It cannot be directly measured. Try it. You'll find you always have to measure either: Force and mass a = F/m or Velocity and time a = dv/t
Yes, it is true that the rocket operates from it's own rest frame, but what do you mean by immune to SRT?
Yea, its the velocity as measured relative to the combustion chamber. Re SRT: He means that the energy transfer inside the combustion chamber is so radically different from the energy transfer in an atmoic clock, that the SRT effect that is measured for the clock could not possibly apply to the rocket. Because well, you know... a clock is a clock and a rocket is much cooler than that.
I mean the arguements put forth by relativists that relative velocity (i.e. mass change due to gamma) prohibits continued acceleration. There is no mass change even in SRT for the rockets performance criteria.
Frankly SRT has nothing to do with the rocket or the clock. That is just a giant misinterpretation of data. SRT claims it is due to relative velocity. That is not the case the changes are in absolute terms. But you just don't have that referance point. All you have is the initial inertial rest referance from which to compare. But such affects are relative to that point, not remote observers as claimed in SRT. That is gamma is emperically demonstrated, but it is not demonstrated in accordance with SRT; except in special cases where there are two clocks at rest and only one accelerates. Then the relative veloicty is correct but only for one clock not both as claimed by SRT. That is what data actually shows. There is no data or observation of reciprocity in 100 years of relativity. Yes the relative velocity has reciproicty but the affect of relative veloicty are limited to one, not both clocks as stated. SRT if a false and unsupported concept according to actual emperical findings.
For the last several pages, the rocket was part of a discussion on "effects predicted by SRT". I really don't care about reciprocity. My question has been and still is, why doesn't the energy transfer in the rocket change at the same rate as the energy transfer in the atomic clock on the rocket.
I think you are mis-interpreting my post(s). The question is not can a be measured, it is why did you assume you had to tell us that? Is english your first language?
If you don't care about reciprocity then you don't believe in SRT. Ah! That is a different question and yes there would be energy changes in the rocket, but in terms of performance, only in referance to some absolute unmeasured referance, not according to the SRT arguements. And frankly I don't think anybody knows what the absolute affects "if any" are, since they all have their heads buried in the sand and refuse to even look. The rocket formulas are a start in that direction since they do not make the SRT referance. You may have missed my point earlier when I said "We are not interested in any specific rocket design". That means I do not claim that a rocket CAN continue to accelerate forever but only that it is not limited by SRT. That is further compounded by referring to inertial drive systems where there is no exhaust but merely thrust created on the inertial frame.
Well SRT certainly does not predict mass to increase with velocity and SRT certainly does not prohibit continued acceleration. However, the magnitude of the acceleration as measured from the inertial frame from which the rocket began it's acceleration, will appear to decrease while the acceleration as measured in the rockets own frame will be constant. Correct.
I believe that the math predicts an effect. I do not believe the philosophy surrounding the math is representative of nature. I do not believe that nature cares about the observer, and will apply its formula in a uniform manner. However, that being said, the philosophy surrounding the math does allow the observer to look at things from multiple perspectives. Regardless of the reference, will the energy transfer in the rocket approach 0 as the rocket approaches the speed of light if the change in the clock is due to energy transfer rather than its exterior appearance of being a clock? And if that is the case, can the rocket ever exceed the speed of light?
Sure, why not. However, each frame in the matrix were all the same point once. As such they share a common rest frame in spacetime. (assuming the validity of bigbang/expansion/brane models)
So claims the unsupported conclusions of SRT. Those not blinded must be reminded that that becomes a perception of a remote observer according to that theory and is not physics of the rocket.
Where do you get "0". Personally I think we will one day discover that things can reach the speed of particle entanglement, whatever that might be. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually I could but I won't. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have linked to Sandia's announcement however just for thought provoking. Did you miss it? http://www.sandia.gov/media/imbalance.htm
