Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

North's nonsense about plasma

  1. Nov 2, 2004 #1
    people

    as mass increases its acceleration it increases in energy, therefore decreases in mass. and this true because high energy plasma has no particles.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 2, 2004 #2
    suppemental;

    the raeson that particles are hard to accelerate the closer we get to "light speed" is that there is less and less mass to push against.
     
  4. Nov 2, 2004 #3
    What? That's not my understanding north. Rather, mass increases the closer we get to the speed of light, so to accerate that mass takes more and more energy.

    Edit: Besidies, what does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
     
  5. Nov 2, 2004 #4
    [
    that is because we are compensating for mass lost by what is being accelerated. we have nothing that is dense enough and/or strong enough to accelerate to higher accelerations. this is because density is being decreased faster than we can replenish it.
     
  6. Nov 2, 2004 #5
    I may be off-base here, but I completely disagree. If we only need to replace mass lost as we accelerate, then we could calculate the energy required to attain speed of light by simply e=mc^2. Coming up with that much energy for a fairly small object is no problem. But in actuality, it takes infinite energy to attain the speed of light for any object with rest mass. Hopefully someone else can step in with the actual formula and explain how the formula shows mass increasing with speed.
     
  7. Nov 2, 2004 #6
    [
    [/QUOTE]


    the basis for understanding mass>energy and the reverse< transformation, is to realize that, high energy plasma has no mass(particles) and that when we have mass it is of lower energy.
     
  8. Nov 2, 2004 #7

    Janus

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is just plain wrong. If the mass decreased it would be easier to accelerate the particle.

    The reason it is hard to acclerate a particle up to lightspeed is because the equation for the Kinetic energy of a mass is:

    [tex]KE = mc^2\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}-1\right)[/tex]

    as v gets closer to c the amount of energy you have to add in order to increase the particles speed by any given amount increases asymptotically.

    This has nothing to do with a decrease of mass. but with an increase of energy. You can look at it in terms of energy itself having momentum and inertia. As you pump more energy into a particle in order to accelerate, you also increase its inertia and therefore it resistance to further acceleration.( which means in turn that it takes even more energy to increase the particle's velocity, which adds even more inertia, and you get an ever steepening curve )

    It used to be common to attribute this increase in inertia to an increase of "relativistic mass", but this term has fallen into disfavor in many scientific circles. It is common now to consider the mass as constant, and attribute the increase in inertia to the added energy.
     
  9. Nov 2, 2004 #8

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    I wouldn't worry too much. The earth gets regularly pelted with cosmic rays at energies greater than 10E15 eV. Cosmic rays with energies greater than 10E20 have been detected. Even the LHC will look like a smurf ball collider compared to that.
     
  10. Nov 2, 2004 #9
    [
    actually no, because as mass decreases( the higher the acceleration) so is its ability to PUSH, there is less mass( decrease in density) to push. this is high energy plasma.( non-particle). it is true!!
     
  11. Nov 2, 2004 #10

    Janus

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is pure nonsense. Please keep to established physics and refrain from introducing private theories.
     
  12. Nov 2, 2004 #11
    ROFL... Thanks Janus. I was starting to think I must be going crazy. :)
     
  13. Nov 3, 2004 #12
    hi,
    I do not know what type of black holes you are talking about. There are many type of black holes, some are physical and some are not; for example there are black holes in higher dimensions (as in string theory). In general when some body talks about blcak holes then that generally means Schwarchild black holes.About which one post is already been posted. These type of black holes are characterized by the size of their event horizon r= 2GM /c2.

    So before posting any new post make clear what type of black hole you are talking about.

    bye
    cosmoboy
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2004
  14. Nov 3, 2004 #13

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's all right then! I got the impression that people were deliberately trying to produce mini black holes on Earth. Even in Science Fiction they are not so stupid - see A.C.Clarke's "Imperial Earth".

    Garth
     
  15. Nov 3, 2004 #14
    can you just say me how much mass it will require ?

    One thing; people are very much facinated about high energy experiments like LHC etc., because there are terms like Tev etc., but these are the energy of elementry particles and I gauess the energy of a Tev electron will far be far lesser than the energy of a 100 gram apple falling from 1mt hight.

    Black holes are the prediction of General theory of relativity, which breaks badly at the scale of subatomic particles. So there is no chance of finding black holes at that level. If quantum gravity (which does not exist) predict their existance only then we can give them a serious thought.

    Last thing, so far only two type of black holes have been predicted/observed, first are stellar mass black holes (when a star dies), and second are super massive black holes (these sit at the center of a galaxy). There are hypothesies which predict the formation of mini black holes in early universe but they seems to be unphysical

    bye
    cosmoboy
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2004
  16. Nov 3, 2004 #15
    high energy plasma physics it is established physics,not only is it established it is at the cutting edge of physics.

    look...FACT high energy plasma is non-particle

    FACT low energy plasma is particle


    now all i did was put two and two together, higher the energy the lower the mass,simple really.

    i suggest that you try these two web sites www.theuniverse.ws and www.plasma.org.

    by the way there is NO ONE that i have come across on any site who knew about plasmas. so your not the only one. it's just my continuing search to see if there was something better( better understanding) that is what lead me to it.


    it is absolutely facinating stuff, when we have been so use to thinking in terms of particles and now there are Plasmas.

    and people PLASMAS ARE NOT THEORY, PLASMAS ARE FACT. it is the essence of all that we see,touch,smell,taste,wood,metal etc. we have found where we come from!!
     
  17. Nov 3, 2004 #16
    supplemental; i just remembered Neried seem to be familar with plasma, but as for Cosmic Plasmas no one has been. and if someone were they have not mentioned it!!
     
  18. Nov 3, 2004 #17
    can somebody explain

    higher the energy the lower the mass,simple really.

    why ?
     
  19. Nov 3, 2004 #18
    cosmoboy

    because we know that when high energy plasma is cooled it then proceeds to become more and more particle like. it then only follows that if i increase energy to an object, the closer the to the speed of light we get not only is the object going faster but the form of energy it picks is in the form of heat(lighting(plasma) for example is hotter than the Sun!!) so not only is the object going faster and faster it is also being melted!!

    for further info just go to the web sites i have mentioned !!

    enjoy!!
     
  20. Nov 3, 2004 #19

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Readers:

    Everything posted by north in this thread is entirely crap.

    - Warren
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: North's nonsense about plasma
  1. About plasma (Replies: 6)

Loading...