Important question!

[arkain101]

sorry about so many topics but I have a very important question.

 

Does physics say that when you speed up your mass increases. For example, if I am traveling 1000m/s and I speed up to 10,000m/s does physics say that my mass increases?

All I am confindent in knowing is that if you reach C your mass is infinite.

 

If so, I worked somthing out that seems to show different. with KE

[infamous]

 

Does physics say that when you speed up your mass increases. All I am confindent in knowing is that if you reach C your mass is infinite.

This is generally accepted as a true statement. Mass increases with velocity.

 

If the answer is yes, then thank the lord, I just made a huge discovery that proves that is completely false. I will put up a diagram of how and why that is if someone can answer my first question so I dont waist my time.

If you can prove that one, your name will go down with the likes of Einstein.

[arkain101]

alright, cause im working on somthing that might

[arkain101]

Okay so you will have to excuse my artwork, all I have is paint right now.

This shows that while the object is at rest on earth it still had work complete so we call rest 9.8 (instead of 0).

The energy is increased 4 times with each increase of velocity total of 2 times, but the energy action is followed by an equal and opposite reaction, splitting the work between each object. The mass never changes but the equal and opposite reaction always remains constant.

 

 

I made mistake in the 3rd example stating there was 4times more work done than compared to example B, but I accidently changed the units.. for kicks lets say example 2 had 1/8 of each block compress.

If correct, this is exactly how my theory functions.

[Tormod]

Does physics say that when you speed up your mass increases. For example, if I am traveling 1000m/s and I speed up to 10,000m/s does physics say that my mass increases?

 

Technically it would be more correct to say that mass increases as a result of accelleration, not of velocity.

 

All I am confindent in knowing is that if you reach C your mass is infinite.

 

To reach C you would need infinite accelleration and in the process all of your mass would be converted to energy. No massiveo bjects can travel at c according to relativity theory.

 

So no, you would not have infinite mass at c.

[arkain101]

if speed of light is constant, the emmitter of light must be constant (the source).

I have a hard time agreeing with light being constrained by a speed limit, causing all objects in the universe to exist in different time zones..

[Boerseun]

if speed of light is constant, the emmitter of light must be constant (the source).

I have a hard time agreeing with light being constrained by a speed limit, causing all objects in the universe to exist in different time zones..

Nope.

 

I can be travelling at whatever speed relative to you, and then shine a flashlight in your direction. The light will be leaving me (from my point of view) at c, and the light will be reaching you (from your point of view) at exactly c.

 

My speed relative to you is compensated for by the fact that the light in my torch is yellow (when I look at my flashlight) but you'll see it as either more red or more blue (depending on whether I'm approaching you or moving away).

 

The frequency emmitted by my flashlight shifts up or down the electromagnetic spectrum, relative to you, the observer.

 

Gamma rays kills you. But accelerate away from the source of the gamma rays to a sufficient velocity, and the gamma rays will become ordinary visible light. But the ex-gamma rays (now visible light) will still strike your eyeballs at c. Just the frequency changes to compensate for the relative difference in velocity between you (the observer) and the source. Time starts playing funny tricks where stuff moving at the speed of light is involved. Matter of fact, a photon has no experience of time at all. The Big Bang and the eventual end of the universe is one and the same moment for a photon. And seeing as speed can only be understood in terms of distance covered and the time it took, it's not intuitive, but not untrue either.