| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Country_Chiel" |
| Date: |
15 Dec 2004 08:21:44 PM |
| Object: |
Special Relativity Question |
When a spaceship accelerates and nears the speed of light does its mass
actually increase or is it the mass relative to an independent observer?So
if you are onboard the mass would not change?
Country Chiel
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
16 Dec 2004 12:59:25 AM |
|
|
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103163702.536187@ftpsrv1...
When a spaceship accelerates and nears the speed of light does its
mass
actually increase or is it the mass relative to an independent
observer?So
if you are onboard the mass would not change?
There are two current usages of the term "mass". The preferred one is
that the mass of a particle is E / c^2 when the particle is at rest in
the frame in which the observation is done. The other, which is the
one you appear to be referring to, is E /c^2 in the observer's frame,
whatever the state of motion of the particle. This quantity obviously
increases as the speed of the particle increases.
Please remember that for an observer *in* the space ship, the ship is
always at rest and its mass is consequently constant, whatever its
state of motion relative to an earth-bound observer.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Country_Chiel" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
16 Dec 2004 01:53:58 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cprboc$f2e$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103163702.536187@ftpsrv1...
When a spaceship accelerates and nears the speed of light does its
mass
actually increase or is it the mass relative to an independent
observer?So
if you are onboard the mass would not change?
There are two current usages of the term "mass". The preferred one is
that the mass of a particle is E / c^2 when the particle is at rest in
the frame in which the observation is done. The other, which is the
one you appear to be referring to, is E /c^2 in the observer's frame,
whatever the state of motion of the particle. This quantity obviously
increases as the speed of the particle increases.
Please remember that for an observer *in* the space ship, the ship is
always at rest and its mass is consequently constant, whatever its
state of motion relative to an earth-bound observer.
Franz
Well that's what I thought so what stops the ship travelling at light
speed - or rather what happens onboard to prevent this. I assume you need
infinite energy. Would it be possible to travel faster than light speed (as
with certain particles) but not at light speed as this appears to be some
form of singularity (division by zero).
Country Chile
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
16 Dec 2004 04:59:43 PM |
|
|
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103183646.281619@ftpsrv1...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cprboc$f2e$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103163702.536187@ftpsrv1...
When a spaceship accelerates and nears the speed of light does
its
mass
actually increase or is it the mass relative to an independent
observer?So
if you are onboard the mass would not change?
There are two current usages of the term "mass". The preferred
one is
that the mass of a particle is E / c^2 when the particle is at
rest in
the frame in which the observation is done. The other, which is
the
one you appear to be referring to, is E /c^2 in the observer's
frame,
whatever the state of motion of the particle. This quantity
obviously
increases as the speed of the particle increases.
Please remember that for an observer *in* the space ship, the
ship is
always at rest and its mass is consequently constant, whatever its
state of motion relative to an earth-bound observer.
Franz
Well that's what I thought so what stops the ship travelling at
light
speed
The fact that itwould require an infinite amount of energy to achieve
that.
- or rather what happens onboard to prevent this. I assume you need
infinite energy. Would it be possible to travel faster than light
speed
No
(as
with certain particles)
Such as??
but not at light speed as this appears to be some
form of singularity (division by zero).
Why don't you learn some simple algebra? Nothing more, except a
concomitant intellect, is required to understand the theory of Special
Relativity.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Country_Chiel" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
16 Dec 2004 05:42:54 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cpt40s$pdn$3@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103183646.281619@ftpsrv1...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cprboc$f2e$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103163702.536187@ftpsrv1...
When a spaceship accelerates and nears the speed of light does
its
mass
actually increase or is it the mass relative to an independent
observer?So
if you are onboard the mass would not change?
There are two current usages of the term "mass". The preferred
one is
that the mass of a particle is E / c^2 when the particle is at
rest in
the frame in which the observation is done. The other, which is
the
one you appear to be referring to, is E /c^2 in the observer's
frame,
whatever the state of motion of the particle. This quantity
obviously
increases as the speed of the particle increases.
Please remember that for an observer *in* the space ship, the
ship is
always at rest and its mass is consequently constant, whatever its
state of motion relative to an earth-bound observer.
Franz
Well that's what I thought so what stops the ship travelling at
light
speed
The fact that itwould require an infinite amount of energy to achieve
that.
