Speed of Light

Reiku said:
Mass Doubles... it is in a book called 'E-Mc^2'' - - i forget the autour now...
Click to expand...

Reiku - Mass increases the faster you go (the closer you get to 'c'). If you were to (somehow) obtain the velocity of 'c' your mass would then be infinite. (Keep in mind, this is all relative to some observer's frame of reference).

Saying that a mass would 'double each light second' doesn't make any sense. A light second is a unit of distance.

I suppose it would be possible to carefully arrange things so that your acceleration would vary exactly enough that your mass would 'double each light second'... but this does nothing to explain the relationship between mass and velocity.

Read the book again... I think you remember it wrong.
 
Reiku said:
Mass Doubles... it is in a book called 'E-Mc^2'' - - i forget the autour now...
Click to expand...
Rather than having to blather half misunderstand and half forgotten results from other people, why don't you learn enough relativity and think about it yourself?

How would mass increase if velocity is constant?

$$m_{r} = m_{0}\gamma = \frac{m_{0}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}$$

If v is constant $$m_{r}$$ is constant. Grasp that or do I have to break it down even more? This just demonstrates how vacuous and pointless your 'essays' on relativity are, you can't do even the simplest bit of it.
 
Given the Rate of Change for Mass in Generic Form, if you were to include irradiated magnetic-fields, say contacting what are known as beta-induced accelerants, then you'd increase mass. Largely theoretical, but has been observed in the Aurora Borealis Fields.
 
Do you really believe what you just said or are you just saying nonsense outloud to try and appear like you understand this stuff, as Reiku desperately tries?
 
I know Mass, Rate of Change: Is a Furmalu. Freely manipulable. Perhaps, it/they, was all theoretical. This violates conservation, I'm aware, but so does creating say, gold from lead.
Even though Particle Physics, is not a good return of energy use; as it's Modern Day Alchemy.
It is doable. By inundating certain elements with enough types of particles, you can change its form. I know, Never Done It, but it's often bragged about...
 
I guess that makes it all the more embarassing for you when I have to explain to you again why you are incorrect.

If I'm ignorant than you must be .... I struggle to think of a strong enough adjective, but certainly 'liar' can be applied to you too.
 
I always come to realize that many PhD candidates, or even general students such as yourself become highly pompous -- i remember this general attidude from when i was at college.
 
Reiku said:
I always come to realize that many PhD candidates, or even general students such as yourself become highly pompous -- i remember this general attidude from when i was at college.
Click to expand...
I am a PhD student. I have been the entire time you and I have been crossing paths like this.

And there's a difference between being confident in material I learnt 4 years ago and being pompous. You don't like it when people correct you but you keep saying incorrect stuff. You claim to have studied physics in college but your claim didn't strike you as odd, given the mass would only increase at the rate you talk about for a very specific rate of acceleration. Anyone who knows any relativity will summise that.

I learnt special relativity in my 2nd year. I'm now in my 6th. Being confident in my knowledge of relativity isn't being pompous, it's just being 'matter of fact', particularly when I can provide the equations which are relevent to a discussion and demonstrate my comments.

You must have found you were corrected a lot by people in college. And as usual, you think it's everyone's fault but yours. If knowledgable people keep correcting you, you think it's because knowledgable people or pompous, not because you're wrong.

Get off your high horse. Your pompousness is showing, not mine.
 
AlphaNumeric, and losfomoT, just give up on Reiku, he's our resident pseudoscientist, that posts endless crap about crap. Sometimes he nearly gets it right, other times it's just steaming BS.
 
Phlog

I don't mind being a psuedoscientist. At least being one, i can see science from all aspects, not some dogmatic, narrow view. And who are you to say i almost get it right? I could have it right on many of my visions of the universe, as far you or anyone can tell, simply because no one knows what physics is.
 
How wrong you are? Long before Einstein had his PhD, he had visions concerning spacetime, and even worked from a school geometry book... so... no...
 
In fact, Einstein began imagining how to envision the forces, such as magnetism from a compass his father gave him.
 
God know, but he had to start off as an amateur as well... he wasn't anything special at school, and we nearly associate him with superintelligence. The truth is many of his equations where derived from Poncair... even E=Mc^2, as Poncairs was developed years before as M=E/c^2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top