No, you can't accelerate it any more. You can only add more energy to it, but it would not change its speed. It would already have infinite energy, so you can add whatever you want, even more infinite energy, and you still get an object with infinite energy at the speed of light. Btw., there are many theories of Gravity. Question is always if it can be falsified by observation with current or near-future technology.
Simply put, according to Einstein, as an object accelerates, its relative mass increases. So, to continue to accelerate the object requires ever increasing energy. Einstein therefore concluded that there is finite point at which it is not possible to generate the energy required to continue to propel the object beyond a certain speed.
This is of course, as we know it, the speed of light.
Hm, E=mc^2 stems from special relativity. In some sense, one could say that general relativity is special relativity consequently developed further. With all complexities that come with this. So in this meaning, yes. Though it is not enough by itself, you also need to add the principle of equivalence here - that acceleration is same as gravity. Then you unavoidably arrive at GR and black holes.
No I think you are confusing it with something called 'Brownian Motion" which has nothing to do with cosmology or astrophysics , just more to do with the behaviour and or existence of atoms, which eintein originally won the Nobel Prize for ...
The vacuum is the absence of matter, but there's still a lot of matter in space, existing in that vacuum.
One thing to consider about the curvature of space is that space-time itself is curved. You could think of space as an expanding, cooling bubble, with space and matter inside and on it, but a full explanation or description would be impossible in this limited space... especially if we get into quantum physics, M-theory and superstring theory. It just gets weirder. :)
"real" vacuum is of course matter-free, by definition. But that does not mean energy-free, and thus it can still be curved, since energy has mass, and that curves space, even without matter. Funny enough, gravitational energy is also energy, thus curves space. And you can build a black hole just from gravitiational energy itself, don't need any matter for that. Of course, it's not technically feasible to do so, but in theory, it works.
it's not space that is being curved, it is the fabric of space-time in accordance to his special relativity theory...I don't mind explaining all of this to you either...but not here (on your inbox)
general relativity; in special relativity, the spacetime is always flat. Also, usually when the spacetime is curved, then as well the spatial component of it, i.e. just space itself, is also curved. Of course, just looking at the curvature of space is incomplete, since that is only what a specific observer feels. Rather need to consider the curvature of space-time, like you said.
btw...if you want to know more about this topic you should first read about Copernicus (astronomer, mathematician) and about Galileo (scientist, astronomer) ...you can search for them in wilkipedia...
Not in real... just in that video the black hole comes out a bit brownish, because I thought it's a nice color. But can paint it any color, no issue. In a photo-realistic rendering of a BH you would only see the visual effects of curved space anyway, and not something that has a "surface".
The same speaker was also James Bond in some movies ;) Glad I got him for the narration of this movie.
Of course, the melody is supposed to be at least as weird as the visuals. Which part did you find most strange?
And certainly, visualization of future events is difficult. Even more than the prediction of future evenuts. So I do admit that our final future might not exactly look like as depicted in this video, and there has been some artistic freedom involved.
I have initiated a new group -- scivisualization -- to attempt to capture and invite strong science visualizations..may I have permission to add this video to this group?
I see Donna Cox was involved...we were just together at IM2.3 at Apple...trying to extend my enthusiasm with this effort...
Many thanks...I see some youtube content adding a link to "text" on anothe site to presumably provide documentation or discussion not able to be added "directly" to the video post...I also see a long and rich credits lists at the end of the video...
Is there any discussion or overview area on your site that might help here? Am I clear about what I am asking??
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy has been here all along ,But the coverup is very strong,Find this technology at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Join the energy revolution!
ivylsp 1 year ago
This is a great video, but I miss a mention about LIGO project. Kind Regards!
ManuelRelativista 2 years ago
Cont...
If you started the object at that speed, could you accelerate it? Are there any other influences on the object?
Gravity? What is it? I have a theory.
neilagraham 2 years ago
No, you can't accelerate it any more. You can only add more energy to it, but it would not change its speed. It would already have infinite energy, so you can add whatever you want, even more infinite energy, and you still get an object with infinite energy at the speed of light. Btw., there are many theories of Gravity. Question is always if it can be falsified by observation with current or near-future technology.
wbcct 2 years ago
E=MC2 is the theory of equivalence.
Simply put, according to Einstein, as an object accelerates, its relative mass increases. So, to continue to accelerate the object requires ever increasing energy. Einstein therefore concluded that there is finite point at which it is not possible to generate the energy required to continue to propel the object beyond a certain speed.
This is of course, as we know it, the speed of light.
