Relativity

I have no clue what the formula is for calculating this is but i'm sure some of you guys could do this without too much trouble if i'm not screwing something it up and it is possible at all. suppose you had a rest mass of 5kg and knowing that as velocity increases so does mass what velocity (in a straight line) would be required for the mass to increase to a total of 100kg. when i think about it it seems like the rate of acceleration is important but i'm not totally sure. if it is, then it is fair to say that speed actually has nothing to do with it and in fact acceleration is the only defining factor in calculating the final mass right? and if this is right the…

Hello ! I'm having troubles with the causes of time dilation. I will to appeal to the twin paradox because it is known for everybody. A = Earth twin. B = traveller twin. We know B is younger than A when he returns. Now, why? I mean... from the viewpoint of A, he is younger because his time was dilated during his inertial trip (we can neglect the effect of acceleration here). But from the viewpoint of B, A was under the effect of "time dilation" too, but during the acceleration, B sees a uniform pseudo-gravitational field fill the universe. And this field is the cause of the final difference between B and A's clocks. We have 2 very different "causes" for the same…

"As long as we are considering an individual electron, we could be mislead into thinking that its waves are physical realities. Each electron in fact demands a 3-Dimensional Space to itself. This makes it obvious that these waves are merely a mathematical phantom; consequently it is profoundly disconcerting to find that experiment confirms their existence. The apparent congruity between calculation and experiment must be in some sense illusory. It is extremely difficult to avoid the conclusion that the experiments and their results have yet to receive their proper interpretation." - Pages 103 & 104 of THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE, by J.W.N. Sullivan _______________ …

OK.. let's say I'm in a ship that accelerates away from Earth at an acceleration of 20m/s/s and then maintained that same thrust forever... At some point, wouldn't I have traveled far enough and fast enough, that I would have left Earth's hubble sphere, and therefore be traveling away from Earth at a velocity faster than light?

here's a hypothetical question. lets say that all the problems of FTL travel could be circumvented - except for causality. the question is - wats the big deal? its just an illusion. imagine watching a magician - and viewer A is getting all upset because he is violating reality. "Calm down," says viewer B. its just a trick of the eye. we really know it isn't magic. similarly - why are we so upset if spacecraft X appears to arrive at the destination before leaving, or some similar causality issue with FTL travel (assuming all other factors of FTL are a non issue)? we know in our heads its just an optical illusion created by light's fixed speed, so as long as we kee…

the idea that as an object approaches light speed, its mass increases, seems to contradict the law of conservation of mass. if an object of given mass is speeding up in a vacuum, why should more mass suddenly exist simply because its approaching light speed? where does this extra mass come from? thanks

Hey, just need a physicist to clarify something for me. I'm trying to work out the energy of a projectile travelling at a significant fraction of c. i only know the rest mass and the velocity. as far as i can make out, the equation to use is: Ek= mc2(1/sqrt(1-v2/c2 - 1) i'm not sure whether the m is relativistic mass or rest mass. if it's rest mass then all is good, if it is relativistic mass then can someone show me the proper equation?

Now, I've read many times that as you approach closer and closer to c, that you must increase the energy infinitely to increase your speed a relatively trivial amount. Have people fully realized the implications of that statement? At 99.99999% c, increasing 1 mph would require an inconceivable amount of energy. That indicates that an infinite amount of energy could be stored within an object spinning or traveling in a straight line and approaching the speed of light. Does GR actually mean that infinite energy can be stored within a finite object?

so if u could get to cruising at around say 99.99999999% light speed, would that mean that every year you experience on the space ship is almost 186300 earth years? thx

As a clock travels around the world, the outside world does not slow down, so it can only be concluded that the molecular activity in the clock slows down, causing the arrow to move slower. This is one of those semantics deals. Absolute universal time is not relativistic, only the relationship between two obects can be. Anybody have any simple descriptions on why or how the clock slows down?

Effects of the expansion of physical matter with space. An Expansive Mass-Field Thought Problem With a Dilatory Solution: The realm of the very small - microcosms - is said to host strong forces acting at very short distances; that are not considered to be related to large, 'weak forces of gravity', said to exist only in very large spaces and act at large distances in the very large - macrocosmic - spaces and times. So it is presently and dominantly considered, in the macrocosmic realm of the very large, exemplary, planetary-generated forces. Gravity is thought not to occur - significantly - in the microcosmic realm of the very small. Whereas, gravity, like Go…

So I was playing around with the idea of a relativistic rocket equation, and in the process of deriving it I ran into a differential equation that I can't seem to solve. v_e dm= m(1+mu^2 (gamma)^2) du its first order but I can't seem to figure out how to solve it, m is the rest mass (which changes because its a rocket) u is the velocity of the rocket, and gamma is the relativistic factor gamma= (1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2) any help solving it would be greatly appreciated, I tried seeing if I could use integration by parts on it and then subsequently differentiating, but that method seemed dubious at best.

