"Mass doesn't change with speed" DEBUNKED

My immediately previous post was not stated plainly enough. Anyone who choses to represent themself with the image of a young child must be respected as knowing their intellectual age and so must have important things explained to them as plainly as possible.

Originally Trelirium started a thread in which it claimed that Special Relativity could be proved to have time transformation but NOT mass transformation.

Originally Trelirium posted a mathamatical "proof" in a thread titled "Mass does not change with speed", or something like that.

I believed that Trelirium's conjecture was wrong.

I opened this thread to refute Trelirium's conjecture. I claimed that Special Relativity loses self consistency when mass transformation is denied.

The point of my thread is to show that mass must be transformed in Special Relativity if SR has any chance of being valid.

Anyone who insists that mass must must be transformed by this or that machination in keeping with Einstein Relativity is simply proving MY point: Einstein Relativity is invalid if mass transformation is denied and/or is mathematically proven wrong.

Is there a thread administrater who is such a careless reader that he cannot get the meaning of very plainly written wording?

Is there a thread administrater who cannot accurately understand very plainly written wording?

Give me three guesses and I bet I can rat him out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Welcome back, CANGAS, I see you haven't lost the knack of ignoring anything that points out your ignorance.

Your point is plainly made, and just as plainly refuted.

Also, please refrain from mangling user's names. I consider this to be deliberate insulting, and will edit your posts to correct names if you keep it up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You haven't refuted anything yet. And so by definition you haven't refuted anything plainly. Except maybe in your imagination.

What is it you are dreaming that you have refuted?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok, I am not a physiscist nor do I pretend to be one, so feel free to correct me on basic misasumptions...

Suppose, we replace the flywheel with another kind of flywheel, a huge synchronotron in a spaceship, by measuring Brehmsstrahling we could get some rough measuments of the mass and the angular momentum of the particles doing the merry go round, now as I understand it these measurements would be different for a person on the spaceship and redshifted for the stationary observer, making it appear as if the angular momentum has slowed down, while in fact it hasn't( ? open for debate )

Now back to the original flywheel experiment, has this dopplershift been accounted for in the experiment where the stationary observer sees the flywheel indeed slowing down, as if angular momentum was transferred to inertial mass of the flywheel to compensate for it ?

 

Dear B B; Your consummate politeness is duly appreciated but completely unnecessary: I have nothing holding me back from correcting you if I choose to do so, so your permission for such is beside the point.

If you wish to hijack this thread to pervert it into a thread about a synchrotron, you must be reminded that there are forum rules against such a move, which, IF administrated fairly, obstruct you from doing so.

And, your confession that you are not a physicist is redundant because reading only a few words into your post reveals that anyway.

You are asked to start your own thread about a synchrotron which, if deemed of any useful interest, will be responded to as it deserves ( or not ).

If you wish to, and are able to, respond to this thread as it stands, the matter, in case you do not understand it, is this: a poster has made a thread in which they claimed that Special Relativity can be proved to allow time dilation but not transformation of mass. I responded by starting this thread in which I claim that SR is crucially dependant upon its founding principle of requiring time dilation, length contraction AND mass transformation.

So that even a child could understand it, I illustrated my point by a gedanken in which a frictionless flywheel is spun up to 6,000 RPM in the lab and then ferried into space in a flying saucer whizzing by at .866c. A stationary observer remaining in the lab watches through a spyglass and observes the time dilation to reduce the whizzing flywheel to spin at the reduced rate of 3,000 RPM. If the mass of the flywheel is unadulterated, according to the aforesaid poster's post, then the flywheel angular momentum has been cut in half according to the Newton equation for angular momentum.

If momentum is not conserved, then SR is fatally flawed.

The only way that momentum can be conserved is if, as the RPM of the flywheel is cut in half by the time dilation, then simultaneously the mass of the flywheel is doubled by the mass transformation.

So, you are invited to be the original poster's, and Pete's, champion and explain in specific detail how momentum can be conserved ( and SR not be proved a lie ) if mass is not transformed.

 

Hi BB,
We don't need to worry about Doppler shift for this thought experiment.

CANGAS,
You've ignored this before, so it's hardly worth pointing it out again,but just for fun:

Newtonian momentum is not conserved in relativistic transformations. This applies to both linear and angular momentum.
You are free to hold the opinion that this a fatal flaw of SR, but you might find it difficult to convince anyone else.

 

You are untiring in your play at amusing us by pretending to miss the point. I will try again to explain something simple to you.

Special Relativity originally required the transformation of length, mass, and time in order to satisfy the postulate that EVERY observer will see the laws of physics happen as expected.

It is easy for a scientist to believe that the most important law of physics is the Newtonian conservation of momentum. If you have any friends who are professional physicists and are willing to talk to you, you will be informed that this is true.

