What is mass, and how does speed increase it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
X

xmo1

Guest
<p>ref from the forum: "The faster you go, the more your mass will increase."</p><p>ref: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/glossary/mass.html</p><p>the two ideas seem to conflict</p><p>Density, volume, and weight are all independent characteristics of elements.<br />Gold is heavier than iron because it has more mass and density&nbsp;in an equal volume.</p><p>How does increased speed increase volume or&nbsp;density, or does it, and what of gravity?</p><p>If my density is climbing with speed, then it would seem that my volume would decrease. If my volume decreased then space-time would necessarily fill the gap, and so it would have to expand.</p><p>What are the correct correlations here?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ref from the forum: "The faster you go, the more your mass will increase."ref: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/glossary/mass.htmlthe two ideas seem to conflictDensity, volume, and weight are all independent characteristics of elements.Gold is heavier than iron because it has more mass and density&nbsp;in an equal volume.How does increased speed increase volume or&nbsp;density, or does it, and what of gravity?If my density is climbing with speed, then it would seem that my volume would decrease. If my volume decreased then space-time would necessarily fill the gap, and so it would have to expand.What are the correct correlations here? <br />Posted by xmo1</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">Talking about mass increasing with speed. They say the protons in LHC are accelerated to a speed&nbsp;near the &nbsp;speed of light, but I never heard from anyone how near. If the proton speed is .9c, the mass of a proton should be twice the oroginal mass. If speed is .95c, mass would reach 3 times the original mass.</font></p><p><font size="2">Does anyone know what they (LHC experimenters) do to handle this increased mass? </font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Talking about mass increasing with speed. They say the protons in LHC are accelerated to a speed&nbsp;near the &nbsp;speed of light, but I never heard from anyone how near. If the proton speed is .9c, the mass of a proton should be twice the oroginal mass. If speed is .95c, mass would reach 3 times the original mass.Does anyone know what they (LHC experimenters) do to handle this increased mass? <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV><br /><br />Smash them into protons coming head on the other way! :) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ref from the forum: "The faster you go, the more your mass will increase."ref: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/glossary/mass.htmlthe two ideas seem to conflictDensity, volume, and weight are all independent characteristics of elements.Gold is heavier than iron because it has more mass and density&nbsp;in an equal volume.How does increased speed increase volume or&nbsp;density, or does it, and what of gravity?If my density is climbing with speed, then it would seem that my volume would decrease. If my volume decreased then space-time would necessarily fill the gap, and so it would have to expand.What are the correct correlations here? <br />Posted by <strong>xmo1</strong></DIV><br /><br />The title of your thread asks 2 very good questions.&nbsp; What is mass ?&nbsp; How do particles acquire this property we call mass ? Why does a neutron have mass but a photon doesn't.&nbsp; I don't believe the answer is truly known. One theory is the Higgs feild which is what the LHC you've may have heard about is trying to find by creating a Higgs boson.&nbsp; If you can understand the Higgs mechanism and how mass arises from it, try to put in simple terms that I might understand because it's a bit beyond my ken.&nbsp; </p><p>FWIW I think it'll help in whatever following discussions arise to think of mass less in terms of density and such and more in terms of what having more (or less) mass does.&nbsp; For example having more mass means an object requires more force&nbsp;to change it's momentum.&nbsp; Just&nbsp;for fun now imagine that the degree of "coupling" between an object and a force could be changed due to some external condition.&nbsp; When the coupling is high/normal the object responds normally to the applied force.&nbsp; If the coupling is low then the objects reacts weakly to the applied force. It's as if the object had acquired more mass.&nbsp; I'm not saying this is what's happening but if you begin to think about it this way you'll see this property we call mass in a different light.&nbsp; Then maybe the real physicists here can shed some light on the question .....</p><p>EDIT : I think this thread might be better served in the Physics forum ....</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Does anyone know what they (LHC experimenters) do to handle this increased mass? <br />Posted by <strong>emperor_of_localgroup</strong></DIV><br /><br />I'm not sure I understand your question but increased relativistic mass is one reason the LHC is so "big". You need very strong magnetic feilds to accelerate and direct/turn these now massive particles. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Smash them into protons coming head on the other way! :) <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">I'm looking for some numbers...</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm looking for some numbers...&nbsp; <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV><br /><br />I'd suggest reading the LHC site. There's lots of relevant info there, most likely including the answer to your question. If you don't find it there. ask again. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
X