Can anyone can tell me if time is necessary. It's certainly convenient but all it seems to be is just that; convenient. Has it got any purpose other than to make it easier to measure the difference between events without having to directly refer to spatial co-ordinates, velocity, acceleration and change? I am wondering if it is just an abstract created by humans to help us understand reality; but in reality time does not exist.

My question. If you had a solid metal rod that went from the east coast to the west coast of the USA and you moved it one inch at the east coast would it move one inch at the west coast instantaniously or would it move at the speed of light / time later? I beleave it would move at a difference time equil to the speed of light. I realise there are flaws in this hypothetical example such as phsycal compression and inertia but I am disreguarding these in hopes to grasp a little better the concept of light and time. Any coments? Please excuse my spelling that is a art that I have never grasped. samson

CHARGE EXPLAINED Charge is another one of those things you learn about in physics. Well, you think you do, but you don’t. Not really. The textbooks don’t explain it, and they shrug off this omission by telling you it’s fundamental. It isn’t. It’s as fundamental as mass, which is not very fundamental at all. The thing is this: if you understand mass you already understand charge. But you probably don’t realise it yet. So I’ll explain it. Let’s start with the easy stuff. We know that we can rub a balloon to create an electric field. It can pick up a piece of paper or make your hair stand up. We’ve all seen and felt a spark of static, blue and crackling as elec…

During the dark ages you were told what to believe and those who went against such doctrine were punished severely. In today’s western society most people are taught that we are out of the dark ages. That is an outright lie that is used to convince everyone that what is being taught in the government and church controlled schools is true science. What is actually being taught are outdated beliefs that are known to be incorrect but conform to the views of those in authority. And, just as in the past, anyone who succeeds in exposing the flaws in such views is punished severely. Yes, even in America. And what’s worse is that even the newspapers, our last resort in defe…

I have a couple of questions regarding this. I remember reading that Einstein as a boy asked himself the question that if a boy was holding a mirror in front of his face while running at the speed of light would he see a reflection? You see if he is travelling at the speed of light then the light rays cannot reflect off the mirror back into your eyes as the light rays cannot hit the mirror in the first place. Firstly, is there a flaw in this reasoning? And secondly, If the boy is travelling at the speed of light what will he see? Will he see nothing but a blank mirror? Will he see nothing at all? Will he see the last image he saw on the mirror before he cracked t…

I'm just asking about the proper form of the name of Einstein's theory.

Hello, I would like to have your explanation about these two things that I can't understand. 1. I don't understand how, according to some physicists, the Universe is considered to be flat like a sheet of paper? What exactly do they mean by that? 2. Also, what do physicists mean when they say matter is so dense in a black hole that spacetime is bent or that the curvature of spacetime becomes infinite? Do they mean that ALL matter, when passing near the black hole, is deviated from its normal course just like light is refracted when passing through a prism? Also how does it change the "time" part of spacetime? Does time pass slower or faster than it would if there was …

Hey guys, Recently I've heard a layman explanation to what Hawking used to "solve" the grandfather-paradox. I am not too versed in this, but the way I understood it, Hawking solves the paradox by saying that nature will "disallow" the travelling to the past in such sense to create the opportunity of the paradox. That got me thinking. Is it valid to say that on Nature? Doesn't that assumption (that nature will "prevent" -- or rather, laws of nature will accumulate to somehow prevent time travel) puts nature with a consciousness? I mean.. if time travel is theoretically valid through relativity (and it is my understanding that if "exotic matter" is used, it …

Now I don't know to much about this subject, but I would like to see what you guys think about the possibility of creating a time machine according to this video. It explains how it works, but feel free to check out Ron Mallet for more info. http://thatvideosite.com/video/4422

If I were in a ship accelerating toward Vega (26 light years away) at a constant acceleration of 20m/s/s how long would it take for me to get there?

i know it sounds funny and is kind of a mix between relativity and biology but i learned that the message that is sent to your brain is made of electricity for example, when you touch a hot stove the message that is sent to your brain is made of electricity so isn't that pure energy and isn't light pure energy i know it cant go as fast as light because it has to move from cell to cell to get to the brain but does it move close to the speed of light??? and the speed of light is an instant arrival right?? i mean if something could move at the speed of light it would be at its destination in an instant well if someone has a good nervous system aren't so…

Would the Event Horizon around a Black Hole clamp a stick that penetrates it like a giant Bench Vice or cut it off softly as if that part would suddenly vanish ? Lets say we have a non rotating Supermassive Black Hole in a big void, (so it is starving), in theory it would be possible to visit the Event Horizon with a powerful spaceship for a short timespan while you pass by, as long as you don't cross it. Now, if the spaceship has a metal bar sticking out and by purpose we let the bar cross the Event Horizon during the fly-by, would the internal forces keeping the bar togheter still act through the Event Horizon, which would deform and eventually break the bar fro…

i know this topic doesnt to this area of the forum but im pretty sure you guys can answer it specifically what is a "hybrid tactical nuclear weapon"