Mass and Relativity

[Flak]

As most of you know, with the Relativity Theory limit the speed that can be archieved.

 

Acording to it, anything with mass can´t acelerate to the speed of light and even more pass it.

 

However when Einstein developed is work he used all what he could proof, and the speed of light was the most higher value of speed know.

 

Latest research as show that some particles apear and disapear, showing that the move faster than light.

Also the photon have mass, if not why the light got distorted on a black hole?, they need to have mass to get atracted.

 

Mass should be infinite to up and to down, the photons have mass, very little one on the same way an star have a big amount of it.

 

So we should rework the RT?

[Klaynos]

Photons have no REST mass. The rest is important.

[Flak]

Photons have no REST mass

 

What about if it have one?, we only have theory to determine that but not the right technology to meassure it up.

[Klaynos]

Well all our theories lead to the conclution that no massive particle can go at the speed of light.

 

This was not an assumption made and then the theory devised this was found as a result of the theory.

 

An alternative theory that has equally or better predictions to that of relativity in which this condition does not have to be applied then that would take over...

[swansont]

SR works pretty well, in its area of application, so the limitation of c seems to be a valid one.

[Flak]

SR works pretty well, in its area of application, so the limitation of c seems to be a valid one.

 

But because it was made with a limitation, if you have a truck than can carry 10 boxes because it was designed for that is a limitation of the design not of the non-posibility to carry more boxes.

[Klaynos]

But because it was made with a limitation, if you have a truck than can carry 10 boxes because it was designed for that is a limitation of the design not of the non-posibility to carry more boxes.

 

 

It was not made with that limitation. The limitation droped out of the theory.

 

It's like saying "what if the ground was made of cotten wool". Out theories of what the ground is made of have the limitation that the ground is not made of cotten wool which I think it is....

[swansont]

But because it was made with a limitation, if you have a truck than can carry 10 boxes because it was designed for that is a limitation of the design not of the non-posibility to carry more boxes.

 

As Klaynos said, it was not made with that limitation in mind. It stems from the assumption that c is the same for all inertial observers, which is something that drops out of Maxwell's equations for E&M. What Einstein did was apply that to kinetics - his original SR paper was entitled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." So any argument against the postulate of constant c and the implications of length and time also has to disprove electrodynamics. As you can see, much of physics ties into it. But physics works.

[sunspot]

If we look at gravity it will not only attract mass but it will bend space and time. Energy has no mass but has space/time aspects as reflected by its observed expression as wavelength and frequency. With gravity acting on mass and space-time it can effect matter via its mass aspect and energy via its space-time aspect.

 

High gravity will apply work to mass as gravitational pressure to create heat energy. This can convert the mass to higher energy states allowing the mass, distance and time impact of gravity to be fully expressed. What is interesting is that fusion does sort of the same thing, in the sense that it also converts mass to mass/energy. This suggests fusion being an extension of gravity. On the one hand, gravity pressure can cause fusion, while fusion potential can create a potential that will act like (via?) gravity which can attract distant materials for the fusion.

 

The idea of fusion creating its own attraction potential is not that far fetched. As an analogous experiment, if one was in a closed room with a given humidity and placed a cold object in the center, the water vapor would diffuse to the cold object and condense. The result will be a slight vacuum being pulled in the room due to the loss of water vapor from the air. If something as tiny as the lowering of hydrogen bonding potential can alter pressure, shouldn't something as strongly exothermic as fusion also be able to create a vacuum of sorts.

 

If one looks at the sun, its magnetic field, although changing, localizes between the poles. The equator of the sun is different with respect to magnetic field output from the core. This differentiation suggests two material fluxes associated with the sun's fusion. The equator is probaby the fuel input zone, which spins due to fusion potential. While the poles are the primary heat exhaust zone which creates the magnetic field.

[Jacques]

In your analogy you used a cold object in a bathroom. Star are hot object so it will produce the contrary of a vacum. A hot object create a presure. Fusion goes against gravity.

[danny8522003]

That's why the star does not collapse in on itself any further than it already has, because the outward pressure caused by fusion roughly equals the inward pressure due to gravity.