| |
| Some thoughts-Time dilation |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Cold Fusion |
 Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:10 pm Post subject: Some thoughts-Time dilation |
 |
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 759
Location: In the circuitous haze of my mind
|
Here is my new theory as to why time slows down and mass increases as you go faster.
A space ship is traveling through space at 0c, then accelerates to .5c. Now, the spaceship since it is traveling faster, hits the Higgs Boson faster, hence increasing its mass because of the increase of HZ of the boson effecting the mass increases. But, energy must be conserved, so the universe slows down time in order to decrease the intrinsic F gain by slowing acceleration of all subatomic instances down.
My other idea: The Higgs boson does not allow itself to increase mass over what it normally does, so it slows down time and therefore the speed of everything inside the perimeter so that the impact speed and rate is slower, therefore allowing it to retain the same mass. But, by slowing time down in a comparatively loose perimeter, the universe must conserve energy by increasing the mass of only the body and not the micro area of space surrounding it.
_________________
Forget all that you know, achievements can only be accomplished by starting from nothing and selectively applying facts that are purely objective and absolutely necessary.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"
-Einstein
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php
Use your computing strength for science! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| JaneBennet |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 834
|
But aren’t all velocities relative? The mass and time of the spaceship only appear to increase to a stationary observer outside the spaceship – those inside the spaceship (or those travelling with the same relative velocity) will perceive no change in mass or in the normal flow of time. How would the Higgs boson cause different observers to measure different values for mass or time, depending on their motion relative to the spaceship?
_________________
Did You Know?
Fact of the day: Old English |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cold Fusion |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 759
Location: In the circuitous haze of my mind
|
Say I am standing still at 0m/s and someone is running 8m/s relative to me. Aren't they still running at 8m/s? Everything is relative.
Because you would be effected by it faster than it normally hits you. The number of "effects" per second would increase. Say each particle can only have x value. If you have 1000 hz with 5 effects per hit, 5000 total, and increased the hz to 2000 you would have a total of 10000 effect.
_________________
Forget all that you know, achievements can only be accomplished by starting from nothing and selectively applying facts that are purely objective and absolutely necessary.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"
-Einstein
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php
Use your computing strength for science! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| William McCormick |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: Re: Some thoughts-Time dilation |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 1119
|
| Cold Fusion wrote: |
| My other idea: The Higgs boson does not allow itself to increase mass over what it normally does, so it slows down time and therefore the speed of everything inside the perimeter so that the impact speed and rate is slower, therefore allowing it to retain the same mass. But, by slowing time down in a comparatively loose perimeter, the universe must conserve energy by increasing the mass of only the body and not the micro area of space surrounding it. |
Mass is an illusion created by the passage of time, that achieves a reduction of velocity, through the creation of structures of subatomic particles, that achieve the illusion of mass.
http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/BallsandTime/BallsandTime.html
http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/BallsAndAtoms/BallsAndAtoms.html
You cannot go back in time, unless you have TIVO, ha-ha. Even then it can be a pain in the neck. Sometimes you lose the time or channel coordinates. The next thing you know you are cooking with Martha Stewart the stock swindler.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
_________________
Warning: Any information contained in this post could be part of a conspiracy to make you stupid. So only use it if you understand it. Use at your own risk.
http://www.Rockwelder.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JaneBennet |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:33 am Post subject: Re: Some thoughts-Time dilation |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 834
|
| William McCormick wrote: |
| Mass is an illusion created by the passage of time, that achieves a reduction of velocity, through the creation of structures of subatomic particles, that achieve the illusion of mass. |
Oh please, not again! 
| William McCormick wrote: |
| You cannot go back in time, unless you have TIVO, ha-ha. Even then it can be a pain in the neck. Sometimes you lose the time or channel coordinates. The next thing you know you are cooking with Martha Stewart the stock swindler. |
Now you’re talking sense.  The point is, you cannot go back in time. Full stop. 
_________________
Did You Know?
Fact of the day: Old English
Last edited by JaneBennet on Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:29 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JaneBennet |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 834
|
Grrr William, look what you’ve done! You’ve made me miss Cold Fusion’s post. 
| Cold Fusion wrote: |
| Because you would be effected by it faster than it normally hits you. The number of "effects" per second would increase. Say each particle can only have x value. If you have 1000 hz with 5 effects per hit, 5000 total, and increased the hz to 2000 you would have a total of 10000 effect. |
Yes, I understand that part. What I don’t quite get is this.
Suppose two observers O1 and O2 see the spaceship travelling at velocity v relative to them. They see it being hit by bosons at the rate of r say. Then O1 you starts moving at velocity 0.5v while O2 remains stationary. O2 will still see the spaceship hitting bosons at rate r, but O1 will be seeing it hitting bosons at rate 0.5r. Then O2 goes off at velocity 0.75v – and sees the spaceship hitting bosons at rate 0.25r.
Yet in all this while, the spaceship is doing nothing (other than moving with constant velocity). How can something that’s doing nothing change the rate at which it is hitting something out there? For it seems that the rate at which you see the spaceship hitting bosons can be “varied” just by varying your speed relative to it. 
The only explanation I can think of is that (since you hit the Higgs boson yourself when you’re moving) being hit by the Higgs boson affects your perception of how other moving objects hit the Higgs boson. 
_________________
Did You Know?
Fact of the day: Old English |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cold Fusion |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 759
Location: In the circuitous haze of my mind
|
Yes, you could say that, but it is nonetheless hitting the original spaceship at the same rate. The comparative rate does not matter for the total effect taking place compared to the original position, around earth. What this means though...is that if you were to go outside of a galaxy, the time would be different. We need to look at the expansion of space for that, and whether the HB follows the expansion, or whether it is a constant independent of space.
_________________
Forget all that you know, achievements can only be accomplished by starting from nothing and selectively applying facts that are purely objective and absolutely necessary.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"
-Einstein
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php
Use your computing strength for science! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| BumFluff |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 06 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Canada
|
I think time slows down in relation to gravity because gravity has such an effect on every component of a mass that it slows the movement of those components down and therefor it seems that time is actually slowing down.
If there was a particle that wasn't effected by gravity and it passed through one of the time dilation gravity wells I think that it wouldn't be effected at all by the time dilation since gravity doesn't have an effect on it's components and does not slow them down.
_________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cold Fusion |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 759
Location: In the circuitous haze of my mind
|
Do we know if its gravity? I think there are many other ways to allow an object to "weigh" more.
_________________
Forget all that you know, achievements can only be accomplished by starting from nothing and selectively applying facts that are purely objective and absolutely necessary.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"
-Einstein
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php
Use your computing strength for science! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Janus |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 230
|
| BumFluff wrote: |
I think time slows down in relation to gravity because gravity has such an effect on every component of a mass that it slows the movement of those components down and therefor it seems that time is actually slowing down.
If there was a particle that wasn't effected by gravity and it passed through one of the time dilation gravity wells I think that it wouldn't be effected at all by the time dilation since gravity doesn't have an effect on it's components and does not slow them down. |
Here's the thing, Gravitational time dilation, as predicted by General Relativity and verified by experiment, Does not depend on the strength of the local gravitational field, but on a difference in gravitational potential.
Thus, if you were to have a uniform gravitational field (one in which the strength of the field did not fall off with height.), two clocks placed at different heights in this field would still run at different rates, even though both clocks experience the exact same gravitational force.
For the same reason clocks on the "surface" of Saturn and Uranus would run slower than clocks on Earth, even though the Surface gravity on both these planets is less than that of Earth's.
_________________
"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone
Edit/Delete Message |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mitchellmckain |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:11 pm Post subject: Re: Some thoughts-Time dilation |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 1888
Location: Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
|
| Cold Fusion wrote: |
Here is my new theory as to why time slows down and mass increases as you go faster.
A space ship is traveling through space at 0c, then accelerates to .5c. Now, the spaceship since it is traveling faster, hits the Higgs Boson faster, hence increasing its mass because of the increase of HZ of the boson effecting the mass increases. But, energy must be conserved, so the universe slows down time in order to decrease the intrinsic F gain by slowing acceleration of all subatomic instances down.
|
There is no increase of mass. That is just nonsense. Yes it was used as a tool for explaining relativity at one time but it is a seriously flawed tool. It comes from the fact that in some equations, the factor gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) multiplies the mass. So someone had the idea of including as part of the mass and calling the product relativistic mass. This was used in a naive sort of way to explain why accelerating to the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy. But it is not only my experience as a teacher that it creates more confusion than understanding, but there are some fundamental inconsistencies in the idea.
