Re: mass increase due to speed
- From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 07:19:07 -0700
Dear robert:
"robert" <roberto_ruggeri_@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:WVo_g.25439$Or2.2276@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in message news:wAi_g.5558$v43.290@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear sal:
"sal" <pragmatist@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.10.21.03.53.49.698638@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:42:04 -0700, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)...
wrote:
Say you were in your ship and measured the mass
of a basketball. You were then accelerated (say to
99% speed of light). If you now measured the
mass of the basketball would you find it 'heavier' or
would it appear the same?
All mass measurements in your frame are with
respect to other masses in your frame. The
basketball in your ship will weigh the same as a
basketball, no matter how fast you are moving.
Now, you observe a basketball in the other ship, on
on the Earth. How do you propose to measure its
mass from your frame?
Let's make this easier. Let's say you are observing
the Moon orbiting the Earth as you fly by at 0.99c.
Will the Earth-Moon system curve your path more
or less than it would at 0.0001c? Will the Moon
suddenly fall into the Earth, will its period suddenly
alter beyond what your gamma accounts for?
You call this making it "easier"??? These are
questions that regularly confuse people who actually
know something of relativity, and you're throwing
them at a newbie here...
The second one is actually a slam dunk, Sal. Think
about the situation...
The Oh My God particle was travelling at such a speed
that it would cross the Milky Way in 1 week proper
time (0.999999+c). Did it cause the Earth and Moon to
become black holes, or deform their orbits in some
catastrophic way? Is it plausible that there was only
one of such particles *ever*, or even that this was the
fastest particle to have interacted with the Earth?
Yes you can duck into the math, or you can just look
at what you are expecting of Nature.
As to the first question, it is only slightly more complex...
Realtivistic mass =/= gravitational mass. And
gravitational mass is about the only kind of mass you
are going to measure at high speeds.
I think you've answered my next question. If we see the
other ship pass us at very near light speed, even though
to us it's mass is greatly increased,
It's mass does not increase. Mass is commonly "rest mass", and
not "relativistic mass". It is always a good idea to be clear
with meanings. What all will agree on is "it's energy is greatly
increased".
the gravitational affect it has on us would be the same
as if it passed us very slowly?
Energy also has an effect of curving space. So there will be
some effect from energy.
Now the two paths will be different *mostly* because of the
duration the two bodies spend in each other's proximity. You
have a "field of force", and two different durations. They
result in two different impulses, two different paths (at least
the endpoints... which star you are aiming at when done). But
inferring a different system mass... might be a tad difficult to
measure.
David A. Smith
.
- References:
- mass increase due to speed
- From: robert
- Re: mass increase due to speed
- From: Brian Kennelly
- Re: mass increase due to speed
- From: robert
- Re: mass increase due to speed
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: mass increase due to speed
- From: sal
- Re: mass increase due to speed
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: mass increase due to speed
- From: robert
- mass increase due to speed
- Prev by Date: Re: New interpretation of E=mc^2 and m=Ec^2
- Next by Date: Re: New interpretation of E=mc^2 and m=Ec^2
- Previous by thread: Re: mass increase due to speed
- Next by thread: Re: mass increase due to speed
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
