🚀 go-pugleaf

Undertaker wrote:
> 
> Don Dueck <umdu...@CC.UManitoba.CA> wrote:
> 
> >> >apparent that, as an object approaches lightspeed, its mass approaches
> >> >infinity.  Doesn't the Law of Conservation of Matter prohibit any gain
> >> >or loss of mass?
> 
> >Well, I'm no astrophysicist, but from what I've been taught and actually
> >understand, an object really gains _matter_ (which is what I think you
> >are thinking 'mass' means) as it
> 
> I don't think the object gains any matter, otherwise the mass of the
> object would change.  It simply weighs more because the gravitational
> pull generated by the increased speed of the object creates a larger
> gravitational pull by the object on it's surroundings.  This increased
> gravitational pull increases the objects wieght not mass.  Wieght =
> Mass * gravity (9.81 plus or minus .01) on the surface of the earth.
> And decreases as you move away from the surface of the earth.  So if
> you wanted to loose some weight you could simply start living on a
> mountain, or move to the moon when they built a space station out
> there, because the moon's gravity is less than that of the earth.  The
> law of inertia also plays into the appearance of gain of mass.
> 
> >approaches the speed of light, but it does gain _mass_.  That is, you
> >don't get bigger, but your atoms 'weigh' more.  Maybe I'm totally off,
> >but I believe it has more to do with the increasing energy needs to
> >accelerate an object as its mass increases (ie. more mass = more inertia
> >(ie. resistance to a change in motion) = more energy needed to accelerate
> >the object).  You would, theoretically, need an infinite amout of energy
> >to accelerate any material object to the speed of light. The Law of
> >Conservation of Matter states, roughly, that
> >matter (& energy) can't be created nor destroyed.  It does not, however,
> >say that the mass of that matter is constant.
> 
> >What makes it so hard to grasp, in my opinion, is that we're so used to
> >our little view of the universe.  It just seems ludicrous that time
> >should slow down the faster you go and that you should gain more mass as
> >well.
> 
> Well, actually time doesn't slow down, as you approach speed of light,
> you are sort of passing through time (time traveling into the future).
> Theoretically, if you reach lightspeed, the object would then exist
> everywhere at the same time, making it possible to travel to any given
> time period.  (I'me sure this last bit doesn't make much sense, as I
> am not a physicist, but a comp. sci. major).
> 
> >I hope I've shed a little light on the subject.  I'd be interested in
> >further discussion, but perhaps this particular newsgroup isn't the place
> >for it.
> 
> true, this is not the correct place, but I had to make a few
> corrections in your response.

Hi,
Don't know why this is on this group, but from what I can see
Don Dueck is right and Undertaker is wrong. Especially about that
mass stuff. Mass increases with speed, not weight. Also,
experiments with near-light-speed objects indicates that time
does slow down as speed increases.

Barry. 

-- 
E-mail: Barry_...@hp.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this sloppiness caused by ignorance or apathy ? 
I don't know and I don't care. - William Safire
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of Hewlett-Packard Ltd.