More to come...
neilagraham 2 years ago
I'd say it's E=mc² γ
Muvlonion 2 years ago
Einstein did say E=MC2, do you think that is how blackholes have their weird gravity?
santagotback101 2 years ago
Hm, E=mc^2 stems from special relativity. In some sense, one could say that general relativity is special relativity consequently developed further. With all complexities that come with this. So in this meaning, yes. Though it is not enough by itself, you also need to add the principle of equivalence here - that acceleration is same as gravity. Then you unavoidably arrive at GR and black holes.
wbcct 2 years ago
So it's like E=MC2 times 100?
santagotback101 2 years ago
No, it's rather like R=2GM/c^2 .
wbcct 2 years ago
is there a brown hole?
WorldWarTwoSELLER 3 years ago
No I think you are confusing it with something called 'Brownian Motion" which has nothing to do with cosmology or astrophysics , just more to do with the behaviour and or existence of atoms, which eintein originally won the Nobel Prize for ...
crawhip2 3 years ago
if space means a area that is empty like a vacuum then how is it curved like einstein said how can nothing be curved?
WorldWarTwoSELLER 3 years ago
The vacuum is the absence of matter, but there's still a lot of matter in space, existing in that vacuum.
One thing to consider about the curvature of space is that space-time itself is curved. You could think of space as an expanding, cooling bubble, with space and matter inside and on it, but a full explanation or description would be impossible in this limited space... especially if we get into quantum physics, M-theory and superstring theory. It just gets weirder. :)
grimcity 3 years ago
"real" vacuum is of course matter-free, by definition. But that does not mean energy-free, and thus it can still be curved, since energy has mass, and that curves space, even without matter. Funny enough, gravitational energy is also energy, thus curves space. And you can build a black hole just from gravitiational energy itself, don't need any matter for that. Of course, it's not technically feasible to do so, but in theory, it works.
wbcct 3 years ago
it's not space that is being curved, it is the fabric of space-time in accordance to his special relativity theory...I don't mind explaining all of this to you either...but not here (on your inbox)
crawhip2 3 years ago
general relativity; in special relativity, the spacetime is always flat. Also, usually when the spacetime is curved, then as well the spatial component of it, i.e. just space itself, is also curved. Of course, just looking at the curvature of space is incomplete, since that is only what a specific observer feels. Rather need to consider the curvature of space-time, like you said.
wbcct 3 years ago
although I'm not an 'expert' on this topic, I still have a fair bit of general knowledge
crawhip2 3 years ago
btw...if you want to know more about this topic you should first read about Copernicus (astronomer, mathematician) and about Galileo (scientist, astronomer) ...you can search for them in wilkipedia...
crawhip2 3 years ago
well, space means a volume, not just an area. Where did Einstein say "nothing can be curved"? Don't understand your question.
wbcct 3 years ago
Not in real... just in that video the black hole comes out a bit brownish, because I thought it's a nice color. But can paint it any color, no issue. In a photo-realistic rendering of a BH you would only see the visual effects of curved space anyway, and not something that has a "surface".
wbcct 3 years ago
Haha, now that's a cool speaker.
Strange melody.
We don't know whether the Hawking radiation really exists, so all this is just a guess, not a visualisation of some future event.
trakkaton 3 years ago
The same speaker was also James Bond in some movies ;) Glad I got him for the narration of this movie.
Of course, the melody is supposed to be at least as weird as the visuals. Which part did you find most strange?
And certainly, visualization of future events is difficult. Even more than the prediction of future evenuts. So I do admit that our final future might not exactly look like as depicted in this video, and there has been some artistic freedom involved.
wbcct 3 years ago
Well parts like 2:25 are nice traditional keys and effect orgys.
Uuh, I guess it's time to get out of the universe with in the next billions of years, then, hahaha!
trakkaton 3 years ago
the end of the universe visualized for the first time? lies! i see the end of the universe every time i close my eyes.
trigunner87 4 years ago
uh its bullshit all of it.
josueanthonylpz 4 years ago
I have initiated a new group -- scivisualization -- to attempt to capture and invite strong science visualizations..may I have permission to add this video to this group?
I see Donna Cox was involved...we were just together at IM2.3 at Apple...trying to extend my enthusiasm with this effort...
Thank you
David Curry
davidrobertcurry 4 years ago
Sure! I'll be delighted to see it there! Werner
wbcct 4 years ago
Werner:
Many thanks...I see some youtube content adding a link to "text" on anothe site to presumably provide documentation or discussion not able to be added "directly" to the video post...I also see a long and rich credits lists at the end of the video...
Is there any discussion or overview area on your site that might help here? Am I clear about what I am asking??
Thanks
David Curry
davidrobertcurry 4 years ago