| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"DrCIH" |
| Date: |
17 Jan 2005 04:30:05 PM |
| Object: |
Proof of... |
Can someone give me the provement of:
m =
m0/SQRT(1-V^2/C^2)[b:60b9fc3fc2][/b:60b9fc3fc2]
*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*
.
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of... |
17 Jan 2005 08:44:15 PM |
|
|
"DrCIH" <kosta_plovdiv@abv-dot-bg.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:41ec3c6d_2@Usenet.com...
Can someone give me the provement of:
m =
m0/SQRT(1-V^2/C^2)[
Nope. m c^2 is inertial energy.
[Old Man]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of... |
17 Jan 2005 05:08:18 PM |
|
|
"DrCIH" <kosta_plovdiv@abv-dot-bg.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:41ec3c6d_2@Usenet.com...
Can someone give me the provement of:
m =
m0/SQRT(1-V^2/C^2)[b:60b9fc3fc2][/b:60b9fc3fc2]
*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*
There isn't one.
Proof that there isn't MAY follow in the discussion thread "Androcles
and Draper ...." if Draper ever gets to establishing 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
which he will not.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of... |
17 Jan 2005 05:42:34 PM |
|
|
Shut up Ding-bat Andro, the OP asked a
classical question.
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of... |
17 Jan 2005 07:11:33 PM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1106005354.871172.229880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Shut up Ding-bat Andro, the OP asked a
classical question.
Ken
Shove off, idiot Tucker, go back to fucking the dead.
"Classical" is non-relativistic.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of... |
18 Jan 2005 01:00:12 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Androcles
<dummy@dummy.net>
wrote
on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:11:33 GMT
<9nZGd.153330$48.23243@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1106005354.871172.229880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Shut up Ding-bat Andro, the OP asked a
classical question.
Ken
Shove off, idiot Tucker, go back to fucking the dead.
"Classical" is non-relativistic.
Androcles.
Androcles is technically correct; there's no proof that
m = m_0 * Gamma -- just lots of experimental evidence
and working accelerator design parameters that assume such.
(It is possible we might find a different formula tomorrow,
though one hopes for upward compatibility in the ranges
we've played with thus far.)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of... |
18 Jan 2005 08:44:44 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:0omub2-c9r.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Androcles
<dummy@dummy.net>
wrote
on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:11:33 GMT
<9nZGd.153330$48.23243@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1106005354.871172.229880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Shut up Ding-bat Andro, the OP asked a
classical question.
Ken
Shove off, idiot Tucker, go back to fucking the dead.
"Classical" is non-relativistic.
Androcles.
Androcles is technically correct; there's no proof that
m = m_0 * Gamma -- just lots of experimental evidence
and working accelerator design parameters that assume such.
Oh, do us a favour.
Describe the difference in design of a relativistic particle accelerator
and an ordinary non-relativisitic one.
Androcles.
(It is possible we might find a different formula tomorrow,
though one hopes for upward compatibility in the ranges
we've played with thus far.)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of... |
18 Jan 2005 04:18:39 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:wh9Hd.138130$C8.32021@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote
in
message news:0omub2-c9r.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Androcles
<dummy@dummy.net>
wrote
on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:11:33 GMT
<9nZGd.153330$48.23243@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1106005354.871172.229880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Shut up Ding-bat Andro, the OP asked a
classical question.
Ken
Shove off, idiot Tucker, go back to fucking the dead.
"Classical" is non-relativistic.
Androcles.
Androcles is technically correct; there's no proof that
m = m_0 * Gamma -- just lots of experimental evidence
and working accelerator design parameters that assume such.
Oh, do us a favour.
Describe the difference in design of a relativistic particle
accelerator
and an ordinary non-relativisitic one.
Here are just three very obvious instances, drawn from very different
applications::
The last cyclotron at Berleley failed to accelerate protons to beyond
about 20 MeV, because the onset of relativistic corrections to the
period of the proton orbit dragged it out of synchronism with the RF
applied to the Dees.