The idea of mass increasing at relativistic velocities leads to the unavoidable conclusion that mass is relative just like velocity, which I find absurd. This idea of mass increasing has forced us, for the sake of clarity, to rename the sensible concept of mass as "rest mass" which is not relative and does not change. In short the absurdites and confusion promoted by this idea of increasing mass warrant giving the whole idea a decent burial. But I am not finished because there is another fundamental problem with the idea of relativistic mass.
The total energy of a mass m at a relative velocity v and thus lorentz contraction factor gamma is given by E = gamma m c^2. Well what about kinetic energy? We can extract the classical kinetic energy from a binomial expansion of gamma.
gamma = 1 + .5(v/c)^2 + .375(v/c)^4 + ...
when you put this into the above equation you get
E = m c^2 + .5 m v^2 + .375 m v^4/c^2 + ...
The first term is the famous mass energy, and the second term is the
classical kinetic energy.
To handle the relativistic correction, we typically write
E = m c^2 + (gamma-1) m c^2
and we say that the first term is the mass energy (or rest energy) and the
second term here is the relativistic kinetic energy, KE = (gamma-1) m c^2.
In this case we are obviously not thinking that the mass has increased by a factor of gamma at all, because the energy associated with mass has not changed. To say that the mass has increased by a factor of gamma would mean that all of the energy a part of the mass and there is no energy of motion, and I don't think this helps in understanding special relativity at all.
I do not even like the idea as an explanation of why you cannot exceed the speed of light because it is too stuck in the thinking of motion as absolute. What I mean is that it puts too much emphasis on one particular relative velocity as if that were special. It is true that increasing the relative velocity with respect to something requires and increasing amount of energy for the same increase in that relative velocity, but I think this misses whole the point.
I guess the only way to make what I am saying clear is to look at an example. Suppose you accelerate a big ship to 1/2 the speed of light relative to the earth. If you have a medium ship inside the big ship then you can accelerate that medium ship to 1/2 the speed of light relative to the big ship. Then if you have a small ship inside the medium ship you can accelerate the small ship 1/2 the speed of light relative to the medium ship.
The energy requirements of all these acceleration depend on the rest masses of these ships (lets call them mbig, mmed, and msmall) in exactly the same way, using the KE shown above KE = (gamma-1) m c^2.
In each of the three cases gamma = 1/sqrt(1-.25) = 1.1547
First acceleration: energy required was KE = .1547 mbig c^2
Second acceleration: KE = .1547 mmed c^2
Third acceleration: KE = .1547 msmall c^2
If you want to talk about the resulting velocity with respect to the earth then you need the velocity addition formula v3 = (v1+v2)/(1+ v1 v2/c^2). So the velocity of the medium ship with respect to the earth is (c/2+c/2)/(1+.25) = 0.8 c, and the velocity of the small ship with respect to the earth is (.8 c + .5 c)/(1+ .8x.5) = .92857 c. If you look carefully at the velocity addition formula you will see that if both v1 and v2 are less than c then v3 will be less than c, but if either v1 or v2 is equall to c
then v3 will also be c.
The point is there is no increase of mass in this explanation nor should there be. The idea of mass increase promotes a misconception that something changes as you accelerate making an increase of speed more difficult. Absolutely nothing changes. The only real limitation here is on the relative velocity at which you see objects receding behind you. It does not even limit how fast you can travel to a destination.
The speed of light is unreachable because it is like an infinite speed in the sense that if you chase after a light beam your accelertion never reduces the relative velocity between you and the light beam you are chasing, the light continues to speed away from you at 3x10^8 m/s. You cannot catch the light no matter how fast you go, just as if the light were traveling infinitely fast. In fact, we know from the relativity of simultaneity that any travel faster than light would be equivalent to arriving at your destination before you left, leading to the same paradoxes as in time travel. Also if you think of the infinite speed as the limiting case where you get to your destination in no time at all, the speed of light is exactly such a limiting case.
_________________
See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| william |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:42 pm Post subject: Re: Some thoughts-Time dilation |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Posts: 912
Location: USA
|
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
| Cold Fusion wrote: |
Here is my new theory as to why time slows down and mass increases as you go faster.
A space ship is traveling through space at 0c, then accelerates to .5c. Now, the spaceship since it is traveling faster, hits the Higgs Boson faster, hence increasing its mass because of the increase of HZ of the boson effecting the mass increases. But, energy must be conserved, so the universe slows down time in order to decrease the intrinsic F gain by slowing acceleration of all subatomic instances down.
|
There is no increase of mass. That is just nonsense. Yes it was used as a tool for explaining relativity at one time but it is a seriously flawed tool. It comes from the fact that in some equations, the factor gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) multiplies the mass. So someone had the idea of including as part of the mass and calling the product relativistic mass. This was used in a naive sort of way to explain why accelerating to the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy. But it is not only my experience as a teacher that it creates more confusion than understanding, but there are some fundamental inconsistencies in the idea.
The idea of mass increasing at relativistic velocities leads to the unavoidable conclusion that mass is relative just like velocity, which I find absurd. This idea of mass increasing has forced us, for the sake of clarity, to rename the sensible concept of mass as "rest mass" which is not relative and does not change. In short the absurdites and confusion promoted by this idea of increasing mass warrant giving the whole idea a decent burial. But I am not finished because there is another fundamental problem with the idea of relativistic mass.
The total energy of a mass m at a relative velocity v and thus lorentz contraction factor gamma is given by E = gamma m c^2. Well what about kinetic energy? We can extract the classical kinetic energy from a binomial expansion of gamma.
gamma = 1 + .5(v/c)^2 + .375(v/c)^4 + ...
when you put this into the above equation you get
E = m c^2 + .5 m v^2 + .375 m v^4/c^2 + ...
The first term is the famous mass energy, and the second term is the
classical kinetic energy.
To handle the relativistic correction, we typically write
E = m c^2 + (gamma-1) m c^2
and we say that the first term is the mass energy (or rest energy) and the
second term here is the relativistic kinetic energy, KE = (gamma-1) m c^2.
In this case we are obviously not thinking that the mass has increased by a factor of gamma at all, because the energy associated with mass has not changed. To say that the mass has increased by a factor of gamma would mean that all of the energy a part of the mass and there is no energy of motion, and I don't think this helps in understanding special relativity at all.
I do not even like the idea as an explanation of why you cannot exceed the speed of light because it is too stuck in the thinking of motion as absolute. What I mean is that it puts too much emphasis on one particular relative velocity as if that were special. It is true that increasing the relative velocity with respect to something requires and increasing amount of energy for the same increase in that relative velocity, but I think this misses whole the point.
I guess the only way to make what I am saying clear is to look at an example. Suppose you accelerate a big ship to 1/2 the speed of light relative to the earth. If you have a medium ship inside the big ship then you can accelerate that medium ship to 1/2 the speed of light relative to the big ship. Then if you have a small ship inside the medium ship you can accelerate the small ship 1/2 the speed of light relative to the medium ship.
The energy requirements of all these acceleration depend on the rest masses of these ships (lets call them mbig, mmed, and msmall) in exactly the same way, using the KE shown above KE = (gamma-1) m c^2.
In each of the three cases gamma = 1/sqrt(1-.25) = 1.1547
First acceleration: energy required was KE = .1547 mbig c^2
Second acceleration: KE = .1547 mmed c^2
Third acceleration: KE = .1547 msmall c^2
If you want to talk about the resulting velocity with respect to the earth then you need the velocity addition formula v3 = (v1+v2)/(1+ v1 v2/c^2). So the velocity of the medium ship with respect to the earth is (c/2+c/2)/(1+.25) = 0.8 c, and the velocity of the small ship with respect to the earth is (.8 c + .5 c)/(1+ .8x.5) = .92857 c. If you look carefully at the velocity addition formula you will see that if both v1 and v2 are less than c then v3 will be less than c, but if either v1 or v2 is equall to c
then v3 will also be c.
