It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atomic Weights, Relativity, and FTL Travel

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
What do atomic weights, relativity, and ftl travel have in common?

This: atomic weights were established on the Earth in the realm of the Earth's gravity, thus they are biased in contrast to another planet or gravitic field. Conclusion: atomic weights are relative and currently only of concern to Earth operations. The major importance is gravitic forces. If able to manipulate or create gravity at a minute level then elemental properties can be profoundly exaggerated in close proximity while making up the same organism/machine. Can you imagine a half ununpentium half hydrogen mechanism weighing the same on both sides because of directed gravity?

In deep space there seems to be no gravity. So what is the relevence of atomic weights here? I have surmised that the further away from gravity we travel the faster we should be able to move. If it were possible to completely be free of gravity then we could supersede the velocity of light because there is no weight to determine matter and therefore the properties of matter are negated and "exceeding the speed of light" would not require mass to become infinite. Any thoughts?




posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Any thoughts?


Yeah, you're confusing weight and mass. If you weigh 80 kilos on earth, and you went to the moon, you would weigh significantly less, because the moon's gravity is a lot weaker than Earth's due. But your mass whether you're on Earth or on the Moon is identical.

Photons travel at that "maximum" speed because they have no mass, but any other bunch of atoms will have a mass no matter where you are in the universe.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by DarkSide]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
E=MC2 Mass and energy are interchangable. At relavistic speeds energy is converted to mass... the extra mass requires more enery to accelerate it...more energy creates more mass... its a downward spiral. Eventually you end up needing infinite energy to move infinite mass at the speed of light. Has nothing to do with how much it weighs, it has to do with energy required to move mass.

You are right about atomic weight though. The atomic weight is the weight of a mole of atoms (6.12x10 to the 10 power). The atomic weight would be different in a different gravity field, but you would still have the same amount of mass (6.12x10 to the 10 power atoms). So even if the weight was different the mass would remain the same, therefore special relativity still applies.



Hope that helps. =)


[edit on 14-12-2007 by b309302]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
doesn't mole = 6.02 x 10 ^ 21...



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   
your right I'm sorry.... it is 6.02 x10 to the 21. Think i inverted a few numbers...
Not a one line post =)

[edit on 14-12-2007 by b309302]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I think you are confusing weight and mass. Mass is measured in kilograms and does not change due to gravitational fields. Weight is measured in Newtons and does change due to different gravitational fields.

In fact, I have never come across the term "atomic weight" before and I highly doubt it would be used in any calculations etc.

By the way, Avogadro's number is 6.02x10^23.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Gravity is everywhere. It permeates the universe. It is not true that there is 'no gravity in deep space'.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Thank you for picking my post apart (in all sincerity).

I agree, gravity is everywhere. I should be more careful with my words.

The effects of gravity are significantly weaker in deep space. I wasn't aware of the scientific minds that lurk these boards.

Since e=mc2/energy and mass are interchangable and energy is eternal and mass is energy/potential energy etc. I see no reason why the speed of light can not be surpassed or reached. All we'd have to do is either negate gravity or render mass into a photonic state and upon travel destination have it retake its material form.

Weight and mass are relative and interchangable. Mass creates gravity and gravity creates weight. Mass is matter determined from weight. The more massive/dense an object the more gravity it will produce and/or the heavier it will weigh while at rest on a larger object and/or one with a stronger gravitational field. Mass/density causes a body to have specific weight in a gravitational field, yet this gravitational field is also produced by the mass/density/matter of the object that an object is at rest on, i.e. planet, star, celestial-body.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
All we'd have to do is either negate gravity


I'm afraid negating gravity will not allow FTL travel. Objects will still have mass independently of gravity.


Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternalor render mass into a photonic state and upon travel destination have it retake its material form.


And what exactly does that mean? Transform atoms into photons? Even if that was possible you would just turn into a bunch of photons, and dart off at the speed of light into space. Hope resides in wormholes, if they exist and if we are able to control them we will probably create something like a stargate. It's still very theoretical and I'd say we're still thousands of years of pure research off from doing anything of that kind. We're not even a Type I civilisation..


Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternalWeight and mass are relative and interchangable. Mass creates gravity and gravity creates weight. Mass is matter determined from weight. The more massive/dense an object the more gravity it will produce and/or the heavier it will weigh while at rest on a larger object and/or one with a stronger gravitational field. Mass/density causes a body to have specific weight in a gravitational field, yet this gravitational field is also produced by the mass/density/matter of the object that an object is at rest on, i.e. planet, star, celestial-body.


As said previously mass doesn't change unless matter is added or removed from the object.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide
We're not even a Type I civilisation.


I need to hear replies from someone more open minded and understanding of the issues. You appear to be a Michiu Kaku follower or an India Daily eater.

Mass/matter/density/gravity etc. are all reliant, relative and interchangable. An object independent of gravity can not have mass.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
An object independent of gravity can not have mass.

Incorrect.

An object in free fall (there is no such thing as 'independent of gravity') has no weight. It continues to have mass, as you would find out - rather painfully - if you got in its way.

Mass and weight are not the same thing.


mass–noun
8. Physics. the quantity of matter as determined from its weight or from Newton's second law of motion.

weight –noun
2. Physics. the force that gravitation exerts upon a body, equal to the mass of the body times the local acceleration of gravity.

