sure.
EDIT: Furthermore, we would be experiencing a decreased acceleration over time as v reaches c, as you seem intent on adhering to special relativity. You can't constantly accelerate at 1G forever and not reach c. Special relativity says that the closer you get to c, the less you can accelerate. The UA breaks special relativity. I think you people misunderstand and misinterpret this as a means to support your hypothesis.
So, we would notice a decreased rate of acceleration, and we would notice Lorentz contraction.

Please don't bump threads less than 24 hours old.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Serious problem with UA
« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2013, 11:25:56 AM »
Nobody has an explanation for this?
Why do we not experience increased Lorentz contraction as we accelerate?
We would notice this phenomenon increasing in intensity for sure.
EDIT: Furthermore, we would be experiencing a decreased acceleration over time as v reaches c, as you seem intent on adhering to special relativity. You can't constantly accelerate at 1G forever and not reach c. Special relativity says that the closer you get to c, the less you can accelerate. The UA breaks special relativity. I think you people misunderstand and misinterpret this as a means to support your hypothesis.
So, we would notice a decreased rate of acceleration, and we would notice Lorentz contraction.

Please don't bump threads less than 24 hours old.
It was less than 24 hours old by less than 5 minutes.  :-\
Now it's over 24 hours old.  ;D
Sorry, though.
I'll wait the 4 minutes next time...
« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 11:27:40 AM by th3rm0m3t3r0 »


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

Junker

  • 3925
Re: Serious problem with UA
« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2013, 11:27:33 AM »
Nobody has an explanation for this?
Why do we not experience increased Lorentz contraction as we accelerate?
We would notice this phenomenon increasing in intensity for sure.
EDIT: Furthermore, we would be experiencing a decreased acceleration over time as v reaches c, as you seem intent on adhering to special relativity. You can't constantly accelerate at 1G forever and not reach c. Special relativity says that the closer you get to c, the less you can accelerate. The UA breaks special relativity. I think you people misunderstand and misinterpret this as a means to support your hypothesis.
So, we would notice a decreased rate of acceleration, and we would notice Lorentz contraction.

Please don't bump threads less than 24 hours old.
It was less than 24 hours old by less than 5 minutes.  :-\
Now it's over 24 hours old.  ;D

C'mon Thermo, you've been here.  Please don't argue moderation in the upper, unless it is S&C.

?

EvilJeffy

  • 118
  • I shouldn't waste time here, I have science to do.
Re: Serious problem with UA
« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2013, 02:39:16 PM »
If the Earth had been accelerating at 1g this entire time it would also take a force to be causing it to accelerate, as the Earth approached the sped of light that force would have to have increased to near infinity.

If that is the case, what is this mysterious force, and why have other objects in the sky, such as the sun, not fallen into the Earth, or is this mysterious force also holding them up there....

I will assume ahead of time that no one is going to be able to produce a testable hypothesis.
Sometimes on this forum I feel like I am kicking puppies, but I have good boots.  Just in case your curious I also have more science training than you do.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Serious problem with UA
« Reply #8 on: November 04, 2013, 03:46:10 PM »
If the Earth had been accelerating at 1g this entire time it would also take a force to be causing it to accelerate, as the Earth approached the sped of light that force would have to have increased to near infinity.

If that is the case, what is this mysterious force, and why have other objects in the sky, such as the sun, not fallen into the Earth, or is this mysterious force also holding them up there....

I will assume ahead of time that no one is going to be able to produce a testable hypothesis.
They usually just say "special relativity says it will never reach the speed of light".
This is a false application of this, though.
A constant acceleration at 1G for billions of years would need an infinite amount of energy to sustain itself.
If this idea adhered to the laws of special relativity, we would notice a slight decrease in gravitational acceleration every day.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

?

EvilJeffy

  • 118
  • I shouldn't waste time here, I have science to do.
Re: Serious problem with UA
« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2013, 03:48:13 PM »
The people who try to pull the special relativity card do so without actually understanding the implications that special relativity then puts on the theory.  I congratulate you on putting it so well.
Sometimes on this forum I feel like I am kicking puppies, but I have good boots.  Just in case your curious I also have more science training than you do.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Serious problem with UA
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2013, 06:34:28 PM »
We're hardly unaware of these concerns.
Then why don't you address them?


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Lorentz Contraction and Constant Acceleration
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2014, 01:05:19 AM »
Bump, due to lack of concise answers.
This needs to be resolved, accounted for, or addressed.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Lorentz Contraction and Constant Acceleration
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2014, 03:05:40 AM »
Please do not bump old threads just because you do not like the answers you were given.  Make a new thread and actually add something to the thread if you are going to bring up old subjects.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Lorentz Contraction and Constant Acceleration
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2014, 06:51:50 AM »
Please do not bump old threads just because you do not like the answers you were given.  Make a new thread and actually add something to the thread if you are going to bring up old subjects.
It's not that I didn't like the answers - I just got no answers.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.