The issue is the curving, contracting and dragging of something which is purportedly "Nothing" physical.
MacM, You decide it for yourself. Why do you have doubt on whether what I said correct or incorrect? If you think what I said was wrong then you should give me your supporting argument. Can you do that?
No, this mean that he was unaware of mistakes that some people who do not understand relativity make. What he wrote was correct
Not disagreeing with the E=mc^2 mass. Just commenting on that was not the issue and his repeated responses that seem to go off topic and argue his own side issues.
This is still showing a misconception of what areference frame is. Nobody ever said the frame was physical. It is used to compute the effects of relativity... whatever the underlying cause happens to be. It's a metaphor to make it easier to understand.
So you are finally agreeing that this is all subjective and does not represent reality. No misunderstanding on my part. The misunderstanding is by those that want to argue for the physical reality of Relativity.
Do you know how to read? Waht was so complicated about "It is used to compute the effects of relativity... whatever the underlying cause happens to be."
You say above that it is a superficial concept used to correlate changes being made into what is physically "Nothing" - space. Or are you prepared to give space some tangiable fabric such as an ether. "Nothing" would be hard to curve, contract and drag do you not think?
Mac, space is your 'grid'. Your grid is curving, contracting, and dragging. The grid is not physical. Understand?
Yes, you're right I believe. Mass can be determined using charged particles in electric or magnetic fields. But the conclusion, that there is no change in the gravitational attraction I believe is incorrect. The mass of a proton for example, moving at relativistic speed through an electric field will not deflect the same way as one would expect because the inertial mass has increased. But the inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent, per the equivalence principal, regardless of velocity. So therefore, a mass with high velocity relative to an observer will also have a greater gravitational mass. If this were not true, we would have a method by which to determine absolute motion. One would simply note the difference between gravitational and inertial mass and you could then calculate the absolute velocity of the mass by the difference between the two.
I am stll awaiting some physics to show within the four corners of your posts. By the way the forum smartass job is already filled, so ease off on your class clown activity persol, for among us we have a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy, whose flashes of merriment are wont to set the table on a roar! Can you dig it? Some solar data*. Velocities km/sec: Earth-sun orbit 29.8 Earth rotation (equator) .496 Sun-Orbit# 208 Distances km Earth-sun radiius 1.49 x 10^8 Earth radius 6378 Some times second Seconds per day 86146 Seconfds per year 31465687 Angular momentum data kg-m^2/sec Solar system 3.15 x 10^43 Sun 1.6 x 10^41 Sun/Solar System is 1.6 x 10^41 / 3.15 x 10^43 = .5% Mass g Sun 2 x 10^33 Planets 2.7 x 10^30 Earth 6x10^27 *Handbook of Astronautical Engineering Koelle Ed. 1st Edition 1961, McGraw- Hill #Dayton Miller, 5 The Reviews of Modern Physics 1933 202 243 The earth rotates 6378x2pi = 40047 km/day, but as the earth is being sun dragged, thie distance actually moved is 208x86146= 17.18x10^6 km per day. So in one day the rotation vector is actually pointing more along the sun motion direction. The rotation vector actually rotates at a rate of 360 x(40047/17900000) degress/day or 360 x .00224 = .08 degrees/day, .08/86146 = 10^-6 degrees/sec (360 degrees/4500 days).. 10^-6 degrees/sec or about 31 degrees per year. Result 10^-6 degree/sec The earth orbit vector is skewed in a similar manner, where the 360/1.49x10^8 degrees/ km-year is actually 360/6.54 x 10^9 = 5.50 x 10^-8 degrees/km-year, or the orbit vector gets stretched considerably. The point of the direction vector is moving at a rate of 1/2(.0228)/314656870 = 2.07 x 10^-8 degrees/sec. here the angle sutended by the earth sun radius and sun distance is .0228 degrees) degrees (tan-1 (1.49x10^8/6.54 x 10^9 km) = .0228 degrees). Thia vector then moves 2x .0228 /31465687 = 1.45 x 10^-9 degrees/sec. Consider an inertial mass vN, with density of 10g/cm^3 with volume of (10^4)^3 = 10^12^cm^3, or 10^13 g (100 meters on a side). And a 1 cm^3 piece of that mass,Vm, or 10g. Some Results The earth rotation rate is 1.2 x 10^-6 degrees/sec The earth orbit turning rate is 5x10^-8 degrees/sec. The earth mass to sun mass ratio 3 x10^-3. The Earth/test mass 6x10^27/ 0^13 = 10^-14 Vm/Vn. 10/10^13 = 10^-12 The Ve/Vn ration is two orders of magnitude larger in proportion than is the 100 meter on a side cube relative to a 1 cm^3 inertial mass. The earth inertia is 100 times more massive in ratio wrt the test mass than is the test mass frame wrt the 1 cm^3 frame. This is what I mean that the earth is moving in a straight line. This is what I mean when I say the earth inertial mass is infinitely larger proportionately, to any conceiveable inertial mass likely to be seen in a state of relative motion wrt Ve, which as we know only exhibits relative motion Vn - Ve > 0 after the Vn has undergone an acceleration and Ve has not undergone an acceleration. Taken as a whole, this what I mean when I say the inertial frames of Ve and Vn are not eqaul, by any measuremnt and that the Ve moves effectively in a straight line trajectory.
[deleted], none of that contradicts what I said... but nice try. The relative inertias are not in question here, and once agian don't matter. We do NOT know what our initial velocity/position is... so we can never know what our absolute velocity/position is. All you are trying to do is arrbitraily decide that one frame of reference is 'best'. Unforntunately this needs to be done on a problem by problem basis... but you are just completely out in left field with your attempt to define the Earth as the best -stationary- frame. If you want to continuing arguing about absolute velocity/position, take it to one of your 11 threads you've already started. You can then attempt to show how you determine initial velocity/position. Until then you are not posting anything of worth. As much as your dissertation on the sun/earth orbit is probably correct... it is off topic and immaterial.
So the planet earth Ve, and passengers trains around the world are not inertial frames and that real inertial frames do not exist? I can understand you wanting to disregard the reality of physical measurement, vaya con dios, special relativity, right? So if the frames aen't real physical objects and have no physical analog why are you so reactionary when someone starts discussing the reality of motion and inertial frames? Why are you even involved in this thread and the ones accompanying this one? Why do you bother? Can you prove the postulate of SR that holds that the relative velocity of light and moving frame will always be measured as C? No, you can't do this, because if you did this you'd end up working at MacDonald's, who are hiring by the way, and their sign said they'll train you too!. You realize that when you accepted all that stuff from your Wizard of Oz, you logically adopted loss of simultaneity, absolute time and space and of course time dilation and frame contraction? Look at all the physics you discard by discarding the velocity of the observer in the moving frame who is measuring the relative velocity of her frame and photon? Of course you will get the "right answer" with all your contrived mathematics, none of which is based on physical law and realism, especially nullifying physical data before it is obtained, to wit, the frame velocity in relative photon and frame velocity measurements.
A fixed point on the Earth is not inertial. There are frames which are inertial in a limited sense. You may understand it, but I never said that... nice try. You don't pay attention do you? The frames ARE the analogy. Nobody except the kooks on this site talk about the reality of mation and inertial frames. Everyone else is talking about whether those ideas provide correct results. I like playing with retarded people. They are so cute. You said this before, and I gave you a link... which you kindly ignored. I'm not finiding it again, but it had to do with light measurements from a binary star. And? Sorry bub, but the results DO agree with reality.
I was aware of the conclusion drawn based on mis-application of the mass concept. In my opinion, only if someone think that the increase of (kinetic) energy of moving object (implying the increase of mass, based on m=E/c<sup>2</sup>) is mystical, that is as if the mass(energy) come from nowhere, then he or she would have to face the "black hole paradox". The energy does not come from nowhere, it is either supplied or it is due to the relative velocity between the reference frames. Consider as a rough approximation, an object with rest mass M moves accross at certain distance from earth and at certain relative velocity, in such a way that the total energy of this object is equivalent to 2M. The weight of this object still 2M*g, where g is the earth gravitational acceleration at the respective distance. However, this object would never collapse and become a black hole whatever close its relative velocity to c, as in the reference frame of that object, its mass remain as M. Based on the scenario that I proposed in my response to JamesR's post, I picked spinning ball instead of linearly moving object. Theoretically, this spinning ball could accumulate lots of energy...but, if we try to compute the required spin for it to accumulate enough energy for it to become a black hole, I suspect (since I did not carry out the actual computation) the ball's molecules would first fly apart due to the spin before it accumulate enough energy. Therefore, in practice, the ball would never become a black hole either. Obviously, since electromagnetic interaction fails to keep the ball's molecules together, gravitational interaction has no chance to do it any better.