- Dictionary.com



In everyday usage, mass is more commonly referred to as weight, but in physics and engineering, weight means the size of the gravitational pull on the object; that is, how heavy it is, measured in units of force. In everyday situations, the mass and weight of an object are directly proportional to each other, which usually makes it unproblematic to use the same word for both concepts. However, the distinction between mass and weight becomes important:

  • for measurements with a precision better than a few percent, due to slight differences in the strength of the Earth's gravitational field at different places
  • for places far from the surface of the Earth, such as in space or on other planets

Wikipedia



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:52 AM
link   
An object independent of gravity can not have mass. I am not speaking of free fall and I do understand the definitions of mass, matter, gravity, density, etc. as I have demonstrated already. Object in free fall would continue to have weight, as you would find out - rather painfully - if you got in its way. Free fall states that subject to the Earth's gravitic pull an object falling at full force is weightless... this is not true... it is not weightless, it simply can not be weighed because any scale attempting to do so would have to also fall at the same velocity; this does not render it weightless, just temporarily unweighable through the restrictions of the gravitic circumstances of free fall in regard to the local body at which it is falling into. The immovable object IS the unstoppable force: this is why they can not collide; they are each other, etc.

All we need is a force precisely the opposite of a local gravitic field/body to cause a cancelation effect of gravity.

When I say independent of gravity what I am attempting to explain is 0. A cancelation of the forces. I don't like this term but i.e. anti-gravity. To be in the center of two opposing gravitational fields of the same strength.

Free fall is an object subject to the locality of only one major body and its gravitational field; this is not what I am implying.

E=MC2, E-M=C2, E-C2=M etc.

Also, the definitions of free fall are so neglected that we could capitulate that everything is in free fall subject to everything else. Would you agree? I'm tired, gotta get some sleep.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Instead of calling me a kaku fan or an indian daily eater you should go back to high school. Trying to disprove the big bang with wordplays on "nothing" and "beginning" doesn't work. And if you don't understand high school level physics don't try to teach us what mass and weight is. You'll just provide entertainment as you are doing right now.

Several if us have explained what mass and weights are yet you continue thinking you're right and spreading pseudo-scifi blabber that you often see in very bad b movies.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by DarkSide]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
E=MC2, E-M=C2, E-C2=M etc.

Your algebra is hilarious.

If E = mc^2

Then E - m = mc^2 - m = m(c^2 - 1) not c^2 (or C2 as you like to write it).

E - c^2 = mc^2 - c^2 = c^2(m - 1) not m (or M if you prefer).

Why do you do this to yourself? Are you, perchance, a masochist?

[edit on 15-12-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
They way scientists can measure atomic masses has nothing to do with gravity. Scientists usually measure the masses of atoms and molecules using mass spectrometers. Mass spectrometers use magnetic and electrical fields to separate atoms by their different masses. Gravity is not involved. So it is not as if a scientist on earth is going to measure the atomic mass of hydrogen as 1 on earth with his mass spectrometer, then get a reading of 0.5 if he is in one part of the galaxy or 7 if he is in another part of the galaxy.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


from a person trying understand, So if a craft weigths 10 tons, thats 10 tons traveling at the speed of light, how much energy to move that much, and trying to slow it down and stopping it.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Your algebra is hilarious.


Thank you. Smile lines are a peaceful warrior's battle scars.


Why do you do this to yourself? Are you, perchance, a masochist?


Well, if I'm being pleasured then is it really punishment or pain?

I was typing out C2 because I was tired, in a rush, and figured that everyone would understand what was being meant; I rarely perform such actions. c^2 it is from now on.


If we know the totality of energy given off by a system but not its mass, all we have to do is E/C^2=M.

Do you understand the concept of objects sustaining their weight in free fall? Do you realize that every celestial object in the unvierse is in free fall?



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
They way scientists can measure atomic masses has nothing to do with gravity.


Mass/gravity/matter are interrelated and interdependent. As said above; gravity permeates the universe. Scientists are not making mass measurements of atoms independent of gravity. An ion is simply an electric atom, that doesn't mean it is independent of gravity and has no weight. They are measuring the ionic current.


Gravity is not involved.


Yes it is, and yes mechanisms that perform on Earth due to Earth's gravity would not perform identically in other gravity fields whether weaker or stronger. This has everything to do with the "weight" of the elements indicative of gravity.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
I was typing out C2 because I was tired, in a rush, and figured that everyone would understand what was being meant; I rarely perform such actions. c^2 it is from now on.

You can stick with your sloppy notation if you want. It won't disguise the fact that the algebra you posted above would disgrace a fifth-grader.


Do you understand the concept of objects sustaining their weight in free fall? Do you realize that every celestial object in the unvierse is in free fall?

Do you understand the concept of weight? What is free fall? What is a 'celestial object'?



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by b309302
 


Is this a joke thread? You know a take off on the 'Are you Smarter Than a Fifth Grader' show.?

I mean, seriously, and no diss intended. It's really a clever take off on 'Science for Cavemen', right?

For the record:
Atomic weight has nothing to do with gravity.

A mole is the SI/ISU standard base unit which measures an amount of substance.

That is 6.022x10e23 entities (molecules or atoms), (or Avogadro's number), which is contained in one mole. It is unitless and based on the number of atoms in 12 grams of Carbon-12.

(not 10^21).

You know, just in case.

Have a great day.



[edit on 15-12-2007 by Badge01]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join