Science > Physics > What is acceleration of particles moving transverse to field of extended planar mass?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Neil Bates" |
| Date: |
21 Nov 2007 06:38:48 PM |
| Object: |
What is acceleration of particles moving transverse to field of extended planar mass? |
I was told, that the lab-frame acceleration of a mass moving transverse to
the field around an extended planar mass (with essentially uniform field
over a wide range) is not the same as what I expect from the "accelerating
elevator" (AE) and my original understanding of the equivalence principle.
In the AE, a mass dropped straight down and a bullet fired horizontally hit
the floor at the same time. That means, the same lab acceleration along g
(which looks higher to the bullet due to time dilation.) What I was told
(source not important here, but seemed credible):
g(moving transverse to g) = g(1 + v^2/c^2).
That is supposedly due to the moving body cutting planes of space time
differently than a simple falling body, etc.
But what if you accelerate a ring of vast radius R from rest to rapid
rotation, using up its own mass-energy? The total mass-energy per unit ds of
the ring, seen in the lab, stays the same (and we can use discrete points to
avoid stretching.) In my original understanding, the close to 1/r gravity
field near the ring current therefore stays the same value. That avoids free
energy tricks like raising/lowering parallel static mass rings before/after
acceleration of the first ring.
If the acceleration difference is real, then we can speed up the first ring,
get g(new) = g(rest)*(1 + v^2/c^2), lower in some sandwiching static rings,
decelerate the first ring (keeping the energy there for same mass-energy per
unit), then raise the other rings back out and keep the extra energy. It
would be worth 0.36 mg*delta h if the main ring got up to 0.6c, etc. The
other rings or sets of masses go right towards the spinning ring, there's no
way for corrections to fix energy using their own transverse velocity. Play
with it some, and maybe you'll see that differential values of g cause
problems.
Comments, anyone?
BTW, below are some references regarding this issue.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0503092
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0708/0708.2906v1.pdf
(This will do better fresh, than appended to an older thread)
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
