1. 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.

2.

3. 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?

4. 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.

5. Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
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/Ball...lsandTime.html

http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/Ball...sAndAtoms.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

6. Originally Posted by William McCormick
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.

Originally Posted by William McCormick
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. :-D The point is, you cannot go back in time. Full stop.

7. Grrr William, look what you’ve done! You’ve made me miss Cold Fusion’s post. :x

Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
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 O<sub>1</sub> and O<sub>2</sub> see the spaceship travelling at velocity v relative to them. They see it being hit by bosons at the rate of r say. Then O<sub>1</sub> you starts moving at velocity 0.5v while O<sub>2</sub> remains stationary. O<sub>2</sub> will still see the spaceship hitting bosons at rate r, but O<sub>1</sub> will be seeing it hitting bosons at rate 0.5r. Then O<sub>2</sub> 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Do we know if its gravity? I think there are many other ways to allow an object to "weigh" more.

11. Originally Posted by BumFluff
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.

12. Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
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.

13. Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
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

14. 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?

15. So william does believe that mass increases.....well.......maybe mitch meant otherwise in some way?

16. Originally Posted by william

:?

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

17. Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
So william does believe that mass increases.....well.......maybe mitch meant otherwise in some way?

Well... whether you want to call it "mass" or not is up for debate, but something happens.

[EDIT:]
By the way, I usually think of this "mass increase" as an increase of inertia. I see no conceptual problem this way (whatever inertia is...).

Cheers

P.S. Mitch, with all the talk of crackpots in the site feedback section, I just wanted to call someone a crackpot. No offense.

18. Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
What is Gamma? Is it a specific or arbitrary constant used only for your purposes?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
the factor gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
It took me a while to read through Mitchell’s post, but hopefully I get the point. What Mitchell is trying to say is this:

1. An object of mass (i.e. “rest mass”) m<sub>0</sub> has total energy E<sub>0</sub> = m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup> when at rest (v = 0).

2. If it’s moving with speed v, however, then its total energy is multiplied by the factor gamma: E = γE<sub>0</sub> = γm<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>.

3. The conventional wisdom is to write E = (γm<sub>0</sub>)c<sup>2</sup> and call the quantity γm<sub>0</sub> “relativistic mass”.

4. This, says Mitchell, is bad. Since relativistic mass is greater than rest mass for v > 0, this simply fools the novice into the illusion that the mass of a moving object has increased (whereas it hasn’t). It is only the total energy, not mass, that has increased.

Originally Posted by william
Well... whether you want to call it "mass" or not is up for debate, but something happens.
Yes, something does. The total energy (not mass) increases as a result of the motion. That’s what happens.

Originally Posted by william
P.S. Mitch, with all the talk of crackpots in the site feedback section, I just wanted to call someone a crackpot. No offense.
Mitch’s post makes sense. The crackpot is the one who’s just posted below me.

19. Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
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.
Mass is actually nonexistent and depends on time and structures, to exist or be seen or measured as something we call mass. But we mis-define it, by its current definition.

Mass is just the time it takes to create a repulsive electrical energy/velocity within an object, to move an object held in place or relative to other objects in a constant bombardment of ambient radiation.

A car sits out in front of your house, not because it actually weighs anything, or that it has mass. It sits there because ambient radiation, pins it to the ground. And when another car hits it, the reason it does not just fly off at 30 or forty miles an hour. Is that its structure is altered. The alteration of its structure, absorbs velocity. The same is true on a subatomic level. There is almost no difference between day to life and the subatomic world.

It is possible to highlight this actuality in the Universe. It has been done. But brings with it total understanding of the Universe. Which is fun to me. But apparently brings frustration to others.

When you go to move something, you have to first create a velocity, in the object doing the moving. Then the repulsive field that is generated by the object doing the moving, can then repulse the object you want to move. However neither object ever touches the other. The ambient radiation holding both objects and all structures together in the universe, and in place and to other objects with gravity. Is diverted, by the object pushing to cause it to repulse the object you want to push.

Individuals that do real things, with large objects, metals, molten magma, can see and understand what I am saying. Because they work with the real thing, they see it everyday.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

20. I am very confused now after reading that article....

How can both ways of saying mass be correct? The way they state it, one must be wrong.

21. Relativistic mass is just an abstract concept – and, by Mitchell’s argument, a pretty useless one as well.

To write out the equation in full, the total energy E of an object of (rest) mass m<sub>0</sub> moving with speed v is

This is much better interpreted as

than as

(The expression in brackets in the last equation is what’s conventionally called relativistic mass. As you can see, it can be avoided simply by rewriting the equation the other way – and considering “relativistic energy” instead.)

22. Originally Posted by JaneBennet
Originally Posted by william
Well... whether you want to call it "mass" or not is up for debate, but something happens.
Yes, something does. The total energy (not mass) increases as a result of the motion. That’s what happens.
Something more subtle is happening. The inertia increases.

(By the way, I hope we're not confusing this;
when I think mass, I think inertia - not the amount of matter in an object.)

Originally Posted by JaneBennet
Originally Posted by william
P.S. Mitch, with all the talk of crackpots in the site feedback section, I just wanted to call someone a crackpot. No offense.
Mitch’s post makes sense. The crackpot is the one who’s just posted below me.
Yeah... I know. :wink: I've known and respected Mitch since I joined.

Originally Posted by JaneBennet
Relativistic mass is just an abstract concept – and, by Mitchell’s argument, a pretty useless one as well.
I disagree on it's usefulness. It is very useful when calculating the E and B fields used to guide and collimate charged particles in accelerators, for example. If one calculates these quantities using only the rest mass, the particles won't go where you want them to. But, of course, if we're just talking about the same formulae and arguing about where we place the brackets, then I guess it doesn't matter.

Cheers

23. Originally Posted by JaneBennet
Relativistic mass is just an abstract concept – and, by Mitchell’s argument, a pretty useless one as well.

To write out the equation in full, the total energy E of an object of (rest) mass m<sub>0</sub> moving with speed v is

This is much better interpreted as

than as

(The expression in brackets in the last equation is what’s conventionally called relativistic mass. As you can see, it can be avoided simply by rewriting the equation the other way – and considering “relativistic energy” instead.)

