How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Physics and Philosophy question   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Physics and Philosophy question

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Cpat Hair
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 06-05-2001
Posts 12075


25 posted 02-28-2004 11:44 AM       View Profile for Cpat Hair   Email Cpat Hair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Cpat Hair

LR.... you state: force = mass * acceleration

so mass would then look like

force divided by acceleration = mass?

one could compute the mass of an object by knowing the force with which it impacted and at what speed. But you have said earlier that as an object is accelerated to the speed or near speed of light its mass increases, which would be at odds with this would it not?

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


26 posted 02-28-2004 11:47 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

BTW -- I am cheating -- but no one has called me on the reason why -- yet... I'm waiting for Ron to step in.  
Cpat Hair
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 06-05-2001
Posts 12075


27 posted 02-28-2004 11:49 AM       View Profile for Cpat Hair   Email Cpat Hair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Cpat Hair

"But here's something you need to factor in -- motion is dependent upon the four dimensions that most of us are familiar with -- our universe actually has 10 dimensions and possibly 25 -- for some reason we only perceive and 'use' four.

Motion is the change of positions in the three cardinal dimensions over the fourth dimension -- time.

In other universes time wll not exist as we know it -- in some it may run backwards -- or at very different rates -- even in our own universe -- there is relativity with speed -- but imagine a universe that uses 5 dimensions -- or even 10?  

When I speak of motion -- I refer to it as we percieve and use it in this universe -- which may be applicable to some other universes but not all."
Then sir..I respectfully submit motion is not indiginous to this universe nor restricted to it by your own admission. Motion may be defined in terms relative to the universe one occupied or existed in at the moment one was defining it, yet the concept of relative in cardinal points over time... would still hold true in even a 25 dimension universe if time exists in some form and if cardinal references also exist.

Since we do not know the properties or of the true existance of any universe but our own, we also do not know that motion is limited only to our own.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


28 posted 02-28-2004 11:52 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

When an airplane flies across the sky and breaks the sound barrier its' mass increases too -- but at that speed it isn't noticeable...

If it gets faster and faster then the changes in mass compound.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


29 posted 02-28-2004 11:58 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:
Since we do not know the properties or of the true existance of any universe but our own, we also do not know that motion is limited only to our own.



I didn't say it was limited to our own -- I said it is indiginous to our own -- the properties of other universes may inhibit motion or allow motion that would not be possible in this universe -- but inbetween universes there is no 'motion' as we know it since there is no time.
Cpat Hair
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 06-05-2001
Posts 12075


30 posted 02-28-2004 12:20 PM       View Profile for Cpat Hair   Email Cpat Hair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Cpat Hair

Indigenous:
1. belonging to a place: originating in

My point here is simply that we do not know if it originintated in or belongs to this universe or many....


as for cheating sir....LOL... shame on you taking advantage of an innocent like me!!

Define mass for me please..


and matter...

would not all matter of a universe in one place have infinite mass? if then it did and velocity of movement increasded the mass at teh moment of the big bang and in the time that followed the amount of mass in the universe has been increasing thought he amounts of matter have not?
Cpat Hair
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 06-05-2001
Posts 12075


31 posted 02-28-2004 12:46 PM       View Profile for Cpat Hair   Email Cpat Hair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Cpat Hair

energy = mass times the speed of light sqared
mass = energy/speed of light squared

how does this equation say that mass increases as the speed or velocity that it moves increases?

it seems to imply that energy increases as a set mass is accelerated through space.
which is where in the root of it all I am hung up in understanding your arguments.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


32 posted 02-28-2004 02:09 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/mass_increase.html

since an object with mass can't go faster than the speed of light Einstein's formula holds for the simple reason that any additional energy introduced goes into increasing the particle's mass

mass increases at all speeds due to conservation of momentum as discussed in the link above..

and -- I'm not taking advantage of you... the fun for me is that someone is learning  


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


33 posted 02-28-2004 02:14 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

My point here is simply that we do not know if it originintated in or belongs to this universe or many....



