 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / October 2004Reaching Light Speed,
Hi, If we push slightly any mass-less object would it reach speed of light, if not then why does photons reaches C , definelty they are not triggered at this speed initially and light speed slows down in denser medium but regains the original speed? > Hi, > If we push slightly any mass-less object would it reach speed of light, I don't see how a mass-less object could travel *ever* at any other velocity than c. > if not then why does photons reaches C They don't "reach" c - they always *have* c. They do not start at a lower velocity and are accelerated to c. > definelty they are not > triggered at this speed initially Why not? > and light speed slows down in denser > medium but regains the original speed? The photons don't slow down in the medium. That light speed is lower in media is essentially based on the fact that the photons can't travel in a straight line there. Bye, Bjoern | > Hi, | > If we push slightly any mass-less object would it reach speed of light, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] | | The photons don't slow down in the medium. You've never heard of refraction, huh? That light speed is lower | in media is essentially based on the fact that the photons can't travel | in a straight line there. LOL! You do like to make it up as you go along... Androcles | Bye, | Bjoern > | > Hi, > | > If we push slightly any mass-less object would it reach speed of light, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > You've never heard of refraction, huh? I did. Read on. > | That light speed is lower > | in media is essentially based on the fact that the photons can't travel > | in a straight line there. > > LOL! You do like to make it up as you go along... Do you say that photons *can* travel at straight lines in a medium? Do you say they are *not* absorbed and re-emitted in a medium? Bye, Bjoern | > | > Hi, | > | > If we push slightly any mass-less object would it reach speed of light, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] | | Do you say that photons *can* travel at straight lines in a medium? Yes, I do. From observation. Water is a medium. Air is a medium. When light curves in air, we use the term "mirage". Most of the time we don't see mirages, but if the conditions are right, such as heated air rising from the surface of a road, there are observable. The subjective impression is on of a pool of water lying in the road ahead. It appears that way because like a pool of water the sky is observed, In the case of water it is reflected. In the case of a mirage it is refracted. You've probably never heard of it, since you see the world through relativity tinted glasses. | Do you say they are *not* absorbed and re-emitted in a medium? Yes. From observation, again. When light strikes matte paint, a small range of the spectrum is re-emitted giving the characteristic colour of the paint. This is called absorption and re-emission. We call such a medium "opaque". Other words in common usage are "translucent" and "transparent". Look them up. Androcles. > | > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Yes, I do. From observation. You observed single photons? How did you do that? > Water is a medium. Air is a medium. > When light curves in air, we use the term "mirage". Most of the time we [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You've probably never heard of it, since you see the world through > relativity tinted glasses. Err, I did not talk about light curving above. I talked about photons not travelling in straight lines. Try to understand the difference. > | Do you say they are *not* absorbed and re-emitted in a medium? > > Yes. From observation, again. Again: You observed single photons? How did you do that? > When light strikes matte paint, a small range of the spectrum is re-emitted > giving the characteristic colour of the paint. This is called absorption and > re-emission. We call such a medium "opaque". Other words in common usage > are "translucent" and "transparent". Look them up. What makes you think that in transparent media, photons are *not* constantly absorbed and re-emitted? Why should this process automatically make a medium look opaque? Bye, Bjoern >> Hi, >> If we push slightly any mass-less object would it reach speed of light, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >in media is essentially based on the fact that the photons can't travel >in a straight line there. That's a common explanation, but not quite true. When people talk about light speed in media, they usually refer to phase velocity. Well, the phase velocity in media at sufficiently high frequencies is higher than c. So, does it mean that in those cases the photons travel in a "straighter than straight" line. No, of course not. Simply put, said phase velocity is a collective phenomenon only indirectly related to the speed of individual photons. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" >>>Hi, >>>If we push slightly any mass-less object would it reach speed of light, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Simply put, said phase velocity is a collective phenomenon only > indirectly related to the speed of individual photons. My goal here was essentially to give the poster an easy answer, which can be understood intuitively - not to give an exhaustive, "true" answer. But thanks anyway! Bye, Bjoern | >>>Hi, | >>>If we push slightly any mass-less object would it reach speed of light, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] | My goal here was essentially to give the poster an easy answer, which | can be understood intuitively - not to give an exhaustive, "true" answer. So you spout nonsense to make it easy and snip what you have no easy answer for....very wise, I'm sure. Androcles. | But thanks anyway! | | Bye, | Bjoern >> Hi, >> If we push slightly any mass-less object would it reach speed of light, > >I don't see how a mass-less object could travel *ever* at any other >velocity than c. ....but according to your religion, anything traveling at c would have infinite mass. You are a mindless hypocrite. >> if not then why does photons reaches C > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Bye, >Bjoern HW. www.users.bigpond.com > >> Hi, > >> If we push slightly any mass-less object would it reach speed of light, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > mass. > You are a mindless hypocrite. It must indeed be a religion because it's proponents refer to it's opponents as "heritics" LOL ;-) Sue... > >> if not then why does photons reaches C > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > www.users.bigpond.com | > >> Hi, | > >> If we push slightly any mass-less object would it reach speed of light, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] | > >in media is essentially based on the fact that the photons can't travel | > >in a straight line there. Lenses don't work! Androcles, ROFLMAO!! | > >Bye, | > >Bjoern | > | > HW. | > | > www.users.bigpond.com >>>Hi, >>>If we push slightly any mass-less object would it reach speed of light, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ....but according to your religion, anything traveling at c would > have infinite mass. Err, no. Not everything. Only things with non-zero rest mass. > You are a mindless hypocrite. No. You use silly straw men. [snip] Bye, Bjoern >>>>Hi, >>>>If we push slightly any mass-less object would it reach speed of light, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Err, no. Not everything. Only things with non-zero rest mass. Ah! But what is 'rest'? Are you implying that space is absolute? Again, You are a mindless hypocrite. >> You are a mindless hypocrite. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Bye, >Bjoern HW. www.users.bigpond.com >>> ....but according to your religion, anything traveling at c would >>> have infinite mass. >> >> Err, no. Not everything. Only things with non-zero rest mass. > > Ah! But what is 'rest'? Right here... http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RestMass.html > Are you implying that space is absolute? No he isn't. I've read quite a few of his posts and he never has alluded to any absolutes in anything except the speed of light in a vacuum. >>>> ....but according to your religion, anything traveling at c would >>>> have infinite mass. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >No he isn't. I've read quite a few of his posts and he never has alluded to any >absolutes in anything except the speed of light in a vacuum. So how can any lump of matter have a 'rest mass' at all, if it is never at rest wrt something? Does it have a different rest mass for every moving observer? Are you plain stoopid? HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > Are you plain stoopid? sure.. whatever you want to think.. no skin off my nose.. I tried to show you something educational, whether you learn anything won't affect my paycheck. wink wink nudge nudge.. R I A W G >>>>>....but according to your religion, anything traveling at c would >>>>>have infinite mass. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > So how can any lump of matter have a 'rest mass' at all, if it is never at rest > wrt something? No one ever said that lumps of matter are never at rest wrt anything. Stop making up silly straw men! > Does it have a different rest mass for every moving observer? *sigh* It has a different mass for every observer moving at a different speed wrt it. It has the *same* rest mass for every observer who rests wrt it. > Are you plain stoopid? Apparently you are. Bye, Bjoern >>>>>>....but according to your religion, anything traveling at c would >>>>>>have infinite mass. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >speed wrt it. It has the *same* rest mass for every observer who >rests wrt it. ....even if they are both moving wrt another observer? How do you measure it? You don't know if it has the same absolute value for every speed at which the two might move. In other words, the whole concept of 'rest mass' is completely meaningless. >> Are you plain stoopid? > >Apparently you are. > >Bye, >Bjoern HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > How do you measure it? > You don't know if it has the same absolute value for every speed at which the > two might move. > > In other words, the whole concept of 'rest mass' is completely meaningless. Those who *refuse* to see will never do so. >> How do you measure it? >> You don't know if it has the same absolute value for every speed at which the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Those who *refuse* to see will never do so. If you move with an electron you get no magnetic field. The field is there all right but one must be moving relative to the electron to detect it. If an observer moves relative to an object, SR says the object becomes heavier. So does 'rest mass' change every time a different observer goes past? HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>>How do you measure it? >>>You don't know if it has the same absolute value for every speed at which the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If you move with an electron you get no magnetic field. Unsupported assertion. Why on earth do you think so? Where, do you think, does the magnetic field around a wire through which a current (consisting of electrons!) flies, come from? > The field is there all right but one must be moving relative to the electron to > detect it. That has to be one of the most stupidest sentence I've ever seen from you. And that says a lot! If you move an electron, you *are* moving relative to it, if you didn't notice! > If an observer moves relative to an object, SR says the object becomes heavier. To be more precise: SR says that the *inertia* of the object gets greater. > So does 'rest mass' change every time a different observer goes past? *sigh* No. Try to understand why there is the qualifier "rest" before the word "mass". Bye, Bjoern > > If you move with an electron you get no magnetic field. > > Unsupported assertion. Why on earth do you think so? > Where, do you think, does the magnetic field around a wire through > which a current (consisting of electrons!) flies, come from? I think what he means is that, if you assume that all the electrons in the wire are moving together and that if your reference frame moves along with the electrons (so that the electrons are at rest in this frame), there will be no magnetic field in this frame. An electric field yes, but not a magnetic field. This comes, as he correctly implies, from Lorentz-xform of the EM field. PD >>>If you move with an electron you get no magnetic field. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > along with the electrons (so that the electrons are at rest in this > frame), there will be no magnetic field in this frame. Yes, indeed! I somehow missed the word "with" in his sentence above! [snip] Bye, Bjoern > >>>If you move with an electron you get no magnetic field. > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Bye, > Bjoern That ain't the first time you've jumped to wild conclusions, Bjoern. TomGee >>>>>If you move with an electron you get no magnetic field. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That ain't the first time you've jumped to wild conclusions, Bjoern. Well, I fully admit that I make errors now and then. OTOH, I haven't you ever seen admitting an error... Bye, Bjoern >>>> How do you measure it? >>>> You don't know if it has the same absolute value for every speed at [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Where, do you think, does the magnetic field around a wire through > which a current (consisting of electrons!) flies, come from? Oops. Sorry. I missed somehow the word "with" in your sentence above and read this simply as "if you move an electron..." I apologize for all the comments I made based on this misreading. But, sorry, I still do not see what all of that has to do with rest mass! So, my comment below still stand. [snip] >> If an observer moves relative to an object, SR says the object becomes >> heavier. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > *sigh* No. Try to understand why there is the qualifier "rest" before > the word "mass". Bye, Bjoern >>>>> How do you measure it? >>>>> You don't know if it has the same absolute value for every speed at [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Oops. Sorry. I missed somehow the word "with" in your sentence above >and read this simply as "if you move an electron..." I realised that. >I apologize for all the comments I made based on this misreading. That's all right Bjoern. We are all familiar with the general SRian reading comprehension problem. >But, sorry, I still do not see what all of that has to do with rest >mass! So, my comment below still stand. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> *sigh* No. Try to understand why there is the qualifier "rest" before >> the word "mass". If the mass increases wrt the moving observer, why should that increase not be observed by the rest observer? Now you might understand my analogy with magnetic fields. >Bye, >Bjoern HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm [snip] >>>>So does 'rest mass' change every time a different observer goes past? >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If the mass increases wrt the moving observer, why should that increase not be > observed by the rest observer? Why on earth *should* it be observed by the rest observer????? > Now you might understand my analogy with magnetic fields. No, I don't! There, it is the same! The observer moving wrt to the electron sees a magnetic field; the observer resting wrt to it sees none! (ignoring the magnetic moment of the electron here) The observer moving wrt the electron sees an increased mass; the observer resting wrt to it does *not* see an increased mass! Say, do you always bring up analogies which actually disprove your case? Bye, Bjoern .................. ...Observation is the tool of creation. Observing that which we have created in an effort to find the secret of creation is akin to looking for the car keys that are in our hand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!................. ... -- Richard Adams -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Bye, > Bjoern > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > moving wrt the electron sees an increased mass; the observer resting wrt > to it does *not* see an increased mass! So... Relativistic mass increase does not exist. Deflection plates (since we want to ignore spin [shrug]) co-moving with a particle can accelerate the mass to near c wrt the plates. If plate velocity is 0.8c wrt lab, and the plates can accelerate the particle by 0.5 c, then the total speed wrt lab is 0.8c + 0.5c. The particle's motion wrt the lab imposes no constraints on the ability to further accelerate the particle wrt the lab. A real world example: In a collider, one bunch of particles is moving in excess of c wrt another bunch of particles. There is no "weight watcher fairy" to tell the bunches that they can't do that because they will see each others mass go to infinity. Kind regards, Sue... > Say, do you always bring up analogies which actually disprove your case? > > Bye, > Bjoern >>[snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > So... Relativistic mass increase does not exist. It has been observed lots of times, but that does obviously not mean that it exists, no. How could I dare thinking that! > Deflection plates (since we want to ignore spin [shrug]) co-moving with a particle > can accelerate the mass to near c wrt the plates. Err, if the plates are co-moving with the particle, then how can the mass move with almost c wrt the plates? > If plate velocity is 0.8c wrt lab, and the plates can accelerate > the particle by 0.5 c, then the total speed wrt lab is 0.8c + 0.5c. No, that is a non sequitur. The velocity of the mass wrt the lab is *not* simply the velocity of the plates wrt the lab (as measured in the lab) plus the velocity of the mass wrt the plates (as measured in the reference frame of the plates). > The particle's motion wrt the lab imposes no constraints on the > ability to further accelerate the particle wrt the lab. Wrong. It does indeed impose constraints, since the inertia increases. > A real world example: > In a collider, one bunch of particles is moving in excess of c > wrt another bunch of particles. No, this never happens. The velocity of one bunch wrt to the other (as measured in the frame of one of the bunches) is *not* the same as the difference of the velocities of the two bunches (as measured in the lab frame). > There is no "weight watcher fairy" to > tell the bunches that they can't do that because they will see each > others mass go to infinity. There does not need to be such a fairy, since this anyway never happens. [snip] Bye, Bjoern > >>[snip] > >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Err, if the plates are co-moving with the particle, then how can the > mass move with almost c wrt the plates? Put identical charges on the plates. I could have used the term "reference frame" but some assume Minkowski geometry from that. > > If plate velocity is 0.8c wrt lab, and the plates can accelerate > > the particle by 0.5 c, then the total speed wrt lab is 0.8c + 0.5c. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Wrong. It does indeed impose constraints, since the inertia increases. So how do the plates know this? Do they see the lab zipping past and alter the speed limit? > > A real world example: > > In a collider, one bunch of particles is moving in excess of c [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > as the difference of the velocities of the two bunches (as measured > in the lab frame). Then colliders are a waste of money, Eh? > > There is no "weight watcher fairy" to > > tell the bunches that they can't do that because they will see each > > others mass go to infinity. > > There does not need to be such a fairy, since this anyway never happens. Well who changes the speed limit for the plates? ;-) Kind regards, Sue... > [snip] > > Bye, > Bjoern [snip] >>>Deflection plates (since we want to ignore spin [shrug]) co-moving with a particle >>>can accelerate the mass to near c wrt the plates. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Put identical charges on the plates. How does that help? Again: if the plates are co-moving with the mass, then how can the mass move with almost c wrt the plates? > I could have used the term "reference frame" but some assume > Minkowski geometry from that. Well, I don't. I know fairly well that "reference frame" is also a valid concept in Galileian relativity. >>>If plate velocity is 0.8c wrt lab, and the plates can accelerate >>>the particle by 0.5 c, then the total speed wrt lab is 0.8c + 0.5c. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So how do the plates know this? Before I can answer that, you probably should first tell me how the plates can be co-moving with the mass, and at the same time, the mass is moving at 0.5c wrt them. Doesn't that somehow sound contradictory to you? [snip] >>No, this never happens. The velocity of one bunch wrt to the other >>(as measured in the frame of one of the bunches) is *not* the same >>as the difference of the velocities of the two bunches (as measured >>in the lab frame). > > Then colliders are a waste of money, Eh? No. How does that follow, IYO? [snip] Bye, Bjoern > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > How does that help? Again: if the plates are co-moving with the mass, > then how can the mass move with almost c wrt the plates? Think of it in two steps. First the plates and the particle are accelerated to 0.8 c wrt the lab by using Einstein rail car. Secondly the plates are chaged to further accelerate the particle an additional 0.5 c. wrt the rail car. > > I could have used the term "reference frame" but some assume > > Minkowski geometry from that. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > the mass is moving at 0.5c wrt them. Doesn't that somehow sound > contradictory to you? No. It sounds more like your previous argurment fell apart when electrostatic charge replaced the Lorentz force of the magnets you were using. Either should work, of course (principle of relativity) but it using charge avoids Maxwell's "displacement current" which like SR is based on an ether. Kind regards, Sue... > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No. How does that follow, IYO? The purpose of a collider is to overcome the speed of light limitation wrt the lab frame. You are suggesting that colliders can't really work because a limit of c will apply to one bunch as observred from the other bunch. Kind regards, Sue... > [snip] > > Bye, > Bjoern >>[snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Think of it in two steps. First the plates and the particle are accelerated to 0.8 c wrt the lab by using Einstein rail car. > Secondly the plates are chaged to further accelerate the particle an additional 0.5 c. wrt the rail car. So the plates are in the second step no longer co-moving with the mass? Anyway: the result will be that the plates move wrt the lab (as measured in the frame of the lab, or of the plates) with 0.8c, the mass will move wrt the plates (as measured in the frame of the plates, or of the mass) with 0.5c, and the mass will move wrt the lab with 1.3/1.4 c, which is about 0.93c (as measured in the frame of the lab, or of the mass). [snip] >>>>>The particle's motion wrt the lab imposes no constraints on the >>>>>ability to further accelerate the particle wrt the lab. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > electrostatic charge replaced the Lorentz force of the magnets you > were using. What previous argument do you mean? Where did I use any magnets??? [snip] >>>>No, this never happens. The velocity of one bunch wrt to the other >>>>(as measured in the frame of one of the bunches) is *not* the same [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The purpose of a collider is to overcome the speed of light > limitation wrt the lab frame. No, it isn't. Why on earth do you think so? > You are suggesting that colliders can't > really work because a limit of c will apply to one bunch as > observred from the other bunch. Such a limit indeed applies. And that does not in any way hinder the working of the collider. Why on earth do you think so? Bye, Bjoern > >>[snip] > >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > What previous argument do you mean? Where did I use any magnets??? << The observer moving wrt to the electron sees a magnetic field; the observer resting wrt to it sees none! (ignoring the magnetic moment of the electron here) The observer moving wrt the electron sees an increased mass; the observer resting wrt to it does *not* see an increased mass! Kind regards, Sue... > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Bye, > Bjoern >>>"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> > > wrote in message news:cjeffe$a3t$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de... [snip] [snip] >>>No. It sounds more like your previous argurment fell apart >>>when [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > resting wrt > to it does *not* see an increased mass! Yes, that's what I said. Now, where do you see magnets in this argument? [snip] >>>The purpose of a collider is to overcome the speed of light >>>limitation wrt the lab frame. >> >>No, it isn't. Why on earth do you think so? Care to answer that? >>>You are suggesting that colliders can't >>>really work because a limit of c will apply to one bunch as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>hinder the >>working of the collider. Why on earth do you think so? Care to answer that? Bye, Bjoern >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >moving wrt the electron sees an increased mass; the observer resting wrt >to it does *not* see an increased mass! You just don't get it do you. Whatever is responsible for the magnetic field does not depend on any observer's speed. >Say, do you always bring up analogies which actually disprove your case? Whatever is responsible for 'apparent mass increase with velocity' doesn't depend on any observer's speed. >Bye, >Bjoern HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>[snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You just don't get it do you. Talking to yourself again, I see... > Whatever is responsible for the magnetic field does not depend on any > observer's speed. If a magnetic field is seen or not depends on the speed of the observer. >>Say, do you always bring up analogies which actually disprove your case? > > Whatever is responsible for 'apparent mass increase with velocity' doesn't > depend on any observer's speed. If an increase in inertia is seen or not depends on the speed of the observer. Bye, Bjoern >>>[snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >If a magnetic field is seen or not depends on the speed of the observer. Why are you so obsessed with 'what is seen'? This 'SRianCentrism' is certainly a debilitating disease. Didn't you know the universe functioned perfectly well, long before the first 'observers' evolved? >>>Say, do you always bring up analogies which actually disprove your case? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >If an increase in inertia is seen or not depends on the speed of the >observer. Whatever causes the apparent mass increase that one moving observer measures doesn't go away just becasue a differently moving observer looks at it. The gap in your logic, Bjoern, concerns the fact that the 'empty space' containing a magnetic field IS NOT empty space at all. If Einsteiniana hadn't hijacked physics, a few more people might be looking in the right directions for answers to the real questions. >Bye, >Bjoern HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>>>[snip] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Why are you so obsessed with 'what is seen'? *sigh* Because physics is about explaining observations and measurements, if you didn't notice. > This 'SRianCentrism' is certainly a debilitating disease. > > Didn't you know the universe functioned perfectly well, long before the first > 'observers' evolved? Replace "seen" with "observed", and realize that an observation does not necessarily imply a conscious observer. Any interaction with the environment also counts as an observation. >>>>Say, do you always bring up analogies which actually disprove your case? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Whatever causes the apparent mass increase that one moving observer measures > doesn't go away just becasue a differently moving observer looks at it. *sigh* Your argumentation is based on the *assumption* that there is something like an absolute mass for every object, which is only perceived differently by different observers. Try to realize that, and try to realize that SR drops that assumption. > The gap in your logic, Bjoern, concerns the fact that the 'empty space' > containing a magnetic field IS NOT empty space at all. What on earth has that to do with the argument above? [snip] Bye, Bjoern > *sigh* Because physics is about explaining observations and > measurements, if you didn't notice. Damnit bjoern, stop feeding the trolls! heh, seriously.. I feel much better since I have done so.. yeah yeah I made 2 exceptions for mitchell but he sounded somewhat sane in those instances.. have a good one dude... >> *sigh* Because physics is about explaining observations and >> measurements, if you didn't notice. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > made 2 exceptions for mitchell but he sounded somewhat sane in those > instances.. Well, I have managed to give up on feeding Mitchell - but so far, abandoning Henri is still too hard for me. ;-) [snip] Bye, Bjoern > Well, I have managed to give up on feeding Mitchell - but so far, > abandoning Henri is still too hard for me. ;-) heh heh.. okay look in mirror.. now with best wild eyed ranting tone repeat after me..."Uh.. I... I can walk.. away.. yeah away... i'm not hooked.. I can walk away ANY time! See? Watch.. watch me.... walk away..." 8 ) >> Well, I have managed to give up on feeding Mitchell - but so far, >> abandoning Henri is still too hard for me. ;-) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >8 ) You're out of your depth here boy! Go away. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>>>You just don't get it do you. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >*sigh* Because physics is about explaining observations and >measurements, if you didn't notice. No. Physics is CONFUSED by what is observed and measured. >> This 'SRianCentrism' is certainly a debilitating disease. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >necessarily imply a conscious observer. Any interaction with the >environment also counts as an observation. That's why light from differently moving stars crosses empty space at different rates. It doesn't care what SRians on planet Earth think. That's why variable star brightness curves match ballistic predictions. >>>>>Say, do you always bring up analogies which actually disprove your case? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >something like an absolute mass for every object, which is only >perceived differently by different observers. On the contrary. My current belief is that matter is nothing but a manifestation of some kind of 'field' configuration, whatever that implies. I agree it 'appears' very differently for differently moving observers....but 'something' makes that particular 'point in space' distiguishable from other points IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT ANY OBSERVER MIGHT HAPPEN TO SEE OR MEASURE. >Try to realize that, and try to realize that SR drops that assumption. Try to realize that I am a TRUE relativist, not an Einsteinian one. Relativity is very simple if observers are eliminated and absolute simultaneity is accepted. ...and for christ's sake get rid of that stupid second postulate. Plug in the ballistic theory of light speed and you end up with a workable 'theory of everything'. >> The gap in your logic, Bjoern, concerns the fact that the 'empty space' >> containing a magnetic field IS NOT empty space at all. > >What on earth has that to do with the argument above? If you can't see the connection then I feel sorry for you. >[snip] > >Bye, >Bjoern HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >>>How do you measure it? > >>>You don't know if it has the same absolute value for every speed at which the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Where, do you think, does the magnetic field around a wire through > which a current (consisting of electrons!) flies, come from? 2. 1 Das Stern-Gerlach-Experiment http://www.uni-muenster.de/Chemie/PC/wullen/sterngerlach.htm ------------- Sue... > > The field is there all right but one must be moving relative to the electron to > > detect it. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Bye, > Bjoern >>>>>How do you measure it? >>>>>You don't know if it has the same absolute value for every speed at which the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ------------- > Sue... And that is relevant here how? [snip] Bye, Bjoern | > >>>How do you measure it? | > >>>You don't know if it has the same absolute value for every speed at which the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | ------------- | Sue... Says it all, doesn't it? :-) Androcles | > > The field is there all right but one must be moving relative to the electron to | > > detect it. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] | > Bye, | > Bjoern >>>>>>>....but according to your religion, anything traveling at c would >>>>>>>have infinite mass. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >>Stop making up silly straw men! I see that you chose to ignore this. >>>Does it have a different rest mass for every moving observer? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ....even if they are both moving wrt another observer? YES!!! (if this question is about my last sentence) For the rest mass of an object, it is entirely irrelevant if I am moving wrt another observer. It is *only* relevant that I am at rest wrt the object whose mass I measure! Say, how ignorant *are* you of what SR actually says? > How do you measure it? You don't know how one measures mass????? Hint: inertia. > You don't know if it has the same absolute value for every speed at > which the two might move. Which two? And speed measured relative to what? > In other words, the whole concept of 'rest mass' is completely > meaningless. To someone like you, who willfully stays ignorant, yes. To anyone who invests a little thought and tries to understand it, not at all. >>>Are you plain stoopid? >> >>Apparently you are. Yes, indeed you are. Bye, Bjoern > >*sigh* It has a different mass for every observer moving at a different > >speed wrt it. It has the *same* rest mass for every observer who [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > In other words, the whole concept of 'rest mass' is completely meaningless. Let's try it this way. Momentum conservation says that if you take a certain mathematical "sum" of quantities for objects in a system after an interaction, it will be identical to the result of the same "sum" of the quantities for the objects before the interaction -- even though the individual values of the quantities for each of the objects changes dramatically. This "sum" is called the total system momentum, and we marvel at the fact that it stays the same regardless of the nature of the interaction. It's such a marvel, in fact, that we elevate the status of that observation to a natural law. Note that I never have to measure the total momentum in a single measurement with a single apparatus. In fact, what I do is measure the individual velocities and other quantities for each object, and they all go into the "sum" called total momentum. If you take ANOTHER "sum" of quantities (in this case, the quantities are energies and momenta) for objects in a system, it turns out that this "sum" also always stays the same, EVEN IF the objects change identity or vanish completely! This "sum" has units mass, and it stays invariant despite the nature of the interaction, and so we call it invariant mass. Note that I never have to measure the invariant mass in a single measurement with a single apparatus for this to be true. All I need to do is to measure the quantities that go into the "sum". There really is nothing more magic about it than that. PD | > >*sigh* It has a different mass for every observer moving at a different | > >speed wrt it. It has the *same* rest mass for every observer who [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] | invariant despite the nature of the interaction, and so we call it | invariant mass. Keep that thought. Now read this: http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html What is being measured? Energy. What is calculated from it? Momentum. What is ASSUMED? v < c. What conclusion do you draw? Mass is not invariant. IF we ASSUME v > c, the mass can indeed be invariant. I said 'IF', I know. IF we place x'=x-vt, AND IF we ASSUME light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body, then xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) We can IF anything, and SR is one huge IF this and ASSUME that. What is worse, it contains a blunder that is only obvious to one that studies the paper. It is the unprimed 0 in the equation ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) because the ray doesn't return to 0 in k, it returns to 0' = 0-vt in k. There really is nothing more magic about it than that. Androcles. | Note that I never have to measure the invariant mass | in a single measurement with a single apparatus for this to be true. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | | PD > | H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message > news:<fe9hl0dujljpuothru4o5g79ourojcmnun@4ax.com>... [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > What is being measured? > Energy. Congratulations, you got that right! > What is calculated from it? > Momentum. After such a good start, already here you go wrong. Nowhere does this page calculate the momentum! > What is ASSUMED? > v < c. Wrong. That is not assumed. What is assumed is simply that the equations of SR are valid (which is a sensible assumption, since these equations had been tested and found to be reliable all the time), and then these equations are used to *calculate* v < c. > What conclusion do you draw? > Mass is not invariant. 1) That is a non sequitur. 