Nor do I. False. I have no illusions about the fact that my work is primarily supposition based on solid physical principles but has virtually no testing or mathematical support. The lack of mathematical support is however, NOT the same as mathematics inconsistant with facts. That is there is nothing which shows any inconsistancy of the basic concept with reality. I would have to say that even if every part of my view is one day verified it would not result in any prize. What I advocate is simply sound physics and a prize is not granted for NOT altering existing principles. It is like "Don't reward Johnny for not kicking grandma". It has not been my ego that seems to be in the way of progress.
Well I interpreted that if MacM was saying something, then he was talking, and thus sound was being produced. I realize everything MacM has "said" on this forum has been in written form but I always imagine MacM yelling at the monitor as he types..
I haven't read all your UniKEF theory, so have no idea why it would apply to a clock in a rocket, but not the rocket. I calculate potential energy gradients. Put the clock in the rocket, and tell me why the clock changes, and the rocket does not.
Oh yes James R, how about you paint some art for me? Better yet, just get a couple of buckets of paint and slam them against the canvas. Maybe the buckets will break open and art will be made..
Aer: I thought you agreed in the "Gravitation" thread to leave your personal issues alone and talk physics.
What does time dilation have to do with thrust of a rocket where thrust is a local property with no relative velocity? What NEW affect of SRT are you proposing? I know of none that say rocket thrust is a function of relative velocity to another observer. Relative velocity is not a local affect (that is why it is called relative). Thrust is a local property regardless of acceleration induced motion and there is no relative veloicty hence no affect on thrust. PS: All of this has absolutely nothing to do with UniKEF.
Quit picking and choosing. If you believe the effect on the clock is not due to its relative velocity, then what does relative velocity have to do with your rocket? SRT predicts an effect on thrust, it does this by claiming a change in mass (same claim as the inability to accelerate a particle in a linear accelerator to c). The math for an "energy transfer efficiency" change due to velocity accounts for both the "time dilation" of the clock, and the mass increase of your rocket (and the particle in the accelerator). It's not "NEW", it's a different interpretation of existing predictions.
I don't want to seem crude here but you are making no sense what-so-ever. The purported delta mass is a function of relative velocity. What relative velocity do you see in a rocket between its fuel, thrust engine and rocket load? In case you have missed it elsewhere I have posted numerous times that a particle in a particle accelerator is being propelled by an EM wave traveling at v = c, relative to the stationary accelerator. You have a relavistic velocity in the energy transfer between a particle and its driving energy source the coils. In a rocket you have no relative velocity between the rocket components creating thrust. What precisely do you think creates a change in thrust? Some remote observer. Give me a break. :bugeye: No it isn't see above. You are not inducing thrust by pushing it from earth or some other relative rest position. You are pushing it from within its own inertial system. Do you think we find any ansitropy in orientation of particle accelerators? If what you want to claim were true then the fact that there are remote galaxies at the edge of the universe that have a relative velocity to us should severly limit how fast we could accelerate particles in certain directions. BTW: What are your physics qualifications?
You're getting confused because you're failing to take care with different reference frames, as usual. Let's pin this down. The thrust of a rocket is defined as the exhaust velocity relative to the rocket multiplied by the rate of burning of the fuel. The acceleration of the rocket due to the thrust does change if you watch the rocket from a stationary frame (such as a "fixed" point in space), and so does the thrust, as defined, in a different frame. Why? Because the stationary observer sees the rate of fuel burning decrease due to time dilation. (Last time I checked you believed in this kind of time dilation, though that may not be true today, since you blow in the breeze.) Therefore, in that frame, it is obvious that the thrust decreases as the rocket gets faster, which means it accelerates at a slower and slower rate in that frame. Work it all out and the rocket can never reach the speed of light, even if it accelerates forever. I would have thought you'd like this theory, but it seems not.
I'm not confused but you are trying to confuse people. Lets not pretend to link this issue to some specific rocket design. Strange how you can assume a dilated clock has altered the rate of fuel burning. You are making an assumption that time has changed. The only thing that has changed is the frequency at which the clock marks the time interval. The observer rest frame has absolutely no physical link to the local rocket thrust. You should have read that in prior posts before making claim that an observer changes thrust. What you are speculating is that the observer see's less thrust and even that is stupid conjecture based on nothing.
1. Do you agree that the rate of fuel burning is the mass of fuel burnt divided by the time taken to burn it? 2. Do you agree that time is measured by clocks? 3. Do you then agree that if the stationary clock measures a different time to the spaceship clock, the calculated burn rate will be different, too? (I suspect the sticking point for you will be question 2. Fundamentally, you don't believe in time, or at least you don't really believe it can be measured.) I agree. The word "local" is very important in that statement, though, as I'm sure you'll agree. Please answer my questions above. If you agree that time dilation occurs (even "one-way") then you MUST agree that the thrust changes, according to the stationary frame. Of course, I know you have the unique ability to believe two or more contradictory things simultaneously, so I don't really expect you to be consistent here. I just thought I'd try.
by James R: "Do you then agree that if the stationary clock measures a different time..." ============================================================== Are we doing Special Theory here or what? Are you defining an absolute frame of rest, James R? Are you comming over to my side of the fence, heh?
With qualifications as below. NO. Clocks merely mark a universal time interval at different frequencies. This is evident by virtue of the fact that two clocks in relative motion may record different times but to be in relative motion the action must be concurrent. Hence a common universal time interval. ] The calculation would certainly show that but that is subjecting physics to variable clock recorded time and not actual time universally. It can be measured but one must remember what is being recorded. What is being recorded is the affect of dilation of the clock, not time. No I don't what changes is the calculations. F = ma is a local property and that doesn't change (hence thrust doesn't change). You would mean of course two contridictory things like time dilation AND spatial contraction depending on view point. (Hardly a physical principle there) Or that a body may have an infinite different masses all as a consequence of some remote observers. Or that two clocks can both run slower than the other. I think we are at least on an even keel here. The differance is my view is more rational and fits observation in all cases. Yours does not.
