KASASpace Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 But of course the energy has to be absorbed for that to work; what you're apparently trying to make happen.Forces are caused by change in momentum, not inertia. I thought you claimed to understand quantum physics? That'd require at least some knowledge of relativity; of which you hardly need a lot to understand photons having mass is nonsense.Did you even see the active cooling portion?Forces, some, are caused by change in momentum. However, in order for a particle to push on other particles, it has to have mass, as it is slowed down by the atmosphere, and thus has inertia, a property of something called mass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 How much energy would it require to cause a massive body to travel at the speed of light? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 How much energy would it require to cause a massive body to travel at the speed of light?Photons are expelled with such tremendous force, and are extremely light (less than 1000th and atomic mass) but not zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seret Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 KASASpace, it's good to have an enquiring mind, but it's also good to back that up with knowledge. Things like the fact that photons have momentum but no rest mass are pretty widely understood. I think you should consider the possibility that you're well out of your depth here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Photons are expelled with such tremendous force, and are extremely light (less than 1000th and atomic mass) but not zero.How much energy would it require to cause a massive body to travel at the speed of light? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rasheed Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Isn't Laser light? and light is electromagnetic waves/beams whatever. Why not use a strong Magnet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The point you are missing is that 'absorbing' and 'blocking' are the same thing. And if you spin the ship, I simply use a pulse laser - actually, I use a pulse laser anyway because they are much more dangerous - to get a very high intensity. If you spin the ship quickly enough that I can't blow holes in your hull with a pulse laser, then you either have such a tech advantage that I shouldn't have got into this fight to begin with, or you've engineered your ship to survive laser strikes so I'm going to throw missiles at it instead. Good luck mounting point defense weapons or a whipple shield on a rapidly spinning hull.Umm, absorb means take in, block means stop it in its tracks (at least that's the basics).Ever here of the poles? Well, that's a disadvantage to me and an advantage, because I get protection from lasers (to an extent) and protection from missiles given that they would be placed on the poles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 KASASpace, it's good to have an enquiring mind, but it's also good to back that up with knowledge. Things like the fact that photons have momentum but no rest mass are pretty widely understood. I think you should consider the possibility that you're well out of your depth here.Well, then. Why do most theories of black holes involve the sucking in of light."that witch no life escapes, that which no LIGHT escapes" -PHBSo, why would it have no mass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 So, why would it have no mass?The answer to that is pretty simple. It's provided by this thought experiment; how much energy would it require to cause a massive body to travel at the speed of light? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The answer to that is pretty simple. It's provided by this thought experiment; how much energy would it require to cause a massive body to travel at the speed of light?That's impossible to answer. As we don't know the mass of the photon. The real question would be how much energy does it take to shoot sub-atomic particles at near-light speeds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seret Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Isn't Laser light? and light is electromagnetic waves/beams whatever. Why not use a strong Magnet?Light is photons, which are not charged particles. Magnetic fields don't affect them.Well, then. Why do most theories of black holes involve the sucking in of light.Gravity is a warping of spacetime itself. The reason light can't escape from a black hole is that there is literally no path that it could follow that ended up beyond the event horizon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seret Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 That's impossible to answer. As we don't know the mass of the photon.The answer would be the same for any non-zero mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The answer would be the same for any non-zero mass.Sure?200 Mw for protons to near light speed. 1 atomic mass. 1 thousandth of that, and it's clear what would be needed.Want a source?http://home.web.cern.ch/about/engineering/powering-cern Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewas Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 What do massive particles at near light speed have to do with massive particles at light speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Light is photons, which are not charged particles. Magnetic fields don't affect them.Gravity is a warping of spacetime itself. The reason light can't escape from a black hole is that there is literally no path that it could follow that ended up beyond the event horizon.Any proof of the warping of space-time? You can't just pull an Einstein (IE say Quantum Entanglement is like a pair of gloves, etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Sure?Yes.Here's the formula, see for yourself.EDIT: Here, I'll do most of the work for you. V=C, so V/C=1. 12 also equals one, and 1-1=0; therefore the ultimate answer is going to be mv divided by zero. What's anything divided by zero? Edited February 8, 2014 by Kryten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenok Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Any proof of the warping of space-time? You can't just pull an Einstein (IE say Quantum Entanglement is like a pair of gloves, etc.)All the circled objects are actually the same, results of gravity bending spacetime. At this point I just can't tell if you're just trolling, or you really doubt basically all Physics from the last 90 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Yes.Here's the formula, see for yourself.http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/7/3/9735af203660c984a78237b901a7509f.pngEDIT: Here, I'll do most of the work for you. V=C, so V/C=1. 12 also equals one, and 1-1=0; therefore the ultimate answer is going to be mv divided by zero. What's anything divided by zero?Who made that formula?And it's useless without any variable declarations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/148928main_image_feature_575_ys_4.jpgAll the circled objects are actually the same, results of gravity bending spacetime. At this point I just can't tell if you're just trolling, or you really doubt basically all Physics from the last 90 years.What's the distance of that photo?Because the angular (annular?) distances between those objects appears to be in the parsecs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Who made that formula?It's directly derived from work by a certain A. Einstein. And it's useless without any variable declarations.Read my edit. C and V=the speed of light, m doesn't matter at all because of the stuff I already wrote and can't be bothered to repeat, p=momentum. If you want to directly derive kinetic energy, it's;but the difference is irrelevant in this context, it comes out exactly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) It's directly derived from work by a certain A. Einstein. Read my edit. C and V=the speed of light, m doesn't matter at all because of the stuff I already wrote and can't be bothered to repeat, p=momentum. If you want to directly derive kinetic energy, it's;http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/3/e/a3e2fd83c946cc2d69b42bbffbac6c98.pngbut the difference is irrelevant in this context, it comes out exactly the same.so, you're saying Einstein WAS an idiot This defies BASIC mathematical laws, such as "you can't have one variable equal another" which is taugt in just about EVERY SINGLE ALGEBRA CLASS.And BTW,You never read my edits, so why should I read yours?Plus, V/C = 1. That's very assumptive on what it is. What if it's 2? How did Einstein figure it out? Edited February 8, 2014 by KASASpace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 C=V, in this specific case, because the particle is supposedly moving at the speed of light; it's not true for all cases. If you'd prefer to use the numbers, C and V= 3X108, but, again, it makes no difference to the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 And BTW,You never read my edits, so why should I read yours?Plus, V/C = 1. That's very assumptive on what it is. What if it's 2? How did Einstein figure it out?C=the speed of light. V=the speed of the particles, which is the speed of light, because they are particles of light. This isn't exactly difficult stuff here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 C=V, in this specific case, because the particle is supposedly moving at the speed of light; it's not true for all cases. If you'd prefer to use the numbers, C and V= 3X108, but, again, it makes no difference to the outcome.Wait, wait wait. You can't say it's one then 300000000. Two variables can't equal each other. And anything divided by zero is undefined (as in, cannot be anything), not zero.I'm fairly mathematical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Wait, wait wait. You can't say it's one then 300000000.I said V/C=1, because C and V are the same; that applies whatever value they have.And anything divided by zero is undefined (as in, cannot be anything), not zero.It's not 'undefined' or zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts