I beg to differ. It is a closed system, and it's light is absorbed. However, the way it is absorbed provides forwards momentum.
How fast do you want to go? Fast enough is about one astronomical unit in maybe one hour. Probably more though. If you use a phase 3 nuclear reactor you could in fact double the power output by inducing a stray thermo nuclear photon with a large amount of exposure of photonic energy from the sun. I am not thinking of using this inside the atmosphere. It is for Void use only, this is because of the small amount of acceleration the craft will use. There is no such this as the twilight zone. Only other dimensions exist of parralell reality. Some the same, some different. We are always switching our path through realities, even though we are still sitting in the one reality time space, we are in fact moving through to another reality. Yes. The speed of light is not calulatable, so I shall give you a rough idea soon enough. Interesting. I will have to look up about this. Thanks! The S.T.C. has many ways of utilizing communications through its existance and expance. This forum allows it because it is part of physics. Many thanks. Regards, J.
There will be very little of the craft exposed to the direction of motion. It's surface will be as smooth as it possibly can be. But that won't be an ideal surface, it will have a sharp edge facing forward for optimal motionn of particles around the body. Thanks for that. Now i can fix my calculations!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ahh.... that gives me an idea..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thanks! Yes. But with the tech and funds I have abailable to me, it shouldn't take too long for me to build a model. But the real thing would take years, maybe even centuries to have the tech for my designs. Excellent. Thanks again Nasor. Does your head ever get warmed up with these calculations, or are you running cold while doing this? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Regards, J.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but all available scientific evidence indicates that light does not have mass. It isn't just a matter of us not having instruments sensitive enough to detect it; according to everything we know about physics, light can't have mass. Careful, voltage is not measured in megawatts. Watts (or megawatts) are units of power. It tells you how much energy your power source can put out in a given amount of time. Unlike voltage (which can be easily changed) this isn't really something that you can really change, unless you want to get a different power source. I have a TI-89 calculator that laughs at pretty much any math problem that you throw at it. If you're seriously studying math, science, or engineering, I can't recommend it strongly enough. Actually maybe not if you're studying math...after a while it ruins your ability to do calculus...but that's a small price to pay, in my opinion.
Hi Jolonar, Why are you so sure that light has mass? Assurances are worthless without sound reasoning and/or observations to back them up. Afterthought: I suppose that assurances backed by authority also have some limited worth.
Light does have a mass, otherwise, it would move at an infintessimal speed. And that's according to physics. Both rules are correct, but without mass, it should move at an infintessimal speed for there is nothing that can slow it down. No mass = no friction. Sorry, my mistake. It's just too damn cold down here. heh heh heh..... I also laugh at pretty much any math problem anyone throws at me. Then I get a paper cut. And after all that, I have to solve it! I admit theat they are good, but they pale in comparison to the brain. I found that it helped my calculus in some cases, because I could change a number and vualah, the answer was there, staring me in the face. It really helped in Specialist Maths. Calculous Shmaculous, it's somthing that you can do without. If something else can do it, why do it ourselves? Maths is hard unless you get help. My mother is a maths teacher. And I struggled through Specialists. But, since then, I have done harder problems in real life than in school. I hate School. I really do, they tell you things that you already know, and that's it. It's too easy! Well, I need to do some calculations. Regards, J.
Hi Jolonar, It's a fascinating idea, but you'll need a pretty convincing argument backed by sound theory to persuade people that momentum does not have to be conserved in a closed system.
Hiya Pete, Thanks, I realise that I need the theories to be sound, but I need the device made to make it sound. Anyhow, why would momentum need to be conserved within a closed device? means infinitely small. Can you back up that assertion?[/QUOTE] Thanks Pete! Yes, that's what I mean. Yes, I can. If light has no mass, then why does it take 8 minutes to get from the Sun to the Earth?? It travels at an extremely fast rate I admit, but it is not an Infinitesimal Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! speed. For it is calculatable. Regards, J.
You appear to be under the impression that zero mass implies infinite speed. Why? Let's explore this...
Well, if something has no mass, then no force can act upon it, not even the atmosphere because it has no size from no mass, theoretically it shouldn't exist if it has no mass. Mass is required for something to exist. If an atom had 0 mass, then it wouldn't exist. It's as simple as that.
Nope, you just made that up. Mass is simply one of many properties that something can either have or not have. It's not true that something must have mass in order to be acted upon; a magnetic field, for example, has no mass and can be effected by all sorts of thing. If you don't want to take our word for it, check out this page from the physics department of the university of california http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html .
Did you make that up? I won't address that assertion directly, because it seems to be to be more philosophical that physical. However, I will point out that mass and energy are two sides of the same thing, so much so that the term "mass-energy" is used in situations where the difference is irrelevant. I therefore suggest that an entity with energy and no mass (eg light) is at some level not essentially different to an entity with mass and no energy, or with both mass and energy.
I did not make that up. A magnetic field is the result of a "magnet" that's all. it is not actually there, it passes through objects because it has no mass. Light on the other had creates shadows! Thus, it has a mass, thus it itself exists! Right. So, then, a light drive is impossible?
No, I did not. It's both actually. Yes, but energy has mass. In theory. You posted this just before I posted my post, so, you may read my post and then you can reply regarding this matter if you wish, unless it explains it. Regards, J.
No, a light drive is quite possible because light has momentum, even though it has no mass. I don't really want to get in an argument with you over whether or not light has mass, but if you check any textbook or university physics web page they will tell you the same thing I'm telling you.
If you didn't make it up, then where did it come from? Is it your own deduction (to me, this is much the same as making it up unless accompanied by a rigorous referenced argument)? Is it from a reliable source? No! Energy and mass are the same thing at a deeper level, but it is a misrepresentation of the theory to say that energy has mass. I suggest that mass is not required for something to exist. It may or may not be true that mass-energy (mass or energy or both) is necessary for existence. I suggest that light has energy and momentum, but no mass. You may wish to review some fundamentals of relativity before continuing, as you seem to be unaware or misinformed of current understanding on this issue. Hyperphysics Usenet Physics FAQ
Okay... Well, if light has no mass then why does it create shadows when it hits an object? If it has no mass it should just go through. I know, but it doesn't stand up to the laws of physics and the universe. I'm just trying to understand where I was taught wrong, if I was at all. That's all, I'm not trying to create a huge arguement, I just don't understand why mass or energy is not required to make something exist. Regards, J.
Thanks Pete, I will read up some more to see what I can find out. Then I'll look back at reality and compare. They'll probably match for all I know. It's not like I have the blueprints for an Agnomat Hydro Generator in my brain, or even the Hovercar that goes anywhere. Or even the blackprints for a Universal Lingual MonSpace Transmitter. Anyhow. I will get back to you about my sources, I do not know if they want their names exposed to the general public. I may be able to persuade them to let me disclose their names to your elite mind. I shall read up some more, then get back to the light drive. Many thanks. Regards, J. P.S. While I'm not working on the Light Drive I will work on the Agnomat Hydro Generator.
Your mistake is in assuming that something must have mass to exist or interact with the physical world. I can see why this would make intuitive sense to you, but it just isn't the case. In our everyday lives we only usually encounter things that have mass (except for light of course, but we don't really experience light in the same way that we experience physical objects) so it's tempting to assume that everything must have mass, but that's not the way the universe works.