- or rather what happens onboard to prevent this. I assume you need
infinite energy. Would it be possible to travel faster than light
speed
No
(as
with certain particles)
Such as??
but not at light speed as this appears to be some
form of singularity (division by zero).
Why don't you learn some simple algebra? Nothing more, except a
concomitant intellect, is required to understand the theory of Special
Relativity.
Franz
Looking at equations is one thing but interpreting them is quite another.
For instance, why cannot the equations be complex when v>c?
Country Chiel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
17 Dec 2004 09:30:42 AM |
|
|
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103240571.204758@ftpsrv1...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cpt40s$pdn$3@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103183646.281619@ftpsrv1...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in
message
news:cprboc$f2e$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103163702.536187@ftpsrv1...
When a spaceship accelerates and nears the speed of light
does
its
mass
actually increase or is it the mass relative to an
independent
observer?So
if you are onboard the mass would not change?
There are two current usages of the term "mass". The
preferred
one is
that the mass of a particle is E / c^2 when the particle is at
rest in
the frame in which the observation is done. The other, which
is
the
one you appear to be referring to, is E /c^2 in the
observer's
frame,
whatever the state of motion of the particle. This quantity
obviously
increases as the speed of the particle increases.
Please remember that for an observer *in* the space ship, the
ship is
always at rest and its mass is consequently constant, whatever
its
state of motion relative to an earth-bound observer.
Franz
Well that's what I thought so what stops the ship travelling at
light
speed
The fact that itwould require an infinite amount of energy to
achieve
that.
- or rather what happens onboard to prevent this. I assume you
need
infinite energy. Would it be possible to travel faster than
light
speed
No
(as
with certain particles)
Such as??
but not at light speed as this appears to be some
form of singularity (division by zero).
Why don't you learn some simple algebra? Nothing more, except a
concomitant intellect, is required to understand the theory of
Special
Relativity.
Franz
Looking at equations is one thing but interpreting them is quite
another.
For instance, why cannot the equations be complex when v>c?
Because physics is about making real observations on real quantities.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Country_Chiel" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
17 Dec 2004 09:35:22 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cpuu2v$ko9$7@titan.btinternet.com...
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103240571.204758@ftpsrv1...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cpt40s$pdn$3@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103183646.281619@ftpsrv1...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in
message
news:cprboc$f2e$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103163702.536187@ftpsrv1...
When a spaceship accelerates and nears the speed of light
does
its
mass
actually increase or is it the mass relative to an
independent
observer?So
if you are onboard the mass would not change?
There are two current usages of the term "mass". The
preferred
one is
that the mass of a particle is E / c^2 when the particle is at
rest in
the frame in which the observation is done. The other, which
is
the
one you appear to be referring to, is E /c^2 in the
observer's
frame,
whatever the state of motion of the particle. This quantity
obviously
increases as the speed of the particle increases.
Please remember that for an observer *in* the space ship, the
ship is
always at rest and its mass is consequently constant, whatever
its
state of motion relative to an earth-bound observer.
Franz
Well that's what I thought so what stops the ship travelling at
light
speed
The fact that itwould require an infinite amount of energy to
achieve
that.
- or rather what happens onboard to prevent this. I assume you
need
infinite energy. Would it be possible to travel faster than
light
speed
No
(as
with certain particles)
Such as??
but not at light speed as this appears to be some
form of singularity (division by zero).
Why don't you learn some simple algebra? Nothing more, except a
concomitant intellect, is required to understand the theory of
Special
Relativity.
Franz
Looking at equations is one thing but interpreting them is quite
another.
For instance, why cannot the equations be complex when v>c?
Because physics is about making real observations on real quantities.
Franz
Cannot see your point, in elect eng complex quantities are used all the time
and denote a phase term normally - so why not in physics?
Country Chiel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
18 Dec 2004 09:21:00 AM |
|
|
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103340915.15676@ftpsrv1...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cpuu2v$ko9$7@titan.btinternet.com...
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103240571.204758@ftpsrv1...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in
message
news:cpt40s$pdn$3@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103183646.281619@ftpsrv1...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in
message
news:cprboc$f2e$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:1103163702.536187@ftpsrv1...
When a spaceship accelerates and nears the speed of
light
does
its
mass
actually increase or is it the mass relative to an
independent
observer?So
if you are onboard the mass would not change?
