|
|
View Full Version : Relavistic Mass Test
James R., has put forth a challenge for me to provide some evidence that my view of Relativity has any validity and that interpretations of the theory and certain test data are in some fashion flawed.
Having considered this challenge for about 24 hours it has occurred to me that there is indeed a test which can be performed today that should resolve this issue.
I put the idea forth here for your comment and hopefully if deemed correct for someone to conduct such an experiment.
********** Test of the Relavistic Mass Concept ********
Hypothesis:
Since it is not practical or achievable to build a rocket which could be sent into space and observe and test the concept of continued acceleration into the realm of relavistic velocities. What I propose is to use the relative velocity concept to effectively move space and not the rocket.
That is visualize a rocket traveling through a space which has some mass density. As the rocket increases its velocity through this background of material not only should the background mass appear to increase to the rocket, the rocket mass should appear to increase to any observer in the background.
(((See Amended Test Proposal below))).
May I be the first to say: "Ummm.. what?"
"Since we can't yet build a rocket to test relativity, let's build a rocket to test relativity...."
- Warren
chroot,
I was about to post this amended test. I think the original had a flaw although nobody has yet pointed it out. The anchored rocket would test thrust but not the potential for acceleration contingent upon its relavistic mass.
Therefore:
AMENDED RELAVISTIC MASS TEST:
Relativity says it doesn't matter who is at rest. A rocket pilot would think he was at rest with no noticable change in his mass, etc ., but would see the background mass in space moving at or away from him as becoming more massive.
An observer moving with the field would assume they were at rest and see the rocket accumulate mass relavistically. If as you all try to claim (based on your interpretation of Relativity) the observers view of this rockets velocity and relavistically induced mass by some unexplainable method controls the rockets physics to cause it to become more difficult to accelerate then this procedure will test that hypothesis.
A short but adequate rocket rail system is installed in the target beam area. The rocket is tested (timed) using a fixed amount of energy input both directions down the rail without the particle beam turned on.
In the beam tube there is deflection coils to preclude the minature rocket from actually being impinged by the beam. The particles merely pass near by parallel to the rocket rail system.
Then repeated with the beam turned on. With a particle beam having the following velocity relative to the rocket, the rockets time to accelerate down the rail in either direction should reflect any mass change in the rocket by altering its time accordingly:
Beam.....................Rocket %
Velocity..................Time Down
%c.........................the Test Rail
---------------/--------------------------
0................./.............100.00
25.............../.............103.28
50.............../.............115.47
75.............../.............151.19
90.............../.............229.42
95.............../.............320.26
96.............../.............357.14
97.............../.............411.35
98.............../.............502.51
99.............../.............708.88
99.9............/..........2,236.63
We clearly have the technology to build a small rocket system and we clearly can send a beam of particles past it at high % of c.
Although the concept could easily be tested with a beam in the 25-50% range (a time change in performance of the rocket of 3% to 15%). A very precise test of the relavistic function (1-(v/c)^2)^.5 can be done.
Lets do it guys. You have the opportunity now to prove Old MacM really is a crackpot. That should make it worth it even if you have lost your curiosity about such things by assuming Relativity is absolutely correct.
MacM,
A rocket pilot would think he was at rest with no noticable change in his mass, etc ., but would see the background mass in space moving at or away from him as becoming more massive.Okay.
We clearly have the technology to build a small rocket system and we clearly can send a beam of particles past it at high % of c.But do we have the technology to build the accelerator that contains the 'model'?
Besides, where are you going to find a small enough rocket pilot?
:m: :cool: :m:
I fail to see how this 'experiment' differs in any physical way from the 'experiment' performed when a bunch of nerds in lab coats stand around eating donuts in an accelerator control room.
The nerds regard themselves as being at rest. The particles whirling in the machine are regarded as moving at high velocity relative to the nerds.
The nerds see that the momentum of the particles is much larger than would be predicted by Newtonian theory. If Newtonian theory were correct, the strength of the magnets needed to push the particles in a circle would increase linearly with their velocity.
Instead, the nerds discover that, to keep their particles going around in the right circle, they have to apply a magnetic field that increases non-linearly with the particle velocity. In fact, the non-linearity is as described by a Lorentz transform between the particles' comoving frame and the nerds' comoving frame.
The faster the particles go (their velocity can be measured by how much time elapses between successive crossings of the same point in the ring), the more force is required to steer them. Guess what? Einstein wins, to better than one part in billions.
- Warren
Chaqur,
But do we have the technology to build the accelerator that contains the 'model'?
ANS: Actually we already have several that could have such a test performed in the beam target tube.
[quote]Besides, where are you going to find a small enough rocket pilot?
ANS: Cute but you don't need a pilot onboard.
This test could actually be performed today.
Janus58 05-24-03, 10:24 PM This test wouldn't show a thing. The rocket would always take the same amount of time to travel down the track as measured from the frame of the track.(Or as measured from the rocket) Once again, you are misconstruing what Relativity says. Relativity does not predict that the rocket would take longer times to travel the track depending on the "oncoming" beam velocity.
What it does predict is that the from the frame of the rocket you would not measure a relative velocity of c or greater wrt the beam. For instance, if the particle velocitygoing down wrt to the track was .999c and the rocket velocity going up was .001c, the relative velocity as measured from the rocket would be 0.999001997004992012979033945088856c not 1c.
And as Chroot has pointed out, multiple experiments in high energy labs around the world already verify Relativistic predictions on a daily basis.
chroot,
The faster the particles go (their velocity can be measured by how much time elapses between successive crossings of the same point in the ring), the more force is required to steer them. Guess what? Einstein wins, to better than one part in billions.
ANS: Guess what. WRONG AGAIN. I have already given an alternative explanation to the particle phenomena in the ring.
But that need not be accepted. This test will show if the affect is (As I have proposed) a function of decreasing energy transfer efficiency when energy is applied via relavistic velocities or if it is an actual mass change.
If you think about this experiment for a moment it has tremendous value. You could once and for all claim Relativity does apply to all frames not just frames at relative velocity.
"A self propelled rockets physics are independant of any observers"
That is my claim. Put your money down and run the test.
In the past you have taken the position that since it could not be tested Relativity should stand. I have shown you how to test the hypothesis. There is no more place to hide. Run the test.
One of us will be right and one of us will be wrong. How much you prepared to put on the line? I'll match it.
Ok, call me slow, but I'm missing what this tests that hasn't been tested before.
Persol,
Thanks for asking.
We all know that data tends to verify Relativies view of mass increase. I know you now work with momentum but the end results of the process is the same. It is relied upon by many to argue against FTL.
I am not pursueing this as an advocate of FTL but as a method of actually testing Relativity in the regime that is has not yet been tested.
That is the affect, if any, of Relativity upon an independant inertial systems physics. How many times have you seen it argued that as the rockets velocity increases the energy required to accelerate it increases and becomes infinite at v = c.?
Since we can't build relavistic rockets and do such a test, it occurred to me that we already have the capacity to test a rockets performance in a background of relevistic particles.
From the view point of Relativity, that is the same thing as the rocket accelerating in a backgroud of mass at rest.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MacM
That is the affect, if any, of Relativity upon an independant inertial systems physics.
Independant inertial system physics seems to be a contradiction to me.
Since we can't build relavistic rockets and do such a test, it occurred to me that we already have the capacity to test a rockets performance in a background of relevistic particles.
The only added benefit this seems to have is that it tests a large group of particles, instead of just a few. Unless you mean because the rocket is emitting the fuel/propulsion... in which case I'm not getting what this test might show which would show relativity wrong.
Pwesaok,
Re: Thanks
Originally posted by MacM
That is the affect, if any, of Relativity upon an independant inertial systems physics.
Independant inertial system physics seems to be a contradiction to me.
ANS: I understand that statement from your point of view and I guess that is what I am looking to prove. That is Relativity is being miss-interpreted and mis-applied.
In your view you must accept that the performance of a rocket is dependant upon objects, masses and/or observers that are not directly involved in the physics. I call a rocket or any selfpropelled system an independant system.
Particles in an accelerator are accelerated by energy being transferred to the particle via relavistic velocities. A rockets energy is applied to the rocket where there is no relative velocity between the fuel, thrust engine and rocket load.
If a rocket were in space and accelerating into the relavistic ranges masses at rest relative to us become more massive to the rockets view and from our view the rocket becomes more massive (but not from the rockets view where the energy is being generated and applied).
My arguement has been, and it would test that, is that our view has no bearing on the rockets ability to accelerate.
Since we can't build relavistic rockets and do such a test, it occurred to me that we already have the capacity to test a rockets performance in a background of relevistic particles.
The only added benefit this seems to have is that it tests a large group of particles, instead of just a few.
Unless you mean because the rocket is emitting the fuel/propulsion... in which case I'm not getting what this test might show which would show relativity wrong.
ANS: Not that Relativity is wrong perse but that modern interpretation and application are wrong. It would show that the increase in energy required to accelerate particles in an accelerator should not be assumed as meaning a rocket will require increased energy if it should reach relavistic velocities.
Janus58 05-25-03, 02:28 AM Originally posted by MacM
ANS: I understand that statement from your point of view and I guess that is what I am looking to prove. That is Relativity is being miss-interpreted and mis-applied.
The person mis-interpretating and mis-applying Relativity here is you.
In your view you must accept that the performance of a rocket is dependant upon objects, masses and/or observers that are not directly involved in the physics. I call a rocket or any selfpropelled system an independant system.
Particles in an accelerator are accelerated by energy being transferred to the particle via relavistic velocities. A rockets energy is applied to the rocket where there is no relative velocity between the fuel, thrust engine and rocket load.