Here is the more modern version of abstract.

Abbr. abs.

1.Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
2.Not applied or practical; theoretical: See synonyms at theoretical.
3.Difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.
4.Thought of or stated without reference to a specific instance: abstract words like truth and justice.
5.Impersonal, as in attitude or views.
6.Having an intellectual and affective artistic content that depends solely on intrinsic form rather than on narrative content or pictorial representation: abstract painting and sculpture.

noun
(ab?strakt´)
1.A statement summarizing the important points of a text.
2.Something abstract.

verb, transitive
ab·stract·ed, ab·stract·ing, ab·stracts (ab-strakt?)

1.To take away; remove.
2.To remove without permission; filch.
3.To consider (a quality, for example) without reference to a particular example or object.
4.(ab?strakt´) To summarize; epitomize.
5.To create artistic abstractions of (something else, such as a concrete object or another style): “The Bauhaus Functionalists were . . . busy unornamenting and abstracting modern architecture, painting and design” (John Barth).

[Middle English, from Latin abstractus past participle of abstrahere, to draw away : abs-, ab-, away. See ab-1 + trahere, to draw.]

— ab·stract?er noun
— ab·stract?ness noun

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

Take a look at where it comes from though in America.

http://www.Rockwelder.com/Words/abstract.pdf

This is a must read definition and link. I think you might see why you would not use abstract for important theories. Look at its antonym.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

24. Originally Posted by JaneBennet
The crackpot is the one who’s just posted below me.
I posted before you.

But if it makes you feel better. You are not alone, in your frustration with me. This is me detonating a couple grams of gas.

It messed up the camera but I was able to extract the frames one by one. Listen at the end.

http://www.Rockwelder.com/Explosives/blast2.wmv

Here you can see that the pot that was holding up the basketball, did not make it. And although technically the blast broke or cracked the pot. And I did initiate it. I do not believe scientifically that gives you the right to call me a crackpot. However I have an open mind.

Here you can see that the piece of aluminum was bent by the gas blast.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

25. When I said mass, I did not mean "volumetric mass" in terms of the visible quantity of any particle; I meant the weight, but I do not want to use weight since it is derived from gravity times volumetric mass. Almost always though we use volumetric mass since the "weight" of the protons do not vary, I am assuming, outside of a few circumstances like the one I proposed.

Btw, science forum, I feel like I cannot express myself thoroughly enough through the use of alone; could you add one that looks like a crystal, and one that looks like powder?

26. Originally Posted by william
Originally Posted by JaneBennet
Relativistic mass is just an abstract concept – and, by Mitchell’s argument, a pretty useless one as well.
I disagree on it's usefulness. It is very useful when calculating the E and B fields used to guide and collimate charged particles in accelerators, for example. If one calculates these quantities using only the rest mass, the particles won't go where you want them to. But, of course, if we're just talking about the same formulae and arguing about where we place the brackets, then I guess it doesn't matter.
Well, let’s just say that the concept of relativistic mass is potentially confusing; so it’s best to avoid mentioning it – except where it can be useful.

Originally Posted by William McCormick
Here you can see that the pot that was holding up the basketball, did not make it. And although technically the blast broke or cracked the pot. And I did initiate it. I do not believe scientifically that gives you the right to call me a crackpot. However I have an open mind.
And your point is … just because you once succeeded in blowing something up, you’re not a crackpot? Well, I’m not questioning your ability to do practical wonders in the real world – I’m referring to your eccentric ideas of how the real world actually works. And I’m not the only one who thinks your ideas are cranky. Take a look at the “Less tolerance for crackpots?” thread in the Site Feedback section. (BTW I don’t mean to be personal at all, so don’t take what I say personally. If you feel like getting back at me, feel free to call me names yourself. )

Also when I said relativistic mass was an abstract concept, I mean “abstract” as in complex numbers are abstract in relation to real numbers. Having a number i such that i<sup>2</sup> = −1 is an extremely powerful tool for many math applications – even though conceiving of minus 1 as having a square root is counter-intuitive (or at best pushing intuition to the extreme). Likewise, the concept of relativistic mass can be useful, as William (not Mr McCormick) has pointed out – but it should not be taken to imply that the mass of a moving object is in reality increasing.

27. Originally Posted by william
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).
Editing out the ad-hominem attacks, William makes a point, which I admit surprised me for a quarter of a second. Then I realized why it is pure BS. All William is really pointing out is that giving up the concept of relativistic mass means that we must change the formula for momentum from p=mv to p=γmv. I know it is difficult, after all we have given up so much like KE=.5mv^2. Now if it was true that KE=.5γmv^2 then relativistic mass could preserve both formulas. But alas.....it is not to be.

Is there something fundamental about p=mv that momentum should be proportional to mass? I am afraid not. We already know that massless particles have momentum. And this is why the fundamental formula for momentum is neither p=mv NOR p=γmv, but p = sqrt(E^2/c^2 - m^2c^2).

The comment in the link provided shows another inconsisency about forming a black hole. The idea that it would is certainly ludicrous because of the relativity of velocity but that points directly to the point I was making about how this idea of increased mass leads the confusion that something actually changes when you increase velocity. Which I notice is the same as the second objection by Taylor and Wheeler.

Because people like William has found it useful and it is still in the literature used by people such as Hawking and Feynmann, it certainly remains a term that a complete physics education must inform us about. But in that it is like centrifugal force (from which the device centrifuge has its name), but educators will avoid these terms in teaching beginning students because they know what confusions they eventually lead to, and looking back will feel regret that we ever credited the idea.

In any case the link makes it quite clear that my objections are shared by prestigious group and so William has called not only myself a crackpot, but Einstein, Taylor and Wheeler as well. This is therefore an insult that gives me a warm feeling. The world needs more crackpots like this.

28. I haven't been as clear as I'd like to be. I'll attempt to remedy that now.

Yes, it can be considered an out of date concept (in lieu of relativistic energy and momentum),
yes, we can dispute it's usefulness (afterall, particle masses nowadays are given in MeV/c<sup>2</sup>),
but it is not incorrect to say that the "relativistic mass" increases with velocity.

This, I believe (but perhaps with a shifted emphasis), is what Mitch stated in the first place.

