If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

•       •       •

2500 clicks; posted to Geek » on 23 Jan 2018 at 1:35 PM (25 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:    more»

 Paginated (50/page) Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

4.

Big Audio Dynamite - E=MC2

... except that's not the equation unless the object is at rest.  You need to multiply by the Lorentz factor (which is 1 when an object has zero velocity but has an undefined limit as the object approaches c).

In fact, it's this factor that makes makes most of the difference; without it, the relationship is linear as velocity increases; with it, the relationship is exponential.

/Still thinks Lorentz Factor sounds like a reality TV show.

Don't forget its contribution to splitting the beer atom:

I'm pretty sure it should be:
E^2 = (m^2) (c^4 ) + (p^2) (c^2)

Homeopathy with Dr. Werner

It also has implications for homeopathy.

[Rick and Morty] Fourth-Dimensional Being (all scenes)

You can thank the T-monsters.

obenchainr: In fact, it's this factor that makes makes most of the difference; without it, the relationship is linear as velocity increases; with it, the relationship is exponential.

It's still exponential.

It's just an exponent with a value of 1.

Would c-squared be an ever-increasing area?

It also has implications for homeopathy.

"Nothing is really mass".  "We vibrate with plant, animal, or mineral"
That was comedy gold!

Bobsville Strangler: I'm pretty sure it should be:
E^2 = (m^2) (c^4 ) + (p^2) (c^2)

You mean E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²?

m = E/c2I'm not fat just energetic

Again, why doesn't Fark link to SCIENCE WEBSITES and SCIENCE MAGAZINES for its science news/articles?

Not that I have anything against Forbes, but it's a long way from the top of the list of trusted online science sources.

I do all my physics in terms of scaled Planck units. That way, E = m.

obenchainr: ... except that's not the equation unless the object is at rest.

Bobsville Strangler: I'm pretty sure it should be:
E^2 = (m^2) (c^4 ) + (p^2) (c^2)

Thanks for being on top of stuff guys and stating things that were explained in the article.  We all owe you one.

Dhusk: Again, why doesn't Fark link to SCIENCE WEBSITES and SCIENCE MAGAZINES for its science news/articles?

Not that I have anything against Forbes, but it's a long way from the top of the list of trusted online science sources.

I've always thought that physicists are wrong, that there is a simpler answer to a lot of the weirdness of modern physics.  It's obviously muuuuuch more likely that I'm the one who's wrong, but what's wrong with me daydreaming about these things? =)

One of my random thoughts is that gravity is actually lag.  When you get a bunch of mass together in one place, the simulator simulating that area of the Universe starts to slow down from processing too many interactions in a small area.  Viewed by an outside observer, the objects in the gravity well slow down.  But the objects don't slow down from their own perspective.  This is gravitational time dilation.

As a video game analogy, when Mario gets too many Goombas on the screen, the game lags.  Mario doesn't notice the lag, but the player on the outside sees the game slow down.

An implication of my incorrect thoughts would be that a black hole would not be a singularity--instead, a black hole would be a place inside which time has almost stopped due to extreme lag/gravitational time dilation.

But even plain, old, regular mass at rest has energy inherent to it: a tremendous amount of energy. This carries with it a tremendous implication: that gravitation, which works between any two masses in the Universe in Newton's picture, should also work based off of energy, which is equivalent to mass via E = mc2

So - gravitational energy attracts gravitational energy?  Or is this one special case of energy it doesn't?

Myria: I've always thought that physicists are wrong, that there is a simpler answer to a lot of the weirdness of modern physics.  It's obviously muuuuuch more likely that I'm the one who's wrong, but what's wrong with me daydreaming about these things? =)

One of my random thoughts is that gravity is actually lag.  When you get a bunch of mass together in one place, the simulator simulating that area of the Universe starts to slow down from processing too many interactions in a small area.  Viewed by an outside observer, the objects in the gravity well slow down.  But the objects don't slow down from their own perspective.  This is gravitational time dilation.

