Now, before everyone here thinks I have gone nuts, I should explain my previous post. I do not think velocity could be the reason for the additional mass needed to replace dark matter. Why? Because this galaxie and all the others traveling at the approximate same speed would be in the same FRAME OF REFERENCE. The increase in mass would only be apparent between the very distant galaxies where they are too far apart to have any noticable effect on each other. I gave the example for Mac because I had the impression he thought relativity should predict the distant galaxies would collapse because their velocity would cause an "infinite increase" in their mass and, therefore, gravity. I know this is not the case because of frames of reference. I also may have been mistaken in my impression of Mac's thoughts.
2Inquisitive, I'll skip your second above post and address this one. Neither do I but not because of frames of reference. That concept suggests multiple masses at the same time depending on the number and relative velocity of the observers. I suggest instead there is only one mass and it is unchanging. (We can talk about energy input to accelerate and momentum another time but they are not necessarily an indication of relavistic mass. This is typical. Suggest that "Infinite Mass" cares about distance. :bugeye: The simple fact is the very concept of relavistic mass is problematic and shouldn't be ignored but simply abandoned outright without waltzing around the issue claiming relavistic momentum. They are infact one and the same indirectly. You don't get infinite momentum without infinite velocity or infinite mass. Since you want to claim v = c is a limit then that means only infinite mass can create infinite momentum. You don't need to tip toe around Mac. I don't think velocity has any actual bearing on mass and/or gravity. I was posing the question in regard to others posts which seem to be flip-flopping on the issue. Claiming relavistic recession velocities were independant of relativity because they were expansion of space and not velocity in space. I don't expect that you agree with my view but hope this clarifies to some extent what my view is.
My previous post was in response to this post. I may have misunderstood your intent, but you seem to be saying you believe relativity would predict more extraordinarly massive galaxies as recessional velocities increase and since that is not observed, relativity is wrong. My post was to illustrate that even if the expansion was a due to a true movement through space instead of an increase in the volume of space, that still would not be true. I believe the expansion the universe IS due to galaxies moving through space, but that would not lead to more massive galaxies. They would be more massive with respect to us, but not more massive in their own neck of the woods because of frames of reference. intent,
2Inquisitive, We are in partial agreement. Part of the problem is that I was ad-libing the consquences of accepting the other posters view. Clearly stars or galaxies moving collectively at any speed including 0.999999 c in the same general vector would have no relative velocity and hence see no mass change between them. That would be to assume a background rest frame or absolute velocity function. My point was that relative to us, if relativity were valid, we should see a general increase in galactic masses as we look further out at higher and higher recession velocities. His counter was that the expansion was cosmological and not relative motion. My counter point was that the Great Attractor was surpressing the expansion recession velocity and hence it was not independant of relativity. Having said all that I do not believe there is any mass change in any case and I don't believe there is any data to support that there is. If so then galaxies receeding at 90% c should statistically show a 2.3 times the mass. And at 96 % c it should be 3.57 times as massive. Now galaxies have different masses but assuming the "smoothness" findings on the average distribution of mass in the universe, one should see a "statistical" increase as recession velocities increase. There is no such mass shift observed. Hence a real question about relavistic mass arguements.
Well this post gives me mixed emotions. I ran across this while formulating responses in the Cold Fusion thread. While I may be right as to the potential for Cold Fusion to be real, as a form of muon catalyzed fusion, it means the excited electron, which becomes a muon, displays added mass and has increased gravitational potential. That would go against my view of relavistic mass. Although it isn't absolute in that it is still "bound" energy and not unbound kenetic energy of motion. http://www.terra.es/personal/gsardin/muon.pdf
Conservation, conservation, conservation. 1) an excited electron does not become a muon. 2) No-one has verified that gravitational mass and inertial mass are euivalent on the quantum scale, or the regime where quantum mechanics strictly applies. Although I suggest that it does, it hasn't been proven, theoretically or experimentally. I am not defending your "views", I am simply highlighting your erroneous and irresponsible conclusions.
well, if you believe in string theory and assume that mass we can see and touch has part of its energy invisibly burried in the amount of curvature of the space surrounding it, than it would perhaps be acceptable to see the increase of relativistic mass of highly kinetic particles, or electrons supposedly becoming muons, just as some redshifting/blueshifting doppler effect, a note/string played in a higher or lower octave shifting the colour of the note, transferring kinetic energy of the particle like pinching/releasing a metal spring, causing the spring to look different shape (hey, where did that electron go ? what is this muon doing here?) but still the energy is stored in the spring as a whole or transferred to/from interacting springs. Take your home stereo set from example, It's adviced to put the subwoofers in a width room, to fully let the bass sweep and develope, while the high tweeters can express themselves in a smaller room. Now apply this principle to strings/orbifolds played at different frequencies and watch how they influence the room (curvature) around them. So yes, tabletop cold fusion while being one of the most hyped things the last decades may be possible after all. This does not automatically mean cold fusion can stand a change with hot fusion or perhaps betterm inertial fusion, because the neutron counts on cold fusion until now have been high enough to activate delicate sensors but nowhere enough to activate a steamturbine and it may prove that muon catalyst coldfusion is not very efficient, but still one should still baldly pursue that final frontier, who knows what is just around the corner....
READERS: Conservation is not at issue here. The cells somehow contribute energy to the electron causing it to break into "Quantum Harmonic Oscillation" {See Schrodinger is you don't know the term Ryans} at 105+ Mev above the standard electron state. Upon decay the muon becomes an electron radiating energetic neutrinos. Unfortunately it is not unexpected that Ryans would post negative comments to anything I might contribute. I can understand someone doing that where personal views are being discussed and are therefore debateable. It does surprise me that he would put his reputation (which isn't that greate anyhow) in jeapordy by making such clearly proveably wrong comments where a paper has been cited. He likes to make absolute statements as an authority when in fact he is inept on the subject. Let us see who is in "Error" and who is being "Irresponsible". [[[NOTE: References here to Muon1 ad Muon 2 are for Attachments made to this post. They show in the "Preview" as being attached but attachments for some reason are not showing. These are statements made from a jpaper - author unclear - and not my statements. See link pjrovided]]] Muon 2 below contains the summary statements highlighted in red. Well here we go again. The attachments show in the composition but do not appear in the post. You will have to actually load the paper. There are two comments. The first starts as the last sentance one page 1 which reads: "This analysis gives support to the conception of the muon as a vibrating electron." Hmmmmmm. The second is the last paragraph which reads: "In resume, let us stress that within the orbital frame the muon is nothing else but the vibrational state of the structuring orbital of the electron,....." Hmmmmm.. http://www.terra.es/personal/gsardin/muon.pdf
Vortexx, We are in agreement. I think this mechanisim may well be the nuclear interaction others have claimed as impossible. But the issue now would seem to be to find a way to enhance the temperature of the cells. MCF functions in the range of 1,500 to 2,500 F. Outside that range it becomes inefficient due to muon sticking (reducing the 500 fusions per muon performance) and other factors.
Ha, that website is a fucking joke. You are a fucking joke. You claim all this stuff, but you don't even know what the paper is talking about. Do you even know what a quantum harmonic oscillator is, or why it is som important for QFT. He concludes that the electron and the muon have the same classical radius, and hence the same potential energy of 0.51 Mev. Listen to this buffoon E(n)=(n+1/2)hv For which he states we have 2 possibilities, n=1 and n=0. He then says that the n = 1 case corresponds to a 1-D oscillator in the first excited state (n=1) and the n=0 case a 3-d oscillator in the ground state (n=0) What the fuck! No it doensn't. Mac, if you believed this shit then you are pathetic!
