"Mass doesn't change with speed" DEBUNKED

I think the simplest way of looking at it is via kinetic energy. If you accelerate a cannonball to 1000m/s in deep dark space, you say you've given it kinetic energy. If you then accelerate to 1000m/s yourself so that you're flying alongside the cannonball, its mass feels the same. But you can't see that kinetic energy any more, to all extents and purposes it's gone. You have to account for it somehow, and the only column you've got to put it in is in the cannonball, in the mass, whatever you measure it to be. It's the same principle as measuring space and time, and it fits the relativity pattern nicely. Putting definitions aside for a moment, nobody thinks in terms of invariant metres, so why should we think in terms of invariant mass?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I'm fluent in both English and mathematics. You clearly aren't, and that is why you can't seem to understand anything about anything.

Incorrect. There is no "wrong" frame in SR, in that there is no preferred frame of reference. It doesn't matter if you're talking about the lifetime if a subatomic particle, the length of a ruler, or the angular momentum of a flywheel. Every inertial observer's claims are equally valid in SR.

I don't know where you got that from, but it certainly isn't a physics textbook. Time dilation occurs reciprocally among inertial frames. Accelerated frames needn't be brought into it at all.

I already pointed out to you in Post 4 that a noninertial observer will not agree that the laws of mechanics hold good. That would include conservation of angular momentum. But the frame dependence of angular momentum has nothing to do with its conservation. In SR, whether or not you adopt the convention of relativistic mass, all inertial observers agree that angular momentum is conserved.

No, the only valid opinion is that conservation laws hold in inertial frames, and that they don't necessarily hold in noninertial frames. That shouldn't be too surprising because it's only one of the postulates of relativity!

Wrong on both counts. It's plainly obvious that you have no comprehension of physics beyond "what goes up, must come down".

No, I have been arguing on topic the entire time. The simple fact of the matter is that you are too stupid to see it.

Again, your inability to understand what you read has hamstrung you. It seems that you only digested the title of his thread, and that the rest of what he wrote went completely over your head. In Post 1 of his thread he showed that relativistic mass is not implied by SR, and in Post 17 of that thread he conceded that Einstein did use it. But the main point of that thread, which you seem to have completely missed, is that relativistic mass is not forced on us by SR.

And by the way, the word is "mathematical", not "mathemagicke". The fact that you consider valid mathematics and good theoretical physics in some way "magickal" makes you look like a superstitious idiot.

And you're rebuttal is plainly wrong. Every modern physicists uses invariant mass, and there are no inconsistencies with it.

This is pathetic. CAN-O-GAS, it's plainly obvious that you didn't understand a single line of the mathematics. That's why you dismiss it out of hand as "magick" without addressing it.

No, you are the one who has been waving your hands. You haven't backed up anything that you have said with any valid logic. And everything that I have posted does prove you wrong. It is a pity that you are too stupid to see that, but it is in fact the case.

It is not possible to prove false statements.

You don't understand anything about relativity. All of your silly problems would be resolved if you would just study the subject. Of course, you would have to smarten up first to ensure that you don't continue to misunderstand every single thing that you read.

I've been on topic, and your argument is finished. The only one who doesn't see it is you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, that would explain all of your unprovoked attacks on the people of this forum. It especially explains your repeated attacks on people who never return fire, such as James and Pete.

And that would explain all the times you blew off valid responses to your posts as "jibber jabber" and "mathemagicke", and then subsequently went on to pretend that you were never answered.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The reality of the flywheel example is simple. The flywheel does not slow down. That was the reason I brought up the example of a flywheel rotating on frictionless bearings. That is why I claimed the definition of 'time dilation' is debatable. That is why I have been giving examples of two methods of 'counting time', universal and relative.

Example. Bob and Sue are located together in flat spacetime, each with a flywheel and an atomic clock. They synchronize their clocks and spin their flywheels up to 642 rotations per second, the same rotational speed of pulsar 1937+21. Pulsar 1937+21 is the most accurate clock we know of, it not not deviated at all since 1982. Atomic clocks do fluctuate slightly, this pulsar does not.

