A question?

What happens if one accelerates a spherical object in a rotation, equivalent to 99.99999999999999999999% the speed of light??

Imagine the sphere on earth weighs about 900 pounds.

Any thoughts?

Kashai
What happens if one accelerates a spherical object in a rotation, equivalent to 99.99999999999999999999% the speed of light??

Any thoughts?

One mother of a badass centrifuge.

Seriously though, I'm curious now that you asked. That would exert a lot of force at least, I'm not sure offhand what else would happen.

The hampster would get dizzy, and probably throw up.

reply to post by Kashai


Maybe not at that percentage of the speed of light even, but maybe even at significantly high velocities of significantly high mass in rotation is what black holes are and why they exist?

reply to post by Kashai

I've wondered this myself as we usually refer to matter traveling close to the speed of light in a linear direction rather than spinning.... if the material can hold together and not fly apart! Of course, the outer portion is traveling faster than the inner portion but..... I wonder! Travel is travel, motion is motion?

Kashai
What happens if one accelerates a spherical object in a rotation, equivalent to 99.99999999999999999999% the speed of light??

Earth shattering kaboom as it comes apart long before you get there...

Kashai
What happens if one accelerates a spherical object in a rotation, equivalent to 99.99999999999999999999% the speed of light??

Imagine the sphere on earth weighs about 900 pounds.

Any thoughts?

edit on 15-1-2014 by Kashai because: Added content

I imagine it being in a closed loop environment of 400km worth of track, kind of like CERN but bigger with a steel ball as my "spherical object".
At max acceleration the ball becomes invisible but the gravity created would I think, effect time and photon particles inside the radius of the imaginary tack I have created. I am thinking the energy required to propel 900 pounds to that speed would be a lot so in my imaginary track an equal but opposite effect takes place as a type of vortex within the tracks radius.
This opens up a portal to "Gwelo", where the other you will step though
Sorry, I got carried away with my imagination lol

maybe do the same thing my witchy wife does, it disappears never to be seen again, in this Universe anyway. Physics. Magic. the norse people got it square! they are really one in the same ! but i believe there was an "event" were in a team from the Naval Research Lab, working on magnetic 'rail gun' technology, for aircraft weaponry back in the fifties actually did accelerate a metal object, apparently about the size of a standard ping pong ball . PAST the speed of light. it was supposedly never seen again and caused no kinetic or physical damage in the "stadium" where the test rail gun had been constructed. who knows? when it comes to lying and covering up, who's better at that than the U.S. government? nobody. thats who !

I like that question. It's a question that helps me explain and understand myself, when giving the definitions of 'Time'.

Although your question didn't ask anything about time per se but instead what the results would be from such an experiment, I think it goes and shows another avenue of thought for my bowl of noodles.

My thoughts have always been that time is a relationship of motion, dimensional and the man-made part - cyclical. If I use your experiment in my own beliefs, it gives me a whole new realm of discovery.

I'll try to explain, which should be easier than in the past. But first, my answer to your question -

...at 99.99999999999999% speed of light? My first answer I think would be 99.9999999999999% stopped or lack of motion.

Motion is a sense of images(light) following in succession, be it slow or rapid, at 99.9999999999999% of the space it takes for an image to be created, the sphere would be all of that specific image less .0000000000000001% so it would appear to be standing still. Now this doesn't hold water if you get rid of of the human element for the reason that we have chained ourselves to our own concept of reality. If you were to get rid of the human element, I think the question would be irrelevant because I think life in general would be dimensional and not cyclical.


Thank you for the simple, but very thought provocative question.

reply to post by tencap77


Are you talking about this?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Kashai


It would appear as to disappear. We can only see things as light reflected off an object hit our retina. If an item is going (near to ) the speed of light, it would not be able to reflect off visible light for us to see.

Just my humble opinion.

Kashai
What happens if one accelerates a spherical object in a rotation, equivalent to 99.99999999999999999999% the speed of light??

Bedlam
Earth shattering kaboom as it comes apart long before you get there...

I think Bedlam is right. I don't know of any substance strong enough to stay together at those velocities. The fastest implied tangential velocity I've seen is about 24 percent the speed of light for a neutron star as described here:

www.nrao.edu...

The scientists discovered the pulsar, named PSR J1748-2446ad, in a globular cluster of stars called Terzan 5, located some 28,000 light-years from Earth in the constellation Sagittarius. The newly-discovered pulsar is spinning 716 times per second, or at 716 Hertz (Hz), readily beating the previous record of 642 Hz from a pulsar discovered in 1982. For reference, the fastest speeds of common kitchen blenders are 250-500 Hz.

The scientists say the object's fast rotation speed means that it cannot be any larger than about 20 miles across. According to Hessels, "If it were any larger, material from the surface would be flung into orbit around the star."

If it's less than 20 miles across then the tangential velocity is even lower than 24% of light speed, so that's the upper limit for this object to stay together. We aren't really sure exactly how big it is.

Kashai
What happens if one accelerates a spherical object in a rotation, equivalent to 99.99999999999999999999% the speed of light??

Imagine the sphere on earth weighs about 900 pounds.

Any thoughts?

edit on 15-1-2014 by Kashai because: Added content

Depends on what it is made out of. It could fly apart but no matter what it would probably end up destroying itself on the ground.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


What if the object was also traveling linearly as it was being accelerated angularly would it then maybe not have a chance to come about, maybe how spiral galaxies dont come apart, as they as a whole are traveling linearly as well as rotating? So as it travels linearly and rotates it collapses in on itself.

reply to post by ImaFungi

It doesn't have to be rotating at all to travel at a high fraction of the speed of light linearly so I'm not sure if your question is on topic or what exactly you're getting at?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Only the periphery would be travelling at high speed, the pole so to speak would be at speeds a fraction of the main circumerence.Which makes me think is there a speed of light vibration,some harmonic that would vibrate the chosen matter at the speed of light.Which would after all amount to the same thing.

anonentity
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Only the periphery would be travelling at high speed, the pole so to speak would be at speeds a fraction of the main circumerence.

That's probably the case with the neutron star I referenced earlier, but what you said is not what imafungi said and I was replying to imafungi's question.

I'm pretty sure it contracts. I am not sure I can find it but there's a proof that you can't have an infinitely rigid disk, because it can't rotate due to differential contraction. If you HAD such a thing, it would give you a means of detecting the absolute rotation of the universe in a non-relative way.

Arbitrageur
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

It doesn't have to be rotating at all to travel at a high fraction of the speed of light linearly so I'm not sure if your question is on topic or what exactly you're getting at?

Im saying if you had a spherical object,(and magical powers) what would happen to the object if you increased its linear velocity and also its angular momentum to the same degree? You said according to the OP the mass would break apart well before approaching the percentage given, would there be a difference if the mass/object was not relatively standing still, but also increasing its linear velocity? And then I wondered if this is why black holes have perhaps some strange characteristics they do, because they are an extremely dense massive mass, that is traveling relatively fast and spinning relatively fast, and like your fast spinning object breaking apart answer for the OP, black holes dont seem to break apart. But I guess (you may claim they are not spinning at all) they are not spinning anywhere near a a small fraction of the speed of light, and if they were accelerated so they too would 'come apart'. But then I must wonder again if the surrounding total mass of the stars and planets of a spiral galaxy could help keep the black hole from coming apart, as if the surrounding mass was a gravitational hill/mountain/slope the black hole could not climb out of, coupled with the liner motion of the galaxy as a whole, black hole and gravity field and planets and stars, yea.

Bedlam
I'm pretty sure it contracts. I am not sure I can find it but there's a proof that you can't have an infinitely rigid disk, because it can't rotate due to differential contraction. If you HAD such a thing, it would give you a means of detecting the absolute rotation of the universe in a non-relative way.

If you're talking about relativistic contraction in the direction of linear motion, isn't that dependent on the observer's frame of reference? In other words, an observer on or in the spinning disk wouldn't see the contraction due to linear motion that an external observer would observe.

ImaFungi
would there be a difference if the mass/object was not relatively standing still, but also increasing its linear velocity?

I doubt it. I think regardless of the linear velocity, the neutron star would still start breaking apart around the same rotational velocity for reasons similar to my reply to bedlam above, since the linear motion is dependent on the reference frame.

And then I wondered if this is why black holes have perhaps some strange characteristics they do, because they are an extremely dense massive mass

Black hole math says the density is not just extremely dense, it's infinitely dense, but as Michio Kaku said when we get infinity in physics it often implies a problem with our math. If it was truly infinitely dense then I don't even know how to calculate the angular momentum which would make a black hole fly apart. I do think it's very plausible to suggest that black holes might spin faster than even the fastest spinning neutron star found so far, but we haven't measured anything like this to my knowledge. If the radius of the singularity in a black hole is really zero, then how can you calculate the tangential velocity at the surface of the rotation? Like other aspects of singularity math, it becomes meaningless.

Black hole rotation is part of the "no hair theorem"

The no-hair theorem postulates that all black hole solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations of gravitation and electromagnetism in general relativity can be completely characterized by only three externally observable classical parameters: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum.

So the black hole can have angular momentum, but if you have a way to mathematically calculate some fraction of the speed of light associated with this, you'll have to explain it to me since I don't know how to do that.