Mathematics/Philosophies ( Q & A ): 101???

[h9c2]

"....mass does not require weight or charge to be massive."<br /><br />You are correct. It requires......... mass!

 

[jatslo]

I can curve it in a powerful reactor, but I need to do the math, because it could be very bad to do this on Earth.<br /><br />Hint --- Planet core breach, or atmosphere breach

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">I can curve mass</font><br /><br />Yes, you can. Einstein did! That's why I kept asking you that question over and over.<br /><br />Mass relates force to acceleration. That is, to find the mass, look at how much acceleration results from a given force.<br /><br />A change in mass implies different acceleration for the same force.<br /><br />At close to the speed of light, Einstein said that mass grows. This implies that it takes more and more force to achieve the same acceleration. As mass tends toward infinity, it eventually becomes impossible to accelerate, no matter how much force you apply.

 

[jatslo]

I mass does not need motion; the weight curves the fabric in space-time into it, so theoretically we could bring a star to us, rather than go to it. If the Sun expands, it is doing one of two things: It is gaining weight; it is losing weight. If it is gaining weight it will eat us, but if it is losing weight it will eject us.<br /><br />How much matter do I need to direct a pulse into space; one powerful enough to move the Earth? Proportionally, or pound for pound it seems as if we would not need a very large reactor at all.<br /><br />...And this will require even less force as we get further and further from our Sun, so we could actually take all of humanity with us when we leave. We would have to harvest matter along the way as fuel, or maybe we could scoop it up as we go.

 

[jatslo]

F=ma is relative to density and viscosity, meaning the less dense mass is less charge/friction or viscosity there is, so as we travel further from our star, space becomes less dense, therefore there is less viscosity which causes F-ma to break down. That brings me back to Helium II and neutrinos, over and over and over. In quantum we are talking about pushing particles in very dense areas, so F=ma breaks down again.<br /><br />The math should be relatively simple, but proving this in a lab is becoming difficult, because I need to find a charged weightless mass, which brings me back to helium II again over and over and over.<br /><br />Oh, and for the record: The space between is a mass that I cannot bend; therefore, empty space will not bend. We can move through empty space or move through the space between. Fascinating and perplexing!<br /><br />It would be unwise to ignore this post people.<br />

 

[thermionic]

>>It would be unwise to ignore this post people.<br /><br />Oh, I would never ignore this post! I have been wondering, how do you know all this stuff?

 

[jatslo]

I have been doing it my head for all my life. I have always known, but I didn't know why I knew, until now.

 

[jatslo]

thermionic is your handle: vacuums are not perfect, but we can use cryogenics to reduce viscosity, because most particles shrink when they get cold, and this effect would create more space. This additional space should allow light to travel faster than 186,000 miles per hour. I am reluctant to place a question mark in this post, for reasons that I would rather not discuss.

 

[thermionic]

<br /> />>vacuums are not perfect<br /><br />Yes, but a bit of gas in the bottle produces a lovely blue glow @450 volts. I think aesthetics are very important. I've heard it postulated that the more beautiful an object, the lighter it is. This may be relavent to your work.<br /><br />By the way, I think you have a lot of velocity margin in your speed of light if you are calculating with c=186,000 miles per hour. This may also be useful for you... Cheers!<br /><br />

 

[jatslo]

Well, yes it is. I am looking for a weightless charged mass, but helium II keeps poping up, why?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Yes, but a bit of gas in the bottle produces a lovely blue glow @450 volts. I think aesthetics are very important. I've heard it postulated that the more beautiful an object, the lighter it is. This may be relavent to your work.</font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[thermionic]

>>I am looking for a weightless charged mass, but helium II keeps popping up, why?<br /><br />I'm really not sure, as a helium atom has mass and no net charge. Perhaps because helium gives you that fun squeaky voice when you breath it?<br /><br />I'm far from an expert, but I'm not sure if there is a charged massless particle. I don't remember learning about one in school. But if you want charge and low mass, go with electrons. They are way lighter than any atom.

 

[thermionic]

<br />OOps, I read that wrong. If you want a charged weightless mass, than any charged object will do if you keep gravity away. Weight only comes about with gravity.

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">F=ma is relative to density and viscosity</font><br /><br />Brillig hog slop, with a side of nacre.

 

[jatslo]

Nope, nothing will change my mind; I am certain, without a doubt certain. 186,000 miles per second is a hulucination, if you think that is the top speed, and I cannot believe nobody has figured this out yet.<br /><br />It is so simple, a child could do it.

 

[thermionic]

<br />Inurusting... They made us measure the speed of light in physics lab. Granted, we knew the answer we were supposed to get but...<br /><br />The speed of light has been measure to great precision by many many folks. If someone were convinced they found an inaccuracy in the commonly accepted value, they would make some noise. It would be revolutionary. How can you demonstrate that standard c is off by a factor of 3600? Cheers!

 

[jatslo]

Ha ha, Miles per hour was a typo; if you want to break the 186,000 miles per second speed record, Chill and/or clean the vacuum out. I don't know how to make a charged weightless mass yet. You should be able to do the math already, so good luck with your constant.<br /><br />Hey, it works locally, which is a plus. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[thermionic]

>>I don't know how to make a charged weightless mass yet.<br /><br />But you do! Remember that weight = (gravitional field strength) * mass . So if you keep your mass somewhere where the gravitional field strength is negligable, and charge it up, you're off to the races!<br /><br />As to the speed of light in different materials, look up "refractive index". People have worked this out. It might give you a head start in your research. Cheers!

 

[jatslo]

Well it helps things to be away from the planet core, and I don't know the miles off the type of my head.<br /><br />Tesla... I don't want my charge to arc, so I am going to wait until I reach space, before I turn it on.

 

[jatslo]

I need to make a connection between weight and viscosity, I think, because low viscosity implies weightlessness, which brings me back to Helium-II again, and again. I think I read that Helium-II expands when it gets cold, which is opposite of my way of thinking, and that is why, I think, I am headed in the right direction.<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But you do! Remember that weight = (gravitional field strength) * mass . So if you keep your mass somewhere where the gravitional field strength is negligable, and charge it up, you're off to the races! As to the speed of light in different materials, look up "refractive index". People have worked this out. It might give you a head start in your research.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>The north or south poles? I will use the Earth's EMI as extra boost?

 

[jatslo]

I need to stop the radius of gyration, but the gosh darn thing keeps flipping over.