There are two current usages of the term "mass". The
preferred
one is
that the mass of a particle is E / c^2 when the particle
is at
rest in
the frame in which the observation is done. The other,
which
is
the
one you appear to be referring to, is E /c^2 in the
observer's
frame,
whatever the state of motion of the particle. This
quantity
obviously
increases as the speed of the particle increases.
Please remember that for an observer *in* the space ship,
the
ship is
always at rest and its mass is consequently constant,
whatever
its
state of motion relative to an earth-bound observer.
Franz
Well that's what I thought so what stops the ship travelling
at
light
speed
The fact that itwould require an infinite amount of energy to
achieve
that.
- or rather what happens onboard to prevent this. I assume
you
need
infinite energy. Would it be possible to travel faster than
light
speed
No
(as
with certain particles)
Such as??
but not at light speed as this appears to be some
form of singularity (division by zero).
Why don't you learn some simple algebra? Nothing more, except
a
concomitant intellect, is required to understand the theory of
Special
Relativity.
Franz
Looking at equations is one thing but interpreting them is quite
another.
For instance, why cannot the equations be complex when v>c?
Because physics is about making real observations on real
quantities.
Franz
Cannot see your point,
Hard luck
in elect eng complex quantities are used all the time
and denote a phase term normally - so why not in physics?
Yes. So what? What is wrong to use the consequences of de Moivre's
theorem underconditions of a well defined convention?
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ND" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
16 Dec 2004 02:54:35 AM |
|
|
Well that's what I thought so what stops the ship travelling at light
speed - or rather what happens onboard to prevent this. I assume you need
infinite energy. Would it be possible to travel faster than light speed (as
with certain particles) but not at light speed as this appears to be some
form of singularity (division by zero).
It's all relative :) From the point of view of the guy in the ship,
he's at rest. So he can turn on his engines and accelerate a lot. From
the point of view of the observer who's sitting still on a park bench,
he's moving, say, 99.999% of light speed. So he turns on his engines
and barely accelerates at all. As you've noted, one way to look at it
is that he's very heavy from this point of view, so it takes a lot of
energy to accelerate a little bit. Counter-intuitive, yes, but all
self-consistent.
N
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
16 Dec 2004 10:30:39 AM |
|
|
Country_Chiel wrote:
so what stops the ship travelling at light
speed - or rather what happens onboard to prevent this. I assume you
need
infinite energy.
Relativistic time dilation is sufficient to imply c as a limiting
speed.
You're watching a spacecraft accelerate with respect to you. For any
given instantaneous speed there is a time dilation by the relationship
gamma = 1/[1 - V^2/c^2]^1/2
This means that as it travels you can see all dynamic processes in its
frame of reference are slower by the factor gamma than they would be at
some lesser speed. So how does the spacecraft accelerate? "By some
mechanical process." But for each incremental increase in speed,
there's an incremental change in the time dilation, and the process by
which the ships momentum is made to increase itself proceeds more
slowly. As the dilation changes progressively, the observed magnitude
of acceleration drops. As its speed approaches c, its acceleration
approaches zero.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
16 Dec 2004 12:49:05 AM |
|
|
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103163702.536187@ftpsrv1...
When a spaceship accelerates and nears the speed of light does its
mass
actually increase
Nope.
or is it the mass relative to an independent observer?
Nope.
So
if you are onboard the mass would not change?
Well, you'll some by accelerating.
Androcles.
Country Chiel
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
15 Dec 2004 10:10:19 PM |
|
|
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103163702.536187@ftpsrv1...
When a spaceship accelerates and nears the speed of light does its mass
actually increase or is it the mass relative to an independent observer?So
if you are onboard the mass would not change?
Country Chiel
The ship's mass is invariant WRT observer velocity. As
ship velocity relative to an outside observer approaches the
speed of light, the ship's momentum and kinetic energy
increase without bound.
If "v" is the ship's relative velocity, and "m" is its invariant
mass, the ship's kinetic energy is
KE = { m c^2 / sqrt[ 1 - (v / c)^2 ] } - m c^2
Inertial mass / energy (that due to invariant mass) gravitates,
but that due to linear kinetic energy (linear relativistic energy)
does not. Regardless of relative velocity, all observers agree
that ship gravity is due to ship inertial mass and to the
acceleration of that inertial mass.
[Old Man]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
16 Dec 2004 12:54:55 AM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:lPadnXqLqegzl1zcRVn-jw@prairiewave.com...
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103163702.536187@ftpsrv1...
When a spaceship accelerates and nears the speed of light does its
mass
actually increase or is it the mass relative to an independent
observer?So
if you are onboard the mass would not change?
Country Chiel
The ship's mass is invariant WRT observer velocity.
The speed of light is relative to the ship, and according to the idiot
Einstein it is infinite, Old Fart.
As
ship velocity relative to an outside observer approaches the
speed of light, the ship's momentum and kinetic energy
increase without bound.
Crap. Prove it from first principles.
You are another imbecile like Schwartz.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
16 Dec 2004 10:21:51 AM |
|
|
Can people *please* redirect these questions to s.p.relativity?
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
16 Dec 2004 03:53:05 PM |
|
|
"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103214111.448149.122200@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Can people *please* redirect these questions to s.p.relativity?
Socks
Can you *please* quit decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio
s.p.relativity already has?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
17 Dec 2004 09:30:43 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:5tnwd.40195$tg2.37737@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103214111.448149.122200@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Can people *please* redirect these questions to s.p.relativity?
Socks
Can you *please* quit decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio
s.p.relativity already has?
Your retirement would help substantially towards that aim.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
15 Dec 2004 08:54:06 PM |
|
|
Country_Chiel wrote:
When a spaceship accelerates and nears the speed of light does its mass
actually increase or is it the mass relative to an independent observer?So
if you are onboard the mass would not change?
Time, linear extent, and mass are artifacts of observers' differing
inertial frames of reference. There are no local internal effects at
all. A relativistic train doesn't have elliptical wheels - except to
an external observer who doesn't get a bumpy ride either.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
16 Dec 2004 12:51:50 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41C0F8CE.BA6C0570@hate.spam.net...
Country_Chiel wrote:
When a spaceship accelerates and nears the speed of light does its
mass
actually increase or is it the mass relative to an independent
observer?So
if you are onboard the mass would not change?
[snip crap]
Fucking idiot. Get you head out of your arse, we've seen you self
portrait. Learn mathematics, you imbecile.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
15 Dec 2004 09:27:04 PM |
|
|
Country_Chiel wrote:
When a spaceship accelerates and nears the speed of light does its mass
actually increase or is it the mass relative to an independent observer?
Relativistic effects are observer dependent. Particle accelerators must
take the mass increase into effect to operate.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MassIncrease.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Eagleson" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
16 Dec 2004 10:32:18 AM |
|
|
Mass is found always measured. Meaning the frames cause the mass
value.
The impossibility of reaching the speed of light with a heavy ship and
having a mass exceeding that of the known universe is a reality.
Except it must be used to interpret a law of nature independent of
relativity.
c is a true physical boundary and can be given its own inertial
reference frame as a member of all inertial frames.
Making it the special frame.
And the movment of energy in relation to the spped of light is the
obvious arrow of time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Country_Chiel" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
16 Dec 2004 05:45:01 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Eagleson" <eagleson2004123@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103214738.241533.19130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Mass is found always measured. Meaning the frames cause the mass
value.
The impossibility of reaching the speed of light with a heavy ship and
having a mass exceeding that of the known universe is a reality.
Except it must be used to interpret a law of nature independent of
relativity.
c is a true physical boundary and can be given its own inertial
reference frame as a member of all inertial frames.
Making it the special frame.
And the movment of energy in relation to the spped of light is the
obvious arrow of time.
The thing that is confusing me however is that the mass increases wrt an
observer only so it cannot be the mass that slows it down (or you need
infinite energy to move an infinite mass).
Country Chiel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
17 Dec 2004 09:30:44 AM |
|
|
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103240699.755098@ftpsrv1...
[snip]
The thing that is confusing me however is that the mass increases
wrt an
observer only so it cannot be the mass that slows it down (or you
need
infinite energy to move an infinite mass).
And just what is that drivel supposed to mean?
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Country_Chiel" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
17 Dec 2004 09:37:18 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cpuu33$ko9$9@titan.btinternet.com...
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103240699.755098@ftpsrv1...
[snip]
The thing that is confusing me however is that the mass increases
wrt an
observer only so it cannot be the mass that slows it down (or you
need
infinite energy to move an infinite mass).
And just what is that drivel supposed to mean?
Franz
Let me express myself better. If the mass is not really increasing then why
is there a problem? The mass only appears to increase from the point of view
of an independent observer - and he ain't abord!
Country Chiel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
18 Dec 2004 09:21:01 AM |
|
|
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103341031.162340@ftpsrv1...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cpuu33$ko9$9@titan.btinternet.com...
