Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Science Thread here

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Forgive me if I am incorrect with my recollection. This is something I have never been able to grasp.

Why is it theorized that if we were able to travel close to the speed of light our mass would increase incrementally as we approach that speed?

Can you explain how that happens and why?


I think it has to do with E=mc^2... Our mass is proportional to an energy, if our mass is accelerated, this change in velocity represents an increase of energy, there fore the mass is now more massive. This has to do with inertia I think, a masses resistance to acceleration. Think about a bowling ball going 1 mph the damage it can do, compared to the same bowling ball going 10,000 mph.




posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Simply Einsteins formula E (energy) = M (mass) C (speed of light) 2 (squared).

The components of the formula (E, M, C2) can be interchanged, so mass is energy.

The faster something moves, the more energy it has, so the more mass it has.

That's about as simple as I can explain it.

An experiment you could do, get some paper, put it in a big glass bottle, seal bottle but leave yourself a way to light the paper (small hole somewhere at the bottom). Put bottle on a sensitive scale, light the paper. Its weight will reduce very slightly even though all the smoke, paper ash etc is still in the sealed bottle.

Why?? Because some of the mass of the paper (and the air in there) has been converted to light and heat and escaped the bottle.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Because the atmosphere is full of atoms/molecules, and full of radio waves, I really dont get how with all these atoms constantly moving and taking up (in my mind all space, unless you can tell me what is the space that atoms dont take up), how the radio waves just flow on by.

The space between atoms is similar (in scale) to the space between stars. Its that big. If you could stand on a star (nucleus of an atom), the next nucleus is four light years away. What we perceive as matter, like the floor you are standing on, is made up of mostly empty space. Little tiny particles down there whizzing around at the speed of light.

Thats it. I know thats hard to understand. When you compare the size of atoms to molecules, a molecule is even bigger than an atom. Water (H2O) is just three atoms "bonded" together. Inside the molecule the atoms again, are mostly empty space.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by fuserleer
 


Your explanation is pretty cool. So the light actually has mass and the fire produces light which escapes the bottle if I understand you correctly.

I think I am starting to grasp this concept. I was under the impression that if our mass was increased it would actually increase our size but I think you are saying that isn’t the case. I may be wrong but are you basically saying we would simply contain more energy?



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Well light doesn't actually have any mass, BUT, it does have a LOT of energy (if light had mass that it couldn't travel at the speed of light as its mass would be infinite), and it can pass that energy onto something else.

So simply, light takes the mass from the paper, converts it to energy, goes whizzing out with that energy until it hits something it can give that energy (or some of it) to.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr

What we perceive as matter, like the floor you are standing on, is made up of mostly empty space. Little tiny particles down there whizzing around at the speed of light.

Thats it. I know thats hard to understand. When you compare the size of atoms to molecules, a molecule is even bigger than an atom. Water (H2O) is just three atoms "bonded" together. Inside the molecule the atoms again, are mostly empty space.


What is the space though? that has not been defined. three atoms bonded together, there is space between the bonds? what is this space, what kind of space. You say the atoms are mostly empty space, where does the empty space come from, when the atoms formed they trapped empty space, or there is constantly new empty space going through the atom?



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Its just space, it isn't empty though.

You will find in there, electrons and photons whizzing by and "matter/anti-matter" pairs that spontaneously appear there annihilate each other giving off gamma rays. Also if they exist will be gravitons.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by fuserleer
 


Thank you for your explanation you have helped me understand this subject better than I ever had and it is something that has puzzled me for years.


Does that also mean that speed of light or faster than light travel would be impossible for objects containing mass?

I think I read somewhere that we have either observed or theorized that there is a particle that does do just that (travel faster than light) but I am not sure how that is possible.

_______________________________________________

BTW this is now officially my favorite forum I would like to thank jiggerj as well.
edit on 8-6-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by fuserleer
 


Does that also mean that speed of light or faster than light travel would be impossible for objects containing mass?