Now let Sue, carrying her atomic clock and spinning flywheel, move toward a compact object, such as a neutron star or black hole. Bob will see Sue's clock begin to beat slower than his as Sue moves closer to the compact object. Sue is still in Bob's inertial frame even though she moves. According to relativity theory, in this example GR, 'time' is slowing in Sue's frame relative to Bob's frame. Time, as counted by Sue's atomic clock, does slow. But there is a problem with the rotating flywheel she also has, another type of 'clock'. According to Bob and the laws of physics in his inertial frame, the flywheel does not slow. It still spins at 642 rotations per second according to his clock and according to pulsar 1937+21. That is universal time, the same time scale we use in UTC coordinated time, with GPS satellites, etc.
In reality, Sue will measure her flywheel as increasing in rotations per second when measured by her local atomic clock. She will also measure pulsar 1937+21 as increasing in rotations per second when using her local atomic clock. Simply stated, 'time' as measured by local atomic clocks will give accurate measurements for electromagnetic process in that local frame of reference. For example, muons will average 2.2 microseconds before decaying by a local atomic clock moving with the muon. The muon will, however, measure a longer lifetime before decay by a UTC clock if it is moving relative to the comoving frame in which UTC time is valid, the ICRF. UTC time works perfectly with rotating flywheels in any frame of reference. If UTC time is used to measure electromagnetic processes, the value of those measurements will vary according to the local conditions. Physics is the same, but values measure differently. If time based on local atomic clocks is used for electromagnetic decays, etc. in a specific frame of reference, the values of those decays will measure the same in all local 'rest' frames. Rotating flywheels are not bound by the local permittivity and permeability of the vacuum and do not obey the time scale as established by local atomic clocks. Flywheels obey the physics of the universal time scale.

 

Can you back up that assertion, 2inq?

 

Good post 2inq.

 

This is really weird. I am becoming immune to TomTom's insults, profanity, and incessant methodology of refering to science buzz words without ever actually working out a mathemagicke tensor or anything else.

Unless T' has edited his thread start post by now, anybody may check to see that T' plainly stated both in math and language that mass does not change with velocity. T' plainly stated that the Einstein Relativity transformation could only be applied to time but not not to mass. This was in the "Mass does not change with velocity" thread.

In another thread, in direct response to my question, T' plainly stated that the time dilation is real and not a kind of visual illusion.

My thread " ....debunked" was posted in response to utter my opinion that, in Einstein Relativity, momentum is not proved to be conserved unless mass is transformed in addition to time being transformed. My specific example was that of a flywheel running in a frictionless environment which is spun up on the ground and then is flown into space at a high velocity. A real time dilation will cause the stationary observer on Earth to observe a slowed spin RPM of the flying flywheel although the flywheel has not been braked by any known physical process. The stationary observer must calculate the angular momentum of the flywheel to be less than on the ground.

My point is that the missing momentum can only be found by the expedient of presuming that the mass of the flywheel is INCREASED by the flying velocity in equal factor as the RPM is SLOWED by the time dilation of the flying velocity.

Any magicke tensors that T' or TomTom pull out of a hat MUST transform mass in addition to transforming time or else MOMENTUM IS NOT CONSERVED and therefore the Second Postulate ( that all laws of physics work OK for all observers ) is proved to be the persistent idle dream of a crackpot.

Just in case any reader of any of all this is chronically readingly challenged:
I have NOT argued about the legitimacy of Einstein Relativity.
I HAVE argued that the self consistency of Einstein Relativity is lethally damaged by the lack of conservation of momentum.
And I HAVE argued that T's prohibition of mass transformation prevents conservation of momentum.

 

Let's not fight eh guys?

 

You have just shown that the angular momentum is not the same when measured in different frames.

 

I second the motion. However I am the fightee and not the fighter.

 

The ONLY reference frame that I have written about is the reference frame of the stationary observer in the laboratory on the ground on Earth.

First the stationary laboratory observer on Earth observes the spinning flywheel while it is sitting stationary on the lab floor and especially observes its RPM. This is the reference frame of the stationary laboratory observer.

Second the stationary laboratory observer on Earth looks up through binoculars through the window of the flying saucer whizzing by in space and observes the flywheel RPM. This is the reference frame of the stationary laboratory observer.

Please explain your fantasy that I have used two different reference frames or else confess that you have made a trivial post in an effort to harass and divert me.

 

So you claim that the reference frame of rhe flying saucer which is moving according to the lab reference frame is the same ast the lab reference frame, since you claim that there is only one reference frame.

 

You seem to have some noticeable amount of trouble understanding English grammar even when it is very simply and plainly written.

I claim that the reference frame of the stationary observer in the stationary lab on Earth is the ONLY REFERENCE FRAME THAT I HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT.

The reference frame of the lab observer is the one in which I claim that angular momentum is not conserved when Trelerium's posted theory is assumed to be true ( that time dilation in the flying saucer is real but mass transformation is prohibited ).

You are certainly harassing me with trivial and frivolous posts. Explain the rationale for your seemingly pointless questions and comments or please stop wasting my resources and this site's resources.

 

CANGAS,
Have you realized that with your reasoning you have the same problem even at not relativistic velocities?
If you move your spinning disk at slow velocities the momentum is not conserved and you don't have a mass change to compensate.
The problem is that to move your spinning disk you have to accelerate it for a while, this means acting forces and this means the momentum is not conserved! (dp/dt=F not zero!).

By the way, have you made the calculations of your thought mass compensation for momentum? I think the relativistic increase of mass does not match the difference in the momentum.

I believe Relativity is a wrong theory but I know now it can be developed without any "relativistic mass variation" and this way it becomes a little more difficult to beat...

 

If you follow the connection between energy, momentum, and inertia, you will perhaps understand that the thing we call mass is action confined to a location. You'll maybe then appreciate why rest mass is the special case, and relativistic mass is the "real" mass. Which means mass does change with speed. E=hf and E=mc2 means a photon has mass.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61557

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

farsight,
I see you prefer to believe in the most popular interpretation of Relativity Theory with the "relativistic mass" and of course the formulas including the factor γ into the mass but that factor can be taken out redefining the momentum as done by Trilarian which gives a new definition for the Energy and everything can run well for Relativity this way.

Anyway I have presented a feasible experiment that will demonstrate if the real mass does not vary with velocity or not (I cannot do it). Originally I thought it as an argument against Relativity but now I realized i cannot use it for that. Is just a modified version of the old known Davisson-Germer experiment. Please take a look at: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section6-4_The_experiment_as_a_proof.htm
Note that the original Davisson-Germer experiment accelerated electrons with only 50 volts to reach a relatively small velocity (about 1 per cent of C). I propose just to use greater velocities and the same experiment will tell if the mass increase with velocity or not by the De Broglie formula λ=h/mv.

 

Do you also believe that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools?

 

By the way, your equations are wrong:

\(E^2 = m_0^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 = h^2 f^2\)

only implies for a photon that

\(p = \frac{hf}{c}\).

 

Martillo; CANGAS thoroughly realizes that, according to Einstein Relativity, any velocity greater than zero is a relativistic velocity.

The purpose of my start of this thread is not to argue about the validity of Einstein Relativity, but rather, to to claim that Einstein Relativity can only be self consistent, because of the second postulate that all laws of physics must hold true for all observers, when inertial mass is considered to be transformed with velocity.

If you believe that Einstein Relativity can be developed without mass transformation, then I am extremely interested in hearing your explanation of where the angular momentum vanishes to when the stationary observer on Earth observes the flying flywheel to have dropped to less than its original RPM with no mechanical braking.

 

CANGAS,
As I said in my previous post dp/dt is not zero in your experiment since you need to accelerate the "flywheel" to the considered speed of 0.866C and so you have a net force F acting.
Initially, at t1, you have angular momentum p1. Finally, at t2, you have p2.
The difference is p2-p1=Δp.
Now, F=Δp/Δt which is the average force acting on the flywheel through the space-time during the interval Δt=t2-t1.