New Interpretation of Einstein's Laws regarding Faster than Light Travel

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Gravitational mass and inertial mass are equal, correct?

OK consider this... When one travel's into space and achieves orbit around the Earth, they "feel" weightless. Has the effect of Gravity been overcome? No of course not, it is a surrender to gravity. You are falling towards the Earth but moving at such speed that you will fall towards the Earth at the same rate the ground gives way underneath you because of the curvature of the Earth. I know this is elementary to most of you but you would be surprised. A co-worker asked me after Felix Baumgardner's space jump in all seriousness if Gravity goes up that high. And it's kind of easy to see how people ignorant of science could mistake weightlessness for "lack-of-gravity" Even the ones of us who know this still tend to thing of gravity as a "pulling" force.

But what we really want to examine is motion. Or rather, the "notion" of motion.

In our example of the astronaut in orbit, the astronaut is undoubtedly in motion. He is orbiting the Earth, so relative to the planet, he is in motion. And as such, since the planet orbits the sun and the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way and by most accounts the Milky Way is zooming away from the center of the Universe, well you may as well say he is moving relative to the universe as a whole.

Now let's assume that there is a wall. A simple wall like one inside your house, but this particular wall is "not" in motion relative to the orbit of the Solar System. For argument's sake let's say this "Wall" is independent of or outside of the gravity well of our solar system. Let's put it into the path of the orbiting astronaut and see what happens.

What happens is he is crushed beyond recognition because he hits the wall at the speed with which he orbits the Earth plus the speed with which the Earth revolves around the Sun plus the speed with which the Solar System moves through the universe.

Force = Mass X Acceleration. The acceleration on the astronaut as he goes from his "weightless" orbit into contact with the "wall" is astronomical, and the force exerted likewise. The mass in the equation is his inertial mass, and it is a function of the overall gravitational frame of reference it is calculated in.

By this example we could make an assumption that when the "wall" is at a certain "degree removed from the gravity well of space-time around us" the astronaut would impact the wall at sufficient speed to completely change from matter into pure energy.

Which brings to mind the law that equates mass with energy, E=mc(squared) . Could the squaring of c because the sufficient speed at which we would have to hit the wall IS C? and the "motion" of the "wall" relative to the moving universe would ALSO equal c? c times c. c squared.

So maybe as one approaches the speed of light, it isn't that mass increases until it reaches infinity at c, maybe it just means that as you approach c, your "inertial" mass approaches infinity, as a function in reference to "what would happen if you hit an immobile wall that is outside of space-time". Maybe the math messed it all up. Haha.

Just food for thought. I am by no means a physicist, but the Universe is damn fun to think about..

I posted this in a reply on another thread but I think it would promote good discussion so I gave it its own...

What say you ATS?




posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   


Force = Mass X Acceleration. The acceleration on the astronaut as he goes from his "weightless" orbit into contact with the "wall" is astronomical, and the force exerted likewise. The mass in the equation is his inertial mass, and it is a function of the overall gravitational frame of reference it is calculated in.
reply to post by JayDub113
 





Which brings to mind the law that equates mass with energy, E=mc(squared) . Could the squaring of c because the sufficient speed at which we would have to hit the wall IS C? and the "motion" of the "wall" relative to the moving universe would ALSO equal c? c times c. c squared.


I cannot remember what I read/heard about that just recently... grr gonna drive me crazy now... Anyhoo some scientist recently were calling into question that almost exact concept..


Oh well if I can recall where I had read or heard it I will post a link.


Grim

**I think it was on Coast to Coast recently...
edit on 15/11/2012 by Grimmley because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by JayDub113
 


What I wonder is that, since any noticeable time dilation has been observed as a function of increase in inertial mass towards infinity, does the time dilation work the other way if inertial mass approaches zero?



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
And you came up with this how? Got any links?

We very well could be moving at twice the speed of light right now, in relarion to something else. You wouldnt see it though, itd get here before the light from it did.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Overstuffed
 


I would think yes. Time passes more slowly as you approach the speed of light relative to an outside observer!! For the person traveling at that speed time passes normally.. maybe mass is normal, except when viewed by an outside observer.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Overstuffed
 


a star for your signature ,i really felt them words.