However, as I stated before, it is my contention that something more fundamental is happening, and it has to do with inertia.

Cheers,
william

P.S. Mitch, checking out the site feedback crackpot thread may shed some light on my "ad-hominem attacks." It was purely an attempt at humor (in light of the use of "absolute crackpot nonsense" when talking about relativity, and the presence of a real crackpot in this discussion). Sorry you took offense. We've been on good terms for going on 2 years now. I thought you'd see through this.

29. Originally Posted by William McCormick
Oh my God, dude. You set off car alarms. You broke your camera. It sounds like someone yelled, "What the ... is wrong with you?" at the end. Really...

EDIT: Upon further review, it sounds like someone's yelling, "What's your ...in' problem?" Again...

30. Originally Posted by serpicojr
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Oh my God, dude. You set off car alarms. You broke your camera. It sounds like someone yelled, "What the ... is wrong with you?" at the end. Really...

EDIT: Upon further review, it sounds like someone's yelling, "What's your ...in' problem?" Again...
Actually in that movie. I was able to catch rays heading to the bomb before the blast occurred. If you stand where I was, you can actually feel the blast before, it goes off, behind you, while you are facing the bomb.

Your ears are effected just before the blast. You get a silencing and a high pitched maybe ultrasonic noise. That dampens regular sound. You can actually feel pressure on your back, before the blast occurs. But after you initiate the explosion.

There is a powerful penetrating shock wave that bends window glass, like you would not believe. I have had my face up to the glass, in a small window. And the glass expanded and moved into the room, by at least a 1/2". You actually have to see it to believe it.

I was on a forum once and someone else posted a movie of a similar thing, when they launched a rocket a news reporter a famous one. Got up and tried to hold the glass in the window. It expanded so much.

I have worked with glass, and although you can flex it one way. I have never seen it want to bend in two directions at once. Except in an explosion.

But all of these things are simply explained by the all electron universe and the Universal Science that was used to isolate the elements.

The car alarms go off in about a quarter mile radius. The shock wave actually hurts or burns the inside of your chest twenty five to thirty feet away.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

31. Originally Posted by JaneBennet
And your point is … just because you once succeeded in blowing something up, you’re not a crackpot? Well, I’m not questioning your ability to do practical wonders in the real world – I’m referring to your eccentric ideas of how the real world actually works. And I’m not the only one who thinks your ideas are cranky. Take a look at the “Less tolerance for crackpots?” thread in the Site Feedback section. (BTW I don’t mean to be personal at all, so don’t take what I say personally. If you feel like getting back at me, feel free to call me names yourself. )

Also when I said relativistic mass was an abstract concept, I mean “abstract” as in complex numbers are abstract in relation to real numbers. Having a number i such that i<sup>2</sup> = −1 is an extremely powerful tool for many math applications – even though conceiving of minus 1 as having a square root is counter-intuitive (or at best pushing intuition to the extreme). Likewise, the concept of relativistic mass can be useful, as William (not Mr McCormick) has pointed out – but it should not be taken to imply that the mass of a moving object is in reality increasing.
I used to write database programs years ago. And I would use -1 and multiply all the items individually in a column by minus 1, and then sum the column. This way you could take Invoices and credit totals and come up with a number negative number, to show what was owed. Or you could use it in reverse and it would give you a positive number of what was owed.

But it only worked because of the rule contained in the database math routines. In real life you cannot multiply a hole in the ground by another hole in the ground and come up with cubic feet of top soil. So it is all interesting to some extent. But not much more so then the original electronic tennis games we played on the television in the early seventies.

But wanting or needing minus one to have a square root. Is just making your own Sudoku math games. It will not help you build anything.

We can build anything possible right now. But you have to have a lot of courage to live and promote that.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

32. Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
In any case the link makes it quite clear that my objections are shared by prestigious group and so William has called not only myself a crackpot, but Einstein, Taylor and Wheeler as well. This is therefore an insult that gives me a warm feeling. The world needs more crackpots like this.
Einstein was truly abstracted, not in a good way. He was thrown out of Germany. He wrote President Roosevelt a letter, to say that Germany was working on radio active materials, and that they might create a powerful bomb.

To a real scientist this is warning sign just up ahead, because you should not be working in a lab unless you know everything can create a powerful bomb. It is the ultimate in, "I don't know we live on electricity", warning sign.

Yet this nut was allowed to set standards in America. The reason was because he was not smart, he was weak, so he was a great puppet for the government.
The fool believed in time travel. He had not bothered to understand relativity or what relativity is and just started off on a tangent. Much like Chadwick the neutrons inventor.

Matter does not move other matter with mass, or weight. It moves matter by creating an electrical diode that diverts ambient radiation into the object you want to move. There is no magic, nothing left to uncover. America is standing butt naked in total ignorance.

Velocity is what is being ignored. It is the velocity of an object that adds to its ability to create a diode. In proximity to another object.

Doesn't anyone ever watch the movies about evil kings of old? The people in the village are suffering from starvation.The dungeons are full.

The tax man is having his way with the working mans wife and children. They are torturing people. The high priest is corrupt. And they are sending the few knights they have to go to another country and do battle. Because they are blaming that other country for all the problems right in their own castle.

That is all we face now really.

Different color light, is just light that is traveling at different velocities. A prism shows this clearly.

The slower light, like red light, has a tighter spiral path. It would look like a short zigzag pattern looking at its travel from the side on a two dimensional plane. The faster light, has a straighter longer spiral path. That would look like longer more flowing waves, rather then sharp zigzags.

All the work is done we can go anywhere do anything pretty much. We can even make elements.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

33. Oh for fuck sake William McCormick! You appear incapable of contributing to even basic threads and when an interesting one come along like this one, you post your self-deduced "theories" that has NOTHING to do with the thread. Bending glass in explosions? Come on! :x

34. Originally Posted by william

Frankly, I'm surprised this crackpot junk came from you of all people....
I would agree with Mitch on this one. If mass DID increase with velocity, the sun would become a black hole from the relative position of a particle moving towards it at near light speeds.

35. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Oh for fuck sake William McCormick! You appear incapable of contributing to even basic threads and when an interesting one come along like this one, you post your self-deduced "theories" that has NOTHING to do with the thread. Bending glass in explosions? Come on! :x
If you agree with time travel then this thread belongs in the science fiction area.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

36. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by william

Frankly, I'm surprised this crackpot junk came from you of all people....
I would agree with Mitch on this one. If mass DID increase with velocity, the sun would become a black hole from the relative position of a particle moving towards it at near light speeds.
A black hole is just a very large planet. If you have a good telescope you can just look out and see them.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

37. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Oh for fuck sake William McCormick! You appear incapable of contributing to even basic threads and when an interesting one come along like this one, you post your self-deduced "theories" that has NOTHING to do with the thread. Bending glass in explosions? Come on! :x
Bending glass in an explosion is a real phenomena. That is interesting.

Time travel is just plain crazy. A total waste of time. It shows that you are not interested in the most, very basic understanding of the Universe. It is embarrassing to talk about it as a real thing.

When we don't even have any use for it. We cannot solve the problems we have with law makers. And you want to discuss the problems of time travel, as if they pertain to anything but science fiction books.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

38. Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by KALSTER
Oh for fuck sake William McCormick! You appear incapable of contributing to even basic threads and when an interesting one come along like this one, you post your self-deduced "theories" that has NOTHING to do with the thread. Bending glass in explosions? Come on! :x
Bending glass in an explosion is a real phenomena. That is interesting.

Time travel is just plain crazy. A total waste of time. It shows that you are not interested in the most, very basic understanding of the Universe. It is embarrassing to talk about it as a real thing.

When we don't even have any use for it. We cannot solve the problems we have with law makers. And you want to discuss the problems of time travel, as if they pertain to anything but science fiction books.
Yes, William, I also don't think time travel as portrayed in movies is a possibility. But this thread is about TIME DILATION!
A black hole is just a very large planet. If you have a good telescope you can just look out and see them.
NO it is not! Where are you getting your ideas from? Do some basic research before you come and blurt your nonsense all over this forum! I do not usually react like this, but you are really pissing me off!

39. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by KALSTER
Oh for fuck sake William McCormick! You appear incapable of contributing to even basic threads and when an interesting one come along like this one, you post your self-deduced "theories" that has NOTHING to do with the thread. Bending glass in explosions? Come on! :x
Bending glass in an explosion is a real phenomena. That is interesting.

Time travel is just plain crazy. A total waste of time. It shows that you are not interested in the most, very basic understanding of the Universe. It is embarrassing to talk about it as a real thing.

When we don't even have any use for it. We cannot solve the problems we have with law makers. And you want to discuss the problems of time travel, as if they pertain to anything but science fiction books.
Yes, William, I also don't think time travel as portrayed in movies is a possibility. But this thread is about TIME DILATION!
A black hole is just a very large planet. If you have a good telescope you can just look out and see them.
NO it is not! Where are you getting your ideas from? Do some basic research before you come and blurt your nonsense all over this forum! I do not usually react like this, but you are really pissing me off!
Blurting out nonsense is for the current new scientist. I just tell you like it was, and was tested.

There is no such thing as time dilation.
Time is the measure of velocity of moving objects in relation to other moving objects. Time and velocity is relative.

If the whole universe was to be put under more or less pressure. It may speed things up or slow things down, and we would never know.
But everything would still function pretty much the same way. Everything would still be moving at the same speed relative to everything else in the universe.

I do not know if the spirit, the awareness of the individual would be able to sense it or not?

Sincerely,

William McCormick

40. I am now completely lost on the mass increase....so lets talk about something else. Why does time slow down? Doesn't time slowing down contradict the laws of thermodynamics in any way? When everything slows down, including the thrust of the object, you are decreasing the total force, aren't you? You cannot destroy energy, so by loosing kinetic energy, you must be transferring it to something else, but what?

How does gravitational potential time dilation work?

41. Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
I am now completely lost on the mass increase....so lets talk about something else. Why does time slow down? Doesn't time slowing down contradict the laws of thermodynamics in any way? When everything slows down, including the thrust of the object, you are decreasing the total force, aren't you? You cannot destroy energy, so by loosing kinetic energy, you must be transferring it to something else, but what?

How does gravitational potential time dilation work?
Well I think you must understand time dilation in special relativity first. And the first thing to understand is that it is a purely relative thing.

time dilation in special relativity:

Lets take an example: A passes the earth (on which B is sitting) at a velocity of 86.6% of the speed of light. Each measures time and space differently so that B would conclude that a second on a watch A is wearing takes two seconds on his own watch. BUT A also comes to the conclusion that a second on the watch B is wearing takes two second on his own watch. This may challenge our thinking when we ask what is really happening but it agrees perfectly with the fact that velocity is relative.

We can resolve the apparent contradiction when we expand our understanding to include the relativity of simultaneity. To do this we imagine that the all the points of space has clocks at rest with respect to B and synchronized according to B. Then according to A they are not only all like B's watch, one second passing for every two seconds on his own watch, but they don't even show the same time. Those ahead of him in the direction he is moving with respect to B are ahead of the ones behind, and the farther ahead he looks the farther ahead is the time which those clocks read.

Now suppose instead of looking at a single clock (or his own watch), A just takes the time from the nearest clock he happens to be passing (lets call this "passing clock" time). What he will get is a reading of time which is not slower but faster -- in fact, for second of this "passing clock" time, his own watch will only show only half a second has passed.

Now consider what happens if A slows down to be at rest with respect to B. What happens to all the clocks at all the points of space at rest with respect to B? The time they read all change until they all agree with the clocks that are nearest A's position. The result is that B's watch also changes until it agrees with the "passing clock" time, and that means that A will now come to the conclusion that B was correct in saying that A's watch was slower than B's. But the only reason B turned out to be correct is that A changed his velocity to match that of B. If it was B who accelerates to match the velocity of A, the opposite happens -- namely it seems that the time shown on A's watch jumps ahead so that B finds out that it was actually his own watch that was running slower than A's watch.

gravitational time dilation.

