Timeline for Can a black hole form due to Lorentz contraction? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 8, 2023 at 23:33 | comment | added | Quillo | Moreover, length contraction is such that nothing happens to the rod: it proper length is unchanged (the same for its proper density, so no collapse) physics.stackexchange.com/a/270063/226902 | |
| Feb 8, 2023 at 23:24 | comment | added | Quillo | Good answer is this one: physics.stackexchange.com/a/3465/226902 | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| May 17, 2012 at 15:03 | comment | added | Qmechanic♦ | Generally speaking (i.e. not just this question), in the spirit of SE regulations to avoid duplicates, OP (and potential answerers) are encouraged to try to detect duplicates by doing site searches before posting, cf. the faq. If a new question is a duplicate, it seems most logical if new answer are placed at the original post in order not to promote the new duplicate unnecessarily. | |
| S May 17, 2012 at 8:27 | history | suggested | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Removed meta information. Copy edited.
|
| May 17, 2012 at 8:24 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 17, 2012 at 8:27 | |||||
| May 17, 2012 at 3:29 | vote | accept | someone_ smiley | ||
| May 16, 2012 at 14:38 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | BTW--@John, if you can't raise enough interest to re-open this question, you can flag it to be considered for merging with the possible duplicate. Or you can just leave your answer here: the question will still show up in search, people can still vote on it, and the OP can still accept your answer if (s)he is happy with it. My take is that this is the better version of the question but that they are duplicates. | |
| May 16, 2012 at 14:18 | comment | added | John Rennie | Well thanks a bunch, you closed the question six minutes after I'd put a lot of effort into answering it! | |
| May 16, 2012 at 14:11 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
insert duplicate link
|
|
| May 16, 2012 at 14:11 | history | closed |
Mark Eichenlaub Manishearth Ron Maimon Kostya Qmechanic♦ |
exact duplicate | |
| May 16, 2012 at 14:05 | answer | added | John Rennie | timeline score: 31 | |
| May 16, 2012 at 11:39 | comment | added | Willie Wong | Fundamentally the problem is that you are trying to apply simultaneously Newtonian gravity, special relativity, and general relativity. The paradox basically says that your assumption that all three can be applied to the same system at the same time is daft. | |
| May 16, 2012 at 8:44 | comment | added | John Rennie | I don't think the answers to the previous question actually answer the question. They all just basically say "it would contradict the principle of relativity" and that's no answer. I was tempted to post saying "it's because the Riemann tensor is co-ordinate invarient" but that's a glib answer as well. What I would like to see are some calculations showing me why a black hole can't form (obviously it can't!). I've so far given it one five minute tea break's thought but without any significant progress - maybe my lunch hour will be enough :-) | |
| May 16, 2012 at 8:03 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | @JohnRennie: But the answers to the first completely answer the second, this is a dup, you don't want to make people repeat text verbatim. | |
| May 16, 2012 at 7:34 | history | edited | someone_ smiley | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| May 16, 2012 at 6:01 | comment | added | John Rennie | Not really a duplicate. This question doesn't mention the "mass increase" but instead only mentions the length contraction. | |
| May 16, 2012 at 4:39 | history | asked | someone_ smiley | CC BY-SA 3.0 |