If there are no other universes then motion is indiginous to this universe.

The expansion of the universe indicates there are other universes.

Whatever exists in this universe only exists in this universe.

Motion, in this universe, was created here, and only exists here.

Motion in other universes may be fubercon.
Cpat Hair
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 06-05-2001
Posts 12075


34 posted 02-28-2004 02:50 PM       View Profile for Cpat Hair   Email Cpat Hair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Cpat Hair

(chuckling)

Indeed...

now the conservation of momentum, velocities relative to axis, and no mention of the amount of velocity or energy lost in a collision to change directions has me reaching for something to take care of my aching head... as I still try to take the precise moment that an object would have infinite mass and imagine how that could be..
it would seem since no mass can go faster than the speed of light one would imploy the incremental close theory..

there is no such thing as infinite mass only a mass which would approach infinite because mass would not reach the speed of light only approach it...

OK..LR... I give... on the mass increasing as does the velocity with which it moves.

now explain to me how or why it is that anything at the event horizon of a balck hole has to be moving at or near the speed of light?

Infinite mass ( though I am not convinced infinite mass can exist except in theory without engulfing the universe) would be unmovable. But... would not infinite mass be able to scarifice mass ( the forces acting upon it to increase mass) to the exten it might escape the pull of a black hole?

If not... then how can it indeed have infinite mass?

If infinite mass is "eaten" by a black hole does that then have the effect of increasing the mass of the black hole infinitely?
If that is so... then why would a black hole not have eaten the universe as we know it today?

and I am totally unsure how anything could have infinite mass if..there existed anything
other than the object itself.. which would negate that a black hole could exist in the scenario you paint..
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


35 posted 02-28-2004 04:14 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum8/HTML/000221.html#13


Cpat Hair
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 06-05-2001
Posts 12075


36 posted 02-28-2004 04:29 PM       View Profile for Cpat Hair   Email Cpat Hair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Cpat Hair

"Enter black holes, so named because they represent a gravitational field so intense that even light cannot escape. But if gravity and acceleration are equivalent, it is equally valid to say the gravity well is accelerating the photons at a speed that exceeds their own integral velocity. They - and everything else caught in the well - are travelling faster than the speed of light. We are dividing by zero."

Ron... an interesting write..and well explained as for dividing by zero... and I have always assumed the answer to be infinity myself....

now... as for black holes and your statement above. With respect, I ask why it is equally valid to say the gravity well is accelerating the photons at a speed that exceeds their own integral velocity. They - and everything else caught in the well - are travelling faster than the speed of light.

If gravity acts on all matter and energy, why is the assumption that matter trapped in a gravity well intense enough that not even light energy can escape also an indication of increased velocity of the matter itself?

My ignorance here is showing, but a black hole to my knowledge is not really a hole with no bottom, but rather, a gravity well created around collapsed and concentrated mass which traps all energy and light that comes within the reaches of its pull and does not have the energy or mass to escape.

gravity would in a falling scenario indeed pull things towards it with an increase in velocuty as it feel, yet I still am failing to make the connection with the ultimate speed of light or beyond as a result of such a fall. Again... a black hole not being of infinite mass.. would not also have infinite power to pull into it anything at an infinite speed...

or am I simply too simple minded to grasp these basics of physics and math?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


37 posted 02-28-2004 05:01 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I am the simple minded one.

I'm with Reb, waiting for Ronnie Baby to pop in and make one of those wonderful analogies--hey--they work for me.

Otherwise I'm reading this real slow.

Over and over.

And I'm still saying, "huh?"

sigh.

I try, dammit, I really do.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


38 posted 02-28-2004 05:19 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

There are two ways to talk about motion and gravity, Ron. One is as you have, in terms of free fall. Take an object to the very fringes of space, drop it, and it will fall towards Earth at an accelerating rate equal to 9.8 m/s/s.

The second way to talk about motion in a gravity well is to describe it as Escape Velocity. To take that object to the fringes of space, you needed to travel about 7 miles per second.

