# Thread: Speed of Light (pseudo)

1. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
No, please do not say that the mass increases. This is physically wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in...c_mass_concept

You can mathematically express the increase of energy needed to attain higher velocities as an increase of the mass, but it is in fact not true. The real reason is that the total relativistic energy does not increase linearly like the classical kinetic energy, but is modified with the gamma factor.

If you say that the mass increases, you immediately suggest that the gravitational force increases as well. But this is not true either. So, either you clearly specify, what you mean with an increase of mass, or you explain it in a different way.
Mass DOES increase as velocity increases. This is an obvious and indisputable fact. There is a relationship between mass and frequency and because of the doppler effect, a moving object will gain mass because the frequency also changes.

2.

3. Originally Posted by Waveman28
Mass DOES increase as velocity increases. This is an obvious and indisputable fact. There is a relationship between mass and frequency and because of the doppler effect, a moving object will gain mass because the frequency also changes.
1.The Doppler effect deals with the frequency of the light being received from an object approaching or receding, not any frequency of the object itself.

2. The Doppler effect is velocity dependent. IOW it depends on the whether or not the object is approaching or receding. So are you saying that an object approaching you gains mass while an object receding losses it?

3. Even if you ignore the approaching/receding issue, the Doppler effect formula does not fit the actually experimental data in terms of effort needed to accelerate an object.

4. The accepted modern definition of "Mass" considers it an invariant property that does not change with velocity. There are inertial effects that mimic an increase in mass, but they are not regarded as an actual increase in mass. There are times when the term "relativistic mass" is used to refer to these effects, but whenever the word "mass" is used alone it refers to the invariant property.

4. Originally Posted by Janus
Originally Posted by Waveman28
Mass DOES increase as velocity increases. This is an obvious and indisputable fact. There is a relationship between mass and frequency and because of the doppler effect, a moving object will gain mass because the frequency also changes.
1.The Doppler effect deals with the frequency of the light being received from an object approaching or receding, not any frequency of the object itself.

2. The Doppler effect is velocity dependent. IOW it depends on the whether or not the object is approaching or receding. So are you saying that an object approaching you gains mass while an object receding losses it?

3. Even if you ignore the approaching/receding issue, the Doppler effect formula does not fit the actually experimental data in terms of effort needed to accelerate an object.

4. The accepted modern definition of "Mass" considers it an invariant property that does not change with velocity. There are inertial effects that mimic an increase in mass, but they are not regarded as an actual increase in mass. There are times when the term "relativistic mass" is used to refer to these effects, but whenever the word "mass" is used alone it refers to the invariant property.
Matter is made of waves, so of course the doppler effect is going to effect its mass, frequency and other properties when it moves. Your point in numer 2 makes no sense, because it does not matter what direction an electron is traveling in because it always contracts on the forward axis, and undergoes the lorentz transformations. How an external observer views the change is irrelevant. You cannot deny that mass increases as velocity increases.

5. This is simply unthinkable. All this talk about wormholes and other ficticious nonsense is futile. Einsteins space-time does not exist, when will people realise this? The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, nothing can or will ever change that. Extra dimensions do not exist and "space warps" and "worm holes" are devoid of any connection to reality, lets just face it.

6. Originally Posted by Waveman28
This is simply unthinkable. All this talk about wormholes and other ficticious nonsense is futile. Einsteins space-time does not exist, when will people realise this? The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, nothing can or will ever change that. Extra dimensions do not exist and "space warps" and "worm holes" are devoid of any connection to reality, lets just face it.
jeez, open your mind and come out of the sand. If space-time does not exist surely that means you don't exist? just a thought
let's examine a hyperthetical: you are standing at the bottom of a mountain, all though the straight line route is shorter it isn't possible to you so you have to go over the mountain. then along comes me and my dynamite! I simply blast the straight line through the mountain and complete the shorter route whilst your stuck at the top. Presto!

7. Originally Posted by Nevyn
Originally Posted by Waveman28
This is simply unthinkable. All this talk about wormholes and other ficticious nonsense is futile. Einsteins space-time does not exist, when will people realise this? The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, nothing can or will ever change that. Extra dimensions do not exist and "space warps" and "worm holes" are devoid of any connection to reality, lets just face it.
jeez, open your mind and come out of the sand. If space-time does not exist surely that means you don't exist? just a thought
let's examine a hyperthetical: you are standing at the bottom of a mountain, all though the straight line route is shorter it isn't possible to you so you have to go over the mountain. then along comes me and my dynamite! I simply blast the straight line through the mountain and complete the shorter route whilst your stuck at the top. Presto!
Exactly, the straight line path is the shortest, whats your point? As a hypothetical example of this, in space the shortest path to another planet is a straight line, so no "wormhole shortcuts" can be taken anyway. Saying things like "space is curved" is nothing short of absurd. This is even funnier because your scientists actually at this stage believe that "space-time" is flat anyway.

8. Originally Posted by Nevyn
Originally Posted by Waveman28
This is simply unthinkable. All this talk about wormholes and other ficticious nonsense is futile. Einsteins space-time does not exist, when will people realise this? The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, nothing can or will ever change that. Extra dimensions do not exist and "space warps" and "worm holes" are devoid of any connection to reality, lets just face it.
jeez, open your mind and come out of the sand. If space-time does not exist surely that means you don't exist? just a thought
let's examine a hyperthetical: you are standing at the bottom of a mountain, all though the straight line route is shorter it isn't possible to you so you have to go over the mountain. then along comes me and my dynamite! I simply blast the straight line through the mountain and complete the shorter route whilst your stuck at the top. Presto!
Exactly, the straight line path is the shortest, whats your point? As a hypothetical example of this, in space the shortest path to another planet is a straight line, so no "wormhole shortcuts" can be taken anyway. Saying things like "space is curved" is nothing short of absurd. This is even funnier because your scientists actually at this stage believe that "space-time" is flat anyway.

9. Actually light follows geodesic curves. That is, the shortest path between two points, which is not the same thing as a straight line. For a non-light example, consider the shortest path from New York to London across the surface [or just above it]. That path is not a straight line, but a portion of a great circle.

If space is bent (and current observations and theories suggest that mass bends space), the shortest path is no longer a straight line the way you're thinking of it.

10. Originally Posted by Waveman28
Exactly, the straight line path is the shortest, whats your point? As a hypothetical example of this, in space the shortest path to another planet is a straight line, so no "wormhole shortcuts" can be taken anyway. Saying things like "space is curved" is nothing short of absurd. This is even funnier because your scientists actually at this stage believe that "space-time" is flat anyway.
the point is that you in normal space have to follow the "apparent" shortest path ie over the mountain. However I come and create a 'wormhole' through the mountain via the shorter route.

 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