Ok, keep in mind I am a simple layman <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />So I'm watching a show Magascience "Time Travel" I had on Tivo... One statement confused me a bit. They stated that humans could probably never travel at near light speed cuz the gravatational forces would squash us. (mind you not their <i>exact</i> wording, but something to that effect) Saying that as our speed increases so does our mass to the point our bodies would collapse in on ones self from our own gravity... Is how I understood it. They really didn't elaborate. Is my interpetation correct? Is this cuz of the energy required to travel at near light speed is being added to our bodies mass? Not sure if I posed the question right. Can anyone bored or kind enough explain? <br />Layman here guys... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />Oh, and if I am understanding correctly (my mass is increased by the speed I am traveling) Is there a way to tell how fast I can go in space before my organs fail, hearts can't pump blood or something?
- Status
hmmm....I'm not entirely sure they are correct on that gravity comment.<br /><br />As we go faster our inertial mass does increase, I don't believe that this is the same mass that's related to gravity. I.e. it takes more and more energy to change how we move, but we still have the same amount of gravity.<br /><br />One of the problems with their statement is speed is relative. If I'm going a constant 99% the speed of light, it is just as valid for me to say I'm stationary, but everything else is whizing past me at 99% the speed of light. In that case...who gets "crushed"? Me, or everything else?<br /><br /><br />With that in mind, the answer to your second question is: Your organs won't fail. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
I am watching it again now
<br />Transcript as follows:<i><font color="yellow"> "When we gain speed, we gain mass. More mass means an increase in the force of the gravity. At the speed of light 186,000 miles a second, we'd be crushed by gravatational forces before we could ever make it thru the light barrier"</font></i><br />That's word for word.... Gotta love Tivo!<br />
<br />Transcript as follows:<i><font color="yellow"> "When we gain speed, we gain mass. More mass means an increase in the force of the gravity. At the speed of light 186,000 miles a second, we'd be crushed by gravatational forces before we could ever make it thru the light barrier"</font></i><br />That's word for word.... Gotta love Tivo!<br />Maybe the statements are false, they also claim using quantum tunneling they have sent information at 5 times the speed of light with a laser.The information was music encoded in the laser beam... Again they don't elaborate what quantum tunneling is. Wouldn't the information have arrived before they sent it? heh! If they are already doing this, let's send some useful information back in time already!
Its all about terms and how they are used:<br /><br />The "invariant mass" (also known as the rest mass, intrinsic mass or the proper mass ) is an observer-independent quantity.<br /><br />The "relativistic mass" (also known as the apparent mass) depends on one's frame of reference.<br /><br />In particular, the "relativistic mass" increases with observed speed while the "invariant mass" is an invariant property of an object: it does not change with a change of reference system.<br /><br />Einstein discovered that there is a relationship between mass, gravity and spacetime. Mass distorts spacetime, causing it to curve. Gravity can be described as motion caused in curved spacetime .<br /><br />Gravity in general relativity is described in terms of curved spacetime. The idea that spacetime is distorted by motion, as in special relativity, is extended to gravity by the equivalence principle. Gravity comes from matter, so the presence of matter causes distortions or warps in spacetime. Matter tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells matter how to move (orbits).
I guess my post did not comply with the signature that I used...LOL<br /><br />At least someone else did that for me (thanks Tigerbiten) although I am not 100% happy about it (only 99%).<br /><br />I hope you understood the explanation from Tigerbiten.<br /><br />When you are standing still on top of your balance (scale) you see your weight or the so called "invariant mass" or "rest mass". Now if you speed up together with your balance (the balance is part of the reference frame) you will continue seeing same weight (mass) but if someone is outside (different reference frame) looking at you it will see your mass increasing.<br /><br />The concept of "relativistic mass" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. <br />First, it applies the name mass to a very different concept, the time component of a four-vector. <br />Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. <br />In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself.<br /><br />Hum...I know it got more complicated than the post above but remember the words below, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." <br /><br />
Ramayana - frame of reference is important. So is environment.<br /><br />If you are approaching the speed of light in orbit around something, there will be specific effects because you are interacting with a massive object that you are travelling near the speed of light in comparison to.<br /><br />However, as Saiph correctly noted, if you are isolated in significant causes and effects from a frame of reference which you are travelling close to the speed of light in reference to, such effects will not occur.<br /><br />Proof of this is simple: we on earth are travelling close to the speed of light in comparison with various masses near our visibility horizon.<br /><br />There is another complicating factor: is this actual travel on (in) the fabric of space - or, in contrast, is this relative motion due to the expansion of the fabric of space itself????? <br /><br />On those FTL experiments you referred to - can you post a link or reference? I had heard of FTL results in two separate experiments some time ago.<br /><br />I do remember that somehow causalilty was not violated and information was not actually sent FTL.<br /><br />I suspect information can be sent FTL using either FTL matter or FTL energy or both.<br /><br />We are not currently capable of doing this - we have not even directly observed either (e.g. FTL dark matter such as tachyons; FTL forms of dark energy).
