SR/GR, my bad.
ops:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnOwens
The apparent gravitational pull on or by the fast object seems to remain unchanged. Of course, what that "really" means in relativity is that it's curving space-time around it just as much whether it's going 0 or 0.99993 c.
Anyway, once you figure that gamma, you can figure those speed, time, and mass numbers pretty easily, but they don't share the relationship you suppose above. Observed length (along the same axis as the velocity vector) is length / gamma; observed time is time / gamma; observed mass is mass * gamma...
|
It still looks like you created the "ohm's triangle" with speed (gamma) over length and time, with a little twist for mass. That would even make sense, since a longer object would have to move less in a specific time frame to bump some other object. Like a normal pool que and a two inch que... if the rears were lined up, you would have to move the small one a greater distance at a greater speed to reach the ball then the standard queue. If just length is decreased, but speed is constant, then time would increase. Maybe I'm on a bad tangent here... :-k
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by darkdev
In case it is not obvious, I am looking for thoughts on speed/time correlation and the actual speed of the earth in space. For instance, if speed and time and gravity/mass have the same relationship as in Ohm's Law (as soo many theories do): V = I * R
Speed = GM / Time
Time = GM / Speed
GM = Speed * Time
GM here means Gravity/Mass, although I'm not sure which is appropriate, or if it should mean gravitional mass... seems somewhat interchangable. Under this equation, speed and time have a inverse relationship for a specific GM, and a change in GM effects both speed and time
|
There would still logically be some constant (in place of my "GM") defining this inverse relationship, right?