The Conservation of Energy laws dictate that these two different ways of looking at the same thing are identical. Were that not true, at some point, you'd have to pull energy out of your, uh, hat.

If an object has to travel faster than C to escape a singularity, then it must be true that it will also be falling faster than C at some point. They're just flip sides of the same thing, which is why Einstein could treat gravity and acceleration identically.

In the real Universe, it gets a bit more complicated, though. Hawkings has been the first scientists to fully account for the angular momentum (spin) of a blackhole, and the results have been a little startling. The math gets over my head very quickly, but it appears that under the right circumstances (which may be very common), light and matter can go in and come back out. Put another way, it seems that blackholes "leak."


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


39 posted 02-28-2004 05:34 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

correction:

sometimes they work for me.

sheesh.

But I do love the term "Escape Velocity".

and I'm saving this too. Just 'cause I don't understand it today doesn't mean I won't tomorrow.

Black holes leak, huh? smile.

I'm not sure if I should find that comforting or not.

Thanks Rons and Reb...
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


40 posted 02-28-2004 07:22 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Ah-- Good to have you in the thread Ron..  

Goes in and comes out isn't exactly descriptive of the way Hawking Radiation works as I understand it -- although -- leak is an appropriate term.

New matter that enters the hole isn't likely to just come out again...

Over a very long time the matter in a black hole may appear to come out -- but that's not exactly the way it happens in theory..it is a yet -- seperate complicated story from the thread problem.

Hawking used the concept of 'virtual-particles' to explain the leaking process -- a virtual particle is a particle/anti-particle pair that annihilate each other before they can even be detected.  They appear randomly throughout the universe all the time -- even at the event horizon of a black hole.  

In Hawking Radiation a virtual particle appears at the event horizon and one particle falls in -- the other is left without a partner -- since it can't instantaneously annihilate it becomes 'real' instead of 'virtual' -- and since it is real it has some amount of mass -- that it steals from the energy of the black hole (from its gravity) -- but since the hole has lost energy it has to sacrifice some of its own mass to replace it.

Blazey -- here's an excedrin...
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


41 posted 02-28-2004 08:10 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

An Exedrin?

heh heh...

a mere tinkle into the grand canyon now...

sighs and giggles.

But I appreciate the sympathy.



(see why I love this guy?)

sheesh.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


42 posted 02-28-2004 09:04 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Okey dokey then Blaze -- lets try this then...

If you jump out of an airplane you will fall at the above mentioned rate of about 9.8 m/s/s.  That is until you reach *Terminal* Velocity.

Terminal velocity for a human with a parachute and the accompanying baggy jump suit is about 125mph.... you won't accelerate beyond that because of wind drag.

The reason you will fall, initially, at an accelerating rate of 9.8 m/s/s is due to the mass of the Earth and its' accompanying gravity -- which is proportional to mass...

In a vacuum -- you would accelerate until you smacked into Terra-Firma.

In space -- no one can hear you scream -- because there is no air -- no air -- no terminal velocity.

The gravity from a black hole is so strong that an object falling into it accelerates infinitely -- to the speed of light -- because -- it CAN'T GO FASTER THAN C!!!  

and in TIME, I'll reveal why I'm cheating -- but not yet.  

I'll have to see a few more tries first.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


43 posted 02-29-2004 03:05 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
In a vacuum -- you would accelerate until you smacked into Terra-Firma.

Which is about as Terminal as it gets.  

Point being, even without intervening friction, there is always a terminal velocity, i.e., a speed that will never be exceeded. That speed is determined by the equation v = sqrt(2GM/R) and is a function of M (mass of Earth) and R (radius). That works out to about 7 miles per second, which should sound familiar. The speed at which an object would fall at any given point on a falling trajectory is exactly equal to its Escape Velocity at that same point.

quote:
The gravity from a black hole is so strong that an object falling into it accelerates infinitely -- to the speed of light

Sorry, LR, but "accelerates infinitely" and "to the speed of light" aren't the same thing - as anyone who watches Star Trek would quickly explain.  