But there is a relative velocity between the exhaust gasses and the rocket. It is this exhaust velocity and the Mass ratio which limits a rocket's final velocity. And it is this exhaust velocity that decreases ( From the frame that the rocket is acclerating wrt.).
If a rocket were in space and accelerating into the relavistic ranges masses at rest relative to us become more massive to the rockets view and from our view the rocket becomes more massive (but not from the rockets view where the energy is being generated and applied).
since the Mass ratio doesn't change from either view, the mass of the rocket doesn't play a part, But time and length contraction does. From the veiw of the "stationary" frame the exhaust gasses take a longer time to travel a shorter distance, which leads to a smaller exhaust velocity, which approaches zero as the rocket approaches c. Thus the rocket loses thrust as it approaches c.
My arguement has been, and it would test that, is that our view has no bearing on the rockets ability to accelerate.
It all depends on which frame you are considering. From the frame the rocket is accellerating wrt, the rocket loses thrust thorugh the Lorentz transformations as it approaches c.
From the frame of the rocket the universe contracts along the axis of acceleration. As it sees the universe fall past at higher and higher speed, the distance between any given points of the universe along the path pf travel will shrink more and more. The upshot effect is that, from the rocket's view, it will cross any given distance before it can reach c. The rocket will never measure its speed as exceeding c, as it will always get to its destination before it can attain this speed.
ANS: Not that Relativity is wrong perse but that modern interpretation and application are wrong. It would show that the increase in energy required to accelerate particles in an accelerator should not be assumed as meaning a rocket will require increased energy if it should reach relavistic velocities.
Again, your test would do no such thing, because Relativity doesn't predict the results you base your test on.
One final point. I find it very interesting when people want to replace the relativistic rocket with the classical one, in hope of attaining FTL travel. Simply because, in terms of needed mass ratio vs trip time (As measured by the passengers), the Relativistic rocket is more efficient.
The same Lorentz transformations that limit a Relativistic rocket to below c velocities, work to shorten the trip duration for the passengers. For instance, a classical rocket attaining 2c will take 6 months to travel 1ly. A Relativistic rocket traveling at .866 c will take the same time as far as the passengers are concerned. Thus a Relativistic rocket at .866c has a classical rocket "effective" velocity of 2c.
If you plot required mass ratio using the Relativistic rocket formula and the classical formula to attain passenger trips times for given effective c values you get the following chart.
http://home.teleport.com/~parvey/mratio.gif
Note that the Relativistic rocket needs lower mass ratios for the same passenger trip times as compared to the Classical Rocket.
Janus58,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MacM
ANS: I understand that statement from your point of view and I guess that is what I am looking to prove. That is Relativity is being miss-interpreted and mis-applied.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The person mis-interpretating and mis-applying Relativity here is you.
************************************************** *
ANS: BS and time will tell. Talk is cheap.
************************************************** *
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In your view you must accept that the performance of a rocket is dependant upon objects, masses and/or observers that are not directly involved in the physics. I call a rocket or any selfpropelled system an independant system.
Particles in an accelerator are accelerated by energy being transferred to the particle via relavistic velocities. A rockets energy is applied to the rocket where there is no relative velocity between the fuel, thrust engine and rocket load.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But there is a relative velocity between the exhaust gasses and the rocket. It is this exhaust velocity and the Mass ratio which limits a rocket's final velocity. And it is this exhaust velocity that decreases ( From the frame that the rocket is acclerating wrt.).
************************************************** **
ANS: Yes there is relative velocity between the rocket and its exhaust gases and that relative velocity does not change with a change in rocket velocity relative to earth. If that velocity i.e is 10,000m/s at launch it will still be 10,000m/s when the rockets has a velocity of 3E8m/s.
************************************************** **
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a rocket were in space and accelerating into the relavistic ranges masses at rest relative to us become more massive to the rockets view and from our view the rocket becomes more massive (but not from the rockets view where the energy is being generated and applied).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
since the Mass ratio doesn't change from either view, the mass of the rocket doesn't play a part, But time and length contraction does. From the veiw of the "stationary" frame the exhaust gasses take a longer time to travel a shorter distance, which leads to a smaller exhaust velocity, which approaches zero as the rocket approaches c. Thus the rocket loses thrust as it approaches c.
************************************************** *
ANS: Put your money on the table with chroot and lets find out. Your failure here is very simular to the one that we saw other with regard to the change in pi question. As I just pointed out the issues being tested here is if your view as an observer has any affect on the performance of the rocket and I say not you say it does. It is testable. Prove your view if you can. I've got money says you can't.
************************************************** *
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My arguement has been, and it would test that, is that our view has no bearing on the rockets ability to accelerate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It all depends on which frame you are considering. From the frame the rocket is accellerating wrt, the rocket loses thrust thorugh the Lorentz transformations as it approaches c. [/quote]
************************************************** *
ANS: Wrong but its testable, test it.
************************************************** *
From the frame of the rocket the universe contracts along the axis of acceleration. As it sees the universe fall past at higher and higher speed, the distance between any given points of the universe along the path pf travel will shrink more and more. The upshot effect is that, from the rocket's view, it will cross any given distance before it can reach c. The rocket will never measure its speed as exceeding c, as it will always get to its destination before it can attain this speed.
************************************************** *
ANS: I know the drill. I don't dance to that tune. It is an extrapolation that has never been tested. It is testable, test it and resolve the issue.
************************************************** *
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANS: Not that Relativity is wrong perse but that modern interpretation and application are wrong. It would show that the increase in energy required to accelerate particles in an accelerator should not be assumed as meaning a rocket will require increased energy if it should reach relavistic velocities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, your test would do no such thing, because Relativity doesn't predict the results you base your test on.
************************************************** **
ANS: Relativity (and you) hold that the rocket will require more and more energy to sustain a constant acceleration as it enters relavistic speeds to some background mass.
I say that is BS pure and simple. This test clearly shows if you are right or I am right. In fact I find it humorous that for your view to have any merit (i.e. exhaust velocity relative to the spaces frame of reference) you must accept the view of an aether.
************************************************** **
One final point. I find it very interesting when people want to replace the relativistic rocket with the classical one, in hope of attaining FTL travel. Simply because, in terms of needed mass ratio vs trip time (As measured by the passengers), the Relativistic rocket is more efficient.
************************************************** **
ANS: This string has absolutely nothing to do with FTL travel. Even (I should lsay when) this test proves me right FTL travel is not going to result. Can you imagine those 3-4 atoms per m^3 at relavistic velocities? Several megatons energy. Plus many other pragmatic problems. Don't try to shift the focus of this idea toward something as remote as FTL travel.
************************************************** *
The same Lorentz transformations that limit a Relativistic rocket to below c velocities, work to shorten the trip duration for the passengers. For instance, a classical rocket attaining 2c will take 6 months to travel 1ly. A Relativistic rocket traveling at .866 c will take the same time as far as the passengers are concerned. Thus a Relativistic rocket at .866c has a classical rocket "effective" velocity of 2c.
If you plot required mass ratio using the Relativistic rocket formula and the classical formula to attain passenger trips times for given effective c values you get the following chart.
Note that the Relativistic rocket needs lower mass ratios for the same passenger trip times as compared to the Classical Rocket.
************************************************** *
ANS: Could be I'm not even bothering to look at that. It is not the issue here and I want to remain on point.
************************************************** **
Janus58 05-25-03, 12:12 PM Originally posted by MacM
Janus58,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MacM
************************************************** **
ANS: Yes there is relative velocity between the rocket and its exhaust gases and that relative velocity does not change with a change in rocket velocity relative to earth. If that velocity i.e is 10,000m/s at launch it will still be 10,000m/s when the rockets has a velocity of 3E8m/s.
************************************************** **
Not as measured from the frame that the rocket is moving wrt. Example, rocket moving at .5c, Exhaust velocity, as measured from rocket .1c, Exhaust velocity wrt to stationary frame = (.5c+.1c)/(1+.5c*.1c/c²) = .571428c
Realtive velocity of exhaust gases to rocket as measured from stationary frame = .571428c -.5c = .071428c (not .1c).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANS: Put your money on the table with chroot and lets find out. Your failure here is very simular to the one that we saw other with regard to the change in pi question. As I just pointed out the issues being tested here is if your view as an observer has any affect on the performance of the rocket and I say not you say it does. It is testable.
Not by the test you proposed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My arguement has been, and it would test that, is that our view has no bearing on the rockets ability to accelerate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, your test would test no such thing, as it is based on a mis-understanding of Relativity and what it predicts.
************************************************** *
ANS: I know the drill. I don't dance to that tune. It is an extrapolation that has never been tested. It is testable, test it and resolve the issue.
************************************************** *
The premises that automatically lead to this conclusion have been tested. One doesn't have to test every possible sum of two odd numbers to prove that the sum will be even every time.
Besides, I thought that you said that you already accepted the concept of Length contraction. Are you backing out now because it is begining to look like that this acceptance will lead to conclusions you don't like?
************************************************** **
ANS: Relativity (and you) hold that the rocket will require more and more energy to sustain a constant acceleration as it enters relavistic speeds to some background mass.
I say that is BS pure and simple. This test clearly shows if you are right or I am right. In fact I find it humorous that for your view to have any merit (i.e. exhaust velocity relative to the spaces frame of reference) you must accept the view of an aether.
Relativity (And I) do not hold, and have never held that position. Relativity holds that the kinetic energy of an object, as measured from a given frame, approaches inifinty as the object's velocity, as measured from that same frame, approaches c. It makes no mention of any "background mass". That is a strawman invention on your part.
For the how-manyth time, Relativity does not predict the results you say it does when it comes to this experiment.
And there is nothing of the aether in my explanation, and no need to invoke its existance. Once again, you read someone's words and mis-interpret them.
