"Mass doesn't change with speed" DEBUNKED

"Mass doesn't change with speed" DEBUNKED is a rebuttal of a posted theory that, within Einstein Relativity, time transformation is self consistent, but inertial mass transformation is invalid.

According to Einstein Relativity, an observer can only use measuring instruments which are stationary with respect to said observer, to avoid the instruments themselves suffering transformation. An observer especially cannot rely upon instruments inhabiting the relatively moving subject of the observation.

Nearly a century ago, the famous twin paradox was claimed solved by the publication of General Relativity; the one who has enjoyed real acceleration being priviledged to have the benefits of slowed time, contracted length, and increased inertial mass resulting from transformation resulting from relative velocity. The stationary observer has to make do without transformed time, space, or mass.

Angular momentum is a function of mass and its velocity in a spinning object. That means that there are other terms in the equation but we can neglect them and still effectively make a point. A specific particle in a flywheel has a velocity which exactly depends on flywheel RPM. A flywheel spinning at N RPM will have an angular momentum as a function of m X N RPM. If the same flywheel spins at 2N RPM the momentum depends on m X 2N. Spin it at N/2 RPM and the momentum depends on m X N/2.

A flywheel has been weighed on the laboratory scales. It has been mounted in frictionless clipped nanotube bearings and enclosed in a bell jar jam packed full of highest grade hard vacuum. In its frictionless environment we can spin it up to any certain RPM and use it in a lengthy science experiment without expecting it to lose any measureable RPM.

The flywheel is spun up to N RPM according to the laboratory clock. Then it is placed in Einstein's famous rocket and a twin is engaged to fly it past the laboratory at .866c. Special Relativity time dilation predicts that an observer in the laboratory can look through binoculars and time the flywheel at N/2 rpm according to the laboratory clock. And General Relativity predicts that the moving twin and flywheel are unilaterally suffering slowed time.

The laboratory observer realizes that when the moving flywheel displays half its original RPM it is also displaying half its original angular momentum. The observer quakes at the anticipation of publishing the experiment and having to admit that he was the one who killed conservation of momentum. If only there was a way to cook the books and finagle the momentum so that when time gets smaller, inertial mass gets bigger. But the Nobel in Physics has just been awarded to great master debater and its gang of Four Stoogi who mathematically proved that time is transrformed, but inertial mass is not, in Special Relativity.

But if....if inertial mass were increased by GAMMA synergistically as time were decreased by GAMMA, then momentum could still be conserved.

Oh well, abolishing conservation of momentum is a small price to pay for making a beautifully neat miniscule change to Relativity math.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Firstly, the transformation of mass is not invalid. It is a valid paradigm, but not the most useful. It is more useful to transform momentum than mass.

Secondly, the angular momentum of a particle about some origin is defined as:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's the cross product of radius and momentum.

Applying this to a relativistic flywheel is not trivial.

Things to consider:
1) The radius of an elements of the wheel will change (length contraction)
2) The momentum vector will usually not be perpendicular to the radius
3) The momentum magnitude will have a different relativistic gamma factor at different parts of the wheel.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You could have saved a lot of bandwidth just by saying, "I haven't the foggiest idea of what the mathematical proof actually means."

Conservation of momentum isn't abolished when the invariant mass is used. This has already been proven in the other thread. Running away and starting a new thread isn't going to change that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Driven by morbid curiousity, I actually read this schlock.

The only thing this demonstrates is that angular momentum is frame-dependent. We all knew that already. This thought experiment just shows that during the period in which the rocket was non-inertial, Newton's second law (and therefore the conservation laws) did not hold. That is no surprise to anyone who actually understands relativity, because the relativity postulate defines inertial frames to be the frames in which the laws of physics hold good.

 

Wrong, in classicak mechanics, angular momentum is a function of position and momentum. In SR it is an antisymmetrical tensor.

Wrong again!!!
Even in classical mechanics, Every particle of the flywheel will have a velocity that depends also on its position

In the laboratory frame, the flywheel total momentum will be zero.

OK

 

My post is pretty much self consistent and legitimate. Anyone craving and desperate to claim that Special Relativity can be dreamed of as being self consistent and legitimate IF only time is transformed but inertial mass is not has a much greater burden of proof to bear than what the Four ( and more ) Stooges have posted.

 

Your post is legitimate but not self consistent. I showed you the inconsistencies of tour post, but as you don't understand them, all you have to say is that you are right

 

When the Flywheel's edge reaches to speed of light; The entire Laboratory must collapse inside Earth since its mass will be ....

 

Err...Mind explaining how both of those can be true at the same time? :bugeye:

 

No, your post is complete bullshit, and you have been told why.

Wrong. I have no duty to teach you basic physics, mathematics, and logic. It's your job to get up to speed on those things. SR is self-consistent because the Lorentz transformations are a linear bijective map from one frame to another. That means that it is mathematically impossible to derive a contradiction from SR. If you had ever studied SR (or even linear algebra), you would know that.

 

I meant that is legitmate to post some gendanken experiment to try to give its point, but it its post is completely flawed.

It might be also that I don't understand the meaning of the word l"egitimate", since English is not my mother tongue. I use it like the word in french "legitime". If it is not the same, then I appologize

 

No need to apologize, I was just confused. When CAN-o'-GAS claimed that his post is legitimate, he was claiming that it is correct. It sounded like you were agreeing on that much, when your own analysis of his post made it clear that you don't agree with it.

 

Trilaeleron and the rest of the gang of Four Stoogi have not yet cogently responded to my claim that, within Einstein Relativity, self consistency is not sustained, due to the failure of conservation of momentum, if time transformation is permitted but inertial mass transformation is denied.

Does the Gang of Four Stoogi therefore claim that the conservation of momentum is not relevant to modern physics?

