- #1
Reogl
- 25
- 0
Hey guys,
If we stop a very fast moving object will it lose weight ?..i need a hand on this matter. Thanks
If we stop a very fast moving object will it lose weight ?..i need a hand on this matter. Thanks
Rooted said:I'm not sure about this - surely in some reference frame any moving object will be stationary, or in another reference frame have a much greater velocity. Wouldn't it only be apparent that it had 'higher energy' if it was collided with something?
Reogl said:Awesome! mass was decreased then we have "light electron"
but will the -e absorb radiation & increase mass if magnet field is reverse to accelerate it?
Both postulates are wrong. Energy is conserved, and radiation has energy (but not mass). Mass is not conserved.jartsa said:Let us postulate that:
1: mass is conserved in a closed system
2: radiation has mass
Do you know of any publication showing this?A discharging battery loses mass, this can be verified experimentally.
A charging battery gains mass, this can be verified experimentally.
Why do you expect any changes?Reogl said:What if the object is a meteor that just missed the moon and is suddenly prevented by a superman from colliding with our planet successfully halted before entering the atmosphere?
The concept of relativistic mass leads to all sorts of misconceptions, and you won't find it in modern physics any more. Just in some old textbooks and at bad science websites.when we push on object it would gain mass to not reaching c
That is wrong.when we push on object it would gain mass
mfb said:That is wrong.
Unless you use a definition of "mass" which was abandoned some decades ago.
mfb said:Both postulates are wrong. Energy is conserved, and radiation has energy (but not mass). Mass is not conserved.
You can assign an effective mass to a system, based on its total energy content in its center of mass. That is conserved, but it is not the sum of masses of its components.
Do you know of any publication showing this?
The effect is there (with the effective mass as above), but it is so tiny that I did not know that it can be measured yet.
Right. See relativistic mass for details.Reogl said:you mean That is right only if I use abandoned definition of "mass".
I would not talk about a single mass for "electron+earth" together... but if you do that, and the radiation is lost, the effective mass of "electron+earth" is reduced and the leaving photons carry some energy. However, that change is completely negligible.jartsa said:For example, when an electron hits the magnetic field of the earth, the effective mass of the electron-earth system decreases, and radiation is produced with effective mass equal to the lost effective mass.
No, stopping a very fast object does not change its weight. Weight is a measure of the gravitational force acting on an object, and this force is not affected by the object's speed.
Some people may think that stopping a very fast object makes it lighter because when an object is in motion, it has kinetic energy. When the object is stopped, this kinetic energy is converted into other forms, such as heat or sound, which may give the illusion of the object becoming lighter.
No, the weight of an object is an inherent property and cannot be altered by the way it is stopped. The object's weight will remain the same regardless of how it is stopped.
Yes, there is a difference in weight between a very fast object and a slow object. This is due to the effect of inertia on the object's weight. A fast-moving object has more kinetic energy and thus more inertia, making it more difficult to change its state of motion.
No, the mass of an object remains constant regardless of its speed or state of motion. Mass is a measure of the amount of matter an object contains and is not affected by external forces like speed or motion.