Lawsuit: Huge Atom Smasher Could Destroy World

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

at 10 percent of the speed of light an object's mass is only 0.5 percent more than normal, while at 90 percent of the speed of light it would be more than twice its normal mass. As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass rises ever more quickly, so it takes more and more energy to speed it up further. It can in fact never reach the speed of light, because by then its mass would have become infinite, and by the equivalence of mass and energy, it would have taken an infinite amount of energy to get it there. For this reason, any normal object is forever confined by relativity to move at speeds slower than the speed of light. Only light, or other waves that have no intrinsic mass, can move at the speed of light.

Thats from A Brief History of Time.. By Dr. Hawkings. Are you saying he doens't know physics?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Mass/Speed of Light

Question: How does mass increase when you approach the speed of light?

------------------------------------------------

Answer 1: This question addresses Einstein's theory of Special Relativity.

If my answer does not satisfy you, there are many clear books on

the topic in any university bookstore.

When a particle/object travels close to the speed of light, and is

thus considered "relativistic", the energy of the particle is

expressed as E = (gamma)*mass*velocity. Here gamma is a relativistic

factor that is greater than unity. So, one could consider the

factor (gamma)*mass a new mass, one that is larger than the mass

of the particle when it is at rest. This is why you hear that

mass increases when you approach the speed of light. It can be

argued that it is only an appearance of greater mass, or that it

depends on how you look at the problem. In short, it is all relative.

It should be noted, however, that in order for an object to actually

reach the speed of light, it must have no mass, since E=mass*speed of

light^2. This is true of massless particles such as the photon,

the "particle" that transports light. (Notation:* means multiply by

and ^2 means squared).

robin d erbacher

=========================================================

Answer 2: I apologize for being picky, but in the last response, I think

that should be the "momentum" = gamma*mass*velocity.

timo p grayson

=========================================================

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I am qouting sources for everything I have said... what have you qouted?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Don't beleive me yet? Here are 6 of the top in the field explaining E=MC2

[ttogreh]

You can't have it both ways, Gaf. You were crowing not too long ago about Al Gore getting sued. You were quite glad that the issue would be discussed in a court of law, then. I am confident that thousands of scientists working together and billions of dollars being spent would not have happened if there really was a credible threat to humanity.

It will all come out in court.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Um, stop trying to put thoughts and emotions on me that are not there.

I am also glad this is going to court. The people running the experiment.. as I link above, acknoledge the risk.. they believe thats it is a small enough risk to warrent going forward. I want them to go forward.. I also want the general public to know what they are doing and what those risks are.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

and I want people to stop telling me that I dont know Relativity.. when i am posting direct quotes from people like Einstein and Hawkings.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

You know what...

Show me one thing writen by a Physisist that says mass decreases with speed... and show me one link that has speed and E=MC2 tied together.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Einstein's Relativity

Another consequence of Special Relativity is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Any object with mass moving near the speed of light would experience an increase in its mass. That mass would approach infinity as it reached light speed and would, therefore, require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it to light speed. The fastest possible speed any form of information or force (including gravity) can operate is at the speed of light. Newton's law of gravity seemed to imply that the force of gravity would instantly change between two objects if one was moved---Newton's gravity had infinite speed (a violation of Special Relativity). The three strange effects of Special Relativity (shrinking lengths, slowing time, increasing mass) are only noticeable at speeds that are greater than about ten percent of the speed of light. Numerous experiments using very high-speed objects have shown that Special Relativity is correct

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I'm still waiting for someone to show my that they know more about Physics than Einstein and Hawkings.

[ttogreh]

Keep waiting.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

It gets turned tomorrow.

[Msterbeau]

Purdy pictures of the earth killer:

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/08/t...n_collider.html

[Msterbeau]

Forgetting all the physics stuff, cuz it's WAY over my head, what fascinates me, after looking at those photos, is how something of this scope and magnitude is built. This is a huge and insanely complicated device. Just like on Skyscrapers and aircraft carriers, I'd be totally interested to see how it's designed, and how that design process is managed. I have some idea, from being in the car industry, but this is many orders of magnitude larger.

[Simon Bar Sinister]

Stop the scientists before they destroy us all!

Pure fucking nonsense. Cosmic rays regularly strike the earth's atmosphere with far more energy than CERN's supercollider can bring to bear.

jdfu!

[Destroit]

Pure fucking nonsense. Cosmic rays regularly strike the earth's atmosphere with far more energy than CERN's supercollider can bring to bear.

jdfu!

DAMN...can't argue with logic, that's for sure!

+1

Hmmm...whadya know, it's running right now and I'm still here.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Chernobyl

[Simon Bar Sinister]

I'd love to tour the CERN facility!

jdfu!