2) Thanks for showing that you did not understand a word of what Paul Draper wrote above about invariant mass. Hint: he did not claim that mass in general is invariant. He only said that one could define a certain quantity, which is invariant and has the dimension of a mass. And that quantity is called "invariant mass". > IF we ASSUME v > c, the mass can indeed be invariant. Utter nonsense. You really have no clue what you are talking about. [snip remaining nonsense] Bye, Bjoern >> >*sigh* It has a different mass for every observer moving at a different >> >speed wrt it. It has the *same* rest mass for every observer who [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >PD Right. Let's do an experiment. We are in a space ship and we want to measure the mass of a lump of meteorite. We can probably best do that by spinning it round and measuring centripetal force. Next, we accelerate our ship at 0.001 c/sec for 999 seconds. (using a spring accelerometer) According to both SR and LET, the meteorite's mass would increase dramatically if measured by an observer at our starting point. HOW DO YOU KNOW THE CENTRIPETAL FORCE IN OUR EXPERIMENT DOES NOT INCREASE AS WELL? Aether theory says it should because the mass increase is real (although the change in dimensions of our apparatus might exactly offset the expected measurement difference).. SR says it wont... because we are at rest wrt the mass. I say that nobody knows the answer but it is highly unlikely that there will be any change because physical properties do not depend on velocity. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Androcles: Calculated from bottom to top, since it has become difficult to see who said what. Paul Draper: (who is not Henri Wilson) | >> >*sigh* It has a different mass for every observer moving at a different | >> >speed wrt it. It has the *same* rest mass for every observer who | >> >rests wrt it. Henri Wilson: | >> ....even if they are both moving wrt another observer? | >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | >> | >> In other words, the whole concept of 'rest mass' is completely meaningless. PD: | >Let's try it this way. | >Momentum conservation says that if you take a certain mathematical [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] | > | >PD Henri: | Right. Let's do an experiment. | [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] | | SR says it wont... because we are at rest wrt the mass. Huh? | I say that nobody knows the answer but it is highly unlikely that there will be | any change because physical properties do not depend on velocity. Oh... Kinda neat. Mind if I simplify, H? We have a man-sized rocket or space shuttle accelerating at 0.001c (ouch, better make it 'a', 0.001c per second sounds a little high) that fires a 5th of November or 4th of July (or whenever you let off fireworks where you live) rocket backwards the moment the first rocket runs out of fuel, and the firework runs out of fuel in the same time as the shuttle... well, at least when both are bolted to a test bed. No gravity allowed, and the acceleration is 'a' for both. From where the observer is (you know he was at rest with respect to the shuttle when the engine fired, and if I've missed a minor point you know what I mean) what is the position and velocity of the firework rocket? a) At rest alongside the observer. b) Hurtling past the observer. c) Still moving away from the observer. d) None of the above (explain) e) Duh! Its blatantly obvious! f) I dunno. g) YOU ARE AN IDIOT FOR ASKING QUESTIONS i DONT KNOW THE ANSWER TO! f) through z) any other variation on g) (Hint: we are not interested in answers f through z, you are the idiot and need not reply. Doing so will guarantee you will be kill-filed. moortel will automatically fall in this category.) Answers on a computer screen, please. Extra brownie points for brevity. Androcles. | HW. | | www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >| >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message >news:<fe9hl0dujljpuothru4o5g79ourojcmnun@4ax.com>... [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > >Androcles. Thank christ I don't have a drinking problem, A. You'll feel terrible in the morning! >| HW. >| >| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm | >| >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message | >news:<fe9hl0dujljpuothru4o5g79ourojcmnun@4ax.com>... [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] | Thank christ I don't have a drinking problem, A. | You'll feel terrible in the morning! So you are unable to answer the question. Thought so. Androcles | >| HW. | >| [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | | www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >| >| >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message >| >news:<fe9hl0dujljpuothru4o5g79ourojcmnun@4ax.com>... [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] >So you are unable to answer the question. >Thought so. I COULD IF I COULD UNDERSTAND IT. >Androcles > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >| >| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm | >| >| >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message | >| >news:<fe9hl0dujljpuothru4o5g79ourojcmnun@4ax.com>... [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] | | I COULD IF I COULD UNDERSTAND IT. Let me see if I can simplify it for you. I hand you a small rocket. You light the blue touch paper. You then accelerate in your car away from me, pointing the rocket directly at me. Your acceleration is constant. When the rocket fires, it has the same acceleration as your car. It burns out in the same time as the fuse. Does the rocket come to a halt at my feet? | >Androcles | > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | | www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >| >| >Oh... >| >| >Kinda neat. [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >rocket fires, it has the same acceleration as your car. It burns out in the >same time as the fuse. Does the rocket come to a halt at my feet? That's not quit the same problem. I need to know how long the car accel;erates for. I assume it is for the same time as the rocket, in which case the rocket SHOULD end up at rest at your feet, I suppose. I cannot see any trick to this although an aetherist might claim the mass of the rocket increased as the car accelerated in which case the problem might become more complicated. >| >Androcles >| > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >| >| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm | >| >| >Oh... | >| >| >Kinda neat. [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] | That's not quit the same problem. I need to know how long the car accel;erates | for. It accelerates for as long as the fuse burns. What it does after that is unimportant. I assume it is for the same time as the rocket, in which case the rocket | SHOULD end up at rest at your feet, I suppose. Well, of course. I was simplify the issue you raised, now snipped. I can't see how that implies I was drinking. Androcles. | I cannot see any trick to this although an aetherist might claim the mass of | the rocket increased as the car accelerated in which case the problem might [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] | | www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >the >| >same time as the fuse. Does the rocket come to a halt at my feet? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I was simplify the issue you raised, now snipped. >I can't see how that implies I was drinking. maybe somebody else was then! :) >Androcles. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >| >| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm <snip> > >If you take ANOTHER "sum" of quantities (in this case, the quantities > >are energies and momenta) for objects in a system, it turns out that [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > According to both SR and LET, the meteorite's mass would increase dramatically > if measured by an observer at our starting point. No, you evaded the point. There is a quantity, which we'll call the invariant mass, that is the SAME number if measurements are made and this quantity calculated by EITHER observer, the one on the ship and the one at the starting point. I gather you concede that. Please confirm. Let's just start there and figure out what we can derive from the expression for this experimentally confirmed invariant quantity. Are you agreed on the strategy? PD ><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >I gather you concede that. Please confirm. I accept that is the common view. I am questioning its validity without claiming it is wrong. Like most theories of modern physics, it has never been verified. >Let's just start there and figure out what we can derive from the >expression for this experimentally confirmed invariant quantity. Are >you agreed on the strategy? It has not been experimentally confirmed. That is my point. That is what my experiment is designed to achieve. An aetherist like Seto would claim that mass increase is REAL. Therefore a spinning mass should generate more centripetal force when the whole apparatus moves wrt the absolute aether. Since SR is really an aether theory in disguise, I wonder how it can get around this embarrassment. >PD HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > <snip> > >No, you evaded the point. There is a quantity, which we'll call the > >invariant mass, that is the SAME number if measurements are made and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > claiming it is wrong. Like most theories of modern physics, it has never been > verified. I beg to differ. I have done this measurement and calculation myself, in a high-energy particle collision. Such measurements have been done thousands of times. Particle momenta and energies are measured independently before and after the collision, through a variety of channels. The invariant mass of all product particles (which may be just a couple) is compared to the invarient mass of all parent particles (which may be just a couple). Your claim that it has never been measured is simply incorrect. In fact, it has been verified so many times that many experimental techniques now rely on it, and if those assumptions were wrong, some other consistency checks would fail. That is, it has been verified both directly and indirectly. > >Let's just start there and figure out what we can derive from the > >expression for this experimentally confirmed invariant quantity. Are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That is what my experiment is designed to achieve. I'm not convinced your experiment will test what you want it to test. But I commend your wanting to have a specially designed experimental confirmation, other than the ones that have already been done, to convince yourself further. SR should satisfy all tests proposed. Now all you need is a funded grant. > An aetherist like Seto would claim that mass increase is REAL. Therefore a > spinning mass should generate more centripetal force when the whole apparatus > moves wrt the absolute aether. > > Since SR is really an aether theory in disguise, I wonder how it can get around > this embarrassment. PD >> <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >other consistency checks would fail. That is, it has been verified >both directly and indirectly. Fair enough...but you haven't tried accelerating your whole accelerator lab to .9c and then repeating the experiment, have you? >> >Let's just start there and figure out what we can derive from the >> >expression for this experimentally confirmed invariant quantity. Are [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >PD HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm [snip] > >I beg to differ. I have done this measurement and calculation myself, > >in a high-energy particle collision. Such measurements have been done [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Fair enough...but you haven't tried accelerating your whole accelerator lab to > .9c and then repeating the experiment, have you? Ah, but we have, because the accelerator experiment itself is one that is moving 0.9c (or better) compared to a similar experiment at lower velocities. And the results of taking the sum in both cases ends up with the same results. I'll be a little more precise, because there are two supportive cases here. An experiment at Fermilab (fixed target) is like one at, say, AGS (fixed target), but with oncoming beam particles at higher energy. No matter. The fact that the sum (invariant mass) is the same before and after the collision is confirmed at both facilities, meaning that the law holds true in both places at much different center-of-mass velocities. Secondly, an electron-proton collision at the HERA collider is *precisely* like a that at a fixed-target deep-inelastic-scattering experiment, but one is in a reference frame that is moving at 0.9c (or better) with respect to the other. And in fact, the sums exactly match up in both cases. Moreover, the other physics measured in these two facilities (such as scattering cross-sections) also overlap and confirm each other, which would certainly NOT be the case if SR did not hold. You can look these facilities up yourself - the references are in the public domain. Moral: Don't challenge a theory because you don't believe an experimental confirmation could ever be designed. Experimentalists are far too clever and obstinate to let that get in the way. PD >[snip] >> > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >law holds true in both places at much different center-of-mass >velocities. Well this is not exactly what I had in mind but no matter, I never claimed that mass increased due to speed. In fact, what you say supports my theory that the increasing difficulty in accelerating charges to high speeds is not due to a mass increase at all. It is due to the fact that energy is required to set up and maintain what I call 'a reverse field bubble' around the acceleratinfg charge. >Secondly, an electron-proton collision at the HERA collider is >*precisely* like a that at a fixed-target deep-inelastic-scattering [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >confirm each other, which would certainly NOT be the case if SR did >not hold. I believe the mathematical relationship between speed and the energy required to maintain the 'reverse field bubble' involves gamma and thus makes it appear that mass DOES increase. >You can look these facilities up yourself - the references are in the >public domain. > >Moral: Don't challenge a theory because you don't believe an >experimental confirmation could ever be designed. Experimentalists are >far too clever and obstinate to let that get in the way. I don't believe the effect you are talking about has anything to do with SR. It is purely coincidental that gamma is involved in the acceleration of charges. This is perfect example of how physics has been completely derailed by the Einstein farce. Instead of seeking the truth, everyone is prepared to sit back and say, "that's due to relativity". Why doesn't someone look for the REAL physical connection with the maths? Then they might discover something important. >PD HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm [snip] > I don't believe the effect you are talking about has anything to do with SR. It > is purely coincidental that gamma is involved in the acceleration of charges. Oh, just as it is "purely coicidental" that the predictions of GR for the GPS clock rates turned out to agree with the observations, right? Man, you really work hard to avoid reality. [snip] Bye, Bjoern >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Oh, just as it is "purely coicidental" that the predictions of GR for >the GPS clock rates turned out to agree with the observations, right? In your dreams, Bjoern. >Man, you really work hard to avoid reality. So do all religious fanatics like you. >[snip] > >Bye, >Bjoern HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>[snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > In your dreams, Bjoern. So you are back to denying that the predictions of GR for the GPS satellites turned out to be right? >>Man, you really work hard to avoid reality. > > So do all religious fanatics like you. Well, I'm an atheist. Calling SR a religion shows nicely that you understand neither SR nor religion. [snip] Bye, Bjoern > Well, I'm an atheist. A pity. What can I do to change your mind? PD >>Well, I'm an atheist. > > A pity. Why? Because I am not "saved"? > What can I do to change your mind? Provide actual evidence for one or several gods? Bye, Bjoern > >>Well, I'm an atheist. > > > > A pity. > > Why? Because I am not "saved"? Of course not. But you may be missing out on something valuable. Like eating fresh green beans, but maybe better. > > What can I do to change your mind? > > Provide actual evidence for one or several gods? I'm not sure evidence is necessary. Maybe for the head, but not the heart. Never mind. Not the appropriate n.g. PD >>>[snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Well, I'm an atheist. Einsteinian relativity is a nothing but a cult. You are a cult follower. >Calling SR a religion shows nicely that you understand neither >SR nor religion. Religion is a masterful exercise in self-delusion. Prayer is the least constuctive approach to solving a problem...if all else fails, try it...! That's my definition. >[snip] > >Bye, >Bjoern HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > [snip] > >> > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > to maintain the 'reverse field bubble' involves gamma and thus makes it appear > that mass DOES increase. This doesn't pertain. I have in no way said anything about relativistic mass increase. What I've said is that there is an expression for an "invariant mass" which is calculable and is claimed to be invariant regardless of inertial frame. You denied that had ever been experimentally tested. I contested that, citing a couple of examples. Will you allow that this has been experimentally verified? (What I'm trying to do is to help you get over your aversion to SR, by pointing out to simple things that you can accept, and then guiding you through the implications [and tests] of those things. However, if you have an attachment to your own model and don't have the time or interest to learn about SR in a perhaps more palatable way, then let me know and I'll leave you alone.) PD >> Well this is not exactly what I had in mind but no matter, I never claimed that >> mass increased due to speed. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Will you allow that this has been experimentally verified? I am not convinced either way. Until an experiment such as the one I suggested is performed, I wouldn't completely agree. There must be a good reason why differently moving observers are supposed to measure different mass values for the same lump of 'matter'. Obviously its intrinsic properties are not observer dependent. A silly maths theory based on wrong assumptions is not going to help us find the physical reason for this. We don't know what 'mass' is anyway. >(What I'm trying to do is to help you get over your aversion to SR, by >pointing out to simple things that you can accept, and then guiding >you through the implications [and tests] of those things. However, if >you have an attachment to your own model and don't have the time or >interest to learn about SR in a perhaps more palatable way, then let >me know and I'll leave you alone.) Paul, I am quite aware that accelerating matter behaves as though it is getting heavier according to the gamma factor. I am suggesting that the physical reason for this has nothing whatsoever to do with SR. Gamma is the geometric mean of 1/(c+v) and 1/(c-v). It is not surprising that it should appear regularly in physical equations. One reason it becomes progressively harder to accelerate a charge is that more and more energy goes into the 'reverse' field. The accelerating field cacnnot act at infinite speed on the moving charge either. Why you people are prepared to regard a maths theory as some kind of physical explanation, I cannot fathom. It doesn't get you anywhere. >PD HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>>Well this is not exactly what I had in mind but no matter, I never claimed that >>>mass increased due to speed. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Until an experiment such as the one I suggested is performed, I wouldn't > completely agree. Yet again, you miss the point. The experiment you suggest has nothing to do with *invariant* mass! > There must be a good reason why differently moving observers are supposed to > measure different mass values for the same lump of 'matter'. The reason is simple: the Minkowskian geometry of spacetime. Jsut as the Euclidean geometry of space is the reason why the length of a rod can be perceived to be different by different observers. > Obviously its intrinsic properties are not observer dependent. Define "intrinsic properties". > A silly maths theory based on wrong assumptions is not going to help us find > the physical reason for this. Agreed. Hint: SR is neither a silly maths theory nor based on wrong assumptions. > We don't know what 'mass' is anyway. Inertial mass is energy, essentially. Rest mass is the coupling to Higgs field, essentially. >>(What I'm trying to do is to help you get over your aversion to SR, by >>pointing out to simple things that you can accept, and then guiding [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Paul, I am quite aware that accelerating matter behaves as though it is getting > heavier according to the gamma factor. Hint: he was not talking about "accelerating matter behaves as though it is getting heavier". He was talking about *invariant mass*. Yet again, you totally failed to get this actual point! > I am suggesting that the physical reason for this has nothing whatsoever to do > with SR. Gamma is the geometric mean of 1/(c+v) and 1/(c-v). Nice. So what? > It is not > surprising that it should appear regularly in physical equations. Could you please explain this huge jump in logic here? > One reason it becomes progressively harder to accelerate a charge is that more > and more energy goes into the 'reverse' field. What reverse field? And what is your evidence that more and more energy goes into it? > The accelerating field cacnnot > act at infinite speed on the moving charge either. So what? > Why you people are prepared to regard a maths theory as some kind of physical > explanation, I cannot fathom. If you would actually learn SR instead of dwelling in your misconceptions about it, you could fathom that. [snip] Bye, Bjoern >>>This doesn't pertain. I have in no way said anything about >>>relativistic mass increase. What I've said is that there is an [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Yet again, you miss the point. The experiment you suggest has nothing >to do with *invariant* mass! Well, I remain unconvinced. I'm not saying you are wrong. >> There must be a good reason why differently moving observers are supposed to >> measure different mass values for the same lump of 'matter'. > >The reason is simple: the Minkowskian geometry of spacetime. That's not a reason or an explanation. It's just a different representation of the problem, designed specifically to impress a lot of stoopid people. >Jsut as the Euclidean geometry of space is the reason why the length of >a rod can be perceived to be different by different observers. But it ISN'T different just because of the observers, is it? Can you not see that some 'absolute truth' lies beneath the illusion? >> Obviously its intrinsic properties are not observer dependent. > >Define "intrinsic properties". Ah! they are probably indefineable...like 'red'. >> A silly maths theory based on wrong assumptions is not going to help us find >> the physical reason for this. > >Agreed. Hint: SR is neither a silly maths theory nor based on wrong >assumptions. HaHaHaHa! >> We don't know what 'mass' is anyway. > >Inertial mass is energy, essentially. Rest mass is the coupling to >Higgs field, |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message