The Science Thread here

Originally posted by ImaFungi
You seem to be offended because you perceive the definition of mass having to do with the quantity of particles.

What gave you that idea? I never mentioned quantity, particles, or anything remotely like those. I'm not offended at all because I know this is a common misconception in popular media and even some textbooks.

E=mc² isn't really the correct formula to use for explaining why objects traveling at relativistic velocities are more difficult to accelerate. That's the misconception.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I've never heard of a tidal generator before, but I was aware of ones that use waves installed on ships.
NVM, sorry I see you already mentioned that.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

So I wonder if running such a generator actually causes the Earth and Moon to slow (even though minutely) at a faster rate.

I've wondered about that. Due to tidal forces, energy is being transferred from the Earth to the moon, so the Earth's rotation is slowing down, and the moon's orbital velocity is speeding up. The relevant question would be, will tidal energy exploitation change the rate of this energy transfer? Some smart person may have figured out the answer. I'm not really sure, but I have done enough math to note that even if it does, the effect won't be that significant as you suggest. People sometimes say there aren't enough hours in the day; we might get a few extra seconds, but extra hours hours will take a very long time to get.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

It would make sense. You create drag, even though a very slight amount, on the tides, which would effect the Earth and thereby the moon. Sort of like a inductor in an AC circuit.

Its an interesting thing to toy with though. Now when we roll a spacecraft we have to thrust in the opposite direction to check the roll wasting twice as much propellant. When you could potentially generate some amount of power when nulling out the roll on a spacecraft while using half as much propellant, and thereby transferring chemical energy into some amount of electrical energy that the spacecraft could then use instead of wasting.

Originally posted by defcon5

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.

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.
Now wouldn't it be possible to build a balloon that would be able to actually fly into space as long as it could handle the pressure changes? The Earth is constantly losing hydrogen into space all the time. There must be some little factor I am missing here still, because a slowly accelerating balloon should be able to do the same thing that the elevator is, yet as far as I know they cannot. It would obviously be much more efficient than a rocket or aircraft.

edit on 6/8/2013 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

The redbull guy just did that like 6 months ago or so. But the ballon cant get into space, as there is no atmosphere for it to be lighter than.

Balloons float because they are lighter than the air around them, the same way ice flaots in water but not air.

Balloons are never going to be lighter than vacuum, so they will not ever float into space and beyond.

Would be cool if they could though.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

It would make sense. You create drag, even though a very slight amount, on the tides, which would effect the Earth and thereby the moon. Sort of like a inductor in an AC circuit.

Yes, I strongly suspect that this is correct and that it does, but I've never actually proven it to myself or found a source that proves it, but if anyone has a source that does, I'd love to see it.

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?

Great question, I want to know this too! What exactly does it mean, this increase in mass? Where does the added mass come from. In a spaceship, would the ship's walls get thicker? Would people suddenly expand into giants?

reply to post by inverslyproportional

Yeah, you're correct. Though hydrogen continues out into space, but it's not lifting anything.
I think I'm getting tired and my brain is shutting off at this point.

There was a plan out there somewhere to use a rigid balloon with an ion engine to actually go into space now I think about it.

It seems in front the prototypes... would be a tether of some kind but WI fi like connected

this tether would travel ahead to survey space in front of following object behind it (like probe)

As it reaches predestined distance say x discussed distance. IT stops


Sends wi fi to transmitter in front of (object)

wi fi like tether connected but also location centerline of wormhole...

Activate (object) activate tether

matter and anti matter beams follow wi fi centerline. Matter material scientist pick..

beams hit (this can be possibly more advanced) basic description..

beams hit tunnel/energy conduit made wormhole as called here made

opening how long not sure.

(object)(s) enters as long as open...

distance from point of entry and exit not = to distance between face of (object) and face of tether

this is where math and navigation intelligence is needed for you may have 100 mile tether and cross unthinkable amounts of time/space as you have depleted time space with beams and so less dense as moved thru sorry trying to be clear.

Basic object ejects tether, tether makes distance activates transmits wi fi type (FOLLOW) signal to (object ) to follow they both send matter & antimatter beams as centerline or tunnel.. WH following wi fi type center/signal move thru (with shielded object)

no desire just sharing...

advanced would be yous doing it yourselves (in another form) maybe launch something in front of yous and follow within to destinations

reply to post by jiggerj


Question: Are atoms fireproof?

When we burn wood into ash are there electrons still flying about a nucleus in that ash as though nothing ever happened to them?

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
It seems in front the prototypes... would be a tether of some kind but WI fi like connected

this tether would travel ahead to survey space in front of following object behind it (like probe)

As it reaches predestined distance say x discussed distance. IT stops


Sends wi fi to transmitter in front of (object)

wi fi like tether connected but also location centerline of wormhole...

Activate (object) activate tether

matter and anti matter beams follow wi fi centerline. Matter material scientist pick..

beams hit (this can be possibly more advanced) basic description..

beams hit tunnel/energy conduit made wormhole as called here made

opening how long not sure.