Now of course gravitational is rather different for it is derived from the space-time metric which is how GR represents the effect of gravity. So for example the simpest calculation is that of the Schwartschild metric (a spherically symmetric solution to Einstein's Field equations). This is why the gravitaional time dilation is often given in terms of the Schwartschild radius Rs, γ = sqrt(1-Rs/r). So that as your distance to the gravitational center approaches the Schwartschild radius the time dilation factor approaches zero. This radius for a mass like the earth is only few kilometers and since it is only the mass inside the radius that counts, once you go below the surface of the earth the gravitational mass (and thus the Rs for that mass) starts shrinking.

Now the relationship between the gravitational effect and the time dilation in special relativity is both obvious and difficult. On the one hand, the derivation from the space-time metric shows that it is all about how space and time are measured but it clearly isn't relative. In special relativity is the metric is simply ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2 and the relativistic effects are related to that -c^2 in front of the dt^2 in the metric and a kind of rotational transformation of the coordinate system. But in general relativity the metric is position dependent due the effects of gravity.

In order to look at the Schwartschild metric we have to change to spherical coordinates, in which case the SR metric above becomes (leaving out the angular portion which is irrelevant to this discussion) :
ds^2 = dr^2 - c^2 dt^2

In these coordinates the Schwarshild metric is

ds^2 = 1/(1-Rs/r) dr^2 - (1-Rs/r) c^2 dt^2

You can now see that the dr^2 and the dt^2 are multiplied by factors that depend on the distance r to the center of gravity and you can see that expression (1-Rs/r) which is in the time dilation factor.

In any case, because it is an actual change in the metric rather than a rotational transformation of the coordinate system the effects are difficult to compare but my main point here is that these effects are all a matter of differences in how people in different situations measure space and time and therefore you should be cautious in thinking that anything actually changes for the person for whom we say there is time dilation.

42. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by william

Frankly, I'm surprised this crackpot junk came from you of all people....
I would agree with Mitch on this one. If mass DID increase with velocity, the sun would become a black hole from the relative position of a particle moving towards it at near light speeds.

I would agree if mass is thought of as an amount of matter content. But what about considering mass as a measure of inertia?

Also, I hope I was clear on my choice of words so no offense is taken (even if it turned out in bad taste).

Cheers,
william

43. Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
I am now completely lost on the mass increase....so lets talk about something else. Why does time slow down? Doesn't time slowing down contradict the laws of thermodynamics in any way? When everything slows down, including the thrust of the object, you are decreasing the total force, aren't you? You cannot destroy energy, so by loosing kinetic energy, you must be transferring it to something else, but what?

How does gravitational potential time dilation work?
Well I think you must understand time dilation in special relativity first. And the first thing to understand is that it is a purely relative thing.

time dilation in special relativity:

Lets take an example: A passes the earth (on which B is sitting) at a velocity of 86.6% of the speed of light. Each measures time and space differently so that B would conclude that a second on a watch A is wearing takes two seconds on his own watch. BUT A also comes to the conclusion that a second on the watch B is wearing takes two second on his own watch. This may challenge our thinking when we ask what is really happening but it agrees perfectly with the fact that velocity is relative.

We can resolve the apparent contradiction when we expand our understanding to include the relativity of simultaneity. To do this we imagine that the all the points of space has clocks at rest with respect to B and synchronized according to B. Then according to A they are not only all like B's watch, one second passing for every two seconds on his own watch, but they don't even show the same time. Those ahead of him in the direction he is moving with respect to B are ahead of the ones behind, and the farther ahead he looks the farther ahead is the time which those clocks read.

Now suppose instead of looking at a single clock (or his own watch), A just takes the time from the nearest clock he happens to be passing (lets call this "passing clock" time). What he will get is a reading of time which is not slower but faster -- in fact, for second of this "passing clock" time, his own watch will only show only half a second has passed.

Now consider what happens if A slows down to be at rest with respect to B. What happens to all the clocks at all the points of space at rest with respect to B? The time they read all change until they all agree with the clocks that are nearest A's position. The result is that B's watch also changes until it agrees with the "passing clock" time, and that means that A will now come to the conclusion that B was correct in saying that A's watch was slower than B's. But the only reason B turned out to be correct is that A changed his velocity to match that of B. If it was B who accelerates to match the velocity of A, the opposite happens -- namely it seems that the time shown on A's watch jumps ahead so that B finds out that it was actually his own watch that was running slower than A's watch.

gravitational time dilation.

Now of course gravitational is rather different for it is derived from the space-time metric which is how GR represents the effect of gravity. So for example the simpest calculation is that of the Schwartschild metric (a spherically symmetric solution to Einstein's Field equations). This is why the gravitaional time dilation is often given in terms of the Schwartschild radius Rs, γ = sqrt(1-Rs/r). So that as your distance to the gravitational center approaches the Schwartschild radius the time dilation factor approaches zero. This radius for a mass like the earth is only few kilometers and since it is only the mass inside the radius that counts, once you go below the surface of the earth the gravitational mass (and thus the Rs for that mass) starts shrinking.

Now the relationship between the gravitational effect and the time dilation in special relativity is both obvious and difficult. On the one hand, the derivation from the space-time metric shows that it is all about how space and time are measured but it clearly isn't relative. In special relativity is the metric is simply ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2 and the relativistic effects are related to that -c^2 in front of the dt^2 in the metric and a kind of rotational transformation of the coordinate system. But in general relativity the metric is position dependent due the effects of gravity.

In order to look at the Schwartschild metric we have to change to spherical coordinates, in which case the SR metric above becomes (leaving out the angular portion which is irrelevant to this discussion) :
ds^2 = dr^2 - c^2 dt^2

In these coordinates the Schwarshild metric is

ds^2 = 1/(1-Rs/r) dr^2 - (1-Rs/r) c^2 dt^2

You can now see that the dr^2 and the dt^2 are multiplied by factors that depend on the distance r to the center of gravity and you can see that expression (1-Rs/r) which is in the time dilation factor.

In any case, because it is an actual change in the metric rather than a rotational transformation of the coordinate system the effects are difficult to compare but my main point here is that these effects are all a matter of differences in how people in different situations measure space and time and therefore you should be cautious in thinking that anything actually changes for the person for whom we say there is time dilation.
I think what is taking place is that, it was theorized during the space program that devices that measure time. Could be effected by traveling very fast. And I would be the first to say, that on earth we can create rays of ambient radiation, that can slow a clock or other type of device.

