jumping

[Grum]

The mass of an object is not different when it moves than when it is at rest unless there is enough friction for the object to lose mass.

This has nothing to do with friction.

Everything is relative to its environment, even time is relative.

Exactly.

But speed does not change weight at all, it changes it's kinetic energy and the kinetic energy increases with more speed.

It does. Believe me. I can even give you the equation for the change in mass if you want. This is also the reason that photons (light particles) have a momentum, even though their rest mass is zero.

 

The piece you wrote on weight being dependent on the environment is correct. You can even make your weight zero, although your mass is not, by standing in the center of mass of the universe.

[Thurin]

Friction has everything to do with an object losing mass.

 

Did you mean this equation?

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

With this equation an observer at rest would think the mass of the object "appears" to be heavier than it would if the observer were moving at the same speed as the object.

 

The notion that mass reaches infinity when travelling at near the speed of light was first brought up by Einstein. But if the observer were travelling at the same speed as the object, the mass of the object would look contracted or the same as at rest. It is a perception. The mass "appears" to the observer to have changed with increased speed.

 

Reality is determined by your point of view.

 

But anyways, relativistic mass is an outdated notion. You do not have to take my word.

 

This is from a scientific forum and in here i also post the link in case you want to see it.

 

"Sacroiliac

Thanks, HallsofIvy. I asked this same question at another forum and a full fledged gravitational physicist posted this answer (unfortunately he thought I was talking about relativistic mass)

 

Gravitational fields do look different for an object moving relative to an observer, but it's not in the simple way you might suppose from the notion of "relativistic mass". Relativistic mass is somewhat of an outdated notion, and it's much more useful to consider the "mass" to be the rest mass of the object (which is, for instance, what matters for determining if something is a black hole). So a thing won't turn into a black hole just by moving relative to you.

 

There will be changes in the gravitational field observed, but you can't discuss those changes without a full tensor model of GR, which would take at least a semester."

 

 

http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-21215

 

Well, its time for me to go to work, laters.

[Grum]

Did you mean this equation?  

m=m0/sqrt(1-v^2)  

With this equation an observer at rest would think the mass of the object "appears" to be heavier than it would if the observer were moving at the same speed as the object.

You forgot a c^2, but yes, that's the one. And yes, it's only when measured relative to an observer that's why I wrote observed mass. But then again, how would you define movement, if not against an observer?

The mass "appears" to the observer to have changed with increased speed.

The whole idea of relativity is based on the fact that one cannot distinguish "apparent" measurements from "real" measurements. You are quite correct that if I move together with the object, I won't measure any effect on it's mass. But then again, that object would not be moving from my point of view, would it?

 

As to relativistic mass being outdated: it's not, really. But the above equation only holds for non-accelerated motions, and follows from the special theory of relativity. If acceleration comes into play, you would indeed have to go to a 4-dimensional tensor model of general relativity, and things become much more complicated. You'd have to find a way to describe the space you're in that's consistent with the gravitational field you're experiencing, which is a daunting task.

 

Anyway, this is going WAAAAAAAAAAYYY off topic, even for the off-topic forum.

[Izzy]

lol, well I think you miscontrewed my point and where I was coming from.

 

I never said the earth would bounce, I said if it were possible for it to happen in the first place it would just move in one direction.

 

 

I mean it would bounce if their was a floor below it or some kind of gravity pulling it back up.

 

But that ammount of gravity would need a very very very big object.

 

On a side note, your sorta turning into a distraction now, also to prove my point on playing dumb I use you as an example, your still almost enlightening me. =D

 

However the fact is that that kenetic energy causes the scale to seem like the object weighs more, and so if you see that it weighs more then it does.

 

Theres nothing proverbial about it.

 

Its like if the tree falls in the woods and a bunch of tourists are there to see it - did it fall at all?

 

=P

 

Stop distracting me X.X >

 

I'm glad your interested in my academic studies however its not your concern as I have no more for you to be worried about.

[Thurin]

You are right Grum, i forgot to put that part of the equation, i edited my previous post to change it.

