Newton's 3rd Law when relativistic effects/limits are considered?Where does the mass increase come from , when mass gets closer to the speed of light ?
Newton's 3rd Law when relativistic effects/limits are considered?Where does the mass increase come from , when mass gets closer to the speed of light ?
river said: ↑
Where does the mass increase come from , when mass gets closer to the speed of light ?
Newton's 3rd Law when relativistic effects/limits are considered?
To the objects , to the mass , not to any law .
Where does the increase in mass come from , physically .
I am a novice on this stuff. Seems too deep for me. I am comfortable believing GR prevents anything physical going faster than c. So at, or near it, the resistance/prevention of that speed limit being broken causes exponential mass increase (via protecting the speed limit being broken). Slow back down and the mass disappears just as quickly.
I probably should have said the resistance (Newton 3rd law on relativity steroids) disappears just as quickly.To your last statement ; why ?
Nowhere. Mass doesn't really increase.Where does the mass increase come from , when mass gets closer to the speed of light ?
river said: ↑
Where does the mass increase come from , when mass gets closer to the speed of light ?
Nowhere. Mass doesn't really increase.
Probably you are thinking of what people call "relativistic mass", a concept which working physicists these days don't really use (they use rest mass).
"Relativistic mass" is sort of a bad term used to describe a combination of rest mass energy and kinetic energy.
Rest mass energy is an energy associated with an object that has mass. The numerical value of the rest mass energy is $E_0 = mc^2$, where $m$ is the rest mass.Then what is rest mass energy ?
Rest mass energy is an energy associated with an object that has mass. The numerical value of the rest mass energy is $E_0 = mc^2$, where $m$ is the rest mass.
The point is that the total mechanical energy of a massive object is $E=\gamma mc^2$, where $\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor, which depends on the speed of the object. When the speed is zero, $\gamma=1$, which means that the object still has some energy even when it is stationary.
What relation does that question have to anything that has gone before, in this thread?But here is the thing .
Why do the rings of Uranus form as they do ? By gravity .
Does gravity form these rings ? What do you think , JamesR ?
river said: ↑
But here is the thing .
Why do the rings of Uranus form as they do ? By gravity .
Does gravity form these rings ? What do you think , JamesR ?
What relation does that question have to anything that has gone before, in this thread?
The short answer is to your question is "yes", but I don't think you're really interested in the answer.
Stop trolling.
Tell me why you think the rings of Uranus would be formed by something other than gravity.I'm interested in your answer .
Tell me why you think the rings of Uranus would be formed by something other than gravity.
I mean, you must have had some thoughts in mind if you're asking a legitimate question. What are your thoughts? What prompted your question in the first place? And what's the connection between this and anything else in the thread, other than the word "gravity"?
I already answered your first question about that. My answer was "yes".I see , so rather than answering my question about the rings of Uranus based on gravity...
Your "thinking" is one single word? That's all?, you want my thinking first , on why the rings of Uranus exist .
Rotation .
I already answered your first question about that. My answer was "yes".
Your "thinking" is one single word? That's all?
Explain to me how "rotation" explains the rings of Uranus.
Or stop trolling.
You didn't ask for an explanation. You asked whether I thought that gravity formed the rings of Uranus. My answer was yes, it did.But you didn't explain your answer of yes .
I already answered your first question about that. My answer was "yes".
Your "thinking" is one single word?
No, it's gravity.I see , so rather than answering my question about the rings of Uranus based on gravity , you want my thinking first , on why the rings of Uranus exist .
Rotation .
Well done for re-introducing some informative science to this train crash of a thread.No, it's gravity.
You start with a couple of small moons. The moons are compact enough so that they are outside of their Roche limit (That distance where the tidal forces due to differential gravity are stronger than the gravitational forces holding the body together)
The Roche limit is dependent on the relative densities of the bodies involved. When orbiting the same planet a low density object will have a Roche limit distance further from the planet than a higher density object will.
The moons collide, scattering their material. The resulting cloud of debris has, as a whole, a lower density than either of the two moons had. This means that this cloud has a higher Roche limit than the two moons did. So high that it finds itself inside the Roche limit. Tidal forces acting on it are stronger than its own gravity trying to pull it back together and the material gets pulled further apart to form a ring around the planet. The ring is further aided by the various gravitational pulls of other moons orbiting the Planet. Gaps between rings are formed because those regions lay where various gravitational tugs tend to pull objects out. Even then, all rings are temporary and will dissipate over time ( in terms of the age of the Solar system, Uranus' rings are relatively young at ~600 million years old.) From time to time, other objects can collide adding more material to the rings, but eventually you'll run out of source material.