one more thought to ponder

Do I understand this correctly that as a mass accellerates towards the
speed of light, it's value in mass also increases towards infinity?

If that is the case, what affect does this mass have on it's
surroundings due to it's increase in gravitational range.

Southern Hospitality wrote:
Do I understand this correctly that as a mass accellerates towards
the
speed of light, it's value in mass also increases towards infinity?

If that is the case, what affect does this mass have on it's
surroundings due to it's increase in gravitational range.


This is a lively debated issue.

Do a search in sci.physics.relativity to see the discussions.

Try "relativistic mass", a term which itself is no longer widely
accepted.

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...

Southern Hospitality wrote:
Do I understand this correctly that as a mass accellerates towards
the
speed of light, it's value in mass also increases towards infinity?

If that is the case, what affect does this mass have on it's
surroundings due to it's increase in gravitational range.


This is a lively debated issue.

Do a search in sci.physics.relativity to see the discussions.

Try "relativistic mass", a term which itself is no longer widely
accepted.

Double-A
Just curious, but the size of the mass would increase- as in volume not
density - there are not additional atoms being added to the mass so the
gravitational forces should remain the same.

Murf

MonkeyBoy wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...

Southern Hospitality wrote:
Do I understand this correctly that as a mass accellerates towards
the
speed of light, it's value in mass also increases towards
infinity?

If that is the case, what affect does this mass have on it's
surroundings due to it's increase in gravitational range.


This is a lively debated issue.

Do a search in sci.physics.relativity to see the discussions.

Try "relativistic mass", a term which itself is no longer widely
accepted.

Double-A
Just curious, but the size of the mass would increase- as in volume
not
density - there are not additional atoms being added to the mass so
the
gravitational forces should remain the same.

Murf


According to classical SR, mass increases with high speed, while volume
decreases. Mass increases in the sense that the inertial resistance to
further acceleration increases as necessary to keep the object from
being accelerated past the speed of light. On that everyone agrees.
On the other effects of this increased "mass", there is debate, at
least in the newsgroups.

I once tried to advance the argument that if inertial mass increased
with speed but not gravitational mass, then an object should be able to
orbit both below and above the event horizon of black hole, but the
equations of GR do not allow for this.
No additional atoms are added with acceleration.

Double-A

Hi MB and Double-A The reason a mass particle like the electron can
never accelerate to "C' is the energy to give it greater speed only
makes it weigh more the end result would be given enough energy to
push it.as close to 'c" as possible would take all the energy of the
universe,and it would still no reach "c" but weigh as much as the entire
universe "That is one heavy electron" Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote,
in post :
Hi MB and Double-A The reason a mass particle like the electron can
never accelerate to "C' is the energy to give it greater speed only
makes it weigh more the end result would be given enough energy to
push it.as close to 'c" as possible would take all the energy of the
universe,and it would still no reach "c" but weigh as much as the
entire universe "That is one heavy electron" Bert


Electrons are already moving at near light speed all around me,
in all these electronic devices. And with superconductors they
travel even closer to "C". But they weight *practically* nothing.
Some of these little boogers are pushed to near light speed
with the full force of........a 1.5 volt battery. Hardly all the energy
of the universe. Are you saying that to get that speed up that
last 1% or 5% or whatever it takes to get to C, takes a nearly
infinite boost in juice over what my 1.5 volt battery supplies?
No reply really needed. Just rhetoricizing...{¦:0]]
Cactus88

Cactus88 wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote,
in post :

Hi MB and Double-A The reason a mass particle like the electron can
never accelerate to "C' is the energy to give it greater speed only
makes it weigh more the end result would be given enough energy to
push it.as close to 'c" as possible would take all the energy of the
universe,and it would still no reach "c" but weigh as much as the
entire universe "That is one heavy electron" Bert



Electrons are already moving at near light speed all around me,
in all these electronic devices.

Nope, free electron speed in conductors is something like 1 million
metres per second (0.3% of lightspeed) - but there is net movement over
time.

Application of a potential (with your 1.5V cell) gives rise to a drift
velocity of about 1 cm per minute.


And with superconductors they
travel even closer to "C". But they weight *practically* nothing.
Some of these little boogers are pushed to near light speed
with the full force of........a 1.5 volt battery. Hardly all the energy
of the universe. Are you saying that to get that speed up that
last 1% or 5% or whatever it takes to get to C, takes a nearly
infinite boost in juice over what my 1.5 volt battery supplies?
No reply really needed. Just rhetoricizing...{¦:0]]
Cactus88

"OG" wrote in message
...



Nope, free electron speed in conductors is something like 1 million
metres per second (0.3% of lightspeed) - but there is net movement
over
time.

Whoops, should have read 'NO net movement over time'

HiCactus88 That is right at 99,9999999999 of "c" the electron weighs
70,000 times its rest mass. To accelerate it to that speed takes all the
electrical energy output of the city of New York. That's a lot of
volts. All this so far has been done at the Cern accelerator trying to
prove Einstien might be wrong. People have received the Nobel prize just
trying to disprove SR and GR Bert

OG wrote:

"OG" wrote in message
...

Nope, free electron speed in conductors is something like 1 million
metres per second (0.3% of lightspeed) - but there is net movement
over
time.

Whoops, should have read 'NO net movement over time'

That would only apply to AC, wouldn't it? In a DC circuit the
electrons do move, e.g. from a cell's anode to its cathode. When you
close a switch the current propagates through the circuit at nearly
c, but this certainly doesn't imply that the individual electrons
move at anything like that speed.

--
Odysseus