A point of departure for special relativity theorists and the rest of us.

History of the battery

Or, use the solution as is, insert approriate grid plates and monitor weight changes in real time?
try this for a well written outline of battery dynamics/chemistry and physics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yup, thats how batteries work.
The point about using the batteries is that they are sealed off. If you are measuring tiny amounts it is important to elminate outside interferences. If your weighing ot an accuracy of 1 gram in a kilogram, you have to take less effort to isolate the system than if your weighing to a milligram in a kilogram of sample.

But anyway, if as you also seem to be suggesting, the energy of the batteries is beign transformed into stuff with mass, congratulations, youve got half way to painlessly converting energy to mass and vice versa, without the need for a nuclear reactor or hydrogen bomb. Now if you can work out how to replicate it on a massive worldwide scale.....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

quote:

"But anyway, if as you also seem to be suggesting, the energy of the batteries is beign transformed into stuff with mass, congratulations, youve got half way to painlessly converting energy to mass and vice versa, without the need for a nuclear reactor or hydrogen bomb. Now if you can work out how to replicate it on a massive worldwide scale....."
========================================================

But we would need the energy of that hydrogen bomb inside the battery to
create much mass. You've got it backwards, nuclear reactors and hydrogen
bombs convert mass into energy, not vice versa. Must be that flip-floping
of frames in relativity that has you all mixed up. Particle accelerators increase
mass by using energy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

when you heat water dos it become lighter.....thus decreasing it's weight a battery may get lighter as it charges up rather than get heavier....

 

The water heated probably doesn't move fast enough to see any"mass change'". But look at the nuclear blast. If I am not mistaken the critical mass for an uncotrolled chain reaction is around 80 kg. One separates the fuel into two equal masses, more or less. and accelerates one of the masses toward the other much like firing an artollery shell. When the mass is critical now and there is a ring of magnetic field around this critical mass that gets compressed by an explosion on the ring, compressing the field sufficient to generate a "critical Temperature" , the baby burps and here it goes. This is about it, 80 kg or so can do all that? If we here are counting photon losses for mass losses, and boiling water for mass gain, we aren't close to determining the energy in the systems we have been discussing.

Historical note: Some have quoted the co-pilot on the Enola Gay as saying, "Jesus look what we've done". The tail gunner recorded some crew conversation and he reported the co-pilot as saying: "Jesus Christ, look at that sonofabitch go!."

 

Hi guthrie,
I found a thought experiment called Einstein's box which is supposed to demonstrate that relativity predicts that the torch will lose mass.

My understanding is that the lost mass is from the lost chemical binding energy, which manifests as mass in the same way as nuclear binding energy does.

 

A question on your statement "particles accelerators increase mass by using energy."

Are you referring to the accelerated particle? The acceleated electron definitely goes off the 1/2mv^2 curve. I look at this as a loss of effieciency of the particle to intake the energy, suposedly increasing velocity, as the velocty increases. As the enrgy increases so does the vibrational energy of the particle which acts like it cannot take the energy in, use it to increased velociy and then take in some more. It is alsomst as of the particle hasn't enough time ot use the energy as intended before it has to stop , store what is already on board, and go get another load before the first batch can incease velocty as intended. It ends up simoply storing the unused energy intake, that doesn't get used as velocity increasing, into mass which by now is going along for the ride.

Geistkiesel

 

Exactly as I see it, geistkiesel. I have often 'speculated' on these pages that
the increased energy and mass of the particles was the reason the mean-life
of short-lived particles was increased, not due to 'time dilation.' Even muons
'at rest' have a very wide mean-life range, due to their ENERGY, by my thoughts. Possibly due to near light speeds of charged particles, for instance, through the magnetic field used to guide the particles in the accelerator. The
muon-in-atmosphere effect would be the same, fast moving charged particles
through Earth's magnetic field, increasing their mean-life.

 

If we lookat he energy equation 1/2mv^2 = E and find that m =( 1/2)E/v^2 we need not necessarity look at the V^2 term as returning a number for the speed dx/dt. We can look at it physically and see hat v^2 an very well be a physical operator as oppsoed to t0o a mathematical number generator, It owuld seem reasonable to break the motion of a body into two natural functions, theordinary linear velocity and a vibrational velocit wher ehe speed of he mass in oscialltion is a measure of the mass increase of he paricle, or v^2 = f(V + F),.

Taking as simpole a model as possible we can graph the funcrion scematically as

________________________> V
___<____>_____<___>____< F

where each change of direction of the F term reflects the intrinsic vibration. Notice how on the forward cycle the F and V term add constructively, while on the reverse cycle the F terms subtracts, For low speeds the effect cancels out, or better balances out.

Now how does one constuct a mass ac -> cc inverter/filter analogous to an electronic filter/ Then one could add all the masses in the same direction that is getting wasted as just being there and hanging on for the ride, olr limiting actual speed.

