@Guess Who I hope you get better!

---

"The Young Man and the Monopoly Sea"



_{@Plank Sinatra@Write@Crimmy@Eklispe@Lazo@Forsythe@HereComesTheSnow}

@Guess Who I hope you get better!

Thank you.

@NarayanK

Bless you!

I have:

3 Projects, 1 group project (don't fucking ask >.<), 2 papers, finals, the usual overload of daily time-sucking work, and a partridge in a pear tree.

So yeah.

I'm busy.

Send help over here too. Preferably an extra brain. Or better yet, a cloning device.

More job interviews
Essays
Sickness
DnD!
shopping while furiously trying to get income
putting off advising

i'm having a good time

For a Newtonian particle, with p = mu, the momentum is directly proportional to the velocity. The relativistic expression for momentum agrees with the Newtonian value if u ≪ c, but p approaches ∞ as u -> c.

For a Newtonian particle, with p = mu, the momentum is directly proportional to the velocity. The relativistic expression for momentum agrees with the Newtonian value if u ≪ c, but p approaches ∞ as u -> c.

I don't know all the variables but I think it describes what happens if something moves faster than the speed of light. Do I have that right?

For a Newtonian particle, with p = mu, the momentum is directly proportional to the velocity. The relativistic expression for momentum agrees with the Newtonian value if u ≪ c, but p approaches ∞ as u -> c.

English please.

<Snipped quote by Crimmy>

I don't know all the variables but I think it describes what happens if something moves faster than the speed of light. Do I have that right?

According to Newtonian mechanics, the momentum of a particle is equal to its mass multiplied by its velocity. Momentum is also a conserved quantity, which is true in all reference frames related by Galilean velocity transformations. However, the Galilean transformations are inconsistent with relativity. Say you're moving at 0.9c with respect to Earth, and then you shoot out an object that moves at 0.95c with respect to you; you'd expect the velocity of the object to be 1.85c with respect to the Earth, which is impossible because c, the speed of light in a vacuum, is the speed limit in all reference frames. But because you can't just throw the conservation of momentum out the window, however, you have to account for why it still works at significant fractions of c. It's an alright approximation when velocity "u" is small, but when you get big it starts going wonky. Instead, you'll have to use the "true time" measured by the particle itself.

You'll have to use the Lorentz transformations (except using the velocity of the particle rather than the reference frame) to get relativistic momentum.

For a Newtonian particle, with p = mu, the momentum is directly proportional to the velocity. The relativistic expression for momentum agrees with the Newtonian value if u ≪ c, but p approaches ∞ as u -> c.

<Snipped quote by Prince of Seraphs>

According to Newtonian mechanics, the momentum of a particle is equal to its mass multiplied by its velocity. Momentum is also a conserved quantity, which is true in all reference frames related by Galilean velocity transformations. However, the Galilean transformations are inconsistent with relativity. Say you're moving at 0.9c with respect to Earth, and then you shoot out an object that moves at 0.95c with respect to you; you'd expect the velocity of the object to be 1.85c with respect to the Earth, which is impossible because c, the speed of light in a vacuum, is the speed limit in all reference frames. But because you can't just throw the conservation of momentum out the window, however, you have to account for why it still works at significant fractions of c. It's an alright approximation when velocity "u" is small, but when you get big it starts going wonky. Instead, you'll have to use the "true time" measured by the particle itself.

You'll have to use the Lorentz transformations (except using the velocity of the particle rather than the reference frame) to get relativistic momentum.

Translation: As objects approach the speed of light, the mass, and therefor the velocity of the object decreases proportionally. Even if an object is thrown at 95% of the speed of light from an object traveling at 90% the speed of light, it cannot exceed the speed of light in a vacuum.

Also, as an object approaches the speed of light, the object apears to move in a slower time, and will have a different "true time" then objects not traveling at or near the speed of light.

Did I get that right? The gist of it anyway.

@Crimson Raven C is the same in all reference frames.

Time intervals will differ between reference frames.

@Crimson Raven C is the same in all reference frames.

Time intervals will differ between reference frames.

Yeah, different Time intervals. That's better. I was struggling to express the change in time.

That is because C is a constant. There is no known way to change C. Not even by amplified Gs.

Edit: well. Technically, C has inherit variance, but the variance is too small to really matter. (Pun not intented)

When I think of C I think of the programming language.

What's even more interesting is, that according to the theory, if you were to go past c, time would move backwards from your point of view and people would observe two of you.

<4 is okay Nara we still love you

What's even more interesting is, that according to the theory, if you were to go past c, time would move backwards from your point of view and people would observe two of you.

And this is the theoretical idea that powers the Flash's chronokinesis.

Gotta change his name to Impulse.

Except Bart's still fucking dead.

Gotta change his name to Impulse.

Except Bart's still fucking dead.

Bart Allen died?

<Snipped quote by Crimmy>

Bart Allen died?

Last time we saw the guy was Flashpoint. And given we haven't really seen the effects of Superman Reborn on the rest of the universe, we have no idea if Bar-Torr is actually his counterpart or not.