Ryans, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hosc7.html#c1 You are the fucking joke. You are pathetic! And wholly irresponsible. To continue to ignore the transmutation of elements, i.e. the production of Helium and the production of neutrino's and concurrent with excess heat, by many, many, highly skilled scientist and in reputable laboratories and to continue to claim it isn't nuclear in nature is assinine stupidity. To suggest it is nuclear by any means other than MCF would seem equally assinine and stupid. Therefore it is indicated that your attitude regarding this paper; plus the fact that there is a correlation between an electron and a muon, the fact that muons decay into electrons and neutrinos, is laughable; except you aren't funny, just pathetic. You don't know the first basic things about nuclear physics. You are total BS and a blowhard. BYE. If you don't like the paper then just pick any number from the hundreds, icluding by CERN, that show the correlation between the electron and muon. http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/00/000223neutrinos.html Or this: http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/40/3/14
No Mac, I have got no problem with the decay scheme of the Muon, and I hardly think you know anything about my theoretical knowledge of Nuclear physics. I am not even arguing about the fact that cold fusion may or may not be possible. The sole thing I am arguing about is the content of the internet reference you refered to, and its incorrectness. Mac can you please tell me what potential he is talking about in that paper. Wouldn't the fact that supposedly both the electron and the Muon have the same "potential" indicate that this is in fact consistent with your views.
Ryans, Posted by MacM: This topic isn't about CF but Relavistic Mass. So my response is going to be short. I posted this information here because of the relavistic mass issue associated with it, not details of CF or MCF other than that. In the CF thread I stated clearly I was not advocating CF but only that those being totally negative were being foolish, that an MCF process was possible and would be required if CF is to be a reality. I was not nor am I now vouching for any particular paper. I am not in a postion to comment on the specific mathematics but you have made it clear I am better prepard to comment on the general principles than apparently you are. It matters not what your education is or is not, your posts show a lack of understanding of principles and vision. #1 and #2 above should have made sense to you that I understand the problems. One requires things not considered feasiable but #2 shows they may in fact be the case. So my point is and has been all the totally negative comments being made are simply ill informed and is BS. Your post attacking me is absolute nonsense. Stuff it twerp.
this last statement is incorrect. Lepton number violation does not take place in neutrino oscillation, and is still a symmetry of the standard model, even with massive neutrinos and neutrino oscillation.
Lethe, As I have stated I am not here to advocate a particular process but posted it because it showed a relavistic mass and gravity relationship via the MCF process. I am not challenging your statement other than to simply say that there seems to be some on going research that claims to disagree. I would have to say it hasn't been confirmed but as it states data has indicated "mass" for a neutrino and some loss of conservation.(?).
you are misinterpreting the research. there are no current experiments which show lepton number violation. Neutrino oscillation does not show lepton number violation. it seems like it does, but this is due to an elementary misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. a neutrino that changes flavor violates lepton number no more than an electron in a z-axis spin up oscillating between x-axis spin up and x-axis spin down violates angular momentum. it may seem like it does violate conservation of angular momentum, but that's what happens when you look at a quantum state that is not an eigenstate of angular momentum. results of measurement oscillate. same story with neutrino oscillation So, you are correct that there are experiments that show neutrino mass. you are incorrect to state that there are experiments that show violation of lepton number. there are models in which lepton number is violated (this is a generic feature of GUT models, for example). but neutrino oscillation has nothing to do with those models.
Posted by ryans: 1) an excited electron does not become a muon. Posted by MacM: http://www.mgul.ac.ru/journal/comm/referat.php?en 10 Hmmmm?
Mac you still don't get it do you. I am not arguing decay schemes. However an electron is not a muon and vice versa, thus one does not become another. Elementary. It's like saying that multiplying 2 by 3 gives 6 and therefore the number 2 becomes the number 6. It doesn't. Sure we now have 6 banana's instead of 2, but the number 6 is still distinct from the number 2. 2 and 6 are the elementary particles, and multiplication by 3 is the decay scheme.
Lethe, “ Originally Posted by MacM These are not my words. They are extracts from a Japanese research project. So don't say "I said". Now for a question. Are you correct by new information or findings that this reasearch produced or other recent findings? Or Are you wrong by dogma to old held beliefs.? This is not an attack it is a bonafide question. Thanks.