xmo1

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just&nbsp;for fun now imagine that the degree of "coupling" between an object and a force could be changed due to some external condition.&nbsp; When the coupling is high/normal the object responds normally to the applied force.&nbsp; If the coupling is low then the objects reacts weakly to the applied force. It's as if the object had acquired more mass.&nbsp; I'm not saying this is what's happening but if you begin to think about it this way you'll see this property we call mass in a different light.&nbsp; Then maybe the real physicists here can shed some light on the question .....EDIT : I think this thread might be better served in the Physics forum ....&nbsp; <br />Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV></p><p>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mass.html</p><p>The Higgs boson is too fantastic for me to accept as a possibility. It seems rediculous to me, but something appearing out of nothing,&nbsp;strange behavior at a distance, and string theory&nbsp;had me scratching my head too. These days I've stopped scratching, and bought a partially declawed pet head crab at the recommendation of those European scientists who like their Half-Life episodes way too much. Someone tell them it's just a game,&nbsp;but that resident cascades can really happen.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>
 
X

xmo1

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ref from the forum: "The faster you go, the more your mass will increase."ref: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/glossary/mass.htmlthe two ideas seem to conflictDensity, volume, and weight are all independent characteristics of elements.Gold is heavier than iron because it has more mass and density&nbsp;in an equal volume.How does increased speed increase volume or&nbsp;density, or does it, and what of gravity?If my density is climbing with speed, then it would seem that my volume would decrease. If my volume decreased then space-time would necessarily fill the gap, and so it would have to expand.What are the correct correlations here? <br />Posted by xmo1</DIV><br /><br />So in&nbsp;<span class="variant">colloquial English we would say, "There is a mass (an object consisting) of iron." That is pretty much what mass is. It is visible. It is not simply a mathematical concept.</span></p><p><span class="variant">The mass weighs 5kg. How, in no gravity, does something have weight? I thought no gravity = weightless.</span></p><p><span class="variant">Could someone answer my original questions please, and&nbsp;what are the correct correlations here?</span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So in&nbsp;colloquial English we would say, "There is a mass (an object consisting) of iron." That is pretty much what mass is. It is visible. It is not simply a mathematical concept.The mass weighs 5kg. How, in no gravity, does something have weight? I thought no gravity = weightless.Could someone answer my original questions please, and&nbsp;what are the correct correlations here? <br />Posted by xmo1</DIV><br /><br />In no gravity, it has no weight. It still has mass.</p><p>Inthe English system there are two different mearuements. Pound is used for weight, the unit of mass is "slug". really!</p><p>At 1g 1 pound = 0.031 slug</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
X

xmo1

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not sure I understand your question but increased relativistic mass is one reason the LHC is so "big". You need very strong magnetic feilds to accelerate and direct/turn these now massive particles. <br />Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV><br /><br />fields</p><p>Interesting (to me). The maglev train needs magnets that will produce the force necessary to raise and&nbsp;guide the (mass)&nbsp;weight of the train. If the train were smaller, then a relatively smaller force would be appropriate. So the particles actually get bigger? The 3d view of the output of the LHC must be awesome. Bet someone has figured out how to display multi-dimensional directional paths of the collisions should they be necessary.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>fieldsInteresting (to me). The maglev train needs magnets that will produce the force necessary to raise and&nbsp;guide the (mass)&nbsp;weight of the train. If the train were smaller, then a relatively smaller force would be appropriate. So the particles actually get bigger? Posted by <strong>xmo1</strong></DIV><br /><br />I'm not sure where you get the idea that the particles must be bigger.&nbsp; But let me use your maglev train to better illustrate the difference between mass and weight.&nbsp; Assume the train is here on Earth and let's also put it in a vacuum tunnel so there's no wind resistance.&nbsp; To elevate the train I must produce a force exactly equal to the force produced be the Earth's gravity, but in the opposite (up) direction.&nbsp; The train is now floating.&nbsp; If I had exactly the same train in the same tunnel on the same track but on the Moon instead of the Earth the lifting force needed would be less because the Moon's gravity is less.&nbsp; This is an example of weight.</p><p>Now let me push on the train (somehow) to make it move down the tracks.&nbsp; If I push on the train with a constant force it will accelerate, increasing it's speed every second so long as I keep applying the push.&nbsp; Interestingly the pushing force works exactly the same on the Moon as on the Earth.&nbsp; Push equally hard on the Moon as on the Earth and the train will accelerate equally on both tracks.&nbsp; That's because&nbsp;the train's&nbsp;mass is the same in both places even though the train's&nbsp;weight is less on the Moon.&nbsp; While mass is related to the numbers and type of particles making up the train, weight is a force acting on that mass.&nbsp; Reducing the number of particles that make up the train reduces it's mass and also it's weight.&nbsp; If you could somehow spread the same number of particles across a larger volume (= less density) you'd still have the same mass and same weight but a longer, taller, wider train. </p><p>Note that in all of the above I'm keeping the train speeds to be "low", much less than the Speed of Light (C).</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
 