Einstein contended that anything with mass could never travel AT the speed of light, because the math would result in division by zero, which he interpreted to mean an increase to infinite mass. Even if we accept that (and I don't, believing indeterminate mass is more correct), there is nothing in Relativity that precludes traveling faster than the speed of light. That's why science is still looking for the hypothetical tachyon.

BTW, LR, your contention that a black hole is both an irresistible force and an immovable object should be explorable without any reference to specific properties. As Ron already alluded, black holes are likely a dime a dozen in the dense nucleus of a galaxy, and are eating each other constantly.

Take any two irresistible forces in close proximity and the inevitable result will be a single irresistible force. Ergo, an irresistible force, by definition, must be unique.
Cpat Hair
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 06-05-2001
Posts 12075


44 posted 02-29-2004 08:14 AM       View Profile for Cpat Hair   Email Cpat Hair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Cpat Hair

(chuckling).. coffee... and lots of it before I respond to this in depth...
wait, there may not be enough coffee in the world for my mind to work fast enough...


OK... bottom line to my understanding is, that LR's assertion a black hole is an irresistable force and or an imovable object are about the same.. they are neither.


I am appreciative of the patience... and have a few thoughts, but as I said

COFEE!!!! ( and some database work I need to get started on) and I'll be back..


"Newtonian physics -- force = mass * acceleration.

An object with irresistible force would have infinite mass and infinite acceleration (relativity thanks to Einstein)-- which are only possible at the event horizon of a black hole (an immoveable object - because it's own irresistible force (gravity) sucks up everything around it)."


LR>. you assertion..which still seems to bother me..
says a blck hole has irresistable force and infinite mass... which if true..would have to mean anything and everything would be sucked into it..
the fact that several exist and the fact great distances mean the effect of black holes are non existant or relatively non existant at great distances in and of itself seems to say both assertions are incorrect...

now...beat it into me thick head again... cause I ain't getting how you're getting there..




Cpat Hair
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 06-05-2001
Posts 12075


45 posted 02-29-2004 10:02 AM       View Profile for Cpat Hair   Email Cpat Hair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Cpat Hair

OK.... I'm waiting for some files to cmpact..and had this stupid thought..

would it not take infinite energy to move infinite mass? photons ( according to einstein) have no mass and may move at the speed of light. All other objects have mass and the mass increases as it moves at a higher velocity and to move it faster energy of some form has to be applied to the mass to make it move. The higher the mass, the higher the energy required to move it...

indeterminate mass rather than infinite mass is used by some to describe the mass of an object as it approaches the speed of light. Still...infinite mass moving at the speed of light which would require infinite + X energy to move it... ?????

Lord... I know this is going to put me on the short list for morons.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


46 posted 02-29-2004 02:01 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

This may get confusing really fast...

First -- Capt. Ron's question about why don't black holes eat the whole universe (which is contained in Ron C's answer to my answer about Terminal velocity.. which I'll get to momentarily).

We can answer this one simply with Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

F = GMm/r^2

F: Force due to gravity
G: Universal Gravitational Constant
M, m: Masses of of the two objects involved
r: Distance between the objects

^: indicates exponent (x^2 = x*x)

The force, gravity, radiates in all directions from an object -- be it a baseball, the Earth, or a Black Hole.  The energy of that force is proportional to the masses and distance of the objects.  So, if you envision this force radiating out in a sphere as you do the appropriate Russian doll nesting -- calculate the area of each increasing sphere -- and you see why the effects of gravity dissipate the further you are from the object -- it is the rest mass, or invariant mass of the black hole that will ultimately determine how far or near an object will be before it gets caught in its gravity field.

That's why the black hole doesn't eat the universe.

Second -- Capt. Ron your instincts have been pretty good all along -- mass is confusing.  In your last post you're getting it pretty much the way Einstein proposed it -- because he was speaking of relativistic mass -- and not invariant mass.

