absolute1 Posted July 28, 2008 Posted July 28, 2008 I think the Spirit came back to me. I think they wanted to teach me a lesson for hurting other people. I almost cry last night out of despair because I couldn't go on without their guildance. They have showed me a new thing just now. I will bring this up for you guys to think about. I will try to keep my excitement down because the more I am excited, the more people I'm going to hurt. Please try to remind me about this if I go overboard. Recall an object with mass M hitting the other object half of their mass at rest. perfect transfer of momentum happened. The starting energy of the system is 1/2 M v^2, the final energy sytem is 1/2 * 1/2M (2v)^2 which is Mv^2, or twice the amount of the initial energy. Put the energy back to the big mass and have the new view of the system. Mv^2 on the big mass. We can conclude that the mass increase as the velocity incrase. The total mass and energy of the system will be. E=mv^2.... ... like Einstein have predicted... Mass... is the form of energy we have been rejecting all these time to fill in the missing link of momentum energy concept.
Klaynos Posted July 28, 2008 Posted July 28, 2008 Recall an object with mass M hitting the other object half of their mass at rest. perfect transfer of momentum happened. The starting energy of the system is 1/2 M v^2, the final energy sytem is 1/2 * 1/2M (2v)^2 which is Mv^2, or twice the amount of the initial energy. Put the energy back to the big mass and have the new view of the system. Mv^2 on the big mass. We can conclude that the mass increase as the velocity incrase. The total mass and energy of the system will be. E=mv^2.... Right... let's try and make sense of your second paragraph.... [math]m_1 = M[/math] [math]m_2 = \frac M 2[/math] [math]v_1i = v[/math] This is initial velocity of the first mass. [math]v_2i = 0[/math] [math]v_1f = 0[/math] This is final velocity of the first mass. [math]v_2i = ?[/math] So, intial total momentum = final total momentum. [math]p = m_1 v_1i +m_2 v_2i = m_1 v_1i +m_2 * 0 = m_1 v_1i = m_1 v_1f +m_2 v_2f = m_1 *0 +m_2 v_2f [/math] [math]m_1 v_1i = m_2 v_2f [/math] [math]M v_1i = \frac M 2 v_2f [/math] [math]2 v = v_2f [/math] Working out the energies before and after will be equal. There is NO mass change. Why do you think there is? What evidence do you have that there is a mass change? If you want to talk about Einstein, we have to do all of the above using relativistic equations, but when you're talking about bullets or blocks we're not getting speeds anything close to what would make a significant difference to the classical equations.
absolute1 Posted July 28, 2008 Author Posted July 28, 2008 Klaynos.... Go ahead and do this experiment to see for yourself. Put a scale on something that has wheel to move across the floor. Put an object on the scale. Start move it across. Wait, don't do that experiment. If mass gain is what I think having the direction of velocity, then it won't work. You have to tie it to a scale and dropt it. So that the mass is in the same diection as acceleration to see effect. The scale should gain weight too, but I don't see any interfearance on reading.
Klaynos Posted July 28, 2008 Posted July 28, 2008 You'd need to remove all the air to do it properly. I just did it with some kitchen scales, I get a slight nudge of the needle when it starts due to the acceleration and the fact the scale isn't ridged but at a constant velocity the needle returns to the non-moving state. You're idea would also imply a difference in mass between frames. Accelerations imply a force, which you WILL be able to measure using a balance. Weight is NOT the same thing as mass. Weight is a force due to gravity, and if something is accelerating there has to be a non-zero net force. Accelerations mean that you need to measure mass in a different way.
absolute1 Posted July 28, 2008 Author Posted July 28, 2008 Garrrrr Abandon it. It won't work. They are at the same speed. The scale won't pick it up. I guess that's why it can only be proven in particle accelerator. Garrrrr..... let me think about what experiment work on this.
Klaynos Posted July 28, 2008 Posted July 28, 2008 This is actually why astronauts float, they're not in 0 gravity, just everything is in free fall (everything being the space ship and the astronauts).
absolute1 Posted July 28, 2008 Author Posted July 28, 2008 Ok, I got one. Drop an object from a scale. Can you tell what's the maximum reading the scale get? There's no way to calculated it right? If you use this concept you can. The scale reading will be E=mv^2. So you can solve it for m knowing the speed and the rest mass. Then F=ma. F is the scale reading.
Klaynos Posted July 28, 2008 Posted July 28, 2008 Yes, if you do it in a vacuum you can work out what the scale will read if you just release it, as the objects are in free fall the force they measure between each other will be 0... You're idea is not mathematically sound, it's plucked from the air and is fundamentally flawed, and disagrees with experiment. Science MUST agree with reality.
absolute1 Posted July 28, 2008 Author Posted July 28, 2008 Actually, my equation doesn't hold for all cases. There's something weird going on. It looks like V/m = k where v=velocity, m = mass, k= a constant. It describe when v=0, m= infinity, when m infinity, v=0 . Our rest mass is not zero though our v is zero. What's going on here. Unless.... our absolute v is not zero. Wow, I know we revolving around the sun and the earth rotating counter it, so all the side way velocity cancel up, it makes sense cuz we don't have sideway mass.... This can only mean the Solar system is moving toward something.... but we know it's revolving around the center of the galaxy....So either it's speeding inward to the center of the galaxy.... or the galaxy moving toward another bigger galaxy and that galaxy could either moving toward something or revolving around another bigger galaxy....wow
insane_alien Posted July 28, 2008 Posted July 28, 2008 when have experiments shown that V=mk? thats not reality. therefore your idea is not science. its not anything.
Klaynos Posted July 28, 2008 Posted July 28, 2008 when have experiments shown that V=mk? thats not reality. therefore your idea is not science. its not anything. Agreed. Also absolute1, there is no such thing as "absolute velocity," velocity is relative. It is perfectly valid to use the earth as a rest frame. All inertial frames are as valid as any other frame. This is known science that is based in hundreds of years of research, both theoretical and experimental.
Sayonara Posted July 28, 2008 Posted July 28, 2008 This is neither pseudoscience or speculation. It is just... bad.
Recommended Posts