Posted on 02/11/2006 4:31:06 PM PST by PatrickHenry
In fig 2, beta v/c as it appears on earth, begins to drop at his ref. distance of blk hole to test particle separation. If the particle is moving away, it gets attracted. The trick is that he's looking at things from the Earth and then claiming the field changes.
Some parpers on that site(arix) have "GR" theories that would, if they're applied to the solar system, allow all the planets to sit around as stationary objects. Like objects sitting still on a table top. One has too be careful what they pull off there.
beta = (v/c)
mark
LOL !! I'd forgotten about that thread.
PH, slightly off-topic, but on your List-o-LinksTM, could you make room for unintentionally hilarious comments?
Cheers!
Such artifacts are kept in a hermetically sealed vault under the GrandMaster's bed at DarwinCentral™ HeadQuarters in the Galapagos Islands.
Well, a lot can happen in 94 YEARS!
Would the Felber effect repel a moose meandering across the highway?
They are testing frame-dragging...
I think it would hang on the event horizon.
Antimatter drag chute?
Thanks for the ping!
Perhaps you'd prefer "Ludicrous speed.", Lord Helmet.
When you are traveling at the speed of light can you see anything?
The relativistically exact calculation in this paper shows that a mass radially approaching or receding from a payload with a relative velocity faster than 3-1/ 2c gravitationally repels the payload, as seen by a distant inertial observer.Fine, but so what? Why do the black hole and the approaching payload care what a distant observer sees? If the distant observer's view of things somehow controls the situation -- which I doubt -- then how could a black hole ever increase in mass?
the field of the black hole doesn't change with the test particle. IOWs the space remains unchanged. There is no forward propagating beam that diminishes the field, even to the point of reversing it. No forward beam that reduces the curvature of space.
"Why do the black hole and the approaching payload care what a distant observer sees?"
They don't. There is no repulsive force. The test particle just sees the curvature of space due to the blk hole.
I just realized you were asking rhetorical questions directed at Felber, but I haven't had my coffee yet. :)
Gravitomagnetism is real. It exists with nonspinning moving masses also. Felber isn't using that though.
If you're traveling in a spaceship at .577c, and you stand on the nose, and drop an object, it is going to fall toward the ship because of the ship's (slight) gravitational attraction. That means it will approach and collide with your ship. Otherwise, the principle of relativity would be contradicted. That principle requires that experiments work the same regardless of the speed at which you are moving.
The "distant observer" will also see the object approach and collide with your ship, although he will measure the time required for the collision to be different. Therefore, he cannot see the object as being repelled.
If he can still receive signals from Earrth, they would tell him it is the middle of the year, minus the travel time of the signals he is receiving.
You're missing the point. It is January 6th on Earth, in his frame. In his frame, time is moving more slowly on Earth. His calculation is exactly correct. He and the Earth-bound twin do not share the same axis of simultaneity; the moment when he does his calculation is simultaneous with Earth's January 6th in his frame; that same event is simultaneous with June 30th in the Earth's frame. They're both right.
If the traveller were receiving continuous timing signals from Earth--listening to WWV, for example--he would hear something from the middle of January 1st, just before he makes his turn-around. Time is passing more slowly on Earth, from his POV, but also Earth is a light-month away, from his POV, and a month ago, it was January 1st. Meanwhile, from the Earth's POV, he's been travelling near the speed of light, so of course the signal will only catch up to him very slowly; it's only barely overtaking him.
It's not just a math thing, either, but a measurable effect. There are all sorts of thought-problems involving lattices of clocks and meter sticks, where all the clocks are synchronized in the lattice's rest frame, where the traveller can instantaneously and locally measure what the time is on the clocks. The traveller can make two simultaneous (to him) measurements of clocks, one near the front of his ship, and another near the back of his ship. What the traveller notices is that, according to his measurements, the clocks are not synchronized.
Right. Felbers analysis works, but he's playing tricks by telling fairy tales about the underlying reality.
See post #138. Your example results in the same analysis. The numbers are just far less in magnitude and the "effect" likewise, far less apparent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.