1. Ok, I came up with this while I was at school and to say the truth I got very interested in it so I wanted to check if:
1: It is right
2: In case that it is right, if it has already been "discovered/stated in the Einstein theories" or if it is a new thing.

The theory is at follows:

Hypothesis:
The faster an object moves, the more gravity it creates and so the more it changes the spacetime continuum (you know what I mean, that net that represents the time and space in a grid form and in which masses, therefore gravities, alter it).

Explanation:
The thing is that I know that Einstein said that "time is relative" and that somehow a clock doesnīt tick at the same speed per second in the Earth than in a fast moving spaceship, and that in the EDGE of a black hole, the clock would stop clicking.
I imagined myself that that has to do because the black hole has an INMENSE gravity force, and that because of that gravity, the "net picture" of spacetime would have a gigantic hole and therefor STOP time ('cause it's altered) (see picture).

But then I asked myself how come the guy in the spacecraft also experienced a time alteration (if a guy goes at light speed for 20 years in space and he comes back to Earth, on the Earth about 80 years would have passed while he only experienced 20).
And so I thought: "Well, maybe this has to do with the fact that when the spacecraft (or any object) moves relatively fast, it also alters the timespace 'net' and thats why the guy in the spacecraft experiences a time alteration"

That was the only logical explanation for it (correct me if Iīm wrong). And an alteration on the timespace continuum can only be created by gravity (masses), and therefor I came to the point where I said that if only gravity makes those alterations on the spacetime net, then the guy in the fast moving spacecraft was moving so relatively fast, that he induced gravity upon himself.

And therefor my theory: "Objects that are at move, create gravity upon themselfs; the faster an object moves the more gravity it creates; and this gravity change alters the spacetime continuum".

2.

3. Hypothesis:
The faster an object moves, the more gravity it creates and so the more it changes the spacetime continuum (you know what I mean, that net that represents the time and space in a grid form and in which masses, therefore gravities, alter it).
Not necessarily. Mass is not observed to increase, and consequently, no actual change in gravity should appear to someone at rest. If you were talking of acceleration instead of velocity, then this would be exactly equivalent to the equivalence principle, so,yes, you would be right.

I may open myself upto attack on this, I realise- I only realised I was werong on this a few weeks ago - but mass only changes from the point of view of the observer experiencing in motion. It does not actually change from the viewpoint of someone at rest. The observer racing along at his speed will see his mass change and yes, gravity would appear to increase for him. The same, however, cannot be said for objects going sloqwer than it.

The thing is that I know that Einstein said that "time is relative" and that somehow a clock doesnīt tick at the same speed per second in the Earth than in a fast moving spaceship, and that in the EDGE of a black hole, the clock would stop clicking.
It's astonishing the way this misconception has spread. The clock will not, as such, stop ticking; we will simply not get any signal to show that it is indeed ticking on. This is because the black hole's gravity forces in all the waves or energy emitted by the clock, so we cannot hear the clock tick any more.

I imagined myself that that has to do because the black hole has an INMENSE gravity force, and that because of that gravity, the "net picture" of spacetime would have a gigantic hole and therefor STOP time
You'll have to define time for that one. Lert's go with the definition that time is measured by the amount of time taken for one photon to hit your eye.

But then I asked myself how come the guy in the spacecraft also experienced a time alteration (if a guy goes at light speed for 20 years in space and he comes back to Earth, on the Earth about 80 years would have passed while he only experienced 20).
And so I thought: "Well, maybe this has to do with the fact that when the spacecraft (or any object) moves relatively fast, it also alters the timespace 'net' and thats why the guy in the spacecraft experiences a time alteration"
No. You're working from general relativivty to special relativity - backwards. Actually, the reason a person experiencing a slower time is that, from our definition, photons have to take a longer amount of time to reach him. Consequently, the observer moving away 'feels' a shorter amount of time pass.

As for time dilation ( the word that is used for time 'alteration'), the actual reason is this. Time slows down when you're moving at a constant velocity. weinstein, however, considered the effects of acceleration on an observer. He found that gravity can be equated to acceleration and by that same coin gravity can be expressed as curvature (because someone in motion observes a different value of pi, which can only exist in a curved geometry).

Voila! You can now take both gravity and acceleration to be equivalent, and different heights correspond to different speeds, meaning, in turn that time slows down there too. The reason is not because gravity affects time; it's because motion affects time, and gravity can be equated to acceleration.

Still, this was a good theory, I must say.