Janus58,
Not as measured from the frame that the rocket is moving wrt. Example, rocket moving at .5c, Exhaust velocity, as measured from rocket .1c, Exhaust velocity wrt to stationary frame = (.5c+.1c)/(1+.5c*.1c/c²) = .571428c
Realtive velocity of exhaust gases to rocket as measured from stationary frame = .571428c -.5c = .071428c (not .1c).
**************************************************
ANS: The only exhaust velocity of interest here is that between the rocket and the exhaust. Other views have no bearing on rocket performance. That velocity is invariable reference to the rocket itself and is meaningless with regard to any other view.
************************************************** **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANS: Put your money on the table with chroot and lets find out. Your failure here is very simular to the one that we saw other with regard to the change in pi question. As I just pointed out the issues being tested here is if your view as an observer has any affect on the performance of the rocket and I say not you say it does. It is testable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not by the test you proposed.[/quote]
**************************************************
ANS: YOu clearly are looking through tinted or fogged glasses. Sorry.
**************************************************
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My arguement has been, and it would test that, is that our view has no bearing on the rockets ability to accelerate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, your test would test no such thing, as it is based on a mis-understanding of Relativity and what it predicts. [/quote]
************************************************** *
ANS: Wrong again. I'm going to tell you something which you will neither accept nor like but so be it.
I admit that I don't have your level of training on the subject. But I do have training and understanding of the subject.
What I have that you and the others don't have is training to specifically help me see through complex issues and to get to the core of something. I was trained to operate and maintain a nuclear reactor (no big deal except this reactor was to power the Apollo Moon Base). Since you don't run to your local hardware store for parts, we received extensive training on how to isolate problems and design, fabricate and install solutions to any problem that could be imagined.
And we did have classes on Relativity and its implications.
What I see in Relativity is people being completely mystified by the process. It is almost trace like in awe. The only problem is things aren't as they seem in that theory and there are superior, more logical solutions and there is no basis to accept the theory as being the only answer.
All data that purportedly supports relativity has reasonable alternative explanations. You accept Relativity because you want to, not that you must.
As a consequence of that decision you are severly limiting your understanding of nature.
************************************************** *
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**************************************************
*
ANS: I know the drill. I don't dance to that tune. It is an extrapolation that has never been tested. It is testable, test it and resolve the issue.
**************************************************
*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The premises that automatically lead to this conclusion have been tested. One doesn't have to test every possible sum of two odd numbers to prove that the sum will be even every time.
************************************************** *
ANS: Answered above. There are alternate interpretations of the data.
************************************************** *
Besides, I thought that you said that you already accepted the concept of Length contraction. Are you backing out now because it is begining to look like that this acceptance will lead to conclusions you don't like?
************************************************** *
ANS: Absolutely not. Your view of the implications of such contraction and appropriate application is the problem. It plays no role in the rockets performance.
************************************************** *
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**************************************************
**
ANS: Relativity (and you) hold that the rocket will require more and more energy to sustain a constant acceleration as it enters relavistic speeds to some background mass.
I say that is BS pure and simple. This test clearly shows if you are right or I am right. In fact I find it humorous that for your view to have any merit (i.e. exhaust velocity relative to the spaces frame of reference) you must accept the view of an aether.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relativity (And I) do not hold, and have never held that position. Relativity holds that the kinetic energy of an object, as measured from a given frame, approaches inifinty as the object's velocity, as measured from that same frame, approaches c.
**********************************************
ANS: We agree that is the theory.
**********************************************
It makes no mention of any "background mass". That is a strawman invention on your part.
************************************************** *
ANS: OK, OK, let me make it verbally correct in your mind. Particles are all observers. Minature earths if you will, all zipping by at substantial %c.
************************************************** *
For the how-manyth time, Relativity does not predict the results you say it does when it comes to this experiment.
And there is nothing of the aether in my explanation, and no need to invoke its existance. Once again, you read someone's words and mis-interpret them.
**************************************************
ANS: I didn't interprete that you meant to invoke aether, only that you unknowingly do when you assert Relativity as affecting the physics of a rocket that has no relative motion involved in its physics.
And yes Relativity does predict and others, including you have said, as the rockets velocity increase (which can only be relative in this case to the observer) the mass goes toward infinity and it would require infinite energy to accelerate it to v = c.
My claim is that is a false view, wholly unwarranted and is testable in the scenario I have proposed.
************************************************** *
I just want to point out that this is probably the most hilarious MacM thread yet. :)
- Warren
Janus58 05-25-03, 03:50 PM Originally posted by MacM
Janus58,
**************************************************
ANS: The only exhaust velocity of interest here is that between the rocket and the exhaust. Other views have no bearing on rocket performance. That velocity is invariable reference to the rocket itself and is meaningless with regard to any other view.
************************************************** **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, As measured from a frame that the rocket is moving with respect to, this velocity between rocket and exhaust drops to zero as the rocket approaches c wrt this frame. And this is meaningful, because if the rocket does continue to accelerate wrt to this frame at a constant rate as viewed from this frame regardless of the observed drop in the relative difference between the rocket and exhaust gasses, then according to this frame, the conservation of momentum is violated.
**************************************************
ANS: YOu clearly are looking through tinted or fogged glasses. Sorry.
**************************************************
I see things in this subject a lot more clearly than you do
************************************************** *
ANS: Wrong again. I'm going to tell you something which you will neither accept nor like but so be it.
I admit that I don't have your level of training on the subject. But I do have training and understanding of the subject.
What I have that you and the others don't have is training to specifically help me see through complex issues and to get to the core of something. I was trained to operate and maintain a nuclear reactor (no big deal except this reactor was to power the Apollo Moon Base). Since you don't run to your local hardware store for parts, we received extensive training on how to isolate problems and design, fabricate and install solutions to any problem that could be imagined.
And we did have classes on Relativity and its implications.
Which must have been very basic and over-simplified course, or you slept through most of it.
What I see in Relativity is people being completely mystified by the process. It is almost trace like in awe.
the only people mystified by it are those, like you, who won't or can't make the effort to learn Relativity in its entirety .
As a consequence of that decision you are severly limiting your understanding of nature.
************************************************** *
And as a consequence of that decision they/you are severly limiting their/tour understanding of nature.
ANS: Absolutely not. Your view of the implications of such contraction and appropriate application is the problem. It plays no role in the rockets performance.
This statement just proves that you either didn't read or didn't understand what said.
************************************************** *
ANS: OK, OK, let me make it verbally correct in your mind. Particles are all observers. Minature earths if you will, all zipping by at substantial %c.
************************************************** *
But the test is not set up to measure the rocket's velocity from the frame of those particles (to do so you would have to accelerate the administrators of the test up to the speed of the particles.). It is set up to measure the rocket's velocity as measured from the frame of the rail. As such, said measured velocity( between observer/rail and rocket) cannot exceed c.
But nowhere does Relativity state that the relative velocity between the rocket and the particle beam can't exceed c as measured from the frame of the rail, if both the rocket and the particle beam are moving wrt to the rail and in opposite directions.
**************************************************
ANS: I didn't interprete that you meant to invoke aether, only that you unknowingly do when you assert Relativity as affecting the physics of a rocket that has no relative motion involved in its physics.
You keep saying "I understand Relativity", yet if you actually did, you would realize that this assessment is nonsense.
And yes Relativity does predict and others, including you have said, as the rockets velocity increase (which can only be relative in this case to the observer) the mass goes toward infinity and it would require infinite energy to accelerate it to v = c.
My claim is that is a false view, wholly unwarranted and is testable in the scenario I have proposed.
************************************************** *
But your "test" does not address this issue in any way.
Reinstein 05-25-03, 06:08 PM I am no expert on the subject, but a few posts back when mac said the rocket would see observers' mass increase, and those observers would also see the rocket's mass increase... wouldn't it actually be that the rocket would see the observers' mass DECREASE? I agree that the observers would see the rocket increase in mass, but i didn't think it was the same for the other way around. For time dilation, the rocket sees time speed UP for people on Earth, whereas people on Earth see time slow DOWN for the rocket. I could be wrong, but what does anyone else think?
Janus58 05-25-03, 07:22 PM Originally posted by Reinstein
I am no expert on the subject, but a few posts back when mac said the rocket would see observers' mass increase, and those observers would also see the rocket's mass increase... wouldn't it actually be that the rocket would see the observers' mass DECREASE? I agree that the observers would see the rocket increase in mass, but i didn't think it was the same for the other way around. For time dilation, the rocket sees time speed UP for people on Earth, whereas people on Earth see time slow DOWN for the rocket. I could be wrong, but what does anyone else think?
A common misconception. During periods of constant relative velocity, Each observer (on the rocket and on the Earth) will see the other's time rate slow down. During periods of acceleration, the rocket observer will see the Earth clock either speed up or slow down, depending on which direction the acceleration acts.
Janus58,
I see you as sincere, as are some of the others, including BTW even chroot. There are a couple here that are overly impressed with themselves but I won't get into that here.
To cut this short and not waste your time nor mine further, I don't intend to argue with you.
What I see is this. You and some others have higher mathematics on your side. But what you don't seem to realize is that it involves primarily the derivation process for the algebra which dictates the functions of Relativity. I know the functions well, inspite of those that like to claim otherwise.
I understand there reasoning. They (and perhaps you) find it impossible that somebody could understand Relativity but reject it out right. Well I do. Not because I don't understand but because I do.
You and the others are like specialist in a field but that has narrowed your thinking. You are either incapable and/or unwilling to look beyond Relativity. For you it works and is acceptable and you have no intention of entertaining or exploring alternatives.