The function written as f(V - F) approaching zero as F => V, but what does this mean? After all it is numerically a squared term, that of motion modulated over time the F - V could get as close to 0 as one was able with out the function blowing up as when v = c in the modern understanding. I'd like to enter one of puppies in the NASCAR tour and kick some butt, that's what I'd do. Think of all the chicks that would be hanging around.

 

This is totally missing the point. First you are assuming that light can be accerelated (How else can your photons arrive at the L and R reflectors at different times). Second you do not specify who is measuring the times of arrival of the photons - that makes all the difference and is the whole point of SR. And by the way, what on earth can "a little bit of Dx" mean? If you meant the derivative dx then it is itself the smallest "bit" imaginable - and when you say that "this little bit of Dx/Dt" is all that tells you there is motion, well yes. Velocity is defined as ds/dt, there's nothing else. I suspect you are confusing yourself with an over-elaborate thought experiment. SR is based on only two axioms - constancy of light velocity, and preservation of the laws of nature in all inertial frames. The rest follows as a matter of bare mathematical logic. You dont have to accept the axioms, but it sounds to me as though you have not read the original article. Try it - it isn't hard.

 

Quarkhead, an interesting post, it seems you’ve been digging.
In order for you to understand what I have been doing read he following and then see if you are able to defeat the analytical results with any hing iother than your assesment iof psychiological states of mind. Try a serious physical analysis using laws of physics that are unambiguously proved from experimental results. I am not being confrintational here, in the slightest, but this seems to be the modus operandi of SR theorists protecting their motherlode.
Your question of ‘acceleration’ I don’t quite understand. The left moving light gets to the L detector before the right moving light arrives at the Right detector.

L |____|ß--------------|------|----------à____|____||R
0 1 0 1
Vt ct 0 1 ct 2vt
The sketch shows the fame at t = 0 and t = 1 after the photons emitted from the midpoint of Land R had traveled a distance ct with respect to the midpoint. L has moved toward the oncoming photons while R has moved away from the photon, hence the L detector sees the photon before the R detector.


Now looking at what the right moving photon sees is à_________*_________|||||
Which is identical to the above Where the “*” marks off the distance vt and the “||||” the little dx/dt that the photon must cross when moving through the 2vt distance, remember the fame is moving with respect to the embankment, which we are not concerned with and with respect to the original midpoint defined by the location of the source of the photons, which is an invariant location, for all purposes – theory doesn’t move it, nor do ‘ground zero’ nuclear blasts.

In the little sketch, the photon covers a distance vt + vt + vt’ in the time t’ it takes the frame to move tat little tiny distance (dx/dt)(t’) = vt’ or ct’ = 2vt + vt’, where after the algebra, t’ = t(2v)/(c –v).

If t’ not 0 then motion if t’ > 0 then motion.

The same situation above is seen by the left moving light after reflection and returning to the same position as the original midpoint now moved. Here the left photon arrives at the physical midpoint simultaneous with the now reflected right photon. The clock at the moving frame physical midpoint will record a time t’ as a difference in the process compared to where the frame is stationary on the embankment, or E frame f reference.

In a later “model” I had computers replace the mirrors and record the times of all arrivals of the photons at all detectors including the midpoint. In comparing the database of L and R computers the L detector records a photon arrival before the R computer recorded an arrival. The two photons spend the same transmission time of flight.

Let us assume that the times we discuss here are all with respect to the moving frame which synchronizes the computer clocks and midpoint clock by striking mechanical switches on the E frame that physically toggles all electronic devices simultaneously, or any other synchronization process that would satisfy you.

As the photon arrivals at the L and R computer/detector/reflector are different L, before R, and as the photons arrive simultaneously at the midpoint t’ less than the nonmoving experimental arrangements the moving frame observer sees the L => R direction inferred from the delta t of the L and R computer data.

If you assume, because I will not, that there is time dilation, this does not explain away the difference in arrival of the photons at L and R, which cannot be measured until the photons arrive back at the midpoint. In other words an observer at L cannot inform an observer at R that L got a photon before the R observer can compare and see that the R didn’t get a photon. Information travels at the speed of light, a constant. Frame contraction is useless to explain the different arrival times at L and R, as the contraction is necessarily symmetric.

What is invariant is the midpoint of the original emission of the photons located by its lonesome self. This is easily confirmed where here is an E frame for verification, and this being the case let us just remove all external references when the photos are emitted (notice I said that the E frame only verifies the invariant location of the point of emission of the photons which originally is co-located with the physical midpoint of the frame).

We perform the experiment 10^6 times then, we expose the trick by showing that the E frame was a holographic illusion and that the all 10^6 experiments were conducted in free space.

Now you may have some SR formulae you use to explain the above, so why don’t you compare some arbitrary velocity ‘v’ and total length of the frame D, which I didn’t use. All measurements are photon reference with the photon's point of emission. I do not mean the speed of light or hat photon is the reference point I mean the point of origin of the photons, which is not a moving object, not subject to the motion of the source (use an E frame source of light, the result is the same naturally), nor of any force, as that emission point is more an real coordinate frame, reality, as opposed to the abstract and mathematically contrived substitute, including Galilean coordinate frames of reference which ought to be discarded, immediately.

