Timeline for Reasons for time dilation to happen on a habitable planet with same g force and not orbiting a black hole
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 18, 2018 at 11:39 | vote | accept | Peaceman | ||
| Feb 14, 2018 at 0:21 | comment | added | Christopher King | If you get your velocity by orbiting something very quickly it could still work for story purposes. | |
| Dec 1, 2017 at 11:33 | comment | added | ArtificialSoul | @Ben okay, then i was incorrect. Sorry. Thanks for correcting me. | |
| Dec 1, 2017 at 11:32 | comment | added | Ben | @ArtificialSoul Stellar mass black holes can be only 5 times the sun's mass, hardly several orders of magnitude. According to en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/… the maximum size for a neutron star is only 1.5 to 3.0 solar masses. Stars can be more than 100 solar masses, so there are certainly black holes and stars of similar mass. | |
| Dec 1, 2017 at 7:25 | comment | added | ArtificialSoul | @Ben though theoretically "lightweight" black holes could exist they, but to my knowledge they do not exist. They are always by several magnitudes heavier than our sun. If i am correct then it is not misleading as the scenario you describe is not realistic. | |
| Dec 1, 2017 at 6:03 | comment | added | Ben | However I'm not sure a star would need to be really massive to cause significant time dilation out to planets orbiting in its habitable zone. I'm not sure whether a start that big could remain stable. | |
| Dec 1, 2017 at 6:01 | comment | added | Ben | @ArtificialSoul "A black hole has a significantly higher gravitational pull than any sun" is a misleading way to look at it. You could replace the Sun with a black hole of the same mass as our Sun, and all the other bodies in the solar system would feel the same gravity and have the same orbit (including Earth). Black holes are incredibly dense, not necessarily incredibly massive. The gravitational pull near the event horizon of the black hole is much greater than you can experience near the Sun, but only because the same distance from the Sun's centre of mass puts you deep inside the Sun. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 22:38 | comment | added | Joe Bloggs | A planet could be moving that fast relative to earth with no real issues as long as the interstellar gas around it is also moving at that speed. That’s the trouble with relativity: nothing is stationary. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 18:46 | history | edited | ArtificialSoul | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 314 characters in body; added 2 characters in body
|
| Nov 30, 2017 at 16:42 | comment | added | anaximander | The issue here is that Lorentz time dilation, like the velocity that causes it, is relative, so the time dilation factor would depend rather heavily on where you were observing the planet from. For example, if this planet had a moon (which was somehow orbiting it and not being pulled out of its orbit by the things they're flying past), then you could travel to and from that moon with no more time-dilation-related effects than we experience when travelling to our Moon. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 16:13 | comment | added | Caleb707 | @chepner Those particles that hit Earth at near C speeds are tiny relative to Earth. I think what the answer is saying is if your planet is moving at 0.86C, asteroids / comets / dust clouds are going to do lots of damage to your planet because of the speed difference and the larger mass of those objects. Although if your plant is going that fast then the whole solar system is too, so only extra solar objects would do extra damage. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 16:09 | comment | added | ArtificialSoul | @Bridgeburners yes, correct. I have not made that clear. I'll edit the answer accordingly later or tomorrow. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 16:07 | comment | added | Bridgeburners | It must be noted that Lorentz time dilation (unlike gravitational time dilation) goes both ways. That is, if somebody made the trip to this planet (from Earth) and back, they will have aged half the time that Earth has. However, if someone made the trip from this planet to Earth and back, they will also have aged half the time of that planet, not twice as you might expect. This may seem like a paradox but the key is based on the acceleration required for the person to make the trip. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 16:03 | comment | added | Bridgeburners | The most feasible way for this to be the case is if the galaxy is also moving at that speed relative to the Milky Way. The most feasible way for that to be the case is if the relative speed is due to ordinary cosmic expansion via Hubble's Law. Using Hubble's constant, this would put the galaxy at a distance of roughly 12 billion light years. So it cannot be accessed by normal travel means. But possibly a wormhole. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 15:03 | comment | added | ArtificialSoul | @MohmedShahid You seem to lack the perception of scale. A regular sun is not just a bit lighter than a black hole. Not even a gigantic version of it is even close to it. A black hole has a significantly higher gravitational pull than any sun. To my knowledge only neutron stars come even somewhat close to the high density of black holes. Not sure if they have a realistic chance of having habitable planets. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 14:27 | comment | added | Peaceman | What if that planet is revolving at the habitable zone of a star bigger that sun? Is it possible for time dilation to occur since the gravitational pull would be large because of that star. Even if there is a chance. What would be the Lorentz factor? @ArtificialSoul | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 13:28 | comment | added | chepner | If we observed a planet moving away from us at 0.86c, it would observe us moving away from it at 0.86c as well, and Earth is certainly habitable. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 13:24 | comment | added | chepner | Things bombard our planet at insane speeds all the time. Time dilation is why we can observe certain particles at ground level that should have decayed before traversing our atmosphere. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 12:46 | comment | added | Taemyr | @Fabian It's possible to orbit at that speed. The sun you are orbiting would have to travel at roughly the same speed. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 12:16 | comment | added | Fabian Röling | Would it even be possible to be on an orbit at that speed? I would assume that (even if it goes around a supermassive black hole) the orbit would have to be so big that you would have multiple black holes inside the orbit, just by random chance because it goes around multiple galaxies. Which would then not be an answer to the give question. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 9:18 | history | edited | ArtificialSoul | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 278 characters in body
|
| Nov 30, 2017 at 9:17 | comment | added | ArtificialSoul | @Raditz_35 that is correct. I'll add that. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 9:16 | comment | added | Raditz_35 | Yes. It should be worth pointing out however that there is absolutely no way that planet would be habitable. Let's forget about the event that made it go that fast, space is not a vacuum and stuff would bombard that planet at insane speeds | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 8:57 | history | edited | ArtificialSoul | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Nov 30, 2017 at 8:51 | history | edited | ArtificialSoul | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Nov 30, 2017 at 8:40 | history | answered | ArtificialSoul | CC BY-SA 3.0 |