Relativistic mass accounts for the accumulation of energy whereas invariant mass is a constant related only to the objects matter content.

Although the idea of relativistic mass is not 'wrong' it leads to confusion which is why modern science has pretty much stopped using it and refers to invariant mass when it says 'mass'.

At zero speed the invariant mass and relativistic mass are equal.  So sometimes you'll also see invariant mass referred to as 'rest' mass.

This is one of the reason's that I'm cheating.  I started off with Newtonian Mechanics -- and tried to apply them to Relativity.  No one called me on it -- but should have.  One cannot blindly substitute the measure of rest mass plus its' kinetic energy (relativistic mass) for rest mass -- which should be obvious....  

The Newtonian version
F=ma

looks more like this in relativity

F = gamma m (1 + gamma2 v vt) a

which means that force is not always equal to acceleration

where  m is the invariant mass, v : the velocity (as a column vector), and 1 : a 3 x 3 identity matrix


Third --
Hawking only represents one school of thought -- which after 30 years is still a little mysterious to physicists.  His opposition , in the form of physicist like Dr. John Preskill of Caltech, and Dr. Leonard Suskind of Stanford, would argue that the dilation of time at near light speed would prevent an object with mass from ever even reaching the black hole -- and that the material would appear frozen in time to an outside observer.

If they, and Einstein are right -- then near light speed would be the terminal velocity for anything with mass.

Special Relativity appears to be correct even for particles in particle accelerators... But

Fourth --

Maxwell's physics suggested that space is composed of a light-conducting medium (which he called the Aether) and not a vacuum.  The famous Michelson and Morley experiment -- or MMX failed to prove its existence in the late 19th century -- so search for the 'Aether' was poo-poo'd and abandoned by most physicists... but even Einstein maintained a suspicion that it existed.

The problem that we have with all these theories is that they don't work very well together -- separately they work within themselves and we can do things like apply Newton's laws to Mechanical Engineering at a level that is efficacious.

But -- in looking for a way to unify everything science is now looking for a Theory of Everything -- or sometimes called the Grand Unification Theory.

They are now back to inferring there is an Aether or more commonly referred in modern circles a substratum.  This would be finite particle elements that fill the entire universe forming an absolute 3D matrix-- light and energy are wavicles that travel through the apparent vacuum of space by jumping from one particle element to another .

The speed of light may be the maximum speed of travel through the substratum -- just like a solid has a different sonic speed than that of air -- the substratum may have set the universal speed limit.  This may also be why it is that the speed of gravity appears to be equal to the speed of light.

Objects approaching light speed appear to accumulate mass because their particles -- which are composed of variants of wavicles -- do accumulate energy -- but this is in the form of a higher frequency of vibration -- so high as C is approached that they become unstable and do, in fact, begin to break apart giving up matter to energy in the form of radiation -- which may -- in the end be Hawking Radiation after all...

But, it was fun wasn't it?  
Cpat Hair
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 06-05-2001
Posts 12075


47 posted 03-01-2004 05:31 AM       View Profile for Cpat Hair   Email Cpat Hair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Cpat Hair

it was a blast! I now understand how little I undeerstand... lol

Vagabond
Member
since 01-23-2004
Posts 171


48 posted 03-01-2004 08:17 AM       View Profile for Vagabond   Email Vagabond   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Vagabond

I disagree with an earlyer reply about the demisions.

It said that there was only 10 demisions. Wrong! There are an idefinate amount of demisions, each spawning from the earlyer demisions. We, like he said, can only persive four. Then again if the situation is right i say we may be able to see more than four.

Vagabon the Lost One

jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


49 posted 03-01-2004 12:43 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Hawke:

So in order for me to move at a rate close to the speed of light, I have to become less dense?  Don't see much chance of that happening. I think I'll stick to the more concrete subjects of theology and philosophy.  

Jim
Vagabond will be notified of replies
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Physics and Philosophy question   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors