Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by zztop

  1. I wish I could give you +10. The way it stands, I could only give you +1. A few notes: 1. It is sufficient to do the analysis for half trip only. At the half trip, the travelling twin has clocked 3.46 and the stay at home twin has clocked 4. After that, symmetry takes over. 2. If one wants to take acceleration into account, for a more realistic analysis, I wrote these two sections for wiki long ago. The perspective of the travelling twin is most interesting.
  2. What do you mean "complementary"? The question doesn't make sense. GR defaults to Newtonian mechanics in the limit. This is well known It causes internal strain. It is not an observer dependent artifact. I already explained that this is a misleading, sloppy, unfortunate term used by Suskind.
  3. It teaches you that the temporal distance between two endpoints of a rod increases as the radial coordinate decreases. This means that the rod gets elongated. As I already mentioned, one gets a similar (but not identical) result by using Newtonian mechanics.
  4. Yes, I did. You need to be able to follow the proof.
  5. No, it is no longer true in 4-space but this is not what he was talking about. Please do not encourage the troll.
  6. I am not talking about you. No, my proof is exact, doesn't use any "simplification", there are no "curlies". I wasn't talking about you.
  7. Events and positions are two different things. Get your facts straight.
  8. Elongation exists for ANY BH (it exists for any radial fall towards a gravitating body). The effect can be shown not only with the GR formalism but also with the Newtonian one. The amount of elongation is related to the Schwarzschild radius (which is related to the gravitating body mass but [math]r_s[/math] is a more elegant way of calculating). I already posted the exact proof. Once again, I want to thank all the small - minded people that keep downvoting my posts. It gives a good tally of all the people that fail to understand the subject. If you do not understand , just ask, I am more than happy to explain.
  9. You need o stop posting rubbish and trying to pass it as science. What I posted is textbook science.
  10. An observer co-moving with the cube will not measure ANY length contraction, to this observer the cube will show no change. A stationary observer will measure the cube (and its markings) contracted in the direction of motion. The same stationary observer as above will "see" the cube rotated about an axis perpendicular on the direction of motion (see the Terrell-Penrose effect). So, the issue is quite complex and depends on: -the motion between cube and observer -whether we are talking about "measuring" or "seeing"
  11. repeating the same crank claims doesn't make them true
  12. I already posted it, u need to click on the link. "Pancaking" it is not illustrative of what happens (this is the term Suskind used) , elongation is much more appropriate. Based on the above, it is clear that you do not understand GR, the different parts of the body are experiencing different accelerations (both in terms of direction and in terms of value). Hence, the "spaghettification" and the "elongation" effects. If some of you spent as much time at dancing around the issue and posting (incorrect) prose as studying GR, you would have figured it out. None of you posted one equation. None.
  13. Yes, it is a simple proof that none of you was able to produce. It also happens to be correct Nothing to do with the subject being discussed, proving that you do not understand the subject, contrary to your claims. Precisely what some of you did (in addition, you repeatedly resorted to ad-hominems). Thank you for making my point.
  14. Correct. This effect is not what my proof is about, My proof shows the elongation in the radial direction. I want to thank all the that keep downvoting my posts, they demonstrate the mentality of this forum. Not worth wasting my time.
  15. Has nothing to do with force, there is no such thing a gravitational gorce in GR. It is an intrinsic property of radial motion in a gravitational field .
  16. You both miss the point, the discussion is about the contribution of the BH gravitational field. Since you three share a misunderstanding, I suggested that I provide a rigorous proof as to how the gravitational acceleration (not the gradient) also deforms the objects. By itself.
  17. The discussion is about the contribution of the BH gravitational field, not of the spaceship acceleration. Since several of you seem not to understand the concept, I can give a rigorous proof that a rod falling radially into a BH gets stretched due to the gravitational field of the BH. That is precisely what I said. (Proper) acceleration is absolute, meaning that it isn't relative to the gravitating body. Looks like (at least) three of you have some severe misconceptions about the fact that not only the acceleration gradient but the acceleration proper causes objects' deformation during radial freefall. A short mathematical explanation might help. Would you be interested in learning something new?
  18. The correct equation is: [math]m \frac{d^2x}{dt^2}+kx+\frac{a}{x^2}=0[/math] The solution is: this The motion is not harmonic
  19. The ship as a 200g acceleration wrt to some frame of reference, in the absence of any gravitating body. According to the Equivalence Principle, a body inside the spaceship is subjected to a hravitational acceleration of 200g. You now add in a gravitating body that generates a gravitational field of 800g. The Equivalence Principle tells you that the effective acceleration exerted on the ship is now 1000g.
  20. Incorrect, the EEP teaches you that one can get 1000g from the combined effects of a BH with 800g and a spaceship of 200g (opposite sense of vectors). In the absence of the BH the gravitational effect is only 200g. This thread is degenerating from science into trolling.
  21. The point was generating the effect in the absence of the BH.
  22. Sure, if you could find a spaceship capable of a 1000g+ thrust.
  23. The "resisting slightly" is what determines the amount of "pancaking". Yes, I did. This is why the language of physics is math.
  24. [math]r_s[/math] is the radius of the EH.
  25. Can you follow the math that compares [math]r[/math] where the spaghettification occurs with the location of the EH? I think I had two very detailed posts on the subject. I also posted the wiki references that show the case where spaghettification occurs way outside the EH. I suggest that you re-read them.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.