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103240699.755098@ftpsrv1...
[snip]
The thing that is confusing me however is that the mass
increases
wrt an
observer only so it cannot be the mass that slows it down (or
you
need
infinite energy to move an infinite mass).
And just what is that drivel supposed to mean?
Franz
Let me express myself better. If the mass is not really increasing
then why
is there a problem? The mass only appears to increase from the point
of view
of an independent observer - and he ain't abord!
With the current usage of the term "mass", it does not increase. Not
even for one not on board.
And by the way, there is no problem. SR *always* provides uniquely
correct answers to well constructed questions
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Country_Chiel" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
18 Dec 2004 04:58:31 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cq1hss$t8f$5@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103341031.162340@ftpsrv1...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cpuu33$ko9$9@titan.btinternet.com...
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103240699.755098@ftpsrv1...
[snip]
The thing that is confusing me however is that the mass
increases
wrt an
observer only so it cannot be the mass that slows it down (or
you
need
infinite energy to move an infinite mass).
And just what is that drivel supposed to mean?
Franz
Let me express myself better. If the mass is not really increasing
then why
is there a problem? The mass only appears to increase from the point
of view
of an independent observer - and he ain't abord!
With the current usage of the term "mass", it does not increase. Not
even for one not on board.
And by the way, there is no problem. SR *always* provides uniquely
correct answers to well constructed questions
Franz
The more I hear, the more I am beginning to see that a lot of Physicists
just learn equations rather than trying to figure out 'why'. We can all swot
up the equations but getting an understanding is a different thing.
Country Chiel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
19 Dec 2004 12:25:36 AM |
|
|
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103410702.798121@ftpsrv1...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cq1hss$t8f$5@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103341031.162340@ftpsrv1...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in
message
news:cpuu33$ko9$9@titan.btinternet.com...
"Country_Chiel" <Chiel@bothy.nichts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103240699.755098@ftpsrv1...
[snip]
The thing that is confusing me however is that the mass
increases
wrt an
observer only so it cannot be the mass that slows it down
(or
you
need
infinite energy to move an infinite mass).
And just what is that drivel supposed to mean?
Franz
Let me express myself better. If the mass is not really
increasing
then why
is there a problem? The mass only appears to increase from the
point
of view
of an independent observer - and he ain't abord!
With the current usage of the term "mass", it does not increase.
Not
even for one not on board.
And by the way, there is no problem. SR *always* provides
uniquely
correct answers to well constructed questions
Franz
The more I hear, the more I am beginning to see that a lot of
Physicists
just learn equations rather than trying to figure out 'why'. We can
all swot
up the equations but getting an understanding is a different thing.
I doubt if you can either swot up the equations or get an
understanding of physics
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Creighton Hogg" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
18 Dec 2004 05:04:45 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Country_Chiel wrote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cq1hss$t8f$5@hercules.btinternet.com...
With the current usage of the term "mass", it does not increase. Not
even for one not on board.
And by the way, there is no problem. SR *always* provides uniquely
correct answers to well constructed questions
Franz
The more I hear, the more I am beginning to see that a lot of Physicists
just learn equations rather than trying to figure out 'why'. We can all swot
up the equations but getting an understanding is a different thing.
Huh, why would that be true? I think Franz has a perfectly fine
understanding of SR, and would expect him to given that he's a retired
particle physicist, if I remember correctly.
I am biased of course.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Eagleson" |
|
| Title: Re: Special Relativity Question |
17 Dec 2004 08:12:29 PM |
|
|
Country_Chiel wrote:
"Douglas Eagleson" <eagleson2004123@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103214738.241533.19130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Mass is found always measured. Meaning the frames cause the mass
value.
The impossibility of reaching the speed of light with a heavy ship
and
having a mass exceeding that of the known universe is a reality.
Except it must be used to interpret a law of nature independent of
relativity.
c is a true physical boundary and can be given its own inertial
reference frame as a member of all inertial frames.
Making it the special frame.
And the movment of energy in relation to the spped of light is the
obvious arrow of time.
The thing that is confusing me however is that the mass increases wrt
an
observer only so it cannot be the mass that slows it down (or you
need
infinite energy to move an infinite mass).
Country Chiel
It is a characteristic of nature where the observed mass is
equivalent to an interaction with the mass.
Making the impossible never happen.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