The point is there is no increase of mass in this explanation nor should there be. The idea of mass increase promotes a misconception that something changes as you accelerate making an increase of speed more difficult. Absolutely nothing changes. The only real limitation here is on the relative velocity at which you see objects receding behind you. It does not even limit how fast you can travel to a destination.
The speed of light is unreachable because it is like an infinite speed in the sense that if you chase after a light beam your accelertion never reduces the relative velocity between you and the light beam you are chasing, the light continues to speed away from you at 3x10^8 m/s. You cannot catch the light no matter how fast you go, just as if the light were traveling infinitely fast. In fact, we know from the relativity of simultaneity that any travel faster than light would be equivalent to arriving at your destination before you left, leading to the same paradoxes as in time travel. Also if you think of the infinite speed as the limiting case where you get to your destination in no time at all, the speed of light is exactly such a limiting case. |
I'm sorry Mitch, but this is absolute crackpot nonsense. You've just deserted the principle of conservation of momentum (which is why the mass increase was first hypothesized - not the reason you gave, i.e., not "why accelerating to the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy").
Plus, the mass increase has been measured in fast moving particles (e.g., electrons, in which the mass increase was measured and confirmed in 1908) and must be taken into account when calculating the required magnetic fields used to steer the charged particles (e.g., in particle accelerators, and even the older TVs when steering the electrons to the screen).
Frankly, I'm surprised this crackpot junk came from you of all people.... 
[EDIT:] Reference to the 1908 experiment;
Bucherer, A. H. (1908), "Messungen an Becquerelstrahlen. Die experimentelle Bestätigung der Lorentz-Einsteinschen Theorie", Physikalische Zeitschrift 9 (22): 755-762
Cheers,
william
_________________
"... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
About my avatar: This is a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) simulation of the merger of two galaxies. The code was written by Volker Springel of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics at Garching Germany. This simulation uses 20,000 disk particles (stars) and 40,000 halo particles (dark matter) per galaxy. The three views are, from left to right, the x-y plane, x-z plane, and y-z plane.
Last edited by william on Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:10 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cold Fusion |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 759
Location: In the circuitous haze of my mind
|
I have heard many times that mass increases as you go faster....to me it seemed very strange and had many other peculiar implications, hence my explanation in an attempt to resolve some of these.
What are all of the factors preventing you from going the speed of light? I know one is the amount of fuel you will need, and how at some point you will just be adding more nines to 99.999999% the speed of light...but what if you have your energy transported to your ship from a separate source? What if you had a laser set on earth, or something of that sort, fire the energy beam at you until you gained say, .1c, then proceeded to use your own fuel?
From what I can tell, the reason why light will always appear to travel at the same rate is due to time dilation. As you go faster, every atomic structure within the object slows down, right? This is why you will appear to be going the same speed to an outside observer, while to you since everything including the workings of your brain slow down, everything will appear to go faster, including light.
What is Gamma? Is it a specific or arbitrary constant used only for your purposes?
_________________
Forget all that you know, achievements can only be accomplished by starting from nothing and selectively applying facts that are purely objective and absolutely necessary.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"
-Einstein
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php
Use your computing strength for science! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cold Fusion |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 759
Location: In the circuitous haze of my mind
|
So william does believe that mass increases.....well.......maybe mitch meant otherwise in some way?
_________________
Forget all that you know, achievements can only be accomplished by starting from nothing and selectively applying facts that are purely objective and absolutely necessary.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"
-Einstein
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php
Use your computing strength for science! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Janus |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject: Re: Some thoughts-Time dilation |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 230
|
| william wrote: |
I'm sorry Mitch, but this is absolute crackpot nonsense. You've just deserted the principle of conservation of momentum (which is why the mass increase was first hypothesized - not the reason you gave, i.e., not "why accelerating to the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy").
Plus, the mass increase has been measured in fast moving particles (e.g., electrons, in which the mass increase was measured and confirmed in 1908) and must be taken into account when calculating the required magnetic fields used to steer the charged particles (e.g., in particle accelerators, and even the older TVs when steering the electrons to the screen).
Frankly, I'm surprised this crackpot junk came from you of all people....
Cheers,
william |
http://www.weburbia.com/physics/mass.html
_________________
"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone
Edit/Delete Message |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
Page 1 of 4 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