I on the other hand have explored alternatives and I find some of them far more realistic and exciting than some purely mathematical contrivence. Relativity has no physical underpinning. Is easily duplicated by other processes which do have physical underpinnings.
Sometimes it is hard to tell if this group is actually trying to be difficult or if they just can't see the forest for the trees. But in any case it has been fun and I have learned a lot.
I have learned your weaknesses and strengths. I am now better prepared to advance my cause.
Originally posted by MacM
What I see is this. You and some others have higher mathematics on your side. But what you don't seem to realize is that it involves primarily the derivation process for the algebra which dictates the functions of Relativity.
What is a "derivation process for the algebra?"
I know the functions well, inspite of those that like to claim otherwise.
Not to be offensive, but you have only demonstrated knowledge of one small part of relativistic mechanics: the gamma expression. Not to be even more offensive, but you've never provided any evidence yet that you know what gamma is, or where it's used.
I understand there reasoning. They (and perhaps you) find it impossible that somebody could understand Relativity but reject it out right. Well I do.
Mac, you don't know what what 'the failure of simultaneity' means. You don't know how to solve the twin paradox. All of your supposed 'paradoxes' are based on your misunderstandings. You clearly do not fully understand the theory, I'm sorry.
You and the others are like specialist in a field but that has narrowed your thinking.
Yes, yes, blah blah blah, we're narrow-minded and can't look past our own noses, etc. etc. This is a shameless and tired argument used by crackpots everywhere. It's sad that you think, after all the charity work we've done to try to clear up your misunderstandings, you still think this comes down to zealotry. I've said this multiple times: relativity surely may be wrong. In fact, it almost certainly is, since it's not compatible with quantum mechanics. There will have to be a more advanced theory which will contain both relativistic mechanics and quantum mechanics as special cases -- a 'grand unification' of the two theories.
As scientists, we all accept and completely understand the limitations of our models. We all know where they fail, and what questions they cannot answer. We also know what questions they answer tidily -- yours have always been among them.
The bottom line is that you've shown nothing, in your months of pandering, that threatens relativity in the slightest. All you've shown is that you cannot (or perhaps just will not) understand the theory. You may never accept this explanation -- you may always think you know it all, and that we're just fools caught up in the idolisation of Einstein. If you choose that road, I honestly pity you.
You are, however, inexorably reaching that fork in the road: you may either invest some real labor (not jabbering on internet forums, butchering thought experiment after thought experiment) and learn the theory that you so detest, or you may choose to spend the rest of your life thinking its wrong without understanding it.
It is, of course, your decision. Choose wisely.
- Warren
chroot,
[quote]The bottom line is that you've shown nothing, in your months of pandering, that threatens relativity in the slightest. All you've shown is that you cannot (or perhaps just will not) understand the theory. You may never accept this explanation -- you may always think you know it all, and that we're just fools caught up in the idolisation of Einstein. If you choose that road, I honestly pity you.[unquote]
ANS: I have not said I see you as fools. That is your view of my view and it is an incorrect one.
What I am saying and this post by you typifies it, is that you (meaning many in the group) have failed to even entertain reasonable alternatives to relavistic data.
Specifically the concept of "Energy Transfer Efficiency applied through Relavistic Velocities". It happens to produce the exact same observations and data as relavistic formulas but the physics behind it have physical principles that can be visualized where Relativity is simply mathematical. The math is fine. It correctly predicts that increased energy is reqiured to accelerate an object at relavistic velocites.
But the error (may be) in the assumption that (in Old terms) there has been an increase in mass. In new terms you only talk about energy or momentum but it is the same arguement couched in a different verbage.
I know you are aware of orthogonal EM waves to an objects vector of motion. And its length contraction in its vector of motion. Is it so difficult to visualize that energy being applied to such an object might also suffer this same orthogonal bifurcation?
I suggest it does and being transmitted more and more orthogonally to the object it has less energy applied to the acceleration. The unused energy is in space along with the objects orthogonal EM wave. It is stored and like a flywheel it boosts the momentum when you try to stop the object making its momentum appear as though the object had additional mass.
I have made this point several times and not once has any member elected to pursue the concept to determine if it is viable.
If it is then the data you and others keep talking about doesn't necessiraly mean what you say it means. That is really how simple this issue is.
Originally posted by MacM
ANS: I have not said I see you as fools. That is your view of my view and it is an incorrect one.
Don't make me go make a list of the times you've admonished us that we're wrong, relativity is wrong, and we'll all wear egg and eat crow.
What I am saying and this post by you typifies it, is that you (meaning many in the group) have failed to even entertain reasonable alternatives to relavistic data.
When someone like you demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of even basic existing theory, one doesn't place much faith in his "alternatives." Furthermore, physicists expect rigor and precision in a challenge of a theory -- two things you have yet to provide.
It happens to produce the exact same observations and data as relavistic formulas
If so, it's an isomorphism -- another way to express the same thing mathematically. If two theories make all the same predictions, the two theories are not different at all.
In new terms you only talk about energy or momentum but it is the same arguement couched in a different verbage.
The term 'relativistic mass' is disfavored precisely because it gives people like you the wrong idea.
I know you are aware of orthogonal EM waves to an objects vector of motion. And its length contraction in its vector of motion. Is it so difficult to visualize that energy being applied to such an object might also suffer this same orthogonal bifurcation?
What's a vector of motion? What's an orthogonal EM wave? What does length contraction have to do with vectors?
You're getting closer to that choice Mac... much closer.
- Warren
James R 05-26-03, 12:58 AM MacM:
<i>James R., has put forth a challenge for me to provide some evidence that my view of Relativity has any validity and that interpretations of the theory and certain test data are in some fashion flawed.</i>
Not exactly, though that would be good too. Actually, my challenge was a little different. You base your refutation of relativity in that it doesn't distinguish between observations and reality. So I asked:
<b>Give me an example of any physical property of an object where I can determine the difference between the observed property and the "real" property.</b>
You have ignored that question, of course.
On to the subject of this thread, then...
<i>That is visualize a rocket traveling through a space which has some mass density. As the rocket increases its velocity through this background of material not only should the background mass appear to increase to the rocket, the rocket mass should appear to increase to any observer in the background.</i>
You're talking about relativistic mass here, I assume. Ok...
<i>Relativity says it doesn't matter who is at rest. A rocket pilot would think he was at rest with no noticable change in his mass, etc ., but would see the background mass in space moving at or away from him as becoming more massive.</i>
In terms of relativistic mass, yes.
<i>An observer moving with the field would assume they were at rest and see the rocket accumulate mass relavistically.</i>
Yes.
<i>If as you all try to claim (based on your interpretation of Relativity) the observers view of this rockets velocity and relavistically induced mass by some unexplainable method controls the rockets physics to cause it to become more difficult to accelerate then this procedure will test that hypothesis.</i>
Ok...
<i>A short but adequate rocket rail system is installed in the target beam area. The rocket is tested (timed) using a fixed amount of energy input both directions down the rail without the particle beam turned on.</i>
You haven't mentioned any particle beam. What on earth are you talking about?
chroot,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It happens to produce the exact same observations and data as relavistic formulas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If so, it's an isomorphism -- another way to express the same thing mathematically. If two theories make all the same predictions, the two theories are not different at all.
**************************************************
ANS: That is another error. The function is derived differently and deals with simple trigonometry. The same result simply means there is another explanation for the data and that explanation radically alters the meaning of the data and its implications in how we view reality.
Math may correctly define reality but it doesn't create reality and observation may agree with mathematical views but mathematical views don't describe the physical reality.
**************************************************
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In new terms you only talk about energy or momentum but it is the same arguement couched in a different verbage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term 'relativistic mass' is disfavored precisely because it gives people like you the wrong idea.
************************************************
ANS: And Relativity heartburn. Even Old Al said "Don't use mo/(1-)v/c^2))^.5.
So why is it that invariably relavists counter people like me by using that arguement?
It doesn't give me any wrong idea at all. I still see energy and momentum as the mass via E=mc^2. So the change is symantics.
If you choose to disagree with this I will extract some reference material from Relativity which states that the Mass concept is an equally valid view but is disfavored because of confusion over the meaning of rest mass, etc.
************************************************** **
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know you are aware of orthogonal EM waves to an objects vector of motion. And its length contraction in its vector of motion. Is it so difficult to visualize that energy being applied to such an object might also suffer this same orthogonal bifurcation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's a vector of motion? What's an orthogonal EM wave? What does length contraction have to do with vectors?
************************************************** ***
ANS: Call it direction of motion if you choose, call it anything you choose. Most books when discussing contraction refer to the direction of motion as its vector.
I don't believe you don't know what an EM wave is or that they are perpendicular to the "direction" of motion. And I know you understand that I am talking about the fact that an objects dimension contracts in the direction of motion.
************************************************** *
You're getting closer to that choice Mac... much closer.
********************************************
ANS: The choice to reject Relativity was made long ago when I realized it does not decsribe anything. It is nothing but a mathematical algorithm. Nothing physical or reality about it. And when I found better "physical" principles that also describe observation and data.
***********************************************
James R 05-26-03, 01:22 AM MacM:
<i>Math may correctly define reality but it doesn't create reality and observation may agree with mathematical views but mathematical views don't describe the physical reality.</i>
So, to paraphrase, you are saying that a mathematical argument which correctly predicts and agrees with observational data is still not valid because it doesn't "create reality", whatever that means.
How can the maths be wrong if it correctly predicts the observations of the real world?
<i>The choice to reject Relativity was made long ago when I realized it does not decsribe anything.</i>
So now your true colours are showing, MacM. You admit you reject relativity out of hand, even though clearly you don't understand it.
In fact, it describes our observations of motion and gravity, not nothing, as you claim. You're living a fantasy.
