Acceleration causes gravitational effect?

gravitation is acceleration.
Imagine rolling a ball down a hill that gets steeper and steeper

Whats wrong with a ball going lightspeed?  You have something against balls?

Whats wrong with a ball going light speed?  You have something against balls?

gravitation is acceleration.
Imagine rolling a ball down a hill that gets steeper and steeper

It would go near lightspeed alright but as it got closer and closer to lightspeed its mass would increase so it would need more and more energy to continue to accelerate

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 03:05:21 PM

gravitation is acceleration.
Imagine rolling a ball down a hill that gets steeper and steeper

Sorry, gravitation is not acceleration.  That argument was owned. 

Also, people are starting to not like this statment.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 04:01:16 PM

It would go near lightspeed alright but as it got closer and closer to lightspeed its mass would increase so it would need more and more energy to continue to accelerate

Quote from: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 04:31:49 PM

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 03:05:21 PM

gravitation is acceleration.
Imagine rolling a ball down a hill that gets steeper and steeper

Sorry, gravitation is not acceleration.  That argument was owned. 

Also, people are starting to not like this statment.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 04:01:16 PM

It would go near lightspeed alright but as it got closer and closer to lightspeed its mass would increase so it would need more and more energy to continue to accelerate

Just because they do not like it does not make it any less true. And gravitation is acceleration, but acceleration is not gravitation

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 04:35:20 PM

Quote from: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 04:31:49 PM

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 03:05:21 PM

gravitation is acceleration.
Imagine rolling a ball down a hill that gets steeper and steeper

Sorry, gravitation is not acceleration.  That argument was owned. 

Also, people are starting to not like this statment.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 04:01:16 PM

It would go near lightspeed alright but as it got closer and closer to lightspeed its mass would increase so it would need more and more energy to continue to accelerate

Just because they do not like it does not make it any less true. And gravitation is acceleration, but acceleration is not gravitation

here

E=gmc^2
g=gamma

I can rearrange the equation to

E=mgc^2
now as velocity increases, the speed of light squared increases, mass stays the same. 

Seriously, gravitation is not acceleration.  Gravitation causes objects to accelerate. 

Quote from: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 04:39:23 PM

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 04:35:20 PM

Quote from: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 04:31:49 PM

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 03:05:21 PM

gravitation is acceleration.
Imagine rolling a ball down a hill that gets steeper and steeper

Sorry, gravitation is not acceleration.  That argument was owned. 

Also, people are starting to not like this statment.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 04:01:16 PM

It would go near lightspeed alright but as it got closer and closer to lightspeed its mass would increase so it would need more and more energy to continue to accelerate

Just because they do not like it does not make it any less true. And gravitation is acceleration, but acceleration is not gravitation

here

E=gmc^2
g=gamma

I can rearrange the equation to

E=mgc^2
now as velocity increases, the speed of light squared increases, mass stays the same. 

Seriously, gravitation is not acceleration.  Gravitation causes objects to accelerate. 

Mass does indeed increase: m= m₀/[sqrt(1-v²/c²)]=(lambda)m₀
Where m₀ is the rest mass

the only equation that I can think of off the top of my head that would use gamma is the formula for calculating the Kinetic energy of an object, but the reason that the mass does not change in that equation is because you only use the rest mass in it

And to keep it simple gravitation is acceleration if people want to nitpick that is up to them but I will stick with what is simple to think about

not what I posted but you are getting closer to calculating the KE of an object, just add in the rest mass multiplied by c² before you divide and you are most of the way there

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 05:06:34 PM

not what I posted but you are getting closer to calculating the KE of an object, just add in the rest mass multiplied by c² before you divide and you are most of the way there

KE is not total energy.  KE=1/2mv^2.   No rest mass involved. 

What you stated is what I said it was, relativistic mass. 

Quote from: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 05:20:43 PM

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 05:06:34 PM

not what I posted but you are getting closer to calculating the KE of an object, just add in the rest mass multiplied by c² before you divide and you are most of the way there

KE is not total energy.  KE=1/2mv^2.   No rest mass involved. 

What you stated is what I said it was, relativistic mass. 

So you are out to prove that an objects rest mass stays the same? why go to the trouble
And check your substitutions there

You should end up with E=gc²
Which says the same thing, mass increases. You are just now using the relativistic mass term instead of the rest mass where is the confusion?

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 05:41:44 PM

Quote from: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 05:20:43 PM

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 05:06:34 PM

not what I posted but you are getting closer to calculating the KE of an object, just add in the rest mass multiplied by c² before you divide and you are most of the way there

KE is not total energy.  KE=1/2mv^2.   No rest mass involved. 

What you stated is what I said it was, relativistic mass. 

So you are out to prove that an objects rest mass stays the same? why go to the trouble
And check your substitutions there

You should end up with E=gc²
Which says the same thing, mass increases. You are just now using the relativistic mass term instead of the rest mass where is the confusion?

What??

E=gammamc^2 is the equation.  For low speeds, gamma is 1.  1*2=2*1 so I can rearrange it to E=mgc^2 if I wanted.  E=gc^2 isn't an equation. 

It would go near lightspeed alright but as it got closer and closer to lightspeed its mass would increase so it would need more and more energy to continue to accelerate

The idiocy in this thread is overwhelming. I think we just overtook Myspace as the dumbest place on the World Wide Web.

The idiocy in this thread is overwhelming. I think we just overtook Myspace as the dumbest place on the World Wide Web.

Ok, simple question,  Gravitation is caused by our constante Acceleration, and I read in another foram that air resistance and contact with the earth hold us in place.  Then wouldn't it be really really windy?  Or since we have a dome over us holding the air in then, if I were to let a balloon float, wouldn't it come crashing down since the earth accelerated into it?  How come we don't fly into the moon?  How did the Jap's in world war 2 use the jetstream to float high altitude balloons to fly east to drop bombs onto the US.  Was the 12 year old that sailed around the world in on this conspiricy?  Is the entire universe accelerating in the same direction and at the same speed?  What is behind us as we Fly in the direction we are going.  And my 8 year old wants to know if you have any pictures of the 150 foot Ice walls that are around the entire world and how deep do these sheets of Ice go.  Wouldn't currents cause some ice to jam up on the sides?

Quote from: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 06:48:11 PM

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 05:41:44 PM

Quote from: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 05:20:43 PM

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 05:06:34 PM

not what I posted but you are getting closer to calculating the KE of an object, just add in the rest mass multiplied by c² before you divide and you are most of the way there

KE is not total energy.  KE=1/2mv^2.   No rest mass involved. 

What you stated is what I said it was, relativistic mass. 

So you are out to prove that an objects rest mass stays the same? why go to the trouble
And check your substitutions there

You should end up with E=gc²
Which says the same thing, mass increases. You are just now using the relativistic mass term instead of the rest mass where is the confusion?

What??

E=gammamc^2 is the equation.  For low speeds, gamma is 1.  1*2=2*1 so I can rearrange it to E=mgc^2 if I wanted.  E=gc^2 isn't an equation. 

How do you just add terms to one side of the equation and not to the other side?

Why aren't we turning into a black hole?

Quote from: Josef on August 17, 2008, 09:07:55 AM

Why aren't we turning into a black hole?

Because our mass isn't large enough.

Yes, we are.