A

Aaupaaq

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So in&nbsp;colloquial English we would say, "There is a mass (an object consisting) of iron." That is pretty much what mass is. It is visible. It is not simply a mathematical concept.The mass weighs 5kg. How, in no gravity, does something have weight? I thought no gravity = weightless.Could someone answer my original questions please, and&nbsp;what are the correct correlations here? <br /> Posted by xmo1</DIV></p><p>What I think don't really mean anything according to some knowledgeables here, but I think that magnetic force is just gravity.&nbsp; We see young galaxies which are very magnetic.&nbsp; This force is the one which is manifesting matter.&nbsp; Like atoms are collecting in one area, and in much the same way, this same force is making everything possible.&nbsp; Like, air molecules, organic, nuclear, and they would tend to arrange themselves in such a manner that heavier objects will be lower to the center of the collection of particles in space. </p><p>That is why bigger objects or planets might have "Stronger Feeling" of pull of gravity than smaller objects or planets. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We always walked on water, like skating! </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What I think don't really mean anything according to some knowledgeables here, but I think that magnetic force is just gravity.&nbsp; We see young galaxies which are very magnetic.&nbsp; This force is the one which is manifesting matter.&nbsp; Like atoms are collecting in one area, and in much the same way, this same force is making everything possible.&nbsp; Like, air molecules, organic, nuclear, and they would tend to arrange themselves in such a manner that heavier objects will be lower to the center of the collection of particles in space. <br />Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV><br /><br />You may think that, but it is not true at the energy levels of the current Universe. It is possible in the first few femtoseconds after the Big Bang, they were united. It is a current area of active research. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
A

Aaupaaq

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You may think that, but it is not true at the energy levels of the current Universe. It is possible in the first few femtoseconds after the Big Bang, they were united. It is a current area of active research. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>It might be that iron, when applied to electricity, becomes magnetic.&nbsp; And the earth having gravity, also resists electricity, in the form of aurora borealis, with the help of magnetic sheild.&nbsp; Because of the lava and crust rubbing against each other.&nbsp; But, as always, my mind might be on the opposite side of the truth for some reason, maybe the way we live or something. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We always walked on water, like skating! </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It might be that iron, when applied to electricity, becomes magnetic.&nbsp; And the earth having gravity, also resists electricity, in the form of aurora borealis, with the help of magnetic sheild.&nbsp; Because of the lava and crust rubbing against each other.&nbsp; But, as always, my mind might be on the opposite side of the truth for some reason, maybe the way we live or something. <br />Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV><br /><br />None of this has anything to do with mass....once again off-topic for this discussion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
A