Caveat emptor: Do you realy believe that it is impossible to measure unaccelerated motion in umiformly moving systems then
scroll down to the appropriate frame This might put a chink in your armor (very doubtful), if you can understand the process, that is. Most SRists who have looked at it answer with scorn, which leaves me believing they don't understand physics, whether there are errors or not.

Thank you Quarkhead for your interest in the post.

Geistkiesel

 

Why not a "Physical Challenge", does the word "Physics" frighten you Yuriy?

Why don't you just start a thread on your own and quit asuming you have some kind of special knowledge or power to assume control over this forum? If you are so smart and knowledge ale form your thread in words that will truly make your theses hold? You run from ideas that are, "sehr fremde, nicht var?"

You always want to close something that is making you nervous Yuriy, why is that? Anger?

Geistkiesel

 

Look on the entrance page of our Forum and you will (I hope so...) recognize why...
But the worse thing is that in all these threads we see the same people with the same arguments that by necessity require the same line of logic. Why we do not collect all these issues in one thread? Why we have to see your 'invention" in numerous threads, if nothing new is appearing in it principal?... And read what people say about our Forum because of that.
And do not be afraid about me: the last time I was scared many, many years ago... And notice: I never said anything about your features; by one simple reason – I do not care about that…

 

Why don't you just accept the fact that there are some out here that don't by into your belief system. Your tired theories and BS stink Yuriy. Yuriy for all your intrusions you ahve not taen one, not a single point I have made in many posts and found a fault that you can defeat with application of the laws of physics.

How would you react to the suggestion that the tired old SR theories be excluded from this forum, or otherwise obstruct the flow of SR information and discussion? Go fuck yourself Yuriy.

 

The problem here is that it doesn't matter if you buy into it or not. Unless you can show it is flawed, your opinion doesn't matter. It's about predicting what happens... and relativity does that job well.

 

I've showed SR fatally flawed to my understanding. This is amplified by the fact that only on rare occasions has anyone attacked what ever theses I was discussing within the four corners of the document. I must add that this modus operandi of the SR industry is not just seen by myself. It is painfully obvious. Most SR obsjections are either in the form of personal attacks or talking in terms that add nothing to the discussion such as how many experiments prove this or that, as opposed to bringing the substantive issue s of those experiments to the forum table drectly.

Your one liners are probably a relief to some, for their brevity if nothing else. However, Persol, the subject of the post to which you are referring is dangerously clsoet scuttling SR, and knowing that SRists will not admit to such gross personal mismanagament of their individual intellects that the problem will be with us for some time. If you are looking for an answer quieting the SR disturbances you will be waiting a very long time, unless that is, the SR industry can form physical arguments using other than their precious
formulae.

In my model that I diagramed above can you see where I said anything indicating that the moving frame was accelerated? This is what QuantumQuark assumed by one of his questions, as I understood him. He still hasn't answeredn my post in reply to his post. Oh well.
Geistkiesel

Geistkiesel

 

If youaer referring to me Geist I would apologise but am unable to find where I stated such......maybe you can point it out for me...?

 

Only Geistkiesel could confuse Quarkhead with Quantum Quark. Just between you and me QQ, I thinks there's a conspiracy con-fuzh-un, me 'an U. .
All is well. The guards were alert at their posts and intercepted an intruding interloper, playing like he was a ghost, Ha, Ha..
Geistkiesel

 

GK - I do you the courtesy of considering carefully your model, and humbly suggest you consider the following:
a) your two photons, travelling respectively L and R are independent events and cannot be arbitrarily rolled into one;
b) that said, we can consider only one event at a time. Take the R-moving photon.
Seeing your apparatus moving relative to me at velocity v, I see the light path as ct + vt;
c) you, moving with your apparatus, see the light path as ct. Therefore I judge the path to be greater than you do, therefore I conclude that the measuring rod you use to measure the path is shorter than mine; this is length contraction in the direction of motion.
d) leaving this as it is leaves t ill-defined. Q: what is the interval t? You say it is the time taken to travel the distance ct + vt. Q: what is the distance ct + vt? You say it is the distance travelled in time t. It is a circular argument
e) you quite rightly say that we can only know about the time taken and the distance travelled by your photon by reflecting it back to us, presumably to the point of emission. In which case the distance travelled is ct - vt. In other words, total distance = (ct + vt) + (ct - vt)

I was about to get patronising and do the math for you. I'm not that sort of person, however (it's all the texts anyway).

And finally - I hope you do not assume that the situation seen by you ("co-moving" with your apparatus) is the same as seen by me (not co-moving); v is relative velocity. Nobody has to accept that it is, but then it is encumbent on them to say what, other than c is absolute velocity and what is absolute rest.

If only this site would support simple graphics and math notation (especially indices)life would be much longer! I have a grahical way of describing SR with almost no words. What a relief that would be.

QH

 

I am not really capable of following the ins and outs of this discussion, but these two points interest me. If you would care to, I'd love to hear the logic behind them.

What actually is an " independent event" anyway?

Cheers,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!