(object)(s) enters as long as open...

distance from point of entry and exit not = to distance between face of (object) and face of tether

this is where math and navigation intelligence is needed for you may have 100 mile tether and cross unthinkable amounts of time/space as you have depleted time space with beams and so less dense as moved thru sorry trying to be clear.

Basic object ejects tether, tether makes distance activates transmits wi fi type (FOLLOW) signal to (object ) to follow they both send matter & antimatter beams as centerline or tunnel.. WH following wi fi type center/signal move thru (with shielded object)

no desire just sharing...

advanced would be yous doing it yourselves (in another form) maybe launch something in front of yous and follow

within to destinations

edit on 6/8/13 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)

WOW.......what????

Could you add further commentary, perhaps some context, and some math?

I want to know what your talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please elaborate further for me.

Sounds like your describing building an Einstein/Rosen bridge with a wi fi router??!!!!!

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Question: Are atoms fireproof?

When we burn wood into ash are there electrons still flying about a nucleus in that ash as though nothing ever happened to them?

Yes!!!!

ash is still matter.

Fire is basically rust, it is oxidation, basically like combining iron and oxygen makes rust, just with wood, or plastic etc....

If you watched a time lapse of a piece of iron rusting away, it would look just like somthing burning, being consumed, and reduced, leaving behind only ash, but in this case rust.

Cool question though!!!

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
It would not really reguire greater amounts of energy to achieve extra speeds, as this is not even close to relativistic speeds, so the amount of extra energy would not be that great, though it is still measurable and real, it is very small in the human experience of the world.

It doesn't require extra energy, but it does? Am I reading that right?

The latter is correct, it does take extra energy for the climber to ascend the space elevator and going from zero velocity to orbital velocity is very real and significant in the human experience, so if you're suggesting it's not, I'm not sure why. As the space elevator speeds up, the Earth slows down a little, like a spinning skater slows down when she extends her arms, though not as much. This diagram notes the Earth's rotation slowing down slightly with an illustration of how the cable pulls on the Earth to make this happen:

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by jiggerj

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?

Great question, I want to know this too! What exactly does it mean, this increase in mass? Where does the added mass come from. In a spaceship, would the ship's walls get thicker? Would people suddenly expand into giants?

It is because the object being accelerated is acquiring energy, in the form of inertia.

A 1 LBS object dropped 1 foot will do x damage, same object but accelerated to 100 times the speed as before, it will do more than 100 times the damage, as the energy it takes to accelerate an object increases exponentially with speed, the faster it goes, the more energy it takes to make it go faster, the more inertia it has, the greater the energy it imparts on an object it strikes.

If you have a 1 LBS weight, and a scale on a space ship, and you accelerate to 99 percent the speed of light and weigh the object, it will still weight 1 LBS, because the scale is also more energetic, so there is no way to measure this in this manner, you can though see the unimaginable impact a 1 LBS object would make hitting somthing at that speed ....would be a crowd pleaser for sure.

As a simple proton strem that weighs nothing really, going 99.999 percent the speed of light hits with 14 terraelectron volts of energy, or the energy of a fully loaded nimitz class super carrier running aground at 30 knots.

So a 1 LBS object going the same speed.............like many nukes at once, without the radiation. Super kinetic impactor, "rods from god" are no where near this velocity, but have the power of tactical nukes, we have this technology today.

Just send up a tungsten telephone pole, deorbit it with a rocket motor, city disappears............ very cool stuff to talk about, as long as it isnt actually used, if it is used i will no longer ever talk about how cool it is in theory, I will be aghast at the abject human ignorance that would do such a thing.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
It seems in front the prototypes... would be a tether of some kind but WI fi like connected

this tether would travel ahead to survey space in front of following object behind it (like probe)

As it reaches predestined distance say x discussed distance. IT stops


Sends wi fi to transmitter in front of (object)

wi fi like tether connected but also location centerline of wormhole...

Activate (object) activate tether

matter and anti matter beams follow wi fi centerline. Matter material scientist pick..

beams hit (this can be possibly more advanced) basic description..

beams hit tunnel/energy conduit made wormhole as called here made

opening how long not sure.

(object)(s) enters as long as open...

distance from point of entry and exit not = to distance between face of (object) and face of tether

this is where math and navigation intelligence is needed for you may have 100 mile tether and cross unthinkable amounts of time/space as you have depleted time space with beams and so less dense as moved thru sorry trying to be clear.

Basic object ejects tether, tether makes distance activates transmits wi fi type (FOLLOW) signal to (object ) to follow they both send matter & antimatter beams as centerline or tunnel.. WH following wi fi type center/signal move thru (with shielded object)

no desire just sharing...

advanced would be yous doing it yourselves (in another form) maybe launch something in front of yous and follow

within to destinations

edit on 6/8/13 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)

WOW.......what????

Could you add further commentary, perhaps some context, and some math?

I want to know what your talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please elaborate further for me.