In the first synchrocyclotron, the frequency of the Dee field was
adjusted to keep pace with the expected demands made by relativity.
That accelerator accelerated protons successfully to around 200 MeV.
Later examples accelerated protons to well over 600 MeV.
In an electron linear accelerator, the electron speed asymptotes
rapidly to c. From then onwards, the cavity spacing remainds
essentially constant whilst the electrons continue to gain energy.
In the fundamental mode of a microtron, the electrons are not
accelerated for more that one orbit unless the energy gain per transit
is adjusted to be very close to mc^2, as required by the relevant
relativistic orbit theory.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of... |
18 Jan 2005 09:45:46 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message news:wh9Hd.138130$C8.32021@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:0omub2-c9r.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Androcles
<dummy@dummy.net>
wrote
on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:11:33 GMT
<9nZGd.153330$48.23243@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
[snip]
Shove off, idiot Tucker, go back to fucking the dead.
"Classical" is non-relativistic.
Androcles.
Androcles is technically correct; there's no proof that
m = m_0 * Gamma -- just lots of experimental evidence
and working accelerator design parameters that assume such.
Oh, do us a favour.
Describe the difference in design of a relativistic particle accelerator
and an ordinary non-relativisitic one.
Show us a non-relativistic version of electromagnetism.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of... |
19 Jan 2005 09:01:39 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Androcles
<dummy@dummy.net>
wrote
on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:44:44 GMT
<wh9Hd.138130$C8.32021@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:0omub2-c9r.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Androcles
<dummy@dummy.net>
wrote
on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:11:33 GMT
<9nZGd.153330$48.23243@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1106005354.871172.229880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Shut up Ding-bat Andro, the OP asked a
classical question.
Ken
Shove off, idiot Tucker, go back to fucking the dead.
"Classical" is non-relativistic.
Androcles.
Androcles is technically correct; there's no proof that
m = m_0 * Gamma -- just lots of experimental evidence
and working accelerator design parameters that assume such.
Oh, do us a favour.
Describe the difference in design of a relativistic particle accelerator
and an ordinary non-relativisitic one.
I do not have access to the actual design, but I do have the
elementary observation:
Newtonian: KE = 1/2 m_0 v^2
Einsteinian: KE = m_0 c^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - m_0 c^2
For v << c these are very nearly equal; for a 2 metric tonne
car moving at 67.1 mph (30 m/s, 10^-7 c), for example, the
error is approximately 3.725 * 10^-9 J, out of 900,000 J.
Not exactly worth worrying about in a speeding ticket
or police collision report.
One can also work backwards, if one knows the energy.
Newtonian: v = sqrt(2KE/m_0)
Einsteinian: v = c * sqrt(1 - E_0^2/(E_0 + KE)^2)
where E_0 is m_0*c^2.
For the OhMyGod (proton) particle, we have the following
observations:
m_0 = rest mass 1.67262171 * 10^-27 kg
E_0 = computed SR rest energy 1.503277424 * 10^-10 J
KE = observed energy 3.0 * 10^20 eV = 48 J
(This is enough to light a 100W light bulb for almost half a second.)
Newtonian theory computes a velocity of 800,000 times lightspeed
for this particle.
Einsteinian theory is more sedate, computing a speed of
(1 - 4.9*10^-24) c.
That's a bit extreme, admittedly, so let's be more down to Earth... :-)
Say one wanted to build a tokamak [*] that throws protons
around at 3 GeV = 4.807 * 10^-10 J. As the proton moves
through the torus, it will receive boosts of energy from
strong, precisely timed electromagnets. Where should
they be placed and how should they be pulsed? Also,
how big should the tokamak be?
Newtonian predicts that the velocity of a proton after
all this acceleration is about 2.54 c. Einsteinian
velocity is 0.97 c.
Quite a difference, and if the accelerator is misbuilt, one
won't get 3 GeV; it's a bit like pushing a child on a
swing at the wrong time, or accelerating when one should
be braking on a NASCAR oval and crashing into the wall.
The CERN Large Hadron Collider will accelerate bunches
of particles, and among other things has the parameters
Firstyear: 1.12 * 10^14 particles, at 127 MJ (7.08 TeV/particle)
Nominal: 3.23 * 10^14 particles, at 362 MJ (7.00 TeV/particle)
http://lhc-new-homepage.web.cern.ch/lhc%2Dnew%2Dhomepage/
(click on Design Performance)
if I'm reading this correctly. Apparently I need to scale up,
but I'm not going to bother... :-)
[rest snipped]
[*] a more practical design is probably available, but the
same issues apply.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PDraper" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of... |
18 Jan 2005 10:52:24 AM |
|
|
On 1/18/05 9:44 AM, in article
wh9Hd.138130$C8.32021@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "Androcles"
<dummy@dummy.net> wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:0omub2-c9r.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Androcles
<dummy@dummy.net>
wrote
on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:11:33 GMT
<9nZGd.153330$48.23243@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1106005354.871172.229880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Shut up Ding-bat Andro, the OP asked a
classical question.
Ken
Shove off, idiot Tucker, go back to fucking the dead.
"Classical" is non-relativistic.
Androcles.
Androcles is technically correct; there's no proof that
m = m_0 * Gamma -- just lots of experimental evidence
and working accelerator design parameters that assume such.
Oh, do us a favour.
Describe the difference in design of a relativistic particle accelerator
and an ordinary non-relativisitic one.
Androcles.
That's actually straightforward. The Tevatron, for example, accelerates
protons from 150 GeV to 1000 GeV, a seven-fold increase in kinetic energy. A
non-relativistic accelerator design would assume, then, an increase in speed
by a factor of a little over 2.5, also resulting an increase in frequency of
the proton bunches at the RF cavities by a factor of a little over 2.5
during the ramp-up. Of course, in real life, the speed increases from
99.998% of the speed of light to 99.99995% of the speed of light, a speed
increase of 0.002%. Thus, the RF cavities can operate at essentially
constant frequency.
This is a relativistic design consideration.
Oh, and it works admirably.
PD
(It is possible we might find a different formula tomorrow,
though one hopes for upward compatibility in the ranges
we've played with thus far.)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of... |
18 Jan 2005 12:12:21 PM |
|
|
"PDraper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BE12A8F8.21CD%pdraper@yahoo.com...
On 1/18/05 9:44 AM, in article
wh9Hd.138130$C8.32021@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "Androcles"
<dummy@dummy.net> wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote
in
message news:0omub2-c9r.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Androcles
<dummy@dummy.net>
wrote
on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:11:33 GMT
<9nZGd.153330$48.23243@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1106005354.871172.229880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Shut up Ding-bat Andro, the OP asked a
classical question.
Ken
Shove off, idiot Tucker, go back to fucking the dead.
"Classical" is non-relativistic.
Androcles.
Androcles is technically correct; there's no proof that
m = m_0 * Gamma -- just lots of experimental evidence
and working accelerator design parameters that assume such.
Oh, do us a favour.
Describe the difference in design of a relativistic particle
accelerator
and an ordinary non-relativisitic one.
Androcles.
That's actually straightforward. The Tevatron, for example,
accelerates
protons from 150 GeV to 1000 GeV, a seven-fold increase in kinetic
energy. A
non-relativistic accelerator design would assume, then, an increase in
speed
by a factor of a little over 2.5,
No it wouldn't. It is known that E = mc^2, a classical derivation in
considering the conservation of momentum, and the protons would gain
momemtum p = mv from the field driving the proton. They gain mass delta
m = delta E / c^2.
