Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A question about gravity and photons

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Think about it.
Your post above makes it easy.

Acceleration due to change in velocity caused by anything will produce more relativistic mass. More gravity.

So what were you saying?




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
beezzer is still reading, and playing with his toes. humming, and drawing ladybugs with a crayon.

(I'm just a biologist)



I was always lousy at Biology



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Think about it.
Your post above makes it easy.

Acceleration due to change in velocity caused by anything will produce more relativistic mass. More gravity.

So what were you saying?


I thought mass was a constant.

Regardless of velocity.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Think about it.
Your post above makes it easy.

Acceleration due to change in velocity caused by anything will produce more relativistic mass. More gravity.

So what were you saying?


I thought mass was a constant.

Regardless of velocity.


He's wanting to look at it as it approaches the speed of light to try to justify other stuff



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Think about it.
Your post above makes it easy.

Acceleration due to change in velocity caused by anything will produce more relativistic mass. More gravity.

So what were you saying?


I thought mass was a constant.

Regardless of velocity.


He's wanting to look at it as it approaches the speed of light to try to justify other stuff



So like a photon has no mass; an object (at the speed of light) would not have any mass either?
edit on 5-11-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


NO.
Any change in velocity effects inertial mass. Even minor ones.

Wanna argue semantics, your DEAD wrong on that one.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


NO.
Any change in velocity effects inertial mass. Even minor ones.

Wanna argue semantics, your DEAD wrong on that one.


Not enough to even calculate... it's negligible.

....but, if it makes you feel better, yes, it will affect it... not enough to matter though



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Think about it.
Your post above makes it easy.

Acceleration due to change in velocity caused by anything will produce more relativistic mass. More gravity.

So what were you saying?


I thought mass was a constant.

Regardless of velocity.


He's wanting to look at it as it approaches the speed of light to try to justify other stuff



So like a photon has no mass; an object (at the speed of light) would not have any mass either?
edit on 5-11-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)


at the speed of light, it would have an infinite mass.... a big ole booger!





posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Think about it.
Your post above makes it easy.

Acceleration due to change in velocity caused by anything will produce more relativistic mass. More gravity.

So what were you saying?


I thought mass was a constant.

Regardless of velocity.


He's wanting to look at it as it approaches the speed of light to try to justify other stuff



So like a photon has no mass; an object (at the speed of light) would not have any mass either?
edit on 5-11-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)


at the speed of light, it would have an infinite mass.... a big ole booger!




Waitaminute, a photon doesn't have infinite mass, yet there was discussion that a photon contained "resting mass" (?), yet at the speed of light, it has no mass.


(maybe I should just stick to politics and Nirubu, I just got a nosebleed)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I hear ya, I'm gonna go play with avatars myself



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


reply to post by beezzer
 


Without bringing in quantum mechanics, the easy answer is E=mc2 is decieving. Its actually better to use the relativistic energy momentum equation.

E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2 were p is momentum.

The momentum for an object is proportional to its mass. Even massless particles can have momentum because they have energy. Really high energy in some cases like cosmic rays.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by beezzer
 


reply to post by beezzer
 


Without bringing in quantum mechanics, the easy answer is E=mc2 is decieving. Its actually better to use the relativistic energy momentum equation.

E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2 were p is momentum.

The momentum for an object is proportional to its mass. Even massless particles can have momentum because they have energy. Really high energy in some cases like cosmic rays.


Can gravity been seen as a potential energy?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

....but, if it makes you feel better, yes, it will affect it... not enough to matter though


Ya its not like explaining how relativistic mass works on the smallest scales would give us an all encompassing quantum gravity theory or anything.
*facepalm
Your embarrassing yourself.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


NO.
A force is not potential energy.

According to Einstein gravity is JUST geometric bending of space time, and not really in the sense that the others are considered.

But mainstream particle physics thinks this is only partly true, and that it is a force like the others carried by the boson called the graviton. Hence the elephant.
edit on 5-11-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

....but, if it makes you feel better, yes, it will affect it... not enough to matter though


Ya its not like explaining how relativistic mass works on the smallest scales would give us an all encompassing quantum gravity theory or anything.
*facepalm
Your embarrassing yourself.


No, I'm definitely not, however, you're doin a pretty good job of it with your own self



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Can gravity been seen as a potential energy?


yup



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by beezzer
 


NO.
A force is not potential energy.

According to Einstein gravity is JUST geometric bending of space time, and not really in the sense that the others are considered.


see, you DO realize that Gravity is a force, not an acceleration





posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by beezzer
 


NO.
A force is not potential energy.

According to Einstein gravity is JUST geometric bending of space time, and not really in the sense that the others are considered.


Yet momentum and velocity can be affected by gravity, yes?

The force of gravity itself has no mass.

It is the expression of mass.

Isn't it?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

....but, if it makes you feel better, yes, it will affect it... not enough to matter though


Ya its not like explaining how relativistic mass works on the smallest scales would give us an all encompassing quantum gravity theory or anything.
*facepalm
Your embarrassing yourself.


No, I'm definitely not, however, you're doin a pretty good job of it with your own self


Your avoiding the science, and just talking now. Go away if your not going to refute the facts.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by beezzer
 


reply to post by beezzer
 


Without bringing in quantum mechanics, the easy answer is E=mc2 is decieving. Its actually better to use the relativistic energy momentum equation.

E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2 were p is momentum.

The momentum for an object is proportional to its mass. Even massless particles can have momentum because they have energy. Really high energy in some cases like cosmic rays.


Can gravity been seen as a potential energy?


The EFFECT of Gravity can create Potential Kinetic Energy in any Falling Object but as Gravity is Space/Time Curvature...it will change the Space/Time surrounding a Celestial Body of sufficient mass to the point that Quantum Particle/Wave Forms such as Photons or Light to travel that Curvature toward the Gravity Well.

In essence Light is not be FORCED into say a Black Hole but rather traveling at 186,300 mps...just as usual and not changing direction or vector as the 4-D distance and Space/Time relationship between the Black Hole and the Photons is being changed. This is why GRAVITY IS NOT A TRUE FORCE as the Photons are NOT FORCED in their direction through Space/Time....but rather it is Space/Time that is CHANGING.
Split Infinity






top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join