EXACTLY!!
Well done


You are welcome btw, glad I could educate someone


The particle that you refer to is a particular type of neutrino (IIRC), but it can ONLY travel FASTER than the speed of light, never slower.
edit on 8-6-2013 by fuserleer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Forgive me if I am incorrect with my recollection. This is something I have never been able to grasp.

Why is it theorized that if we were able to travel close to the speed of light our mass would increase incrementally as we approach that speed?

Can you explain how that happens and why?


It is why it takes 14teraelectron volts of energy to accelerate a simple stream of particles to 99 percent the speed of light in the LHC, at CERN.

When you add speed to an object, your actually adding energy, energy and matter are essentially the same thing. Both cause mass, this is seen most easily in car crashes.

A 3000LBS car travelling at 30 MPH, has much less than 1/2 the energy on impact as a car travelling at 60MPH.

A car travelling at 100MPH has more than double the energy on impact as a car travelling at 60MPH.

your 100 times more likely to die in a 65 MPH collision, than you are in a 55 MPH collision, due to the imparted energy of your rate of travel.

Inertia is the mechanism of adding mass to an object as its speed increases.

As an object gains inertia, it gains mass.

As it gains mass, it requires more and more power to go just a little bit faster. Whereby one would need infinite energy to accelerate even a proto to the speed of light. One could get 99.99999999999999 percent the speed of light out of it, with very large amounts of energy, but never the whole value of C.

As mentioned above, the LHC uses about 14terraelectron volts of power to accelerate proton streams to 99.9 of C, this is a tiny particle, being thrown with the power, of a Nimitz class Super carrier hitting the shore at 30 knotz.

That is trillions of times the weight of the particle worth of power, and it only gets to 99.9 percent of C ( the speed of light)

Hope this helped.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


What is the space though?

"Space" is defined as the distance between things that occupy space. Don't make it more complicated.

Gotta go.
edit on 8-6-2013 by intrptr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


Space is not full of matter like a whirlpool,

Yes it is. its filled with gravity (whatever that is).


in a whirlpool it takes great effort to go in the opposing direction as the flow of liquid, as liquid is thick, and quite heavy.

So is the influence of gravity.


We have satellites that orbit counter to our rotation already, and we even have a planet that spins different from all the others.

Because chemical rockets pushed them into "opposite orbits". I think thats IMAFUNGI's question. Orbit "direction", not "spin" direction or axis of natural space bodies.



yues but in your whirlpool analogy there is a solid medium of matter going in one direction, it takes constant effort to fight it, in order to travel counter to this direction.

In orbit, it takes about 17,000 MPH to achieve orbit, in order to break away from earths gravity forever, also known as escape velocity.

Once up there at the correct speed no more energy is needed, unless one wants to alter the course of the object, it will keep going.

It is not like in a boat fighting a current where the motor must always run, once the object is boosted to escape velocity, there is no more power needed. The direction doesnt matter at all.

Spinwards, counterspin, it makes no difference once escape velocity is achieved.

It is not the same at all. and has absolutely nothing to do with space flight or orbit of objects.

A moon can rotate counter to the planets spin, and a planet can orbit counter the to suns rotation, or the orbit of every other object in a solar system.

The planets only all orbit in one direction, because the disk they all condensed out of was all spinning in the same direction, so they just follow the same orbit their original cloud was travelling.

An outside planet or moon, can be captured and orbit in the opposing direction, just fine.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by intrptr

What we perceive as matter, like the floor you are standing on, is made up of mostly empty space. Little tiny particles down there whizzing around at the speed of light.

Thats it. I know thats hard to understand. When you compare the size of atoms to molecules, a molecule is even bigger than an atom. Water (H2O) is just three atoms "bonded" together. Inside the molecule the atoms again, are mostly empty space.


What is the space though? that has not been defined. three atoms bonded together, there is space between the bonds? what is this space, what kind of space. You say the atoms are mostly empty space, where does the empty space come from, when the atoms formed they trapped empty space, or there is constantly new empty space going through the atom?