Energy is conserved also.
also resulting an increase in frequency of
the proton bunches at the RF cavities by a factor of a little over 2.5
during the ramp-up. Of course, in real life, the speed increases from
99.998% of the speed of light to 99.99995% of the speed of light, a
speed
increase of 0.002%.
You forgot the mass increase.
Thus, the RF cavities can operate at essentially
constant frequency.
This is a relativistic design consideration.
Oh, and it works admirably.
PD
Of course it does, and has absolutely nothing to do with time dilation
or length contraction.
Androcles
(It is possible we might find a different formula tomorrow,
though one hopes for upward compatibility in the ranges
we've played with thus far.)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of... |
18 Jan 2005 04:27:12 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:9kcHd.171570$Z7.169018@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"PDraper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BE12A8F8.21CD%pdraper@yahoo.com...
On 1/18/05 9:44 AM, in article
wh9Hd.138130$C8.32021@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "Androcles"
<dummy@dummy.net> wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>
wrote
in
message news:0omub2-c9r.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Androcles
<dummy@dummy.net>
wrote
on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:11:33 GMT
<9nZGd.153330$48.23243@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1106005354.871172.229880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Shut up Ding-bat Andro, the OP asked a
classical question.
Ken
Shove off, idiot Tucker, go back to fucking the dead.
"Classical" is non-relativistic.
Androcles.
Androcles is technically correct; there's no proof that
m = m_0 * Gamma -- just lots of experimental evidence
and working accelerator design parameters that assume such.
Oh, do us a favour.
Describe the difference in design of a relativistic particle
accelerator
and an ordinary non-relativisitic one.
Androcles.
That's actually straightforward. The Tevatron, for example,
accelerates
protons from 150 GeV to 1000 GeV, a seven-fold increase in kinetic
energy. A
non-relativistic accelerator design would assume, then, an
increase in
speed
by a factor of a little over 2.5,
No it wouldn't.
Yes, it would
It is known that E = mc^2,
That is a relativistic consideration.
a classical derivation in
considering the conservation of momentum, and the protons would gain
momemtum p = mv from the field driving the proton. They gain mass
delta
m = delta E / c^2.
Energy is conserved also.
also resulting an increase in frequency of
the proton bunches at the RF cavities by a factor of a little over
2.5
during the ramp-up. Of course, in real life, the speed increases
from
99.998% of the speed of light to 99.99995% of the speed of light,
a
speed
increase of 0.002%.
You forgot the mass increase.
No, he did not.
And it , too, is a relativistic effect.
Thus, the RF cavities can operate at essentially
constant frequency.
This is a relativistic design consideration.
Oh, and it works admirably.
PD
Of course it does, and has absolutely nothing to do with time
dilation
or length contraction.
What you asked for was
Quote
"Oh, do us a favour.
Describe the difference in design of a relativistic particle
accelerator
and an ordinary non-relativisitic one."
Unquote.
All the examples quoted by all the physicists who responded to your
question were examples in which the accelerator behaviour was
determined by relativistic considerations.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of... |
18 Jan 2005 06:41:51 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"PDraper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BE12A8F8.21CD%pdraper@yahoo.com...
That's actually straightforward.
The Tevatron, for example, accelerates
protons from 150 GeV to 1000 GeV, a
seven-fold increase in kinetic energy. A
non-relativistic accelerator design would
assume, then, an increase in speed
by a factor of a little over 2.5,
No it wouldn't. It is known that E = mc^2, a classical derivation in
considering the conservation of momentum, and the protons would gain
momemtum p = mv from the field driving the proton. They gain mass
delta m = delta E / c^2.
Energy is conserved also.
also resulting an increase in frequency of
the proton bunches at the RF cavities by a factor of a little
over 2.5 during the ramp-up. Of course, in real life, the
speed increases from 99.998% of the speed of light to
99.99995% of the speed of light, a speed increase of 0.002%.
You forgot the mass increase.
