If one could measure the true mass of the universe would it have to be done with everything stopped? As far as I know the mass of an object increases as its velocity increases. If the entire mass of the universe was contained in one object, would it be motionless or at c?

The mass of the universe should be less if it were motionless would it not? I mean mass would be at its maximum at c and minimum if at zero velocity, no?

Technically speaking, is the mass of the universe less or more than in the beginning? Because matter is flying around the universe, shouldn't it affect the total mass of the universe? Do we need motion in order for mass to be present?

Has the current mass of the universe ever been calculated or estimated? If so, how do they do it?

2.

3. Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

If one could measure the true mass of the universe would it have to be done with everything stopped? As far as I know the mass of an object increases as its velocity increases. If the entire mass of the universe was contained in one object, would it be motionless or at c?

The mass of the universe should be less if it were motionless would it not? I mean mass would be at its maximum at c and minimum if at zero velocity, no?

Technically speaking, is the mass of the universe less or more than in the beginning? Because matter is flying around the universe, shouldn't it affect the total mass of the universe? Do we need motion in order for mass to be present?
It doesnt matter really what speed it is moving it would still have the same relativistic mass. That would be what we would measure, no?

Has the current mass of the universe ever been calculated or estimated? If so, how do they do it?
I wouldn't have thought so, seeing as we dont even know the first things such as, whether the universe is finite or infinite to start with.

4. Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
It doesnt matter really what speed it is moving it would still have the same relativistic mass. That would be what we would measure, no?
Couldn't tell ya. That's why I asked if motion is required in order for mass to be present.

I don't have the scientific mind some of you guys have but I read this stuff and unfortunately my thoughts start flying all ver the place when I do.

5. Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
It doesnt matter really what speed it is moving it would still have the same relativistic mass. That would be what we would measure, no?
That's why I asked if motion is required in order for mass to be present.

.
No its not(unless the object in question is massless without motion i.e. light).

6. Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
That's why I asked if motion is required in order for mass to be present.

.
No its not(unless the object in question is massless without motion i.e. light).[/quote]

Light has no intrinsic or inherent mass by its nature but I have read that it actually does have a measurable mass. Not sure about other massless objects however. One thing for certain is that light is in motion, at least I think it is.

7. i think you mean it has a measureable pressure on a surface (thats how solar sails work). important thing to remember is that although galaxies far away from us are moving away at close to the speed of light, it is only relative to us. most of the aparent motion is because of space expanding and not that it is moving through space. or so i think

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement