A small problem for legendary JamesR on Relativity

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

False. Not that F = ma is a proper format for Reltivity but that to simply state it means the conclusion is in error.

False. Relativity claims that it takes infinite energy to accelerate an object to v = c and at 0.95c it takes 3.2 times the energy that a simular acceleration reqires from rest.

Agreed.

Correct and that replacement says that to accelerate your car or spacship toward the Quasar ejecta having a relative velocity of 0.95c to you requires that you apply 3.2 times the energy to get the same acceleration.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Go back to sleep Paul T. You are out of your league here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Precisely. LIkewise it takes 3.2 times more energy to go from 0 - 60 Mph when doing so referancing the Quasar mass. Or to keep you from mixing apples and oranges once again, to accelerate from 0.95c to 0.95c + 60 Mph.

 

Of course the mass of the Quasar ejecta is not at issue. A single electron or for that matter a hypothetical point in space as a refereance which extablishes a relavistic velocity is the issue. The Quasar data was cited because it exists and is not some tought experiment.

It moves toward us and any acceleration relative to it must show an increase in energy.

Point being since we do not see any affect of increased energy moving in the direction of such mass moving relavistically toward us is the issue.

If 3.2 times the energy is incorrect then perhaps you will state what the value is and thereafter justify the absence of any such affect being observed.

 

Mac, it takes exactly as much energy to accelerate from 0 to 60Mph as it takes to accelerate from 0.95c to 0.95c + 6 Mph (Yes, 6. It's not a typo).

Why?
Because it's exactly the same thing!

When you accelerate from 0 to 60mph, you have also accelerated from 0.95c to 0.95c + 6 mph (not 60).

 

You are so sloopy. You never say thing correctly.

Now, what relativity do you want to use? Gallilean or Einstenian? You want to accelerate a mass from 0.95c to 0.95c+0.001c (for instance, instead of your 60 mph). So, what is the final velocity of this 0.95c+0.001c. You thought it must be 0.951c? That was result using Gallilean relativity...it is WRONG.

Let's compute energy requirement to accelerate a mass from at rest to velocity of 0.001c relative to one reference frame, say earth. First of all, since this velocity is relatively small, we still can estimate the result using Newtonian mechanics.

E = 0.5*m*(0.001c)² = 0.0000005mc²

Note: Its momentum is 0.001mc (we will need this later)

What is the energy requirement relative to the quasar ejecta reference frame which, in this case, moves toward the earth at velocity 0.95c? Now we have to use SR's kinetic energy equation.

First we have to compute 0.95c + 0.001c, which MacM stupidly thought as 0.951c, it is not. The correct result is 0.9500974c and the energy required to accelerate a mass m from 0.95c to this 0.9500974c is:

E' = 0.003044mc²

This result can be also obtained using Lorentz transformation:

E' = gamma*(E+pv) = 3.2*(0.0000005mc²+0.001mc*0.95c)=0.003044mc²

Of course E'/E is much more than 3.2 that MacM's claim. That's why I said, he wasn't comparing apple to apple. He just mixed up with something else, for instance comparing energy requirements obtained using two difference concept (Gallilean and Einstenian).

To make the comparison apple to apple, simply compute energy requirement based on Gallilean relativity this way:

E = 0.5*m*(0.951c)²-0.5*m*(0.95c)²=0.0009505mc²

Now, this E'/E is 3.2! This is what appear to be his stupid quest, comparing energy requirement obtained respectively based on Einsteinian relativity and Gallilean relativity (wrong one as we know).

 

There is no such effect, because your car or your spacecraft is on the same inertial reference frame. You STILL unable to understand this basic SR's postulate?

 

That is a back door dodge. By reducing the delta velocity you keep the energy the same. that is another way of not admitting that to go from 0 - 60 Mph requires MORE energy. You have not altered the result, you lowered the v = at to rquire the same energy.

Try again.

 

NO. Lets do not. Lets keep it as I have stated. The energy reqired (using your choice of velocities) of going from 0 - 0.001c relative to the Quasar ejecta vs going from 0.95c to 0.95c+0.001c relative to the Quasar ejecta.

 

Something which is rarely applied when discussing Relativity. "Common Sense".

This has nothing to do with "Counter Intuitive" it has to do with physical facts. Relativity claims that to accelerate relative to any point of referance at v = c requires infinite energy. I have only pointed out that there exist in the universe numerous objects which are in relative motion to us at substantial relavistic velocities and for such relationship to exist it wuld necessarily cause use to see differances in F = ma, in terms of Hp for example to accelerate in different directions where such objects are in high relavistic motion.

