Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 207 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 16 17
#46608 12/08/12 08:07 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Joining the effort to drag this forum back in the direction of science, perhaps someone could help me to get to grips with the following.


“If a heavy object with rest mass M moves past you with a velocity comparable to the speed of light, you will be attracted gravitationally towards its path as though it had an increased mass.”

No problem so far. I assume this is due to the mass/energy equivalence.

“If the relativistic increase in active gravitational mass is measured by the transverse (and longitudinal) velocities which such a moving mass induces in test particles initially at rest near its path, then we find, with this definition, that M (rel) = gamma (1+beta sq.)M.”

The maths got the better of me at this point. How are gamma & beta defined?

Would I be right in thinking that the active gravitational mass is the mass that gives rise to gravity, as distinct from the passive gravitational mass, which is acted upon by gravity? Is there really a difference?

“Therefore, in the ultrareletavistic limit…”

What is the ultrareletavistic limit?

“…the active gravitational mass of a moving body, measured in this way, is not gamaM but is approximately 2gamaM.”

How does one arrive at this answer?.

As simply as possible please. smile


There never was nothing.
.
Bill S. #46609 12/08/12 08:24 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Where did you get that? I have no idea what gamma and beta are, maybe if I saw the source I might be able to figure out some of it.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #46611 12/08/12 10:18 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
May take me a while to find it, Bill, but have patience: I,m trying. (Very!). I had to say that before someone else did.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #46613 12/08/12 10:53 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Eureka!

Not only was that quicker than I thought it would be; I found the whole article, so I may be able to make something of it myself.

http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/mass_articles/Olson_Guarino_1985.pdf

From the look of some of those equations, though, I wouldn't hold out too much hope.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #46614 12/08/12 11:01 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
It seems that gamma - as in gammaM - represents the increase in relativistic mass with increasing speed.

One step in the right direction!


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #46615 12/09/12 12:28 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
“If a heavy object with rest mass M moves past you with a velocity comparable to the speed of light, you will be attracted gravitationally towards its path as though it had an increased mass.”


I think the opposite would be true.

the time exposure would be a very large factor in determining
the amount of force you would feel.

if something moves past you at the speed of light , you probably would never feel it or see it.

f=ma

a = f/m


186 thousand miles per second and the amount of space that you
take up along with your mass , you might not even budge at all.

just think of the distance to the moon each second.
the moon is apx 180,000 miles away.
the force that you would feel would be a gradient from
0 - what ever the gravity is of the mass
then for 186,000th of a second you would feel the full force of its gravity.
then after the 186,000th of a second the gradient decreases back to 0

if you were floating in space you would begin to accelerate slightly
(that would all depend on the mass its velocity , your mass and its distance from you.)
but any resistance to movement here on earth would probably be greater that the moving mass could supply as a gravitational force to accelerate you.


note: I don't believe that a mass increases with velocity.

you can try this with two magnets.

hold 1 in each hand.

now very quickly move one of them past the other.

now try the same thing only move it much slower.

I know that the above is magnetic not gravitational just
in case someone wanted to point that out to me.

I am trying to not leave myself open to those obvious replies.

something else to ponder.

if a bullet were traveling at the speed of light
in space , I would be more willing to believe that the bullet
would be compressed into an even smaller size.

now , if I build my spaceship thinking that it will compress vs expand at c then it wont implode.

note: just for those who might comment on the fact that
there isn't much in space to cause the ship to compress
I will reply that at c there might be plenty.

even in our accelerators where we consider it a vacuum there
are plenty of particles inside , we have never made a complete vacuum.

and at c running into those particles would tend to compress a spaceship.










3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #46616 12/09/12 01:27 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
I don't believe that a mass increases with velocity.


Paul, do you recognise a distinction between relativistic mass and invariant mass?

My understanding is that when physicists talk of mass increasing with speed, they are talking about relativistic mass, which is, as I understand it, a measure of an object's inertia. I agree with you that invariant mass does not increase with speed, but I am quite happy to accept that inertia increases with speed. If physicists choose to refer to this as an increase in mass, I want to know why that is preferable to simply referring to it as increased inertia.

Unless we know why people use specific terms, and what those terms mean to those who use them, we are unlikely to achieve any meaningful dialogue.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #46617 12/09/12 01:49 AM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84

Bill S: "I am quite happy to accept that inertia increases with speed."


That's why photons have a gravitational field, even though their rest mass is zero.

Thanks for the link; http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/mass_articles/Olson_Guarino_1985.pdf

pokey #46618 12/09/12 02:32 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
A photon is a quon, so how can we know anything about its gravitational field without a quantum theory of gravity?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #46619 12/09/12 03:06 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Paul, do you recognise a distinction between relativistic mass and invariant mass?


no I don't recognize relativistic mass or invariant mass.

I only recognize mass and rest mass

Quote:
Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest, or the tendency of an object to resist any change in its motion. The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles of classical physics which are used to describe the motion of matter and how it is affected by applied forces.


I also recognize inertia and moment of inertia.

I don't recognize any of the relatives of einstein.

Quote:
I want to know why that is preferable to simply referring to it as increased inertia.


no info here , good luck with that.

I try very hard to stick with the way things work , and
its pretty easy for me to see when people are jiggling
things around to meet a predefined goal.

note: if you are planning to take a course in physics then
Im affraid that you must fill your brains with the relative nonsense just like you did in high school taking algebra.

so you might want to learn that junk for that purpose only
it like algebra will never pan out in a real life situation.

and of course it might make you look smart on discussion forums.









3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Bill S. #46620 12/09/12 03:36 AM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
Bill S,

It is my understanding that anything with momentum has (relativistic) mass and mass is
the source of a gravitational field.

I think that is the basics and the "details" need to be figured out.

I hope I'm not behind the times. 8^)

Bill S. #46622 12/09/12 03:01 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Ok, I read the paper, well I tried to read the paper. I didn't understand the paper at all, but I think I am getting the hang of what it was about. I don't know if a description will be much help, but I will try.

Basically the authors were trying to describe a method of calculating the mass of a particle traveling near the speed of light by measuring the displacement of a reference particle that was motionless in an appropriate frame of reference. They point out that if particle M, the moving particle, is in orbit around particle m, the stationary particle, calculating the mass of M is relatively simple, there is already a method for making the calculation available.

But if M is just passing m, then there are some problems. The significant one is that as M passes m then the direction of M's motion will be changed. The change in direction of course requires an acceleration, and there will be some gravitational radiation produced by the acceleration. This means that the energy of M will be decreased by the amount of energy contained in the radiation. That of course is the same thing as a decrease in in the relativistic mass, so it has to be compensated for in the calculation. I don't know whether the calculation in the paper is supposed to give the relativistic mass of M before or after it is perturbed by m.

Since I don't at all understand the math that is the best I could come up with. I hope it helps.

Bill Gill

Last edited by Bill; 12/09/12 03:04 PM. Reason: Editorial

C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill S. #46624 12/09/12 03:33 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
My understanding is that when physicists talk of mass increasing with speed, they are talking about relativistic mass, which is, as I understand it, a measure of an object's inertia. I agree with you that invariant mass does not increase with speed, but I am quite happy to accept that inertia increases with speed. If physicists choose to refer to this as an increase in mass, I want to know why that is preferable to simply referring to it as increased inertia.

I'm going to have to think through this one as I write, so bear with me.

The problem with the difference between mass and inertia is that it is very difficult to separate the 2. Here is a brief discussion of the matter from Wikipedia.

Originally Posted By: Wiki
Mass and inertia

Physics and mathematics appear to be less inclined to use the popular concept of inertia as "a tendency to maintain momentum" and instead favor the mathematically useful definition of inertia as the measure of a body's resistance to changes in velocity or simply a body's inertial mass.

This was clear in the beginning of the 20th century, when the theory of relativity was not yet created. Mass, m, denoted something like an amount of substance or quantity of matter. And at the same time mass was the quantitative measure of inertia of a body.

The mass of a body determines the momentum p of the body at given velocity v; it is a proportionality factor in the formula:

p = mv

The factor m is referred to as inertial mass.

But mass, as related to 'inertia' of a body, can be defined also by the formula:

F = ma

Here, F is force, m is mass, and a is acceleration.

By this formula, the greater its mass, the less a body accelerates under given force. Masses m defined by formula (1) and (2) are equal because formula (2) is a consequence of formula (1) if mass does not depend on time and velocity. Thus, "mass is the quantitative or numerical measure of body’s inertia, that is of its resistance to being accelerated".

This meaning of a body's inertia therefore is altered from the popular meaning as "a tendency to maintain momentum" to a description of the measure of how difficult it is to change the velocity of a body. But it is consistent with the fact that motion in one reference frame can disappear in another, so it is the change in velocity that is important.


In particular I point to the quote "And at the same time mass was the quantitative measure of inertia of a body." So that to some extent mass and inertia are interchangeable.

But there is also the question of gravitational mass. Gravitational mass is the measure of how strongly a mass M attracts other masses. So there are 2 different definitions of mass, Inertial Mass and Gravitational Mass. But there doesn't seem to be any way to separate them. So that to some extent inertia and mass are exactly the same thing. I assume that most scientists have chosen to use mass instead of inertia because it is more familiar. We have a kind of instinct for what mass is, since we move masses around all the time, but inertia is not quite as intuitively obvious.

Back to your quote from the top of this answer. I'm not sure that there is such a thing as an "invariant mass". The mass (or inertia) of an object will vary continuously as its speed with respect to any frame of reference varies. I think you are thinking of the invariant mass as the rest mass, but once again that will only be the mass of the object if it has a velocity of 0 with respect to the frame of reference. But that is a special case, not a representative case. We tend to use a lot of short hand for things like that, but that does produce some minor inconsistencies. In fact as far as I can see the use of the term relativistic mass is short hand that means: it is traveling with sufficient speed that we are able to measure the difference in mass.

Hope that confuses you enough.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #46625 12/09/12 03:45 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I haven't read the paper.

Quote:
and there will be some gravitational radiation produced by the acceleration.


you would never measure it , if you are dealing with particles.
binary solar systems could not even produce a measurable amount.

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/Boughn/boughn.html

Quote:
in 1916, the same year his paper on general relativity theory was published. He even calculated the radiation emitted from a binary star system (the strongest source known at the time) and concluded that the radiation was so weak that it had a "negligible practical effect".


note: I just posted the above because you guys believe that junk.

if you are considering massive object's then you should use
massive object's vs particles.

Quote:
This means that the energy of M will be decreased by the amount of energy contained in the radiation.


Ms - 0 = Ms

no loss in the state of M

Quote:
That of course is the same thing as a decrease in in the relativistic mass


and you guys consider relativistic mass as
mass x velocity
or
the momentum of an object
or
the inertia of an object.

you just use different words.

so, this is where I have to ask , what are you guys trying to accomplish?

is the relativity and Qm junk a part of the duming down process?
the intentional / deliberate dumbing down of people's ability to perform intellectually.

the gravitational influence that m places on M
will cause the inertia of M to increase.

increasing M's inertia increases it's kinetic energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist









3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #46626 12/09/12 04:56 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul

note: if you are planning to take a course in physics then
Im affraid that you must fill your brains with the relative nonsense just like you did in high school taking algebra.


And if you are planning to join a fundementalist religion all you have to do is take your brain out of your head and all your money out and donate them at the door.

After all wouldn't want you really trying to get many animals into a square box or think why an omnipotent god needs your money or any of the countless other stupid problems you are confronted with.


Originally Posted By: paul

so you might want to learn that junk for that purpose only
it like algebra will never pan out in a real life situation.

and of course it might make you look smart on discussion forums.


And like you they can flip burgers for a living and get laughed at on forums :-)


Thats how you religious nutters thrive on ignorant stupid followers and the more you can make and encourage the better for your religion and hence your behaviour on the forum.

Momentium and inertia are easy to seperate and test in a fundementalist world.

Momementum is the number of brain challenged invididuals to keep your religions numbers topped up from natural drop out rate to those who find there brains.

Inertia is the the ministers and office bearers try to milk cash out of the gravy train from those people who checked there brains out before they find them again.

Now can we get back to actual science in a science section this sort of garbage belongs in NQS can you and your goat humper GOD beliefs please go there where you belong.

Last edited by Orac; 12/09/12 05:33 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #46627 12/09/12 09:04 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
ocrap

has it already been 7 days
or are you trading (things / services) for internet privileges.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Orac #46628 12/09/12 09:07 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Now can we get back to actual science


I was under the impression that we were , until you barged in
with your normal ranting and raving.

and talk about getting laughed at , you are the main attraction
to people here on sagg , I noticed that when your locked away
for the 7 days the number of people online decrease greatly , that's because they came here to laugh at you , if it was me
then the number's would increase while your little goat ass was
gone.

I guess the above hurt your feeling's so in a post or
two R2 will jump in and moderate me.






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #46630 12/10/12 12:43 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
If you attack science itself on a science forum simply because your pathetic little GOD is challenged and science people react don't be surprised. If I went on a religious site and started posting there wasn't a god etc I would expect such a reaction.

Notice you have to personally abuse me while I simply point out the truth that you are the way you because of indoctrination by your religion and hence I target your goat humper GOD.

I am sure your religion is struggling to find enough simpletons willing to check out there brains and money to follow it so science is causing it no end of problem.

I don't want or expect R2 to intervene I am not offended by anything you have to say and similarly since I am only attacking your non existant, pathetic goat humper FALSE GOD figure I don't see any issues in our exchanges other the boring the crap out of readers do you?

I am happy to trade tirades at your non existant GOD for as long as it takes to sink in and get some basic rules and behaviour.

Last edited by Orac; 12/10/12 12:44 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #46632 12/10/12 01:49 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
For those interested in science and not voodoo GOD theory you can't mix classic physics concepts and modern QM/standard model theories.

You all know the classic physics stuff so lets talk about QM/Standard model phsics in which mass is invariant it is the same in all reference frames there is only one mass the rest mass of an object.

Objects don't become heavier under post higgs standard model as they approach the speed of light they just become heavier because as you add energy it interacts more with the higgs field. The mass of an object moving at the speed of light is still the same it was when the object was at rest it's just harder to accelerate.

You can rewrite the mass energy relationship as

E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

You will find all your classic and GR/SR now hold.

That was correctly deduced by Einstein by reduced to E=MC^2 because they created a static reference frame or reality because Einstein like casuality and not QM.

The discovery of the Higgs changes all that a fact QM had been pointing out to science via Bell's inequality.

It is going to take a while for post Higgs science to make it's way thru science publications and get corrected on websites and books.

What is causing most of the issues here is mixing pre and post Higgs science.

There is a reasonable university student level paper released
http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.2146
full paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.2146v2.pdf

All I can suggest for those actually interested in science and not goat humping GOD'S is hit the search engines for Higgs Mechanism.

Last edited by Orac; 12/10/12 02:03 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #46633 12/10/12 03:03 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)


charlatan math...

LOL

what is the real purpose for the "1" retard?

let me answer it correctly for you.

the 1 ensures that nothing can ever travel faster than the
speed of light.

lets say the speed of light is 2 mps

the mass is 2 kg

the mass has a velocity of 2 mps


E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

E = 8/sqrt(1 - 4/4)

E = 8/sqrt(1 - 1)

E = 8/sqrt(0)

E = 8/0

you cannot divide by 0 , so you still have 8

E = 8

kinetic energy = .5 x (m x v^2)

Ke = .5 x ( 2 x 4)

Ke = .5 x 8

Ke = 4


your formula is not correct.

unless somehow the magic of QM and SR and all that junk
has allowed magic to become mainstream science.

why do I say that the 1 ensures that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light using the above energy equation that you provided.

because its the same type of equation you or someone provided
before , in this situation the actual energy of the mass has
doubled.

and when you guys see an energy increase you naturally think that mass has increased.

that must be why the "1" is in there


and if mass increases then more energy is required to maintain
velocity , and the closer you get to c the more energy is required to maintain velocity.

thusly , therefore , and as predefined , nothing can
ever travel faster than the speed of light.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 16 17

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5