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.
originally posted by: Plotus
We were talking real physics, not comic mouth boogie. I recanted my comments and left the conversation to more astute scientific minds. As I said, carry on.a reply to: Miracula2
Id suggest the op needs to be re written it makes zero sense. But lets look aIm betting you used this equation E=moc2. This only works with matter at rest. In other words it never works but it is a basis we can use now we take our equation and add Kinetic energy. This is K = ½ mv2 = p2/2m now we accounted for your momentum in the form of kinetic energy. So adding this equation the one you need to use to give you the correct answer is E = [ mo2c4 + p2c2 ] ½ see by adding p into the equation we account for momentum. in other words your wrong. Though I see how you made the mistake since most of the time equations don't include momentum and even physics students are taught this after a couple of years. Meaning often just before graduation because you need to understand general relativity before you tackle special relativity.
We are the sum of experiences that we encounter as we go through life. Day to day struggles and triumphs are experienced by all of the world's creatures. As human beings, when we encounter a challenge, we have freedom to choose how to react. Every decision that we make leads us down a different road. We will never come to exactly the same crossroads. Every decision that we make has significance. The tiniest choice that we make reverberates throughout the entire universe.
That paper has a great explanation of why there is no such thing as relativistic mass, which is not only the finding in that paper but was also the interpretation of Einstein himself.
originally posted by: glend
Mass does not change with velocity as explained here
If the mass is not at rest then we are no longer dealing with E0 = mc² , where E0 is the energy of a free body at rest, but with an expanded equation that includes a momentum term as explained in my thread about the problem with E = mc² which is not the correct equation for a mass with momentum:
The relation discovered by Einstein is not E = mc² , but E0 = mc² , where E0 is the energy of a free body at rest introduced by Einstein in 1905. The source of the longevity of the “famous formula” is the irresponsible attitude of relativity theory experts to the task of explaining it to the non-experts.
Einstein said mass does NOT change as a function of velocity and he certainly appears to be right, and all those professors and students claiming otherwise including you are wrong. The paper glend posted does a decent job of exploring some of the issues related to this, though I tackle it a little more simply in my thread linked above with a quote from Einstein.
originally posted by: graysquirrel
Error #1: In the derivation of the equation for mass as a function of velocity, they assumed the conservation of momentum for a special hypothetical relativistic situation.
If you read the paper glend cited, you apparently didn't understand it. There is NO SUCH THING as relativistic mass, according to Einstein. Read the quote from Einstein saying so a few posts down in the thread I linked.
originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Your wrong well on part anyway. Your correct on saying mass never changes it doesn't. However relativistic mass is entirely different this is the effect energy has on mass. The more energy the more the effect on mass.
You're confusing mass with something else. Mass is the amount of matter present and it doesn't change at relativistic speeds, though this falsehood is commonly and incorrectly taught based on misinterpretation of E=mc², which is not the correct formula. The correct formula is this:
originally posted by: graysquirrel
a reply to: Arbitrageur
"The measured ratio of charge to mass (Q/m) of a particle at relativistic speeds has been and is readily observed to change at a rate of sqr(1-V^2/C^2)". Are you telling me that Q gets smaller at a rate of sqr(1-V^2/C^2)
These experiments were aimed at measuring the deflection of beta rays within a magnetic field so as to determine the mass-to-charge ratio of electrons. Since the charge was known to be velocity independent, any variation had to be attributed to alterations in the electron's momentum or mass ... Since relativistic mass is not often used anymore in modern textbooks, those tests can be described of measurements of relativistic momentum or energy...
originally posted by: graysquirrel
I decided to revisit the derivation of the equations of special relativity. In doing so I discovered the following two errors.
Error #1: In the derivation of the equation for mass as a function of velocity, they assumed the conservation of momentum for a special hypothetical relativistic situation.
It is well know that in relativistic situations such as the conversion of light into matter, momentum is not conserved.
The particles created generally have way more momentum than that of the light that created them. So, why would anyone assume that momentum would be conserved in any relativistic situation????
originally posted by: graysquirrel
a reply to: kwakakev
Photons have momentum. There for they must have mass.
Photons have momentum. There for they must have mass.
I don't pretend to understand all the math
originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: kwakakev
Your wrong yes light can hit you with momentum. In fact this is the process of solar sails.
originally posted by: BakedCrusader
a reply to: Astyanax
“Relativity is a massive deception wrapped in a beautiful mathematical cloak.”
~Nikolas Tesla
"Do you wanna be in my gang, my gang, my gang?
Do you wanna be in my gang, oh yeah!"