 

The thread origination post is clear enough for a small child to understand.

Angular momentum is a function of mass and RPM. Anyone who does not understand what the phrase "function of" means is not fit to comment in a science forum.

When the laboratory bound observer first observes a certain RPM, in the lab, and later observes half of that RPM, regardless of where the flywheel is located, the observer has no choice except to calculate that the tangential velocity of any given particle in the flywheel has dropped to half its original value and therefore the angular momentum of the whole flywheel has dropped to half its original amount.

Does the Gang of Four Stoogi agree with this extremely basic physics and arithmetical fact or claim otherwise?

 

According to Einstein Relativity, when a laboratory bound observer observes a fast moving object whizz by, the observer will observe a time transformation, frequently called a " time dilation", in the moving object, so that the physical processes in the moving object will be apparently slowed down compared to the laboratory time.

Does the Gang of Four Stoogi agree that Einstein Relativity predicts this ? Or does the Gang of Four Stoogi disagree?

 

Tensors transform in a frame covariant way. That implies that it is impossible to have fundamentaly different physics or even different physics in frame transforming physics modeled by tensor equations. Have you even looked at the tensor expression for the angular momentum that you were told about yet?

 

I'm not a member of the 'gang', but I agree that is what Einstein's original theory predicts.
I think 'time dilation' itself is not understood by most, however. Electromagnetic processes in a fast-moving frame will seem to slow when compared to the original 'rest' frame. An atomic clock, either cesium or rubidium, will slow when moved deeper into a gravity well. The atomic clock will seem to slow in both instances, so most assume 'time' is dilated. That assumption is debatable. Consider the following example.

Start with two atomic clocks and two hypothetical flywheels turning on frictionless bearings, all at rest with respect with each other. Synch the flywheels to rotate with a distant microsecond pulsar, one which has a period of 100 rotations per second as measured by the atomic clocks. Now move one atomic clock and one flywheel deeper into a gravity well. The atomic clock which has moved deeper into the well will slow relative to the clock in the original rest frame, but the flywheel which has also moved will not. The flywheel which has moved will continue to keep synch with the pulsar and the flywheel at the original position. Same thing will happen with a flywheel and clock which are accelerated to a high velocity through spacetime, then allowed to coast in an inertial frame of reference. The atomic clock will be seen to beat slower, but the flywheel rotating on the frictionless bearings will continue to keep its synchronization with the pulsar and the other flywheel.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, an atomic clock on a mountaintop will beat faster than an atomic clock in a valley, but the rotation rate of the Earth is unchanged regardless of the clock's location. It is the atomic clock itself that is affected by gravity and motion, not 'time' in the rest of the universe. And, yes, 'c' is relatively slower in extreme gravity when compared with the 'c' in a location minimally effected by gravity. JMHO.

 

There have been posters in this thread who have demonstrated a range of lack of physics and logic skills. All those who are clueless about the nature and definition of angular momemtum are advised to borrow their Dad's or older sister's college physics textbook and put in a good bit of serious study time. Your grade school science books probably don't adequately cover the subject.

Recommended:
Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, second edition

Raymond Serway

Saunders College Publishing

ISBN 0-03-004854-0

Most have demonstrated such a total vacuity of understanding of angular momentum that you must be assigned to thoroughly study both Chapters Ten and Eleven. Just start reading on page 194 and keep going until you run out of chocalate milk and get up to get Mommy to fix you some more.

Those of you, ( again, most ), who do not understand the principle of time transformation, or, as most say, time dilation in Einstein Relativity are assigned to carefully study Chapter 39. Pages 906 through 909 emphasize time dilation. As above, just start reading on page 897 and continue until you need to get up and get Mommy to give you some more sugar cookies.

You have wasted far too much of my time already. The playroom is all yours. Pick up all your toys when you leave.

So that my position is again clearly stated, in opposition to the propositioned claim made by Trilaralon that Einstein Relativity must be explained by embracing time dilation but denying inertial mass transformation:

I claim that Einstein Relativity fails to be self consistent if it does not embrace inertial mass transformation.

I claim that in Einstein Relativity momentum cannot be proved to be conserved when inertial mass transformation is denied.

I claim that in Einstein Relativity angular momentum particularly is observed to be not conserved; a spinning flywheel stationary in the laboratory will be observed to have a specific RPM. When the spinning flywheel is unaltered except to provide it with linear velocity relative to the laboratory, time transformation causes the laboratory observers to observe it to have a lower RPM. Since angular momentum is a FUNCTION of the flywheel's inertial mass and of its RPM, the same spinning flywheel is observed to have one amount of angular momentum stationary in the laboratory versus a different amount of angular momentum when it is executing linear velocity with respect to the laboratory and its observers.

I claim that the only way to demonstrate conservation of angular momentum in such a circumstance is to presume that the inertial mass of the flywheel is increased by transformation due to the linear velocity in lock step with the decrease of RPM is caused by time transformation due to the linear velocity.

These points have already been posted by me too many times. It is my guess that the juveniles who have using Daddy's computer to make posts here have also first gotten into Daddy's whisky cabinet or maybe his stash, and have as a consequence been unable to read correctly or perform simple logical thinking.

The Bozos have served me well; before these threads I have never closely scrutinized the momentum conservation failure of Special Relativity. Thanks to the clowns' antics, I have been spurred to clearly formulate one more serious objection to the legitimacy of Einstein Relativity, and it is, in fact perhaps the strongest theoretical objection available.

So, Four Stoogi, thank you. I have squeezed as much help out of you as I need, and now I must conserve my time and energy for useful things.

Remember! Pick up all your toys before you leave. Neatness of this playroom is a function of your tidiness.

 

I guess I'd better get cracking on MASS EXPLAINED then.