[Destroit]

I'm still waiting for someone to show my that they know more about Physics than Einstein and Hawkings.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10036245-76.html

Here's an a little tid bit from the last part of the article:

Scientists once believed black holes' inescapable gravitational forces meant they'd grow inexorably, but renowned physicist Stephen Hawking later countered with the view that energy can in fact leak away from black holes, causing them to effectively "evaporate."

Who better to show you that they know more about physics than Stephen Hawking than Stephen Hawking himself, yeas?

Hell, even I understand the workings of black holes and I'm just some college kid.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Chernobyl

[Destroit]

Einstein's Relativity

Anyone who's gone to an accredated university knows that anything on a .com, .net, or .org website is totally uncredited and most likely false. If you were to even write a paper in college based off of anything from a .com, .net, or .org your paper would actually be given an automatic E. That's how inaccurate non-accredated sites are, so a tid bit of information from www.astronomynotes.com means nothing to me.

Find me a better more accurate site and I'll take what you posted into consideration.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Chernobyl

[Head Wreck]

all i know is that the standerd laws of physics dont apply at the quantum level. infact thier not totaly sure about what goes at that level.

i have a friend who has been over to CERN a few times oddlt enough.

what i want to know is...

are we dead yet?

[Destroit]

From an accredated site (http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html):

"Notice that this equation tells you that for any particle with a non-zero mass, the momentum gets larger and larger as the speed gets closer to the speed of light (Cher's cliffnote: MOMENTUM...NOT mass). Such a particle would have infinite momentum if it could reach the speed of light. Since it would take an infinite amount of force (or a finite force acting over an infinite amount of time) to accelerate a particle to infinite momentum, we are forced to conclude that a massive particle always travels at speeds less than the speed of light."

Furthermore:

"Another interesting fact about the expression that relates E and p above (E2 = m2c4 + p2c2), is that it is also true for the case where a particle has no mass (m=0). In this case, the particle always travels at a speed c, the speed of light. You can regard this equation as a definition of momentum for such a mass-less particle. Photons have kinetic energy and momentum, but no mass!"

To put this in terms that aren't so complicated, it clearly states that anything that doesn't have mass is constantly traveling at the speed of light, MEANING in order for something to be traveling that fast it has to have a decrease in mass, NOT increase. Obviously, light particles (photons) have no mass, meaning that mass must decrease in order to increase energy and become light.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Anyone who's gone to an accredated university knows that anything on a .com, .net, or .org website is totally uncredited and most likely false. If you were to even write a paper in college based off of anything from a .com, .net, or .org your paper would actually be given an automatic E. That's how inaccurate non-accredated sites are, so a tid bit of information from www.astronomynotes.com means nothing to me.

Find me a better more accurate site and I'll take what you posted into consideration.

OK.

Relativistic Dynamics

Mass Really Does Increase with Speed

Deciding that masses of objects must depend on speed like this seems a heavy price to pay to rescue conservation of momentum! However, it is a prediction that is not difficult to check by experiment. The first confirmation came in 1908, measuring the mass of fast electrons in a vacuum tube. In fact, the electrons in an old-fashioned color TV tube are about half a percent heavier than electrons at rest, and this must be allowed for in calculating the magnetic fields used to guide them to the screen.

Much more dramatically, in modern particle accelerators very powerful electric fields are used to accelerate electrons, protons and other particles. It is found in practice that these particles become heavier and heavier as the speed of light is approached, and hence need greater and greater forces for further acceleration. Consequently, the speed of light is a natural absolute speed limit. Particles are accelerated to speeds where their mass is thousands of times greater than their mass measured at rest, usually called the “rest mass”.

[Destroit]

OK.

Relativistic Dynamics

Well damn...fucking, definately contrasting info, now I don't know what to think. I will say that the article that you posted was from an individual professor, not a collective, so he could be wrong generally in information databases from .edu sites they don't allow indivdual class lectures from professors because professors can be inaccurate. So now I'm just confused . Quite honestly I don't really care anymore though, arguing/debating on the internet is usually kinda dumb 'cause you won't change anything and it just wastes time, so I step down. I've got shit to do today.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

What is relativistic mass?

Conserving Momentum:the Relativistic Mass Increase

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

It's not contrary info. Momentum is an expression of Mass and Velocity.

Momentum

The momentum of a particle is defined as the product of its mass times its velocity. It is a vector quantity. The momentum of a system is the vector sum of the momenta of the objects which make up the system. If the system is an isolated system, then the momentum of the system is a constant of the motion and subject to the principle of conservation of momentum.

The basic definition of momentum applies even at relativistic velocities but then the mass is taken to be the relativistic mass.

Some Formula and plain english descriptions