"Mass doesn't change with speed" DEBUNKED

Clearly. It is refreshing to see that someone who is proposing to change a fundamental theory understands exactly what he is doing.

Thank you. Yes---the higgs field will not predict masses, but I didn't think that Farsight was proposing to predict masses either.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He appears to have predicted... er, asserted mass in photons -- I'm all aquiver of his next proposal.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh right---he didn't even know the right equations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I do think it is funny that people challenge GR (i.e. photon mass) but think that intelligent design is "not science".

 

The problem is that BenTheMan accuses me of advocating Intelligent Design because I can explain mass. As it happens I've had long and fruitless "debates" with Young Earth Creationists, who duck and dive to evade every point raised about the fossil record, evolution, plate tectonics, you name it. I dislike religion, because people who've got it just don't think. I know the equation Ben refers to. And I know it evades the true relationship between energy, momentum, and mass. I know how mass arises. I know what it is. And I know that the Higgs Field and the Higgs Boson is a figleaf of an answer that is in reality no answer at all. But rather than look at what I'm saying and enter into a genuine discussion to demonstrate where I'm mistaken, BenTheMan, actual physicist, chooses to spray insults and pour scorn. There's been a lot of debate in physics about whether we should consider rest mass or relativistic mass to be the better definition. And it's either ignorance, or intellectual arrogance, or both to pretend otherwise.

Edit: for anybody with a serious interesting, this is an interesting essay by a guy called Pete Brown.

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/mass_paper.pdf

"Within the past fifteen years the use of the term relativistic mass has been declining. The term proper mass simply referred to as mass and labeled m has now largely replaced ‘relativistic mass.’ This decline in usage appears to be due to arguments presented in several journal articles, as well as to standard practices in the field of particle physics. This debate consists of arguments as to how the term “mass” should be defined to maximize logic as well as less confusing. My purpose in this article is to clarify the arguments of the debate and to bring a unifying perspective to the subject. In doing so I will explore the importance of point particles vs. extended objects; open vs. closed systems. Although I argue for the usage of relativistic mass I do not argue that proper mass is not an important tool in relativistic dynamics."

 

Not by anything you've claimed thus far.

Yet, you've not explained that.

Actually, BenTheMan, corrected you exactly where it was necessary to demonstrate. It was you who said "Bah" without explaining yourself.

The debate currently resides between those who understand physics and those who don't.

 

It certainly does. And those who do understand offer explanation:

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

Those who don't offer insults.

 

Sorry, but at this time, I went to that link and did not find a single poster or post who understood or explained mass. That is not an insult, but a fact.

 

Can you back that up by pointing out where MASS EXPLAINED is incorrect? Using reason, rationale, and logic? Because if you can't:

..is an insult. And if you can judge whether some poster understands mass, you explain mass for us.

 

We've already been down that road before and it was a complete waste of time. You weren't interested in listening to reason, rationale or logic then, why should now be any different?

 

Would you like to repeat that? Seeing as there are only three posts on the MASS EXPLAINED thread, all by me. Care to check?

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

Come on, point out where MASS EXPLAINED is incorrect using reason and logic. Insults just don't cut it.

 

No, no, you don't understand, after your first "Explained" theory, I gave up.

That fact that there are only three posts and all of them yours peaks volumes, don't it?

 

What, TIME EXPLAINED v2.1?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=60883

Maybe the first version?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=59521

You gave no logic or reason there either. Just your usual insults.

 

I gave you explanations of that which you didn't understand and you considered them insults. Hence, I gave up helping you any further as you clearly weren't interested in learning anything.

 

You gave explanations? Who are you trying to fool? Here's what you posted:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1195513&postcount=3
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1196552&postcount=22
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1196680&postcount=28
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1196552&postcount=40

Not an ounce of reason there. Not a soupcon of logic. Just insults.

 

Anyhow, to get back to the point, I believe I have an understanding of what mass is, see MASS EXPLAINED:

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

..and this understanding makes me think that relativistic mass is a better definition of mass than rest mass because it reflects the relationship between inertia, and momentum confined to one location. Hence I would say that IMHO mass does change with speed. Yes, you can argue against this, but if your argument is "mass is defined to be rest mass" you're offering an axiomatic dismissal not an argument.

 

"Angular velocity is changing while the angular momentum is not."

Pete; We have hundreds of years of physics texts that tell us that angular momentum is based on RPM and mass of the flywheel. We have a gedanken in which the same stationary observer first observes the flywheel sitting on the lab floor spinning at 6,000 RPM and then observes it whizzing in space and running at 3,000 RPM with no mechanical braking.

Then we read you writing by fiat, with no shred of documentation or logical demonstration or math demonstration, that angular momentum is no longer determined by equations based on Newton physics.

All I can say is that it will be a great surprise to the more than 40,000,000 professional mechanical engineers who have been successfully using the Newton equation.

 

I now understand fightee, CANGAS. Sorry to disrupt your thread.

 

It's easy enough to look up for yourself, CANGAS. Why don't you pull out one of those physics texts and see what they have to say about angular momentum under relativity?

No more than GR would be a surprise to all the professional rocket scientists who have been successfully using the Newton equations for gravity.
No mechanical engineers work with macroscopic objects at relativistic speeds. If they did, the Newton equations wouldn't work.

 

Pete: Just when you thought it was still safe to make an non sequitor post and get away with it again;

Since you obviously missed it; the point of my thread, plainly stated in its title, is to refute the assertion of a fellow poster that Special Relativity can be perverted to allowing time dilation while disallowing mass transformation.

Trelirium asserted that it had provided mathematical proof that time is transformed while mass is not changed at all in respect to velocity within Special Relativity. I have claimed that SR is rendered fatally wounded when transformation of mass is denied.

Your statement, or that of anyone, who insists upon dragging any form of Relativistic transformation of mass into a discussion of Treliriums's assertion that SR is valid IN THE ABSENCE OF MASS TRANSFORMATION, is rank nonsense.