Look up at night, you see how there are stars, and "space" between the points of light?

That is the same space between you an I, between the atoms, between the nucleus and the electron cloud, even between to particles that make up the nucleus.

An atom is 99 percent empty space.

Space is the lack of substance, as in nothing there really, you know, like the space between you and the wall, or your car and the garage around it.

It is made up of space, it is the seperation between things, somtimes greater or smaller than others, but always present.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


Thanks you answered a question I was still thinking of a way to ask.


This a little off topic but in the experiment explained where you light the paper in bottle if it was performed and the light produced had no way to escape (theoretical bottle of course that reflected the light 100%) would that mass still be there? Would it still be measurable? Would it settle or be absorbed back into what remained of the paper or would just bounce around infinitely?

Please forgive my questions if they seem dumb I have always loved sci-fi and while it has peaked my curiosity on a multitude of subjects the junk science in much of it has infiltrated my mind as well.

edit on 8-6-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


No worries, it's fun to get into this kinda stuff


If, you had a theoretical bottle that would not let any light out, or any heat, or any energy radiation at all, then yes, the mass/weight on the scale would stay the same.

It would eventually spread itself around what was in the bottle, and the bottle itself.
edit on 8-6-2013 by fuserleer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by fuserleer
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Its just space, it isn't empty though.

You will find in there, electrons and photons whizzing by and "matter/anti-matter" pairs that spontaneously appear there annihilate each other giving off gamma rays. Also if they exist will be gravitons.


you cant say its just space, without defining what just space is. Im wondering where there is no electrons, photons, matter/anti matter etc. what is there. what is space???



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by fuserleer
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Its just space, it isn't empty though.

You will find in there, electrons and photons whizzing by and "matter/anti-matter" pairs that spontaneously appear there annihilate each other giving off gamma rays. Also if they exist will be gravitons.


you cant say its just space, without defining what just space is. Im wondering where there is no electrons, photons, matter/anti matter etc. what is there. what is space???


I answered this further up.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Sure I'll play...
I have a few that have always driven me nuts, and have never had a satisfactory answer to.

These first 3 are sort of interrelated:
1) We are told that being in orbit is being in “free fall”, as your velocity keeps you constantly falling around the planet (fine no problem here). What about something in Geostationary orbit?
2) If reentry is from friction caused by slowing down as you enter the atmosphere, is it possible to not have the friction of reentry by slowing down to zero velocity prior to entering into the atmosphere?
3) If none of those things work, then how is the supposed “space elevator” going to work with part of its “cable” constantly in reentry?

4) According to thermodynamics we can never have any zero point energy or create more energy then we put into something. So we can never have perpetual motion. Yet when a satellite tumbles it keeps tumbling almost indefinitely until another force acts on it in the opposite direction, or over a long time the slight amount of friction in space stops it.
With the above in mind, shouldn't it be possible to make a simple generator whose armature spins indefinitely within a coil as long as it's in the same type of nearly frictionless environment?



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
OK so I now understand why speed of light and faster than light travel is impossible. My question now is what would be the best way to travel through space considering the amount of energy needed to even approach those speeds? I have read and looked at several proposed systems but it seems to me that the best for long voyages should be solar sails but this is from my limited understanding.

So what do you guys think?



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


Yes but as I understand, that space did not exist before the big bang. It also has interesting characteristics such as cosmological constant/dark energy, the ability to allow gravity to work, higgs field, EM field.

This leads me to the conclusion that the space you refer to, is a somethingness.

Hypothetically if this universe was a bubble, and was contained and separated from what is beyond it. And what was beyond it was true nothingness. And the space in this bubble, was not the same nothingness as the space beyond it, what would the space in the bubble be like? If there is no bubble, but there is something (energy/matter) and there is nothing, and there is nothing in between the something, and beyond it. Then how the heck did this somethingness get in the middle of infinite and eternal absolute nothing?





new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join