antimatter drive / relativity question

I don't have a theory and it wasn't about special relativity. The consideration for warp drives is a study relavent to general relativity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who said anything about Special Relativity?

You do have a theory. You have stated your theory as being that Einstein Relativity is self consistent when ( real ) time transformation, or, as it is most often called, time dilation, is embraced but inertial mass transformation is denied.

What you do not have is a clue. Your proposition has been proved wrong in such basic and simply stated terms that a grade school child could understand how and why your proposition is wrong and still you are continuing to promote your erroneous theory.

Einstein Relativity cannot be proven to be self consistent, due to the inability to demonstrate conservation of angular momentum, unless real transformation of inertial mass is considered to be true.

And of course, real transformation of inertial mass inescapably leads to other conclusions, directly germane to this thread topic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

According to Einstein Relativity, the observer in the spaceship would observe NO increase by any name in the mass of the spaceship.

According to Einstein Relativity, the observer in the spaceship would observe NO increase by any name in the mass of the fuel.

So, according to Einstein Relativity, the observer in the spaceship would have no theoretical limit on acceleration or velocity. The only limits would those of a practical engineering nature; an unlimited fuel supply is not imaginable.

It would only be the Earthbound observers, considering themselves to be stationary, who would claim to observe transformations of time, space and mass happening to the moving spaceship.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't have a theory. This is special relativity, Einstein's theory. You are insane.

 

Enough with your insanity. Special relativity in which the time dilation is real, does not allow for faster than light travel because the time dilation is real and enters into the equations of motion in the time derivatives. I gave you the relativistic equation of motion for a rocket that comes from relativity in which mass is invariant and it does not yield faster than light travel. The tanh function is asymptotic.

 

Are you pulling a long lasting running joke on us, or do you really not have the faintest clue about the basics of Einstein Relativity?

 

The concensus among those who know anything about it is that you don't have a clue and that what I have been giving you in this thread is basic special relativity, though in some others I have delved into general relativity.

 

You are doing a very good job of pretending to be grossly ignorant of the importance of reference frames in Einstein Relativity. If you do understand the importance of reference frames, explain to us your understanding of which observer observes the real time dilation you have touted, and explain to us your understanding of which observer therefore does not observe real time dilation, according to your comprehension of Einstein Relativity.

You make a distinction between Special Relativity and General Relativity. Do you not understand that every Special Relativity principle must be upheld also in General Relativity? Which Special Relativity principles are you thinking are contradicted or negated by General Relativity?

Don't worry about taking a vote except to keep yourself informed; I already always know if you are writing about SR or GR.

 

It is real according to all observers. Relative does not mean not real.
You are confusing real with meaning absolute.

No, special relativity is only valid everywhere on a local scale in General Relativity. It is not valid on a global scale.

 

Tril' is pretending to be unaware of the Special Relativity principle that the observer's specific circumstances are crucially important to the validity of the observation.

There is a very important distinction to be made if someone is to conclude that Einstein Relativity provides a description of what is really happening in the universe or on the other hand only provides a convenient way to exchange information between different reference frames.

If Einstein Relativity is only a convenience then some specific observation which seems to violate conservation of momentum could be swept under the rug and everybody could giggle and wink and then it really wouldn't matter afterward. Because if it was just some kind of visual illusion then the momentum didn't REALLY get lost.

But if Einstein Relativity is claimed to be REAL then some specific observation which seems to violate conservation of momentum is not a laughing matter but has raised a question which must be properly explained or else Einstein Relativity no longer has self consistency and therefore is illigitimate. If Einstein Relativity is claimed to provide observations of reality then an apparent observation of violation of conservation of momentum is claimed to be a real loss and must be explained or else Einstein Relativity is dead.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

If time dilation is claimed to be REAL and directly provides an observation in which momentum is lost then either the momentum loss must be explained by some physical mechanism or some other plausible way.

 

...goes on rambling. No, its quite the opposite. The principle of relativity is that the laws of physics are independent of frame.

 

The truth is that Einstein Relativity, in no uncertain terms, clearly states that the position and circumstances of the observer determine the total reality and validity of his observation. The thing about frames is this: the Second Postulate claims that every observer will observe the same outcome of all the laws of physics.

Einstein Relativity postulates that reality is determined by each observer in their particular reference frame, and that every observer must agree that all the laws of physics are perfectly obeyed.

Each individual observer's observation is totally and perfectly dependent on that observer's reference frame. Each observer must use only the measuring devices that are motionless with respect to himself, and cannot use any measuring devices that have any motion relative to him.

This is not my own idea. This is the way that Relativity has been explained in textbooks for a hundred years.