As a video game analogy, when Mario gets too many Goombas on the screen, the game lags.  Mario doesn't notice the lag, but the player on the outside sees the game slow down.

An implication of my incorrect thoughts would be that a black hole would not be a singularity--instead, a black hole would be a place inside which time has almost stopped due to extreme lag/gravitational time dilation.

So if I see obese people I should yell "'LAGGER!!!" at them?

I don't see GOD in that equation, you heathens.

SwiftFox: But even plain, old, regular mass at rest has energy inherent to it: a tremendous amount of energy. This carries with it a tremendous implication: that gravitation, which works between any two masses in the Universe in Newton's picture, should also work based off of energy, which is equivalent to mass via E = mc2

So - gravitational energy attracts gravitational energy?  Or is this one special case of energy it doesn't?

Theoretically it could, but the ratio is so extreme that it wouldn't be noticeable.  Gravity is already extremely weak, and dividing the resulting gravitational potential energy by c2 (~ 10^17) is going to make the result equivalent to a rounding error.

Like, if there were two suns 1 AU from each other, the GPE between them would be -1.76E39 Joules.  Assuming they were at rest relative to each other (not really possible, but...), the "mass" equivalent of that GPE would be abut 1/100,000,000 of the mass of either star - on the scale of 1022 vs 1030, and less than the mass of the moon.  It may actually be something that exists, but it wouldn't be measurable in almost any experiment.

Dhusk: Again, why doesn't Fark link to SCIENCE WEBSITES and SCIENCE MAGAZINES for its science news/articles?

Not that I have anything against Forbes, but it's a long way from the top of the list of trusted online science sources.

Also, TFA just found 3 different ways to say that energy and mass are equivalent, which we already knew, thanks to Einstein.

This text is now purple: obenchainr: In fact, it's this factor that makes makes most of the difference; without it, the relationship is linear as velocity increases; with it, the relationship is exponential.

It's still exponential.

It's just an exponent with a value of 1.

But taking your stupid word game to its logical conclusion, literally everything is exponential.

iron de havilland: This text is now purple: obenchainr: In fact, it's this factor that makes makes most of the difference; without it, the relationship is linear as velocity increases; with it, the relationship is exponential.

It's still exponential.

It's just an exponent with a value of 1.

But taking your stupid word game to its logical conclusion, literally everything is exponential.

The sum of exponentials isn't strictly exponential itself.

Also knows a lot about emc:

obenchainr: ... except that's not the equation unless the object is at rest.  You need to multiply by the Lorentz factor (which is 1 when an object has zero velocity but has an undefined limit as the object approaches c).

In fact, it's this factor that makes makes most of the difference; without it, the relationship is linear as velocity increases; with it, the relationship is exponential.

/Still thinks Lorentz Factor sounds like a reality TV show.

In before someone comments that Lorentz Factor is their new Emo/Ska/Death metal band

Dhusk: Not that I have anything against Forbes, but it's a long way from the top of the list of trusted online science sources.

I feel you. I stopped clicking on Forbes links long ago. Fark them and their adblockerblocker.

Froman: obenchainr: ... except that's not the equation unless the object is at rest.  You need to multiply by the Lorentz factor (which is 1 when an object has zero velocity but has an undefined limit as the object approaches c).

In fact, it's this factor that makes makes most of the difference; without it, the relationship is linear as velocity increases; with it, the relationship is exponential.

/Still thinks Lorentz Factor sounds like a reality TV show.

In before someone comments that Lorentz Factor is their new Emo/Ska/Death metal band

I though he was Max's partner

Dhusk: Again, why doesn't Fark link to SCIENCE WEBSITES and SCIENCE MAGAZINES for its science news/articles?

Not that I have anything against Forbes, but it's a long way from the top of the list of trusted online science sources.

Not defending Forbes, but Ethan Siegel is actually a theoretical astrophysicist and halfway decent writer.  Not sure why he writes for Forbes, but if you're going to read a science writer in a popular source you could do a lot worse.

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.