[QUOTE=xilman;237794]Flattery will get you everywhere!

Paul[/QUOTE]

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZmCJUSC6g]You're so vain[/url]

David

if mass increases with speed and length in all 3 dimensions of space decrease doesn't that mean that once you hit a certain speed you're so dense that you become a black hole ?

I have heard of the fact that gravity is caused by curved spacetime though, so I doubt I'm getting anywhere.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;237830]if mass increases with speed and length in all 3 dimensions of space decrease doesn't that mean that once you hit a certain speed you're so dense that you become a black hole ?[/QUOTE]Length decreases only in the direction of motion. The other two dimensions are unchanged.

However, you've asked an interesting question to which I don't have a ready answer. The re-phrased question is whether the object collapses to a disk-like BH. Initial guess is that it does not because from the viewpoint of the object itself its dimensions are unchanged and, of course, it is at rest. It's just that the rest of the universe is going past it like a bat out of hell.

I'll have to think about this one. Thanks.

Paul

[QUOTE=science_man_88;237835]I have heard of the fact that gravity is caused by curved spacetime though, so I doubt I'm getting anywhere.[/QUOTE]You've heard, or mis-remembered, a garbled version of what General Relativity actually says. The correct version is that gravity [b]is[/b] curved spacetime. The two are identical and neither "causes" the other. The two are merely alternative ways of phrasing the same phenomenon.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;237836]

I'll have to think about this one. Thanks.[/QUOTE]

well it [B]was[/B] only a matter of time until I figured something to ask that would make you think lol.

although I know Newtonian physics won't hold up in a relativity situation, if a proton wanted to get pulled in by something it would need a mass of about 2.68*10[SUP]45[/SUP] kg for a perfect sphere? of 1 meter radius according to g=[TEX] GM_1M_2\over r^2[/TEX] or about 6.41*10^44 kg/m^3

originally 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 kg and 12243 meters long going at 299792457m/s according to [url]http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/erta.html[/url] if squeezed to 1 m^3 don't think that would happen lol

[url]http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/101118/national/antimatter_matters[/url] enough for an antimatter matter warp drive ? If so we just need to develop the EMH and prove that people can survive near light speed if not "warp" speed. I think I could do a bit of math about it. The hard part is the acceleration to be in the survivable range.

for example if m[SUB]0[/SUB]=1 and m=12 then v= 99.65% light speed I think. if we don't want to be pushed back into our seat maybe we can figure out a mass etc that will make a gravitational field strong enough to counteract the extra g-force equivalent. however it still has a ways to go I guess,we have until 2100 I believe.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;237935][url]http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/101118/national/antimatter_matters[/url] enough for an antimatter matter warp drive ? If so we just need to develop the EMH and prove that people can survive near light speed if not "warp" speed. I think I could do a bit of math about it. The hard part is the acceleration to be in the survivable range.[/QUOTE]
The way they handle it in Star Trek is to use an "intertial damping field", essentially the principles of their (as yet fictional) artificial gravity system applied to dampen the acceleration to human-survivable levels within a starship. I would imagine that this would be the way to go in any such real-life application--after all, it doesn't seem too unbelievable that we'll have artificial gravity in the near future, so an intertial damping system based on that is the next logical step.