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.
Are you sure about that? Even some textbooks don't quite have this topic right so I don't know how people expect to increase their knowledge of science from random ATS members. I suggest listening to Einstein whose theory your question refers to:
Originally posted by Grimpachi
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.
As this powerpoint shows, the mass doesn't really increase as Einstein explained (momentum and kinetic energy increase):
Einstein's tolerance of E=mc^2 is related to the fact that he never used in his writings the basic equation of relativity theory. However, in 1948 he forcefully warned against the concept of mass increasing with velocity. Unfortunately this warning was ignored. The formula E=mc^2, the concept relativistic mass, and the term rest mass are widely used even in the recent popular science literature, and thus create serious stumbling blocks for beginners in relativity.
m0 is still the rest mass. It's the kinetic energy that increases, not the rest mass. It's the increase in kinetic energy or momentum that causes additional resistance to acceleration, not additional rest mass.
The total energy, E, of a free particle then is the sum of the kinetic energy, K, and the particle’s rest energy, m0c2.
E=K+m0c2
Originally posted by Grimpachi
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)
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???
What about it? The moon is in a higher orbit than geostationary. Much higher. Orbital mechanics work the same way at different altitudes. The main problem at lower altitudes is more atmospheric friction. This slows down the ISS which is why they have to boost it once in a while.
Originally posted by defcon5
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?
Sure, it's theoretically possible. The reason it never happens in practice is there's never enough fuel to decelerate, and we don't really need to slow down first....the atmosphere helps us decelerate on re-entry.
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?
I can't say the space elevator will work. But it won't have any problems with re-entry. There is no material that will work for the cable yet known, and other problems.
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?
We have generators that use something along these lines if you want to stretch a point...they generate energy from ocean tides. That's possible. And you can extract energy from orbits and rotational motions like that but of course when you do, the orbit decays or the rotation slows down according to how much energy you extract. Since the Earth is so big, using tidal power won't slow it down that much.
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?
Originally posted by defcon5
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?
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
Originally posted by defcon5
It just takes approx. 17,000 MPH to achieve this, in a vacuum, as atmosphere will slow it and make it fall back before it reachs the origninal source of its launch.
Interesting fact about 17,000mph velocity to escape the earths gravity.
Why is there no Hydrogen or Helium in the atmosphere?
Because the sum their oscillational movement, at their frequency at 0 kelvin, and the small rest mass, allows that to be greater than 17,000 mph.
If you were to add all the distances of those oscillations up and represent it in MPH form, it exceeds it.
Thus, over time, they escape earths gravity.
There is a big difference between
Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
No I understood after their explanations....
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
We have generators that use something along these lines if you want to stretch a point...they generate energy from ocean tides. That's possible. And you can extract energy from orbits and rotational motions like that but of course when you do, the orbit decays or the rotation slows down according to how much energy you extract. Since the Earth is so big, using tidal power won't slow it down that much.
Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by inverslyproportional
Excellent answer...
One more thing though. Going up the tether is still going to require enough energy to reach 17K mph, and when coming back down you'd have to shed it. So wouldn't it take increasing amounts of energy to climb the higher you got as you would have to speed up, and wouldn't it still burn in shedding its 17K mph speed on entry? How about the tether itself, is it actually moving at 0 or at 17K mph?
I wasn't talking about waves. I was talking about generators that use the tides. Where does tidal energy come from? It's a consequence of the orbit of the moon and the rotation of the Earth. The Earth's rotation is slowing down as a result of the Earth-moon interaction including the tides. So the source is really what you mentioned, a satellite in orbit, where the satellite is the moon. This is a real-life application of extracting energy from an orbiting satellite, the moon:
Originally posted by defcon5
The generators you are talking about are converting energy from another force, like waves.
I think rotation may last longer than orbits, but both slow down. The friction is very low so they don't slow down very much. There is really no violation of thermodynamics to say when friction is low the frictional effects are reduced. But they never really go to zero, since even deep space has a hydrogen atom per cubic meter and it's denser near massive bodies due to gravity, and this will slow down orbits and rotations, though very little in some cases.
A satellite that is spinning has been acted on by a force once, and there is nothing to essentially ever slow that rotation. So this by itself seems to defy thermodynamics. Its a small energy input for an almost continual output (the rotation). Unless, I suppose, that the rotation is actually potential energy that just has not been changed by an outside force (friction), which would make sense. So in essence the spinning satellite then is like a capacitor that is storing a charge?
Originally posted by majesticgent
1. If the Earth and the rest of the solar system is speeding through space at 2.7 million MPH (according to: Source), how come we don't notice it?
Everything appears stationary. Is the rest of space moving away from us at the same velocity in the same direction? Are the distances so vast that it'll take forever to notice a perceived change. Is it because the visibile light we're seeing from other stars is so old that it stays the same? Mind bogglingedit on 8-6-2013 by majesticgent because: (no reason given)
So the act of actually flying, overcoming drag, etc.., is where the extra energy is going then? A man walking or riding an elevator uses less energy to gain altitude in a building. An aircraft uses more because of the other forces it has to overcome to maintain forward momentum and lift. So the man walking up stairs is simply a more effective way to do the same thing, using less energy.
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
Think of it like this, a plane has to be going around 80 MPH to fly off the ground, depending on the type this varies greatly, so to get to about 400 feet they have to be travelling around 120 MPH or so, but i can stand perfectly still in a building at that height, with no speed.