But once a device is in a properly shielded vessel. The two clocks one on earth the other in a properly shielded vessel, will record the same amount of time passed. As long as the two clocks are synchronous on the earths surface.

Ambient radiation that turns the clocks parts, or powers the clocks electronics, would if the clock was left exposed to forward movement of a space craft traveling at 86 percent the speed of light, be effected by magnetic and electrical fields that could either speed it up or slow it down. Depending on how the clock was built.

However once inside a properly designed space craft, the clock would experience normal speed ambient radiation. The walls of the craft, accelerate the slowed ambient radiation, back to normal speeds.
A properly made ship would also fix the rate of speed of ambient radiation hitting the front of the ship as well.

I admit that all of these multiple walls of material is an additive, however it would be the necessary additive to achieve those speeds in space safely, and to allow equipment to function normally. Which has been done already. To a successful end, in the late sixties and early seventies. Space travel in well made ships was deemed unnecessary to the goals of law makers, at that time.

But most of this time effect was just talk of un-shielded devices aboard spacecraft in the sixties and seventies. Some of accidents they had on the Mother ship were due to not understanding a vacuum/dielectric. This was actually foretold before the ship left.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

44. Originally Posted by william

I would agree if mass is thought of as an amount of matter content. But what about considering mass as a measure of inertia?
All that would demonstrate is the amount of energy required to accelerate the moving object. It does not change the mass.

45. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by william

I would agree if mass is thought of as an amount of matter content. But what about considering mass as a measure of inertia?
All that would demonstrate is the amount of energy required to accelerate the moving object. It does not change the mass.

I'm sure fundamentally we're talking the same jive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

I guess I'm specifically thinking about inertial mass;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#In...itational_mass

Cheers

46. Originally Posted by william

I'm sure fundamentally we're talking the same jive.

I guess I'm specifically thinking about inertial mass;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#In...itational_mass
Exactly, here is the key phrase:

"Inertial mass is the mass of an object measured by its resistance to acceleration."

47. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by william

I'm sure fundamentally we're talking the same jive.

I guess I'm specifically thinking about inertial mass;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#In...itational_mass
Exactly, here is the key phrase:

"Inertial mass is the mass of an object measured by its resistance to acceleration."
Exactly!

And inertial mass can change.

Cheers

48. Originally Posted by william
And inertial mass can change.
I don't think so, remove the kinetic energy from the equation and the inertial mass is equal to the rest mass. Kinetic energy does not add to the mass, it merely adds as the resistance to acceleration increases.

49. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by william
And inertial mass can change.
I don't think so, remove the kinetic energy from the equation and the inertial mass is equal to the rest mass. Kinetic energy does not add to the mass, it merely adds as the resistance to acceleration increases.

I still think we're talking the same jive, fundamentally.
I think it is only a matter of preference whether one would rather think in terms of "relativistic mass" or relativistic energy and momentum.

Note: (just to emphasize a possible point of confusion)
I agree whole-heartedly that the rest mass (or invariable mass) doesn't change.

Cheers

50. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by william

I'm sure fundamentally we're talking the same jive.

I guess I'm specifically thinking about inertial mass;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#In...itational_mass
Exactly, here is the key phrase:

"Inertial mass is the mass of an object measured by its resistance to acceleration."
What resistance to acceleration?
Ambient radiation on the other side of an object is all that is keeping it form leaving at five times the speed of light. From nothing at all.

I know what you mean, you are saying that the simplicity of weight to volume on earth at sea level was too simple. So you have added or allowed to be added the term mass with a special definition.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

51. Originally Posted by william
I still think we're talking the same jive, fundamentally.
I think it is only a matter of preference whether one would rather think in terms of "relativistic mass" or relativistic energy and momentum.
Ok, I will step in here.

If mass is considered an inertial resistance to acceleration or a change in veloicty then, even though there really is no resistance to acceleration other than rest mass from whatever inertial frame one is actually in, there is certainly an increased resistance to acceleration from the point of view of an observer relative to which one already has a velocity. But the question here is whether there is any way in which this quantity of mγ helps us quantify this resistance? So below I try exploring this idea of resisting a change in velocity or resisting acceleration in a couple different ways, to see if I can find in this any merit to the idea of relativistic mass from that point of view.

The basic velocity addition formulas depend on whether the added velocity is parallel or perpendicular so let u = u1 + u2 where u1 is parallel to v and u2 is perpendicular to v. Then adding velocity u to velocity v gives w = w1 + w2, where
w1 = (v+u1) / (1+ v u cosθ / c^2)
w2 = u2/[γ(1+ v u cosθ / c^2)]
where γ = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and θ is the angle between u and v

The interesting thing to notice here is that you not only have this resistance to an increase of velocity represented by the divisor (1+ v u cosθ / c^2) in both parallel and perpendicular directions, but the perpendicular direction has this additional divisor of γ making the resistance to a change of velocity in the perpendicular direction much greater. So there is no doubt that there is a greatly increased resistance to a change in velocity even more so in a perpendicular direction. But does this really add any significance to the quantity mγ? Not that I can see. In fact, this gives just one more objection to the whole idea of relativistic mass, for we see that the "resistance" to a change in velocity is not the same in all directions. So defining mass by this resistance just points out the way in which relativistic mass being associated with a relative velocity in a particular direction, gives it a directional aspect which is a really odd sort of thing to associate with the word "mass".

Lets try comparing it to the classical case and look at how mass resists a change of velocity given an addition of energy. We can do this by taking the derivative of the kinetic energy formula E = .5 m v^2 which gives

P = m v a, where P = dE/dt is the power and a = dv/dt is the acceleration
so a = P/(mv), which means that the acceleration due to a power input is divided by both velocity and mass. Velocity resists acceleration due to energy because the energy required increases with the square of the velocity.

Now lets do the same thing with the relativistic formula E = γ m c^2

The derivative of γ is γ^3 (dv/dt) v/c^2 so we get P = m γ^3 v a
or a = P/(m γ^3 v), so in the relativistic equivalent the power input is divided by an additional factor of γ^3 and again we see that the quantity of mγ is not that helpful. I mean if you see any reason why this γ^3 should be divided up like this, a = P / ((mγ)(γ^2v)), I would like to hear it.

But it seems to me, that since γ is a function of v then it seems more natural to think of this like a = P/(m F(v)) which means that while rest mass plays the same role in resisting acceleration, velocity resists acceleration in a more enhanced way, given by this F(v) = γ^3 v. Another big advantage of this, it seems to me, is that it puts all the direction dependent part of this resistance to acceleration together and avoids this peculiar idea of associating a direction with mass.

Anyway william, if you can see any way of justifying this claim that this quanity mγ should be considered the factor by which motion is resisted, lets hear it.

52. Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
Originally Posted by william
I still think we're talking the same jive, fundamentally.
I think it is only a matter of preference whether one would rather think in terms of "relativistic mass" or relativistic energy and momentum.
Ok, I will step in here.

If mass is considered an inertial resistance to acceleration or a change in veloicty then, even though there really is no resistance to acceleration from whatever inertial frame one is actually in, there is certainly an increased resistance to acceleration from the point of view of an observer relative to which one already has a velocity. But the question here is whether there is any way in which this quantity of mγ helps us quantify this resistance? So below I try exploring this idea of resisting a change in velocity or resisting acceleration in a couple different ways, to see if I can find in this any merit to the idea of relativistic mass from that point of view.

The basic velocity addition formulas depend on whether the added velocity is parallel or perpendicular so let u = u1 + u2 where u1 is parallel to v and u2 is perpendicular to v. Then adding velocity u to velocity v gives w = w1 + w2, where
w1 = (v+u1) / (1+ v u cosθ / c^2)
w2 = u2/[γ(1+ v u cosθ / c^2)]
where γ = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and θ is the angle between u and v

The interesting thing to notice here is that you not only have this resistance to an increase of velocity represented by the divisor (1+ v u cosθ / c^2) in both parallel and perpendicular directions, but the perpendicular direction has this additional divisor of γ making the resistance to a change of velocity in the perpendicular direction much greater. So there is no doubt that there is a greatly increased resistance to a change in velocity even more so in a perpendicular direction. But does this really add any significance to the quantity mγ? Not that I can see. In fact, this gives just one more objection to the whole idea of relativistic mass, for we see that the "resistance" to a change in velocity is not the same in all directions. So defining mass by this resistance just points out the way in which relativistic mass being associated with a relative velocity in a particular direction, gives it a directional aspect which is a really odd sort of thing to associate with the word "mass".

Lets try comparing it to the classical case and look at how mass resists a change of velocity given an addition of energy. We can do this by taking the derivative of the kinetic energy formula E = .5 m v^2 which gives

P = m v a, where P = dE/dt is the power and a = dv/dt is the acceleration
so a = P/(mv), which means that the acceleration due to a power input is divided by both velocity and mass. Velocity resists acceleration due to energy because the energy required increases with the square of the velocity.

Now lets do the same thing with the relativistic formula E = γ m c^2

The derivative of γ is γ^3 (dv/dt) v/c^2 so we get P = m γ^3 v a
or a = P/(m γ^3 v), so in the relativistic equivalent the power input is divided by an additional factor of γ^3 and again we see that the quantity of mγ is not that helpful. I mean if you see any reason why this γ^3 should be divided up like this, a = P / ((mγ)(γ^2v)), I would like to hear it.

But it seems to me, that since γ is a function of v then it seems more natural to think of this like a = P/(m F(v)) which means that while rest mass plays the same role in resisting acceleration, velocity resists acceleration in a more enhanced way given by this F(v) = γ^3 v. Another big advantage of this, it seems to me, is that it puts all the direction dependent part of this resistance to acceleration together and avoids this peculiar idea of associating a direction with mass.

Anyway william, if you can see any way of justifying this claim that this quanity mγ should be considered the factor by which a motion is resisted, lets hear it.
I would really appreciate it if you could decipher, what you mean by the symbols, into terms that require no symbols. I am saying if you mean mass, could you write your formula using the word mass.

I have multiple fields that I address, and often the terminology is similar but different from one field to the next.
I might be liking what you are saying, but I cannot decipher what you are saying.

Just a simplistic explanation is what I am in need of. I would appreciate it.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

53. Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
Originally Posted by william
I still think we're talking the same jive, fundamentally.
I think it is only a matter of preference whether one would rather think in terms of "relativistic mass" or relativistic energy and momentum.
Ok, I will step in here.

If mass is considered an inertial resistance to acceleration or a change in veloicty then, even though there really is no resistance to acceleration from whatever inertial frame one is actually in, there is certainly an increased resistance to acceleration from the point of view of an observer relative to which one already has a velocity. But the question here is whether there is any way in which this quantity of mγ helps us quantify this resistance? So below I try exploring this idea of resisting a change in velocity or resisting acceleration in a couple different ways, to see if I can find in this any merit to the idea of relativistic mass from that point of view.

The basic velocity addition formulas depend on whether the added velocity is parallel or perpendicular so let u = u1 + u2 where u1 is parallel to v and u2 is perpendicular to v. Then adding velocity u to velocity v gives w = w1 + w2, where
w1 = (v+u1) / (1+ v u cosθ / c^2)
w2 = u2/[γ(1+ v u cosθ / c^2)]
where γ = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and θ is the angle between u and v

The interesting thing to notice here is that you not only have this resistance to an increase of velocity represented by the divisor (1+ v u cosθ / c^2) in both parallel and perpendicular directions, but the perpendicular direction has this additional divisor of γ making the resistance to a change of velocity in the perpendicular direction much greater. So there is no doubt that there is a greatly increased resistance to a change in velocity even more so in a perpendicular direction. But does this really add any significance to the quantity mγ? Not that I can see. In fact, this gives just one more objection to the whole idea of relativistic mass, for we see that the "resistance" to a change in velocity is not the same in all directions. So defining mass by this resistance just points out the way in which relativistic mass being associated with a relative velocity in a particular direction, gives it a directional aspect which is a really odd sort of thing to associate with the word "mass".

Lets try comparing it to the classical case and look at how mass resists a change of velocity given an addition of energy. We can do this by taking the derivative of the kinetic energy formula E = .5 m v^2 which gives

P = m v a, where P = dE/dt is the power and a = dv/dt is the acceleration
so a = P/(mv), which means that the acceleration due to a power input is divided by both velocity and mass. Velocity resists acceleration due to energy because the energy required increases with the square of the velocity.

Now lets do the same thing with the relativistic formula E = γ m c^2

The derivative of γ is γ^3 (dv/dt) v/c^2 so we get P = m γ^3 v a
or a = P/(m γ^3 v), so in the relativistic equivalent the power input is divided by an additional factor of γ^3 and again we see that the quantity of mγ is not that helpful. I mean if you see any reason why this γ^3 should be divided up like this, a = P / ((mγ)(γ^2v)), I would like to hear it.

But it seems to me, that since γ is a function of v then it seems more natural to think of this like a = P/(m F(v)) which means that while rest mass plays the same role in resisting acceleration, velocity resists acceleration in a more enhanced way given by this F(v) = γ^3 v. Another big advantage of this, it seems to me, is that it puts all the direction dependent part of this resistance to acceleration together and avoids this peculiar idea of associating a direction with mass.

Well Mitch, you've certainly built a strong case as for why it's more appropriate to think in terms of relativistic energy and momentum and why relativistic mass can lead to confusion and is not necessary.

Anyway william, if you can see any way of justifying this claim that this quanity mγ should be considered the factor by which a motion is resisted, lets hear it.
To which I respond;
[...sounds of crickets chirping....]

However, here is one case where it doesn't seem so absurd. In terms of force, the acceleration can be written as

a = dv/dt = [F - Beta(F dot Beta)]/m(gamma)

(where the terms have their usual meaning)

Anyway, to reiterate, you've certainly built a strong case as for why it's more appropriate to think in terms of relativistic energy and momentum and why relativistic mass can lead to confusion and is not necessary.

Thank you.

Cheers,
william

54. Originally Posted by william
However, here is one case where it doesn't seem so absurd. In terms of force, the acceleration can be written as

a = dv/dt = [F - Beta(F dot Beta)]/m(gamma)

(where the terms have their usual meaning)
I cannot say that this looks familiar. Does Beta mean v/c? I would assume this but your capitalization of Beta is unusual.

oh wait a minute, I see....

You can derive this from the relativistic version of Newton's second law

F = γma + γ^3 m (β•a)β
because when you divide this by mγ and dot with β you get
(β•F)/mγ = γ^2 (β•a)
Substituting this into your formula gives you back the relativistic version of Newton's 2nd law.

So what you are essentially saying is that even though "f = mγ a" is not valid you can nevertheless see that there is a factor of mγ between Force and acceleration.

Hmmm.... if the force is perpendicular to the velocity you even get,
f = mγ a

But even the concept of force can be considered a little old fashioned. Of course, it is certainly invaluable in classical applications, but the direction of developments in theoretical physics doesn't really use the concept of force any more (what I believe Einstein called action at a distance). GR and QFT certainly don't use it. Perhaps my background in theoretical physics is part of why this doesn't seem very significant to me.

55. .................................................. .................................................. .............
.................................................. .................................................. ...........
......................... :? .................................................. ...............................
.................... ..................................... ....................... ............................................... ................................... ....................................... ................... :|................................................ ......................

Well....I can't say I think in math, so much of your argument was unclear to me. Still, I think I got some of it. Thanks for trying to explain it, but I am just more of a visual thinker. (And my physics class never got into the math you used)

56. Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
Well....I can't say I think in math, so much of your argument was unclear to me. Still, I think I got some of it. Thanks for trying to explain it, but I am just more of a visual thinker. (And my physics class never got into the math you used)
Which argument are you talking about?

In what me and william were just talking about we are using bold letters for vectors and the dot is for the scalar product of two vectors and it is given by:

b•a = b a cos θ, where b and a are the magnitudes of the two vectors and θ is the angle between the two vectors.

So when you divide F = γma + γ^3 m (β•a)β by mγ you get

F/(mγ) = a + γ^2 (β•a)β

then when you dot this with β you get

(β•F)/mγ = β•a + γ^2 (β•a) β•β
but β•β = β^2 and γ^2 = 1/(1-β^2) so this is
(β•F)/mγ = β•a [1 + β^2 / (1-β^2)]
but the part in square brakets when you get a common denominator becomes 1/(1-β^2) which is equal to γ^2 so
(β•F)/mγ = γ^2 (β•a)

OR are you talking about my response to your question concerning gravitational time dilation?

If so then you gotta understand that that is General Relativity and yes that is generally some heavy duty mathematics, which includes tensor calculus, manifolds, fibre bundles, killing vectors and that sort of stuff. At most schools you are lucky to even get to study that in a graduate physics program. Most of what I learned I had to study on my own. So you see that is not your everyday sort of material in physics. But like all physics, without the math you really cannot say that you understand it, because the math is what physics is all about.

In any case, for what I was talking about, the basics are covered in multivariate calculus. The metric is basically how you calculate distances. So the usual metric for 3D space is just the arc length ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2.

For example, to use this you integrate ds which is to integrate sqrt(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2), which you integrate by dividing by the differential of some variable, so ds = sqrt((dx/du)^2 + (dy/du)^2 + (dz/du)^2) du which works nice if you have a curve defined by parametric equations like for example x=u, y=u^2, z= 1 . Then dx/du = 1, dy/du = 2u, dz/du = 0. and your integrand becomes sqrt(1+4u^2)du which I think you can integrate with a trig substitution. Anyway this lets you calculate the length on the curve between any two point on the curve by integrating sqrt(1+4u^2)du between those two points.

Now what this means in the case of the Minkowsky metric ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2 is that because of that negative sign you can get a zero distance between different points on some curves. In point of fact zero is what you get when you calcuate this space-time "distance" on any path which light travels. Or perhaps what is more intuitive is to write this as a proper time dτ = i/c ds, because that represents the measure of time in ones rest frame. So the fact that the proper time is zero on a path that light travels basically means that light experiences no time passage in its rest frame. That means that a massless particle which always travels at the speed of light cannot decay in the usual manner with a half-life.

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