It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
He says a lot about the topic in "The Feynman Lectures", but here's an excerpt from the bottom of Volume 1, page 16-9:
originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I'm sure that Feynman would have said that E = gamma(v) * m0 * c^2, with gamma(v) tending to infinity as v->c .
So he's not following Einstein's advice to use the momentum term for the object in motion, and instead is creating an "apparent mass" different from rest mass against Einstein's advice.
It is not convenient and often not possible to separate the total mc² energy of an object into rest energy of the inside pieces, kinetic energy of the pieces, and potential energy of the pieces; instead, we simply speak of the total energy of the particle. We "shift the origin" of energy by adding a constant m0c² to everything, and say that the total energy of a particle is the mass in motion times c², and when the object is standing still, the energy is the rest mass times c²
Let's say the disc is made of steel, with speed of sound in steel being 13,600 miles per hour, do you really think that's "low speed"? The explanation including the math is given in your link, though I too would like to see the experiments supporting that. It would be interesting to watch a steel disc spinning up to where the outer edge exceeds 13,600 mph and thus flies apart, though it would have to be done in a vacuum since air friction at that speed would probably melt the steel.
originally posted by: SharonGlass
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I LOVE Richard Feynman..... but you are absolutely correct about his misinterpretation.
Now how has it been shown that this would fly apart, much less at such a low speed as sound travels?
You're chasing an impossible thought experiment but why, when there's a more realistic scenario? Just think of approaching the event horizon of a supermassive black hole, where time won't stop for you but you could watch 10 billion years pass by in the outside universe if you're really close to the event horizon. Once you reach the event horizon your clock would appear to stop to an outside observer, but to you it would keep going normally, so remember that your clock speed is relative to who is observing it and from what reference frame. Time doesn't stop in any absolute sense in the black hole scenario nor in your impossible thought experiment. Time is relative, so even if one observer sees a clock falling into a black hole stop, the clock falling into the black hole doesn't really stop if it's a large enough supermassive black hole so it's not destroyed by tidal forces at the event horizon. As it keeps falling and reaches the center of the black hole, then it will stop but because the clock is destroyed, and we don't really understand what goes on there since our math breaks down at the singularity.
I do believe time would stop at C, but what happens after the threshold is broken? The end of Matrix Revolutions?
But seriously, would you have a good talking to by the creator, or would time truly cease to have any effect in the device?
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Arbitrageur
So mass doesn't increase with speed? I thought that was a commonly accepted thing? I'll have to look into that later so I get my facts straight.
Damn you making me do research
I know many of you have seen rotating space stations in science fiction movies and television programs. This is used to simulate gravity in most cases.
originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: Justoneman
OFFS, That "Time Line"? that you speak of is every creation,orbit, decay & destruction of every speck of everything that would need be undone to go "back in time".
Why is this such a hard concept for people to grasp?
How would any "machine" that you could manufacture undo every physical event in time & space of matter & energy that has already happened & no longer exists.
K~
originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: SharonGlass
I know many of you have seen rotating space stations in science fiction movies and television programs. This is used to simulate gravity in most cases.
yup, that imo is so silly. Rotating the hall of space ship will not make gravity, it will not even simulate it. Astronaut would simply hang in mid air and the 'floor' would 'run' beneath his feet))) making his travel even more annoying.(like trying to catch that coffee machine...."..lets wait for another round for it to pass by, Nick")))
just my 2 cents.))