the only source of mass flux that a receiving mass is subject to is the mass flux from the Sun and Stars. In general when a mass becomes heavier it usually slows down that means a decrease in velocity . This is an opposiste scenario of Relativity Theory. Which One is right?In conclusion the bigger the mass the slower it moves?
2006-09-21 05:11:08 · 10 answers · asked by goring 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
The Sun's mass is biiger that he earth it moves slower. the earth is bigger than the moon it moves slower the moon is much begger than one electron is move a lot slower, the proton in the aton is bigger than the electron and it moves slower.This classical physics experiment delivered very accurate results within a very small error margin.So the smaller the mass the faster it moves does it not?
2006-09-21 06:28:25 · update #1
Isnt power that causes the motion of a mass and force is only the result of intereaction and usually comes with a reflected force?
2006-09-21 06:44:09 · update #2
energy is matter. to increase the speed u need to increase the energy thus increase the mass.
2006-09-21 10:44:42 · answer #1 · answered by hondacobra 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
First off, you seem to be confused on the difference between mass and weight. Mass is the amount of matter that an object has whereas weight is the force that a mass exerts in the presence of a gravitational pull. In relativity, there is the famous equation E=MC(squared). This tells us that energy has mass, just a very tiny amount of it. So when your velocity gets up to amazingly high speeds, the energy of this velocity has a much larger mass than at low speeds. As the velocity increases, the mass of the energy involved also increases.
As for your last statement "The bigger the mass the slower it moves", this is based on the concept of momentum. Momentum = mass * velocity. If you increase the mass of an object without increasing it's energy of velocity, then it will maintain the same momentum, and have to move at a slower rate. So, both are right in a way, it depends on if you are talking about increasing the speed, or increasing the mass. Increasing the speed increases the energy, which increases the mass (but it doesn't slow down because we are increasing the speed). If we are only increasing the mass without increasing the speed, the velocity will drop to maintain the same energy because the energy has not been changed.
2006-09-21 05:25:00 · answer #2 · answered by cuedainyag 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
> In conclusion the bigger the mass the slower it moves?
Not at all. For example, any mechanical car has mass greater than yours, but moves much faster.
You need a bigger force to *accelerate* a bigger mass - that would be (almost) a correct statement. That's exactly what relativity says - as a body approaches the speed of light, it's relativistic mass increases, meaning, that the force required to maintain it's acceleration becomes bigger and bigger, so that the speed of light itslef can never be reached by a massive body - it would require an infinite force to accelerate it.
2006-09-21 06:07:16 · answer #3 · answered by n0body 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The additional mass comes from energy.
What special relativity says (it has nothing to do with general relativity as others here suggest) is that as you accelerate a body then not all of the energy you provide it with goes into making it faster. Some of it goes into increasing its mass.
At the speeds we are used to the amount of energy that becomes mass is negligible. Close to the speed of light it is huge, and it means the speed of light can never be reached by an object that has non zero rest mass.
Remember in all of this that the mass of the body is relative. The mass only increases in your reference frame, in which the body is moving. In the reference frame in which the body is at rest, the mass is unchanged.
These are important concepts because until Einstein it was assumed that mass and energy were conserved separately. What relativity shows is that it is mass-energy that is conserved, but not either individually.
2006-09-21 05:39:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
i think of the respond that indicated understanding what each and every element stands for in an equation hit the nail on the top...that would not make all people sensible. What makes somebody sensible is that he or she is conscious the physics, electronics, engineering, and such in the back of such equations. So, to attempt how sensible you extremely are, answer those questions approximately E = mc^2: If the mass of a heavy atomic component is M and the sum of hundreds of the factors of that component after it extremely is split is m, how lots potential could be released if M is larger than m? Or how approximately this one: If something mass (m0) of an area deliver is sped as much as 9/10 the fee of sunshine, how lots potential could it require to get that area deliver as much as that speed? in case you are able to answer those (and others like them), you're sensible; in any different case, you have the thank you to bypass.
2016-10-17 09:41:01 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Speed of light is the extreme speed. Nothing can move at that speed.
So as you try to increase the body's speed to something comparable to the speed of light, the body tends to oppose the increase in speed.
However, since you are constantly increasing the energy, the only way in which the body can reduce the rate of increase of velocity is by increasing its mass.
The mass of the body actually increases, and it makes the increase in velocity more and more difficult. This finally leads to the situation that an infinite amount of energy is needed to overcome the speed barrier and reach the speed of light.
The situation you are talking about is the classical mechanics situation of conservation of momentum, when no force is acting.
Classical mechanics fails at high speed.
Relativistic mechanics is always correct. In fact, at low speed it reduces to the classical equivalents.
2006-09-21 05:20:06 · answer #6 · answered by astrokid 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Accelerating objects to the speed of light, other then sub-atomic particles, becomes a silly novelty once you understand what E=MC2 means. Energy & Matter are interchangable, they are diffirent aspects of the same defined by their state.
2006-09-21 06:02:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. You're not only completely incorrect, you aren't even using the words correctly (which tells me that you don't have a clue as to what the underlying concepts are)
You need to take an undergraduate course in General Relativity.
Doug
2006-09-21 05:16:46 · answer #8 · answered by doug_donaghue 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
you are applying the classical newtonian mechanics in relativistic view. the approach is totaly wrong. classical mechanics fail at high speeds so go through the relativity theory once more !!!!!.
2006-09-21 05:28:51 · answer #9 · answered by electro111 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What you are citing is Classical or Newtonian mechanics.
2006-09-21 05:22:47 · answer #10 · answered by ag_iitkgp 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