<i>It is nothing but a mathematical algorithm.</i>
One which happens (presumably by some miracle) to correctly predict the orbits of the planets, the behaviour of objects under the influence of gravity, the bending of light in the neighbourhood of massive objects, the Shapiro delay, the energy loss of binary pulsars, the expansion of the universe, the time dilation of clocks at different heights, the gravitational redshift, and many many more observed phenomena.
<i>Nothing physical or reality about it.</i>
How about you answer my question:
<b>Please provide a test I can perform on some physical object to distinguish the "real" value of one of its properties from the "observed" value.</b>
<i>And when I found better "physical" principles that also describe observation and data.</i>
What are these better "physical" principles, then? Do they predict all the things mentioned above?
James R.,
James R., has put forth a challenge for me to provide some evidence that my view of Relativity has any validity and that interpretations of the theory and certain test data are in some fashion flawed.
Not exactly, though that would be good too. Actually, my challenge was a little different. You base your refutation of relativity in that it doesn't distinguish between observations and reality. So I asked:
Give me an example of any physical property of an object where I can determine the difference between the observed property and the "real" property.
You have ignored that question, of course.
ANS: I do believe that this issue is one which I claim observation and reality are not the same and I feel this is a fair test under your challenge.
On to the subject of this thread, then...
That is visualize a rocket traveling through a space which has some mass density. As the rocket increases its velocity through this background of material not only should the background mass appear to increase to the rocket, the rocket mass should appear to increase to any observer in the background.
You're talking about relativistic mass here, I assume. Ok...
ANS: We seem to agree.
Relativity says it doesn't matter who is at rest. A rocket pilot would think he was at rest with no noticable change in his mass, etc ., but would see the background mass in space moving at or away from him as becoming more massive.
In terms of relativistic mass, yes.
ANS: We seem to agree.
An observer moving with the field would assume they were at rest and see the rocket accumulate mass relavistically.
Yes.
ANS: We seem to agree.
If as you all try to claim (based on your interpretation of Relativity) the observers view of this rockets velocity and relavistically induced mass by some unexplainable method controls the rockets physics to cause it to become more difficult to accelerate then this procedure will test that hypothesis.
Ok...
ANS: We seem to agree.
A short but adequate rocket rail system is installed in the target beam area. The rocket is tested (timed) using a fixed amount of energy input both directions down the rail without the particle beam turned on.
You haven't mentioned any particle beam. What on earth are you talking about?
ANS: In the original post I indicated that the test concept was since it is not possible to accelerate a rocket into relavistic velocity ranges in space (among some background masses) that we could accelerate a rocket in the beam tube of a particle accelerator. The beam tube would have magnetic shields to insure the rocket is not directly impinged by the relavistic beam of massive particles
The view from the rocket is identical as though it were in space with a relavistic velocity to such particles or background mass.
James R 05-26-03, 01:57 AM MacM:
<i>The view from the rocket is identical as though it were in space with a relavistic velocity to such particles or background mass.</i>
So, you're saying the rocket is at rest relative to the lab, and the particle beam moves past it? Ok.
<i>ANS: I do believe that this issue is one which I claim observation and reality are not the same and I feel this is a fair test under your challenge.</i>
What is the test which shows the difference between reality and observation here? What measurements need to be made?
James R.,
MacM:
Math may correctly define reality but it doesn't create reality and observation may agree with mathematical views but mathematical views don't describe the physical reality.
So, to paraphrase, you are saying that a mathematical argument which correctly predicts and agrees with observational data is still not valid because it doesn't "create reality", whatever that means.
How can the maths be wrong if it correctly predicts the observations of the real world?
ANS: I am not saying the math is wrong. I am saying the interpretation of the data and math are wrong because alternatives that can generate such data and like mathematical results are not being considered.
The choice to reject Relativity was made long ago when I realized it does not decsribe anything.
So now your true colours are showing, MacM. You admit you reject relativity out of hand, even though clearly you don't understand it.
ANS: I think I have made it fairly clear that I do reject Relativity. As to the second half of your comment that is a false assumption on your part. That comes from you believng that nobody that understands it could reject it. That is a false view. Let me clarify just a bit. I do not reject all the mathematics but more the interpretation of what they mean because alternative causes for such data and mathematics are being rejected without consideration. If my Relavistic Mass Test were actually performed, then I would be forced to either say James damnit you were right or James I told you so.
In fact, it describes our observations of motion and gravity, not nothing, as you claim. You're living a fantasy.
ANS: It describes things mathematically as to function or relationships. It does not describe any physical attributes. I'm trying to think how to describe this point: It is like telling me that a truck stopped on the road weighs X tons empty but going down the road the truck weighs X+ tons but never tells me what is in the truck and why its weight shows up with velocity and would disappear if I drive up along side in another truck.
It is nothing but a mathematical algorithm.
One which happens (presumably by some miracle) to correctly predict the orbits of the planets, the behaviour of objects under the influence of gravity, the bending of light in the neighbourhood of massive objects, the Shapiro delay, the energy loss of binary pulsars, the expansion of the universe, the time dilation of clocks at different heights, the gravitational redshift, and many many more observed phenomena.
ANS: We agree here. Although there may be some differences of opinion as to the interpretation of the data.
Nothing physical or reality about it.
How about you answer my question:
Please provide a test I can perform on some physical object to distinguish the "real" value of one of its properties from the "observed" value.
ANS: I think I have.
And when I found better "physical" principles that also describe observation and data.
What are these better "physical" principles, then? Do they predict all the things mentioned above?
ANS: No. But at least a couple. Enough to merit looking further.
Originally posted by chroot
It is, of course, your decision. Choose wisely.
- Warren
chroot, you re starting to sound like morpheus...
give me the red pill!
Originally posted by lethe
chroot, you re starting to sound like morpheus...
Heh heh heh. MacM is The One.
- Warren
chroot,
You know you missed me. I was the first (and I think only one) you have attacked since you got back.:D
Originally posted by MacM
chroot,
You know you missed me. I was the first (and I think only one) you have attacked since you got back.:D None of the other quacks are as persistant in their ignorance.
Janus58 05-26-03, 02:04 PM ANS: In the original post I indicated that the test concept was since it is not possible to accelerate a rocket into relavistic velocity ranges in space (among some background masses) that we could accelerate a rocket in the beam tube of a particle accelerator. The beam tube would have magnetic shields to insure the rocket is not directly impinged by the relavistic beam of massive particles
The view from the rocket is identical as though it were in space with a relavistic velocity to such particles or background mass.
Okay, so far we are talking about the relative velocity between particle beam and rocket, and the rocket's view wrt the particle beam.
A short but adequate rocket rail system is installed in the target beam area. The rocket is tested (timed) using a fixed amount of energy input both directions down the rail without the particle beam turned on.
In the beam tube there is deflection coils to preclude the minature rocket from actually being impinged by the beam. The particles merely pass near by parallel to the rocket rail system.
Then repeated with the beam turned on. With a particle beam having the following velocity relative to the rocket, the rockets time to accelerate down the rail in either direction should reflect any mass change in the rocket by altering its time accordingly:
But then you say that we measure the Rocket's velocity with respect to the rail system. Which has nothing to do with velocity difference between rocket and particle beam.
You start out your whole argument talking about the Relativistic effects between two particular frames (Rocket and Particles), And then switch the actual measurement to a different pair of frames (Rocket and Rail), which has no bearing on what the test is trying to determine. .
James R.,
MacM:
The view from the rocket is identical as though it were in space with a relavistic velocity to such particles or background mass.
So, you're saying the rocket is at rest relative to the lab, and the particle beam moves past it? Ok.
AND: No. The rocket accelerates down the rail and is timed with the beam off and with the beam on using identical energy input in both cases. Any affect of mass change in the rocket due to the relavistic particle beam will be reflected in the rockets time to traverse the same course.
ANS: I do believe that this issue is one which I claim observation and reality are not the same and I feel this is a fair test under your challenge.
[quote]What is the test which shows the difference between reality and observation here?
ANS: The Observation of relavistic mass increase and the reality of the rockets acceleration indicating it is or is not reality in the case of independant self-propelled objects. Recall that my view is that the "Apparent" increase in energy required to accelerate the particle beam is a function of "Energy Transfer Efficiency at relavistic velocities and not actual mass change.
What measurements need to be made?
[qolor=red]ANS: One needs only to time the rockets performance down the rail frompoint A to point B. Any change in time reflects a change in rocket performance due to induced relavistic mass by the relavistic particle beam it is accelerating in.
In space you have 1H1 (a few atoms per m^3. Moving thrjough that space you have background mass that the rocket must move through. There is relative velocity between the rocket and the space material. In the test the space material is sent past the accelerating rocket with comperable relative velocity to the rocket.[/color]
Janus58,
But then you say that we measure the Rocket's velocity with respect to the rail system. Which has nothing to do with velocity difference between rocket and particle beam.
ANS: Not so. We could measure the velocity but what we really want to measure is the time the rocket requires to traverse the course from point A to B with the beam off and with the beam on.
You start out your whole argument talking about the Relativistic effects between two particular frames (Rocket and Particles), And then switch the actual measurement to a different pair of frames (Rocket and Rail), which has no bearing on what the test is trying to determine.
ANS: I should think you realize that this is a strawman arguement. Multiple reference frames exists in any relavistic proposition. The relative velocity of cosmic particles, planets, galaxies, your neighbors baseball headed toward your picture window, etc., in any realistic analysis there is going to be multiple frames of reference. The rocket to the rail is sub-relavistic velocity but the particle beam the rocket accelerates through is in the range to see if such relative velocity affects the rockets ability to accelerate itself.
It is in fact a direct comparison of the affect I am arguening. The increasing energy to accelerate the particle beam is not a change in mass but a change in energy transfer efficiency. That should become apparent when testing the performance of the rocket in the beam. If the rockets ability to accelerate is not hampered by the presence of moving through masses having relavistic velocities then Relativity is being misapplied in the case where there is no relative velocity between the fuel, engine and rocket load.
That is my view at least.
Janus58 05-26-03, 05:39 PM Originally posted by MacM
Janus58,
ANS: Not so. We could measure the velocity but what we really want to measure is the time the rocket requires to traverse the course from point A to B with the beam off and with the beam on.
Which tells us absolutely nothing if the velocity difference between the rail and the rocket is too small for relativistic effects to be measured.
ANS: I should think you realize that this is a strawman arguement. Multiple reference frames exists in any relavistic proposition. The relative velocity of cosmic particles, planets, galaxies, your neighbors baseball headed toward your picture window, etc., in any realistic analysis there is going to be multiple frames of reference. The rocket to the rail is sub-relavistic velocity but the particle beam the rocket accelerates through is in the range to see if such relative velocity affects the rockets ability to accelerate itself.
The only one erecting strawmen here is you.
Of course there are multiple possible reference frames, for any given situatation, there are an inifinite number of them (reference frames don't have to have any physical objects attached to them to exist). But what happens between any two, doesn't effect what happens between any other two.
The fact that a .1 kg ball traveling at a velocity of 3 m/sec relative to my window has a kinetic energy of .1*3²/2 = .45 joules, isn't changed by the fact that the same ball has a kinetic energy of .1 *(3+2)²/2 = 1.25 joules relative to a car windshield traveling at 2 m/sec in the opposite direction of the ball, or whether or not that car is there is or not.
The same applies to the rocket/rail/particle beam situation. The rocket will have the same kinetic energy (using the relativistic formula) relative to the rail whether the particle beam exists or not.
The fact that a rocket moving upward wrt the rail and administrators of the test has a certain kinetic energy relative to the rail is not affected in the least by the fact that the same rocket has a much larger kinetic energy relative to a particle beam traveling downward at .999c relative to the rail.
It is in fact a direct comparison of the affect I am arguening. The increasing energy to accelerate the particle beam is not a change in mass but a change in energy transfer efficiency. That should become apparent when testing the performance of the rocket in the beam. If the rockets ability to accelerate is not hampered by the presence of moving through masses having relavistic velocities then Relativity is being misapplied in the case where there is no relative velocity between the fuel, engine and rocket load.
Again, you are the one mis-applying Relativity here by claiming that it predicts something that it doesn't, and operates via a mechanism that it doesn't employ. Yes, Relativity says that the rocket cannot attain C relative to any given frame as measured from that frame or the Rocket, and that its kinetic energy will approach inifinity as measured from that frame as it tries to, but this has nothing to do with it "moving through masses" and Relativity has never claimed that it does. That's a notion that you've invented on your own.
Real Relativity predicts that the time it takes the rocket to travel the rail, as measured from the rail, will remain the same regardless of whether or not the particle beam is present or not.
Janus58,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MacM
Janus58,
ANS: Not so. We could measure the velocity but what we really want to measure is the time the rocket requires to traverse the course from point A to B with the beam off and with the beam on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which tells us absolutely nothing if the velocity difference between the rail and the rocket is too small for relativistic effects to be measured.
/ANS: Are you deliberately trying to be niave or do you have some other problem? By what stretch of imagination are you linking the results of the test to the rail? Why not an ant crawling along the beam tube. The matter having relavistic velocity to the rocket is the particle beam.
This is one of the problems I see with Relativity. You can state a problem and calculate relavistic affects but when you do you necessarily disregard trillions of other motions that in reality are in conjunction with those you are testing. But that is another issue for another time.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANS: I should think you realize that this is a strawman arguement. Multiple reference frames exists in any relavistic proposition. The relative velocity of cosmic particles, planets, galaxies, your neighbors baseball headed toward your picture window, etc., in any realistic analysis there is going to be multiple frames of reference. The rocket to the rail is sub-relavistic velocity but the particle beam the rocket accelerates through is in the range to see if such relative velocity affects the rockets ability to accelerate itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only one erecting strawmen here is you.
Of course there are multiple possible reference frames, for any given situatation, there are an inifinite number of them (reference frames don't have to have any physical objects attached to them to exist). But what happens between any two, doesn't effect what happens between any other two.
ANS: That clears everything up. Ha. Somehow only the ones you are interested in are in play. How does Relativity know which ones you are calculating? I know the calculations are between specific frames. But when you use Relativity to restrict something such as the acceleration of a rocket, it is restricted regardless of other frames view. In otherwords it is not possible to claim that because between two objects the relative velocity is approaching c and it requires approaching infinite energy to accelerate and then turn around and for the same rocket claim that it is going 5 mph relative to somethingelse and there is no relavistic affect and hence no increase in energy requirement.
The rocket either requires more energy or it doesn't. One of the two frames of reference will not match observation, which one?
The rocket either sees an affect or it doesn't and it doesn't rely upon your view and calculation to feel the affects (if any) of relativity by someother object or frame of reference.
To suggest so results in multiple existances. One the rocket is accelerating the other it is not.
The fact that a .1 kg ball traveling at a velocity of 3 m/sec relative to my window has a kinetic energy of .1*3²/2 = .45 joules, isn't changed by the fact that the same ball has a kinetic energy of .1 *(3+2)²/2 = 1.25 joules relative to a car windshield traveling at 2 m/sec in the opposite direction of the ball, or whether or not that car is there is or not.
The same applies to the rocket/rail/particle beam situation. The rocket will have the same kinetic energy (using the relativistic formula) relative to the rail whether the particle beam exists or not.
ANS: Guess what I agree. That is what I have said all along. Now just remove the rocket from the test chamber and put it in space. Remeber the rail still is in existance are you going to link the rocket to the rail now? If so why not the most remote galaxy moving at 90%c+.
You have a problem of selecting the frame of reference you want to use and disregard the claimed impact of Relativity in physical reality of frames that actually exist but are not part of your calculation.
The particle beam moving past the rocket that is accelerting is the exact same situation of a rocket in space accelerating through deep space where there are 1H1 atoms (Proton Beam) equivelent.
You can wiggle all you want but you clearly have a problem here. Either the particle beam is a legitamate test or your whole concept of relativity is null and void.
The fact that a rocket moving upward wrt the rail and administrators of the test has a certain kinetic energy relative to the rail is not affected in the least by the fact that the same rocket has a much larger kinetic energy relative to a particle beam traveling downward at .999c relative to the rail.
ANS: Why are you disregraarding the affect, if any, on the rocket accelerating through a relavistic particle beam. It is the same as a rocket accelerating through 1H1 (Protons) in deep space at relavisitc velocities. You got some explaining to do. By what justification do you choose a different frame of reference than the one stated.?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is in fact a direct comparison of the affect I am arguening. The increasing energy to accelerate the particle beam is not a change in mass but a change in energy transfer efficiency. That should become apparent when testing the performance of the rocket in the beam. If the rockets ability to accelerate is not hampered by the presence of moving through masses having relavistic velocities then Relativity is being misapplied in the case where there is no relative velocity between the fuel, engine and rocket load.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, you are the one mis-applying Relativity here by claiming that it predicts something that it doesn't, and operates via a mechanism that it doesn't employ. Yes, Relativity says that the rocket cannot attain C relative to any given frame as measured from that frame or the Rocket, and that its kinetic energy will approach inifinity as measured from that frame as it tries to, but this has nothing to do with it "moving through masses" and Relativity has never claimed that it does. That's a notion that you've invented on your own.
ANS: Seems to me you are in a box and don't like it. Of course the beam example is the same. Mass is Mass. It could be you in a rocket propelled rocking chair or a McDonalds Big Mac, mass is mass. Surely you can do better than this
Real Relativity predicts that the time it takes the rocket to travel the rail, as measured from the rail, will remain the same regardless of whether or not the particle beam is present or not.
ANS: You are the one trying to link the test to a different frame of reference. Put the rocket in space with 1H1 atoms (Protons). Does the rocket require increased energy as it accelerates through the space particle medium. Of course it does (according to you and Relativity) . So don't dare try to ignore the relavistic velocity of the rocket to the beam and the affect that Relativty claims is there. The rocket either sees it and requires increased energy or it doesn't. I claim it doesn't, no more that it would in space full of protons or Jupiters moons, mass is mass.
You now understand and want to shift the attention. I won't let you.
ANS: You are the one trying to link the test to a different frame of reference. Put the rocket in space with 1H1 atoms (Protons). Does the rocket require increased energy as it accelerates theought the space particle medium. Of course it does (accourding to you and Relativity).
No it doesn't (assuming no impact with medium). You really don't understand relativity do you. If I'm driving down the road, and a particle beam is going at .9999c in the other direction next to me, it doesn't take extra energy for me to accelerate. Now, to someone sitting on that beam I would appear to be accelerating slower. The existance of another frame of reference does not mean it needs to be considered. That frame of reference is just as correct... but the observations of someone in that frame will be different. We can not measure what this beam 'sees', because we are not actually moving with the beam.
Janus58,
ANS: You are the one trying to link the test to a different frame of reference. Put the rocket in space with 1H1 atoms (Protons). Does the rocket require increased energy as it accelerates theought the space particle medium. Of course it does (accourding to you and Relativity).
No it doesn't (assuming no impact with medium). You really don't understand relativity do you. If I'm driving down the road, and a particle beam is going at .9999c in the other direction next to me, it doesn't take extra energy for me to accelerate. Now, to someone sitting on that beam I would appear to be accelerating slower. The existance of another frame of reference does not mean it needs to be considered. That frame of reference is just as correct... but the observations of someone in that frame will be different. We can not measure what this beam 'sees', because we are not actually moving with the beam.