Back on topic i have no idea



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Overstuffed
 


In better answer to your question, I think the "wall outside of spacetime" would fit the definition of inertial mass approaching zero, and yes according to relativity would exist in its on time dimension and also independent of the universal frame of reference.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by phroziac
 


I just made a thought experiment using the current laws of physics, you don't need links for that.

As for the part at the end... That's just me pontificating on the thought experiment, I am open to any and all ideas.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
What would be the speed one would reach to become alongside the wall?
OP great visual . thanxs



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayDub113
reply to post by phroziac
 


I just made a thought experiment using the current laws of physics, you don't need links for that.

As for the part at the end... That's just me pontificating on the thought experiment, I am open to any and all ideas.

I just dont understand why you came up with the results of being annihilated into energy?



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Light is an interesting thing... in that it doesn't matter what velocity you're travelling, light will still zoom past you at what seems like the speed of light, as if you were still. I always had a lot of trouble understanding that... in fact I can't say I really understand it any better than I did when I first learnt about it.

But matter/mass is a whole other ball game. According to the laws of physics as we know them, anything with mass cannot be accelerated faster than the speed of light. When you start thinking on a universal scale, as the OP has done here, things start to get really interesting and really confusing.

Lets say we have a particle accelerator which accelerates a particle to something like 99% the speed of light, something our particle accelerators often do. From our frame of reference (standing still on the Earth), we can measure the speed and say it's travelling at 99% the speed of light.

But what happens if we were to account for the speed of our planet through the solar system, or our solar system through the galaxy, or the galaxy through the universe? I'm pretty sure the total speed of that particle would be greater than the speed of light, which seems to bring up some problems.

I've only briefly thought about this in the past, so I don't have many more thoughts to share on this subject, but I certainly find it fascinating. It's stuff like this which holds the answer to the universe and reality. The problem is tying it all together into one complete and compatible theory.
edit on 15/11/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by phroziac
 


I just took it to its farthest extreme. The energy created by such a collision would be extraordinary. And take it further.. Is there a limit to the energy such a collision could produce? Would a certain speed collision result in total transfer of energy in the system?



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Interestingly enough, when we whirl those particles around at .99 percent the speed of light they exhibit a marked increase in mass, which supports relativity. But these particles are being smashed into other particles going the same speed in the opposite direction. The measurement of the "mass" of the system is taken by the energy output of such a collision, and relative to the speeds of each group of particles. Perhaps the particles do not necessarily exhibit more and more mass at those speeds, it is the COLLISION that makes that potential energy into kinetic energy, thereby giving a result for mass congruent with the equations of relativity.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by JayDub113
 



Perhaps the particles do not necessarily exhibit more and more mass at those speeds, it is the COLLISION that makes that potential energy into kinetic energy, thereby giving a result for mass congruent with the equations of relativity.

Yes I believe that's a more accurate description of what is happening. As you said, the particles don't really gain mass, they gain inertial mass relative to their velocity...



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by JayDub113
 


I have no idea what you are actually talking about or what you are alluding to exactly.

Could be me, but could be you too.
edit on 15-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Special Relativity

I didn't mean I don't understand it in a technical sense, I've researched it enough to understand the basic principles. I mean I don't understand it in an intuitive sense, a way which would let me see the bigger picture. The problem is that we still fail to tie together many of these important theories into a unified theory. I can't understand something properly when I'm missing who knows how many pieces to the puzzle.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Thanks.. because obviously no one on this thread has ever heard of that.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


That's because the mechanisms of the universe are unintuitive. Not all suprising considering out intellect is an survival mechanism shaped by evolution, not primarily a tool for pondering the fundamentals of reality.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayDub113
reply to post by phroziac
 


I just took it to its farthest extreme. The energy created by such a collision would be extraordinary. And take it further.. Is there a limit to the energy such a collision could produce? Would a certain speed collision result in total transfer of energy in the system?


You could be right but who will we test it on...

Anyway you think like me. Figured you got the idea from sonewhere and thats why i asked for a link.





top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join