Well, it was a television program so I don't really have a link to it.. But it does air again. Here's a link to that particular episode Megascience - Time Travel <br />I am still trying to grasp this... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> So excuse me if I don't comment on anyones replies... Yet!
amayana is Holy epic of Hindus.I salute you.I cannot by pass your thoughts.Where are you sir.Bless me.
Lord Ram is believed to be God incarnate.His life story is called Ramayana.One politial party in India exploits Rams name for meeting political agenda.
Rams name exploited to meet political agenda? Really? Now imagine how donkeys and elefants are feeling...
Well actually his name was Rama. Anyhow, it not my intent to have this a religous thread <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Science please gentlemen <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
There is a factor Einstein used in his famous calculations. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity for more). This factor is called gamma or the lorentz factor and is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). When taken at face value (no, I am not going to go into deep calculus -- that's for another time) gamma is valid for all values v where -c < v < c. <br />His famous set of dialations are:<br /><br />t' = gamma * t<br />d' = gamma * d<br />m' = m / gamma<br /><br />*** Without being versed in the finer points of the physics, the below may be outlandish ***<br />Apply the basic a=d/(t^2)<br /><br />a' = d'/(t'^2)<br />a' = (d * gamma)/((t*gamma)^2)<br />a' = (d/(t^2))*(gamma/(gamma^2))<br />a' = (d/(t^2))*(1/gamma)<br />a' = a/gamma<br /><br />Then apply F=ma<br />F' = m'a'<br />F' = (m/gamma)*(a/gamma)<br />F' = ma(1/(gamma^2))<br />F' = F(1/(gamma^2))<br /><br />Now gamma^2 can be written "1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)^2", gamma^2 can be written "1/(1-v^2/c^2)"<br />And (v^2/c^2) can be written as (v/c)^2 and denoted as (%c)^2<br />So gamma is "1/(1-%c^2)" and 1/(gamma^2) is "1/1/(1-%c^2)" or by reduction "1-%c^2"<br /><br />F' = F * (1-%c^2)<br /><br />This is the relativistic force an external object will perceive in relation to your acceleration with respect to them. In otherwords, the faster you are going, the less pull you will have on the observer or they on you. If you achieved c you would have no effect on an observer at all and if you exceeded c you would push the observer away. (Keep in mind the original "divide by 0" [equal to infinity to some] and "imaginary roots" [that's a whole different story] produced at %c />= 1)<br /><br />Although, curiously, this makes me think of magnetism in a new light. Perhaps this is all meaningless thoughts that make no sense at a deeper level.
<font color="yellow">'Oh, and if I am understanding correctly (my mass is increased by the speed I am traveling) Is there a way to tell how fast I can go in space before my organs fail, hearts can't pump blood or something? '</font><br /><br />'how fast' is only relevant to another body with a different momentum. Actually, nothing is 'at rest' or 'in motion' under Relativity, rather every body's motion is measured relative to another body that is also in motion, or at rest, which ever it doesn't make a difference.<br /><br />Since you're 'intrinsic mass' doesn't increase as you accelerate your organ's gaining 'mass' is not a factor in your health as you accelerate, rather only the force of acceleration itself is a factor. As you accelerate for long periods of time an observer would not notice your speed increasing as much as you would because of the affects of time dialation. They would however notice an increase in your 'relativistic mass' rather than the same speed jump, closing in on your destination sooner, that you personally would experience. <br /><br />And to calculate how much energy would be required to slow you down to 'rest' again (the motion of that of the observer) could then be calculated by both you and the observer and yourself, with the observer possibly calculating a larger mass to slow down, while you calculate a higher speed to decelerate from. <br /><br />Isn't Relativity amazing. <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAYPUG4RwVs
Hiyaz!<br />Quick note in reply to <font color="yellow"><i>I do remember that somehow causalilty was not violated and information was not actually sent FTL.</i></font>/i> (assuming FTL=faster than light) <br />They stated the music they sent encoded in the laser beam could be played back after sending it thru the <i> quantum tunnel</i> <br /><br />But then again, we have already determined that at least one claim they made in that episode is wrong...<br /><br />
Not to get off topic, but the quantum tunneling thing reminds of the swinging pendelum of balls... the actual atoms that make up the balls are not making the trip just their inertia... hmmm..
Hi,<br />Ok what I’m getting from this is,<br />I would not be crushed by my own gravity. My organs would not be effected. And that, my speed is relative to the observer or my frame in space… Correct?<br />
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 190
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
How 2024 brought us deeper into the world of particles- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram