Question about relativity...

Kylon · **Sat Sep 07, 2002 5:58 pm Question about relativity...**

Okay I have this problem And I am seeing what you guys think about it.

Okay If you go at a faster speed then you are "contracting space" right???
I mean Space/Time is contracted for you thats why you travel faster...

But if Gravitational Fields are the evidence of Space/time contraction and they increase as the concentration increases expotentialy What I mean to
say is .... like if its expotential and All Like the more concentrated the thing the greater the gravitational field each piece of matter produces or each like What I am trying to say is....

If space is contracted and the more speed=more matter because matter=energy energy=speed then... The more concentrated the matter the faster everything inside the little field would go therfore it would have higher speeds therfore it would have higher mass, but the mass came from nowhere so if it came from nowhere... Then it breaks the law of energy conservation that matter/energy cannot be created under normal circumstances...

ANyway I am just thinking that according to relativity(I should be corrected if I am wrong) we gain mass as we gain matter concentration and therfore it violates the law of energy conservation...

Thats just what I think.

The Hunter · **Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:21 am**

wut the heck are you talkin about im sry bu this really makes no sense at all to me

JimH · **Fri Sep 27, 2002 1:42 pm**

I THINK I get this.

Yes, as you get to relativistic speeds, i.e. near 3 hundred million metres per second, you'll gain mass. This is because mass and energy are interchangeable, and the energy that you're putting into an increase of speed has to go somewhere, and since you can't push yourself faster you gain mass.

Because of this increase in mass and size, and because of time dilation effects (as you go faster, time slows for you but goes at normal speed for everyone else), you think you're everywhere in the universe at once. At speed of light, you'll have no time passing and appear infinitely heavy, because of Einstein's theories.

(That's where I get foggy; it's been ages since I did this in Physics!)

Jim

Vortex · **Fri Sep 27, 2002 1:49 pm**

well it's all in e=mc2
Einstein considers the only constant the lightspeed. According to him, matter increases with an increase in speed.
This however assumes that the speed of light is not reachable. The theory is not longer considered correct as a few weeks ago, some australians proved the theory faulty.

Tremiles · **Sat Sep 28, 2002 12:49 am**

The only problem I see is that you said as the individuale particles(I think I read that right) get faster then then it gains consentration and mass,

One the mass dosent change just the gravity and the resistance

two The faster particals go, the less dence they become, take boiling watter, the steam is moving faster then the watter, has more energy then the watter, but it is less dense becuse the more energy a particle has and gives off the more repulsive it gets to it's naboring particles.

Tremiles · **Sat Sep 28, 2002 12:53 am**

oh, never mind the object dosent have a higher Mass as you stated it just has a greater force pulling on it at higher speeds, it has a greater weight but the mass dose not change.

Weight is mesured by the amount of force pulling on an object.

JimH · **Sat Sep 28, 2002 6:38 am**

Vortex · **Sat Sep 28, 2002 6:53 am**

Kylon · **Sun Sep 29, 2002 8:36 pm a**

What I am trying to say is I think the time dilation effect is due to the increase of mass when going at high speeds, basicaly because the material has more mass its heavier.

And if you had lets say 20 newtons of energy moving a hand, then the hand got twice as heavy then the speed of the hand going in all directions would slow down because it would require moving more mass.

See what I am trying to say?

PrankishSmart · **Mon Sep 30, 2002 7:28 am**

i grabbed somefin from the http://ditl.org for ya's

V/c = WF[{(10/3)+a*(-Ln(10-WF))^n}+f1*((WF-9)^5)+f2*((WF-9)^11)]

Where a is the subspace field density, n is the electromagnetic flux, and f1 and f2 are the Cochrane refraction and reflection indexes respectively. Under ideal conditions values of a = 0.00264320, n = 2.87926700, f1 = 0.06274120 and f2 = 0.32574600 can be expected within a "normal" area of deep interstellar space.

in any case, i think einsteins 'theorys' are a bit old considiring that the light speed thing has already been proven false

JimH · **Mon Sep 30, 2002 7:36 am**

Yes, I see exactly what you're saying. And you're correct; that's the whole point of relativity. The more energy you put in, the harder you push, the more resistance there is, so you can never actually reach the speed of light.

Vortex · **Mon Sep 30, 2002 8:08 am**

consider space as a vacuum, where is the resistance comming from?

JimH · **Mon Sep 30, 2002 9:14 am**

1) Space is to a large extent a vacuum. However, there's about one atom every few hundred cubic metres.

When it takes you one second to cross 300,000,000 metres, you'll be generating a pressure from up to a million atoms hitting you within one second. Granted, it's not much, but it counts.

2) Gravity still works at light-speed! In fact, as you get faster, your mass increases, so things are pulled harder towards you; this means that you're effectively dragging them along with you.

Vortex · **Mon Sep 30, 2002 9:36 am**

that is considering einstein's laws. true that. sadly enough I can't find that aussie site where they have an article where they proved the relativity theory wrong....

JimH · **Mon Sep 30, 2002 9:44 am**

This?

Hmm. I'll go find a nuclear physicist to sort it out. Because I don't understand what it's on about.

Lindley · **Mon Sep 30, 2002 11:27 am**

Time dialation is the result of the fact that you can never "catch up" to light. No matter how close to lightspeed you get, you always percieve light the same way; for this to work, time has to slow down as your speed increases.

Or maybe that's the result, not the cause. It gives me a headache, to be honest.

Robin · **Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:08 am**

Relativity is quite a confusing topic, but I know a little bit about it...

First of all, Every alternate day some nut or some wierdo announces that he has disproved relativity...
they do it just for fun, or probably for the attention they get...

Anyways relativity has not been sisproved and niether have any of einsteins other works..

By the way MASS changes when you go FAAAAST --- NOT WEIGHT OR FORCE or whatever.

Vortex · **Sun Oct 20, 2002 6:00 am**

If mass changes with speed so does the rest. Einstein clearly indicates in his theories that the speed of light is considered the only constant. However the relativity theory was proved wrong indeed. it's time for it anyway. it's only a theory(relativity theory) and has not been proven in pratice either.
So it's only a matter of, what theory to you (want ) to believe in?
Anyway, Lindley, get back that old avatar of yours, this one, doesn't suit you.

Robin · **Mon Oct 21, 2002 7:11 am**

Who proved relativity wrong??

By the way reletivity has been proved practically several times...

Read this book --

FUNDAMENTALS of PHYSICS by Resnick/Halliday

Vortex · **Mon Oct 21, 2002 12:39 pm**

Relativity theory.

Robin · **Mon Oct 21, 2002 11:26 pm**

What do you mean :

Relativity theory.

One of Many · **Mon Nov 11, 2002 6:15 pm re**

Robin · **Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:57 am**

who said e = +/- mc2 ??

where did you get that ?

One of Many · **Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:05 pm re**

Go to www.google.co.uk and do a search for e=mc2 and you will see that my above statement is correct.

Robin · **Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:43 pm**

well, i cudnt find it, cant you give the link to a site which says this