Aaupaaq

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>None of this has anything to do with mass....once again off-topic for this discussion. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>It's just that, different particles react differently to the gravity force, which would do nothing when we add nothing.&nbsp; But when we add variation, this is what we're seeing and witnessing.&nbsp; For example, iron is different than sedimentary rock.&nbsp; How?&nbsp; It's just the way the atoms and molecules arrange themselves when added with gravity.&nbsp; Just the pull of gravity, might help different particles to react differently.&nbsp;</p><p>That is why a peice of sedimentary rock might be lighter than gold metal with the same size dimensions. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We always walked on water, like skating! </div>
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's just that, different particles react differently to the gravity force, <u>which would do nothing when we add nothing</u>.&nbsp; Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV></p><p>Particles made of different atoms "react" differently to gravity because those atoms have different masses. I have no idea what you're trying to say in the <u>latter half of the above sentence</u>.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But when we add variation, this is what we're seeing and witnessing.&nbsp; Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV></p><p>What ?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For example, iron is different than sedimentary rock.&nbsp; How?&nbsp; It's just the way the atoms and molecules arrange themselves when added with gravity.&nbsp; Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV></p><p>Nope.&nbsp; Iron is made of iron atoms.&nbsp; Sedimentary rock can be made of a lot of different things but often is silica which is made from atoms of silicon and oxygen.&nbsp; With or without gravity, they are different.&nbsp; I wold agree that buried under a lot of overburden, sedimentary rocks will form differently due to the weight being applied to them.&nbsp; Iron less so.&nbsp; So what ?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just the pull of gravity, might help different particles to react differently.&nbsp;That is why a peice of sedimentary rock might be lighter than gold metal with the same size dimensions. <br />Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV></p><p>Or it could be that they're made of different atoms.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Hopefully the OP has either gotten the answers he desired or can wade his wade throught this muck to ask more. The basic question of what mass is, is at the forefront of science.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's just that, different particles react differently to the gravity force, which would do nothing when we add nothing.&nbsp; But when we add variation, this is what we're seeing and witnessing.&nbsp; For example, iron is different than sedimentary rock.&nbsp; How?&nbsp; It's just the way the atoms and molecules arrange themselves when added with gravity.&nbsp; Just the pull of gravity, might help different particles to react differently.&nbsp;That is why a peice of sedimentary rock might be lighter than gold metal with the same size dimensions. <br />Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV><br /><br />No, this is balony. All particles with mass react according to the law of gravity. </p><p>Once again you have confused density with mass.</p><p>{once again, density comment self censored}</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
X

xmo1

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While mass is related to the numbers and type of particles making up the train ... Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV></p><p>Not increasing the number or types of particles, how is mass increased by approaching the speed of light? What is the physical manifestation? Is it simply the resistance to a force&nbsp;attempting to change the path of&nbsp;the momentum? Why are larger magnets required if density, weight, or volume are not changed? I'm thinking that density, atomic weight of the particles including the sub atomic particles, and volume are the attributes of mass. I've asked a question or two, but still do not see direct answers to what I've asked. Excuse the complaining for the moment please.</p><p>Cross posting is frowned upon ... so I hesitate to post the same question in the physics forum. Maybe a moderator would be so kind as to move it there.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not increasing the number or types of particles, how is mass increased by approaching the speed of light? What is the physical manifestation? <u>Is it simply the resistance to a force&nbsp;attempting to change the path of&nbsp;the momentum?</u> Why are larger magnets required if density, weight, or volume are not changed? I'm thinking that density, atomic weight of the particles including the sub atomic particles, and volume are the attributes of mass. I've asked a question or two, but still do not see direct answers to what I've asked. Excuse the complaining for the moment please.Cross posting is frowned upon ... so I hesitate to post the same question in the physics forum. Maybe a moderator would be so kind as to move it there. <br />Posted by <strong>xmo1</strong></DIV><br /><br />I've underlined (above) how I look at it.&nbsp; Mass is a property of "stuff".&nbsp; Some stuff has mass, other stuff (ie- photons) do not.&nbsp; Without changing the volume or density, accelerating stuff that has mass to near C speeds will increase it's apparent mass. This fast moving stuff will now be harder to change it's path or speed it up or slow it down than it would be if it were sitting still.&nbsp; That's why you need very strong magnetic feilds in something like the LHC which has to redirect the path of fast moving protons.&nbsp; </p><p>Imagine a single proton sitting still on a scale in a lab someplace.&nbsp; It has a certain rest mass just sitting there.&nbsp;&nbsp; With a single particle concepts like density and volume now don't matter.&nbsp; You could also say it has some weight here on Earth&nbsp;remembering that&nbsp;weight is just another aspect of having mass.&nbsp; Now accelerate that single particle to 0.999C.&nbsp; It's still the same particle but it'll now if you want to change it's path you'll have to use a much large force to do it that you would if it were sitting still.&nbsp;Why this is true is not obvious to me but it's been proven experimentally a number of times. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
 
X

xmo1

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now accelerate that single particle to 0.999C.&nbsp; It's still the same particle but it'll now if you want to change it's path you'll have to use a much large force to do it that you would if it were sitting still.&nbsp;Why this is true is not obvious to me but it's been proven experimentally a number of times. <br />Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV><br /><br />This is actually the second time I've investigated this. The clue was on wikipedia of all places.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia</p><p>There is gravitational mass and inertial mass. So my question is about inertial mass, and it is apparent to me that the equation means that as a particle's speed approaches c that the force required to accelerate the particle approaches infinity. This would require larger magnets regardless of the choice of either a&nbsp;linear or circular path.</p><p>The question might be asked as why does this happen, and the answer would probably be that there is no explanation. It just does. My guess.</p><p>I wonder, with tongue in cheek, if an&nbsp;effect of elasticity of a particle, or some other property of the particle itself, or of other nearby particles, could push the speed enough to cause a matter/energy transformation.</p><p>I also wonder if there might be variable thresholds of that barrier, the SOL, for differing conditions or particles. Could be that the barrier is reached at a much lower or higher speed for some conditions or particles.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is actually the second time I've investigated this. The clue was on wikipedia of all places.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InertiaThere is gravitational mass and inertial mass. So my question is about inertial mass, and it is apparent to me that the equation means that as a particle's speed approaches c that the force required to accelerate the particle approaches infinity. This would require larger magnets regardless of the choice of either a&nbsp;linear or circular path.The question might be asked as why does this happen, and the answer would probably be that there is no explanation. It just does. My guess.I wonder, with tongue in cheek, if an&nbsp;effect of elasticity of a particle, or some other property of the particle itself, or of other nearby particles, could push the speed enough to cause a matter/energy transformation.I also wonder if there might be variable thresholds of that barrier, the SOL, for differing conditions or particles. Could be that the barrier is reached at a much lower or higher speed for some conditions or particles. <br /> Posted by xmo1</DIV></p><p>I think the implication here is more the mass of the particle, vehicle or simply the object doesn't change it, it takes more gravity, or outside force to affect the specific mass as it gains velocity. The object doesn't get bigger or heavier it just requires more force to affect it.</p><p>The same would hold true for a black hole, that the definition of a black hole is nothing, even light escapes from it implies that, while not detcected or understood Photons do have mass, if they didn't they would escape and a black hole would not be black. That would then imply that the gravity of a black hole exerts enough force to accelerate objects, or photons to a speed in excess of the established speed of light, pulling them in and not letting them out.</p><p>That this would have a physical effect on an object, based on the velocity, is unfounded. That the gravity causing the acceleration would have an effect is another matter. In other words the speed of light is obviously exceeded during approach to a black hole, but the gravity of the blackhole would reduce the object to the smallest components of it's mass. </p><p>One idea would be to use black holes like we use planets for gravity assistance, theoretically you could get closer and closer to the blackhole, or holes and gain acceleration with&nbsp; flyby maneuvers. The faster you go the closer you get and the more acceleration you gain. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
X

xmo1

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One idea would be to use black holes like we use planets for gravity assistance, theoretically you could get closer and closer to the blackhole, or holes and gain acceleration with&nbsp; flyby maneuvers. The faster you go the closer you get and the more acceleration you gain. Posted by scottb50</DIV><br /><br />Sounds like an argument for finding the Higgs.</p><p>I prefer my idea:&nbsp; ... if there might be variable thresholds of that barrier, the SOL, for differing conditions or particles. Could be that the barrier is reached at a much lower speed for some conditions or particles.</p><p>The idea of mapping a dimension other than our own, or of mapping strange activity at a distance, would certainly be exciting.</p><p>The 'big idea' was propulsion, and then the survivability of occupants as a result of that propulsion, but&nbsp;that has pretty much given way to private experiments for the sake of business and economy, which are experiments that can use existing assets in&nbsp;far less costly experiments.</p><p>So I guess most people would&nbsp;wonder what economic gain&nbsp;will&nbsp;be realized from the Higgs experiments.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is actually the second time I've investigated this. The clue was on wikipedia of all places.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InertiaThere is gravitational mass and inertial mass. So my question is about inertial mass, and it is apparent to me that the equation means that as a particle's speed approaches c that the force required to accelerate the particle approaches infinity. This would require larger magnets regardless of the choice of either a&nbsp;linear or circular path.The question might be asked as why does this happen, and the answer would probably be that there is no explanation. It just does. My guess.I wonder, with tongue in cheek, if an&nbsp;effect of elasticity of a particle, or some other property of the particle itself, or of other nearby particles, could push the speed enough to cause a matter/energy transformation.I also wonder if there might be variable thresholds of that barrier, the SOL, for differing conditions or particles. Could be that the barrier is reached at a much lower or higher speed for some conditions or particles. <br /> Posted by xmo1</DIV></p><p>Not really sure what your questions are, but here's a brief, yet descriptive write-up of the LHC magnets.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts