What happened to the Messenger Plus! forums on msghelp.net?
Shoutbox » MsgHelp Archive » General » General Chit Chat » Theory of relativity

Theory of relativity
Author: Message:
John Anderton
Elite Member
*****

Avatar

Posts: 3908
Reputation: 80
37 / Male / Flag
Joined: Nov 2004
Status: Away
RE: Theory of relativity
quote:
Originally posted by Madman
It is impossible to go beond the speed of light because it would require an infinate amount of energy (or somthing like that).
Well ..... its basicallay proved by einsteins rest mass to velovcity mass equation

m = (m0) / (1-v^2/c^2)^1/2

Where m is you mass at velocity v
m0 is your mass at rest (that zero is a subscript ;))
c is the velocity of light

Thus as you velocity approaches the speed of light ... your mass becomes higher. You cant exceed the velocity of light cause well .... root of negative numbers are imaginary;)

So for any given case
v^2/c^2 <= 1

v <= c ;)

quote:
Originally posted by Madman
and it also covers "The faster you go the slower time goes".
Remember this example. If there are 2 identical twins. You tell one to stand on a planet and you tell the other to go at the speed of light till a star and comeback. If he comes back after one year by his his time ... his brother may have aged about 50 years ...
I dont have the mathematical proof for this, but this is what happens.

quote:
Originally posted by SikStyles
wasnt the theory of relativity that when you sit in a room with a hot chick an hour seems like a second and when you sit on a hot stove a second seems like an hour
:dodgy:
FFS. Dont spam in a serious thread.

quote:
Originally posted by ShawnZ
You don't transform into light if you go the speed of light. (You'll turn yourself into a black hole though)
Well ... NO YOU DONT
As i have already explained in Einsteins equation, as you velocity increases, your mass does too but this is only possiple as long as,
v < c
Once you reach the velocity of light, all your mass (the one that you had and the one that you had gained due to your velocity) gets converted into pure energy. No mass can exist at the velocity of light well except for protons is light (according to De Broglies Hypothesis / Dual Nature Of Light) [quanta (packets of energy; they dont have mass^o)) are a different story. They are energy]

And btw, speed of light isnt the fastest thing. Its been broken .... about 10 years back |-)

Well a few british scientists took a dark tube, made a small hole, let light enter and reflected it in one direction. Then from behind it the let a laser loose. They wanted to find the velocity of the laser under different laser. Note that this is a special type of laser. They noticed that under certain conditions the particles of the laser reached before that of light.

quote:
Originally posted by Underlord
The only thing that can travel faster than light is space. In a black hole space is being sucked in faster than light travels, so light itself cannot escape. Very simple explination.
Underlord, thats not true. I could explain if anyone wants to know ...

When a star burns normally there are two forces acting upon it, its high gravitational force acting inward (high because ..... it holds the whole planetary system together dont they) and the force due to contunious nuclear fusion (which acts outward)

It is the magnitude at of these forces that determines the size of the star at any instant. It remains like this for say a few kazillon years :P

Then eventually its low on fuel (hydrogen), it swells up for a few millenia (short time for starts pfft :P) cause the outward force due to nuclear fusion decreases due to a lower combustion rate. Then it runs out of hydrogen and its screwed cause it still has the same gravitational force but the outward force is zero. Thus it shrinks but as it does, its mass it still constant but its volume tends to zero
Density = Mass / Volume

Thus it has infinite density and thus infinite gravitational force. Thus not even light can excape it ;)

quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
They are objects. Only objects with an extremely great mass (and because of that extremely small... they think). Black holes aren't all the same either, some have a greater mass than others.
O.o
Their mass is the mass of the helium remaining from nuclear combustion !!! The gravitational force comes from their negligible volume and high mass.

They think ??? Who think ?? Do you mean i think :P

quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Black holes not only absorb matter, they also emit stuff.
Wasnt that a huge controversy !!! Stephen Hawking was wrong and no one figured it out for what ... 40 odd years ??