Since we see no changes in F = ma then such objects have no affect and to claim that acceleration relative to those points causes an increased energy requirement are false.

Granted we cannot measure such objects with any precision but at 0.95c or one which is supposed to be 0.99c (7 times the energy required) means we could see such affects on the performance of our cars, rockets etc when accelerating in different directions.

You cannot simply turn on and off Relativity at will. It either functions when we are not looking or it doesn't function period.



Ok, though I think it will be a complete waste of my time.

60 mph is approximately 30 metres per second, or 10^-7c.

The correct ratio is, from above (gf - gi)/(g - 1)

Plugging in the numbers.

When v=60 mph, g = 1 + some very tiny amount
When v=0.95c, gi = 3.202563076
When v=0.95c + 60 mph, gf = 3.202566197

So, the correct ratio is huge - certainly much larger than 3.2.

Your numbers are very inconvenient, so let's do the same calculation for an accleration from 0 to 0.1c, as opposed to 0.8 to 0.9c. In that case:

g = 1.005038
gi = 1.666667
gf = 2.294157

The ratio in that case would be

(2.294157 - 1.666667)/(1.005038 - 1) = 124.5

In other words, in a single frame, it takes about 124.5 times the amount of energy to accelerate a mass from 0.8c to 0.9c as it takes to accelerate the same mass from rest to 0.1c.[/QUOTE]

 

Actually it works fine. It is the false contridictary claims being made for it that are the problem.

Actually what we have seen is no physical support for the claim that such affect exists.

Please cite one case where we see an increase of power required to accelerate in any particular direction. We know there are masses moving relavistically from many directions, yet there are no such hot spots in our physics.

You example is of a case where the particle is in relative motion to the field accelerating it. Since EM has an inherent v = c limit it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why it appears to become more difficult to accelerate.

The same can be said for pushing a car with a car that has a speed governor on it. As you approach the speed limit of the pushing car, it doesn't matter how big your engine is you can't push the other car any faster.

Why not because they are a thorn in your theory? You choose to ignore the study which showed your famous "Illusion Solution" can only answer a realtively few of such obvservations. the others lack the required "Blue Shift" which I also first pointed out to you, to be cases of material coming at us along our line of sight.

Your answers are also. You have not justified the failure of Relativity considering there are many objects moving at relavistic speeds relative to us and there are no affects on our ability to accelerate in those directions.

 

I don't think you're following Mac... Read it again.
Going from 0-60 Mph is exactly the same as going from 0.95c to 0.95c + 6Mph - when you do one, you've done the other.

Naturally, that means they take the same energy.

Which one do you usually notice?

When accelerating from 0 to 60, do you usually notice that you've only changed your velocity by 6mph in a quasar-ejecta-frame?

I don't... I only notice that my velocity has changed by 60mph in the frame of the road.

 

Are you switching scenarios, Mac?

You're not talking about going from 0-0.001c relative to the ejecta - you're talking about going from 0-0.001c on Earth, are you not?

Here's my understanding of your argument, summarized.
Please correct any misunderstanding:

• I accelerate on Earth from 0 to 0.001c.
• I happen to be accelerating toward some high speed quasar ejecta, approaching Earth at 0.95c.
• This means that I'm actually accelerating from 0.95c to 0.951c relative to that ejecta.
• Much more energy than usually expected is required to accelerate by that amount at high speeds
• Therefore, I should have spent much more energy than expected when accelerating from 0 to 0.001c

Can you spot the point at which I think the logic breaks down?

 

Boy you are desperate. I said forget earth. The challenge is "Does it take substantially more energy to go from 0.95c - 0.95c+ 60 Mph than it does to go from 0 - 60 Mph.

Since you want to play games lets stick with your ratios and ask for a or rocket do we see more energy required to go from 0 - 6,000 Mph than we do to go from 0.95c to 0.95c + 6,000 Mph based on direction of acceleration considering the relative motion of Quasar ejecta?

Of course not? Relativity fails to present itself outside the case where the relative velocity is between the particle and its driving energy source.

 

The reference has always been relative to the Quasar ejecta. The issue of respecive velocities on earth is moot. We do not see any variation in F = ma on earth at any velocity. Relativity looses. There is not increaed energy reqired to accelerate as a function of only relative motion to some other object.

The only case where such affect is noted is in accelerators and that is due to relative velocity between the particle and its driving energy source which has a finite speed limit.

It makes perfect sense that a mass would become harder to accelerate (the need for a differential force) when the driving energy has a speed limit.