I'll just explain here that mass will appear to be affected only by the observer actually moving; he'll see his gravitational field increase, because he is undergoing acceleration and acceleration can be equated to gravity. He will conclude that his mass must be changing. But an observer at rest doesn't make tthe same conclusion. Thaty is to say, the guy moving along at any speed will think his gravity is changing; somebody else who isn't moving at all will say that his gravity is just fine, thank you very much.

4. Originally Posted by onerock
The thing is that I know that Einstein said that "time is relative" and that somehow a clock doesnīt tick at the same speed per second in the Earth than in a fast moving spaceship, and that in the EDGE of a black hole, the clock would stop clicking.

5. [quote="Liongold"]

It's astonishing the way this misconception has spread. The clock will not, as such, stop ticking; we will simply not get any signal to show that it is indeed ticking on. This is because the black hole's gravity forces in all the waves or energy emitted by the clock, so we cannot hear the clock tick any more.
First, no sound can travel through space 'cause space doesnīt have air, which is needed for sound to propagate.
Black holes have a so called event horizon, after which the gravity is so strong that nothing can escape from it, not even light (thatīs why itīs called a black hole). What I meant is that the clock doesnīt tick not because the blackhole absorved its waves but because the spacetime "net" is so altered that time doesnīt affect the clock anymore................. I know the clock isnīt in acceleration and all that you said, but isnīt it right what Iīm saying: "spacetime 'net' altered=time altered"?

I'll just explain here that mass will appear to be affected only by the observer actually moving; he'll see his gravitational field increase, because he is undergoing acceleration and acceleration can be equated to gravity. He will conclude that his mass must be changing. But an observer at rest doesn't make the same conclusion. That is to say, the guy moving along at any speed will think his gravity is changing; somebody else who isn't moving at all will say that his gravity is just fine, thank you very much.
Indeed, but wouldnīt it be that he would not only SEE his gravitational field increase, but that it would also increase (for real)? Iīm not sure about that one, please answer it, lol.

In conclusion, your answer was excellent and proved that at least I wasnīt wrong in everything, I got the acceleration part kind of right (the faster, the more gravity). Itīs nice for me to know that I have nearly no physics knowledge but still I came up with that on myself.............
Thank you.

6. First, no sound can travel through space 'cause space doesnīt have air, which is needed for sound to propagate.
Black holes have a so called event horizon, after which the gravity is so strong that nothing can escape from it, not even light (thatīs why itīs called a black hole). What I meant is that the clock doesnīt tick not because the blackhole absorved its waves but because the spacetime "net" is so altered that time doesnīt affect the clock anymore................. I know the clock isnīt in acceleration and all that you said, but isnīt it right what Iīm saying: "spacetime 'net' altered=time altered"?
Yes, sound requires a medium. That wasn't really my point, however, so let's skip that one.

No. It's not that the spacetime 'net' is so altered that the object can't feel time anymore; the clock will still continue to tick at its own steady pace. But us observers outside the black hole will think it has stopped, because no signal can reach us from inside the black hole. The clock will feel time and continue to click inside the black hole i.e. behind its event horizon (by the way, I just want to make a tiny correction as to your definition. An event horizon is simply a region of space beyond which no events can be determined.) We are outside the black hole; we think the clock has stopped to feel time.

Our measure of time and the clock's is relative, you see. The clock, because of its location in the black hole's gravitational field, will simply a measure a different time than ours; from its point of view, it's our clock that's going slowly, while it is moving at perfect time. We measure the opposite: we think our clocks are perfectly fine, but the clock inside the black hole is going more slowly.

But, yes, you can simplify the entire thing to "spacetime net altered = time altered". The exact explanation would be so much more beautiful, but that's all right.

Indeed, but wouldnīt it be that he would not only SEE his gravitational field increase, but that it would also increase (for real)? Iīm not sure about that one, please answer it, lol.
Not really. It wouldn't actually increase, otherwise you risk violating the principle of relativity i.e. it is impossible to tell if you are in motion or at rest. If it actually increased, than any object will be able to tell if something is moving, simply by observing its gravitational field. Obviously, since relativity aims to protect this principle, such an instance cannot be allowed by relativity.

In conclusion, your answer was excellent and proved that at least I wasnīt wrong in everything, I got the acceleration part kind of right (the faster, the more gravity). Itīs nice for me to know that I have nearly no physics knowledge but still I came up with that on myself.............
Thank you.
You're welcome.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement