Speed of light = oo mass = black hole?

[Dale]

Dalespam answered in his post #38:
1)yes,
2)yes,
and via post#41:
3)no...

I said yes, it gets complicated, and it is complicated.

 

[Dale]

Dalespam:
I just noticed in post #17 you said Post #5 was ok...I did not think this part of post #5 was ok:

I did not think that coordinate dependent velocity affected gravitational attraction.
Can you clarify how you interpretated the above from post #5.

I said that I would have said "different" rather than "greater". It is complicated because it is the spatial components rather than the time-time component. Things change, but not always in an obvious way like simply getting greater.

 

[nitsuj]

For a single particle, the relationship between energy, mass and momentum isPut it another way: if you increase the kinetic energies of the component particles by increasing the speed of the "buzzing around," it increases the total energy, but not the total momentum, because the increases in the individual particles' momenta are in different directions so they cancel out in the sum. Therefore the system mass increases.

On the other hand, if you increase the kinetic energies of the component particles by making the whole system move in one direction, it increases both the total energy and the total momentum, and the two effects cancel out as far as the system mass is concerned.

WOw so it is like I questioned in the above post with kinetic energy in all different directions.

Not that it matters much to me but is kinetic energy a vector?

This direction thing is so slick, it has to be why a simple shove to an object and it goes forever. the kinetic mass "balance" has been "shifted*". is that generally right? I hope so cause it really starts piecing together from there. Ah and that delta from balance is momentum. (thinking of it more kinetic energy may not be the vector but momentum is, idk)

darn, i re-read your post, so as the velocity increases, that energy is added to the particles which are already causing the kinetic mass; in all directions. The added energy is measured as momentum(?).

Still a very cool concept.

even still yet, if i considered this "shifted (the net of kinetic energy's direction, momentum)" as relative (which makes sense cause it's basically speed I am describing) how/when is it wrong?

 

[Naty1]

jtell: Love your posts 23 and 30..never considered that previously...good insights, thanks!

This thread has helped clarify several things for me.

 

[nitsuj]

jtell: Love your posts 23 and 30..never considered that previously...good insights, thanks!

This thread has helped clarify several things for me.

I couldn't agree more.

Thanks to jtbell's easily understood descriptions I think I'm beginning to understand what momentum, mass and kinetic energy are.

very important if I'm going to try and learn SR lol

 

[Naty1]

Nitysuj..original post...

I was thinking the other day about an alternative energy

As a matter of interest, what prompted that?? Were you considering that from the perspective of a particular country or geographic region??

 

[nitsuj]

Nitysuj..original post...


As a matter of interest, what prompted that?? Were you considering that from the perspective of a particular country or geographic region??

Hey Naty1,

is that post directed at me?

Im guessing Nitysuj, means yea. But I have no clue what's being quoted there, so no context for your post?

I almost never think of alternative energy sources, they're too short lived!

 

[electron_man]

In theory it would be plausible, even by using the simplest of formulas (f=ma),but Since you would apply Einsteins theory of Special relativity (E= MC ^2) you should know that light is considered to be at Rest mass where it is unaffected by gravitational forces. Now essentially if you wanted to use elementary Particles with a mass that is in accordance to mass of 10^-6 or higher. You could use same concept of the Large Hadron Collider and accelerate the particles to the speed of light and thus increase the Mass, you could use force equation.Assuming that a black holes force is Approx 10^56 power (that number was made up because the force of a black hole is said to be infinite in power), You know that the speed of light is about 300,000 km/s and is the fastest speed possible you could rearrange the variables (F=MA) and get the idea (10^56=M*300,000) that mass would have to increase to 3.33333*10^50 which is about 89% of a black hole which would therefore alter you to manipulate particles through Space and Time

 

[PAllen]

In theory it would be plausible, even by using the simplest of formulas (f=ma),but Since you would apply Einsteins theory of Special relativity (E= MC ^2) you should know that light is considered to be at Rest mass where it is unaffected by gravitational forces. Now essentially if you wanted to use elementary Particles with a mass that is in accordance to mass of 10^-6 or higher. You could use same concept of the Large Hadron Collider and accelerate the particles to the speed of light and thus increase the Mass, you could use force equation.Assuming that a black holes force is Approx 10^56 power (that number was made up because the force of a black hole is said to be infinite in power), You know that the speed of light is about 300,000 km/s and is the fastest speed possible you could rearrange the variables (F=MA) and get the idea (10^56=M*300,000) that mass would have to increase to 3.33333*10^50 which is about 89% of a black hole which would therefore alter you to manipulate particles through Space and Time

Rather than repeat, I would ask you to read the prior posts on this thread. Nearly every statement you made is shown to be false in prior posts.

Welcome to Physicsforums.

Take my prior statement as general advice: when adding to the end of a thread, you are strongly encouraged to invest the effort to read prior posts on the thread.

 

[electron_man]

Rather than repeat, I would ask you to read the prior posts on this thread. Nearly every statement you made is shown to be false in prior posts.

Welcome to Physicsforums.

Take my prior statement as general advice: when adding to the end of a thread, you are strongly encouraged to invest the effort to read prior posts on the thread.

I agree with that statement for the most part in that my argument was not supported by conventional theoretical physics except that the point that is being arguing against with what I am saying the previous posts were in regards to Newtonian gravity and Einsteins theory on Special relativity. I agree with the theorems that were posted about the curvature of space, metric tensors.The gluons and Kinetic energy references are what actually what made want to post that abstract idea.I fully understand the concept of light having rest mass and the ideals behind momentum velocity shifts that occur with photon particles .

P.S: That wasn't meant to be a serious thought it was just an abstract idea that i thought would be humorous

and thank you for the welcome Even if it was meant to be Sarcasm