There was this one guy in the atomic research center here (where i live) and he was saying all along that what stephen hawking said was wrong. Black holes need to emit stuff as well, but people asked him how dare he question stephen hawking and stuff .... for about 30-35 years he was tormented ..... finally when stephen hawking accepted his mistake this guy was vindicated :P
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised

Also, if the force of gravity in an object is too great for a beam of light to escape we (thus the observers) would see only blackness and call that object a black hole.
The perfect definition of a black hole :cheesy:

This post was edited on 11-21-2005 at 07:19 PM by John Anderton.
[

KarunAB.com
]

[img]http://gamercards.exophase.com/459422.png[
/img]
11-21-2005 06:58 PM
Profile E-Mail PM Web Find Quote Report
« Next Oldest Return to Top Next Newest »

Messages In This Thread
Theory of relativity - by Supersonicdarky on 11-15-2005 at 08:21 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by prashker on 11-15-2005 at 08:25 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by kierant on 11-15-2005 at 08:28 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by Ezra on 11-15-2005 at 08:31 PM
RE: RE: Theory of relativity - by Supersonicdarky on 11-15-2005 at 08:34 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by user27089 on 11-15-2005 at 08:35 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by Plik on 11-15-2005 at 08:36 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by Ezra on 11-15-2005 at 08:39 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by ShawnZ on 11-15-2005 at 08:42 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by SikStyles on 11-15-2005 at 08:50 PM
RE: RE: Theory of relativity - by Voldemort on 11-16-2005 at 02:19 AM
RE: Theory of relativity - by Negro_Joe on 11-15-2005 at 08:50 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by Ezra on 11-15-2005 at 08:54 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by emit on 11-15-2005 at 08:58 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by Supersonicdarky on 11-15-2005 at 08:58 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by Ezra on 11-15-2005 at 09:02 PM
RE: RE: Theory of relativity - by Supersonicdarky on 11-15-2005 at 09:03 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by MoRiA on 11-15-2005 at 09:04 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by emit on 11-15-2005 at 09:06 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by Ezra on 11-15-2005 at 09:07 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by ShawnZ on 11-15-2005 at 09:14 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by Ezra on 11-15-2005 at 09:16 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by Yousef on 11-15-2005 at 09:39 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by qgroessl on 11-15-2005 at 09:52 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by Supersonicdarky on 11-15-2005 at 10:01 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by Ezra on 11-15-2005 at 10:10 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by qgroessl on 11-15-2005 at 10:12 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by Underlord on 11-16-2005 at 12:41 AM
RE: RE: Theory of relativity - by Supersonicdarky on 11-16-2005 at 12:58 AM
RE: RE: Theory of relativity - by CookieRevised on 11-21-2005 at 03:09 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by superjugy on 11-16-2005 at 01:19 AM
RE: Theory of relativity - by qgroessl on 11-16-2005 at 02:03 AM
RE: Theory of relativity - by Underlord on 11-16-2005 at 02:29 AM
RE: RE: Theory of relativity - by Supersonicdarky on 11-16-2005 at 03:09 AM
RE: Theory of relativity - by ShawnZ on 11-16-2005 at 02:41 AM
RE: Theory of relativity - by ShawnZ on 11-16-2005 at 02:56 AM
RE: Theory of relativity - by qgroessl on 11-16-2005 at 03:05 AM
RE: Theory of relativity - by qgroessl on 11-16-2005 at 03:10 AM
RE: Theory of relativity - by superjugy on 11-21-2005 at 06:17 AM
RE: Theory of relativity - by DragonX on 11-21-2005 at 09:10 AM
RE: Theory of relativity - by .Roy on 11-21-2005 at 04:17 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by Chrono on 11-21-2005 at 04:22 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by .Roy on 11-21-2005 at 06:03 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by John Anderton on 11-21-2005 at 06:58 PM
RE: RE: Theory of relativity - by CookieRevised on 11-22-2005 at 01:11 AM
RE: RE: Theory of relativity - by Underlord on 11-22-2005 at 05:49 AM
RE: Theory of relativity - by cardshark on 11-22-2005 at 06:32 AM
RE: Theory of relativity - by John Anderton on 11-22-2005 at 06:57 AM
RE: Theory of relativity - by emit on 11-22-2005 at 02:35 PM
RE: RE: Theory of relativity - by CookieRevised on 11-22-2005 at 06:37 PM
RE: RE: RE: Theory of relativity - by emit on 11-22-2005 at 07:47 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Theory of relativity - by CookieRevised on 11-22-2005 at 08:20 PM
RE: Theory of relativity - by Tochjo on 11-22-2005 at 06:40 PM


Threaded Mode | Linear Mode
View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe | Add to Favorites
Rate This Thread:

Forum Jump:

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new threads
You cannot post replies
You cannot post attachments
You can edit your posts
HTML is Off
myCode is On
Smilies are On
[img] Code is On