This is interesting. I take it that Androcles agrees that you can't
accelerate particles to c, because the mass approaches infinity. But
now Androcles has to answer the question, "Relative to what?" If
Androcles accepted special relativity, he could tell us, "Anything,
provided you use the definitions of distance, time, and simultaneity
associated with the frame in which your reference is at rest." But
Androcles insists that the world is ruled by Galilean symmetry, so he
still has to answer the question.
Fusa.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Creighton Hogg" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of... |
18 Jan 2005 11:17:29 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, PDraper wrote:
On 1/18/05 9:44 AM, in article
wh9Hd.138130$C8.32021@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "Androcles"
<dummy@dummy.net> wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:0omub2-c9r.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Androcles
<dummy@dummy.net>
wrote
on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:11:33 GMT
<9nZGd.153330$48.23243@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1106005354.871172.229880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Shut up Ding-bat Andro, the OP asked a
classical question.
Ken
Shove off, idiot Tucker, go back to fucking the dead.
"Classical" is non-relativistic.
Androcles.
Androcles is technically correct; there's no proof that
m = m_0 * Gamma -- just lots of experimental evidence
and working accelerator design parameters that assume such.
Oh, do us a favour.
Describe the difference in design of a relativistic particle accelerator
and an ordinary non-relativisitic one.
Androcles.
That's actually straightforward. The Tevatron, for example, accelerates
protons from 150 GeV to 1000 GeV, a seven-fold increase in kinetic energy. A
non-relativistic accelerator design would assume, then, an increase in speed
by a factor of a little over 2.5, also resulting an increase in frequency of
the proton bunches at the RF cavities by a factor of a little over 2.5
during the ramp-up. Of course, in real life, the speed increases from
99.998% of the speed of light to 99.99995% of the speed of light, a speed
increase of 0.002%. Thus, the RF cavities can operate at essentially
constant frequency.
This is a relativistic design consideration.
Oh, and it works admirably.
Do you work in particle physics?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of... |
17 Jan 2005 04:49:38 PM |
|
|
DrCIH
Your question is a bit complicated, but most reputable
texts on Special Relativity will provide an explanation of
the conservation of mass, and then how that leads to the
conservation of mass/energy, by fusing potential and
kinetic energy and also giving E=mc^2 in the process.
I can provide a reasonably decent canned answer
if you want., but other will likely give ref's to excellent
web-sites.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DrCIH" |
|
| Title: re:Proof of... |
18 Jan 2005 01:29:41 AM |
|
|
So, is there a proof of it or not? Cos if there is no proof and if
this is not right, then V can be more than C.
*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: re:Proof of... |
18 Jan 2005 02:33:01 PM |
|
|
"DrCIH" <kosta_plovdiv@abv-dot-bg.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:41ecbae5$1_1@Usenet.com...
So, is there a proof of it or not? Cos if there is no proof and if
this is not right, then V can be more than C.
There is no proof. There is only a set of assumptions.
Androcles.
*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: re:Proof of... |
18 Jan 2005 04:32:13 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:1oeHd.167159$48.63226@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"DrCIH" <kosta_plovdiv@abv-dot-bg.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:41ecbae5$1_1@Usenet.com...
So, is there a proof of it or not? Cos if there is no proof and if
this is not right, then V can be more than C.
There is no proof. There is only a set of assumptions.
Every working kigh energy accelerator proves this to the hilt. If you
try to nudge the particles to speeds in excess of c, the simply fall
out of synchronism with the accelerating wave (in the case oof a
linac) or move to a new mean orbit radius to maintain synchronism (in
the case of synchrotrons).
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of... |
18 Jan 2005 01:44:04 AM |
|
|
To DrCIH
Yes there is a proof, the equation in your first post
results from making the laws of momentum and energy
*invariant* under the Lorentz transformation. That
transformation is based on relative motion.
It's one of mankinds greatest theoretical achievements
and has been widely confirmed experimentally.
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