 

As for the question whether or not a tree falls if there are no witnesses, the fact that there are no witnesses does not mean it did not happen, we are just unaware that it did happen.

 

But anyways, if we went off tangent was not because of me. I was just trying to explain it.

[Grum]

I mean it would bounce if their was a floor below it or some kind of gravity pulling it back up.

There is gravity attracting the earth, the people hanging above the earth attract it with equal force as the earth attracts them.

Its like if the tree falls in the woods and a bunch of tourists are there to see it - did it fall at all?

If a bunch of tourists are there to see it, yes. If noone observes the tree falling, well...how would we know it fell? If we know it, it has fallen. (Or we made an error)

[Arafin]

If all 6.5 billion people on this planet wer eto jump in one spot all at the same time.....nothing would happen, heres why:

 

Based on the mathematical equation povided by Grum, all the people on Earth couldnt be in one cnetral location to be able to move it at all. You would actually have to have all 6.5 billion people within a range of 5 square kilometers.

 

Now that is physically impossible to do, as the mass of each person based on the average person, woulnt be able to fit in a 5 sqaure kilometer radius.

 

So you question JJK, it wouldnt be able to move no. And as for the "String Theory", the communication of those elctrons or hatever you said has already been explained in other theories such as:

 

1. They travel faster then the speed of light and therefore there is no humanly possible way to find out.

 

2. Their connection is still linked through electical currents (or something like that it said), and share information.

 

3. Their is no actual connection, but a similarity and therefore events happening to one happen to the other, adn their similarity tells them that

 

 

All that is mumbo jumbo, the eason its not been discovered is because their trying to relate it.

 

Heres what I think....the nucleus of these atoms share information by radiation and or light (both based on same spectrum anyways lol), they inforamtion travels through by radiation.light to project the information.

 

Or maybe its because it works through othe atoms lol or something.

 

And about the money.....he will be rich, bu he will become very important and be placed in lots of danger. So yes rich, worth it.....hell no.

[Grum]

The thread that wouldn't end...

Moving the earth seems to be a very fascinating subject

 

Allright, here we go again:

Now that is physically impossible to do, as the mass of each person based on the average person, woulnt be able to fit in a 5 sqaure kilometer radius.

Even if it were possible, the earth would move less then a picometer, which is less then the size of even the simplest atom.

 

All that is mumbo jumbo

Without further information, I tend to agree with that.

 

Heres what I think....the nucleus of these atoms share information by radiation and or light (both based on same spectrum anyways lol), they inforamtion travels through by radiation.light to project the information.

Well, the only problem with that would be that light travels at the speed of ... tadaaa! ... light. So there would actually be a delay in getting the information from one electron to another.

 

he will be rich, bu he will become very important and be placed in lots of danger.

Heh?

[Izzy]

err, I knew it was impossible to get all those ppl in 1 spot, so I switched it to just 1 object weighing as much.

 

To make it a bit more complete, lets say that object was droped from 2 miles above the earth at that point.

 

I would say that the force it hits the earth with would be far greater than the gravitational pull it would have on it.

 

Example, if step on a scale you weigh 100 and if you jump on the scale you weigh 200 at 1 point but it fixes itself back to 100.

 

unless the ammount of force that can be delivered is defined by how dense the object wont have enough force to pull the earth back.

 

Its like a car,

 

If the care hits a person at 120 miles per an hour the person goes flying in some direction. If the car hits a person at 2 miles and hour it hurts but the person wont go flying or get run over saying that the car stops suddenly after the initial impact.

[Entropy]

Right now there are many unexplained things happening that the current laws of physics can't explain.  Like the unexplainable connection between two electrons which no matter the distance you put them they seem to communicate in some way with each other reacting to whatever happens to the other.

 

That's called quantum entanglement. It's a very strange phenomen, with no explanation whatsoever, but it apparently exists.

[Izzy]

thats pretty pointless...

 

so there is no answer =.=

 

omf >.<

 

I'm gonna go draw some isotherm charts of my room.