ANS: I agree, unless we are passengers in the rocket or moving with the beam, we don't see it. But the rocket damn well does and relativty says it is the same thing as the rocket accelerating to those velocities in a stationary proton maze and Relativity says that requires increased energy. We would see the increased energy even if we couldn't see the relavistic motion that the rocket does. Try again.
Hey Mac, stop replying in red, it is really annoying and hard to read.
Originally posted by MacM
Janus58,
or Persol, (Although you never spell my name right anyhow)
But the rocket damn well does and relativty says it is the same thing as the rocket accelerating to those velocities in a stationary proton maze and Relativity says that requires increased energy. We would see the increased energy even if we couldn't see the relavistic motion that the rocket does.
Nice strawman ****. Show us where relativity says this or shut the hell up. 10 to 0 you post a misinterpreted reference that would only apply to the beam's view.
Moderator edit: Personal insults add nothing useful to the discussion.
ryans,
Hey Mac, stop replying in red, it is really annoying and hard to read.
ANS: Good now you know what it is like to keep answering off the point replys
Persol,
Sorry about the mix up. I had been responding to Janus58 and you just slipped in on me.
Re: Relative
Originally posted by MacM
Janus58,
or Persol, (Although you never spell my name right anyhow)
But the rocket damn well does and relativty says it is the same thing as the rocket accelerating to those velocities in a stationary proton maze and Relativity says that requires increased energy. We would see the increased energy even if we couldn't see the relavistic motion that the rocket does.
Nice strawman ****. Show us where relativity says this or shut the hell up. 10 to 0 you post a misinterpreted reference that would only apply to the beam's view.
ANS: I suppose you can justify believing that the beams view of the rocket are different than the rockets view of the beam. Or that the rocket doesn't see the beam.
You must be desperate. Acknowledge the relavistic relationship between the beam and rocket or shut the hell up.
Originally posted by MacM
Acknowledge the relavistic relationship between the beam and rocket or shut the hell up.
You are claiming that the mere presence of the beam changes the energy the rocket needs. This is FALSE according to relativity.... and you would know this if you understood it.
Persol,
Exchange between myself and James R., Now before he comes back and says he didn't agree, let me point out that the string was not finished but for what was said here is his responses. You seem to be saying something different.
(Mac) That is visualize a rocket traveling through a space which has some mass density. As the rocket increases its velocity through this background of material not only should the background mass appear to increase to the rocket, the rocket mass should appear to increase to any observer in the background.
(JR)You're talking about relativistic mass here, I assume. Ok...
(Mac) ANS: We seem to agree.
(Mac) Relativity says it doesn't matter who is at rest. A rocket pilot would think he was at rest with no noticable change in his mass, etc ., but would see the background mass in space moving at or away from him as becoming more massive.
(JR) In terms of relativistic mass, yes.
(Mac) ANS: We seem to agree.
(Mac) An observer moving with the field would assume they were at rest and see the rocket accumulate mass relavistically.
(JR) Yes.
(Mac) ANS: We seem to agree.
(Mac) If as you all try to claim (based on your interpretation of Relativity) the observers view of this rockets velocity and relavistically induced mass by some unexplainable method controls the rockets physics to cause it to become more difficult to accelerate then this procedure will test that hypothesis.
(JR) Ok...
(Mac) ANS: We seem to agree.
ANS: Your put downs are not responses to the issue.
That has nothing to do with the issue. I will say again:
The introduction of the beam does not make the rocket require more energy to accelerate. If you are going to say it does then open a damn book and look for where it says this... you won't find it.
Persol,
If you had read what has been written you would see I also say it won't. But I say according to Relativity it must. You are trying to deny that but you can't so you go off on the go read a book defense.
Lets see:
A rocket will require increased energy as its velocity becomes relavistic. Relavistic means relative to somethingelse. It also says it doesn't matter which assumes the rest condition. Therefore the affect is the same if A is moving toward B or if B is moving toward A.
Now in this case A is a swarm of protons or alpha particles, mass in any case. It makes no difference if the rocket is in space (B) moving though a field of particles (A) or if (A) is moving past (B).
That is Relativity and this test case is according to Relativity.
So try again. Show us where Relativity states that the object moving toward the observer or the object the observer is moving toward must be xxxx Kg. It doesn't, which is another problem with Relativity. It matters not if it is a single proton or the earth that the motion is relative to the shear relative velocity between the two objects restricts the rockets performance. BS.
Originally posted by MacM
If you had read what has been written you would see I also say it won't.
Good... then you agree with relativity.
But I say according to Relativity it must. You are trying to deny that but you can't so you go off on the go read a book defense.
Because you have this odd conception that it says something it doesn't... the only way to prove this is for you to look.
A rocket will require increased energy as its velocity becomes relavistic.
Depending on what you mean, wrong. Every obect always has a relative velocity to some other object. The increase in energy is analyzed relative to another object due to time/length changes. This does not mean that someone in a different frame will observe an increase in needed energy.
It also says it doesn't matter which assumes the rest condition.
No, it doesn't. We are assuming acceleration here.
Now in this case A is a swarm of protons or alpha particles, mass in any case. It makes no difference if the rocket is in space (B) moving though a field of particles (A) or if (A) is moving past (B).
If we are moving with those swarm of protons that is one thing, otherwise the presence of them doesn't matter.
Show us where Relativity states that the object moving toward the observer or the object the observer is moving toward must be xxxx Kg.
Sorry, but I have no clue what you are getting at here.
It matters not if it is a single proton or the earth that the motion is relative to the shear relative velocity between the two objects restricts the rockets performance. BS.
Why is this BS? You are misunderstanding the restriction.
Ah yes, the old adage: "relativity says that a rocket requires more energy to accelerate as it gets faster."
It goes in the drawer with other tidbits like "time slows down when you go fast" and "you get more massive when you go fast."
The drawer has a label, of course. The label reads "MISCONCEPTIONS."
- Warren
Persol,
A rocket will require increased energy as its velocity becomes relavistic.
Depending on what you mean, wrong. Every obect always has a relative velocity to some other object. The increase in energy is analyzed relative to another object due to time/length changes. This does not mean that someone in a different frame will observe an increase in needed energy.
ANS: That must drive the fuel pump nuts and the Flight Engineer crazy trying to calculate his range and fuel supply - What a bunch of double talk.
Give it up a rocket cannot have multiple fuel consumptions to satisfy every observers view.
James R 05-27-03, 01:51 AM MacM:
You're confusing reference frames here. There are three possible points of view here:
A. The lab
B. The rocket
C. The particles in the beam.
Now, from A's point of view, the relativistic mass of the rocket increases as the rocket accelerates. From B's point of view, the relativistic mass of the rocket always remains equal to the rest mass. From C's point of view, the relativistic mass of the rocket increases as the rocket speeds up from the beam's point of view.
The kinetic energy added or subtracted is also different from the points of view of the three observers, obviously. A and C see the kinetic energy increase (by different amounts). B sees the kinetic energy stay at zero.
Where does the energy from the burnt fuel go?
In cases A and C, part of the fuel energy goes to the rocket's kinetic energy, and part is carried off by the exhaust gases. For observer B, all the fuel energy is carried away by the exhaust gases.
Now, tell me where you think the problem is.
James R.,
Seems obvious to me that you can't require a rocket to have multiple requirements for energy. It has one fuel tank.
B & C see the same thing, radically increased requirements for energy to accelerate. Yet it does accelerate with the same energy as viewed from A.
B & C cannot be correct if the rockets fuel consumption doesn't meet the requirements per those views.
With a particle beam having the following velocity relative to the rocket, the rockets time to accelerate down the rail in either direction should reflect any mass change in the rocket by altering its time accordingly:
Beam.....................Rocket %
Velocity..................Time Down
%c.........................the Test Rail
---------------/--------------------------
0................./.............100.00
25.............../.............103.28
50.............../.............115.47
75.............../.............151.19
90.............../.............229.42
95.............../.............320.26
96.............../.............357.14
97.............../.............411.35
98.............../.............502.51
99.............../.............708.88
99.9............/..........2,236.63
If the rockets acceleration is unaffected by the beam/rocket (B & C ) views then those views are observational and not physical reality.
You can't say that from that view it requires more energy to accelerate but then not see any energy change during the test.
It would also seem to violate conservation if you get different energy out of a fixed chemical reaction.
From B's point of view, the relativistic mass of the rocket always remains equal to the rest mass.
ANS: And that is why I argue that the rocket will be unaffected by the relavistic principle. There is no relative velocity as far as the rocket is concerned. It, its fuel and engines are at rest. Therefore the thrust and a by a = F/m remains the same. Hence A and C's view have no impact on the rocket.
James R 05-27-03, 02:11 AM MacM:
All observers agree as to how much chemical energy was stored in the fuel when the rocket started. They only disagree as to where the energy went.
<i>With a particle beam having the following velocity relative to the rocket, the rockets time to accelerate down the rail in either direction should reflect any mass change in the rocket by altering its time accordingly...</i>
Are you talking from the point of view of the beam here?
Because nothing changes from the point of view of the lab or the rocket itself.
<i>If the rockets acceleration is unaffected by the beam/rocket (B & C ) views then those views are observational and not physical reality.</i>
The rocket's acceleration is different for observers A, B and C. I already explained why - the exhaust carries away some of the fuel's energy.
Turning to the point of the question, whose view do you think is "real" here, and why is it more real than the other points of view?
James R.,
My view is that B's view is the only physical reality, the others are observational. Otherwise the rocket couldn't accelerate. I raise this point because of the arguement that at relavistic velocities the rocket would require an increase in energy to accelerate.