Regardless of whether you have any personal sources of good information, the fact remains that you, after all your perambulations, have totally failed to effectively respond to the point of this thread. You chronically waste the site resources by beating around the bush and never directly address the issue I have raised.

The original poster claimed that Special Relativity is OK when time dilation is believed in, but mass transformation is denied.

I have posted a very easily understandable example in which time dilation is acknowledged; the flywheel is observed by the observer still on Earth to be slowed by time dilation and not by mechanical braking, and therefore angular momentum is not conserved.

In my example the only way that momentum can be conserved is if mass is transformed, such being denied by the original poster of the thread titled "Mass is not increased by speed" or something like that.

It is past time for you to explain your wildly crackpot theory of how the laws of physics can have integrity when you deny the conservation of momentum.

I do not believe that you even know what momentum is. You should post your understanding of momentum. And then you should post documentation of momentum being not conserved in terms of Special Relativity.

And when you fail, as you will, then you should confess that you are the biggest CRACKPOT that has ever walked through the halls of this physics forum.

 

:bugeye: Are you a scientist? Have you ever spoken to one?

Momentum is conserved in SR. But the quantity mv is not.

Try this:
Momentum is defined such that:
\(\vec{F} = \frac{d\vec{p}}{dt}\)
I.e. the force applied to a body is equal to the rate of change of momentum of that body.

If it is accepted that for every force acting on a body, an equal and opposite force acts on a different body, then it immediately follows that momentum is conserved.

 

CANGAS: I know what inertial mass is. It isn't fundamental. You can create it in pair production and destroy it in annihilation. And I know that momentum is a time-based measure whilst energy is a distance-based measure of the same thing.

A photon has energy/momentum, but no rest mass aka invariant mass aka inertial mass aka mass. But both mass and energy cause gravity, not just mass. So a photon has gravitational mass. But no inertial mass. However if you stop a +1022KeV gamma photon via pair production, you create an electron (and a positron but forget it). The photon had relativistic mass which is another word for energy. The electron has inertial mass. Rest mass. It's just rest energy.

When you measure the mass of an object all you're measuring is the amount of energy that isn't moving. When you measure the mass of a moving object all you're measuring is the amount of non-moving energy that is now moving. Pete moved all my RELATIVITY+ essays into pseudoscience. See this MASS EXPLAINED for details: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=66171

 

I don't feel empowered to hijack a thread of this magnitude, I just wondered if any redshift in measurements was accounted for (in your case that would be photons as observed by binoculars)

If that's the case, than it would appear for an unscholared person like me that your conclusions are right....

It just strikes me how different sides in physics defend their respective views as if it were some kind of fundamentalist jihad.

 

To quote Pete: "Momentum is conserved in SR. But the quantity mv is not."

Would you believe, Pete, the momentum IS mv?

Pete is, as usual, thoroughly confused about several issues.

The original thread starter, Trelirium, or, something like that, created a thread, titled "Mass does not change with speed", or, something like that.

I recognized that as an absurd idea and created this thread to refute it.

Trelirium, or, something like that, said that Special Relativity must have only time dilation and mass transformation is not allowed.

Therefore, when, according to Trelirium, or, something like that, when we analyze motions according to Special Relativity, we may use time dilations. But, according to Trelirium, or, something like that, we CANNOT use mass transformation, or, relativistic mass, or relativistic momentum, or anything like that.

Pete has repetedly insisted that we must use Relativistic Mass. Pete; read my lips: Trelirium, or, something like that, has postulated that we CANNOT do that. Does your seeing eye dog need retraining?

So, when we study the motion of an object, according to Trelrium, or, something like that, we can use time dilation but we CANNOT use mass transformation.

Therefore, in my example, I gedankened a frictionless flywheel which loses half of its RPM when it whizzes by at .866c.

ACCORDING TO TRELIRIUM, OR, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THE MASS OF THE FLYWHEEL CANNOT BE INCREASED BY ANY REALATIVITY CONFABULATION BY ANY NAME.

Therefore, when the lab observer sees the whizzing flywheel to be slowed by time dilation alone, the angular momentum must be calculated to be half of its original value with no explainable reason.

Pete has revealed an astonishing lack of physics understanding in his statements that conservation of momentum is of little reqard in physics.

And Pete has continued to bluff and huff and puff and write math symbols which do not refer to angular momentum.

Pete's statements alone, that conservation of momentum is unimportant in physics, should be all that is needed to warn all far and wide that this physics forum is totally unreliable and is a worthless format for any serious scientist to discuss or reveal any important science discovery.

 

I've had enough.
CANGAS, if you can't get your basic facts right, you might as well stop trying.

It's certainly a close approximation for low speeds. But no... momentum is as I said.

No. Not once.

You're not fooling anyone. My statements are on the record, and rehashing to suit yourself is sad.

 

It's about time this idiotic thread was moved here.

 

wooohooo