0.5mv2. For relativistic speeds, a more complicated formula must be used.
Gee whiz, I guess it would be. I never thought of that. When an object is moving, its length in the direction of motion decreases ... which decreases its volume ... and its mass increases. So its relativistic mass/relativistic volume is greater than its rest-mass/rest-volume .
The solutions will be extremely similar to what you would get for equations in Newtonian physics. At everyday speeds the deviation from Newtonian mechanics is negligible.
It is not the entire equation, but for current practical purposes, it is correct. If an object is moving at relativistic speeds, it is not correct. It requires you use relativistic mass, which is based on the velocity relative to the speed of light. It is correct for any human purposes.
Assuming non-relativistic speeds: Doubling the speed will quadruple the kinetic energy.
At the speeds encountered in everyday life the deviation of special relativity from so-called everyday "Newtonian" physics is negligible. Relativistic effects only become worth considering when speeds reach a significant fraction of the speed of light or if you are in need of extraordinary precision. Even at the speeds of planetary orbits Newtonian calculations are highly accurate, so it is unnecessary to use the more complicated equations of relativity.
3.5 kg. Barring relativistic considerations, mass is constant. Since you have stated the mass to one significant figure, relativistic considerations are too tiny at orbital speeds or from gravitational differences to be taken into account.
No, not at all. Kinetic energy is energy related to movement - any moving object has kinetic energy; at low (non-relativistic) speeds, the kinetic energy is calculated as 0.5 x mass x velocity squared.No, not at all. Kinetic energy is energy related to movement - any moving object has kinetic energy; at low (non-relativistic) speeds, the kinetic energy is calculated as 0.5 x mass x velocity squared.No, not at all. Kinetic energy is energy related to movement - any moving object has kinetic energy; at low (non-relativistic) speeds, the kinetic energy is calculated as 0.5 x mass x velocity squared.No, not at all. Kinetic energy is energy related to movement - any moving object has kinetic energy; at low (non-relativistic) speeds, the kinetic energy is calculated as 0.5 x mass x velocity squared.
In the absence of electric, magnetic and gravitational fields or potentials it would be its kinetic energy mv2/2. This is an approximate formula for "low" speeds, but at very high ("relativistic") speeds it is (m - m0)c2 where c is the velocity of light and the first factor is the difference between the mass and the rest mass. At low speeds both values agree.
KE = (1/2) mv2, that is, 1/2 times the mass times the speed squared. For very high(relativistic) speeds, a more complicated formula is used.
More speed means more kinetic energy.More specifically, the kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed. (This is for non-relativistic speeds.)
The big bang was a cosmic explosion in which the universe was created. Temperatures were so high that random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds and that the only matter that could exist in such conditions was antimatter.