It clearly does not, therefore the view from the beam is perception, not reality.
James R 05-27-03, 02:20 AM MacM:
<i>My view is that B's view is the only physical reality, the others are observational. Otherwise the rocket couldn't accelerate.</i>
From B's point of view, the rocket doesn't accelerate. It stays still. In fact, from the rocket's own frame it never accelerates. Only the lab and the beam accelerate. So, real is when the rocket is still, is it?
<i>I raise this point because of the arguement that at relavistic velocities the rocket would require an increase in energy to accelerate.</i>
Relative to what? From whose point of view?
Haven't I covered this already?
What do you think is wrong with my explanation?
Sorry James, but the rocket does accelerate, it feels a force, the lab feels no such force. To talk of acceleration requires more advanced arguements than is being presented here.
James R.,
You know I hate to agree with ryans but that was my answer. The rocket indeed from its perspective does not move. But its energy does create a g force.
All motion is relative. And the relative motion between the rocket and the particle beam is relavistic, yet the rocket requires no added energy to create the same g force because there is no relative velocity between the fuel, thrust engines or rocket load.
That is the heart of my arguement.
In the case of the particle beam you have relavistic velocity between the energy source and the accelerated particle but not in the rocket.
James R 05-27-03, 03:17 AM ryans:
<i>Sorry James, but the rocket does accelerate...</i>
Not in its own frame of reference, which is what I said.
<i>...it feels a force, the lab feels no such force.</i>
Of course. I agree.
<i>To talk of acceleration requires more advanced arguements than is being presented here.</i>
I know. If we want to work out work done etc., the maths is complicated here. But what I have said above is accurate enough.
MacM:
<i>You know I hate to agree with ryans but that was my answer. The rocket indeed from its perspective does not move. But its energy does create a g force.</i>
Yes. I agree.
<i>All motion is relative. And the relative motion between the rocket and the particle beam is relavistic, yet the rocket requires no added energy to create the same g force because there is no relative velocity between the fuel, thrust engines or rocket load.</i>
Yes. From the rocket point of view, nothing is changed by adding the particle beam. So what? Nobody expects the force experienced by occupants of the rocket to change due to such a beam.
<i>In the case of the particle beam you have relavistic velocity between the energy source and the accelerated particle but not in the rocket.</i>
Huh? The energy source is the fuel in the rocket. Yes, that is moving relative to the beam, but so what?
James R.,
In the case of the particle beam you have relavistic velocity between the energy source and the accelerated particle but not in the rocket.
Huh? The energy source is the fuel in the rocket. Yes, that is moving relative to the beam, but so what?
ANS: This is the issue. Where is the justification to claim additional energy is required from the rocket based on an observers view. The chemical peformance of the rocket does not change.
That makes the rockets view reality and other views observational. The other views do not alter the physics of the rocket.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MacM
ANS: This is the issue. Where is the justification to claim additional energy is required from the rocket based on an observers view. The chemical peformance of the rocket does not change.
The observer standing next to the rail will not see any change in the presence of the beam. This is almost the same as your clock problem, so I don't expect you to accept any answer.
That makes the rockets view reality and other views observational. The other views do not alter the physics of the rocket.
The other views DO alter what happens to the rocket, but only when viewed from that frame of reference. The mere presence of another frame of reference doesn't change what other frames see.
Janus58 05-27-03, 09:55 AM ANS: That clears everything up. Ha. Somehow only the ones you are interested in are in play. How does Relativity know which ones you are calculating?
How does classical mechanics know which one you are calculating when you are dealing with the kinetic energy of a ball with respect to the window and the windshield of a moving car?
I know the calculations are between specific frames. But when you use Relativity to restrict something such as the acceleration of a rocket, it is restricted regardless of other frames view. In otherwords it is not possible to claim that because between two objects the relative velocity is approaching c and it requires approaching infinite energy to accelerate and then turn around and for the same rocket claim that it is going 5 mph relative to somethingelse and there is no relavistic affect and hence no increase in energy requirement.
The rocket either requires more energy or it doesn't. One of the two frames of reference will not match observation, which one?
All the frames match observation, just like all frames match observation in classical mechanics even though the ball has different kinetic energies depending on from what frame you measure it.(window, windshield or whatever).
In classical mechanics this kinetic energy is calculated by KE = mv²/2, A parabolic function with respect to v.
Relativity replaces this with KE = mc²(1/sqrt(1-v²/c²)-1), an asymptotic function with respect to v, which very closely matches the classical formula at low values of v.
You are trying to apply a double standard. One that says it is perfectly okay for objects to have different values of kinetic energy with respect to different frames in classical mechanics, But when applying Relativity, this is no longer allowed. This is not the case.
No one has said that there are no relativistic effects between rail and rocket, only that at the small relative value of v between them, they are very,very, very small.
James R 05-27-03, 09:35 PM MacM:
Me: <i>The energy source is the fuel in the rocket. Yes, that is moving relative to the beam, but so what?</i>
You: <i>This is the issue. Where is the justification to claim additional energy is required from the rocket based on an observers view.</i>
You're not being at all clear here. Who is saying that additional energy is required from the rocket based on an observer's view? Which view requires additional energy, and why?
<i>The chemical peformance of the rocket does not change.</i>
I agree.
<i>That makes the rockets view reality and other views observational.</i>
I don't understand your point. Want to try again?
<i>The other views do not alter the physics of the rocket.</i>
They alter the observed speed, kinetic energy and relativistic mass of the rocket, but that is certainly not a problem for relativity. Relativity describes it all perfectly.
James R.,
Me: The energy source is the fuel in the rocket.
you: Yes, that is moving relative to the beam, but so what?
me: This is the issue. Where is the justification to claim additional energy is required from the rocket based on an observers view.
you: You're not being at all clear here. Who is saying that additional energy is required from the rocket based on an observer's view? Which view requires additional energy, and why?
ANS: How many times has it been said that the rocket cannot achieve or exceed v = c because it requires infinite energy per Relativity? I have certainly lost count. But from the beams view it requires more energy than from the rockets view. The rocket controls the actual conversion of energy not the beams view.
Me:The chemical peformance of the rocket does not change.
you: I agree.
me: That makes the rockets view reality and other views observational.
you: I don't understand your point. Want to try again?
ANS: The rockets energy is fixed or predetermined by chemistry, its performance does not change as it accelerates. Any view therefore that dictates it required more energy to accelerate than was put in from the rockets point of view violates conservation. It is claiming more energy has been input than actually was.
There is no problem computing Newtonian views of velocity and energy but the expotential differential between actual velocity and energy to accelerate from any perspective other than the rockets seems totally unjustified, if not blatantly false on its surface.
The other views do not alter the physics of the rocket.
They alter the observed speed, kinetic energy and relativistic mass of the rocket, but that is certainly not a problem for relativity. Relativity describes it all perfectly.
ANS: We actually agree here. It is not a problem for Relativity and the mathematics are consistant within Relativity but it fails to answer the root issue which is energy conservation of the fuel consumed and that claimed by other observers in terms of energy in/energy out.
I also want to make note of your continued use of Relavistic Mass. I have been attacked and called a lot of names over those terms. I just bet you wouldn't tolerate having the same said about you for using it as well.
My point is the lack of reciprocity or equal treatment. I know we are not equal but equal treament does not impose any such consideration.
Final observation. I have been watching this for a while and I suspect that what you are trying to say (But nobody has) is that the view isn't that it required more energy but that in those views it accelerated less because of contractions and/or time dilation. Yes? Then posters need to learn to be clear in what they are saying.
James R 05-27-03, 11:26 PM MacM:
<i>How many times has it been said that the rocket cannot achieve or exceed v = c because it requires infinite energy per Relativity?</i>
Many times, and it is true. No observer can ever see the rocket go faster than c.
If you look at the energy transfer from the lab frame of reference, for example, what happens is that as the rocket speeds up, more and more of the energy provided by the fuel goes into increasing the relativistic mass, while less and less goes into actually speeding the rocket up. That's not an entirely accurate way to look at things, but it's not too bad for starters.
<i>But from the beams view it requires more energy than from the rockets view.</i>
<b>What</b> requires more energy from the beam's view?
<i>The rockets energy is fixed or predetermined by chemistry, its performance does not change as it accelerates.</i>
What type of energy are you talking about? The available chemical energy is fixed, I agree. And the performance of the engines does not change as the rocket accelerates, either. However, that does not mean that the rocket accelerates at a constant rate as seen by the lab. According to relativity, its rate of accelerate decreases as the rocket speeds up.
<i>Any view therefore that dictates it required more energy to accelerate than was put in from the rockets point of view violates conservation.</i>
More energy to accelerate to what speed? More energy than what? You really need to be specific or we keep having to guess what you mean.
<i>There is no problem computing Newtonian views of velocity and energy but the expotential differential between actual velocity and energy to accelerate from any perspective other than the rockets seems totally unjustified, if not blatantly false on its surface.</i>
You're comparing apples and oranges. How can you compare a velocity to an energy?
<i>We actually agree here. It is not a problem for Relativity and the mathematics are consistant within Relativity but it fails to answer the root issue which is energy conservation of the fuel consumed and that claimed by other observers in terms of energy in/energy out.</i>
I've already clearly explained the energy conservation issue, in a previous post. Which part of my explanation is wrong?
<i>I also want to make note of your continued use of Relavistic Mass. I have been attacked and called a lot of names over those terms. I just bet you wouldn't tolerate having the same said about you for using it as well.</i>
I'm using the term "relativistic mass" because you're using it (note the spelling, by the way). If you want to use that concept, that's ok, provided everybody is clear what we're talking about. Physic |