Sounds like your describing building an Einstein/Rosen bridge with a wi fi router??!!!!!

as an object is said to speed or accelerate its said to gain mass. 1 was comenting on potentially there is no mass gain but a shrink of the matter surrounding the object due to the matter not going as fast as the object and so it generates the expand theory with light speed...

The input 1 is sharing is that if there was some force ejected in front of the object the object then gets to move thru a tunnel/wh like field a field of depleted less dense matter in a set distance etc. In this field of depleted matter from the collision between the matter and anti matter beams wi fi signal like guided, is travel space.

So the amount of space originally between craft-object and survey probe tether face changes as the matter is depleted (either expanded or extreme compressed) which is why 1 said the 100 mile distance between object/craft and probe tether face within original time(matter)space changes as the matter time space is altered.

The math need is in test to tweak distance between object and tether face. Say with sending test object within 100ft micro process with small scaled object & probe and see where it went or was found if traceable still in this galaxy... And then compile and make more accurate locations/aims and energies needed to charge/anticharge. Sorry if not formulated into the proper math formats you seek... 1 is not a physics specialist here...

NAMASTE*******

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
It would not really reguire greater amounts of energy to achieve extra speeds, as this is not even close to relativistic speeds, so the amount of extra energy would not be that great, though it is still measurable and real, it is very small in the human experience of the world.

It doesn't require extra energy, but it does? Am I reading that right?

The latter is correct, it does take extra energy for the climber to ascend the space elevator and going from zero velocity to orbital velocity is very real and significant in the human experience, so if you're suggesting it's not, I'm not sure why. As the space elevator speeds up, the Earth slows down a little, like a spinning skater slows down when she extends her arms, though not as much. This diagram notes the Earth's rotation slowing down slightly with an illustration of how the cable pulls on the Earth to make this happen:

en.wikipedia.org...

When it is in a space shuttle or rocket, yes it is quite extreme, when it is a constant 20MPH vertical crawl...not so much, it is 20 MPH no matter the distance from the ground, 20MPH is 20MPH.

The sled, or climber, or crawler, or elevator, they are all still playing with the name, and the guy makes the first will get to decide, will go about 20 MPH or so from what I have read, maybe even 100MPH eventually, but this is nothing compared to the 0 to 17000 in 12 minutes for rockets, it is a slow and easy climb, so more delicate instruments that at present we cant send up do to the extreme G counts, can be made and sent up.

I dont understand what your saying...??

If I climb at 20 MPH vertically, I will only feel the 20 MPH climb, nothing more. The rider does eventually acquire the 17000 MPH for orbit, but it is very slow, and doesnt come the way it does in a rocket, it is like dropping 100LBS on someone from 100 feet, or dropping 100LBS worth of nanogram BBs from 100 feet 1 at a time.

One way you notice alot, the other, not so much.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
I dont understand what your saying...??

If I climb at 20 MPH vertically, I will only feel the 20 MPH climb, nothing more. The rider does eventually acquire the 17000 MPH for orbit, but it is very slow, and doesnt come the way it does in a rocket, it is like dropping 100LBS on someone from 100 feet, or dropping 100LBS worth of nanogram BBs from 100 feet 1 at a time.

One way you notice alot, the other, not so much.

So you wouldn't notice feeling weightless?

I'm saying you would notice it.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


I love the way you explain things without sounding arrogant. Good job! Sadly, too many people with increased knowledge become too full of themselves, leaving their communication skills lacking. If I didn't know better I'd swear you are the loveable physicist many people are accusing of demoting Pluto from planet to planetoid.

Now, let me comment on this part of your reply:

A 1 LBS object dropped 1 foot will do x damage, same object but accelerated to 100 times the speed as before, it will do more than 100 times the damage, as the energy it takes to accelerate an object increases exponentially with speed, the faster it goes, the more energy it takes to make it go faster, the more inertia it has, the greater the energy it imparts on an object it strikes.

This sounds like your still talking about energy and not mass, which could mean that I don't understand what mass is. When I hear that objects take on mass the nearer they get to the speed of light, I imagine those objects getting larger. To me, your 1 LBS. object could take on more atoms and become the size of a planet while traveling near the speed of light. Is this idea of taking on mass incorrect?

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.

reply to post by fuserleer


WOW! With everything still trapped within the bottle (except heat and light), I wonder if that paper could be reconstructed if we put the heat and light back into it. If possible, would this constitute going back in time? I ask this because I've always viewed 'time' as a burning of energy (like a fuse on a firecracker). If this universe is a closed system, like the bottle with the paper in it, then maybe reversing the process of burning energy (time) isn't all that farfetched.

reply to post by Grimpachi

BTW this is now officially my favorite forum I would like to thank jiggerj as well

Aw, that's nice, but don't thank me yet. I STILL don't get how an increase in energy means the same thing as an increase in mass. If I have a dead car battery and recharge it so that it is full of energy, the battery doesn't get bigger (does it?). When I hear that an object takes on mass nearer the speed of light, what I imagine is that the object is somehow growing more atoms. If this isn't the case, then why call it mass if it's just taking on more energy?